DEBAT : A SINA vs Nader Pourhassan**

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:47 pm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/pourhassan.htm

akan diterjemahkan coup_d_etat

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:15 pm

mana nih coup-d-etat ??/ gua terjemahin dikit deh !

Eh coup, tolong kasih tahu dong, sejauh mana you udah mengerjakannya ...

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:26 pm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/pourhassan.htm
Debat ttg Islam antara Dr. Nader Pourhassan, penulis Corruption of Muslim Minds, dan Ali Sina

Yth Dr. Nader Pourhassan,
[email protected]

Saya membaca pendahuluan pada buku anda The Corruption of Moslem Minds (Penyesatan Otak Muslim) dgn interes.
http://www.barbed-wire.net/purple/Corruption.html

Nampaknya anda dan saya memiliki latar belakang yg sama. Kita dua2na membaca Quran dan merubah pendirian kita ttg Islam.

Anda membaca Quran dan berkesimpulan bahwa Islam tidak memaksa wanita mengenakan jilbab ataupun menyuruh Muslim memusuhi non-Muslim dan malah sebenarnya, Islam itu TOLERAN loh ! Namun, ketika saya membaca buku yg sama, saya sampai pada kesimpulan yg sama sekali berbeda. Saya melihat bahwa Islam adalah sebuah agama yg melanggar HAM non-Muslim, merendahkan wanita dan mengembangbiakkan teroris.

Oleh karena itu saya sangat heran bgm membaca buku yg sama bisa berakhir pada konklusi yg berlawanan total. Bgm mungkin ? Jelas salah satu dari kita memilki otak yg agak kurang beres. Pertanyaannya adalah, siapa dari kita berdua yg salah besar ?

Sejak saya membaca Quran dan menyimpulkan bahwa islam adalah sebuah kebohongan dan sebuah cult teror, saya melepaskan diri dari denial, shock, kebingungan, rasa bersalah, frustrasi, marah dan pada akhirnya sampai pada PENCERAHAN. Oleh karena itu saya menyiarkan kesimpulan2 saya ini kpd dunai agar mereka tahu apa yg sebenarnya terkandung dlm Islam. Anda jelas berbeda pendapat.

Saya mengundang anda utk berdebat di forum ini dan menunjukkan bahwa saya salah. Jutaan orang akan memabca debat ini. Silahkan !

Salam,
Ali Sina

------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Pourhassan menulis:

Dear Mr. Ali Sina:

Terima kasih dsb dsb .... (nggak ada yg penting) Dari mana kita mulai ...

Sincerely yours,
Nader

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Pourhassan

Mari kita mulai dgn pendahuluan dari saya : di
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... c.php?t=24

Dlm artikel diatas saya memaparkan tuduhan2 saya terhdp Muhamad dan Islam: bahwa Muhamad secara moral tidak pantas jadi rasul Tuhan. Ia berhawa nafsu tinggi dan seorang kriminal berbahaya. Ini mudah saja dilihat dari biografinya.

Nafsu birahi tidak terkontrol Muhamad.

Saya telah membuktikan dlm tulisan2 dibawah ini bahwa Muhamad adalah orang yg gila sex. Tugas anda adalah utk menunjukkan kesalahan saya dan contoh bahwa Muhamad memang insanul kamil dan benar2 rahmatul alamin.

(Sayang yg dibawah belum diterjemahkan dlm bhs Indonesia)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/si ... iriyah.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/mariyah.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/zeinab.htm

Setelah topik2 ini, saya ingin membuktikan bahwa Muhamad adalah seorang pedofil, assassin, tukang garong jalanan, pembunuh massal, penderita schizophrenia dan seorang narsisis. Setiap tuduhan perlu diskusi mendalam. (Wahhh repot yg terjemahin nih ! :evil: )

Alasan kedua Islam = palsu adalah Quran. Buku ini mengandung kesalahan dan inkonsistensi dan oleh karena itu tidak mungkin datang dari Tuhan. Diskusi ttg Quran akan menjadi fase kedua debat kita.

Ini contoh2 debat yg pernah saya lakukan dgn Muslim lain, termasuk dgn Ayatollah Montazeri:
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... .php?t=308

Debat : Islam dan Wanita
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... .php?t=497

Lihat daftar artikel dan daftar debat Ali Sina di : http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... php?t=1314

Kind regards,
Ali Sina

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:27 pm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/pourhassan1.htm

Dear Dr. Sina:

Saya membaca beberapa artikel2 anda dan sejauh ini saya setuju dgn hampir semua yg anda katakan ttg Islam jaman sekarang. Buku saya juga mengatakan bahwa Islam sekarang disesatkan oleh penafsiran salah dan tidak menawarkan banyak utk kemajuan individu. Islam menjadi agama kebencian, teror dan kekejian. Bedanya adalah pendekatan anda dan saya. Anda percaya bahwa Islam yg dipraktekkan sekarang adalah hasil ajaran Quran. Disitulah anda salah.

Anda menghina dan menjelek2kan nabi Mohamad. Itu sama sekali tidak perlu. Banyak nabi melakukan kesalahan namun Allah mengampuni mereka (nabi Daud, Yusuf & Yonas). Saya tidak setuju dgn segala sesuatu yg anda katakan ttg nabi Mohamad, namun saya bukan sejarawan.

Mari jangan memperdebatkan siapa Mohamad. Ini bukan specialty saya. Saya hanya expert dlm Quran. Lagipula, Quran tidak ditulis Mohamad; Quran datang langsung dari Tuhan.

Saya lebih ahli dlm Quran ketimbang 1000 ayatollah. Ini karena Quran sendiri menegaskan bahwa ini sebuah buku yg jelas dan mudah dimengerti. Lihat Q 12:1, ada 35 ayat yg mirip. Lihat Q 54:17 dan juga ada lebih dari 35 ayat yg mirip.

(aduh bertele2 yah ...)

Sincerely yours,
Nader Pourhassan
----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Pourhassan,

Saya ingin membuktikan kpd anda bahwa seberapa parahpun Islam di jaman sekarang ini, ini tidak seburuk dgn apa yg diberikan Muhamad.

Anda keberatan kalau saya menghina dan mengejek Muhamad. Anda bilang ini tidak perlu. Maaf, tuduhan2 saya terhdp Muhamad bukan suatu pencemaran nama baik. Ini tuduhan yg bisa saya buktikan. Adalah tugas anda utk membuktikan bahwa saya salah.

Muhamad adalah subyek diskusi kami. Ia mengaku Allah mengangkatnya sbg rasul dan berpura2 bahwa Allah memuji2nya.

"And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4).
“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21).
We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q. 21:107).
Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q. 81.19)

Karena claim2 ini ada dlm Quran dan mengingat karakter, kejujuran dan jalan pikiran Muhamad adalah kunci kredibilitas Quran, kami tidak dapat melewatkan Muhamad dan karakternya dlm diskusi kita ttg Quran.

Kalau Muhamad cuma tukang pos yg mengantarkan kita sebuah buku yg dicap dan ditandatangani Tuhan, maka bisa saja anda benar. Maka karakter si tukang pos tidak lagi penting. Namun karena Quran didiktekan oleh mulut Muhamad maka mau tidak mau kita harus menelaah karakter si tukang pos itu, bukan ? Bgm kalau si tukang pos seorang penipu ? Anda sama sekali tidak mempedulikan apakah Muhamad memang jujur seorang rasulullah, bahkan sebelum kami berkesempatan utk menelaah buku itu. Oleh karena itu, approach anda, maaf, tidaklah logis.

Tapi kalau anda sudah berasumsi dan bersikeras bahwa Quran pasti sebuah buku yg diwahyukan Allah, yah, utk apa diskusi ini ?

Justru tugas kami pertama adalah MENETAPKAN apakah Quran memang dari Tuhan dan pertanyaan pertama adalah : apakah si tukang pos bisa dipercaya.

Apakah Quran = jelas ?

Ayat2 Quran sendiri saling kontradiksi dan membingungkan. Ambiguitas ini memungkinkan Muslim utk pilih2 ayat sesuai dgn keinginan mereka. Mereka yg toleran mencaplok ayat2 toleran, mereka yg garis keras mengutip ayat2 pembunuhan. Dan KEDUA2NYA BENAR !! Walahualam !! Inikah 'mukjizat' Quran ?

Ini contoh kontradiksi dlm Quran:

Dlm Q73:10 Allah mengatakan agar Mohamad sabar dgn musuh2nya, TAPI dlm Q 2:191 Allah malah memerintahkannya agar membunuh penantang2nya.

Dlm Q2:256 Allah bilang pd Mohamad agar tidak memaksakan Islam dgn kekerasan, TAPI dlm Surat yg sama, Q2: 193, ia malah bilang agar rasulnya membunuh siapapun yg menolak Islam. LOH piye iki !

Dlm Q29:45 Allah bilang agar Mohamad bebicara dgn baik kpd Ahlul Kitab, TAPI dlm Q9:29 Allah bilang: HAJAR MEREKA BLEH !!

Dan Muhamad tidak memberikan penjelasan apapun ttg keanehan dlm Quran ini, bgm sifat Allah bisa berubah dari damai menjadi haus darah.

Kita semua tahu bahwa ayat2 yg damai (ayat2 Mekah) sudah DIBATALKAN oleh ayat yg lebih keji (ayat2 Medinah).

[lihat link2nya, daripada gua suruh terjemahin semuanya !! Gempor NEK !]
Dua Wajah Qur'an: Ayat2 Mekah vs Ayat2 Medinah:
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... php?t=2434

Contoh2 lain ttg kontradiksi dlm Quran :
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Co ... l#internal
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... php?t=2222
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... hp?t=11236

1. ttg hak waris http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/f ... php?t=8624
2. Berapa jumlah malaikat yg berbicara pd Mariam? Ada ayat yg bilang satu, ada juga yg bilang beberapa.
3. Kejanggalan2 dlm angka:
Jumlah hari Allah, 1.000 tahun atau 50.000 tahun ?
Berapa taman ada dlm surga? Satu [39:73, 41:30, 57:21, 79:41] atau banyak [18:31, 22:23, 35:33, 78:32]?
Berapa kelompok yg akan ada pada hari Kiamat ? Q56:7 bilang tiga, tapi 90:18-19, 99:6-8, dsb bilang dua.
Berapa yg menjemput nyawa orang saat mati ? Satu malaikat [32:11] atau beberapa [47:27] atau Allah [39:42]??
Malaikat punya 2, 3 atau 4 pasang sayap [35:1]. Namun Jibril punya 600. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]
4. Berapa hari diperlukan Allah utk menghancurkan rakyat Aad? Satu [54:19] atau beberapa [41:16; 69:6,7] ??
5. Enam atau delapan hari penciptaan ? Enam hari menurut Q 7:54, 10:3, 11:7 & 25:59, namun delapan hari dlm Q41:9-12.
6. Cepat atau lambat ? Enam hari dlm [7:54] namun dlm sekejap menurut Q2:117.
7. Mana yg diciptakan duluan ? Langit atau bumi ? Bumi dulu, baru langit dlm Q2:29, tapi langit dulu baru bumi dlm 79:27-30.
8. Bergabung atau berpisah ? Penciptaan langit dan bumi dari bahan terpisah kemudian bergabung, menurut 41:11, TAPI 21:30 mengatakan, keduanya tadinya bergabung lalu terpisah !
9. Manusia diciptakan dari apa ? Gempalan darah [96:1-2], air [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], tanah liat yg dibakar [15:26], debu [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] dan lalu ini dibantah dlm 52:35, tanah [11:61], setetes air kental [16:4, 75:37]
10. Quran sempurna atau tidak ? Sempurna menurut 6:38, 6:114, 12:111, 16:89 dsb. TAPI begitu banyak hal2 yg belum terjawab oleh Qur'an.
11. Intersesi mungkin atau tidak ? TIDAK menurut 2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc., dan YA menurut 20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; dsb. Masing2 didukung oleh hadis.
12. Dimana Allah dan tahtanya ? Allah lebih dekat dari urat nadi [50:16], tapi ia juga di tahta [57:4] diatas air [11:7], dan memakan waktu 1.000 dan 50.000 thn utk mencapainya [32:5, 70:4].
13. Asal musibah ? Karena Setan [38:41], diri sendiri [4:79], atau Allah [4:78]?
14. Seberapa besar pengampunan Allah ? Hanya ia yg bisa mengampuni [6:12], namun beberapa tidak diampuninya, walau sebenarnya ia bisa [6:35, 14:4].
15. Apakah kita akan ditanyai di surga? Tidak, kata 23:101 tapi YA menurut 52:25 & 37:27.
16. Malaikat = pelindung ? "Tidak, cuma Allah yg melindungi" [2:107, 29:22]. Tapi dlm 41:31, para malaikat sendiri mengatakan: "Kami pelindung kalian dlm hidup ini dan kemudian." Lihat juga 13:11, 50:17-18 dan 82:10.
17. Apakah semua mahluk taqwa pada Allah? Begitu menurut 30:26, tapi dlm 7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50, Setan dan beberapa manusia tidak.
18. Allah memaafkan shirk? Tidak [4:48, 116], Ya [4:153, 25:68-71]. Ibraham terjerumus dosa polytheisme [6:76-78], namun Muslim percaya bahwa semua nabi bersih dari dosa.
19. Tobat memuja lembu emas sebelum atau sesudah Musa kembali dari gunung ? SEBELUM [7:149] & SESUDAH [20:91]. Aaron bertobat ? Tidak [20:85-90], ya [20:92, 7:151].
20. Jonah terdampar di pantai gurun atau tidak ? Ya [37:145], Tidak [68:49]
21. Musa dan Injil ? Yesus lahir lebih dari 1.000 tahun setelah Musa, tapi dlm 7:157 Allah berbicara kpd Musa ttg apa yg ditulis dlm Injil [buku yg diberikan kpd Yesus].
22. Menghujat wanita soleh boleh diampuni ? Ya [24:5], Tidak [24:23].
23. Bgm kita mendapatkan daftar kelakuan kita pada Hari Kiamat? Dari belakang punggung [84:10], di tangan kiri [69:25].
24. Malaikat bisa tolak perintah Allah ? Tidak [16:49-50], tapi Allah mengatakan, 'tunduk pada Adam.' Dan MEREKA tunduk, kecuali Iblis [2:34].
25. Tiga kontradiksi dlm 2:97 dan 16:101-103. Siapa mengantar wahyu dari Allah ke Muhamad? Malaikat Jibril [2:97], Ruhul Qudus [16:102]? Wahyu baru menegaskan yg lama [2:97] atau menggantikannya [16:101] ? Qur'an dlm bhs Arab MURNI [16:103] tapi ada banyak kata2 asing dan non-Arab didalamnya !

26. Disebut dlm Kitab2 terdahulu ? Q26:192,195,196: "(Qur'an) adalah benar2 diturunkan dari Tuhan semesta alam ... dlm bhs Arab yg jelas dan benar-benar (tersebut) dalam Kitab-kitab orang yang dahulu." Nah, kitab2 terdahulu itu = Taurat dan Injil dlm bhs Ibrani dan Yunani. BGM mungkin sebuah Quran dlm bhs ARAB bisa dikandung dlm buku2 yg ditulis dlm bahasa2 lain ? Kok tidak ada sesuatupun dlm Taurat dan Injil yg menyebut Quran ?
27. "Wanita tua" dan sifat Tuhan ttg cerita Lot: wanita tua ikut dgn Lot [Q 26:170-171], tapi dlm Q7:83, istrinya ikut Lot. Kontradiksi atau penghinaan terhdp istri Lot, yg nota bene istri nabi ?
28. Ibraham menghancurkan patung2 berhala ? Q19:41-49, 6:74-83 berbeda dgn Q21:51-59. Dlm Q21, Ibraham mengkonfrontasi rakyatnya dan bahkan menghancurkan patung2 itu, namun dlm Q19 Ibraham bungkam setelah ayahnya mengancam utk merajamnya setelah ia menghina patung2 tsb. Ia bahkan meninggalkan area itu !
29.

What about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.
Was Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected (their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is driven out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at him while he is buiding the ark since we read "Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his people* passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38] He cannot be both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly pass by.
Pharaoh's Magicians: Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? Did the Magicians of Pharaoh, Egyptians, become believers in the God of Moses [7:103-126; 20:56-73; S. 26:29-51] or did only Israelites believe in Moses [10:83]?
Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.
Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
Guiding to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left over of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4]. And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of those led astray?
What is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If they repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts both the procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the punishment for women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4?
Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".
God alone or also men? Clear or incomprehensible? The Qur'an is "clear Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its interpretation, save only Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of understanding do grasp it." [3:7]
Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].
When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was still an infant [20:38-39]?
When/how are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. All of the above is contradicted by "And every man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13]
Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get into Paradise?
Good News of Painful Torture? Obviously, annoucing torment and suffering to anyone is bad news, not good news. However, the Qur'an announces the good news of painful torment [3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34, 31:7, 45:8, and 84:24].
Will all Muslims go to Hell? According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately.
Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.
Jinns and men created for worship or for Hell? Created only to serve God [Sura 51:56], many of them made for Hell [Sura 7:179].
Who is the father of Jesus? A more involved argument that is difficult to summarize in one sentence.
Begetting and Self-sufficiency A self-contradiction on account of confused terminology.
Could Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this possibility.
Did Jesus Die already? Surah 3:144 states that all messengers died before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God (alive?).
One Creator or many? The Qur'an uses twice the phrase that Allah is "the best of creators" [23:14, 37:125]. What other creators are in mind? On the other hand, many verses make clear that Allah alone is "the creator of all things" [e.g. 39:62]. There is nothing left for others to be a creator of.
From among all nations or from Abraham's seed? Surah 29:27 states that all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised messengers from among every people.
Marrying the wives of adopted sons? It is important that Muslims can marry the divorced wives of adopted sons [Sura 33:37], yet it is forbidden to adopt sons [Sura 33:4-5].
Messengers were never sent to other than their own people? So it is claimed in Sura 14:4 and 30:47. However, the Bible and the Qur'an, and the Muslim traditions confirm that Jonah was sent to a different nation.
Messengers Amongst the Jinns and Angels? Allah sent only men as messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21] but there seemingly are messengers from Jinns and Angels [6:130; 11:69,77; 22:75; etc., see article for details].
Another eleven contradictions...

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:28 pm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/PourHassan2.htm
Dear Dr. Sina,

Thanks for your great response. You are obviously very knowledgeable and I appreciate that a lot! I have also searched many Moslem communities for scholars to debate with and once I had found them and debated with them I quickly realized that they are very ignorant about the Koran. You are not. You know the verses well. However in my opinion the reason you see so many contradictions in the Koran is because you are not allowing the Koran to be just a book of guidance, as it claims it wants to be. If we accept what the Koran says about the kind of book it is then everything will be clear.

Let me add that the reason the world of Islam has become so ugly is because of the so-called scholars who are responsible for teaching things that are so far away from the truth (2:41-42,59,75, 78-79,140,146,159-160,169,174-176, 3:64,77-78,187, 5:44, 7:169, and many more).

(Koran; 7:169) Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the book, …Was not a promise taken from them in the book that they would not speak anything about God but the truth? And they have read what is in it; and the abode of the here after is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand?

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

Dear erudite and respected friend Dr. Pourhassan,

I thank you for kind response. The time that you spend in writing this shows your dedication and commitment to the truth. You are obviously very knowledgeable and I am honored to have this debate with you

However you say that the reason I see contradictions in the Quran is because I am not allowing the Quran to be “just a book of guidance, as it claims its wants to be”. My friend shouldn’t we question the Quran, or for that matter any book or person who claims to be the source of guidance? If you go to a physician won’t you want first to ascertain that this person is really who he claims to be? What if the person claiming to be a physician is an impostor? Would you leave your life in the hands of a charlatan who claims to be a doctor? Isn’t it wiser to check his credentials before following his prescriptions?

As you know you cannot open a shop and prescribe medicines for people before proving your credentials and getting your license. What are the credentials of Muhammad? How do we know that he was a messenger of God and not a charlatan? You keep quoting verses of the Quran as the proof of your statement, but you have not yet shown that this book is from God. I find contradictions, errancies and absurdities that prove to me this book far from being the word of God is a hallucination of a mentally insane man. How can I accept such book blindly? I have evidences the Quran is not from God. Can you refute those evidences? I have evidences that Muhammad was insane. Can you refute those evidences?

You accept a priory that the Quran is from God. What proof you have for such claim except that the Quran says so? Isn’t this circular reasoning?

Your entire thesis is based on the assumption that Quran is true and the Mullahs have twisted its real meaning. All you are trying to do is to show that the Mullahs and the other billion Muslims are wrong, that they do not understand the book of Quran that claims to be clear and easy to understand and you are the only one who understand it. Let us assume that what you say is true. First of all this contradicts the very claim of the Quran that it is a clear book, secondly still you have not proven that this Quran that only you understand is the word of God.

P2

They either look at the Koran to be an absolute book of knowledge for all human needs for all eras or they think there are so many secrets that they should spend all their lives figure its myths (i.e. adding the number of different alphabets used in the Koran and maybe divide by the number of verses used and then make up some kind of sense out of it). Well this latter one makes Moslems of the world to become more superstitions than anyone. The Koran predicted that this would happen (25:30, 15:91).

(Koran; 25:30) The messenger will say: “My Lord, my folk have abandoned this Koran”

(Koran; 15:91) who have torn the Koran apart.

Their assumption that the Koran has all kinds of knowledge goes against the verses of the Koran itself. The Koran introduces itself as a book of guidance only (2:1,91,181, 3:3,132, 7:52, 27:1-2, 31:1-2, and many more).

One example from these verses:

(Koran; 7:52) And certainly We have brought them a book which We have made clear with knowledge of guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.

Now when a country like Iran has a revolution and the supreme religious leaders take over the country, they promise the world to the people and they say if we run the country according to the Koran, we will be the greatest nation on the earth. However they will never be able to run a country with the Koran simply because Koran has no laws about how to run a country. For example there is nothing in the Koran teaches us how to write a constitution for a country, how to achieve and maintain a great economy, etc. This has been literally proven in the last 20 years in the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran.

If we do what the religious leaders tell us to do, that is if we blindly obey every rule they say is of the Koran, then we will descend ourselves to a life of 1400 years ago. And the Koran clearly warns its followers about this terrible mistake by repeatedly stating that many RULES of this book is for the ancient Arabs of Mecca and surrounding areas (6:92, 32:3, 42:7, 43:44, and more),

(Koran; 6:92) This is a blessed book We have sent down to confirm whatever came before it, so you may warn the mother of towns (Mecca) and anyone around her…

(Koran; 32:3) Or do they say: “He has invented it!? Rather, it is the truth from your Lord so you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, so that they may be guide.

(Koran; 42:7) Thus We have inspired you with an Arabic reading so you may warn the Mother of towns (Mecca) and anyone around her…

(Koran; 43:44) It is a reminder for you and your people, and you will be questioned.

If these verses are ignored then we will take a country from today’s civilized world and push it back in time to the uncivilized eras. (Look how behind in every way “Islamic” countries are today compared to advanced non-Islamic countries.) This is also true about the Bible and the Torah.

S2

So according to your thesis, the Quran and hence Islam is not for the entire world but just for the Arabs of the seventh century. If this is what you are saying I agree with you completely. It is obvious that all civilizations of the world are superior to the primitive teachings of the Quran. Every country that has adopted Islam is dragged into misery and barbarity. Islamic countries are poor. They are dictatorial; they are corrupt; they are engulfed in hatred and fratricide wars. You are very honest to admit that non-Islamic countries are better off than Islamic countries. However what puzzles me is that you still maintain that Quran is a book of guidance. Guidance for what? If the countries that follow the Quran are immersed in misery, why you still claim that the Quran is a book of guidance? Your statement leaves me perplexed. On one hand you affirm that the Quran is a book of guidance and on the other hand you say that this book should not be followed.

You say, “For example there is nothing in the Koran teaches us how to write a constitution for a country, how to achieve and maintain a great economy, etc”. But of course Islam has its own constitution. Muhammad brought a very tight rule of governance. It is called Sharia. This is the constitution. The laws of Sharia are draconian and backward, that is why when Islamic countries practice them they become uncivilized and barbaric. Islam also has its own economical system –a system that brings countries to poverty and ruins their economy. The laws of inheritance, the prohibition taking interests on the loan, the khoms and zakat are economical guidelines for Islamic countries. The time wasted in prayers and fasting is also another blow to the economy. Therefore it is not right to say that Islam does not have any constitution or economical system. The fact is that the Islamic constitution and the Islamic economical system bring dictatorship and poverty to those who practice them.

P3

So in this brief introduction I am trying to say that this is a book that talks about guidance - meaning doing good and not doing bad - and it gives many references to the other world. The language used about the other world is not understandable by the laws of this world (3:7) as the Koran itself claims that we were given very little information about the other world (17:85) and that we just have to trust God (3:7). This kind of information about the other world can not be verified or proven by any physical evidence. Therefore debating about the validity of it will take us no where. One could speculate about very strange scenarios that are presented in the Koran or the Bible and no one can really disqualify them.

S3

My respected friend, Quran is a book full of errors. It contains scientific absurdities and ridiculous statements about cosmos, the Earth, the creation, the fetus and virtually everything in Quran is plain and simple stupid. Why you think when it speaks of God and the afterlife it tells the truth? Think of how Muhammad described the hell and paradise. Do you really think God has a place where he roasts humans for eternity, pours boiling water on them and scorch them with fire? Isn’t this absurd? What kind of sadist psychopath is this Allah of Muhammad? Do you think his paradise with rivers of wine, milk and honey and voluptuous virgins are true? Don’t you see that these ridiculous stories were apt of the most ignorant people of his time and no sane person in this day and age would accept them?

You say Quran teaches people to do good and not do bad. What good? Is beating one’s wife good (4:34) is chopping the hands of the petty thief good? Is killing the infidels, waging war against the unbelievers and murdering innocent people who do not accept Islam good? Quran is a textbook for murder, hate and genocide, what part of this book is good? Do you think the prayer and the fasting is good? Prayers is waste of time, it is a means to brainwash the gullible and control their minds. Fasting is unhealthy, accumulates toxin in your body and cases lethargy and laziness. It is not good for your health and it is not good for economy. These senseless rituals are narcotics for the gullible and the weak-minded people.

Quran does not teach you to do good. It teaches you to do evil. It teaches you to hate the Jews, the Christians and especially the pagans, the polytheists and the atheists. Quran is a book written by a lunatic hatemonger. There is nothing right or good in this book. Muhammad had hallucinations, not revelations. He had not idea of the other world. He lied and he fooled people to dominate them. He appealed to peoples fear and greed. His other word is a materialistic world, which is made of fire or gluttony and orgies. This sick man had not spiritual understanding. His idea of other world is physical. He spoke of pain and pleasure and nothing else because he was incapable of understanding spiritual realities. Please tell me what spiritual guidance you find in his book?

P4

Now, coming back to our debate, your view of the Koran is (at least as far as I see from your debate so far), that this book is full of contradictions. You claim that there is so much false information in it. You then claim that Mohammad was full of lust and criminal activities and that he made up this book for all the wrong reasons.

I consider you a man in search of the truth. And in your research you bravely talk about what your findings are. You are also reaching out to all the people who claim that they know the Koran to prove you wrong. These are all signs of your dedication to find the truth and willingness to put your theories to anyone’s challenge. This means that you are a great man and you are helping humanity in a great way.

However in my humble opinion you are wrong about the Koran and therefore prophet Mohammad. As far as the Koran goes I will attempt to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that this is a great book as far as guidance to humanity.

Having said that, I also believe that all the false claims you make about the Koran and the prophet Mohammad are not your fault. It is the fault of religious leaders who have degraded the Koran’s teachings. If I am right and you are wrong I still think you are going to be blessed by God tremendously because you are doing a great Jihad (struggle) to study all you can about the Koran, the ahadith, and many different aspects of Islam. Not even one out of one million Moslems do this. And this is the claim of the Koran: That if in a given situation you do your best (2:286, 23:62) and use your mind (8:22) then you are blessed no matter what.

(Koran; 2:286) God only assigns a soul something it can cope with…

(Koran; 23:62) We only assign a soul something it can cope with…

(Koran; 8:22) The worst creature before God are deaf and dumb, those who do not use their mind./color]S4

My views about Muhammad has nothing to do with what the religious leaders say and do. I have based my entire criticism on the Quran and the ahadith. I accuse Muhammad of rape. I based this claim on the stories narrated by the early historians and the ahadith collected by the early believers. I accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, of assassination, of rubbery, of sexual perversity and of genocide. These are historic facts unless you decide to deny the history of Islam. These accusations have nothing to do with the religious leaders. I accuse the religious leaders of whitewashing these facts and not telling the truth about Muhammad and his crimes. However what Muhammad did has nothing to do with the religious leaders.

P5

Now I would like to attempt to prove you wrong about every thing you claim about the Koran. And this is why I am taking a lot of time and going through each one of your beliefs about the Koran and giving my views about them.

After reading the Koran for the last 10 years over and over again, I have been taken from the darkness of what “religious scholars” have created for today’s Islam, to the light that is shed from God through the Koran.

There is nothing in the Koran that I am not able to understand or explain in a very simple and clear way. And this is not a credit to me in any way, but a credit to the Koran itself.

An awakening about God is when you can see the answers to everything your mind brings to you about God and yourself. I am in total peace with my own awakening and feel that I can see the Koran for exactly what it is.

And all this is not because I am a genius but because I was able to read the Koran for myself and drew my own conclusions without any prejudice. I did not go to the Koran to prove or disprove anything but rather to find out what it says.So let me first set the table straight before we jump into any conclusions about any of the verses of Koran.

If you accept the Koran as it introduces itself to be, then all the mistakes made by religious leaders and those scholars who are sincere and honest like yourself, could clearly be explained and avoided.

One must forget about all the things he/she was taught about Islam and Koran and let the Koran be the only source of telling what Islam and the Koran is. This is what we must keep in mind while we read the Koran to avoid all the confusions you have presented:

S5

Here again I am at lost. On one hand you say that you approached the Quran with no prejudice, and then add that if I accept the Quran as it introduces itself to be, then all the mistakes make sense. Isn’t this contradiction? If you accept the Quran to be a divine revelation you are already prejudiced. How can you be objective about a book that you assume to be the word of God? How can you allow yourself to see the inherent errors of the Quran when you have already accepted it to be divine guidance?

Allow me to point out that your method of reading the Quran is highly unscientific and prejudicial. You could read the book of any charlatan claiming to be a prophet accepting him to be real and become confirmed in your belief. This is exactly the error committed by all the believers of all the religions. You cannot be objective when you already accept the Quran to be the word of God. This book is full of errors than any unbiased person could see. Yet you are unable to see them because you do not allow yourself to see them. If you accept the innocence of a criminal even before hearing his case would you be a good judge? Would any rational person choose the mother of an accused criminal to server in the jury? To be a good judge you must be unbiased. You cannot believe in the innocence of the accused and at the same time claim impartiality. You have studied the Quran for 10 years, but you read that book with jaundiced eyes. It is obvious that you could not see any error in it because you did not WANT to see them. I do not blame you. This is the way we were raised. We were not allowed to think independently, to doubt and to question the validity of the Quran. I was not much different from you when I used to read the Quran in the early stages of my life. I also took that book as a book of guidance and therefore could not see its errors. When one thing came to my attention for which I could not find any answer, I started to doubt. Only then I could see that this book does not contain just one error but thousands of them. Now I read the Quran and almost find an error or two in every verse of it. Sometimes I wonder how could I read this book and not see so many errors, absurdities and contradictions. The answer is that I was prejudiced. I accepted the Quran as a book of guidance even before reading it. I was told to believe in it and I did. I was biased. This is why you cannot see the errors of the Quran and this is why a billion other Muslims read that book and are unable to see them either.

Belief is misleading. The path of truth is lit by the torch of doubt. Imagine where would we be if Copernicus and Galileo believed the cosmological teachings of the church. They doubted and it is thanks to that doubt that science advanced and we are where we are today. 600 years before Copernicus and Galileo and Iranian scientists such as Khayyam, Zakaria Razi, and Ibn Sina embarked on the same path of doubt. However their efforts were hampered and their works were abandoned because believers gagged them and did not let their thoughts flourish. Imagine what would be of the world and science if these doubters could have their way. With these great men in the horizon of Iran, we were in the brink of the renaissance 600 years before Europe. Imagine what would be of the world if we had invented airplanes, computers, and other goodies of the 20th century 600 years earlier. We shall never know the harm that Islam inflicted upon humanity. A billion people follow an insane man. This is the greatest tragedy of mankind. Human science, civilization and progress were stifled because of Islam. Millions and millions were killed yet this is nothing compared to the loss that human civilization suffered.

My friend: if you want to find the truth, do not believe; doubt everything and find your own light. Do not assume that the Quran is a book of guidance before even verifying that claim. You yourself accept that the teachings of the Quran as far as politics, economy and science are useless. How can you be so certain that when Quran teaches about God and the afterlife is right? If we have evidence that what Quran says about things that can be seen and proven are false, why should we accept that what it says about the unseen is true?

P6

This is what the Koran says:

1) That this book was given to the Arabs of Mecca and the surrounding area (6:92, 32:3, 42:7, 43:44, and more) so they would not say no prophet came to them or if it had they would have been better guided than the two factions before them (Jews and Christians) (6:155-157).

2) That this book also was sent to tell the Christians and Jews of what the falsehood inserted into their religion so they don’t claim in the other world that no one told them about it (27:76, 5:15,19, 18:4, and more).

3) The Koran claims to be clear (26:1, 36:69, 39:28, 43:2, 44:2, 45:25, 46:7, 57:9, 58:5, and many more) [as was all the holy books that God sent down (35:25)], easy to understand (19:97,48:58, 54:17,22,32,40), and a complete book for guidance (16:89, 12:111, 44:1-4, 39:27, 54:5, 61:8), as it was the Torah, a complete book for guidance (6:154, 7:145 )

4) That in the Koran’s teachings, human was created and by that he gets a chance to pass or fail a test. A test that the parents of all humans, Adam and eve, failed but got a chance to redeem themselves. And that this test is to see who would be good and who would be bad. That God will not force you to pass this test but if you fail after this world you will pay the consequences. These all must be accepted by a person who wants to be guided by means of the Koran or for that matter even by means of the Bible or the Torah.

5) That we go through two worlds. First this world, and after we die we will go to the other world. This world we live in today is governed by a certain set of laws that God commanded, and the other world with another set of laws. You can disobey God in this world but not in the other world.

Now having said the above, we must observe the following few rules before we get to all its verses and try to blindly imitate a situation that is talked about in the Koran.

This means in order to be able to use the Koran in the 21st century we must very carefully observe the following:

6) The Koran states that its contents are all verses (except a few decisive ones called the basic verses) that must not be taken literally (3:7) but must serve as moral lessons.

7) The basic verses are the mother of all verses. Therefore to apply any of the verses of the Koran to a given era we must observe the basic verses.

8) To see which verse is basic and which is not we must recall verse 7:143, which unites all previous 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). This particular verse states that all the guidance humans need are those of the 10 commandments.

The last 3 rules are so crucial that I should emphasize it again:

Few of the verses in this book are the basis of all other ones (3:7), therefore all that is said in the Koran was for the Arabs of that time (6:92, 32:3, 42:7, 43:44, and more).

This is why the Koran says that for every time or generation, there is a book (13:38). This is clearly demonstrated when it says tell people not to yell at Mohammad (49:4), or when it says: Mohammad tell your wives that they are not like other women (33:32).

If this simple fact that Moslems must not blindly copy everything that is said in the Koran is allowed to be explained to the world of Islam, then I believe Moslems of the world will be saved from their terrible conditions. If the Koran is accepted in this way there would be no need for interpretations of so called clergymen and no need for the corrupted ahadith. This is when the Koran would be at its best, making any generation better, allowing and requiring advancement of humanity in every direction, allowing women to have rights that God gave them, etc.

The so-called scholars have perverted the message of the Koran and I will show you this very clearly.

S6

Based on your thesis, the Quran is just for the Arabs of the seventh century. In that case I do not understand why you still insist that it is a book of guidance for the rest of mankind. You claim that the Quran is a clear book, easy to understand; yet you do not say why everyone else except you have failed to understand it they way it should be understood. Why there is so much confusions and so many different interpretations of this book if it is as clear as you claim?

You say that “That in the Koran’s teachings, human was created and by that he gets a chance to pass or fail a test.” What test? This is an absurdity? This is a bogus claim made by a manipulative narcissist to control people. The creator of this universe if all knowing does not need to test anyone. He should know how people would behave even before they are born. This whole scenario is ludicrous. It just make no sense for an all knowing all wise god to create a universe and then place in a tiny planet in this vast universe a bunch of primates to test them, then burn them for eternity if they fail or delight their senses with infinite sex and debauchery if they believe in the absurdities that he tells them. What a lunatic sadist god is this god? Why he created the Satan to beguile people and lead them into perdition? These are childish beliefs. They are fit for the ignorant people of the seventh century Arabia. Even at the time of Muhammad there were people in his own hometown that derided at these fairytales. You are a doctor and live in the 21st century. If it was forgivable for the ignorant people of Arabia such as Omar, Abu Bakr or Ali to believe in Muhammad’s fairy tales it is not forgivable for you. These tales are ludicrous. They are absurd and childish. God does not need to test anyone. He does not burn people in hell and he is not a pimp to provide you with infinite sex in paradise. Please stop promoting this nonsense. These are lies concocted by a psychopath to control people. How can you believe in these fairytales? We do not have to die to know that these stories are false. All we have to do is to use our brain. These tales defy human logic. They are ludicrous.

You say Adam and Eve failed. What Adam and Eve? How can a doctor living in this day and age believe in the fairy tale of Adam and Eve? Have you heard of evolution? Do you know that there were no Adam and Eve and that we are offspring of primates? Do you know that chimps and gorillas are our close relatives? Do you see now why Muslim in Islamic countries are backward uneducated and uncivilized. If educated Muslim such as you still believes in fairy tales of Adam and Eve, what else should we expect of the uneducated masses? It is this kind of unreasonable thinking that allows the Mullahs to take advantage of the masses and fool them.

You say, “ These all must be accepted by a person who wants to be guided by means of the Koran”. But if you accept all this nonsense you are fooled. What is the difference between these stories and other fairy tales about the gnomes, the elves, the Santa Clause and the two-headed dragons? How can you be guided if you believe in these childish tales?

You say, the Quran’s content, except the ones called basic verses should not be taken literally but must serve as moral lessons. Can you please tell us which verses are these basic verses? Does the Quran clearly make this distinction about the basic verses and the those that teach moral lessons? What criteria you used to determine which verses are basic and which ones are not? You claim that all it takes to save Muslims from their terrible condition is to show them which verses are basic and which ones are not. How are you going to convince the one billion Muslims that you are the only one who understands how the Quran should be read? You claim if the Muslims read the Quran the way you teach them, they would not need the Mullah’s to interpret that book for them. However you are presenting your own interpretation, classifying the Quran into basic and non-basic verses yet you present to proof of your authority to be the interpreter of the Quran.

The verse 7:143 reads:

What this has to do with deciding which verses of the Quran should be basis and which ones should not? The is a fairy tale about Moses. There is no proof that Moses existed and if such person did exist there is no proof that this conversation ever took place. Even if Moses spoke to God there is no proof that Muhammad knew anything about it. Put all that aside, this verse has nothing to do with what you claim.

Finally you made the most outlandish claim that if the Quran is interpreted the way you say then it will make “any generation better, allowing and requiring advancement of humanity in every direction, allowing women to have rights that God gave them, etc”

How did you come that conclusion? Quran is an anti science book par excellence. The very story of Adam and Eve that we spoke about makes it clear that this book is contrary to science and human logic. There are hundreds of other claims in that book that show it is anti science and anti progress. Also why do you think following the Quran your way would give women more rights? Have you forgotten that verse 4:34 says beat your wives if they are disobedient? Have you forgotten that verse 2:282, says women’s testimony is half of that of man. The verse 4:11-12 says women’s inheritance should be half of that of men. Have you forgotten that verse 4:3 says men can marry a multitude of women while women do not have the same rights? What kind of right is that? Women have no rights in Islam.

P7

The Koran, by itself, is the most complete and powerful book for guidance of humanity as is the Bible and the Torah. These statements I make about the Koran I will prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt. But you must (with all do respect) debate with me about the Koran and not drift away from the subject.

S7

You keep contradicting yourself. If the Quran is revealed for the Arabs of the seventh century as you keep reminding us, then how it could be a book of guidance for all the humanity? I am simply unable to understand this line of reasoning.

P8

If the whole world of Islam could see the Koran as it is, then I am 100% positive that they would turn their worlds around and their societies would thrive.

They would stop asking God for things through boring monotonous prayers. They would use their mind and their free will to accomplish the things they want in life.

They would learn from the advancement of other countries instead of spending their lives bashing them. And last but not least, they would start to love and stop hating everything that God has created and treat others with respect.

S8

My dear erudite friend. You seem to forget the fact that the reason Muslims hate everything that God has created and treat others with disrespect is because Muhammad asked them to,

What do you make of these verses:

Don’t take moshrekoon as friends and allies,
The Jews are decendantws of the apes and pigs
Force the Christians and jews to pay Jizyah
Etc.

As for those monotonous prayers, they are one of the pillars of Islam. Muhammad said that he went to heaven and bargained with God several times to reduce the prayers from 50 to 5 times. Who are you to say this is too much prayer and they are monotonous? What you say is nothing short of blasphemy. You are trying to introduce bid’a (innovation) in Islam and the punishment of such heresy is death.

You want to teach people to free their minds from superstitions and accomplish things they want their lives. However you speak of Adam and Eve without realizing this is a fairy tale? How free is your own mind? Shouldn’t you start freeing your own mind first before trying to help others to free their minds?

P9

I think people like you are very rare. You have no fear of being politically incorrect (I don’t either) and this is great. This is one of the qualities of a truly Godly person.

However when you talk about the prophet Mohammad, I feel a lot of tension, and this kind of tension will not help our intellectual research. It will only make us biased.

For example if you were going to judge other prophets the same way you judge Mohammad, then you would have to say the same things about the prophet Abraham. You would have to say that he was so bad that he and his wife actually owned a slave. You would have to say Abraham was so bad that he actually slept with his wife’s slave.

And by saying these things about any prophet, you would be disregarding everything about the customs of their times and you would expect them to be judged with the standards of today’s advanced civilizations.

S9

As for Abraham and other so-called prophets, these are mythological personages. There is little evidence that such people actually existed or if they did the stories attributed to them are most certainly fables. Abraham is as much real as is Gilgamesh, Ganesh or Shiva. These were lore of the ancient people. Yes Abraham would fail according to today’s standards. However few people actually follow Abraham. But there are a billion people who follow Muhammad and try hard to emulate him the way he lived, ate, dressed, bathed and cleaned his buts after relieving himself. Muhammad also would fail if weighed according to today’s standards. Yet Muslims try to emulate him in every sense and regard him as the best example to follow. In fact he himself made this claim. Do you really think Muhammad had “sublime morals”?(Q. 68:4) was he a “good example to follow” (Q. 33:21). Was he an “honorable messenger1”? (Q. 81.19)

The question is whether Muslims should follow Muhammad or not. Is he a good example to follow? Obviously you do not think this is such a good idea. However you excuse him because as you say he was a man of the seventh century Arabia and he is not to be judged according to our more advanced and humanistic values. On the other hand you claim that the Quran is a book of guidance and this same book says that Muhammad is the best example to follow. I hope you realize that there is a contradiction here. If Muhammad should not be judged according to our modern standards then he should not be followed in this day and age. We should not follow a man whose standard of humanity was lower than ours.

Furthermore I do not buy the excuse that since Muhammad lived in the seventh century he should not be judged according to our humanistic standards. We have other great men who lived even before Muhammad like Cyrus, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates or other philosophers and saints whose life legacy was not marred by killing, looting, raping, genocide and lust. The history of mankind is full of men who were just, fair and wise. Muhammad can only be compared to the worst of criminals such as Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. This man was a psychopath. Muhammad fails when compared to any standard even his own. The Arabs of Mecca and Medina were far more humane than the man they followed. We have evidence that the Arabs prior to Muhammad did not know of religious intolerance. People of all the religions could preach freely in Arabia prior to Islam. There were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hanifis, Sabeans, and at least 360 pagan religions that co-existed harmoniously. Women in Arabia could own businesses and hire men to serve them. One such entrepreneurial woman was Khadijah the first wife of Muhammad. What happened to that freedom? Islam took that away. Women in Arabia do not enjoy the same freedom that they used to have 1400 years ago. The devastating impact of Islam on other countries is of course far worse. In Iran we had women as rulers and monarchs. What happened to that? Why women now are considered to be a shame to their families and why they should hide themselves under the veil?

P10

Going back in history 1400 years ago is never a scientific solution to any investigation about anyone or anything. In your own article you admit that the story teller was biased. Let us not get bogged down by this and move on to the Koran, the book that you and I have totally opposite views about.

I claim that the Koran is one of the greatest books to humanity for guidance.

I claim therefore it is the word of God and we must cherish it.

I also claim that its message has been greatly destroyed by religious leaders, and that all the followers of these leaders are very misguided.

S10.

These are your claims. But do you have any proof to substantiate these claims? Of course not. It all boils down to the fact that you have CHOSEN to accept these things with no proof whatsoever.

What is your proof that the Quran is the greatest book of guidance to humanity? When I read the Quran all I see is hate, violence and more hate and violence. When I look at the countries that take this book seriously and practice it I see they are immersed in poverty and desolation.

You say that the Quran is the word of God. What is your proof? When I read that book I see it is full of garbage. There is nothing logical or intelligent in that book. It is full of errors, absurdities and incongruencies. Can possibly the maker of this universe be as stupid as it appears to be in the Quran?

You are also wrong when you say that the message of Islam has been destroyed by the religious leaders. I do not care what these religious leaders say. I am concerned about what is written in the Quran. We do not need any other document to incriminate Muhammad than the Quran. Any unbiased person, whose thoughts are not conditioned by prejudice and blind faith, who is capable of reading the Quran objectively and without accepting a priory that it is a book of God will see this book is a concoction of folklore of the ancient people many of which borrowed from the existing lore of the people of Arabia and some ridiculous claims about God, hell and paradise. Apart from some laughable statements about God, and the other world that as you say cannot be proven, every other statement of the Quran can be proven to be false. It is clear that this book is not from God. God cannot be so ignorant about his own creation.

P11

You do speak the truth about today’s Islam. But in my opinion you do not have any proof about the Koran being a weak book. I feel I can prove the falsehood of all your allegations about the Koran and I will share them gladly with you.

You are making over 110 examples of what you think is right and you draw conclusions of your choice. You turn to hadith and you think you have successfully disqualified the Koran. Therefore you find it necessary to rely on the ahadith.

You also think that without “Sha’ne Nozool” for the Koran I am not able to understand the Koran. This is also the claim of all the religious leaders who brought all this darkness to the light of the Koran. I can prove the opposite.

My friend I am asking you in order for us to have a great debate and allowing those who are following our debate a chance of truly see our points of view, that we cover only a few subjects at a time.

Let us put our thinking to a true challenge by presenting one subject at a time and give each other a chance to really go back and forth until our point of view about each subject is clear.

Before I take on all the points you have made about the Koran, please let me say that the approach that you and all the Islamic scholars have toward the Koran is wrong.

The big difference between you and them is they altered the true Islam and made it into an ugly one. You just expose this ugly religion and prove they are full of contradictions therefore can not be from God. In my opinion you are blessed, they are cursed.

Furthermore, the scholars think that the Koran’s laws must be followed blindly under any condition. They are wrong. I will prove it.

I assume you accept their claim only to show how wrong the Koran is.

However this is completely wrong because you do not gather all the verses about a given subject and put all those verses in to your judgment as a whole. Rather you take a few words or at most all the words of one verse and draw a conclusion. This is exactly what religious leaders have done.

This is why I kindly ask you to bear with me and consider what I explained earlier about how the Koran can be used. If this way is not observed, then following the Koran will take any nation into darkest ages of humanity (i.e. Islamic Republic of Iran). This is also true about the Bible, and the Torah.

Let us also talk about taking verses out of its context. I think you did this too many times during our last debate.

For example consider that I tell you: If a person is kind to me then I am going to be kind to him, however if that same person insist to kill me and my family, then I will have to try to kill him to defend myself.

In the above statement I have told you I will kill and be kind to the same person. Does this mean I contradicted myself? Does this mean that I changed my mind according to what kind of mood I was in? Does this mean I was not consistence?

The answer to all the above questions is NO. However you have done this over and over in your debate and with quotations of the Koran. Am I wrong about 2:191 that you claim:

“Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191)”

I claim it gives permission to his followers to defend themselves against the aggressors. Take a look:

(Koran; 2:190) And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.

(Koran; 2:191) And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

I know when all is said and done we have to face our Creator. And if we are stopping the true path of God because of any reason but the true search for the truth, then we will be sorry. So if you still think I am wrong about this verse and this verse only (for now), please let your honorable members speak also so we can get a second opinion on this matter.

S11

My dear good Dr. Pourhassan. Yes I am afraid you are wrong about this verse. The reason you are wrong is because you have taken this verse out of the context. Remember this is exactly what you accused me of. What does context mean? It means understanding when and why Muhammad said this or that thing. This is what the scholars of the Quran call Sha’ne Nozool. You will not be able to understand the real intent of what Muhammad said if you do not know when and why he said it. You dismiss the importance of Sha’ne Nozool and claim that it is not important to know the context in which the verses were said. And still you claim by doing so you can understand the meaning and the intent of the verses better than the scholars who know the context in which these verses were revealed? Although I do respect and admire your knowledge of the Quran, I am afraid I do not agree with your claim.

Let us talk about the verses (2:190,191). These verses were “revealed” (I actually do not believe any verse of the Quran was revealed to Muhammad by any deity. They are the revelations of his own sick mind. I am simply stating how they are referred to by Muslims) when Muhammad was about to invade Mecca. He gathered 10, 000 men at the outskirt of Mecca calling upon the Meccans to surrender or die.

So when he says “ And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you” He is actually saying fight and kill those who defend themselves. When these verses were revealed no one was attacking the Muslims. As a matter of fact no one ever attacked the Muslims. Muslims were always on the offensive mode. He adds “and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.”

This is what Muhammad said only then when his men were ready to invade Mecca, kill everyone and loot that town. That was what Muhammad and his men did to every other town they invaded. Take for example what Muhammad did to the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir Banu Qurayza, Banu al Mustaliq and tens of other Arab tribes. He raided them without a warning and ruthlessly killed anyone who stood in front of him fighting for his life. But the deal with the Meccans was to be different. He did not want to destroy his own people. After all the Meccans were his own cousins and kin. Hence it was necessary to tell his men to fight only those who resisted the invasion but stop killing and looting them if they surrender. The Meccans did surrender without a fight. Muhammad uncharacteristically did not kill but ten of them. He did not even take their belongings. As a matter of fact when he invaded Taif he gave all the booty to the Meccan chiefs such as Abu Sofyan and his sons Yazid and Muavieh and to his angry supporters of Medina he said, “I have sought to incline the hearts of these men unto Islam, whereas ye are already stedfast in your faith? Are ye not satisfied not at others should obtain the flocks and the camels, while ye carry back the Prophet of the Lord unto your homes”. There is no doubt that like his other counterparts such as Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, Muhammad was a master of manipulation and deceit. He was a great vanquishing conquistador. But was he a prophet of God?

As you see my friend, you need to know the context of each verse of the Quran to understand why Muhammad revealed those verses and what he meant by them. You agree that it is important to know the context, yet you say it is not important to know the Sha’ne Nozool of the verses. Sha’ne Nozool means context. If you do not study the history of Islam and the Sha’ne Nozool of these verses, you will not be able to understand the real meaning of the Quran. Perhaps that is why your understanding of the Quran is so different from that of the Islamic scholars. I am confident that with your sincerity and commitment to the truth, once you read the Quran in its proper context you will see this book is evil and nothing but evil. May be then you will join me and together we will fight this curse and free our people from ignorance, fanaticism and hate.

P12

Now about your last debate, since there were so many arguments about the Koran, I thought I would state what you said as a reminder by first writing in bold “You stated”, and then label my answer by writing in bold “My response”.

You stated(#1):

{Muhammad is the subject of our discussion. He claimed to be a prophet of God and made claims that Allah praises him.

"And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4).
“Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21).
We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q. 21:107).
Verily this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q. 81.19)

Since these claims are made in the Quran and since the character, honesty and state of the mind of Muhammad are key to giving any credibility to the Quran, we cannot ignore him and his character in our discussion of the Quran.

Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that the character of Muhammad should not be discussed. Those above verses are the claims of the Quran. Shouldn’t we analyze those claims?}

My response(#1):
The above verses from the Koran can easily be accepted if I can prove to you that the claim against the Koran is an invalid one. If I can prove that everything you say about the Koran is false then the above verses about Mohammad can easily be accepted. That is why I suggested for us to analyze the Koran together about any given subject you like. However you listed many subjects at one time.

Also you have already accepted your claim about the Koran and find it necessary to turn to ahadith.

I will attempt to prove to you that you are wrong about all your claims about the Koran and then there will be no need to talk about ahadith.

Once I am able to do that, instead of relying on some historian’s account of Mohammad and judging him from the eras that we do not understand, we can simply rely on the Koran’s account of who Mohammad was.

If I can not do this then what ever you say about Mohammad you are probably right. As I should keep an open mind about your views and truly try to understand what you are trying to say, I am sure that you will do the same toward my views.

S12

Although I still believe the character of the messenger is very important in determining whether what he say is true or false I do accept this challenge anyway. As I said we need no other evidence than the Quran to show Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a charlatan. So I will abide by your terms that should you prove my claims about the Quran are false I will withdraw the faithfreedom.org from the Internet and will issue an apology to all the Muslims for defaming their religion. I do not promise to convert to Islam though as I would rather go to hell and burn in eternity than submit to a sadistic deity such as Allah. I am also glad to see that you are also committed to the truth and will keep an open mind.

P13

You stated(#2)

{You take for granted that Muhammad was a truthful messenger of God and that Quran is the book of God even before we have a chance to study that book. The conclusion therefore is pre drawn. That is hardly a logical or a scientific approach.}

My response (#2):

You have taken one verse or part of a verse and have drawn a conclusion. This is hardly a logical or even a scientific approach. The scientific and logical approaches would be to be fair and list all the verses about that subject. Once we look at all the verses about a particular subject, then we can determine whether that subject has been defined incorrectly by the Koran or whether the Koran did a great job representing the subject.

No case in the court of law in today’s civilized world can be ruled on until all the evidences have been presented. And the defendant and the accuser both get a fair chance to evaluate and present their views.

S13

I agree with your definition of what is fair and how a scientific approach should be carried out. However I believe my rejection of Islam and the Quran is based on scientific approach. I have followed to the letter the method you described above. I do not take any verse out of the context but study the whole Quran and the when and why or the Sha’ne Nozool of that verse. I insist that it is important to read the Quran and its verses in their proper context, which includes historical context and the reason for which such verse has been revealed. You also insist that the proper way to read the Quran is to read it in its context, yet you seem to have an entirely different understanding of what context means. However I am willing to change my stance should you prove that my assessment of the Quran is mistaken. If you prove that my understanding of the Quran is different from the real meaning of the Quran, I will accept my mistake and will withdraw my accusation not before apologizing publicly.

P14

You stated(#3):

{Is the Quran clear?

You quoted a couple of verses of Muhammad claiming that Quran is clear and easy to understand. I am familiar with those claims. However are they true?

There are many contradictory verses in the Quran that can be quite confusing. This ambiguity has allowed Muslims to have their personalized “divine guidance” based on their own preferences. Those who like tolerance or want to present Islam as a tolerant religion can quote parts of the Quran that advocate tolerance, while the hardliners, the fundamentalists and even the terrorists can quote those parts of the Quran that promote hate and killing of the disbelievers. Therefore ironically everyone can find what he is looking for in that book. And they call this the "miracle" of Quran!}

My response is(#3):

First of all I quoted a couple of verses and then stated that there are many more verses that claim this very thing. If you like I can quote you all the verses. (For example when I discussed the verse that stated the Koran is clear I mentioned that there are 35 more similar verses about this.) However you also (with all due respect) are taking the parts you like about the Koran that you feel justifies your views, and say the book promotes killing. But instead, the Koran clearly says kill if they want to kill you (i.e. 2:190). When it says to be kind to those who are kind and be aggressive toward the ones who want to be aggressive, you easily dismiss the conditions under which the Koran is allowing defensive actions toward the enemy. And you say that God had a change of mood (therefore disqualifying Mohammad)? That is not fair.

Anyone can pick sentences from any book and make up what they want. This would not be a weakness of that book.

S14

I already discussed the verse 2:190. If you had studied the Sha’ne Nozool of that verse you would know that this verse was revealed when Muhammad’s army was at the gates of Mecca, ready to invade that town. If you had known just this the whole meaning of this verse would have become clear to you. The enemy was not about to attack the Muslims but the Muslims were about to attack them. So when it says fight those who fight you it means fight those who resist you, kill those who do not surrender to you.

Do you see how confusing it could be if you do not read the Sha’ne Nozool of the verses and do not view them in their proper context. Here Muhammad is the aggressor. He is not advising the Muslims to fight only if they are attacked. He is telling them not to kill those who surrender but kill those who defend themselves. These are two different things.

Of course if you read the history of Islam and the biography of Muhammad, you’ll see that during the last 10 years of his sojourn in Medina, he waged 67 wars and all of them were offensive. So the history corroborates what the what the Quran says. As a mater of fact the wars of Muhammad were called qazwah. This means raid or sudden attack. I know why you are so reluctant to read the history of Islam. Because then your eyes will be opened and this is painful. You rather avoid knowing the truth and making up your own “facts” as you go. You would rather invent an Islam that is more agreeable to you and make you save face that go through the pain of coping with the embarrassment and the shame of following a monster such as Muhammad. However my dear friend, if now you are embarrassed of what Muhammad did our forefathers used to read these very stories of genocide and crimes perpetrated by their beloved prophet and felt proud of him. They thought the reason he was winning at his wars was because God was with him. It never occurred to them, or perhaps they never dared to say that the reason Muhammad was winning was because he was cunning, used treachery and deceit. Our forefathers had different values form you and I. Look at Khomeini, look and Osama Bin Laden. Look at hundreds of millions of Muslims in Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and virtually every other Islamic country with exception of Iran of today. Muslims think killing the infidels is okay. This is how your forefathers and my forefathers used to think. You and I are the exceptions and we should thank the west for our westernized and humanistic values. Iran today is very much changed. People have seen the real face of Islam and they do not want anything to do with it anymore. However the majority of the Muslims do not see anything wrong with what Muhammad did and they are very angry of you for trying to twist the facts to appease the kafirs and the infidels in the West.

P15

You stated(#4):

{Let us compare some of the contradictory verses of the Quran:

In Surah 73:10 God tells Mohammad to be patient with his opponents,

"Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously".

While in Verse 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents,

"kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out."

My response(#4):

Again you are taking these verses out of context.

(Koran; 73:1-10)

(1) You are bundled up

(2) Stay up all night, except for a little while

(3) Half of it or a trifle less than that,

(4) Or add some to it, and chant the Quran distinctly as it should be chanted.

(5) We will cast a weighty statement on you!

(6) The onset of night is more serious for impressions, as well as more effective for speaking in.

(7) You have lengthy employment during daylight.

(8) Mention your Lord’s name and devote yourself to Him utterly!

(9) Lord of the East and the West, there is no deity except Him, so accept Him as your defender.

(10) Be patient about anything they may say, and steer clear of them in a polite manner

In the above 73:10 the opposition is not fighting him but rather they are saying things about Mohammad and therefore Mohammad is not commanded to fight (which would depend on whether he would be strong enough to fight).

S15

If you had read the Sha’ne Nozool or at least when this verse was written you would not said this. Because this is a Meccan verse. When Muhammad was in Mecca he was weak. He had not power to fight. At that time his talk were sweet. He spoke of patience and forbearance. That kind of speech ended when he gained power and could fight those who did not agree with him. There is a sharp difference between what Muhammad said when he was in Mecca and weak and when he went to Medina and became powerful. The verses and the Suras of the Quran are jumbled tighter without any chronological order. But if you separate the early revelations from the later revelation, you will see the difference and you will not make the mistake that you made above in assuming that Muhammad was strong enough to fight when he revealed the verse 73:10

P16

Verse 2:191 is a completely different situation and comparing it with 73:10 doesn’t work. The verse right before 2:191, 2:190, states clearly to fight those who fight you (which is again a defensive act) and 2:191 is a continuation of that verse.

S16

I already explained the context or the Sha’ne Nozool of this verse and as we saw if you had read this verse in its context you would not say it is about self defense. All Muslim wars were offensive. Are you going to claim that the Muslims invaded Iran to defend themselves? Did Muhammad invade Yeman in self-defense? Did he massacred the Jews of Arabia in self defense? My friend, as long as you refuse reading the history of Islam and how it expanded, no matter how much Quran you may have memorized, your knowledge of Islam and your understanding of the Qurn will remain limited.

P17

When a person expressed his beliefs and people tried to destroy him because they didn’t like his religion, he could choose to fight or to run away. This is because he has a mind. And if he is smart, he should run until he is strong and able. Then when he is strong and able, if the opponent still wants to kill him, then he should defend himself. This all involves a human using his/her common sense. If a person fights when the enemy is for sure going to kill him, then he would be stupid. Mohammad was definitely not stupid (and you already agreed he was smart).

For many years Mohammad chose not to fight back against the much stronger enemy. However the enemy was very unjust and oppressive and wanted to destroy Mohammad and his followers because they would not accept many gods.

S17

No one can accuse Muhammad, Hitler or Stalin of stupidity. These criminals were insane but not stupid.

I agree with you that one has to defend himself if attacked. I agree with you that this is commonsense. However had you read the history of Islam you would not have said what you said above. Muhammad was never persecuted for his religion. As I said before the Arabs were very tolerant of religious diversity. In Arabia, the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hanifis, the Sabeans and hundreds of pagan religions used to co-exist harmoniously. People fought for any reason but never for religion. Jews and Arabs had formed alliances. Sometimes a Jewish tribe would enter in war against another Jewish tribe to defend an allied Arab tribe. Jews were living in Medina for 2000 years since the time of Joshua. When Muhammad was a boy, he used to go to Occaz an annual market place three days away from Mecca and listen to Coss, the bishop of Najran the Christina preacher who used to narrate the stories of the Bible and call people to Christianity. As a matter of fact Waraqa a cousin of Khadija was a Christian monk. The Meccans did not stop Muhammad from preaching his religion. This is yet another lie of the Muslims that has been rehashed so much that is now actually believed. However the history of Islam denies the claim that Muhammad was persecuted for his religious beliefs.

In the verse. 2:191 Muhammad says “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”

Here Muhammad is trying to incite his Meccan followers to wage war against their own relatives and is saying that killing them is not as bad as what they did to you, which is driving you out of your homes. This is of course ludicrous. Would you rather be driven out of your home or be executed?

However the truth is that Meccans did not drive the Muslims out of their homes. The Muslims emigrated on their own volition and because Mohammad told them so. At first he ordered his followers to go to Abyssinia and then when he found enough disciples in Medina, he sent them thither.

Despite the fact that Muhammad constantly insulted the religion of the Quraish and infuriated them with his abrasive behavior the Quraish did not persecute the Muslims and did not kill Muhammad.

Muslims today would not tolerate any criticism against their religion. They would kill at once any person who dares to question their belief. This is what the prophet taught them to do. But Arabs prior to Muhammad were more tolerant. They used to live with the Jews and Christians in harmony without any sign of religious animosity between them. The ultimate test of tolerance came when Muhammad started to taunt their gods. Despite that kind of libeling the Quraish evinced incredible degree of tolerance and although being offended, never harmed Muhammad or his cohorts.

Compare this to the treatment of the Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is do not insult Muhammad or his Allah, they do not reject the Imams nor disagree with any part of the Quran. All they say is that their messenger is the Promised One of the Muslims. This is nothing compared to Muhammad’s affronts of the beliefs of the Quraish. Nevertheless Muslims have not spared any act of atrocity against the Baha’is. They killed many of them, jailed them, tortured them, beat them, denied them of their human rights and treated them with utter inhumanity. None of that was done to Muhammad and his followers in Mecca even though he constantly accosted their gods with showers of taunts and would imprecate their sacred beliefs as if daring them to persecute.

When the Meccans had enough of it and could no more stand Muhammad’s mocking of their deities, a body of their elders repaired to Abu Talib, the uncle of the Prophet and complained: - “This Nephew of thine hath spoken opprobriously of our gods ...

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:39 am

... gods and our religion: and hath abused us as fools, and given out that our forefathers were all astray. Now, avenge us thyself of our adversary; or, (seeing that thou art in the same case with ourselves,) leave him to its that we may take our satisfaction.” (Tabari P. 125) Abu Talib spoke to them softly and assured them he would counsel his nephew to be more deferential. But Muhammad would not change his proceedings. So they went again to Abu Talib in great vexation; and warned him that if he would not restrain his nephew for his offensive conduct, they would have to restrain him themselves. They added thus: - “and now verily we cannot have patience any longer with his abuse of us, our ancestors, and our gods. Wherefore either do thou hold him back from us, or thyself take part with him that the matter may be decided between us.” Ibid

This is all that is recorded about the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca. The above is a warning but falls short of issuing a threat. In fact until Abu Talib was alive and even after his death until Muhammad stayed in Mecca no harm was inflicted upon him nor any of his followers suffered persecution.

Abu Dhar was beaten by his master, Omar beat his sister and there is a false hadith about the persecution of Sumayyah which is contradicted in other hadithes. Where is the evidence of persecution of the Muslims?

So the question arises, if there were no persecution against the Muslims, who forced them out of their homes? Why would they leave their homes if they were not in danger?

The answer to this question can be found with Muhammad and what was going in his mind. It was he who asked his followers to leave. In fact he ordered them to leave making it a mandate from Allah. The Following verses clarify this perfectly.

“Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do.”(Q.8: 72)

These are very harsh words that Muhammad uttered against his own followers who did not leave Mecca and stayed behind. In another verse he presses further this point.

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, (Q.4: 89)

In the above verse Muhammad is ordering the believers of Mecca to forsake their homes and go to Medina. He goes as far as to instruct other Muslims to kill their fellow believers if they decide to return home, which is consistent with the cultic nature of Islam. So as we can witness the exodus of the Muslims from Mecca was not due to any persecution of the Muslims by the idolaters. There was no such a persecution even though Muhammad exasperated the Quraish to their limit of forbearance with his triad of insults. The new converts left Mecca because Muhammad asked them to. His pressure tactics was so intense that he even told them that they would go to hell if they stayed behind and did not emigrate.

Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say: Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein? As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end;(Q.4: 97)

Muhammad had plans to conquer the Arabia and subdue Persia,

The inevitable question is however: “why?” Why would this self proclaim Prophet force his followers to abandon their homes and choose exile when they were not being persecuted? Why would he coerce them to leave their own homeland? This tactic was so unorthodox that even western historians and scholars of Islam like Sprenger and Sir William Muir have failed to see the plot that Muhammad was brewing in his mind from the very early on in his prophetic carrier.

Muir, in The Life of Mohammad, quotes Hishami:

The Coreish, hearing that Abu Talib lay at the point of death, sent a deputation in order that some contact should be made to bind both parties, after his decease should have removed all restraint upon Mahomet. They proposed accordingly that they should retain their ancient faith, and that Mahomet should promise to refrain from abuse or interference; in which case they on their part would agree not to molest him in his faith. Abu Talib called Mahomet, and communicated to him the reasonable request. Mahomet replied -" Nay, but there is one word, which if ye concede, you will thereby conquer Arabia, and reduce Ajam under subjection." "Good!" said Abu Jahl, " not one such word, but ten." Mahomet replied,-" Then say,-There is no God but the Lord, and abandon that which ye worship beside him." And they clapped their hands in rage;-" Dost thou desire, indeed, that we should turn our gods into one God? That were a strange affair!" And they began to say one to another, "This fellow is obstinate and impracticable. Ye will not get from him any concession that ye desire. Return, and let us walk after the faith of our forefathers till God determine the matter betwixt us and him." So they arose and departed. Hishami, p.136.

From the above story we can establish several facts.

a) The Quraish were not persecuting the Muslims and the their leader but asking him to respect their beliefs.

b) Muhammad was adamant to continue his abrasive and opprobrious behavior towards the people of Mecca and their religion.

c) Muhammad was dreaming to conquer Arabia and “reduce Ajam under subjugation”.

As it becomes clear, the Prophet when yet in Mecca with no more than a handful of follower was already fantasizing to conquer Arabia and subdue Persia. Is it befitting for a messenger of God to indulge in reveries about “conquering” and “subduing”? One would expect that the one chosen by God to be the light or mercy and a beacon of love for all mankind, have nobler thoughts of guiding, educating and liberating people, not conquering them and subduing them. These are not the thoughts of a messenger of God but of a conqueror and a vanquishing subjugator. These are the thoughts of authoritarian conquistadors like Changiz Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and Saddam, but not of a prophet of God who, should radiate with love, compassion and other spiritual qualities.

Muhammad was indeed a vivid case of megalomania. He was a narcissist and manic/depressive. When he was high, he had these grandiose thoughts of conquering the world and when he was low he would indulge in thoughts of suicide.

Sahih Bukhari V. 9, Book 87, Number 111

“….the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.

This change of mood gives us the clue that the Prophet was not a messenger of any god but a mentally sick, unstable manic/depressive man. His dreams of conquering and subduing were so intense, and they consumed his inner thoughts with such an ardor that they expunged the shades of right and wrong from his conscience. For him his dream of domination became his primary goal. And to achieve that goal he would stop at nothing. He lied compulsively and so convincingly that even he managed to fool himself. Narcissist often believe in their own lies. Although his earlier visions were the result of his hallucinations and perhaps he was sincere, when those hallucinations stopped he kept revealing spurious verses and perusing his dreams of grandeur with a remarkable obduracy distinctive only of mentally infirm. Megalomaniacs like Muhammad and Hitler often are charismatic people with a compelling personalities that would mesmerize their audience with their speeches, their oomph, and confidence. Watching Hitler’s buoyant, upbeat, inspiring and motivating speeches with his air of confidence and self-assuredness that captivated the imagination of millions of his German listeners, perhaps can give us an insight into the mind of the Apostle of Allah and explain the mystery of his spell over his naïf and unsophisticated companions and devotees.

As he asserted in the deathbed of his uncle Abu Talib, Muhammad dreamed of conquering Arabia and subduing the mighty Persia even when his followers were but a handful of untrained and insignificant lot, with no means to fight or defend themselves. However Muhammad was not just a dreamer, but also someone who would follow up his dreams with extraordinary single mindedness and endurance. In his quest for personal grandeur he would sacrifice everything. He would kill those who would oppose him. He would slay those who would turn their backs to him. He would assassinate those who criticized him. He would wipe out the entire Jewish and Christian population from the Arabic Peninsula and execute one of the most ruthless genocides on the Jewish population of Medina and Kheibar. He would fabricate stories of jinns and angels and would fool his followers with tales of his visits to Heaven and Hell to manipulate his credulous and foolhardy believers. And he would invent an Allah, proclaim to be his messenger and the sole contact between him and thus demand total and unconditional submission to that imaginary deity through himself.

Muhammad dreamed of grandiosity and his plans were perfect. His timing was ideal and he had the best people to work with. Arabs of his time were superstitious, bigot, fanatical, ambitious, ruthless, barbarian, stubborn, chauvinist and above all gullible and a credulous crowd. Conquering Arabia and subduing Ajam for a man of his allure in that milieu was a synch. He would lie to fool people and promise them infinite carnal pleasures and infinite sex in paradise and threaten them with the fire of hell to get their attention and make them ready to kill and be killed at his behest.

But how would he realize his dream without an army? How would he convince his followers to take up their swords and use it against their own brothers, fathers and friends? He had to create the discontent. He had to cause enmity where there were none. He had to incite brother against brother and divide the people so they would willingly take arms and slay each other at his command. Thus, on one hand he set on a campaign to imprecate the deities of the Quraish and taunt them constantly with his rude and boorish remarks to excite them and incite them to hostility who would in turn react and harass his followers and make them feel victimized. And on the other hand he would force his followers to endure the hardship of exile, abandon their homes and flee to a foreign land. As a consequence he put one group against the other, and caused his followers to feel persecuted. Now they were poor, sore and suffered. Muhammad needed that anger and bitterness to foster his own dominance over them and command their obedience. In order to rule, he had to divide. In order to incite hate you must make people feel victimized.

In order to rule ignorant people and make them side with you, you have to give them an enemy. Nothing can make people rally around you more than a common foe. This is the oldest trick in the book, which has been used successfully by all dictators throughout the history of mankind. Even Khomeini used that policy to strengthen his dominance over those gullible Iranians who believed in his lies.

Muhammad. As he boasted in his Quran “Makaroo va makara Allah. va Allah khyrul makereen” was a master deceiver himself. He managed to create religious hate among people who despite their ignorance and bigotry never had evinced religious intolerance before. Now he had a group of supporters who were impoverished, discontent and angry. They were ready to fight for him and help him realize his dreams. Obedience to "God and his Apostle," became the watchword of Islam;-- And of course as usual Allah would reveal verses that give to his Apostle total authority.

Whomsoever disobeyeth GOD AND HIS PROPHET; verily to him shall be the Fire of Hell; they shall be therein always, forever! (Q.72: 23)

More verses such as this???????????????????????????????

It is of interest to note that after enduring years of verbal abuse the Quraish boycotted Muhammad and his supporters from commercial transactions. They would not buy anything from them nor sell to them and would not marry anyone among them. They may even have threatened to punish Muhammad if he would not stop insulting their gods. Upon this Muhammad barricaded himself with the rest of his family members, the Hashemis, (excluding Abu Lahab) in a Quarter of Mecca known as She'b of Abu Talib. This self-imposed durance lasted about 3 years. During this time they would venture out only at the time of hajj and retreat once the pilgrimage was over. But in no time Quraish attacked that quarter. On the contrary they seemed quite pleased that Muhammad was not in the streets shouting obscenities at their deities. Had the Quraish intended to persecute Muslims or kill Muhammad, they had plenty of opportunities to do so. Yet they showed no hostility in the form of violence to any of the Muslims. Though it was much easier for them to wipe out Muhammad and his family who were a small group than it was for him to exterminate the Jewish tribes of Medina who were in the thousands. The Quraysh were fare more humane with the Muhammad than Muhammad was with his opponents.

Nonetheless, the Quraish was ever suspicious of the Prophet and his movements, as they had heard that his followers were increasing in number in Medina. The tone of Muhammad’s message was of doom and gloom and his actions towards the Meccans were perceptibly hostile. Therefore it was natural to be apprehensive of his moves and watch him carefully. Their suspicions picked when they learned that the Prophet had a clandestine rendezvous at midnight with a conclave of the Pilgrims from Medina in Acaba, at the outskirts of Mecca. Meccans were not at war with the people of Yathrib (Medina) but still the Medinans were foreigners. What Muhammad had to do with them? Why he was conspiring with outsiders and what was the purpose of his secret meeting with them in the middle of the night? We cannot blame the Quraish to be nervous and concerned for their own security as they were informed of that secret gathering and viewed it as unwarrantable interference in the domestic affairs of their town.

This forced them to meet and confer with each other to gage the gravity of the situation. The outcome of that meeting is not clear, yet it caused Muhammad to fear for his life and flee the town with his friend Abu Bakr.

Muhammad later recalls that moment and conjectures that perhaps they were plotting to detain him, slay him or expel him. But there is no evidence to prove any of those charges and even his All Knowing god did not seem to be sure as the outcome of that meeting.

"And call to mind when the unbelievers plotted against thee, that they might detain thee, or slay thee, or expel thee. Yea, they plotted; but God plotted likewise. And God is the best of plotters." (Q.8: 29)

P18

According to some historians Mohammad was offered a great deal of wealth to stop the promotion of his idea of worshipping only one God, but since he had no greed for wealth, he refused based on his belief in God.

S18

If this story is true, it only bespeaks of the greatness and humanity of Muhammad’s opponents. Compare that to what Muslims would do to anyone who insults their religion or starts a new one. Muslims would kill anyone who says a word against their belief. Please do not start blaming the “religious leaders” for all the atrocities committed by the Muslims in the name of Islam. Muhammad himself ordered his opponents to be assassinated.

Confucius said: You can judge a man by seeing how his words match his deeds. Lying and murdering are great sins in Islam. Yet Muhammad himself ordered his followers to lie and to assassinate his enemies.

QUOTE FROM BUKHARI, VOLUME 5, #369

Narrated Jabir Abdullah:

Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?" Thereupon Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The prophet said, "Yes". Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). The prophet said, "You may say it."

Maslama went to Ka`b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) [taxes] from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Ka`b said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Ka`b said, "Yes, but you should mortgage something to me." Maslama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka`b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?" Ka`b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so and so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you."

Maslama and his companion promised Ka`b that Maslama would return to him. He came to Ka`b at night along with Ka`b's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Ka`b invited them to come into his fort and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Ka`b replied, None but Maslama and my (foster) ...

None but Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka`b said, "They are none by my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na'ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."

Maslama went with two men. So Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka`b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head."

Ka`b bin al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka`b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Maslama requested Ka`b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka`b said "yes." Maslama smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka`b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka`b said "Yes". When Maslama got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions) "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the prophet and informed him."

How a man can hurt Allah? How can God be hurt by one of his creatures? If he is hurt and wants revenge by killing the person who hurt him can’t he kill him himself? Why he needs to ask his messenger to send one of his followers to do his dirty work? What Muhammad did was more befitting of a mafia godfather than a messenger of God. To lie and commit murder are not godly deeds, unless Muslim’s god is different from the real God.

The stories of Muhammad's plots and assassinations are among the most damaging stories about Muhammad. May modern Muslims prefer to deny the authenticity of these ahadith than try to explain them. However, this is not that easy. These ahadith are classified as sahih (authentic). Why should anyone forge such ahadith in the first place? No intelligent person would accept that Muslims, who fabricated so many false stories about Muhammad’s “miracles” to make him look saintly and a superior being, would fabricate stories that implicate him as a gangster and an assassin, that would have defied their faith and defies our intelligence.

Would a believer say such damaging things about Muhammad if they were not true? In fact the Muslims in their fanatical zeal disregard even human reason to save Muhammad from blemish. While their loyalty is noteworthy, their intellectual honesty is deplorable. Why believers would fabricate so many stories about assassination plots of their prophet? Why Bukhari and Muslim would listen and write ahadith of such horrible nature if they were not true? Why so many Muslims read them for so many centuries and no on denied them? If you pay attention to the details in those stories you would admit that they couldn’t be fabricated. There are names of the people involucrated and there are so many of them. These were people known to everyone.

There are many phony ahadith that anyone could have made-up. Like the one that says water flew out of the fingers of Muhammad, or the stones moved around to hide his but when he went to answer the call of the nature, or that he started to praise Allah as soon as he was born. These are unintelligent stories that have no base. Nevertheless the believers loved to hear them because they strengthened their faith. But the accounts of his assassinations are not the kind of stories that someone would willingly fabricate for the person he loves most.

It is not just one story that portrays Muhammad as an assassin. There are many of them, reported by several people and preserved by several Hadith collectors. All of them corroborate each other. Those who don’t believe in ahadith as religious source of guidance, must accept them as historic sources. The stories of Muhammad's assassinations do not contain religious guidance, (though it became the standard of conduct for Muslims throughout the history) but they are “historic” facts.

There are two categories of Muslims. The first are those that unabashedly defend Muhammad and whatever he did irrespective of any consideration for decency, rightness or justice. The second group, are those that dishonestly deny the facts about him and try to twist the evidence to make Muhammad acceptable by modern morality and values.

I don’t want to pass the judgment as which one is better, but I certainly admire the honesty of the first group that the second group lacks. Sometimes ago I had a debate with someone representing the first category. He had no difficulty accepting the stories of Muhammad’s assassinations and tried to prove Muhammad’s greatness by reminding me that the assassin who went to kill him hurt his ankle and Muhammad touched it and it healed. This gentleman could not think that if Muhammad had powers to heal he would have been able to kill his enemies by remote control and would not have needed to recruit an assassin.

However in my view the greatest enemies of democracy and reform are those pertaining to the second group. These are the ones disguised as intellectuals and modernists. They want to present Islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion. They lie. They twist the facts. They hide the evidence not because they truly believe that Islam is a religion of peace, for anyone who reads that book knows that this is not so. They lie to gain advantages, especially in the West as long as Islam is in the minority and as long as it is weak. But as soon as Islam become powerful, all that sweet talk of tolerance is put aside, the mask will be off and the real face of Islam as evinced by its founder will become manifest. Then those phony smiles give way to showing the fangs. This is precisely how the Prophet himself acted. When he was in Mecca and weak, he spoke of tolerance, but when he became powerful he forgot all that talk and started his campaign of genocide of the Jews and the Christians of Arabia.

For more stories of assassinations plotted by Muhammad and executed by his followers click here.

As for your claim that Muhammad had no greed for wealth, and that is why he refused the offer of the Quraish in order to stick to his belief in God, I am afraid you are very mistaken. The Quraish already believed in Allah and did not have to pay to Muhammad to stop him preaching his religion. You are probably referring to the above episode reported by Hishami. As you see the Quraish were real gentlemen about it. They pleaded Muhammad to stop insulting their gods. If they really offered him wealth to make him stop while they could kill him with no sweet then they should be regarded as champions of tolerance.

However it is absurd to say Muhammad was not a greedy man. If Muhammad did not have greed for wealth then why he raided merchant caravans, and asked ransom for the release of the men he captured in such raid or would kill them if the family of the captives could not come with what he demanded? When Muhammad escaped to Medina he was poor and depended on the charity of this followers for his sustenance. Only a few yeas later he had slaves and lands, horses and camels. How do you think he made his wealth if not by raiding, looting and stealing? It is reported that Ayesha once manumitted 40 slaves in expiation of a broken oath. How many other slaves she had to expiate 40 of them in one go? Where did she get this many slaves? She was just one of Muhammad;s wives? How many slaves all his wives had together? As a matter of fact the war between Shiism and Sunism can be dated back to the garden of Fadak, a lush garden that Muhammad stole from the Jews of Kheibar after killing his owner and gave it to his daughter Fatima. Later Abu Bakr tried to take that property back and this is the beginning of animosity of Ali and his family with the legitimate Khalifas after Muhammad.

My respected friend, Muhammad was an extremely greedy man. He invaded the Jews massacred some and banished others for no other reason but greed. The only guilt of these people was that they were wealthy and Muhammad needed their wealth. Once again please read the history of Muhammad written by the very Muslims to understand this man. If you do not know the history of Islam, your knowledge of the Quran is meaningless.

Now let us assume that the Quaysh actually did offer wealth to Muhammad so he stop preaching his religion and Muhammad did not accept it. Remember that I never said Muhammad was stupid. He was smart and extremely cunning. What do you think it would have happened if Muhammad had accepted that offer? His followers would have left him at once and there would be no need to pay him anything. If I were Muhammad I would not have accepted that offer either. It would have been a total loss of face for him and loss of face is something narcissist cannot accept.

Take the example of Saddam Hussein. The USA offered him to take his billions of stolen money and go in exile to Russia. The Russian agreed with the deal. Those billions of stolen money would certainly have sufficed him to live comfortably for the rest of him life. Yet he preferred defeat than losing face. A narcissist will never go back. A narcissit will rather die than accept the humiliation of and Saddam could shed some light on this matter. America offered Saddam of losing face. It is this insane obstinacy that often catapults the narcissists to power, fame and success. In he case of Muhammad how much money would have sufficed to wash away the shame of being called a liar by the Quraysh and his disappointed followers who actually believed in his lies?

P19

So Mohammad was forced to flee away. However when the enemy kept insisting to kill him and his followers, Mohammad, because he had become strong enough to fight back, bravely choose to defend himself. However he was still a big underdog in his first few wars, but the odds were not impossible. This is when he accepted the challenge of fighting those who wanted to kill him.

S19

You keep repeating the unfounded claim of the Muslims that the enemies of Islam wanted to kill him. What is your evidence for that? Can you please refer me to one provable fact that show the enemies of Islam actually wanted to kill him?

In Medina

After Muhammad and Abu Bakr fled to Medina, their families stayed behind for several weeks. But nothing befell them and the Quraysh did not harm, accost or harass them in anyways. Although as Muir points out “it was not unreasonable that they should have been detained as hostages against any hostile incursion from Medina. These facts lead us to doubt the intense hatred and bitter cruelty, which the strong colouring of tradition is ever ready to attribute to the Coreish In accordance with this view is the fact that the first aggressions, after the Hegira, were solely on the part of Mahomet and his followers. It was not until several of their caravans had been waylaid and plundered, and blood had thus been shed, that the people of Mecca were forced in self-defence to resort to arms”

The fact that Mohammad and Abu Bakr trusted that their families would be safe if left behind in Mecca is a clear indication that the hostilities attributed to the Quraish against the Muslims is an exaggeration and an excuse or a justification for their later invasion of Mecca. None of the Muslims were exiled. All of them were able to emigrate by their own volition. A few of them, were detained by their families and a few who were slaves could not escape. The rest joined Muhammad with no obstruction from the Quraish.

When Muhammad reached Medina, there were about a couple of hundred of emigrants and perhaps an equal number of Medinans of the tribes of Khazraj and Aus who had believed in him. The Meccans were unskilled people and found employment in the fields and plantations. They mostly worked as laborers and journeymen for the wealthy Jews. It was hard on them. The belief in Allah was good but it would not feed them. Muhammad was aware that he could not keep his followers for long if he failed to satisfy their earthly needs. Moreover he had made them immigrate for a purpose: to wage war for him and establish his dominance over Arabia and subdue the Persia.

However his small cluster of followers was unqualified for military tasks. Yet he had offered those who left their homes a goodly home in this world and it was time to deliver his promise or face sedition and defection.

To those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah, after suffering oppression,- We will assuredly give a goodly home in this world; but truly the reward of the Hereafter will be greater. If they only realized (this)! (Q.16: 41)

Whence would he provide them all the goodly things he offered them in this world? That is when he had to put to action the plan that he had devised years earlier. Of course conquering Arabia and subduing the Ajam was not possible with just a few disciples but raiding the merchant caravans and plundering their goods was.

The Prophet turns a bandit.

So the Prophet turns a bandit and thenceforth he ceased to preach, "Speak good to men..." 2: 83 or "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously".73: 10 and started to call for blood, “qateloo”, fight and kill became the buzzword of Allah’s subsequent messages.

During the first six months of Muhammad’s arrival to Medina, nothing important happened. The immigrants including Muhammad himself, had to struggle to make a living to pay for shelter and food.

However the thoughts of Mohammad were not thoughts of peace. He had plans, big plans. The number of his followers were increasing, some defecting from Mecca joining other immigrants and some accepting Islam in Medina. Now he was in a position to command a party of warriors. But the people of Medina had pledged only to defend the Prophet from attack, not to join him in any aggression against the Quraish.

So instead of attacking Mecca, in Dec. A.D. 622 In Ramadhan, seven months after his arrival, the prophet dispatched his uncle Hamza, at the head of thirty Refugees, to surprise a Meccan caravan returning from Syria under the guidance of Abu Jahl. This caravan, was guarded by some 300 men. Hamza’s men had to retreat empty handed to Medina and Abu Jahl proceeded onwards to Mecca. This was the first confrontation started by Muhammad, which was aborted because of shortage of men and bad planning. The god who told Muhammad to raid and plunder the caravans, did not tell him how to do it. And the Prophet had to learn it by trial and error just like any greenhorn thief.

The next event took place a month later in Jan. A.D. 623. At that time Muhammad sent another party double the strength of the first one, under the command of Obeida, ibn Harith, in pursuit of another caravan protected by Abu Sofian with 200 men. This time the Quraish were surprised while their camels were grazing by a fountain in the valley of Rabigh and some arrows were exchanged but the invaders retreated after realizing that the are out numbered by the men accompanying the caravan.

One month later, a third expedition started under the youthful Sa’d, with twenty followers, in the same direction. He was asked to proceed as far as Kharrar, a valley on the road to Mecca, and to lie in wait for a caravan expected to pass that way. Like most of the subsequent marauding parties they intended to affect a surprise. They marched by night and lay in concealment during the day. Notwithstanding this precaution, when they reached their destination in the fifth morning, they found that the caravan had passed a day earlier, and they returned empty-handed to Medina.

These excursions occurred in the winter and spring of the year 623 A.D. On each occasion, Muhammad mounted a white banner on a staff or lance, and presented it to the commander of the expedition, on his departure. The names of those who carried the standard, as well as the names of the commanders, are carefully recorded in ahadith in.

There were three more failed robbery attempt by the Prophet and his men at Abwa, Bowat and Osheira.

Nakhlah the breakthrough

More than one year had passed and despite several attempts and expeditions none of the holy Prophet's robberies were successful. The megalomaniac Messenger of Allah finally realized that he has to start with smaller targets. So when the news reached him of a small merchant caravan going from Mecca to Taif that was guarded by just four men, he seized the opportunity and sent his cousin (the son of his parental aunt) Abdallah ibn Jahsh, with seven other immigrants, to hijack that caravan.

The group of bandits went to Nakhla a Valley between Mecca and Taif known for its date orchards and waited there. In a short time a caravan laden with wine, raisins, and leather, came up. It was guarded by four Qureishits, who, seeing the strangers, were alarmed, and halted. To disarm their apprehensions, one of Abdallah's party shaved his head, in token that they were returning from the lesser pilgrimage; for this was one of the months in which that ceremony was ordinarily performed. The men of the caravan were at once reassured, and turning their camels adrift to pasture, began to prepare food for themselves. Then one of Abdallah’s men advanced; and discharging an arrow, killing a man of the convoy, on the spot. All then rushed upon the caravan and secured two of the guards as hostages while one man escaped.

When the party returned carrying along the stolen property and the hostages, the followers of Muhammad were disappointed for the envoy had violated a long-standing tradition of no hostility during the sacred months. This was embarrassing to the messenger of Allah and he pretended to be angry. He took all the goods confiscated and jailed the captives pretending to be displeased for the timing of the attack. But soon the resourceful Prophet took out another verse from Allah out of his sleeve and condoned the crime thus:

"They will ask thee concerning the Sacred Months, whether they may war therein. SAY : - Warring therein is grievous; but to obstruct the way of God, and to deny him, and hinder men from the Holy Temple, and expel his people from thence, is more grievous with God. Tempting (to Idolatry) is more grievous than killing. They will not leave off to fight against you until they turn you from your faith, if that were ill their power; but whosoever amongst you shall turn back from his faith and die an Unbeliever, -verily their Works are rendered of no effect in this Life and in the next. These are the Dwellers in Hell, - for ever therein. But they that believe, and they who emigrate for the sake of their faith, and strive earnestly in the way of God, - let them hope in the mercy of God: for God is forgiving and merciful." (Q.2: 217)

After promulgating this verse, Muhammad gave over the booty to the captors, who, after presenting a fifth of it to Mohammad, divided the remainder among themselves.

Before Abdallah reached Nakhla, two of his men, Sa’d and Otba, lost their camels that wandered in the desert. They went after their camels and missed the action in Nakhla. When Abdallah returned to Medina, these two men had not returned yet. Muhammad feared that they were captured by the Quraish and refused to ransom the captives till he was assured that no foul play had been used against them: - "if ye have killed my two men," he said, "verily, I will put yours also to death." But, soon after, they showed up, and the Prophet accepted the proffered ransom, - forty ounces of silver for each and released them.

Attacking merchant caravans, fighting during the holy months, deceiving and killing innocent people, stealing the goods unlawfully, taking human hostages, demanding ransom for their release, threatening to kill them, etc. are not acts that one would expect from a messenger of God. What the Prophet did here was terrorism. There can be no justification for that whatsoever.

It was only then that it became clear to the Quraish that their opponent respected no rules. It is interesting to note that the first blood spelt between the Muslims and the non-believers was spelt by a Muslim. In no time Muslims were victimized. They were always the victimizers, the aggressors and provokers. Nevertheless they kept their hatred alive by viewing themselves as the victims. It is amazing how the tradition of deceit and the game of victimization started by Muhammad has survived for the last 1400 years.

Ibn Hisham confirmed, "This was, the first booty that the Mussulmans obtained; the first captives they seized; the first life they took."

The Prophet is said to have designated Abdallah, the head of the bandits of Nakhah, with the distinction of Amir al Mominin, "Commander of the Faithful" an appellation that was assumed in after days by the Caliphs.

This attack showed that the Prophet and his followers would respect neither life nor the universally honored sacred months. But still the Quraish did not retaliate. Though some of the Muslims were still in Mecca, the Quraish attempted no cruelties or reprisals against them. This is in contrast with the Prophet’s way of punishing some for the faults of others. When his men captured the guards of the Caravan in Nakhlah, he was ready to kill them just by assuming that his lost followers were captured and killed by the Meccans. Even if that were true, how could a messenger of God put to death innocent people for the sins of others? However, the most horrendous act of the Prophet’s injustice is his massacre of all the men of Bani Quraiza in retaliation of one of them killing a Muslim who in turn had killed a Jew.

After the successful foray in Nakhlah, the Prophet increased his profitable marauding activities and became an expert in the art of plundering and warfare. More caravans were attacked and more booty filled the coffins of the Prophet and enriched his followers. It was then that the messenger of Allah started to reveal verses encouraging fighting and killing. Like the following:

"Bear good tidings unto the Righteous. Truly the Lord will keep back the Enemy from those who believe, for God loveth not the perfidious Unbeliever. Permission is granted unto those who take up arms for that they have been injuriously entreated; and verily the Lord is Mighty for the assistance of those who have been driven from their homes without just cause, - for no other reason than that they said, God is our Lord. And truly if it were not that God holdeth back mankind, one part of them by means of another part (Q.22: 41)

Notice how the holy Prophet is twisting the facts to rouse his followers into killing frenzy. As we saw Muslims were not “injuriously treated” and they were not driven from their homes. The Quraish did not persecute them for their belief in God. These inflammatory verses were lies. But he wanted to incite his followers to enlist in his army and help him realize his dream of conquering the Arabia and subduing the Ajam.

The treaty that was signed in Medina obliged the inhabitants of that town to protect Mohammad if he was attacked by the Meccans, but it did not require them to take part in offensive wars, plunder and enrich the prophet with spoils of war. But Muhammad needed their participation in his expeditions. The solution was found, as usual, in a revelation.

"War is ordained for you, even though it be irksome unto you. Perchance ye dislike that which is good for you, and love that which is evil for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not."

Yes indeed! God knoweth and ye know not! This was enough explanation for those dimwitted followers of Muhammad then and incidentally it is enough even today for the benighted Muslims.

At this point we have to ask ourselves what makes a man a messenger of God? If not good deeds and good conduct are not needed for one to become a prophet then what is it that sets his apart? In what ways the Prophet excelled the common thieves, the gangsters, the thugs, the hooligans, the hoodlums and the criminals?

P20

This is a great example of Mohammad’s dedication to his teachings. He refused when he was offered all the wealth in the world to stop his prophecy. He was a great example of humility and patience when he chose to run away and used his mind to organize his followers. He was a great example of bravery when he accepted the challenge of his enemies and went to war even though he was the underdog. And lastly, he was a great example of forgiveness as he accepted the plea of his lifelong enemies for peace. His enemies wanted to fight when they were strong, but when they saw they were not as strong as before, (unlike Mohammad) they left their faith and accepted the enemy’s faith just to spare their lives. And spare their lives Mohammad graciously did. When capturing Mecca he did not kill even one of his lifelong enemies, even the enemy who was responsible for the death of many of his followers, including his beloved wife who he cherished and loved for over 20 years. Revenge for the sake of revenge was not on Mohammad’s agenda.

As you can see my friend, if my account of history is right then you are looking at a very ugly and distorted history about Mohammad. In cutting him down you must be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of doubt about what you are saying. But me, about respecting and accepting some historians account of Mohammad’s greatness, don’t need to be absolutely sure. Because accusing is an action that requires certainty, but respecting a man of 1400 years ago does not bring any harm, especially if the message he brought to the world was nothing but love.

S.20

What you wrote is only the example of how people can make up fantasies and believe in them.

Muhammad was never offered the wealth of the world. The Quraysh did not have access to such a wealth to offer it to Muhammad.

Even if the Quraysh had offered his something in exchange for his quitting his taunting their religions, which seems absurd, Muhammad was a narcissist and narcissist are stubborn and will not turn back. Saddam Hussein and Hitler are perfect examples of how narcissists behave. They rather accept death than retreat. Muhammad’s stubbornness is not the sign of his greatness but is the indication of his metal sickness.

Muhammad was not an example of humility. He claimed to be a prophet and demanded absolute obedience from his followers. He said he who disobeys his is as if disobeying God. He revealed verses asking them to be respectful in his presence and do not speak loudly. These are not the signs of a humble man but an arrogant self centered man.

Muhammad was not brave. He ordered his followers to wage war for him and told them if they charge against the enemy and die they will go to paradise. But he himself never took part in any battle. He used to stay behind and excite his followers to fight for him by throwing a handful of dirt at them and cursing them. He used to wear two armors one on top of the other which made him so heavy that he hardly could stand or walk. This is not the sign of a brave man.

Muhammad’s enemies never declared war on him so he could not have accepted their challenge while he was the underdog. The only time the non Muslims attacked the Muslims was the war know as the ditch (Khandaq). The Meccans were fed up of Muhammad’s constant raiding and looting their merchant caravans. They came to stop him and teach him a lesson. Muhammad ordered his followers to dig a ditch and stayed inside the walls of the city. He did not go out to fight. The Meccans got tired of waiting and went back without any fight.

Muhammad was not an example of forgiveness. He was a ruthless man who massacred and banished those whom he did not have need for such as the Jews, but also a calculating man who saved the Meccans who were his own relatives and he knew that blood is ticker that water. He not only did not kill them but in the next battle, he gave them all the booty to “sweeten Islam in the mouth of the Meccans” as he said to his Medinan companions.

Muhammad did not kill the Meccans because the Mecums surrendered without a fight and that was the condition for their surrender. However it was also to the interest of Muhammad not to kill his own relatives. Abu Sofyan was the cousin of Muhammad. The Meccans had never killed any Muslim. It is also not true that Muhammad did not kill anyone in Mecca. Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa'd "Tabaqat".

The quote is from the Tabaqat, Vol 2, page 168.

"The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah

QUOTING FROM THE SIRAT, PAGE 550.

"The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba. Among them was Abdullah Sa'd, brother of the B. Amir Luayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to Uthman Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he [Muhammad] said yes [granting Abdullah immunity from the execution order].

When Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar said, "Then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing."

Ibn Sa'd corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:

"A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the already mentioned Abdullah] if he saw him. Uthman whose foster brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet to kill him. Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfil your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him. The prophet said signalling would have been a breach of faith. It does not behave the prophet to make signal.""

Ali Dashti in his "23 Years, A study of the prophetic career of Muhammad", page 98 sheds more light on this subject.

"The last man named [in the list of people to be killed] had been one of the scribes employed at Medina to write down the 'revelations'. On a number of occassions, with Muhammad's consent, he changed the closing words of verses. For example, when Muhammad said "And God is mighty and wise", Abdullah Sarh suggested 'knowing and wise', and the prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Abdullah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy, he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites."

Now lets go on with the Sirat, and see who else was in that black list of Muhammad. page 550.

"Another [to be killed] was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him."

Muhammad ordered Abdullah Khatal to be killed not because he killed his slave boy but because he apostatized. Muhammad was a narcissist and you cannot turn away from a narcissist without becoming the subject of his wrath. He also killed Khtal’s to slave girls because they sang the satirical songs that he composed against Muhammad.

Remember, they sung these songs about Muhammad years earlier. Muhammad could not forgive them. These slave girls were not threats to Islam. They paid with their lives because Muhammad could not forgive those who maligned him. They sang silly songs about Muhammad and that is why they were put to death.

Ibn Sa'd's writesl, Vol 2, page 172

"The apostle of Allah entered Makkah in the year of victory and on his head there was a helmet. Then he removed it. Ma'n and Musa Ibn Dawud said in their version: A person came to him and said, "O apostle of Allah! Ibn Khatal is holding fast the curtains of al-Kabah. Thereupon the apostle of Allah said: "Kill him." p173: "....kill him wherever you find him"

The same story is narrated by Bukhari , volume 5 #582.

"Narrated Anas bin Malik: "On the day of the Conquest, the prophet entered Mecca, wearing a helmet on his head. When he took it off, a man came and said, "Ibn Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Kaba." The prophet said "Kill him."

Now imagine that Kaaba was a sacred place and those who sought refuge in it were usually saved. But Muhammad was a man with no mercy. He had no regards of the secrecy of Kaaba. He did not shun shedding blood even in that sacred spot. For him everything was a game. God, Kaaba, prayers were just tool to fool people and control their minds.

And Abdullah. Ibn Sa'd continues with this story on page 174:

"Verily the apostle of Alah ordered (his followers) on the day of the Victory to kill Ibn Abi Sarh, Fartana Ibn al-Zibr'ra and Ibn Khatal. Abu Barzah came and saw him (Ibn Khatal) holding fast the curtains of al-Kabah. He (Abu Barzah) ripped open his belly.

Now what happened to the singing girls? Their fate is described in page 551 of the Sirat

"As for Ibn Khatal's two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her."

The other victim of Muhammad was al-Huwayrith Nuqaydh Wahb Qusayy. His story is on page 551 of the Sirat:

"Another was al-Huwayrith Nuqaydh Wahb Qusayy, one of those who used to insult him in Mecca. ... Al-Huwayrith was killed by Ali.

As you see Muhammad had zero tolerance for those who insulted him, mocked him or criticized him. This all points out to his huge ego and the fact that he was a narcissist. He was humiliated in his childhood and hence he could not tolerate criticism, mocking and derision. Anyone who did so paid with his life.

The next was Miqyas Hubaba. In Sirat page 551 we read:

"Another [ordered to be killed] was Miqyas Hubaba because he had killed an Ansari who had killed his brother accidentally, and returned to Quraysh as a polytheist."

page 492 gives more detail of the why he had to be killed:

"Miqyas Subaba came from Mecca as a Muslim, so he professed, saying, "I come to you as a Muslim seeking the bloodwit for my brother who was killed in error." The apostle ordered that he should have the bloodwit for his brother Hisham and he stopped a short while with the apostle. Then he attacked his brother's slayer and killed him and went off to Mecca an apostate."

Miqyas avenged the death of his brother. He obviously was not killed for that. But he was killed because he fooled Muhammad pretending to be a Muslim and then apostatized. Muhammad never forgave those who left him after believing in him.

Page 551 of the Sirat talks about two other victims of Muhammad, Sara and Ikrima:

"And Sara, freed slave of one of the Abdul-Muttalib, and Ikrima Abu Jahl. Sara had insulted him [Muhammad] in Mecca. As for Ikrima, he fled to the Yaman. His wife Umm Hakim Harith Hisham became a Muslim and asked for immunity for him and the apostle gave it. She went to the Yaman in search of him and brought him to the apostle and he accepted Islam." ...

"As for Ibn Khatal's two singing-girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it her. Similarly Sara, who lived until in the time of `Umar a mounted soldier trod her down in the valley of Mecca and killed her. Al-Huwayrith was killed by `Ali."

Although Sara was spared by Muhammad, she remained an outcast and later was murdered by a Muslim who as Tabari says:

Al-Tabari's text ("The History of Tabari", volume 8, SUNY, translated by Michael Fishbein, p. 179)

"She lived until someone in the time of Umar b. al-Khattab caused his horse to trample her at Abtah and killed her.

My dear respected friend. I earnestly urge you to read the history of Islam. Many of your misconceptions about Islam are due to your lack of the true knowledge of the history. You rely on your memory and on the tales that you heard from the Mullahs when you sat at their feet listening to them but you distrust the original books of the history.

Mr. Pour Hasan's letter is too long and I did not have time to respond to the rest of what he wrote.

ali5196 · Post by **ali5196** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:42 am

You stated(#5):

In Surah 2:256 God tells Mohammad not to impose Islam by force,

"There is no compulsion in religion",

Then again in verse 193 He tells his messenger to kill whoever rejects Islam,

"Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's".

My response(#5):

Again you are taking the verse out of its true context. And taking a few words from a given verse is not showing the true picture that the Koran presents about the subject.

To be fair is to gather all the verses about a given subject and then draw a conclusion based on all the facts – a trend that I followed in my book, “The Corruption of Moslem Minds”.

According to the Koran everyone must be free in this world to choose whether to believe in one God, many gods, or no god. However in the other world there will be consequences. If there were no consequences, then (at least to me) the world would seem wasted.

Also I add again Koran 2:190-193 is suggesting a defensive fight not an offensive fight.

Q2:190

And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely God does not love those who exceed the limits.

Q2:191

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the sacred mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Q2:192

But if they desist, then surely God is forgiving, Merciful.

Q2:193

And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Verses 2:190 to 2:193, does not in any way say compulsion in religion is allowed. Do you see this?

If we are going to be brave and speak out against Mohammad so freely, then we should also be brave and admit when we are clearly wrong. This would actually give us credibility not disqualification.

You stated(#6):

In Surah 29:45 God tells Mohammad to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews),

"Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him."

But in Surah 9:29 Allah tells him to fight the people of the Book,

"Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior".

My response(#6):

We must put everything Koran says in perspective of its time. Koran is a book to Arabs of 1400 years ago (6:92, 32:2, 42:5, 43:43). And it tells them to fight with those who fight them and not everybody else 13:38 very clearly says for any given time there is a book.

(Koran; 13:38) … For every era has a book.

The righteous reaction could be very different depending on the era that you are living in and how much advancement the society has to enforce that kind of reaction.

So when God tells Mohammad to tell the Arabs of barbaric eras to speak politely to the people of the book, He is teaching great manner to a people that kill their own new born baby because it is a girl.

For that era this was a necessary teaching. Today we all know better. However when in verse 9:29 God commands them to fight he is talking about fighting against those who fight them first.

(Koran; 9:13) Will you not fight a people who have violated their trust and intended to exile the messenger? They attacked you first! Are you afraid of them? You ought to be even more afraid of God if you are believers.

So this is a mistake that all the so called scholars of Islam have made and you seemed to accept that (when I say mistake, I mean thinking that these verses are absolute, and they must be accepted and copied in all the eras after Mohammad; they accept that to oppress their followers, you accept it to show how wrong Koran is).

And then once the so-called scholar of Islam make their followers to accept that verses of this book are absolute, then they quote any verse out of its context and make their followers kill unjustly for God. And also it gives the opposition to Islam a great tool to disqualify this religion as a compassionate religion.

Well if we accept the whole Koran we will see that the Koran has disqualify this kind of usage of its verses because it clearly says this is not for all times to be copied (3:7-8)

(Koran; 3:7-8) He is the One Who sent you down the book which contains decisive verses. They (form) the basis of the book; while others are allegorical. Those whose hearts are prone to falter follow whatever is allegorical in it, seeking to create dissension by giving (their own) interpretation of it. Yet only God knows its interpretation; whose who are versed in knowledge say: “We believe in it; it all comes from our Lord!” However only prudent persons bear it in mind.

This verse is of great importance as it will show that we must not follow Koran blindly as the Koran contains many verses that are for Arabs of 1400 years ago. As a matter of fact everything in the Koran is for that time except the verses which is referred to as the basic verses. These verses are exactly similar to the ten commandment of the prophet Moses (7:134)

(Koran; 7:134) And We wrote for him on the tablets of everything an admonition, and a distinguishing of everything: “So take it forcefully, and command thy people to take the fairest of it. I shall show you the home for immoral people.

This verse claims that everything humans need for guidance was in the tablets that was given to Mosses. This means when Koran claims to be a complete book (16:89, 12:111, 44:1-4, 39:27, 54:5, 61:8), and when it claims to be a book which has the knowledge of guidance (2:1,91,181, 3:3,132, 7:52, 27:1-2, 31:1-2, and many more), it is referring to those verses that explains virtually the 10 commandment. This is also very clear as we see Koran repeats many times that it contains nothing new from the other religions that God sent down (87:18-19, 41:43, 26:195-198,4:26, 15:10, 20:133, 33:62, 42:13,46:9,48:23). This by no means is referring that the situations that Arabs of 1400 years ago had was exactly like those of other prophets’ eras. Nor does it not mean that these Arabic words used in the Koran are exactly duplicated in Arabic in the Bible or in the Torah.

Some examples are:

(Koran; 41:43) Anything that has been told you is merely what was told (other) messengers before you…

(Koran;26:195-196) (The Koran is) in plain Arabic language. (195) – And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the early men. (196)

And interesting enough it adds that if you have any doubt about it ask the people of the book before it (as you will find same things in their book).

(Koran; 10:94) If you are in any doubt concerning what We have sent down to you, then question those who have read the book before you…

If this brief explanation is kept in our mind then many of the quotations you claim to be contradiction will no longer be that.

Also one last thing I must say about 9:29 is that all the verses that urges Mohammad’s followers of his time to fight is a defensive fight and you must read few verses before or after to be able to see that.

This is why in my book “The Corruption of Moslem Minds”. In chapter 9.3 I have taken all the verses from the Koran where fighting is permitted to the Arabs of 1400 years ago and in all these verses you can clearly states fight with those who fight you (2:190, 22:40 and many more), with justice (49:9, 17:33, 25:68 ) and not to exceed God’s law (8:39)., and to accept peace immediately in any war (47:4, 4:90, 60:8).

You stated(#7):

{Muhammad gives no justification for this discrepancy in Quran and the change in Allah's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational. Muslim apologists in the West present selectively the kinder verses of the Quran or what is known as the Early Revelation.}

My response(#7):

I already explain this in the SR (Stated/Response) number 6.

However please also consider, that if I make the below statement:

“If a person is kind to me I am going to be Kind to him and then if that same person wants to kill me I will kill him.”

In the above statement I have told you to kill and be kind in the same statement. Does this mean I contradicted myself? Does this means that I change my mind according to what kind of mood I am in? Does this means I am not consistence?

The answer to all the above question is NO.

You stated(#8):

While the Muslim clerics preach the violent verses to their only Muslim audience and claims that those softer verses of the Quran are abrogated and supplanted by the later revelation that contains the harsher verses. The reason given is, as Al Maudoody puts it, "Mohammad became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad".

My response(#8):

If someone pulls a gun on you in the street and says: Do not move or I will shoot, should you move? The smart answer is NO. In the same token if a man is going to for sure kill you and your family and let us say you have a gun and you get a chance to shoot him before he shoots you and your family, should you kill him? The smart answer is YES.

Does the above answer “NO” and the answer after that “YES”, contradict each other?

No one should fight back when they are not strong enough to fight. But if they are strong enough then depending on the situation of how harsh and persistence your enemy is maybe you should fight back (i.e. fight against terrorism).

You stated(#9):

For 13 years Muhammad preached in Mecca but less than 100 people accepted him. Meccans preferred Al Nadir, another storyteller to Muhammad’s boring warnings of hell. His irreverence to their gods angered the people. Eventually he migrated to Medina where he found a more receptive audience. His followers also joined him and he called them immigrants. At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in palm plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates. The hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was not interested in work. He had bigger plans. He started raiding the merchant caravans that were carrying goods from Damascus to Mecca. One of these raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a good fortune thereof. Then he planned other highway robberies. He distributed the booty, among those who took part in the battles and kept 20% for himself. He even made money threatening to kill his captives and released them only after receiving ransoms. He assured his followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in Paradise. Gradually his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected preacher but a successful marauding chieftain who commanded absolute power over his followers. With this change of fortune Muhammad's message also changed. Here is a comparison between some early verses he wrote in Mecca while weak and some that he wrote in Medina after becoming powerful.

My response(#9):

You see my friend, biased is biased and telling stories like above will not bring us to a realization of anything about the Koran. Your above story, or even a pro-Mohammad’s version, can not substantiate anything about Mohammad. So we should in my opinion avoid them. However to make this point clear and to show that your story can easily been written by a person opposite to you without changing the facts, I will act as that person and retell your story in a different way and just like your story I will not be able to draw any proof about whether Mohammad was a great man or an awful one.

Here is the same story from perspective of a pro Mohammad person:

“For 13 years Mohammad preached in Mecca. One hundred people immediately were braved enough to accept his invitation to accept only one God. Meccans preferred AL Nadir, another great storyteller who is known to remind people of the other world and consequences our actions will have in the other world.

His denial to worship their many gods angered the people. Eventually he was kicked out and forced to move his followers to Medina, his crime was that he wanted to worship the one and only God. In Medina his message had a chance to be heard by so many many and therefore many brave man and woman of God accepted his message. His brave followers also moved to Medina, he called them immigrants.

At first they were poor and used to work as journeymen in the palm plantations of the Jews living in Medina. They used to give some of their food to Muhammad, who often dined on nothing but few dates. The hardship of life in exile was unbearable to Muhammad. He was a working man as he worked long hours under the sun farming an occupation of prophets before him. However God had other plans for him.

Eventually after many years of accepting oppression God gave permission to him and his followers to defend themselves from the aggressors who wanted nothing better than to kill them on the account of their religion. He foght back and he started to raid those who had raided him in the past for too long (give them a taste of their own medicine). One of these raids that took place at Badr was a big success and the Prophet made a good fortune thereof. As he had proven himself rejecting to accept any wealth in exchange for him stopping his prophecy. As all the prophets of God have other intention in their mind than wealth.

Then he continued his hard work to stop the enemy with all his might.

He distributed the goods, among those who took part in the battles fairly, and unlike the kings of those times, he gave the goods to those people who had risked their lives for God. The 20% that God told him to keep was also spent for building a mosque and was spent on the religion that God had commanded him to spread.

He assured his followers that if they fall in the battles, they would get more rewards in Paradise, a promise that was given to all the prophets before him, a promise brought to his followers from God. Gradually his patience and struggles paid off and his fortunes changed. He was no more a weak neglected prophet but a successful man of God who God gave him absolute power over his followers.

With this change of fortune Muhammad's followers increased, thus forming a great empire so new rules were required to run this great nation.

As you see from the above story I just told, one can not prove or disprove of who Mohammad was. And this is true about your version of the story also.

You stated(#11):

50:45 We will know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them

9:123 Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.

My response(#11):

The above listed verses are misquoted. In your site you posted 3 translations but yet you did not use any of them. In those translations you do not see the word “Murder”. You substitute the word “fight” for “Murder”.

The below are the 3 translations you have provided on your site:

009.123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

The above verses are similar in contents as the SR #5, which I already explained my views about them.

You Stated(#12):

2:83 Speak good to men... 9:5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them

My response(#12):

First of all I must say that Chapter 2 verse 83 was not early verses. This chapter was send to Mohammad on the 22nd year of his prophecy and the chapter right before that, in the same year was chapter 9. So you are wrong to compare them as early verses to latter once.

However my view about them is explained in SR number 5, 6, and 7.

You stated(#13):

20:103 Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord

8:65 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

My response(#13):

My view about the above is explained in SR number 5, 6, and 7.

You stated(#14):

5:69 Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and those of the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior"

My response(#14):

The above verse 5:69 was the part of chapter 5 which was the last chapter that was revealed to Mohammad and chapter 9 was revealed about one year before that. So this is not a comparison of early verses to latter once. This one actually proves the opposite of what you are saying as 5:69 is when Mohammad was in absolutely his highest power, so he is talking about love and compassion at the height of his power. And I think 5:69 is makes us believe that the Koran is sent down by the same one that sent down the Bible, and the Torah. And it shows how God is trying to unite all people who believe in God and do righteous work without any regard of how they worship God or what religion they choose.

And about 9:29 I explained earlier that the verse does not promote fighting with the non-believer of all times, it promotes defensive fighting against those who tried to kill Mohammad and his followers 1400 years ago. This is clearly shown if we read early verses before which is 9:13 and states: Fight with those who first brought fight to you.

You stated(#15):

109:6 To you be your religion, and to me my religion"

3:85 Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers."

My response(#15):

Verse 109:6 tells Mohammad and even confirms it few more times (2:256, 10:99), that there is no compulsion in religion. Verse 3:85 says who ever desires any religion than Islam (bear in mind Islam is a religion brought by Abraham (22:78), and Moses and Jesus and his disciples are referred in the Koran as Moslems (3:52, 5:111, many more)). Islam means submission (to God). So obviously not only Mohammad but all the prophets of God said to their people believe in God or suffer the consequences in the judgment day.

And your previous quote (5:69) proof my point about what God meant by saying no religion but Islam is accepted

(Koran; 5:69) Those who believe and those who are Jews, Sabeans and Christians-anyone who believes in God and the last day, and acts honorably, should have no fear nor will they be saddened.

It is also very crucial that we note that for Mohammad’s time, no excuse will be accepted, however those who don’t believe in Islam today is mainly because it is made up to be a very ugly religion, so those who opposed like yourself is actually bear no guilt as the presentation of Islam to them have been far different than that of prophet Mohammad. This is also true about Judaism and Christianity. For today’s Judaism is presented a lot different to people than it was presented by Mosses himself with all his miracles.

So a lot more is expected of them accepting the plea of God than of us. As they observed all Moses’ miracles first hand, but more than 3000 years later we can not even verify those miracles with physical evidence.

So not only Islam in the Koran is defined as believing in one God, but also the verse we are looking at is talking to Arabs of 1400 years ago. The Koran repeats more than 70 times that if you believe in God and do good you will go to heaven (2:25,62,82,277, 3:57, 4:57,122,124,173, 5:9,69,93, 7:42, 10:4,9, 11:11,23, 13:29, many more).

You stated(#16):

2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

My response(#16):

This is absolutely not a contradiction, but it may appear to be if we disregard the rest of the Koran. So please allow me to explain:

In the Koran it says those who change the book and betrayed God’s writing they will be punished. This is only to those who did this not those who were fooled by this act. For example if someone lies and changes a persons will, he who changes that will be punished not those who respected the altered will and did according to it. This is explain in the Koran as such:

(Koran; 2:181) Whoever then alters it after he has heard it, the sin of it then is only upon those who alter it; surely God is hearing, knowing.

So one must bear in mind that God is not punishing the ones that are ignorant about the alteration of the book. Note the following verse cites one of the reason for sending of Mohammad is this fact that many people of book are following the fault that was presented into the book of God:

(Koran; 5:19) O followers of the book! Indeed Our apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the apostles, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; …

And the below verse makes it very clear that God is angry with those who lie about Jesus long time ago not the one that did not know about this alteration of the book.

(Koran; 4:157) and (also) for their saying. “We killed God’s messenger Christ Jesus, the son of Mary!” They neither killed nor crucified him, even though it seemed so to them…

Note in the above verse is not saying that the Christians of Mohammad’s time claim they killed Jesus, but about the people of almost 600 years before Mohammad’s time.

Anyhow God is angry with those who alter the Book not the Christian that do good deeds but mistakenly think Jesus was son of God and as you can see God even praises them even though they say Jesus is son of God (3:113-114) and this praise is because of their good actions

(Koran; 3:113) They are not all alike; of the followers of the book there is an upright party; they recite Gods’ communications in the night time and they adore.

(3:114) they believe n God and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good.

In certain parts of the Koran, God also speaks very angrily toward the believers(107:4-6):

(Koran; 107:4) So woe to the praying ones,

107:5 Who are unmindful of their prayers,

107:6 Who do (good) to be see (hypocrites),

107:7 And withhold the necessaries of life (from needy once)

You see the above statements are not contradicting to the verses that speaks good about the believers but rather shows that believers can also fall in the traps of the devil and become bad, but again this is not contradiction. You will also find in the Koran when it says the believers that do good deeds will find heaven as their eternal home (and it repeats this verse over 70 times, (i.e. 4:57)).

(Koran; 4:57) And those who believe and do good deeds, We will make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; …

Of course saying God has a son is not accepted by God. This act is no good but the punishment for this act is of the people who initiated this and that is why God is very angry with those who changed the book of God note the following verses about this:

(Koran; 3:41) … neither take a mean price in exchange for My verses…

(3:42) And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).

(Koran; 2:59) But those who were unjust changed it for a saying other than that which had been spoken to them, so We sent upon those who were unjust a pestilence from Heaven, because they transgressed.

(Koran; 2:79) It will be too bad for those who write the book down in their own hand, then say: “This is from God!”, so they may sell it for a paltry price. It will be too bad for them because of what their hands have written. Too bad for whatever they earn!

(Koran; 2:80) … “Say: “ Have you taken it on oath from God? God never breaks His word. Or are you saying something about God which you really do not know?”

(Koran; 2:174) Those who hide what God has sent down in the book and barter it off for a peltry price only suck fire into their bellies. God will not speak to them on the resurrection day nor will He purify them; they will have painful torment!

Verses like the above one are not rare in the Koran. It shows God’s anger with those who try to alter His book and those who write books to hide the Koran (i.e. Resaleh, or books about Ahadith, etc).

So when God says the Jews, and the Christians are very wrong for saying God has a son and those are people that are deluded from the truth and adds the curse of God is on them, He is talking about the ones that knowingly lied about God.

Again if we list all the verses that there is in the Koran about Jews and Christians we will see that the message you get is opposite of what your conclusion is based on couple of verses you quote. Please note the below verse:

(Koran; 5:15) O people of the book! Indeed Our apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the book and will forgive many of you …

And as I showed above (107:4-7) the believers can have also curse of God on them. We can see today’s Islam has the curse of God on them for leaving the Koran (in my opinion), but yet if any Moslem in any of these countries is a very good person he will definitely go to heaven as it is repeatedly stated in the Koran that “believing in God and good deeds” is all that is required for entering heaven.

You state(#17):

10:99 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!

5:11 And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell"

My response(#17):

Again no contradiction is seen above.

If God wanted them all to believe He could have forced them (but He let everyone be free to choose), now at the end of the world they will be judged and then go to Hell for not believing in God. This is the same in all the religions of God.

But very crucial again is the disbeliever of Mohammad’s time or any time are the people who actually used their minds and came to the conclusion that yes Mohammad was the prophet of God and then said no to him. This is very clear if we look at the two verses about who God thinks is the disbeliever.

(Koran; 8:22) The worst animals before God are the deaf and dumb, those who do not use their mind.

(Koran; 8:55) The worst animals for God are those who disbelieve and do not even want to believe

So as it is very clear if a man uses his mind and comes to the conclusion that there is no God and yet is a great man and does good deeds all his life then he is not accepted as disbeliever because those who reject God have certain qualities and God has made them clear.

(Koran; 107:1) Have you seen someone who rejects religion?

(2) That is the person who pushes the orphan aside

(3) and does not promote feeding the needy (3).

And if someone does not believe but has good excuse (which is not accepted when prophets are alive and available to them), then they will be listen to by God (21:24, 27:64, 28:75).

(Koran; 21:24) Yet do they still adopt other gods instead of Him? SAY: “Bring on your proof! …

(Koran; 27:64) … Is there any deity alongside God? SAY: “Bring on your proof if you have been so truthful!”

(Koran; 28:75) We shall drag a witness out of every nation and We shall say: “Bring on your proof!”…

Looking at all these verses together, a person such as yourself who is against prophet Mohammad is blessed if you are honest in your search for truth. And those who say “Salavat (peace be upon Mohammad and …) are cursed for praising Mohammad if they are blindly following a certain path without using their minds.

You state(#18):

29:45 Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him.

9:28 O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year, …”

My response(#18):

The 9:28 is said about the Moshrik that brought fight to Mohammad (see verse 9:13).

As we can clearly see it is talking about those people of Mohammad’s time and obviously they did something terrible to Mohammad and his followers. The mistake you made on your conclusion about this verse could have been avoided if you would look at few verses before (i.e. verse 9:13).

You stated(#19):

15:85 Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning....

14:17 Before him is Hell; and he shall be made to drink boiling water.

My response(#19):

God is a God of gracious and yet justice. Do good deeds and believe in God you will receive heaven. Do bad deeds and don’t believe in God and you will receive Hell.

Do you actually see a contradiction here?

This is the basis of all religions. And in religion we must either accept certain higher power or reject. Doing so is only through faith. If we do then we must accept what that super natural power is saying which is there is a judgment day and in it there will be a Hell and a Heaven. Mosses, Jesus, and Mohammad all clearly said the above verses in their books, the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran.

You stated(#20):

31:15 But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did.

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

My response(#20):

This is similar to SR number18 and 19.

You stated(#21):

6:108 and insult not (Revile not) those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus we made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end they return to their Lord, and we shall then tell them the truth of all that they did

22:19-22 But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Where by that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

My response(#21):

This is similar to SR number18 and 19.

You stated(#22):

5:82 Thou wilt find the nearest of them in love to the believers (Muslims) are those who say 'We are Christians'

9:23 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

My response(#22):

Where do you see a contradiction in the above two verses? I don’t see any.

Also comparing verses from chapter 5 to that of chapter 9 is not comparing early verses to latter ones.

You stated(#23):

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

25:52 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor.

My response(#23):

Similar contents as SR number 18 and 19.

However you also made a mistake of thinking 60:8 is the earlier verses when Mohammad was weak and 25:52 is latter verses when he was strong. Chapter 60 was revealed when Mohammad was in his fourth year in the Madineh (17th year of his prophecy) and chapter 25 was revealed to him on the 10th year of his prophecy when he was in Mecaa.

You stated(#24):

17:53 Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan doth sow dissensions among them: For Satan is to man an avowed enemy.

66:9 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.

My response(#24):

Verse 66:9 is telling the Prophet to strive against them, because as all the people of the world know, the disbelievers of Mohammad’s time were doing nothing but trying to hurt Mohammad and his followers. We all know about all the problems they always gave Mohammad and his followers, so for God to allow them to strive against them after all the mean and evil things they did against Mohammad and his followers, is not an odd thing. However this does not give anyone of Mohammad’s followers or after them all the Moslems of the world a green light to act unjustly toward anyone from any faith and if you see all the verses God sent to Mohammad’s followers to act justly, then maybe you would agree with me:

(Koran; 4:135) O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice …

(Koran; 5:8) O you who believe! Be upright for God, bearers of witness with justice …

(Koran; 5:95) … as two just persons among you shall judge …

(Koran; 5:106) … two just persons from among you …

(Koran; 5:115) Your Lord’s word has been completed so far as credibility and justice are concerned…

(Koran; 6:152) Whenever you speak, be just even though it concerns a close relative…

(Koran; 16:90) God commands justice, kindness and giving to near relatives …

(Koran; 42:15) Therefore appeal (to them) and keep straight on just as you have been ordered to …

And as far as these two verses contradicting my response is the same as communication 5 and 6.

You stated(#25):

43:88,89 O Lord, these are people who do not believe,’ Bear with them and wish them ‘peace.’ In the end they shall know their folly.

47:4 When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.

My response(#25):

Same type of allegation as SR number 5 and 6.

Also 47:4 is not quoted completely, you only quoted some part, however the whole verse must be quoted, specially, if the rest of the verse is going to tell something new about that subject.

Below is the whole quotation, and as we see the whole quotation would reveal that when you are in the battle field and are fighting with your enemies (which at that time were the non-believers) then fight them and smite their necks and overcome them until they stop their war, so obviously these are the behaviors that Mohammad’s followers were commanded to do, in the battle field only. Without the missing part of this verse which was missing from your quote, the reader mistakenly might think different. Let us take a look at this verse:

(Koran; 47:4) So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

You stated(#26):

50:45 We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad SAW) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur'ân, him who fears My Threat. 3:28 Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to fear) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

My response(#26):

If you agree that the Koran has taken believers to be those who do good deeds and the unbeliever to be a person of terrible deeds and character then the above is the wise saying that says: “do not choose your friends among the bad but choose them among the good”. If you do not believe that the believers and nonbelievers are characterized as such in the Koran then please note the following verses:

(Koran; 107:1) Have you seen someone who rejects religion?

(2) That is the person who pushes the orphan aside

(3) and does not promote feeding the needy.

You stated(#27):

Some Muslim scholars have tried to explain this obvious dichotomy..

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:

“ -----”

So according to Dr. M. Khan in Q. 9:5 Allah ordered Mohammad to cancel all covenants and to fight the pagans, the Jews even the Christians. This is in contrast to what Muhammad wrote earlier.

My response(#27):

With all do respect to this Moslem Scholar I do not agree with any of the Scholars of the Koran as they all miss the point as all the Scholars of Jews missed the point of Torah and tried very hard to kill the next prophet, Jesus. And also the Scholars of Christians as they left the Bible. The Scholars try to follow the foot step of their fathers and fathers before them and by doing that they ruined the religions that God sent for humanity. That is why

Jesus stated that this generation are responsible for the lost of Gods work through the prophets.

(Bible; Luke, 11:50-52) “That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, (50) “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of your generation.(51) – “Woe to you lawyers (religious leaders)! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

You stated(#28):

So first it was “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q. 2:265) and then

"O who believe! shall I direct you to a commerce that which will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Apostle (Mohammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That will be better for you, if you but knew. If you do so He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens of Eternity - that is the great success" (Q. 61:10-12)

My response(#28):

No compulsion in religion was always observed by Mohammad. Fight and strive against those who want to destroy you was also commanded to Mohammad when he was strong enough to fight the ones who wanted to kill him and his followers. In my opinion there is absolutely no contradiction here.

You stated(#29):

Muhammad demanded from his followers to wage war against people of their own kin. And to justify his killing sprees he said, “oppression is worse than killing”. The following verse was revealed to incite the immigrants to kill their fellow Meccans because they oppressed them forcing them to leave Mecca.

Q. 2:191

You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.

In fact the Meccans were not sympathetic to Muslims. They mocked and teased them but never killed anyone for accepting Islam. The Meccans were polytheists. Polytheism by its nature is tolerant of other beliefs. Only in Ka’na there were 360 gods, each being the patron of different tribe. Apart from the pagan religions there were Jews, Christians, Sabeans and Zoroastrians who lived in Hijaz and not only practiced but also preached their religion freely. The reason the Meccans were upset of Muhammad was not because he was teaching an new religion but because he was insulting the religion of the Meccans and was disrespectful of their beliefs. The reaction of the Meccans was justifiable and normal.

My response(#29):

ALAMAAAAKKKK PANJANG AMAAAAAATTTT :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: