The following video by Sheikh Khalid Yasin of New York summarises the essence of the Christian religion in five minutes.Learn christianity

Taken from:

Learn Christianity Religion In Few Minutes

At the time the Arabian Peninsula was in crisis. The tribal system was breaking down, and the various tribes were locked into a murderous cycle of vendetta and counter vendetta. For a weak tribe, or a man who lacked powerful protection, survival was nearly impossible. The Prophet himself suffered several assassination attempts, and when his religious and social message ran him afoul of the establishment of Mecca, the small Muslim community was persecuted. Things got so bad that the Muslims had to migrate to Medina, some 250 miles to the north, and there they were subject to attack by the Meccan army, the greatest power in Arabia.

For about five years, there was war and the Muslims narrowly escaped extermination. Terrible things were done on both sides. But when Muhammad sensed that the tide had just begun turn in his favor, he completely changed tack. He concentrated on building a peaceful coalition of tribes, and initiated an inspired, brave and ingenious policy of non-violence. This proved so successful that eventually Mecca opened its gates to the Muslims voluntarily, without a single drop of blood being shed.

Because the Qu’ran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed conflict. Warfare was a desperate business in Arabia. An Arab chieftain was not expected to take prisoners; it was a given that he would simply kill everybody he could get his hands on. Muhammad knew that if the Muslims were defeated they would all be slaughtered to the last man or woman.

Sometimes the Qu’ran seems to have imbibed this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to “slay [the enemy] wherever you find them. (4:89). Muslim extremists like Bin Laden like to quote these verses, but they do so selectively, never quoting the exhortations to peace and forbearance that in almost every case mitigate these ferocious injunctions in the verses immediately following. Thus “If they leave you alone and offer to make peace with you, God does not allow you to harm them.” (4:90)

Therefore the only war condoned by the Qu’ran is a war of self-defense. “Warfare is an awesome evil” (2:217), but sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to bring the kind of persecution suffered by the Muslims to an end [2:217] or to preserve decent values [22:40]. But Muslims may never initiate hostilities, and aggression is forbidden by God [2:190] While the fighting continues, Muslims must dedicate themselves wholly to the war in order to bring things back to normal as quickly as possible, but the second the enemy sues for peace, hostilities must cease. [2:192]

Taken from:

What does the Qu’ran say about violence?

Source: The Sura was taken from the book “ALThWRh AL’YARANYh FY MYzAN AL’sLAM” (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has taken it from the Shia Qur’an. Only problem is that the Sunni author didn’t realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this sura.

Such views are also echoed by Steven Masood, a well-known Christian writer. He says:

Among the writings of Shia scholarship, we find two Surahs al-Wilayah and an-Nurain which are believed by some to be the part of the Qur’an but which have been rejected by Sunni Ulema. The style and oration is similar to that of the Qur’an.^[1]

The Christian apologist Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi after quoting Surah al-Nurayn claims that this surah is “similar to the Qur’an and in perfect harmony with it” and refutes the “Qur’an’s allegation that no one can “bring a sura like it”.”^[2]

Our methodology is to check the Shi’ite sources and see what they say about the status of the Qur’an. After that check what the Western scholars say about the two Surahs allegedly from Shi’ite sources and their stylistic features.

2. The Shi’ite Sources

In the section “The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur’an” Abu Ja`far, the well-known Shi’ite theologian of 4th century of hijra says:

Says the Shaykh Abu Ja`far: Our belief is that the Qur’an, which Allah revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen.^[3]

And again:

And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar.^[4]

This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what the missionaries are claiming about the “Qur’an” which Shi’ites have. But let us go further and expose the deceptive methodology. Momen, talking about the two surahs mentioned above, says:

A small minority of Shi’is have attempted to get much larger passages (and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the Qur’an but without success.^[5]

Quoting the history of the Shi’ite belief regarding the Qur’an, Momen says:

With regards to the question of the text of the Qur’an, it has already been noted that the early Shi’is believed that the Qur’an has been altered and parts of it has been suppressed. The Nawbakhtis are said to have adhered to this view although it went against their usual position of agreeing with Mu’tazili thought. The compiler of the earliest, authoritative collection of Twelver Traditions, al-Kulyani, seems to have given some substance to this view in several of the Traditions that he relates. Ibn Babuya, however, takes the position that the text of the Qur’an is complete and unaltered. Al-Mufid appears to have wavered somewhat on this point during his lifetime. He seems to have accepted the fact that parts of the Qur’an had been excised by the enemies of the Imams in some of his early writings, although he refused even then to state that anything had been added. In his later writings, however, al-Mufid had reinterpreted the concept of omissions from the text of the Qur’an to mean that the text of the Qur’an is complete (although he does allow that the order needs to be changed) but that what has been omitted is the authoritative interpretation of the text by `Ali. In this manner, al-Mufid and most subsequent Shi’i writers were able to fall into line with the rest of the Islamic world in accepting the text of the Qur’an as contained in the recension of `Uthman.^[6]

Now we have said enough about the Shi’ite sources. Let us now discuss the view of the orientalists.

3. Surah al-Walayah & al-Nurayn: Their History & Studies On Them

Between 1055 / 1645 and 1068 /1658, there appeared in India, during the time of Mughal rule, an anonymous book written in Persian called Dabistan-i Madhahib or “Schools of Religious Doctrines”. In this book, two additional surahs and verses are mentioned that are not to be found in the official text of the Qur’an. The two surahs bearing the names “Surah al-Walayah” and “Surah al-Nurayn“. The Dabistan attracted considerable attention in the West. Dabistan-i Madhahib had been published for the first time in 1809 in Calcutta, India.^[7] The book describes life under Mughal rule in India in existing religious communities. It consists of twelve chapters, each of them dedicated to a different group. Surprisingly, the author starts with the Parsis and continues with the accounts of Hindus, Tibetans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Philosophers and Sufis. The account of the Parsis seems to be the most comphrehensive of the whole book.

In 1842, these two surahs from Dabistan-i Madhahib were for the first time fully translated into a European language by the French orientalist Garcin de Tassy.^[8] Only a year after Mirza Alexandre Kazem-Beg, wrote a commentary on this translation.^[9] Interesting in this regard is the publication and the translation of the manuscript which came into light in 1912 in the Indian city of Bankipore. Although it is said to contain the same surahs and other additions, no further information on the manuscript is provided. The translation of the surahs was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal The Moslem World in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at least.

Figure 1: Surah al-Walayah in the Bankipore Manuscript of the Qur’an [See Tisdall's work].

THE NATURE AND STYLISTIC FEATURES OF THE SURAHS

Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are considered forgeries and their stylistic features are poor imitation of the Qur’an riddled with grammatical errors. St. Clare Tisdall writes:

The reader (of the original Arabic especially) is irresistibly led to the conclusion that the whole of these additions, – with the possible exception of Sura al-Nurain, – are forgeries. The style is imitated from the Koran, but not always very successfully. There are some grammatical errors, unless these are due to the transcriber. Occasionally the meaning which the context shews to be that in which a word is used is later than the time to which the Koran belongs. The verses are largely, however, centos of Koranic passages taken from their context. The amount of repetition shews the writer’s determination to prove what he wished to prove at all costs.^[10]

And talking about the nature of these two surahs, St. Clare Tisdall says:

We notice also that some, – or, perhaps, only one person, – among the Shi’ites decided to forge the passages which we are considering. Doubtless he thought the end justified the means. He certainly must have determined to insert these forgeries in the Koran and to get his own sect to adopt them. But, although it was so greatly to their apparent interest to accept these additional passages, yet the Shi’ites did not do so. The forger found it impossible to introduce a single such altered verse into the Koran. This, we may again say in passing , is highly to the credit of the Shi’ah community in general. Although they think that they are staking their eternal happiness on the truth of their contention that `Ali and his family are the true and Divinely commissioned inheritors of Mohammad’s spiritual rights, so far as these could be handed down to others, yet they have never permitted a single one of these forgeries to become incorporated into their copies of the Koran.^[11]

He went on to say:

So, far as we know, the manuscript which we are now concerned with is the only one in existence which, together with the genuine surahs of the Koran, also contains these Alterations and Additions. To get them generally accepted, even by Shi’ites, proved impossible. The attempt to Sunnites to adopt them was probably never made, for its hopelessness must have been evident even to the forger himself.^[12]

Commenting on the two surahs, von Grunebaum says:

The only two Shi’ite surahs which have come to light are obvious forgeries; the other omissions that would have been dictated mostly by dogmatic considerations foreign to the ‘Uthmanic period can not be substantiated, and the Shi’ites themselves have never been able to agree on the alleged distortion of the sacred text of their adversaries.^[13]

Therefore, the Shi’ite and the Western scholars are in agreement that these two surahs are forgeries. The Shi’ites also agree on the text of the Qur’an which is same as that used by Sunni Muslims. Mahmoud Ayoub says:

Hence Muslims. and especially Shi’i Muslims, have insisted that God revealed to Muhammad both the Qur’an and its exegesis. The sacred text of the Qur’an, or what is contained ‘between the two covers’, is what Muhammad taught the generality of faithful.^[14]

Let us now turn our attention to the author of these two forged surahs.

AUTHOR OF THE TWO FORGED SURAHS

The discovery of the Dabistan had been ascribed to a Shi’ite, however, without any specification of name of denomination as suggested by Tisdall and others.^[15] However, this view has been criticized by Joseph Eliash. Concerning the text from Bankipore and Dabistan-i-Madhahib, he says:

Concerning the Bankipore text, its only connection with the Imami Shi’a is the claim that the manuscript was brought from the Nawwab in Lucknow which was a centre of Imami learning in India. This alone does not constitute it into an authoritative Qur’an for the Imami Shi’a… As to the Dabistan-i-Madhahib, it is significant to note that the author does not identify himself with the Shi’a. He discusses twelve different religions practised in his time in India and devotes just a few pages to the Shi’a which he entitles “Statements about the second sect of Muslims who are known as Shi’a” and prefaces his remarks by phrases such as “the author of this book relates what he learned from Mulla Muhammad Ma’sum, Muhammad Mu’min and Mulla Ibrahim, who in the year of 1053 (AD 1643) were in Lahore and from others” and the like. He precedes the ‘Surah al-Nurayn” by the following statement: “Some of them (the Shi’a) say the `Uthman burnt the copies of the Qur’an and excluded (rejected) some of the surahs which were on the dignity of `Ali and his excellence, on of the surahs is this.” The Dabistan-i-Madahib was critically edited and translated into english in the year 1843, the editors are not certain of the identity of the author. The give the date of the death of the supposed author, Muhsin Fani, as probably 1081/1670, and state that he was “of the philosophic sect of Sufis”, “a native of Kachmir, a learned man and respectable poet, a scholar of Mulla Yakub, Sufi of Kachmir”, but make no mention whatsoever that he was Shi’a authority. Hence Dabistan cannot be referred to as an Imami Shi’a source and nor can its author be called Imami-Shi’i.^[16]

This is in line with the recent research that has shown that the author of Dabistan was, in fact, not a Shi’ite at all, but rather a Parsi.^[17]

4. Do These Surahs Exist In The Early “Codices Of The Companions”?

This is a very interesting exercise. Even if one assumes what some Shi’ites says is true concerning `Uthman, its authenticity can easily be verified by the work of Arthur Jeffery on the “early companion Codices”. Jeffery collected some ‘variant’ readings attributed to `Ali as well as Zaid bin `Ali. It is interesting to note that none of these Codices have either of these surahs. The Codex of `Ali can be found in Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur’an: The Old Codices^[18] and the Codex of Zaid bin `Ali can be found in “The Qur’an Readings Of Zaid bin `Ali“.^[19]

5. Conclusions

Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are considered forgeries by both Shi’ite and Western scholars. This is further confirmed by their absence in Jeffery’s studies on “variants” attributed to `Ali as well as Zaid bin `Ali. The stylistic features of Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are a poor imitation of the Qur’an and riddled with grammatical errors. Contrary to the expectation that they are a Shi’ite forgery, modern research has shown that the composer of the two forged surahs is a Parsi.

And Allah knows best!

[1] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur’an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle (UK), pp. 191-192.

[2] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur’an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p. 139.

[3] Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Babwayh al-Qummi, I’tiqadatu’l Imamiyyah (The Beliefs of Imamiyyah), English translation: A Shi’ite Creed, 1982 (Revised) Asaf A. A. Fyzee, World Organization of Islamic Services: Tehran (Iran), p. 77.

[4] ibid.

[5] M. Momen, An Introduction To Shi’i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi’ism, 1985, George Ronald: Oxford, p. 173.

[6] ibid., p. 81.

[7] “Dabestan-E-Madaheb“, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1993, Volume VI, Mazda Publishers: Costa Mesa (CA), p. 532. Also see “Dabistan al-Madahib“, Encyclopaedia Of Islam (New Edition), 1965, Volume II, E. J. Brill: Leiden and Luzac & Co.: London, p. 74.

[8] G. de Tassy, “Chapitre inconnu du Coran“, Journal Asiatique, 1842, Volume XIII, pp. 431-439.

[9] M. Kazembeg, “Observations sur Chapitre inconnu du Coran“, Journal Asiatique, 1843, Volume XIV, pp. 371-429.

[10] W. St. Clair Tisdall, “Shi’ah Additions To The Koran“, The Moslem World, 1913, Volume III, p. 229.

[11] ibid., pp. 229-230.

[12] ibid., p. 230.

[13] G. E. von Grunebaum, Islam: Essays In The Nature And Growth Of A Cultural Tradition, 1961, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.: London, p. 80; For a similar statement see also B. Todd Lawson, “Note For The Study Of A Shi’i Qur’an“, Journal of Semitic Studies, 1991, p. 282.

[14] M. Ayoub, “The Speaking Qur’an and The Silent Qur’an: A Study of The Principles and Development of Imami Shi’i Tafsir“, in A. Rippin (Ed.), Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an, 1988, Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 178.

[15] W. St. Clair Tisdall, “Shi’ah Additions To The Koran“, The Moslem World, 1913, op. cit., pp. 229-230; “Dabistan al-Madahib“, Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1965, Volume II, op. cit., p. 74.

[16] J. Eliash, “The Shi’ite Qur’an: A Reconsideration Of Goldziher’s Interpretation“, Arabica, 1969, Volume XVI, p. 19.

[17] “Dabestan-E-Madaheb“, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1993, op. cit., pp. 533-534; Also see M. M. Marcinkowski, “Some Reflections On Alleged Twelver Shi`ite Attitude Towards The Integrity Of The Qur’an“, The Muslim World, 2001, Volume 91, p. 142.

[18] A. Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur’an: The Old Codices, 1937, E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 182-192.

[19] A. Jeffery, “The Qur’an Readings Of Zaid bin `Ali“, Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, 1936, Volume XVI, pp. 249-289.

Taken from:

Two Shi’ite Surahs, Surah al Nurayn and Surah al Walayah

* Revelation Of The Qur’an In Seven Ahrûf

* Difference Between Ahrûf and Qirâ’ât

* Conditions For The Validity Of Different Qirâ’ât

* The Chain Of Narration Of Different Qirâ’ât

* Hafs & Warsh Qirâ’ât: Are They Different Versions Of The Qur’an?

* Recitation Of The Qur’an In Hafs, Warsh & Other Qirâ’a

* Printed Edition Of The Qur’an In Various Qirâ’a

* Books On Mutawâtir Readings

For read the rest of the article:

Hafs & Warsh Qira’at: Are They Different Versions Of The Qur’an?

The statement of the Samuel Green indicated with ‘>’ is the older one and the one which is new does not contain ‘>’ after he updated the article.

On 29 Oct 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:

> > The last week Dr. Saifullah was ranting incessantly about
> > “What Bible is the right/inspired one?”

So, it is Katz turn to start a more incessant ranting about “Versions of the Qur’an”. Even this ranting does not appear to solve the mess in which the New Testament is in. As we said, if you can not fix your problems, start flaunting it. Or even better go for a wag the dog scenario to shift the focus from the issues of your own text to someone else’s.

It turns out that this Christian missionary was boasting about the ‘versions’ of the Qur’an sometime ago, using the (below quoted) reference of Adrian Brockett concerning the Hafs and Warsh transmission of the Qur’an. Unfortunately for him, it appears that he did not learn his lessons last time. The same issue was refuted long time ago.

Subsequently more material was added to this by us. The contents of the above document are divided as follows:

• Revelation Of The Qur’an In Seven Ahrûf
• Difference Between Ahruf and Qirâ’ât
• Conditions For The Validity Of Different Qirâ’ât
• The Chain Of Narration Of Different Qirâ’ât
• Hafs & Warsh Qirâ’ât: Are They Different Versions Of The Qur’an?
• Recitation of the Qur’an in Hafs, Warsh & Other Qirâ’ât
• Printed Edition Of The Qur’an In Various Qirâ’ât

So, we have essentially dealt with all the important issues concerning the Qirâ’ât, its isnad going back to the Companions who then took it from the Prophet^(P) himself. We have also dealt with the criteria of accepting the Qirâ’ât by the Islamic scholars as well as some very basic examples. Inshallah, some more examples would be added in due course.

It turns out that Katz is merely trying to rehash his already refuted argument by giving it a different colour, i.e., using Samuel Green’s work who nevertheless quotes the same references which Katz had quoted. The principal reference used is Adrian Brockett’s “The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History of The Qur’an”, published in Approaches of The History of Interpretation of The Qur’an, 1988, Edited by Andrew Rippin, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Qirâ’ât Or ‘Variant’ Readings?

We would first like to define what is the actual meaning of Qirâ’a which is frequently translated as ‘variant reading’. The Hans-Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic defines Qirâ’a as:

Qirâ’a pl. -ât recitation, recital (especially of the Koran); reading (also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization of the Koranic text.^[1]

It is quite clear that the Qirâ’a is not a ‘variant’ reading or text. The Muslims in history have never considered different Qirâ’ât as different ‘versions’ of the Qur’an. Furthermore, neither it is defined as ‘variant’ text as some Orientalists and Christian missionaries have done so. Keeping this in mind let us now go further with what is written in the article.

> No other book in the world can match the Qur’an … The
> astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained
> unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years.
> … No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this
> for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from
> different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam, Abu
> Dhabi, UAE: The Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahayan Charitable &
> Humanitarian Foundation, 1996, p.4)

Well, firstly what is meant by the phrase ‘even to a dot’? The earlier Qur’ans were written without any dotting. Gradual efforts were made in adding the dots and other markings to facilitate correct reading from the first century of Hijra. If the expression ‘even to a dot’ is literally taken then one can say that the Arabic script in Africa differs from that in the Middle East in dotting. If the expression is to mean the purity of the Qur’an as a book, then it is correct. It has been said long time ago that:

The recension of ‘Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, – we might almost say no variations at all, – amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of ‘Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them…. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.^[2]

And guess who wrote it? The famous Christian missionary from University of Oxford, Sir Willium Muir in the book The Life Of Mohammad.

“There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text” refutes the status of the Bible as a pure book!

Are Qirâ’ât Due To The Lack Of Vowel & Diacritical Points In The Early Qur’ans?

Samuel Green says:

> … owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was
> originally written contained no indication of vowels or
> diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as
> of equal authority. (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England:
> Penguin Books, 1983, p.10, bold added)

He adds further that:

VOWEL DIFFERENCES – In the Arabic script of the modern Qur’an the vowels are indicated by small symbols above or below the basic printed letters. Again these were not included in Uthman’s edition of the Qur’an.

It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of ^cUthmân was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the ^cUthmânic Qur’an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of ^cUthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur’an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs.

Arabic orthography at the time of ^cUthmân was not yet developed in the way we have known for centuries, particularly in two important areas. There was no distinction between letters of the alphabet of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. This may now give the impression that such a system must have given rise to great confusion in reading. This was not actually the case because the morphological patterns of words in Arabic enable readers to read even very unfamiliar material without the short vowels being marked. More important, however, as far as the Qur’an was concerned, was the fact that learning and reading relied above all on oral transmission. In the Islamic tradition, writing remained a secondary aid; nevertheless, to ensure correct reading of the written texts of the Qur’an, particularly for those coming after the first generation of Muslims, steps were taken gradually to improve the orthography. This started with the two above mentioned areas by introducing dots to indicate different vowels and nûnâtion and these were put in different coloured ink from that of the text. There were also dots to distinguish between consonants of similar shape. This work was carried out chiefly by three men: Abû-l-Aswad al-Du’alî (d. 69 / 688), Nasr Ibn ^cAsim (d. 89 / 707) and Yahya Ibn Ya^cmur (d.129 /746). Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur’an was written. Ibn ^cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur’an as received from the Prophet^(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tâbi^cûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels – tanwîn, tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it. For details please see the article Qur’anic Orthography: The Written Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur’an.

Further, the conclusions of the missionary is that there was an

… ambiguity as to which vowels should be used. This ambiguity has lead to differences between the vowels in the different transmissions.

The aim of the Christian missionary here is to show that prior to the introduction of the vowel and diacritical marks, that is, throughout the period of the Prophet^(P) and the Companions, as well as the generation immediately following the Qur’an was in undetermined, fluid state, a kind of limbo, and that it assumed concrete form only with the addition of diacritical marks and vocalization signs, which of course was long after the age of Revelation. In other words, for almost a century before Hijra the Qur’an was in the fluid state and as soon as the vowels and diacritical marks were introduced, the Qur’an started to crystallise in the form that we have now after going through many ‘versions.’ For such a situation there is no historical evidence. Neither, there is historical evidence that Muslims differed over the Qur’an unlike the Christians who differ over the extent of the canon even to this day. It must be emphasized that for Muslims down through the centuries the consensus (ijma’) of the community has always been a decisive proof in all matters; and as the community is agreed that man has not contributed a whit to the Qur’an, the matter may be considered settled. This is precisely the point which has been noted in the quote of N J Dawood used by the missionary. It is quite clear that all the Qirâ’ât are given equal authority. The above quote taken from N J Dawood’s translation of the Qur’an is actually in direct contradiction of what Samuel Green had intended to show in his article, i.e., that the Muslims follow different ’sets of the Qur’an’ as if they are not all authoritative. One wonders why did he choose to quote the material which does not even serve his purpose!

Further evidence against the view in question may be drawn from the Qirâ’ât themselves. It is certainly germane to the issue at hand to note that in many instances where the unmarked ^cUthmânic canon is capable of being read in diverse ways, we find the Qurra (i.e., the Readers) agreeing on a single reading. Such agreement can most reasonably be accounted for on the basis of a firmly established oral tradition of recitation. Take for example the verbal prefixes ta and ya (or tu or yu), which in the unmarked text would be represented by the same symbol. Taking the form turja^cûna and yurja^cûna as a case point we note that all the Qirâ’ât use the first of these forms in 2:245; 10:56; 28:88; 36:22, 83; 39:44; 41:21 and 43:85; while all use the second in 6:36 and 19:40.

There are also many words in the Qur’an which could be given different form than the one given in the readings, but in fact are not. For example, the word mukht in 17:106 is so read by all the readers, although there is no reason why it could not be read as mikth or makth. The verb khatifa-yakhtafu, which appears in 2:20; 22:31 and 37:10 could be correctly read as khatafa-yakhtifu, but all the Qirâ’ât keep the former form.^[3] A few other examples can be shown by refering to the books on Qirâ’ât.

So, if the Qurra invented the Qirâ’ât just because the earliest manuscripts were undotted, why then we see that they had converged to one single reading many times? The Christian missionary’s last resort will be to invoke two conspiracies on a massive scale from Spain to India; first, to achieve uanimity on one reading from vastly divergent readings and second, to fabricate the ijma’ on the Qur’an itself after that!

The emphasis is that Muslims just do not dump any readings as they all go back to the famous Companions of the Prophet^(P) such as Ubayy, Ibn Mas^cud, Zaid Ibn Thâbit and ^cUthmân^(R).

Masâhif Surprises?

According to Samuel Green:

> Fact 2. If we now turn to an Islamic encyclopedia written by a practising
> Muslim we can learn more about these variations:
>
> The predominant reading today, spread by Egyptian Koran readers,
> is that of `Asim in the transmission (riwayah) of Hafs
> (d.190/805). In Morocco, however, the reading is that of Nafi` in
> the riwayah of Warsh (d.197/812) and Maghrebin Korans are written
> accordingly. (Cyril Glass=C8, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, San
> Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, p.324, bold added)

Are we greatly surprised? A few examples of the printed edition of masâhif of the Qur’an in various Qirâ’ât are given below:

This is a well known and common mushâf printed in the Saudi Arabia. They have adopted the Hafs Qirâ’ât. Hafs is the most common type of Qirâ’ât used in the Muslim world.

This is a mushâf from Algeria with the riwaya of Warsh. It is important to note that all the masâhif are written in rasm al-^cUthmâni. Also notice the Qâf written with one dot on top in Maghribi script!

Yet another mushâf in the riwaya of Warsh. This is printed in Morocco.

The riwaya Qâlûn from Nâfi^c. This mushâf is published in Tunisia by ad-Dâr at-Tunissia lilnashr.

The Qur’an in the riwaya of Dûri from Abî ^cAmrû. This mushâf is from Sudan.

Only the canonical Arabic text, as collected and compiled under the Caliph ‘Uthman with the consensus of the companions (Ijma as-Sahaabah) may be recited, in one of the seven acceptable versions of the punctuation and vocalization (al-Qira’at as-Sab). These, though fixed only in the 4th century of the Hijrah, are taken to correspond to the seven Ahruf (”letters”, “versions” or possibly “dialects”) of the Koran which according to a hadith, the Prophet refered to as all having divine authority. In practice, only two of the seven readings have become customary: in Egypt, for example, the reading of Hafs according to the scholar Abu Bakr ^cAsim; and in the rest of Africa that of Nafî.^[4]

So, we have the authority directly from the Prophet^(P) that the Qur’an can be recited in any of the Qirâ’a. Indeed the presence of masâhif of the Qur’an in different Qirâ’ât as well as the professional Muslim reciters (and common folk too!) reciting the Qur’an in various Qirâ’ât indicates their importance. There are people even in this day and age who recite in more than one Qirâ’a and some of them upto ten.

> Conclusion 2. According to this Islamic encyclopedia there are seven basic
> texts, each of which has two transmitted versions. Thus there are a total of
> fourteen transmitted versions of the Qur’an, and different parts of the
> world use and print different transmissions.

Samuel Green thinks he is pretty clever. All of a sudden “Seven Basic Readings” now become “Seven Basic Texts”. Further he confuses himself between ‘transmission’ and ‘text’ or probably he is delibrately cheating as Katz did sometime ago. The ‘transmission’ was conveniently changed into ‘text’ to show that Muslims have different Qur’ans.

The Abuse of Brockett’s Material On Qirâ’ât

The favourite article of the Christian missionaries when dealing with the Qirâ’ât is that of Adrian Brockett and is called “The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur’an“, published in Approaches Of The History Of Interpretation of The Qur’an. This book has been used by the missionaries time and again to show different ‘texts’ of the Qur’an to the Muslims. Adrian Brockett in no way supports the claim of the Christian missionaries yet they still like to quote him for some strange reason.

Samuel Green quotes Adrian Brockett’s article:

> The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or
> graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of
> Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are differences
> which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are
> differences with an effect on meaning in the immediate context of
> the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on
> Muslim thought. One difference (Q. 2/184) has an effect on the
> meaning that might conceivably be argued to have wider
> ramifications. (Adrian Brockett, `The Value of the Hafs and Warsh
> transmissions for the Textual History of the Qur’an’, Approaches
> to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an, ed. Andrew
> Rippin; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, p.37, bold added)

Is that all that is said in that article or is it that Samuel Green’s hand suddenly turned heavy so that he can’t lift the pages of that article? His aim is to show that there is a ‘corruption’ in the Qur’anic text. For that reason he has shown some images of the difference in the graphic form. And now here comes Mr. Green’s audacity after he admits his poor knowledge!

The above examples show that there are differences between the basic letters of these two Qur’ans. These differences in the basic printed letters show that even the basic text of Qur’an that Uthman standardised has not been perfectly preserved for the different transmissions have small variation even in the basic text.

If one goes back to page 34 of the article, one can be read precisely the opposite:

All this point to a remarkably unitary transmission in both its graphic form and its oral form.^[5]

This, not surprisingly, was conveniently omitted by Samuel Green.

Conclusion 3. There are real differences between the Qur’an according to the Hafs’ transmission and the Qur’an according to the Warsh’ transmission. There are differences in the basic letters, diacritical dots, and vowels. These differences are small, but they do have some effect on the meaning.

Further, in the section The Extent To Which The Differences Affect The Sense, Adrian Brockett states:

The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought.^[6]

And interestingly enough the author went on to say:

The limits of their variation clearly establish that they are a single text.^[7]

That is something which Samuel Green would not let us know unless, of course, we point out.

We read further:

Thus, if the Qur’an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur’an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.^[8]

This leads the author to state:

The transmission of the Qur’an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.^[9]

This leads anyone to the conclusion that there is no tampering of the Qur’an by humans. In the end:

There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur’an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur’an has always been oral, just as it has been written.^[10]

The rest of the article which Mr. Green surprisingly omitted says that the Qur’an is one and same text after the death of Muhammad^(P). So, this essentially refutes the whole ‘corruption’ argument of Mr. Green.

No Books On Mutawâtir Readings Available?

> MAIN CONCLUSION. There are seven authorised readings of the Qur’an with
> fourteen transmissions. These have small but real differences between them
> and different parts of the world use and print different transmissions.

Mr. Green’s admission is pretty much honest that there are seven authorised readings of the Qur’an. Not many missionaries are brave enough to admit it. We have to admit that his confession has taken a rather torturous route.

Further we read:

> it is not superior to other Holy Books. We request that Muslim leaders make
> all fourteen transmissions available.

As far as the fourteen Qirâ’ât not being available, as suggested above, shows utter ignorance of the author. If he had bother to check some of the Arabic literature on the issue of the Qirâ’ât, we would not be hearing this nonsense.

We have already shown above some of the printed edition of the masâhif of the Qur’an in different Qirâ’ât.

Below are the examples of the books which deals with ten mutawâtir readings.

This book Al-Nashr fi-l-Qirâ’ât al-^cAshr by Ibn al-Jazrî who died in 833 AH. This is a standard book used by students of the science of Qirâ’ât. This is the edition from Dâr al-Kutub ^cIlmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon. Not surprisingly, this book is also used by Adrian Brockett, in his article “The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur’an” (e.g., on p. 35, see footnote 14). One really wonders how Samuel Green could simply ‘miss’ it.

The below one a very recent book.

For the benefit of the English speaking readers, we translate the Arabic in the above text.

The Ten Mutawâtir Readings

from the ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah

In the Margin of

The Holy Qur’an

an idea from

^cAlawi Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Bilfaqih

carried out by

Shaykh Muhammad Karîm Râjih

The Chief Reader in the Syrian land

Dâr al-Muhâjir for Publications & Distribution

…unique and first work of this kind in the field of Science of the ten Mutawâtir readings from the ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah in the margin of the Holy Qur’an is now achieved, edited, and printed.^[11]

The 10 readers/transmitters of the Mutawâtir readings are listed here. What is more interesting is that there are reciters even to this day who have memorised the Qur’an in all the 10 Mutawâtir readings!

In the end, I address Shaykh Kurayyim Râjih the Head of the Readers in the Syrian lands with my gratitude for carrying out that work and supervising its course and supplementing it with valuable guidelines that hardly come from anyone except an expert like him.

May God reward his kind student and reader Muhammad Fahd Khârûf who masters the ten Mutawâtir readings from the ways of ash-Shatbiyyah and ad-Durrah and at-Tibah for participating to this noble task making it, with the divine help, a beneficial work for the holders of God’s Almighty Book and his readers.^[12]

In any case, one more issue concerning the ‘lack of availability’ of the Qirâ’ât is down.

We also present the manuscript evidence that marks different Qirâ’ât and is dated probably 3rd century AH. This is sufficient evidence to show that Qirâ’ât were given utmost importance even in the past.

Probably 3rd cent. A.H. no diacritical marks but advanced system of vocalization. Moreover, this Mushaf marks the different canonical readings of the text (Qirâ’ât). The process of restoring a masterpeice like this provides the unique opportunity ot display the beauty and philological precision of one Mushaf by showing more than just two pages.^[13]

Conclusions

It is clear from our discussion about that the ‘variant’ readings of the Qur’an which are actually called Qirâ’ât do not give the impression as ‘variant’ or something different than the Qur’an. Muslims in the past as well as in the present have treated them with utmost respect as they were all recited by the Prophet^(P) and his Companions^(R). They Qirâ’ât are just not considered as something different from the Qur’an.

One of the important conclusions of the Christian missionary is also that:

> the evidence is considered. Since the Qur’an has variation within its text
> it is not superior to other Holy Books.

It will be good to study the variant readings (they are truly variant!) in the New Testamant, their origins and impact in the next section. It will be clear who exactly should be worried about the variant readings and why should the Bible be considered as the last candidate to be the ‘inerrant’ word of God.

Variant Readings Of The New Testament: Their Origin & Significance

Since this topic of variant readings is brought forth and Mr. Green’s conclusion that since the Qur’an has ‘variation’ within its text and hence it is not superior to other Holy Books, which presumably is the Bible. The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Under “Text, NT“ informs us that:

THE PROBLEM. The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.^[14]

After reading this and applying the conclusion of Mr. Green it would be quite clear that the Bible is not worth even considering a scripture as it is clear that it is riddled with variant readings and not a single sentence in the NT is uniform. Also we do not know which one is the authorized reading. Some New Testament scholars put the total number of readings or differences in the Bible at least 3,00,000 for 20th century. Hard to believe, is it not?

Within this context, what NT textual materials have come down to us? As early as 1707, John Mill claimed that the (relatively few) NT mss examined by him contained about 30,000 variant readings (Vincent 1903: 6); 200 years later B. B. Warfield (1907: 13) indicated that some 180,000 or 200,000 various readings had been ‘counted’ in the then existing NT mss, and in more recent times M. M. Parvis reported that examination of only 150 Greek mss of Luke revealed about 30,000 readings there alone, and he suggested that the actual quantity of variant readings among all NT manuscripts was likely to be much higher than the 150,000 to 250,000 that had been estimated in modern times (Parvis IDB 4: 594-95). Perhaps 300,000 differing readings is a fair figure for the 20th century (K. W. Clark 1962: 669). The textual critic must devise methods by which to sort through these myriad readings and to analyze the many mss that contain them.^[15]

Further The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible informs us:

Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the “original reading but in the “true reading.” This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing.^[16]

So, the tampering of the Bible was done delibrately by the scribes themselves. It is pretty clear that Muslims have a point when the tampering of the Bible is mentioned.

Let us examine the reasons for the corruption of the New Testament text. Bruce Metzger categorizes them as Unintentional Errors and Intentional Changes.^[17]

1. Unintentional errors

1. Errors arising from faulty eyesight
2. Errors arising from faulty hearing
3. Errors of the mind
4. Errors of judgement

2. Intentional changes

1. Changes involving spelling and grammar
2. Harmonistic corruptions
3. Addition of natural complements and similar adjuncts
4. Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties
5. Conflation of readings
6. Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations
7. Addition of miscellaneous details

So, if the Bible is really the word of God then why did the scribes made intentional changes? Further do we have the original copies of the Bible to verify what the original reading is from the corrupted one?

Since – like virtually all ancient literature – no autographs are extant for the NT, its most likely original text must be reconstructed from these imperfect, often widely divergent, later copies.^[18]

The interesting bit is not the absence of original manuscripts but the presence of widely divergent and imperfect readings. This is further exacerbated by the problem that we do not have the original document to verify the original reading; therefore, we can only make a guess of what the original reading could be. This means, we cannot be sure whether Jesus^(P) or Apostles said such a such thing in the Bible. Hence it becomes a problem in evaluation of the Bible as a scripture. Indeed the Acts of Apostles has earned the notoriety for the variant readings.

In fact no book of the NT gives evidence of so much verbal variation as does the Acts of Apostles. Besides the text represented in the oldest uncial Greek MSS, begin with the Codex Vaticanus, often called the Neutral Text and dating back to the second century AD, there is evidence either of a consistent alternative text equally old, or of a series of early miscellaneous variants, to which the name Western text is traditionally applied. The ancient authorities of the Western Text of Acts include only one Greek (or rather bilingual Greek and Latin) uncial MS, Codex Bezae of the fifth or sixth century. But the variants often have striking content and strong early support from Latin writers and Latin NT MSS. It now appears that while both the Neutral and Western texts were in circulation, the former is the more likely of the two to represent the original.^[19]

Apart from the notorious variation we also have the problem of which text is the original text. Since we do not know which one is original, the guess work in pressed into service. The above problem is one such example of guess work. And how come guess work leads to truth?

Critical Editions & The Methodologies

The argument would now be closed by considering the issue of critical text which represents the variant readings of the New Testament from the manuscripts as well as the quotes of the Church Fathers. The widely used critical edition of New Testament is by Nestle and Aland called Novum Testamentum Graece Cum Apparatu Critico Curavit. This is a working text or committee text which was agreed upon by a committee.

This text was agreed by a committee. When they disagreed on the best reading to print, they voted. Evidently, they agreed either by a majority or unanimously that their text was the best available. But it does not follow that they believed their text to be ‘original’. On the whole, the textual critics have always been reluctant to claim so much. Other users of the Greek New Testament accord them too much honour in treating the text as definitive.^[20]

So, as far as the Novum Testamentum Graece (edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland) is concerned, one can say that the committee itself does not make a claim that it restored the ‘original’ text of the Bible! So, where is the original Bible then?

In fact, the Kurt and Barbara Aland, the editors of the recent edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece Cum Apparatu Critico Curavit compare the total number of variant free verses in Nestle-Aland edition with the other critical editions such as that of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover. It is seen that nearly two-thirds of New Testament text in the seven editions of the Greek New Testament reviewed by Aland and Aland is in agreement with no differences other than in orthographic details.^[21]

Since Nestle-Aland’s critical edition is very complicated to be used in the translation of the New Testament in other languages, there was a growing need for new edition of Greek New Testament which would serve this purpose. This need was materialised in the form of The Greek New Testament, GNT², (of course, based on Nestle-Aland’s critical text) which has the following features:

1. A critical apparatus restricted for the most part to variant readings significant for translators or necessary for establishing the text;
2. An indication of the relative degree of certainity for each variant adopted as text;
3. A full citation of the representative evidence for each variant selected;
4. A second apparatus giving meaningful differences of punctuation. Much new evidence from Greek manuscripts and early versions has been cited. A supplementary volume, providing a summary of the Committee’s reasons for adopting one or another variant reading, will also be published.^[22]

An example of how the GNT² critical edition looks like is shown below.

The above image of the Gospel of Mark is taken from The Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M Martini, Bruce M Metzger & Allen Wikgren. Note that it provides lots of information on the textual variants and their relative degree of certainity which are needed for the translation.

This edition is similar to the Nestle-Aland’s critical edition except that it has more details on the textual variants and their relative degree of certainity.

By means of the letters A, B, C, and D, enclosed within “braces” { } at the beginning of each set of textual variants the Committee has sought to indicate the relative degree of certainity, arrived at the basis of internal considerations as well as of external evidence, for the reading adopted as the text. The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates that there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.^[23]

The relative degree of certainity of the textual variants is again based on Committee discussions which involved either a uanimous agreement or voting when they disagreed on a particular reading. Also note that the textual variants are cited with their relative degree of certainity. Certainly, if the New Testament’s original text/literal text is available then why their relative degree of certainity? This clearly shows that the New Testament that we have in our hands today is the work of human beings rather than the word of God.

Conclusions

So, by applying the standards of the Christian missionary Samuel Green, we should reject the New Testament as a ’superior Holy Book’ because there is not a single sentence in it that is uniform. Oh! we also forgot to mention that according to the great Church tradition, we have the Bibles of the Protestant Church, Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church and Syriac Church. They contain different number of books and God knows best how many variants one is expected to see in them. So, our question now is which variants and the books in the Bible are inspired by God? And what the evidence for it?

And lastly we will let a non-Muslim speak on the issue of the Islamic and the Christian scholarship dealing with the ‘variants’:

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. “Traditional science”, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.^[24]

And Allah knows best!

References

[1] J M Cowan (Editor), Hans-Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic, 1980 (Reprint), Librairie Du Liban, Beirut, p. 753.

[2] W Muir, The Life Of Mohammad, 1912, Edinburgh, John Grant, pp. xxii-xxiii.

[3] Labib as-Said (Translated By Bernard Weiss, M A Rauf & Morroe Berger), The Recited Koran, 1975, The Darwin Press (Princeton, New Jersey), p. 106.

[4] Cyril Glasse, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1989, Stacey International, London, p. 232.

[5] Andrew Rippin (Ed.), Approaches Of The History of Interpretation Of The Qur’an, 1988, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 34.

[6] ibid., p. 37.

[7] ibid., p. 43.

[8] ibid., p. 44.

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid., p. 45.

[11] ^cAlawi Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Bilfaqih, Al-Qirâ’ât al-^cAshr al-Mutawâtir, 1994, Dâr al-Muhâjir, See the back of the cover page.

[12] ibid.

[13] Masâhif San’â‘, 1985, Dâr al-Athar al-Islâmiyyah, Mushâf no. 70, p. 36.

[14] George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under “Text, NT“).

[15] David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM, 1997, New York: Doubleday (CD-ROM Edition by Logos Research Systems), (Under “Textual Criticism, NT“).

[16] George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, p. 595 (Under “Text, NT“).

[17] Bruce M Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 186-206.

[18] David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM, (Under “Textual Criticism, NT“).

[19] George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, p. 41 (Under “Acts of the Apostles“).

[20] D C Parker, The Living Text Of The Gospels, 1997, Cambridge University Press, p. 3.

[21] Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions & To The Theory & Practice Of Modern Text Criticism, 1995, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 29.

[22] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M Martini, Bruce M Metzger & Allen Wikgren (Editors), The Greek New Testament, 1968 (Second Edition), United Bible Societies, p. v.

[23] Ibid, pp. x-xi.

[24] Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105.

Taken from:The Seven Readings Of The Qur’an By Samuel Green Refuted

As explained in full details in Liberation of slaves in Islam, Islam is a religion that came to stop slavery once and for all that was widely practiced among the Pagans, Jews and Christian Arabs.

Narrated Al-Ma’rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, “I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names.” The Prophet said to me, ‘O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)”

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: “When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) – (another narrator) Dawud said:” i. e. a morsel or two”. 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)”

From the above sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, we see the following points:

1- A slave is to be considered as human being.

2- A slave is like a brother.

3- Feed your slave from your food and dress him from your cloths, just like you do with your younger brothers.

4- Never have your slave do things beyond his capacity. In other words, never abuse them.

I think the above Saying from our beloved Prophet is quite self-explanatory. Islam clearly respects the human value and teaches Muslims to view the human life as a sacred one.

NO HUMAN BEING IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER IN ISLAM HERE ON EARTH. Only the better ones in righteousness are considered better in the sight of Allah Almighty; ; “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted. (The Noble Quran, 49:13)”

Slaves are not meant to be slaves and can request and earn their freedom:

First, it is important to know that thousands of years ago life was different than today. Today, people wouldn’t accept slavery for any reason. The reason for this is because people are a lot more independent both financially, education wise, mentally, etc… But people back then were different. When a tribe or a group of people lose a major battle and their money is mostly, if not all, is taken as war booty by the other side, then people could and would accept being slaves for the following reasons:

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.

2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don’t have a “protector”.

3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

There are probably more points I can add, but I think these are sufficient enough. Let us now see the Islamic System toward Slaves:

Slaves can request and get their freedom from their Muslim Masters:

Yes slaves were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies, but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want. The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 “Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),” In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.

“The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave’s lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty.” [2]

Again, the Prophet peace be upon him said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: “The Prophet said, “Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom).” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)”

Narrated Asma: “No doubt the Prophet ordered people to manumit slaves during the solar eclipse. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Eclipses, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 163)”

If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

“Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)”

Abu Mas’ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: “I seek refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge with Allah’s Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4089)”

Conclusion:

Islam is a beautiful religion that truly equalizes between humans and doesn’t degrade slaves, nor really considers them slaves. Slaves in Islam are like brothers and sisters and they must be treated as such. Finally, a slave can request his/her freedom and must be granted that freedom if there is good in him/her. Not only that, but the slave also would get money from his Muslim owner to help him/her to get a good start in their new free life.

Bibliography:

1- The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an.
Author: Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
Published by: Amana Publications, 10710 Tucker Street, Suite B, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2223 USA.
Telephone: (301) 595-5777.
Fax: (301) 595-5888.
ISBN: 0-91597-59-0 (HC).

2- The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an [1]. Foot note #2991, page 875.

Taken from:

In Islam Slaves Are Brothers And Sisters

It is a fact that the Prophet (pbuh) was a man of peace, and some of the battles he had to wage were forced on him, like Uhud and Khandaq. While some people may have thought of these battles as being instigated by the Prophet (pbuh), if they had pondered the issue they would have seen that these battles were defensive-preventive in nature.

Two types of examples that reveal the misinterpretation of the concept of jihad in Islam will be put forth, (these examples were taken from the work of the contemporary historian Ahmad Zaki Pasha, also known as Sheikh Al-Aruba) followed by the refutation of eminent scholars.

The first was given by the learned sheikh `Abdullah ibn Zayd Al- Mahmoud, the head of the spiritual courts and of religious affairs in Qatar, to a book written about jihad by the Saudi Sheikh Al- Lahidan. Sheikh Al-Mahmoud wrote in his book Al-Jihad Al-Mashru` fil Islam (The Legitimate Jihad in Islam) that the strangest opinion he had come across concerning the legitimate jihad in Islam was that professed by Sheikh Al-Lahidan in his book, Al-Jihad fil Islam bayn Ad-Difa` wa At-Talab (Jihad in Islam between Defense and Offense).

Sheikh Al-Lahidan claimed that the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions were not defending themselves in Badr; on the contrary they launched the assault. He also added that in the combat against Hawazin, the siege of Ta’if, as well as all the other battles, the Prophet’s main aim was to propagate the new religion by force. His fighting against these tribes was not out of self defense; they did not ask for war and seldom did they engage in it.

Al-Mahmoud reiterated that the sheikh’s statement was a big mistake due to a flaw in the knowledge and defect in the understanding of Sheikh Al-Lahidan, who wrote his own opinion without basing it on either authentic tradition or knowledge; he is a novice in the area of the Qur’anic covenants. An understanding of the covenants would have clarified this issue without a shadow of a doubt as to who was the instigator of these battles. It is only natural that every time there is a failure in comprehending the Qur’an there will be a shortcoming in reasoning.

And whoever claims that the Prophet (pbuh) was a hostile warrior has lied. The danger lies in these libels being spread to others who may confuse them for the truth, and in reality they are slanders.

The proofs we are about to present are unquestionably clear, so there will be no doubt left. The first category of proofs is from the glorious Qur’an.

These verses prove that the unbelievers were the first to attack the new converts. The Muslims were subjected to all types of torture and humiliation to force them to give up their new religion and revert to the old one: They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater transgression with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide there in (Al-Baqarah 2: 217).

The Companions of the Prophet used to come to him beaten up and injured. Sumayah the mother of `Ammar died while she was being tortured, as did her husband Yasir. When the Prophet (pbuh) would see how firmly they clung to their faith under the most difficult of circumstances, he would tell them, “Patience, family of Yasir! Paradise awaits you.” In the case of Bilal, they used to place hot heavy stones on his bare abdomen and ask him to invoke the gods Lat and Uzzah, but he would reply, “He is One, the only One.”

The Qur’an says, (Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah) (Al-Hajj 22:39 -40). This proves the oppression and the torture that the pious were subjected to was only because they declared that their God is Allah and His chosen Prophet is Muhammad. Over 80 of the Prophet’s Companions were forced to forsake their homes and emigrate, some even going on foot, till they reached the coast and then sailed to Abyssinia, while others went to Madinah fleeing the oppression.

The Prophet himself (pbuh) fled incognito. Looking back at Makkah he said, “You are the dearest place to me and if my people had not forced me to leave I would have never left.”

The people of Makkah confiscated the emigrants’ property unless one belonged to a strong tribe that could protect his wealth. All of Suhayb’s wealth was confiscated. On this occasion this verse was revealed: (And of mankind is he who would sell himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah; and Allah hath compassion on (His) bondmen) (Al-Baqarah 2:207). The Companions then said, “Suhayb made a better deal; he invested his money in Allah and he came out ahead.” And also there is this verse: (And (it [booty] is) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help Allah and His Messenger. They are the loyal) (Al-Hashr 59:8).

Here again is another proof that the unbelievers chased the feeble, powerless and frail out of their homes and confiscated their belongings for no other reason than that they believed in Allah and his Prophet. Allah says, (If they have the upper hand of you, they will be your foes, and will stretch out their hands and their tongues toward you with evil (intent), and they long for you to disbelieve) (Al-Mumtahana 60:2).

The Qur’an asserts over and over again the physical and psychological torments the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions were subjected to.

Allah says, (Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers. Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. And He will remove the anger of their hearts) (At-Tawbah 9:13-15). Not only did the unbelievers start the wars, but they breached all the covenants signed with the Prophet (pbuh) such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

When the Prophet (pbuh) was besieged with his uncle Abu Talib in Ash-Shu`ab, and the unbelievers asked Abu Talib to hand over the Prophet so that they could kill him, Abu Talib declared, “By the name of Allah, they will not dare touch you as long as I live.”

After Abu Talib’s death, the unbelievers conspired to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) in his bed and chose the best young men from different tribes to carry out this mission. Thus the Quraysh would be unable to call for revenge. But Allah is All-Knower; He told His Prophet of the plot and gave him permission to emigrate, and then He revealed these verses: (O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for friends. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the Messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord?) (Al-Mumtahana 60:1) and (And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters) (Al-Anfal 8:30). Not only does the Qur’an prove that the unbelievers were the instigators of aggression, but it also reveals the animosity they felt toward Allah, the Prophet (pbuh), and his Companions.

The pious were forbidden to show any kindness to the unbelievers, who had forced the Prophet to leave Makkah afraid and incognito. His Companions also fled in order to safeguard their lives and the new religion. Allah says, (Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them. Whosoever maketh friends of them (All) such are wrong doers) (Al-Mumtahanah 60:9). Allah exposes the continuous belligerence of the unbelievers toward the Muslims in their effort to make them relinquish the true path and revert to idolatry.

All these Qur’anic verses are self-expressed, with no place for abrogation, replacement or claiming that they relate to a specific incident. It is not for anybody to change or add anything to them. Likewise, there is no place for an opinion that contradicts their content.

The second category of proof comes from knowledge of the Prophet’s biography (seerah), which asserts that if the Prophet did fight it was for the aim of protecting the religion and preventing any aggression against his followers, and this is not a conjecture but a certitude.

The third category of proof is the meticulous correction and interpretation of the contemporary scholars on the subject of jihad. They have invested more time and effort than the preceding scholars, clarifying the issue beyond the shadow of a doubt, thus eliminating controversies. It was unanimously agreed that all the Prophet’s forays were only for the purpose of self protection and in order to safeguard the religion, and this is not a conjecture but a certitude.

The Prophet’s forays and the reasons behind them

Badr

The Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions went after the Quraysh’s caravan. The Quraysh were the Muslims’ worst enemy. They tortured the converts, confiscated their property, and expelled them from Makkah. Intercepting the Quraysh’s caravan was one way the Prophet could bargain with his enemy to stop the war against the Muslims and also take back part of what had been taken from them. This can be looked at as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the instigator is a wrong doer. Allah says, (If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient) (An-Nahl 16:126); and (The guerdon of an ill deed is an ill the like thereof. But whosoever pardoneth and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah. Lo! He loveth not wrong doers. And whoso defendeth himself after he hath suffered wrong for such, there is no way (of blame) against them) (Ash-Shura 42:40-41).

The Battle of Badr was neither expected nor wanted; it was even hated. Abu Bakhtari declared that he was going to spoil the Prophet’s source of drinking water, and actually tried, only to be met with Hamzah’s sword, which cut off his leg. When the two armies faced each other in Badr, a town near Madinah, the Prophet (pbuh) said, “This is a combat to stop their aggression.” It was a defensive jihad and not what Sheikh Al-Lahidan claimed, that Muhammad used his sword to propagate his new religion. He did not in any way instigate it; on the contrary, he was the victim.

Al-Ahzab

The unbelievers of Makkah united forces with the Arabs of Hijaz and Najd. The Jews breached their covenant with the Prophet (pbuh) and joined in this war. They were followed by the Jews of Banu Qurayzhah, who thought that this battle would be the coup de grâce to eradicate the Prophet and his Companions once and for all. The Prophet (pbuh) and his followers dug a trench all around Madinah, wide enough that a horse could not jump over it. The fear had reached its peak in the Prophet’s camp when Allah revealed the verses that mean: (O ye who believe! Remember Allah’s favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and We sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do. When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when eyes grew wild and hearts reached to the throats, and ye were imagining vain thoughts concerning Allah) (Al-Ahzab 33:9-10); (And Allah repulsed the unbelievers in their wrath; they gained no good. Allah averted their attack from the believers. Allah is Strong, Mighty. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some) (Al-Ahzab 33:25-26); (If they have the upper hand of you, they will be your foes, and will stretch out their hands and their tongues toward you with evil (intent), and they long for you to disbelieve) (Al-Mumtahanah 60:2).

How can the Prophet and his Companions be accused when the unbelievers did not respect the covenants between them?

The Hawazin issue

The author Sheikh Al-Lahidan claimed that the issue of Hawazin and the siege of Ta’if were the Prophet’s doing to propagate his message and it was not war of self defense.

Ibn Mahmoud replied: Sheikh Al-Lahidan (may Allah have mercy on him) deals with the issue according to his whims and fantasy without referring to the source, which is the Prophetic tradition and history books. Because of this we see the confusion and lack of vision in his writing. He turned the wrong right and the right wrong. I was told that his book was not worth commenting on. But I replied that we were asked to clarify the ambiguous and we were forbidden to conceal the truth, so it is my duty to set things right in order to prevent any misconception and confusion.

Regarding Hawazin, Allah revealed the verses that mean: (Allah hath given you victory on many fields and on the day of Hunayn, when ye exulted in your multitude but it availed you naught, and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you; then ye turned back in flight; then Allah sent His peace of reassurance down upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of unbelievers) (At-Tawbah 9:25 -26).

Ibn Ishaq and others reported that when Allah honored the Muslims with the fall of Makkah, Hawazin heard about it and they choked on the news out of hatred and rage against the Prophet and his Companions and due to their love and allegiance to the Quraysh. Their king, Malik ibn `Awf An-Nudari, gathered them, and they were joined by the tribes of Thaqeef, Nudr, Jashm, by Sa`d ibn Bakr and some men from Banu Hilal, and others from different tribes from Hijaz and Najd. They brought with them as a military expert Dareed ibn As-Sumah, whom they carried in a howdah due to his old age. The tribes marched with their families toward Asfan between Makkah and Ta’if. When the Prophet (pbuh) heard, he proceeded to meet them in the early morning just ten days after the conquest of Makkah.

The Prophet and his Companions were ambushed by Hawazin. The Companions wanted to flee, but the Prophet (pbuh) stood and said, “Come to me. I am the Messenger of Allah.” The Companions stood their ground. Hawazin dispersed, Thaqeef fled. Is it conceivable that the Prophet was the one who had started the war against Hawazin?

The siege of Ta’if

The entire tribe of Thaqeef joined Hawazin in their war against the Prophet (pbuh), and when Allah conferred victory upon the Muslims, Thaqeef fled and fortified themselves in their home town. They deserved to be killed for the following three reasons: First, they joined in the war against the Prophet. Allah says what means: (If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient) (An-Nahl 16:126); (And whoso defendeth himself after he hath suffered wrong for such, there is no way (of blame) against them) (Ash-Shura 42:41).

Second, when the Prophet (pbuh) went to them before his emigration asking their protection, he stayed ten days among them; but when they saw that some people started to believe in his message, they sent some insolents to chase him out of town, pelting him with stones and laughing at him, calling him liar and fool.

Third, when the Prophet (pbuh) finished with Hawazin, he went to them and ask them to let him spread the word of Allah, but they rebelled against him and fought him. Seven of the Companions were killed, and the Prophet left disappointed until Allah guided them to the right path and they all came voluntarily to him.

The Battle of Tabuk

When the Prophet (pbuh) heard that the warriors of Balakh, Juzam, and Ghassan had gathered in Tabuk and were preparing an assault against him and his followers, he marched at the head of an army of 30,000 men. It was the ninth year of Hijrah, the year of hardship [starvation]. When he reached the town of Tabuk, he found that his enemies were nowhere in sight, so he returned victorious.

The following are some excerpts from Sheikh Al-Lahidan’s book. For more details, see the original book.

The scholar Ibn Mahmoud commented on Al-Lahidan’s saying, “Jihad is the answer for disbelief (kufr); therefore we should fight all unbelievers (kufar) till they adopt Islam.” The objective of Ibn Mahmoud’s book was to rectify this line of thinking.

Ibn Mahmoud added that this statement was misused by the priests and the Christian missionaries. They use it to alienate Islam and to advocate hatred. We say anyone agreeing with Al-Lahidan is joining the priests in harming Islam.

Al-Lahidan wrote:

I wonder at the Islamic jurists who came forth and explained jihad as preventive jihad, they were running after imitating the enemies; and they—and only Allah knows—perceive the falsehood in this opinion which is far from being right and far from the evidence in the rulings….I have developed this opinion after having read more than 20 theses probing into the concept of jihad with different points of view and contemporary writers, historians, and writers of the Prophetic biography who supported the idea of preventive jihad, such as `Abbas Al-Aqqad, `Azzam, `Abdul Hamid Goudah As-Sahhar, Ahmad Amin, Muhammad Hussayn Haikil, Ash-Sharqawi, Al-Hakim, and all of them are not to be taken seriously.

He added to his already long list eminent scholars and Islamic jurists such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (Al-Halal wa Al-Haram), Muhammad Nassir Al-Albani (Hijab Al-Mar’ah Al-Muslimah). According to Al-Lahidan, these eminent scholars should return to the truth and follow the path of the pious.

The eminent Sheikh Al-Mahmoud refuted him by saying that the legitimate jihad in Islam is to defend the religion, to prevent any harm to the pious. Islam is a religion of peace; it fights only its aggressors or whoever prevents the propagation of its message. This is not a conjecture but a certitude, proven in the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition. Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiah said in his As- Siyassah Ash-Shari`yah, “The unbelievers who did not prevent the propagation of Islam, the harm of disbelief will only fall on them.”[¹]

The reply of Sheikh al-Ghazali to some contemporary writers on the subject of jihad.

Now we come to the comments of the second eminent scholar, Sheikh Al-Ghazali, in his refutation of the interpretation of some contemporary writers regarding the Prophetic biography, the wars the Prophet and his Companions had to fight, and in particular the Battle of Mu’tah, and their depiction of the Prophet (pbuh) as a hawk waging war against people who did not ask for it. He also answered the claims of Hizb Al-Tahrir concerning jihad. This party brainwashes its members and molds them to accept everything without question.

The danger of these parties is that they are closed, inflexible and are unwilling to accept the others’ opinion; thus their followers adopt the party’s ideology as the truth and nothing but the truth. These people are prisoners of their ideas, and not until they are free to compare what they have and what the other offers will they be able to chose their way independently. And that is what the Egyptian Al-Jama`ah Al-Islamiah did; their leaders re-evaluated their stand on jihad. They had an open and free discussion, after which they have decided to relinquish their old ideas.

In his book Jihad Ad-Da`wah bayn `Ajz Ad-Dakhil wa Kayd Al-Kharij (Jihad of Da`wah between Internal Impotency and External Machination), he said that some of the people who are thought of as Islamic or belonging to the Islamic movement have been throwing false ideas without caring whom they are going to hurt by them. This is the manifestation of internal impotency.

Sheikh Al-Ghazali answered those whom he called “the ignorant friends of Islam” in some of his writings under the title “Bad Illusion”: “I read their writing in which they advocate that Islam is a religion of war, its tactics are those of wars, not peace. I felt I should deal with these claims point by point.”

The Prophet (pbuh) sent a messenger to one of the Ghassasin princes, a close ally to the Roman, inviting him to adopt Islam. This arrogant prince threw away the letter and killed the messenger; the Romans backed up the Ghassasin prince. The Prophet had no option and they fought mercilessly. The Muslims lost three of their commanders, and the Muslim army under the leadership of Khalid ibn Al-Walid retreated to minimize the losses. I am not a historian writing a chronology of the Battle of Mu’tah, but is it really important to find a reason for every battle the Muslims were engaged in. It is sufficient to know the expansionist nature of Islam to know the reason behind it.

The idea of expansionism in Islam does not depend on waging wars; rather its roots are well entrenched in free thought. The war against the old Roman Empire was the most honorable deed known to humanity in order to free the oppressed nations behind the walls and in the prisons of this great empire.

If we permit ourselves as Muslims to write about the Prophetic biography in this manner, what should we expect of the orientalists and missionaries? When you introduce a message such as the message of Muhammad to the ignorant, don’t expect to be received with open arms. You will find people who may be astonished or opposing; they may fight you or even surprise you and adopt Islam.

As Islam is the true religion, da`wah is a long term project that needs patience when met with indignation, and serenity when provoked. Today the da`wah is burdened. Some call for the form rather than the content, the optional Prayers take precedence over the obligatory ones, the subsidiary over the general rule. They call for war when ill prepared, and when things become clear one finds himself unfortunately defeated on the spiritual as well as on the worldly level.

Rebuttal Concerning Hizb Al-Tahrir

The Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions were expelled from Makkah after 13 years of hardship, pain, and sorrow. As if this was not enough, the Quraysh did not stop after the emigration of the Prophet. They fought the Muslims relentlessly. The weak and helpless invoked Allah: (Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!) (An-Nisaa’ 4:75).

The Romans spread in Asia and Africa like locusts. They were the worst occupiers known for their brutality and arrogance. They adopted Christianity but spoiled it and led it toward idolatry; all the orthodox churches were destroyed. With the advent of Islam, they intercepted it and attacked it in the northern part of the Arab Peninsula to eradicate it.

Are refusing to bend to the vain Roman Empire, breaking the yoke of submissiveness, and wanting to spread the word of Allah

the shortcomings of Islam? And for these reasons Islam is being reproached and stands accused of being a religion using the sword on its dissidents.

Sheikh An-Nabahani [the head of Hizb Al-Tahrir] states:

The sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) are proof that he started jihad against the unbelievers in order to spread and propagate the word of Allah….The Prophet marched on Badr to confiscate the Qurraysh’s caravan was an act of war. The Quraysh was a tribe that neither declared war on Muhammad nor invaded Madinah. The Prophet was the one who commenced fighting them.

To fantasize reality in such a manner is pure buffoonery. The sheikh goes on saying, “Sending an army to Mu’tah to fight the Romans is another act of war demonstrating who is the assailant.” This is not only a stunning analysis but it borders on the ridiculous. To stretch this line of thought, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and the uprising of the Palestinians against the Jewish state would be, according to him, acts of civil disobedience.

What Islam needs is a free atmosphere for it to spread. It does not force the adherence of his followers and with absolute justice Islam solves its differences with others, with total impartiality.

(Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve) (Al-Kahf 18:29). If the two great powers of Rome and Persia had had any respect for freedom, justice, and human rights, we would not have fought them.

Brothers and sisters, you were ordered to carry the torch of da`wah: (And there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency. Such are they who are successful) (Al `Imran 3:104). What did you do to carry on this responsibility? The art of da`wah needs intelligent pious people capable of capturing hearts and convincing minds, and strong to stop the extremists among us with the power of logic and not with the sword.[²]

1- See: Al-Jihad Al-Mashru` fil Islam by Sheikh `Abdullah ibn Zayd Al- Mahmoud..

2- Sheikh Al-Ghazali, Jihad Ad-Da`wah, pp. 16-25 (Dar As-Sahwah).

Taken from: The Reasons Behind Wars Prophet Waged

Noble Verses that order the killing of the enemies:

Let us look at Noble Verses 9:28-29 “O ye believe! Truly the pagans are unclear; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear povery, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Let us look at Noble Verse 9:5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As we clearly see in the above Noble Verses, the laws of killing the unbelievers or the pagans were for particular and specific times, and not for all times and all places. Notice the quotes “…after this year…” and “…when the sacred months have passed…”.

It is important to know that when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started preaching Islam, he had to deal with 360 Arab pagan tribes at first, and he and his followers had to go through a lot of battles that were imposed upon them by the pagans who were threatened by the new System and Wonderful Religion of Islam.

Noble Verses that deal with peace:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)“

“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. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)“

“Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)“

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)“

“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)“

“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)“

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)“

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“

“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)“

“Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord’: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):……(The Noble Quran, 18:29)“

“If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)“

“Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)“

“Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)“

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: ‘O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.‘ (The Noble Quran, 18:86)” In this Noble Verse we see that if the enemy wants to do us harm, then we must punish those who did us harm. Otherwise, we must treat the enemy civilians and the innocents with kindness.

Let us look at Noble Verse 45:14 “Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned.”

Let us look at Noble Verse 5:32 “…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…” In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah Almighty that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind.

Let us look at Noble Verse 25:68 “Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.” In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty considers the innocent soul “sacred”. He will punish those who kill the innocent souls (by throwing them in hell).

Let us look at Noble Verse 2:182 “But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Let us look at Noble Verse 2:224 “And make not God’s (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who heareth and knoweth all things.”

I’d say, this Noble Verse clearly proves my point: Let us look at Noble Verse 8:61 “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).” In this Noble Verse, we clearly see Allah Almighty ordering us, the Muslims, to incline toward peace when the enemy inclines toward peace. This proves that Islam is not a religion for wars, but for peace.

Allah Almighty orders Muslims in the Noble Quran to allow total freedom of choice to people and to never try to force them into Islam; “Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“ The Noble Quran prohibits Muslims to force any person into Islam. Muslims must not let people resent Islam and Muslims. They must leave people decide for themselves because the “Truth stands out clear from error…(2:256)“

Compulsion is incompatible with religion: Because (1) religion depends upon faith and will, and these would be meaningless by force; (2) Truth and Error have been so clearly shown up by the mercy of Allah Almighty that there should be no doubt in the minds of any persons of good will as to the fundamentals of faith; (3) Allah Almighty’s protection is continuous, and His Plan is always to lead us from the depths of darkness into the clearest light.

In the above Noble Verses, we clearly see that Allah Almighty orders the Muslims to be forgiving to the enemies and to make peace and peace making their top priority. It is part of the Muslim’s morals to be a peaceful person.

Muslims start their greetings with “As’salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh”, which means in English “May GOD’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.”

This is indeed the beautiful religion of Islam. Please visit Good manners in Islam to see ample Noble Verses that order the Muslims to repel evil with good.

Taken from Islam Does Not Allow The Killing Of Innocent Infidels?

Such a naive point of view is shared by the people who have little knowledge of Islam. They, who are so accustomed to the secularism and religious eclecticism, are simply unable to understand that the teaching of Islam is universal and eternal. Anyway, there are more and more women, beyond the Arab nationality, all over the world embracing Islam as the true religion and covering the hair. The hijab is surely a strange object for non-Muslim people. For them, the hijab does not cover the woman’s hair but also hides something to which they have no access, and that is the real reason as to why they feel uneasy. From the outside, effectively, they can never see what is behind the hijab. Every Muslim devotes his or her life to God. It is a wonder as to why why people who say nothing about the “veil” of the Catholic nuns criticize the veil of the muslima, considering it a symbol of “terrorism” or “oppression”.

“Why hide the body in its natural state?”, you may ask. But think it was considered vulgar fifty years ago in Japan to swim in a swimming suit. Now one would be able to see the Japanese swim in a bikini without shame. If you swim, however, with a topless, people would say you are shameless, but go to a South France beach, where many women, young and old, take a sun-bath in a topless. If you go to a certain beach on the west coast in America, the nudists take a sun-bath as naked as when they are born. On the other side, at the medieval times, a knight trembled at a brief sight of a shoe of his adoring lady. It shows the definition of women’s “secret part” can be changed. How you can answer to a nudist if she asks you why you hide yours busts and hips although they are as natural as your hands and face? It is the same for the hijab of a muslima. We consider all our body except hands and face as private parts because Allah defined it like this. Its why we hide them from male strangers. If you keep something secret, it increases in value. Keeping a woman’s body secret increases its charm.

Even for the eye of the same sex, the nape of a sister’s neck is surprisingly beautiful because it is normally covered. If a man loses the feeling of shame and starts to walk naked and excrete and “make love” in the presence of other people, he would then become no different than an animal. The problem of sexual harassment which is discussed very frequently proves how men are weak to resist to this kind of attraction. We could not expect prevention of sex harassment only by appealing men’s high morality and self-control. A short skirt might be interpreted by men to say: “if you want me, you may take me”, a hijab means clearly, “I am forbidden for you.”

The Muslim woman covers herself for her own dignity. She refuses to be possessed by the eyes of a stranger and to be his object. She feels nothing but a sense of pity for the Western women who display their private parts as sexual objects for male strangers. If one observes the hijab from outside, one will never see what is hidden in it. Observing the hijab from the outside and living it from inside are two completely different things. We see different things.

This gap explains the chasm separating those from the understanding of Islam. From the outside, Islam looks like a “prison” without any liberty. But living inside of it, we feel at peace and experience freedom and joy that we have never known before. We choose Islam against the so-called freedom and pleasure. If it is true that Islam is a religion that oppresses the women, why are there so many young women in Europe, in America, and in Japan who abandon their liberty and independence to embrace Islam? A person blinded because of his prejudice may not see it, but a woman with the hijab is so brightly beautiful as an angel or a saint with self-confidence, calmness, and dignity. Not a slight touch of shade nor any trace of oppression is visible on her face.

“They are blind and cannot see”, says the Qur’an about those who deny the sign of Allah, but by what else can we explain this gap on the understanding of Islam between us and those people?

Taken from: The Muslimah or Muslim Woman And The Hijab