Robert Spencer provides a biography of Muhammad in chapter 1 of his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), a chapter he entitles “Muhammad: Prophet of War.” I have been writing a rebuttal of this chapter, but as I do so, I realize that perhaps I should contemporaneously provide a “counter-biography.” This will be an attempt at doing that, while at the same time tying in Spencer’s work.
Because the United States is involved in many wars in the Muslim world, many Americans want to know what Islam is all about. Unfortunately, they often either knowingly or unknowingly get that information from extremely anti-Muslim sources. This is especially the case when they hear about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Most Americans are woefully ignorant about Muhammad, and what little they do know is nothing more than talking points against him made by Islamophobes.
There are certainly events in Muhammad’s life that are open to scrutiny (events that we will analyze in this “counter-biography”), but it is extremely ignorant to limit one’s knowledge to these. It would be like studying the history of America’s Founding Fathers, and only focusing on their extramarital affairs, their racism and slave-holding, and their genocidal wars against the American Indians. That’s not history. That’s nothing short of ideologue-driven propaganda.
Indeed, there is a side of Muhammad that Americans desperately need to know in order to have a more balanced and accurate view of him. In fact, there is much about Muhammad that the liberal, secular West has to like. We don’t need to look at Muslim apologia to find this. Rather, it’s found in the books of America’s most respected historians.
On that note, I should probably say something about my use of the term “counter-biography,” which wrongly implies revisionism. In reality, my biography of Muhammad will be in line with mainstream Western scholarship, and it is the narrative taught in America’s universities (and has been for many decades). Meanwhile, it is Robert Spencer’s biography of Muhammad that engages in revisionism born out of nativist populism and a clear anti-Muslim animus. It is exactly the reason that mainstream historians and scholars have nothing but disdain for people like Spencer, and why Spencer in turn accuses them of “dhimmitude.”
With that clarification, our “counter-biography” begins circa 570 A.D., in the city of Mecca, Muhammad’s birthplace. Not much is known about Muhammad’s childhood, but we do know that it was marked by tragedy: his father died when he was only six months of age, and his mother passed away when he was six years old. The newly orphaned boy was taken in by his grandfather, who also died just two years later. His uncle, Abu Talib, then took guardianship of Muhammad.
Family, clan, and tribe meant everything in sixth and seventh-century Arabia. Muhammad’s family and clan were going through difficult times, which must have been especially trying for Muhammad the orphan. It is likely that Muhammad’s childhood experience, as a weak and vulnerable member of an impoverished clan, shaped the man he would become and the views he would hold, particularly his desire to protect the poor and weak from the rich and powerful.
Very little is known about Muhammad’s teenage years. He would accompany his uncle, Abu Talib, on trade caravans to Syria. We also know that Muhammad accompanied him during the Sacrilegious War (Harb al-Fijar), a four-year war that broke out between Muhammad’s tribe and another. The extent of Muhammad’s participation in the war is disputed, but it is generally agreed that it was mostly in a non-combat support role, picking up enemy arrows from the ground.
The very first three lines of Robert Spencer’s biography are extremely misleading as he uses this event to portray Muhammad as having been “experience[d] as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet.” I have already refuted this argument in my previous article, where I pointed out that Muhammad not only played a very limited role (a far cry from the “fierce warrior” image that Spencer has portrayed), but he would later express regret over it.
After the war came to a close, Muhammad participated in the League of the Virtuous (an event that is omitted entirely from Spencer’s biography), a body designed to bring peace on earth and to end bloodshed, violence, and war; the League also aimed “to protect the weak and the defenseless.” I have discussed the League of the Virtuous in more detail here. Under the heading of Hilf al-Fudul (the League of the Virtuous), Thomas Patrick Hughes’ A Dictionary of Islam says:
A confederacy formed…for the suppression of violence and injustice at the restoration of peace after the Sacrilegious war. Muhammad was then a youth, and Sir William Muir says this confederacy “aroused an enthusiasm in the mind of Mahomet [Muhammad], which the exploits of the Sacrilegious war failed to kindle.”
Muhammad liked the idea of “protect[ing] the weak and the defenseless,” this being yet another event in his early life that would inspire him. He also seemed to approve of “international”–or in his context, “super-tribal”–efforts to bring peace to Arabia and thereby avoid bloodshed. Some time later in his life (still before he became a prophet), Muhammad is said to have arbitrated a peaceful settlement between various tribes with regard to the rebuilding of a shrine, a matter that almost came to swords.
It was a few years later that Muhammad declared his prophethood. Robert Spencer writes on p.3 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
But [Muhammad's] unique role as prophet-warrior would come later. After receiving revelations from Allah through the angel Gabriel in 610, he began by just preaching to his tribe the worship of One God and his own position as a prophet. But he was not well received by his Quraysh brethren in Mecca, who reacted disdainfully to his prophetic call and refused to give up their gods.
(Note: “Allah” is simply the Arabic term for “God”; Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, for example, refer to God as “Allah”, as does the Arabic Bible itself.)
Spencer specifically inserts the word “just” into the following sentence: “[Muhammad] began by just preaching to his tribe the worship of One God and his own position as a prophet.” While it is certainly true that Muhammad placed a great emphasis on monotheism, it is not true that he just preached this (or just “his own position as a prophet”).
Neither could these two reasons alone explain why the leaders of the Quraysh (the dominant tribe of Mecca) reacted so disdainfully to Muhammad’s message. Indeed, a strong component of this opposition came from Muhammad’s call to sweeping social reform; Prof. Caesar E. Farah writes:
Muhammad’s preaching of monotheism and social reform went hand in hand. Indeed, no other message is so thoroughly underscored in the revelations received from Allah than the stress on equal treatment and social justice. To Muhammad these constituted a vital concomitant of worship. The revelations of the one and only God enjoin consistently the exercise of mercy and benevolence as the necessary adjuncts of belief in Him.
This dual role of Muhammad as preacher and reformer is largely evident in his life and career. [1]
Muhammad was a strong proponent of social justice, arguing for greater rights and protections for the poor and the weak. He criticized Meccan society as decadent, especially for the way the rich and the powerful (the 1%) treated the most vulnerable members of society (the 99%).
He preached the importance of charity to the poor, a topic that the Quran stresses over and over. The list of Quranic verses and hadiths that mandate or encourage charity is very extensive and too long to reproduce here, but suffice to say, Muhammad would eventually obligate charity upon all Muslims who could afford it. He linked charity to salvation itself, declaring: “Charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire.” [2]
But, Muhammad’s message was more radical than this: in a statement that would make a Republican’s head explode, Muhammad said:
God has made the payment of charity from [your] wealth obligatory on [you], to be taken from the wealthy among [you] and given to the poor. [3]
And further, he said:
God has enjoined upon wealthy Muslims a due to be taken from their wealth corresponding to the needs of the poor among them. The poor will never suffer from starvation or lack of clothes unless the wealthy neglect their due. If they do, God will surely hold them accountable and punish them severely. [4]
The wealthy should not just willingly give their wealth to the poor, but it is the right (haq) of the poor to be granted something from this wealth. The Quran argues that it is from God’s Sustenance from which the prosperous are given their wealth, and that God Himself mandates that a portion of it should be given to the poor:
In their wealth is the right (haq) of the beggar and destitute. (Quran, 51:19)
Not only do the poor have a right to a portion of this wealth, but those who give charity “must wish no reward or thanks” from the one who accepts it (76:9), seeking their reward from God alone. Muhammad obligated a reasonable percentage of one’s wealth to be given to charity (zakat), but recommended giving swaths of it away (sadaqa). He linked charity to salvation, and miserliness in this regard to damnation.
He preached that all humans would be held to account by God for how they spent their money, and that God did not look kindly to those men who “squandered” their wealth on worldly pursuits. This message was not just a kindly suggestion but a stinging rebuke of those who “devour the wealth of mankind wantonly” (Quran, 4:29); it condemned the extremely rich (the 1%) who “squandered [their] wealth in extravagance” and who “hoard[ed] up gold and silver”; the Quran commanded:
Give relatives their due, and the needy, and the wayfarer. Do not squander your wealth in extravagance! Squanderers are the brethren of Satan. (Quran 17:26-27)
That Muhammad supported “the 99%” over “the 1%” can be ascertained by his prayer:
O God, grant me life as a poor man, cause me to die as a poor man, and resurrect me in their company.
When he was asked why that was, he replied:
Because the poor will enter Paradise before the rich. Do not turn away a poor man even if all you can give is half a date. If you love the poor and bring them near you, God will bring you near Him on Judgment Day. [5]
Wealth in Mecca was concentrated among the city’s nobles; Muhammad questioned the concept of nobility altogether, preaching equality before the law and, more importantly, before God. The Quran declared that ”the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you” (Quran, 49:13). Muhammad condemned the inequality of society, whereby the poor would be punished for a crime but a rich person would be let off scott-free. He would later admonish his fellow believers:
The people before you were destroyed [by God] because they inflicted legal punishments on the poor and forgave the rich. [6]
Muhammad spoke out strongly against the practice of usury, the charging of exorbitantly high interest rates. This was a practice that caused many of the poorer people to become completely bankrupt. Meanwhile, Muhammad preached mercy towards debtors. The Quran urged lenders:
If the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay. But if you forgive the debt by way of charity, that is best for you, if you only knew. (Quran, 2:280)
In summary, Muhammad’s message stressed that “wealth should not just circulate between the rich among you” (Quran, 59:7). Prof. Eugene F. Gorski writes:
It should be noted that from the beginning, the religion Muhammad preached was much more than an acceptance of monotheism. The Qur’an required the Meccans to change their immoral ways. The emphasis of the earliest chapters of the Qur’an was overwhelmingly on social-economic justice: it is good to feed the poor and take care of the needy; it is evil to accumulate wealth solely for one’s own behalf. Muhammad condemned the powerful rich for the oppression of the enfeebled poor and insisted that charitable service for one’s fellow human beings was the identifying characteristic of all faithful Muslims. [7]
It is no wonder then that the majority of Muhammad’s early members were from the depressed classes of society, as Prof. Charles Lindholm notes:
In Mecca, Muhammad’s revelations at first had relatively little influence. His original converts were his wife and some of his closest relatives, but most of the early believers were those who were poor, disenfranchised and humble. They were drawn to the Quran’s condemnation of excessive riches, to its advocacy of generous donations to care for the disadvantaged, and to its repudiation of the arrogance and selfishness of the wealthy. [8]
Islam’s early enemies spoke disdainfully of the “rabble” that followed Muhammad. Interestingly, Ali Sina, an ardent Islamophobe (one spoken highly of by Robert Spencer), writes off Muhammad’s early followers, saying:
Compare that to the early followers of Muhammad in Mecca. They were mostly the poor, the disenfranchised slaves, the rebellious youths, and a few disaffected women. He preached to the slaves that they should escape the yoke of their masters and emigrate; he told the youths to disobey their parents and follow him; he spoke of social equality and the brotherhood of all the believers… [9]
Is Sina describing Muhammad’s early followers or “the 99 percent movement”? Like the 99 percent movement of today, it was the rich and powerful that stood in staunch opposition: “Muhammad’s message angered the rich and powerful people of Mecca.” [10] The opposition to Muhammad was led by the nobles of Mecca, who opposed Muhammad’s egalitarian principles and calls to social reform. This was one of their major motivations behind opposing Muhammad (in addition to Muhammad’s call to monotheism). Yet, Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) completely omits this all-important fact, leaving the reader with a skewed impression of Islam’s prophet.
Muhammad also called to reform the condition of slaves and women, which is why he attracted so many slave and women followers. Prof. Stephen P. Heyneman writes:
A major principle of the Qur’an is that of establishing a just society, one concerned with socioeconomic equality among its component parts. The treatment of women and children, as well as reformation of the institution of slavery, were important elements in this concern with establishing an ethical and viable social order. Muhammad criticized Meccan society for its disregard for the welfare of its weaker members; as an orphan, he had personal acquaintance with the treatment meted out to anyone without powerful support.
Many of the reforms of pre-Islamic customs stipulated in the Qur’an concerned the well-being of women and children, particularly girls. Female infanticide (wa’d)–whether for reasons of honor or poverty–was abolished. Reforms were made to ameliorate some injustices committed by men [against women]…Many of the underprivileged referred to in the Qur’an were women…General injunctions include the right of the indigent to share of the abundance of the wealth…
Specific injunctions recommend express measures to better care for the poor and orphaned. [11]
But because the hate propaganda against Islam is so fierce in regard to these two topics (i.e. Islam and slavery, Islam and women), it would require pages and pages of in-depth analysis that I neither have space or time to delve into at the present; therefore, I will postpone this discussion for a later time. Suffice to say, however, it is quite incorrect to claim that Muhammad “just preached” monotheism and “his own position as a prophet.” He preached quite a lot more than that. As William Montgomery Watt wrote:
In his day and generation Muhammad was a social reformer, indeed a reformer even in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. [12]
When it comes to Muhammad, there is a tendency to scrutinize and even malign him to a far greater extent than any other figure in history. There are all sorts of arguments raised to justify this special standard, which I will analyze in the future. For now, however, it is important for the neutral reader to understand that for all that the Islam-haters criticize in this very important historical figure, there is much to like.
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
Footnotes:
[1] Ceasar E. Farah, Islam (7th Ed.), p.38
[2] Sunan al-Tirmidhi : 2541
[3] Sayyid Saabiq, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Section 3.1
[4] Ibid.
[5] Sunan al-Tirmidhi : 1376
[6] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Hadith 778
[7] Eugene F. Gorski, Theology of Religions, p.222
[8] Charles Lindholm, The Islamic Middle East, pp.66-68
[9] Ali Sina, Understanding Muhammad, p.209; Sina goes on to argue, quite unconvincingly, that Muhammad’s early followers must then not have been sincere in their belief of him, an argument he raises with little proof.
[10] Richard Wormser, American Islam, p.17
[11] Stephen P. Heyneman, Islam and Social Policy, p.53
[12] William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p.332
February 3rd, 2012 at 5:19 am
If you ever debate spencer you will DESTROY him-that would be an AWESOME sight. This article is a good look into the prophet of Islam, and is informative.
February 3rd, 2012 at 5:21 am
This is actually, I believe, a big part of the reason he is so maligned- were people to follow his example in this regard, there would probably be no 1%.
February 3rd, 2012 at 5:49 am
There may be some criticism of the above analysis of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) early call in terms of chronological accuracy. For example, it is generally agreed by Muslim historians that usury was only forbidden many years later in the Medinan phase, and not the early Meccan period. Similarly, the obligatory Zakat only became an obligation after the Hijrah to Medina.
But it is certainly true that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) strongly condemned the miserliness of the rich, and he defended the oppressed people of Mecca from the earliest of times. Surah 107 is an early Surah which says those who “deny the religion” do so as a consequence of “pushing away the orphan” and “not encouraging feeding the poor.” Another early Surah says recounting the ills of the Meccan society: “Nay, nay! but you do not honour the orphans! And urge not on the feeding of the poor. And you devour inheritance ― all with greed. And you love wealth with inordinate love!” (89:17-20)”
Similarly an early Surah condemns the one who “amasses wealth and counts it, thinking his wealth will make him immortal.” (104:1-3) An early Surah also recounts and condemns the practice of female infanticide (81:8-9). An early Surah (93) commands the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) to “treat not the orphan with harshness, nor scold the beggar.”
Also quite telling is the speech of the Prophet’s cousin Ja’far ibn Abi Talib to the Abyssinian Negus – which, if true, happened within the first few years of the Prophet’s call. The speech is recorded in Ibn Ishaq’s biography (authenticity?) as follows:
“O King, we were an uncivilised people, worshipping idols, eating corpses [i.e. carrion], committing abominations, breaking natural ties, treating guests badly, and our strong devoured our weak. Thus we were until God sent us an apostle Thus we were until God sent us an apostle whose lineage, truth, trustworthiness, and clemency we know. He summoned us to acknowledge God’s unity and to worship and to renounce the stones and images which we and our fathers formerly worshipped. He commanded us to speak the truth, be faithful to our engagements, mindful of the ties of kinship and kindly hospitality, and to refrain from crimes and bloodshed. He forbade us to commit abominations and to speak lies, and to devour the property of orphans, to vilify chaste women. He commanded us to worship God alone and not to associate anything with Him, and he gave us orders about prayer, almsgiving, and fasting (enumerating the commands of Islam). We confessed his truth and believed in him, and we followed him in what he had brought from God, and we worshipped God alone without associating aught with Him. We treated as forbidden what he forbade, and as lawful what he declared lawful.” (Alfred, Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University press, 2002. PP. 151-152)
February 3rd, 2012 at 6:04 am
@ Muzammil:
These were issues of importance to Muhammad from the start of his mission to the end. My article was not intended to be restricted to a chronological timeline, but rather to highlight overarching themes in Muhammad’s preaching, which as I said, started in Mecca (as you noted above as well). For example, the fact that Muhammad condemned those who hoarded wealth (in Mecca) and then declared zakat an obligation (in Medina) goes to show that this was a strongly held belief that he held on to. It underscores how integral that belief was to him and his message.
But it’s good that you mention this so that it’s clear to readers that this is the case.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:02 am
So Muhammed was like Jesus: a dirty pinko commie.
Good for them. Strange how those who claim to follow them pay little attention to their lessons.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:54 am
Great article, again.
Thank you.
[Ahmed, we saw your message and corrected the offending post. Is that sufficient?--Admin]
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:07 am
I guess I believe in equality too- but is it possible, especially in America?
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:18 am
I personally think Danios is committing the same mistake as Robert Spencer. In the footnotes I see that Danios quotes the Hadiths such as Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Bukhari.
The problem with Hadiths are there authenticity
In his important critique of the hadith Ignaz Goldhizer the father of Muslim studies in Europe, argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the ‘Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the ‘Abbasids who were vying with the ‘Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed.
For a brief glance on his criticism of the hadith see his monumental work Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. A preview can be read at Google Books.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6zeStDQZOSgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ign%C3%A1c+Goldziher&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EQYsT8TUAoi-gAfK29XpDw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hadiths&f=false
If you want to know how he arrived at this methodology then read Muslim Studies
http://books.google.com/books?id=dDwilPs4Ik4C&pg=PR13&dq=Ign%C3%A1c+Goldziher+hadiths&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-gYsT-GlDci9gAfVgIHwDw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ign%C3%A1c%20Goldziher%20hadiths&f=false
Also Edip Yuksel shows us why the hadiths are not reliable here:
http://www.yuksel.org/e/religion/trash.htm
I like when he says the following:
“Again, there are many hadiths about the prophet’s life which you cannot accept them with a sober mind. They are narrated repeatedly in many so-called authentic books. We cannot create a history out of a mishmash of narration by a subjective method of pick and choose. We can create many conflicting portraits of Muhammad out of those hadiths. As for pure historical events that isolated from their moral and religious implications, they are not part of the religion, and we don’t need them for our salvation. I never said “we should not read hadith.” In fact, we can study hadith books to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times. We can even construct a “conjecture” about the history, without attributing them to God or his prophet. Please don’t forget that the “history” is not immune of filtration, censorship and distortion of ruling class. You can see many different versions of histories (!) regarding the era of early Islam . Just read Sunny and Shiite histories.”
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:01 am
@Qualified Agnostic:The equality you are looking for can only be found in the Muslim countries but not in America.Hence you should all pack up your bags and get out of America.There is no room in the Inn for Barbarians any more.You have been well exposed now after 9/11.Take your defender Danios with you.
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:09 am
Truthi dear we are not going anywhere so you might as well leave if you’re not happy with us. I’m sure Geert Wilders would love your company!
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:17 am
Danios,
I was having trouble posting comments here the other day for some odd reason so I hope nothing goes wrong now. Maybe now I will be able to successfully and I won’t encounter whatever problem I encountered the other day. I just want to say that I’m really enjoying this, largely because most of this stuff I never knew before. I agree with Mindy1 you would obliterate Spencer in a debate, and it would be an awesome site to behold. I feel bad that I was foolish enough to take people like him seriously for so long, especially all that I have learned.
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 am
@Believing Atheist: I’d recommend looking at more recent academic works such as those of Harald Motzki, who has almost single-handedly shown without a doubt that the conclusions of Goldziher and Schacht were mistaken and misplaced, in no small part due to the paucity of sources available to them at the time. His methodology is simply amazing, and very, very detailed.
Check out Motzki’s The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence (his earlier book), and more recently, his co-edited Analysing Muslim Traditions: Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghāzī Ḥadīth for seriously in-depth analysis of how the hadith genre works – by arguably the most prominent non-Muslim academic researching in the field today. If it’s something you’re interested in, they are indispensable sources
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:29 am
Truth Seeker,
Is that the best you can do? You’re not really even trying to refute Danios now. If Danios is so wrong, why can’t you site a genuine historian that disagrees with everything he wrote? You know, someone who is an expert in the History of Islam or the Middle East? Someone who is an academic?
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 am
A brief comparision between the treatment of women found in the Bible and the Qur’an, the violence (in quantity and quality) found in the Bible and the Qur’an and the early history of Christianity and Islam reveals why Islam is demonized. There’s nothing particularly surprising about the tortured ‘reasoning’ and the frantic grasping at straws which characterises Spencer & co’s revisionist project. They have to do that so that they avoid seeing the negative (to put it very mildly) consequences Western civilisation has had (and continues to have) on the rest of the world.
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:36 am
”There is no room in the Inn for Barbarians any more.You have been well exposed now after 9/11.Take your defender Danios with you.”
Grow the f**k up you ignorant fool. We are not going anywhere.
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:43 am
1) We are the Muslims!
2) We are united!
3) The occupation is not leaving!
Occupy the Masjid (every Friday) lol
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:50 am
Danios and others,
These islamophobes keep trumpeting the archaic issue of, as they call “Dhimmitude”. But the fact in current Arab countries is amazingly different.
There is NO TAX in Saudi or UAE. I know because I lived there. There is no tax for anybody, in fact even no sales tax. And that’s the reason so many Americans and even more British/Europeans want to work there.
And the funny thing is I still had to pay US Federal tax and Social Security while I was employed there.
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:57 am
@Believing Atheist: I agree with Dawood. There is a lot of new research done on hadith and the preservation of hadith. I recommend M.M. Azami’s Studies in Hadith Literature and Methodology and also Hamidullah’s book on the Introduction to the conservation of hadith: In the light of Sahifah Hammam Ibn Munabbih. But at the same time, I believe that Khaled Abou El Fadl’s Speaking in God’s Name will prove to add a lot more knowledge about the condition of hadith and its status to the muslim. Though written by muslim, I find this book to be really good in terms of its academic rigor. Hope you will find it enjoying as I had.
February 3rd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
<>
@BelievingAtheist,
Further to Dawood’s response – I think most Muslims accept that Hadith’s are not 100% correct. There might be a small percentage that are not exactly correct. But, Islamophobes are more than happy to consider the Hadith’s to be 100% correct when they want to criticise Muhammad (pbuh). So they can’t then say “oh, this Hadith that shows Muhammad (pbuh) in a good light cannot be trusted”.
February 3rd, 2012 at 12:21 pm
@Dawood and @Hasan,
Thank you both. I will read the books both of you have recommended. I recently read a book by Aisha Y. Musa on the behest of Michael Elwood, another commenter at Loonwatch. The book is called “Hadith as Scripture,” which depicts and sums up some of the controversies surrounding the Hadiths and there historical authenticity. If I may recommend a book to both of you as well it would be this one. A brief preview can be found at Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=W9Tz_4g_oSYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hadiths+as+scripture&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SSQsT6LhDIi-gAfK29XpDw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hadiths%20as%20scripture&f=false
February 3rd, 2012 at 12:36 pm
WhiteAmericanMuslim,
You wrote,
————————————————————————–
Danios and others,
These islamophobes keep trumpeting the archaic issue of, as they call “Dhimmitude”. But the fact in current Arab countries is amazingly different.
There is NO TAX in Saudi or UAE. I know because I lived there. There is no tax for anybody, in fact even no sales tax. And that’s the reason so many Americans and even more British/Europeans want to work there.
And the funny thing is I still had to pay US Federal tax and Social Security while I was employed there.
————————————————————————–
Are you telling us that there are no taxes in Arab countries? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying to me. I’m sorry but I do find that hard to believe, if that’s what you’re saying. I looked up taxes in Arab countries, and at a glance I found nothing to support that. Also I think if that were the case libertarian and Anarcho Capitalists would be harping about that.
February 3rd, 2012 at 12:48 pm
@Ahmed,
Ahmed, I think you’re getting at a good point. The Hadiths provide sufficient ammunition for the Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer to use against Muslims. That’s why I believe the Hadiths do more harm than good for Muslims. I will give you two examples:
1.In the case of apostasy. Quran does not punish apostasy in this life. But the hadiths do. I believe Bukhari 9:83:17 says the following:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
This is a clear deviation from the Quran.
2.In the case of homosexuality. The Quran does not punish homosexuality with the death penalty. The Hadiths do. For instance, Abu Dawud 38:4448 states: “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.”
Again this is a clear deviation from the Quran which has no such punishment.
Hence, the Hadiths supply ample artillery for Islamophobes to throw at Muslims and demonize them and demonize the religion of Islam. Isn’t it better then to get rid of the Hadiths altogether?
You can say that Muslims can pick and choose the Hadiths which are in agreement with the Quran. This leads to another problem.
And Edip Yuksel exposes this problem.
Yuksel says: “When followers of Hadith and Sunnah cannot defend the nonsensical and contradictory hadiths (narrations) abundant in their so-called authentic hadith books, they suggest to pick and chose those hadiths that are not contradictory to the Quran.”
http://www.yuksel.org/e/religion/trash.htm
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:51 pm
CriticalDragon;
Yes, I have worked in MidEast for about 10 years. There’s no tax on income in Saudi, UAE and Qatar (where I have worked) Also, there’s no sales tax there on any items.
But since I worked for US Company I had to pay US Social Security and US Federal Tax, however, I was exempt from US State Tax.
Check on Forums of ARAMCO or google for “expat jobs in Saudi” etc and you’ll find out.
No tax is the reason there’s a lot of British/US/European/ Indians/Philipnians/other countries’ people working there.
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
CriticalDragon;
For example look at this site:
http://www.hziegler.com/locations/middle-east/saudi-arabia/articles/faq.html
Look at Section of Money Matters.
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:09 pm
@Believing Atheist: This is why you also need to learn about how Islamic jurisprudence and legal interpretation works. It’s like someone saying to a Rabbinical Jew that the Talmud goes against the Old Testament.
And by the way, Aisha Musa’s book is a very good read – I may not agree with all of the views therein (my choice!), but it’s a very good resource and provides a useful translation of an early polemic on the topic.
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:12 pm
WhiteAmericanMuslim,
Thank you that does clear things up a bit.
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:28 pm
@CritDragon:
I can vouch for what WhiteAmericanMuslim said, at least in UAE and Qatar, that there are no taxes whatsoever; the country made so much from their industry that they saw no need for tax.
However, in-keeping with the spirit of the article, there are usually stalls for people who want to donate sadaqa to the charity trusts spread all over the country.
Also, Danios, what Muzammil’s gist is that, while the spefifics of the zakat and sadaqa was only revealed in Medina period, there is little doubt that the Qur’an was railing against the injustices of the Meccan society even in its early period. Surely you remember the article you did about Allah the Moon God Conspiracy Theory, the Al-Lat theory and the link between that and Meccan female infanticide that the Qur’an condemns fiercely. That is, the Meccans all wanted the boys and ascribed daughters to Allah.
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Dear Danios,
As always I apreciate your industrious scholarship on the subject of Islam and your exposure of the islamaphobic cartels banking off of the irrational fears of the westerners ignorant of Islam.
I would like to propose and idea to you that I feel has been lacking.
so far it seem you and your compratriots have done an excellent job at exposing the “how” of the islamaphobic assault upon truth in regards to Islamic history, but there has not been much done in the way of explaining the “why”.
Of course the obvious is by exploiting the irrational and ignorant they stand to make money from book sales, appearances, and advertising on their respective blogs but that really does not go deep enough.
In my personal experience with irrational hate of Islam, ther is always some underlying motivation that may well be at the subconscious level. For example a Christian Arab immigrant may have a much deeper and vocal hatred of Islam and Muslims because they are so far removed, and they have come from a place where they were a minority and are now in the majority which , in my opinion, gives a sense of power and may bolster their feelings against muslims that barely existed in the home country.
With folks like Geller and Daniel pipes it is fairly easy to see that their main motivation is their ultra-zionism ( I say ultra because not all zionists are extremist racists) but what about Spencer?
from what I know about the man is he is a christian from Turkey. How big a role does that play in his extreme anti-Islamic propaganda. I do not think he is an imbecile or a crazy person ( like geller or bat yeor), I think he purposefully twists and omits facts because of this underlying hatred he has.
Danios, what information can you find about his background that would explain this extreme hatred of Islam? What events in his life or his family history led him to declare this jihad on truth, rationality, and 1.5 billion humans on this earth?
February 3rd, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Great work Danios!!
Thank you
February 3rd, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Sid writes: This is actually, I believe, a big part of the reason he is so maligned – were people to follow his example in this regard, there would probably be no 1%.
The 1% would become more like 3%, or 7%; all would be wealthier; talent and ambition now wasted would flower; and as long as the heirs of capital continued paying the dues of wealth for the benefit of the poor and the destitute, and restrained the predatory who choose the weaker for their prey, this improvement would continue and reach beyond the economic to the cultural and distinctively human.
Of course that is merely the history of the Children of Israel and the Arab muslims, who chose to keep the means of temporal success within their respective families. Success spoiled the successors of Moses’ generation, and success spoiled the successors of Muhammad’s generation ~ in both cases, as prophesied by their Messenger. There is no guarantee that our successors will not follow them into The Fire in similar fashion.
Precognition, clairvoyance, visionary inspiration and other human faculties, isolated from the prophetic context and each other, are manipulated and prostituted to no good ends, and paradise keeps no prisoners ~ children become free to leave their mothers. What God is building with us may ultimately become “old fairy tales” preserved in grandmothers’ bedtime stories. We cannot know the delight or doom of our distant grandchildren, as did Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Jesus, and Muhammad.
Fortunately, no “new prophet” will foretell our success or failure (or both), or reveal anything that is not already known, that could be appropriated as “The Secret” by a new priestly power elite rushing headlong into a “central” power vacuum (that cannot exist without a “new prophet” to leave one behind). “All politics is local,” and faith is nothing if not political.
God took the lives of the prophets before they were conceived in the wombs of their mothers, to use them for our benefit. He shaped their early lives ~ most visibly today with Moses and Muhammad ~ so that when He made known to them His intention for them, they chose His Decree over whatever imagination or ambition or private lives they might have entertained or desired, in most cases not without some persuasion to overcome resistance or reluctance. They surrendered volition, and He spoke with their tongues, He saw through their eyes, and He walked on their feet, with their every breath and fleeting emotion directed by Him toward His purposes and intentions. God put Jonah in the belly of the fish, God hid Muhammad in the belly of the earth for three full days and three full nights, God made Jesus confront and condemn His enemies without the least error or mistaken selfishness, a perfect man in every respect and entirely in the Hand of God. God did that to them as well as with them.
I plan to watch carefully as Danios writes his biography, of a man that Danios believes acted publicly on his own initiative. I wonder how many muslims will read an account that begins with Muhammad’s father ‘Abdallah dying six months after the birth of his son, rather than six months before Muhammad was born, which all credible historians agree was what actually happened.
But Danios has focused his attention on the singular effect of Muhammad’s life ~ not a “reformation” of society, but the formation and foundation of a human society ruled directly by God, to replace what we could call a Darwinian society ~ dominated by the most competent predators who choose the rest of us (the “99%”) as their prey. God took Muhammad, and left us with the means and methodologies, and a demonstration, to re-create that human society in our time, throughout all the generations of humanity, forever. Most writings focus more on the other leg of Islam, asking God’s Help and Guidance in applying those means and methodologies, and neglecting or keeping them hidden from those outside their respective plutocratic oligarchies. My interest in Danios’ work is that it be read and understood by muslims, Christians, Jews, and others of faith ~ which it will not be should it begin with such an academic error as moving the death of Muhammad’s father a year forward in time.
Muhammad was born an orphan ~ one parent was absent from his infancy and childhood: his father. He was sent by his mother to the desert in the care of his milk-mother (whose fortunes changed dramatically for the better), and he spent little time with his mother, in Makkah, before she died.
When it was made known to him that he was The Messenger, he was skeptical until his wife Khadijah and her cousin, a monk-like Christian, confirmed it for him and convinced him ~ at which point he started spending his time wrapped up in a blanket, in a closet, in hiding from everything, until he was ordered by God to “Arise and warn.” Then he began warning his clan, and avoided more public exposure of his mission until he was again ordered to get up and go. The notion that he was some kind of social reformer activist is unsupportable ~ he was a very private person, shy almost to a fault, and shared his opinions with his intimates, not a coffeehouse crowd or on a soapbox in the park, let alone in a candlelight march or at a Wall Street demonstration. Muhammad himself was a social justice proponent, not a public advocate.
But The Messenger, directed by Jibreel at God’s Command, opened the doors to another dimension, was pushed through them, and mentored and witnessed the faithful building a new society according to the instructions of the Qur’an. Muhammad, like Abraham before him, asked for and followed God’s Guidance, moment by moment, for the rest of his life. To attribute to him what God did to and with him is an academic failure of epic proportions ~ he was otherwise an ordinary man, not a polymath as some apologists would make him out to be.
Danios, in my opinion, is more capable of writing a rationally coherent biography than many a muslim “scholar” holding some magical mystery tour fantasy about Muhammad. The Messenger, ennobled and distinguished by God, is nonetheless accessible to the least of us without the aid of priests and politicians. One minute he was a respectable businessman, the next he was the whirlwind riding an avalanche in the eye of the hurricane and a respectable businessman. The man did not disappear when the publicists started turning him into a demigod.
February 3rd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
@BelievingAtheist; Ditto to what Dawood said. Goldhizer’s views have largely been discredited, as have the “Qur’an-Only” movement in general. It’s simply common sense that we would hardly know anything about the life of Muhammad (pbuh) if all we had was the Qur’an. He is only mentioned (by name) five times in the Qur’an, for example. I think a lot of the anti-Hadith sentiment comes from trying to impose Judeo/Christion scholarship onto Islam itself, which is abortive from the start; for the Qur’an is regarded as the actual speech of God, and is a direct revelation from Him. There is no commentary within the Qur’an itself, unless it is God who is doing the commentary on His own Book.
The Bible is different in that there is commentary within the pages of the Book itself, which makes it both a book of scripture and a book of traditions and commentary. We don’t have that in Islam, so we have other sets of books of traditions and commentary, separate from the Qur’an itself which contains only the words of God Himself. Not even Muhammad’s (pbuh) commentary is within the Qur’an itself, unless (again) it is God telling Muhammad to say something which then got recorded into the Qur’an as part of the revelation itself.
Telling Muslims to completely dispense with the Hadith, is akin to telling Jews and Christians to remove every single piece of narration from the Bible and *only* leave the words attributed to the Prophets. It would shorten the book significantly, but it would also lead to confusion as nobody would understand the context surrounding the Prophets’ words.
Peace
February 3rd, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Lawrence of America,
There’s a lot of information on Spencerwatch, Loonwatch’s sister site:
http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/
February 3rd, 2012 at 7:10 pm
@Isa
“Ditto to what Dawood said. Goldhizer’s views have largely been discredited, as have the “Qur’an-Only” movement in general.”
I think that would come as a surprise to a lot of people (scholars and laymen).
“It’s simply common sense that we would hardly know anything about the life of Muhammad (pbuh) if all we had was the Qur’an.”
I think Richard Voss put best when he said:
Too often we become embroiled in arguments over hadith and sunnah with their advocates before considering the disparate assumptions underlying our opposing viewpoints. The debate that ensues often becomes little more than a game, debate for the sake of debate, or a contest to determine the better debater rather than the truth. This complicates discussions. Perhaps while we are occupied in pointless debate, there are others who sincerely wish to know the truth but who are currently deprived of our insight because our time and energy are being consumed by people who have no interest in the truth.
The assumptions that underlie the respective positions of proponents and opponents of hadith and sunnah generally revolve around what is meant by “discarding” them. The opponents of hadith and sunnah are concerned only with the question of sanctity [of upholding God’s word], their proponents, on the other hand, are concerned with the prescriptive vacuum that they fear would be created if all the world’s Muslims suddenly do away with their volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the transcribers of the oral traditions of the early Islamic era. In a given debate, therefore, the Submitter [the advocate of following the Quran alone] may think that “discarding” hadith and sunnah means merely resisting the belief that they could serve as a source of divine guidance, while the advocate of hadith and sunnah may think it means doing away with information valuable for providing insight into certain aspects of early Islamic history. In such a debate, the debaters could reach a consensus if each realizes what the other assumes is understood from the outset.
In order to carry on more rational debates and, more importantly, to determine whether our prospective opponents in debate are interested in the truth or merely the debate itself, we ought to clarify what our main concern is before we start. Do we wish to debate the ostensibly divine origins of the oral traditions or merely their historical or philological merit? Do we wish to debate the accuracy of their content? Do we wish to discuss the reliability of oral tradition in general, of which the hadith and sunnah are merely transcriptions? To many Submitters the oral traditions are as intriguing as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some may hold hadith philology in the same regard as many of us hold non-religious hobbies. Being Submitters, however, they do not confuse their academic interests with their worship. We should be careful not to encourage an exaggerated fear of the oral traditions, just as the advocates of hadith and sunnah should have sense enough not to forment an irrational fear of the consequences of carrying on discussions without them.
http://www.quran.org/library/articles/steven.html
“I think a lot of the anti-Hadith sentiment comes from trying to impose Judeo/Christion scholarship onto Islam itself, which is abortive from the start; for the Qur’an is regarded as the actual speech of God, and is a direct revelation from Him.”
You think incorrectly, my friend. The “anti-hadith sentiment” predates Judeo-Christian scholarship on hadith. That was a major point of Aisha Musa’s book.
“There is no commentary within the Qur’an itself, unless it is God who is doing the commentary on His own Book.”
The Quran disagrees with you. Verse 25:33 refers to the Quran as the best commentary (ahsana tafsir). Ironically, this is said only a few verses after Muhammad complains that his people have abandoned the Quran (see 25:30). The idea that the Quran explains the Quran (tafsir al-quran bil-quran) isn’t exactly novel.
February 3rd, 2012 at 7:13 pm
@BelievingAtheist: Thanks for the recommendation. Looks very interesting. And regarding the position of hadith. As I know, there learned people from the past and in the present knows that there are fabricated hadith, and that in the older days, they have people specialize in the study and collecting fabricated hadith. But the same is also true that there are people who spent their lifetime trying to determine the authenticity of hadith. Though their methodology is objectives, but not the person behind the person scrutinizing the hadith which subjective. But it’s because their greatest effort we have the principal books on hadith. Because of the nature and condition of hadith itself, the learned men in the past were very careful and spent most of their life trying to understand the commands in hadith, which gives way to the emphasis to jurisprudence aspect in Islam. And I believe they have been really creative in understanding such problem.
One example I always find interesting and also a sign that these people truly absorb in their search, that they outcome of their result shows consistency in its characteristic. For example, regarding to purification that due to dogs. Turns out the hadith regarding this purification has many versions which differed in the number of washing and they method of washing.
Ibn Rushd based on his understanding state that due the nature that the hadith themselves weren’t in agreement in number of washing and method of washing, but only agrees in the fact all hadith talks bout washing,hence, you only need to wash and there is no significant religious reasoning behind it. On the other hand, Shafie with his characteristic of taking on the safe side, chose to follow the hadith with the most number of washing and with distinct method of washing 1 time with water mix with soil. When it comes to money for safekeeping, Shafie’s taking on safe side also can be seen when he believes that it is not right for people to use the money that they had been entrusted to keep even when the keeper returns the money equal in sum they had been ask for safekeeping using their own money. Which in Hanafi, it is allowed provided the money return is the same value asked for safe keeping.
Pretty interesting when you think bout it. That they based on same source of hadith but different conclusion, at the same time trying to maintain consistency in through out their whole work.
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:09 pm
@Isa,
I am just curious. You claim that Muslims need the Hadiths in order to get a description of Muhammad i.e., his deeds and sayings and for commentary of the Quran. Then how do you reconcile the contradictions in the Hadiths themselves? At least in the Quran, later verses supersede older ones in a concept known as abrogation or Naksh.
So how will you resolve the contradiction in the Hadiths?
Here is one example:
Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: Who collected the Qur’an at the time of the Prophet ? He replied, Four, all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubai bin Ka’b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. Bukhari 6:61:525
and
Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur’an but four persons: Abu Ad Darda, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of AbuZaid) as he had no offspring . Bukhari 6:61:526
February 4th, 2012 at 2:51 am
@BelievingAtheist. I don’t reconcile the contradictory ahadith. That’s not my expertise, and I don’t have the qualifications to do so. But I still think the ahadith are a valuable historical source that explains the historical context behind Islam’s beginnings, and the life of Muhammad himself. You can’t get that with the Qur’an alone, because there isn’t a lot of information about Muhammad or the historical context surrounding the verses, from the Qur’an alone. That’s where the ahadith come in. That doesn’t mean every hadith is true, or that some ahadith were not fabricated to serve certain political/theological agendas.
February 4th, 2012 at 3:17 am
Believing Athiest
Why do they need to resolve this ‘ problem ‘ . I was under the impression that one of the miricals of the qu’ran was that it was the unchanging word of god , everything else is open to mistakes , faults and accidents . Or as the French call it the ‘arab telephone ‘ or chinese whispers . Look at how long ago such events occurred and at similar events in other parts of the world at the same time and how much we know about them
February 4th, 2012 at 6:11 am
I have been researching prophet Mohammed for the last 3 years and the more i learn about him the more amazed i am,i think gandhi said it best
“It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission.”
I will leave a link to a interesting video which contradicts what Spencer claims ….Enjoy
February 4th, 2012 at 6:21 am
Believing Atheist, I’m no expert but to me the two Hadiths seem to be talking about different things. The first is about the people who were tasked with writing the revelations as they came to the Prophet. The second describes the people who collected these writings into the Quran after the Prophet’s death.
It is important to remember that there were more scribes, but Anas bin Malik only mentioned the four he could remember at the time.
If it was two different people making the claims, then you could say it was a contradiction. But the same person was the source of both Hadiths and if he mentioned one person when replying to Qatada and another when speaking in general is nothing to worry about — all people mentioned were scribes of the Quran so nothing there is incorrect.
February 4th, 2012 at 6:33 am
Believing Atheist
Only the Qurann has remained unchanged, and the same. That is the word of God, as we believe.
The Hadith record the sayings of The Prophet, and they are classed as Strong or weak or unreliable according to how reliable they can be. Sunni Islam use the Hadeeth as reference, but the Shia don’t. They have their own sources and Imams.
Both Sunni and Shia and all sects of Islam (over 70 differing madhabs)however use the Quran as the prime reference.
Therefore, Hadeeths are sometimes contradictory, because they are the recorded words of a person as narrated by someone.
February 4th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Truth Seeker Says:
February 3rd, 2012 at 11:01 am
@Qualified Agnostic:The equality you are looking for can only be found in the Muslim countries but not in America.Hence you should all pack up your bags and get out of America.There is no room in the Inn for Barbarians any more.You have been well exposed now after 9/11.Take your defender Danios with you.
Nah….think I will stay…..
But how bout you leave dumbass?
February 4th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
“Nah….think I will stay…..
But how bout you leave dumbass?”
Thankfully, Truthseeker aka Halalpork isn’t American, but British.
February 4th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Yep , and after that the 1% regained power claimed “kingship ” , paid abu Hurira for false Hadith and killed Hussayn ……
February 4th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
“Thankfully, Truthseeker aka Halalpork isn’t American, but British.”
Yeah… thanks!
Jack
February 4th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Below is my understanding and should not be regarded as Islamic rulings.
1- There were many scribes but these two Ahadith are focusing on those who collected the Quran in its entirety in prophet’s life.
2- Three names (Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid) out of four are common in these two Ahadith.
3- Only difference is, Bukhari 6:61:525 mentions the name of Ubai bin Ka’b and Bukhari 6:61:526 states other name Abu Ad-Darda’.
4- Anas bin Malik, narrator of these two Ahadith, based on his findings mentioned four companions who in his discovery gathered whole Quran in prophet’s life. At one instance he was likely to be positive to include Ubai bin Ka’b and at other instance he dropped him and included the name of Abu Ad-Darda’ or vise versa. OR it could be as explain by JT said: Anas bin Malik only mentioned the four he could remember at the time.
5- One of the general rules for reconciling among sources (conditionally if they are authentic) is to accumulate additional information rather than considering them contradictory. So bases on these two Ahadith, we learned that there were five companions who collected the whole Quran in prophet’s life.
Allah Knows Best.
February 5th, 2012 at 12:28 am
This article is a great one. well researched.
Thanks.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:05 am
The 1 per cent pay half the tax.
February 5th, 2012 at 3:35 am
Halal pork is british ?
Dont believe it .
I espicially dont believe it if he/she said so
Since everything he says is lies he must be telling lies when he or she says they are british
Also he/she does not understand irony
QED not british
February 5th, 2012 at 4:02 am
@ Jack:
Hey, you guys already got Doctor Who, BBC News, The Beatles, The Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones (even if they were playing our music), pretty much all punk and post-punk music, bhangra, the complete works of William Shakespeare, Sir Francis Drake, the Loch Ness monster, Stonehenge, Glastonbury Tor, Idris Elba, the British Museum, the Victoria & Albert Museum, the Sutton Hoo treasure horde, Sean Connery, the white cliffs of Dover, the Blackpool Aquarium, T.E. Lawrence, Konnie Huq, and truth be told, better kebab places than we have. And more of them to boot!
I think it’s fair to say we Americans can do with one less hypocritical anti-Muslim bigot. Okay, technically we DID take Neil Gaiman and John Cleese from you guys, but I hardly think that warrants having halalporker associated with my fair country.
February 5th, 2012 at 5:41 am
@Alan Kayda
Are you a billionaire?
If you’re not the 1%, then you are lobbying against your own interests, which obviously makes no sense.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
February 5th, 2012 at 6:00 am
Zakariya, true that (and I have overcome my revulsion for Matt Smiths very very large face and obese multicolored Daleks so that I can enjoy Dr Who again) but at the same time… no I think you are right.
Just take back Britney Spears and stop producing Friends re-runs please. And Hummers… what the heck is it with those things? Used to see them around RAF Lakenheath… oh yeah we’d like that back as well.
Jack
February 5th, 2012 at 7:06 am
@ David-the fraud:It is da Muslims and Da bum lickers like tu whu speak da lies.
February 5th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Mr Pork did you let a child use your computer? It’s always bottoms and willies and sex with you lot isn’t it… get a life and grow up. And fix your keyboard.
Jack
February 5th, 2012 at 9:47 am
“The 1 per cent pay half the tax”
and so they should since they’re muli-millionaires and billionaires but their % of taxes is lower than the middle class % which makes it unfair. They’re the ones who run the country, who can afford to hire tax attorneys to find loopholes to avoid paying their fair share,and can afford to bribe umm..lobby congressmen to get what they want. So paying half the taxes is not enough! They should be paying more or the 99% should be paying less to make it fair. Tax codes need to change immediately!
February 5th, 2012 at 9:52 am
“Thankfully, Truthseeker aka Halalpork isn’t American, but British”
hahaha…well, that’s one less problem for us. You British can take take responsiblity for this one.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:54 am
Good job Danios on this article. I look forward to your book. It is needed! Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Light and truth will always win out in the end over darkness, propaganda and hate.
I like the thought and the image that Islam advocates for the 99%. I am guessing that this is just one of the many things that most all religions have in common.
February 5th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Bakrastani, how about leaving the secterian debates for elsewhere?
February 5th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Lol seriosly I would think a hooligan like truth seeker would spend his day at a football match with his EDL buddies! Unfortunately there is a local library with computer access near the stadium so at certain times he runs over to the library to type up some noncoherent shyte. This time the match was to close and he has sent his little cousin instead thus the above post
February 5th, 2012 at 11:52 am
“@ David-the fraud:It is da Muslims and Da bum lickers like tu whu speak da lies.”
I didn’t know you can actually type in cockney accent.
February 5th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
But Mohammed preserved the main income source of the Qurayish (the Meccans) by integrating the kaaba and the hajj into his own cult. At the end the business guys in Mecca realized that the few changes he made to their pagan religion would not not affect their profits and agreed to the new deal.
And it paid off. The annual hajj is still a big money maker for the family that controls Saudi Arabia.
I wonder why muslims never think about why a pagan shrine is the center of worship of their religion, and why the have to pray in the direction of a black stone. This stone is not god. And god supposedly doesn’t live in the kaaba. So why?
The answer is easy: Mohammed did not convert the pagans. The pagans converted Mohammed and his followers. So the Arabs had only to eliminate some of the consorts of their pagan god and all the rest stayed the same as always. The pagan god Allah is still the supreme god. The pagan shrine in Mecca is still worshiped. Victory for the Meccans!
February 5th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
There’s no way the Middle Class should be paying more taxes. We need to lower their rates down to the billionaire level.
February 6th, 2012 at 1:00 am
Mortran writes: The annual hajj is still a big money maker for the family that controls Saudi Arabia.
Hajj (during the month) and Umrah (all year) benefit everyone in Makkah and Madinah and elsewhere ~ airlines, travel agencies, hotels, bus and taxi drivers, food vendors and merchants of all varieties, mutawaf guides, etc. Moving four million people seven times in three days; flying half a million tons of refrigerated meat from sacrificial animals all over the muslim world (at Saudi expense); distributing ZamZam water in sufficient quantity that every pilgrim can take 10-40 liters home with them, to all the hotels in Makkah and Madinah as well as at all public facilities near the Sacred Precincts in both cities; burying the thousands of pilgrims who die on Hajj and providing free state-of-the-art medical care for those who don’t; these are logistical exercises that no army in human history has ever been able to match.
The Saudi family has spent billions, if not trillions, modernizing the Hajj facilities ~ fireproof, air-conditioned tent cities accommodating the four million; pedestrian bridges; bullet trains; airport and highway facilities to move people between Jeddah, Madinah, Makkah, and Riyadh; passport and internal security controls ~ that all are fully used once a year. “The family that controls Saudi Arabia” spends more than it gets from the Hajj ~ four million pilgrims spend at least $5,000 each just going to hajj, of which foreign airlines get a sizable chunk, and the hoteliers and other providers get almost all of the rest. When I was there, an entire floor of my hotel was a free hospital ~ flown in from Myanmar at government expense. The governments spend as much as the twenty-plus billion dollars that the pilgrims spend.
I wonder why muslims never think about why a pagan shrine is the center of worship of their religion, and why they have to pray in the direction of a black stone. This stone is not god. And god supposedly doesn’t live in the kaaba. So why?
For the same reason that Jewish people turn their faces toward the Temple Mount in Jerusalem whenever they emerge from roofed enclosures, in their prayers, and at other times, just as they faced the Ark of the Covenant in the desert, and Moses’ house in Egypt. The Ka’abah was the House of God long before Solomon was given permission to build a Temple for the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem, today “A House of God for All Nations.” The twenty Jewish clans waiting for the Messenger of the Covenant in Madinah knew exactly, from the Old Testament, what the change in the Qibla ~ the direction of prayer ~ meant for them. See Fawariq: The Distinctive Character of Tradition ~ which fails to mention that the ritual prayer of Moses is physically identical with that of muslims, which we learned from Jewish filmmaker Marc Levin’s 2005 movie Protocols of Zion many years after 1992.
Preying on the ignorance of Islam of some, and on the superficial knowledge of Islam of others, isn’t going to work for you people any more except in the depths of darkness where you live. But don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of company there, forever, and we’ll protect you from them to the extent that we can and raise your orphans in your religion as it was originally sent down ~ to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Jesus, and/or Muhammad.
February 6th, 2012 at 2:25 am
Rob wrote
“@ David-the fraud:It is da Muslims and Da bum lickers like tu whu speak da lies.
I didn’t know you can actually type in cockney accent.”
First you have to be able to type
Alan wrote
There’s no way the Middle Class should be paying more taxes. We need to lower their rates down to the billionaire level.
Says everything really, total disconnection from reality and the obvious solutions
February 6th, 2012 at 5:45 am
Cockney! How dare thee bring disrespect to that noble tongue! Cockney is a fine language, what this individual ‘speaks’ is pure Trolsh (Troll Shite). Yes I did just make that word up.
Jack
February 12th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
“Only the Qurann has remained unchanged, and the same”
Apart from the bits Aisha said a sheep ate.
Why do so many countries where islam holds sway persecute other religions (if they allow them at all)
Why are saudi arabians so upset because some bloke tweeted about Mohammed? Is islam so weak it can’t stand a bloke comparing himself to a long dead arab?
February 12th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
@Steve
Not too long ago, Christian Europe was a theocracy and it didn’t allow anyone else to practice any religion other than Christianity. Did you know that far Right Conservative Christians in the United States want Christianity to be the official religion, and ban all others?
Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy, and yeah its intolerant and barbaric but that hardly makes all Muslims intolerant or barbaric. If you point to instances of Muslim intolerance and barbarism, I can point to instances of Christian intolerance and barbarism as well.
Here’s an example of Christian intolerance, and inhumanity towards their fellow man.
Anti-homosexual bill in Uganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCivdGSfB0g
Don’t believe me, checkout Uganda’s religious demographics.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/rel-religion
Its a majority Christian country, only about 16% of the people living there are Muslims. Roman Catholic are 33% of the population and Protestants make up another 33%, Meaning that 66% of the country’s total population is Christian. Than people practicing indigenous religions (or indigenous beliefs as Nation Master.com put it) are 18%. That means that people practicing native religions, that were probably there long before Christianity or Islam came to the region even outnumber Muslims living there. Obviously, most of the people who backed Uganda’s anti gay laws are Christians, especially when you consider the fact that some far right wing American Christians endorsed the bill that would make homosexuality in Uganda a death penalty offense.
February 13th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
@CriticalDragon,
we aren’t discussing christianity. The article is about how great Mohammed was so I was just enquiring why so many countries where islam hold sway persecute people of other religions or no religions.
yeah but look at Uganda isn’t really an answer.
I am aware of christian extremists in the US but the fact is that people of any religion or no religion are free to do their own thing in the US which isn’t the case in most countries where islam hold sway.
February 13th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
@Steve
There is no simply answer as to why so many Muslim societies are so backwards and intolerant. To fully answer that question would take a lot of research, but I can safely tell you that its not as simple as something along the lines of this is what Muhammad would have wanted. Regardless of how good or bad Muhammad was as a person, religious interpretations and societies change over time.
February 13th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
“Regardless of how good or bad Muhammad was as a person, religious interpretations and societies change over time”
They do, but that requires people to reassess religion and its place in society. Is there much effort towards that within islam? If anything, with the rise of salafism it seems to be going backwards rather than forwards.
February 13th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
> “There is no simply answer as to why so many Muslim societies are so backwards and intolerant.”
First of all not all Muslim societies are “so backward and intolerant”, that right there is some Orientalism shitty talk-(no-offence). There are plenty of Muslim societies that are advanced and tolerant compare to many other Christian societies in Latin America and Africa that are more backward and intolerant. Europe itself not long ago was so backward as civilisation, and so intolerant that it was practically impossible for any minority to survive in peace, while most of Muslim societies were great sources of advancement and tolerance. And with the European anti-Jewish sentiment during the 20′s, 30′s, 40′s and 50′s, and with Islamophobia thriving in their soils today, I cant say much have really change on European tolerance, so I wouldn’t pass judgment on any other civilisation, while Western minorities themselves are suffering intolerance.
February 13th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
@Steve,
It appears that you ignore the fact that many Muslim societies are totalitarian regimes funding and preserved by the Western powers, most notably the US.
For instance, U.S.-Backed Bahraini Forces Arrest and Deport Two American Peace Activists Acting as Human Rights Observers
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/13/us_backed_bahraini_forces_arrest_and
So Bahran has squashed human rights under U.S. supervision, and through US money and equipment.
And that’s just one example.
February 13th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
@Géji
Sorry I did not mean to say that all Muslim societies are backwards and intolerant. I should have specifically said that some Muslim societies are backwards and intolerant. I just assumed that I didn’t have to do that, because I didn’t specifically say all Muslim societies are backwards and intolerant, assumed that people would not think I was saying that. Sorry about that.
February 13th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Which european countries don’t allow, for example, mosques to be built? Which european countries don’t allow muslims full rights?
February 13th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
@Géji
Also can’t people in some Muslim societies, be put to death for leaving Islam, or saying anything remotely critical of Islam? Now that may not be the case in all Muslim societies, but for those societies where that is the case, I’m sorry but what is that if not intolerant? Regardless of our intolerance in the past, or our irrational Islamophobia today, it does not excuse that. To paraphrase youtuber Ujames 1978 Forever, in one of his videos he states, “Human rights are either universal or they do not exist at all.” Check out his channel, he is not an Islamophobe. In fact search his channel using the terms, Islam, Islamophobia, and anti Muslim bigotry.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Ujames1978Forever
February 13th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@Critical,
human rights should be universal, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – unfortunately most countries where islam holds sway didn’t sign up to it so they have their own Cairo Declaration
February 13th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
@Steve,
Most Muslim countries do allow the construction of Churches.
In fact this very website debunked the claim that the majority of Muslim nations don’t allow them.
PolitiFact: Most Muslim countries allow churches, synagogues
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/politifact-most-muslim-countries-allow-churches-synagogues/
In addition, there’s this story from an Egyptian News paper.
Grand mufti: Islam allows church building in Islamic countries
http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/504378
You can find others by just doing a Google Search.
February 13th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@Steve,
Why don’t you condemn Western powers for sustaining dictators and totalitarian regimes in the Muslim world For example,U.S.-Backed Bahraini Forces Arrest and Deport Two American Peace Activists Acting as Human Rights Observers
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/13/us_backed_bahraini_forces_arrest_and
So Bahran has squashed human rights under U.S. supervision, and through US money and equipment.
And that’s just one example.
Will you condemn Western backing of dictatorships and human rights abusers?
February 13th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
@Believing Atheist
“Will you condemn Western backing of dictatorships and human rights abusers?”
Of course.