Rejecting Dr. David Liepert's Apologetic Myth that Aisha's Age is in Question

I have not yet watched the "Innocence of Muslims" clip, and doubt that I ever will. This is because I can think of better ways of spending a spare quarter-hour than staring at rubbish. The film includes references to the Prophet Muhammad's 9-year-old child bride, Aisha. I know this because people in the skeptics community are asking, how factual is this movie really? And some well-intentioned people are replying with claims that "not one thing in the movie is factual", that , "Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest Aisha was 11-14", and one person even provided a link to an apologetic piece by a Muslim named Dr. David Liepert at the Huffington Post titled, "Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam".

Apparently the arguments raised by Liepert and others have given many the false impression that Aisha's age is a long contested issue in Islam, and that it is a valid argument over interpretation that could eventually lead to reforms within mainstream Islam. The problem I have with this, is that it is certainly not an argument over interpretation. The text clearly say one thing and one thing only. For anyone with a little knowledge on the subject and who has actually read the source material, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. For people like Liepert, simply lying about what sources say may be effective in apologetic pieces, but they are useless if the intentions behind them are to reform the religion.

To explain in a language my readers may understand better; there are valid theological or factual arguments/disagreements, and then there is absurd nonsense that is not worthy of being entertained. For example; there are lots of creationists who claim evolution is not factual because "monkeys still exist, so we haven't evolved from them!!!", and other such ignorant rubbish. Scientists schooled in evolution (in fact, anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject) will either laugh or feel pity for those gullible enough to fall for these arguments. The last thing they or anyone will do is claim evolution is in doubt because there are some non-peer reviewed arguments to the contrary posted by obscure loonies on the Internet.... 

Can you see where I'm going with this?

The claim that most scholars for the last 1200 years have suggested Aisha was 11-14 at the time of her marriage to Muhammad is blatantly in error. To the best of my knowledge, the first ever pro-Muhammad and provably faulty objection raised to Aisha's age was by Maulana Muhammad Ali who lived from 1874 to 1951 (see here). He is a nobody as far as mainstream Islam is concerned, since he belonged to the Ahmadiyya whose beliefs drastically differ from them (think of the difference between Judaism to Christianity, or Christianity to Islam, and you're on the right track). The Ahmadiyya and their writings are heavily focused on missionary work (see here for a previous response to a disingenuous Ahmadiyya missionary at the Huffington Post, where I touch upon some of the major differences).

Then there is Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi who in his Urdu booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat" (English trans. 1997), laments that he is "tired of defending this tradition" that is "laughed" at and "ridiculed" by English-educated individuals he meets in Karachi who claim it is against "sagacity and prudence" and "preferred English society to Islam over this", and he readily admits his "aim is to produce an answer to the enemies of Islam who spatter mud at the pious body of the Generous Prophet". Unsurprisingly, a posthumous fatwa was issued against him in November 2004, labeling him a "Munkir-e-Hadith" (hadith rejector) and a "Kafir" (infidel) on the basis of being a rejector of hadith.

More recently, we have Moiz Amjad (who refers to himself as "The Learner"). He readily admits to having lifted these faulty arguments from them, summarizing and presenting them in response to a Muslim asking him how he can respond to Christians who called Muhammad a pedophile (i.e. all of his arguments, like Ali's and Kandhalvi's before him, were apologetic in nature rather than scholarly). It was at this very recent point in history that the arguments originating from the Ahmadiyya in the 1920s and 1930s finally achieved some limited popularity among a few orthodox Muslims on the Internet. Clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the avalanche in criticism of Muhammad's life, as opposed to any real significant shift in beliefs.

Since then, his arguments have been rehashed by countless apologists on the Internet with the same missionary and apologetic focus. Dr. David Liepert's copy of these arguments are clearly aimed at Christians and other "Islamophobes"  (apparently, he cannot envision a fourth reason for disagreeing with his ignorance, e.g. for the reason of Intellectual honesty). The funny thing about these people is that they have evidently not read the source material, or are not knowledgeable on the subjects they discuss with such feigned authority, because, even though Liepert claims his "conclusions [are] little more than simple common sense", they lift these highly convoluted arguments based on assumptions from Moiz Amjad with all of their obvious lies and faults intact. Additionally, since these 'arguments' are so specific, their original source is obvious, but Liepert and others never choose to reveal this to their readers. Instead they play on their target audience's ignorance, choosing to peddle it as their own 'research' (only recently, I dealt with another apologist doing the very same thing. After I replied to him, he deleted his article within 2 hours).

What I'm saying is, there is not a single serious Muslim scholar (someone who is not considered a complete kook by mainstream Muslims or has less knowledge of the sources than a layman like myself) who would repeat these arguments. Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, who was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world" (p. 94), is a Muslim scholar who is taken very seriously by mainstream Muslims, and deserves my respect simply for taking a stand against Salafi fundamentalism without having to lower himself to the standards held by the likes of Dr. Liepert and others. He responded to Amjad's polemics more than 5 years ago and it has remained unanswered. There has never been a response to "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet". I've presented it to many apologists and they have never countered any of it, simply because they cant. Shaykh Haddad's response is quite literally the "be all and end all of the argument". Including many facts that are easily verifiable for those who have access to the hadith and sira literature, he annihilates the lies and distortions being spread by apologists.

Fact; Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming there is only 1 chain of narration for Aisha's age. There are in fact multiple reliable narrations from many different chains of narrators (lifting their classification from sahih to mutawatir, the highest class of narrations). I've read at least 4 different narrations in Sahih Bukhari and 3 in Sahih Muslim that state she was 9. There are many others in Abu Dawud, Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari's History, etc., that state the same thing. There is none to the contrary.

Fact; even though he claims "it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record", Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming Aisha took part in the Battle of Badr and Uhud, and thus was fifteen years of age. Sahih hadith state the exact opposite, that she only bid farewell to the combatants of Badr and only carried water skins back and forth to the combatants of Uhud (the age restriction applied only to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls).

Fact; Liepert is lying through his teeth when claiming Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage. Nowhere does Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah say this. Rather, Ibn Hisham lists Aisha among "those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." Abu Bakr being Aisha's father, the first Rightly-Guided Caliph of Islam.

Liepert shamelessly spews lie after lie and distortion after distortion, but rather than me going through every single one of them, I suggest reading Shaykh Haddad's unanswered reply to Moiz Amjad, and WikiIslam's and MuslimHope's article on the same subject. 

Some of the things that are not covered in those replies include:

Liepert's claim that "the Quran doesn't condone wife-beating either. In pre-Islamic Arabia, men did not need permission to beat their wives. And although the Arabic root Dzaraba does mean "beat" it also means "heal." Dzaraba denotes action for a higher purpose, such as "striking (or minting) a coin," or "striking out on a new path." Note that Liepert's deception is two-fold here. Not only is he playing on his target audiences ignorance of the Arabic language, he is also playing on their ignorance of Arabian History.

His first claim was lifted from another American Muslim apologist named Laleh Bakhtiar. "Dzaraba" and its usage in Qur'an 4:34 linguistically does not leave room for any other meaning than to physically beat someone. His second claim is not original either. Muslim apologists love to exaggerate the so-called "Period of Ignorance" (Jahiliyah), painting all pre-Islamic Arabians as backward, cave-dwelling Neanderthals. This is a view that is contradicted by Islam's own text. In Sahih Bukhari 7:6:715, a Muslim woman complains to Muhammad about her husband beating her until her skin literally turned green. Muhammad refuses to condemn this behavior. Instead choosing to provide his tacit approval of wife-beating by siding with the husband. Ironically, it is the young Aisha who refutes Liepert's claim when she exclaims, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" This of course means Muslim women in Arabia were being treated worse than their pagan and Abrahamic Arabian counterparts.

Liepert claims that "the Sunnah confirms that both Aisha's betrothal and consummation occurred with Aisha's enthusiastic agreement. In fact, some even imply she went against the initial wishes of her Dad!". This is a blatant lie. In Islam, a bride's father or father's father may "compel their charge to marry... without her consent." In fact, Muslim scholars are "unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her". This is all based on the unquestionable fact that Aisha did not give her consent to the marriage. 

Liepert also claims that Christians attack Islam for pedophilia, but Muslims never attack Christianity for it. This is, once again, a provable lie. Muslims often attack both Christians and Jews with the accusation that their faiths allow pedophilia. Most Western Christians are either too stupid or too infatuated with Zionism to care less, but I have several pages that destroy their very silly and desperate arguments (for example; see here, here and here). Not only do Muslim apologists erroneously accuse Judaism of permitting pedophilia, they actually go one step further than the Christian "Islamophobes" and accuse the Christian god himself of being a pedophile (how's that for some Muslim "Christophobia"?).  

Liepert amazingly blames "Islamophobes", in addition to blaming Muslims (including imam Bukhari, who is considered to be one of the greatest Muslims to have ever lived), for perpetuating child marriages in the Muslim world. Well, I have news for him. The blame squarely falls on one individual. With an age difference of 45 years, this individual married a child 6 times younger than himself (Aisha was 9 and he was 54). Because of this individual's actions, millions of young girls today are forced into pedophilic child marriages by individuals, and even entire nations, who explicitly use Aisha's relationship with him as justification. Yes, this man is none other than Prophet Muhammad. Someone who more than a billion people believe is the greatest and most moral man to have ever walked this earth.

If anything today is helping to perpetuate the existence of pedophilic child marriages in the Muslim world, it is the lies peddled by these shameless individuals. Change and reform is a result of honest discussion and criticism, the same honest discussion that these people are trying to avoid through inventing false myths, and the same honest criticism that these people are trying to stifle by smearing everyone who raises them as "Islamophobic" bigots.  Change and reform is also the result of human self-reflection, the same self-reflection that these shameless people are trying their damnedest to isolate and immunize the Muslim world from.

I can understand creationists and religious zombies repeating rubbish as facts without doing any fact-checking, but it is not something I expect to see from skeptics. There seems to exist a collective fear that the truth may be too "Islamophobic" for us to acknowledge, so people tend to accept any excuse, any lie, put forward in defense of Islam. If the truth is too Islamophobic, then maybe we should reconsider flinging such a word so frivolously at anyone who criticizes Islam. Maybe it is about time we all got ourselves educated on Islam, on what its texts actually say, and on the views the majority of the world's Muslims still hold today. For this, we certainly do not need to waste precious time on reading fanciful fairy-tales written by apologists or watching trash like "Innocence of Muslims".


Additional notes

1. Since writing this response to Liepert, WikiIslam's article, "Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation", has been updated to include much of my information and commentary on the origins and history of the "Aisha was older" apologetic argument.

2. From my tone in this piece, you've probably guessed I do not hold a positive view of this "Innocence of Muslims" clip. I personally have nothing against satire aimed at religious or political beliefs (e.g. see here and here), but even I have my standards.

3. For examples of people claiming  "monkeys still exist, so we haven't evolved from them!!!" , just Google: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=monkeys+still+exist,+so+we+haven't+evolved+from+them

4. Considering that Liepert is a "National Board member of the Canadian Islamic Chamber of Commerce" and is involved with many other Canadian-based Islamic initiatives, some may think my comparing him to "obscure individuals on the Internet" is unfair. But, in the grander scale of things, an "obscure individual" is in fact a very good description of what he actually is. According to a 2011 Pew Report, only "3% of the world’s Muslims live in more-developed regions, such as Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan." Only three percent. If we consider Canada on its own, that figure drops below single digits. Why is this statistic important to us? It is important because these provably false "modernist" claims are almost exclusively entertained by Muslims in these "more-developed" secular regions of the earth. Even within these secular regions, many, if not the majority of Muslims, still hold on to the mainstream Islamic views concerning Aisha's young age. Outside of this measly 3%, we have the other 97%, the 1.5 billion Muslims of the Middle-East, Africa, and Asia. Now, we evidently have these two opposing Muslim groups, but which of the two is more representative of mainstream Islam; the tiny percentage within an already tiny 3% or the 97+%? Make no mistake, the unorthodox views espoused by the likes of Liepert and other apologists are highly controversial, even among their Western co-religionists. For example, take the case of American Muslim apologist Laleh Bakhtiar whom I mentioned earlier. Liepert conveniently borrows her "Dzaraba" argument to deny that wife-beating is approved by the Qur'an. However, not so long ago, this very same argument landed Laleh Bakhtiar in hot water. In fact her claim was so controversial among the "moderate" Muslims of Canada, that the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) refused to sell her translation in their bookstores. So, when all things are considered, we can conclude that, certainly they, i.e. the Muslims that actually matter, overwhelmingly agree on Aisha's age and couldn't care less about what an obscure, white, convert in Canada has to say regarding their beliefs.

5. Text from, "Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage",  by Zahid Aziz that discuss Maulana M. Ali: "It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad..." 

6. On the major differences between mainstream Islam and the Ahmadiyya: the Ahmadiyya have an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and some additional religious texts (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings). So they are as different to mainstream Islam as Islam is to Christianity. After all, Islam is simply an additional Prophet (Muhammad) and some additional religious texts (Qur'an and Sunnah). Accordingly, Ahmadis are widely persecuted in Islamic countries because they are viewed as infidels by Muslims. In fact, they are often viewed as more heretical than Christians and Jews. Likewise, according to Ahmadi beliefs, only those who accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood are considered Muslims.

7. All  Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi quotations are taken from the Preface of the 2007 English translation of his Urdu booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", translated by Nigar Erfaney and published by Al-Rahman Publishing Trust under the title, "Age of Aisha (The Truthful Women, May Allah Send His Blessings)"

8. The fatwa in full, branding  Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi's beliefs outside of Islam, thus making him a 'kafir', from "Fatwa's on hadith rejectors?": "QUESTION: A book by the name of 'Mazhabi Dastanain Aur Unn Ki Haqeeqat' comprising of four volumes. This book is authored by Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Khandhalvi. Is the afore-mentioned person a Munkir-e-Hadith (Hadith Rejector) or a Pervaizi or does he in reality hold any scholarly status? Please tell me briefly about him. In this book, many views that are contradictory to the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah are written, for example denial of Imam Mahdi and denial of Hazrat Ali being the 4th Caliph etc. What is the ruling for such a person and those who agree with his views, follow or propogate them?

ANSWER: Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi is a Pervaizi (Munkir-e-Hadith). And Pervaiz and his adherents (Parvezi's) - the Ulema have declared them as Kafirs, on the basis of being rejectors of hadith. Habib ar-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi [deceased] is the son of a renowned scholar of Islam, Ashfaq ar-Rahman Khandhalvi. Ashfaq ar-Rahman Kandhalvi is famous for his book Hujjat-al-Hadith. Both of them are relatives of Sheikh-ul-Hind Muhammad Idrees Khandhalvi (Sheikh-ul-Hadith). We do not know anything about Habib ar-Rahman Kandhalvi's scholarly status [calibre, competence, qualification] and neither are we aware of any details in regards to his Shuhrat [recognition, popularity, reputation] and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Answer is correct/approved: Mufti Hameedullah Jhaan, Darul Iftaa Jamia Ashrafia Lahore, Pakistan November 5th 2004".

9. For the apologetic article that really started it all, see: "What was Ayesha's (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?", by Moiz Amjad. And for examples  of Moiz Amjad's arguments being rehashed by countless apologists on the Internet with the same missionary and apologetic focus, see: "Ayesha’s Age: The Myth Of A Proverbial Wedding Exposed," by T.O Shanavas; "What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)?," by 'Imam' Chaudhry (word-for-word plagiarism of Amjad's work); and "Of Aisha’s age at marriage," by Nilofar Ahmed.

10. The  only 3 reasons behind disagreeing with apologetic lies and ignorance,  according to Liepert are, "Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too. There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim." This is of course a false dichotomy, meant to smear anyone who speaks honestly about what Islam's sources say as either a bigot or pervert.

11.  All of the ages for Aisha provided by the major hadith collections and the sira literature agree on her age at consummation. However, a Wikipedia article claims Tabari states  Aisha was 10 at consummation. The reference given for the claim is Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7. I own all 40 volumes of Tabari's History. Opening up both pages, Volume 9, Page 131 says she was aged 9. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. Volume 7, Page 7 says she was 9 three times. Nowhere does it claim she was 10. 

Why Is A US Judge So Shocked That A Practicing Muslim Would Break Their "Oath To God"?

A federal judge has just sentenced a 58-year-old Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with links to al-Qaida.

What drew my interest in this story was the fact that the sentencing judge was so shocked that a practicing Muslim would break their "oath to God" i.e.  the citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States.

"A federal judge sentenced a Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver Friday to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with alleged links to al-Qaida, telling the 58-year-old he had violated a citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States. [...] 

Khan pleaded guilty in February to one count of attempting to provide material support to terrorism. His plea agreement recommended a relatively lenient five- to eight-year sentence – well short of the 15-year maximum – in a concession for Khan's willingness to cooperate with authorities.

Judge James Zagel mostly struck a calm, professorial tone in his remarks before imposing a sentence. But he grew angry as he began talking about the oath Khan took when he became a U.S. citizen in 1988, the grizzled judge noting he had administered that oath himself hundreds of times.

"He raised his hand and swore to God he would not act against this country's interests," Judge Zagel said about Khan. That he had violated that oath, Zagel said, was a "profoundly aggravating factor." 

Most people who have grown up in societies largely influenced by Christianity, Hinduism or numerous other faiths, wrongly assume that no world-religion could possibly advocate lying or braking oaths. As with other issues, Islam is the exception to the rule.

Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam

I detest the way critics like to slap silly and constrictive labels on Islamic beliefs. Yes, Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam, but calling it "Taqiyya" or any of the other stupid names they have found is inaccurate and only gives apologists "wiggle room".

Technically, Taqiyya is a Shi'ite practice used by them to literally save their skin from Sunni Jihadis, but what critics generally refer to as Taqiyya is more accurately and more simply referred to as "lying for Islam". No exotic-sounding Arabic name needed.

From WikiIslam (visit original page for references):

"Islam is the only world religion which allows, encourages, and even demands lying by its followers. Lying for Islam is generally referred to as Taqiyya (تقي). Many Muslims will claim that this is not an Islamic, but a Shi'ite practice. Unfortunately, this is a lie. 

There are many verses in the Qur'an which condone lying and deception, and several classical and contemporary Sunni scholars have validated its place within main-stream Islam. In the inquisition miḥna during the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun, a number of Sunni scholars used taqiyya, attesting to the Qur’an as having been created despite believing the opposite.

Given these facts, some will go on to attack the strict definition of Taqiyya and claim that it is “only allowed to save one's own life” or that its "restricted to its use in war". Again, these statements are false. In sahih (authentic) hadith, Muhammad admits to being a liar and advises its acceptable for Muslims to do likewise, allowing his followers to use deception to silence critics. 

One of the 99 "holy names" of the Islamic deity is Al-Makir (the Deceiver), and in the Qur'an Allah refers to himself as the 'best deceiver', and admits to deceiving Muslims and creating Christianity through deception.

With all things considered, the simple fact is Islamic teachings as a whole breed dishonesty like no other religion and even elevates it to a holy status."

Muhammad himself (the "Uswa Hasana") allowed Muslims to lie and kill in order to silence critics. For example, he permitted a Muslim to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem that offended him:

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). " The Prophet said, "You may say it." [...] So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail 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, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " 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." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad 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 Muhammad 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. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."  [Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369]

Islam permits the expiation of oaths if it is "better"

The Qur'an tells us that Allah will not call Muslims to account for what is "futile in their oaths", and deliberately breaking oaths is not much of a problem because they will be forgiven if they fast for three days:

"Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." [Qur'an 5:89]

In the Sahih Hadith we find multiple narrations telling us Muhammad had said if he took an oath and later found something else better than that, he would do "what is better" and expiate his oath.

He is basically admitting to being a liar when it suits him, and he actually encourages Muslims to lie by saying it's acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:

"[...] So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' " [Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427]

"Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura: The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." [Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260]

There are many more similar authentic narration to be found (see here). And as this site points out,  "Since determining what is 'better' is a very subjective evaluation, then one can break any agreement with anyone else at any time he/she chooses to do so just based on one's perception of what is 'better'"

WikiIslam a Redo: Atheist Blogger Doubting Marcus Apologizes, Retracts Criticism of WikiIslam

I have the utmost respect for Doubting Marcus. Unlike some religious folk, especially Muslims, his views are honest and therefore do not remain static. He has the humility and integrity to admit where he goes wrong.

Unfortunately, this has led to some dishonest Muslim websites and their racist and genocidal editors in 2012 using a post made by him on July 5, 2011, to attack WikiIslam (Marcus is not alone, they are also using, in these cases, very dishonest posts by the KnightsWiki blog and al-Qãhırıï, both of which have been decisively refuted on this blog).

What they conveniently fail to tell you is that Marcus publicly apologized to the editors of WikiIslam and humbly retracted his criticism of the site in a post made by him on December 17, 2011.

Mistakes Were Made By Me: Errata and Apologies

*Sorry for the length but I didn’t want to hide my errors behind a ‘read more’ link

A lot can and has changed in the past year and as my recent post about the Horsemen would suggest I probably wouldn’t post some videos and quotes by them today. However changing one’s mind as the evidence comes in isn’t an error unless you made a premature or incorrect declaration before you gathered that evidence. which I have on multiple occasions so the following is a short list of mistakes I’ve made in the past year.

The Wiki Islam Fiasco

I pointed out Wiki Islam as a potential resource then I later retracted that semi-endorsement because I noticed some material on their site I thought indicated heavy bias against Islam. There was, among other things, a subsection on the “Lying in Islam” page with quotes from Hitler and Goebbels on lying and a post in which one scholar was used to present a controversial topic on all sides. I didn’t realize then how hard it might be to monitor the content of a small wiki and after being contacted by a representative of the site [Ed: this was not me, i.e. Islamocritic] I pointed out the offending material and he immediately agreed that the Hitler material was offensive and removed it. However by the time I followed up again to further explain the other problems much had changed on the site and the other articles were no longer present. Honestly he was one of the nicest people I’ve had an exchange with and though I’m unsure if I would outright endorse the site, I certainly wouldn’t condemn it today. I should have communicated with them before making the damning statements and for that I apologize.

WikiIslam has Been Refuted!!! Muslim Apologists and their Retarded "Responses" and "Refutations"

Many years ago I observed a consistent pattern in Muslim debating techniques. You can tear their false claims to shreds all you like, but they will always return, only to reply again with the same claim reworded slightly (and possibly with added bravado or "LOL" smilies), or even return with something completely unrelated to the topic.

You can see this happening here in a forum discussion concerning Dhul-Qarnayn and the Sun Controversy in the Qur'an, between the author, several others, and a Qur'an-only "Muslim" (who ironically are almost always more hateful, antisemitic, anti-Christian and anti-Western than their hadith-totting Sunni and Shi'ite equivalents).

If my memory serves me correctly, the author eventually says he will no longer respond to the "Muslims" posts unless he brings up something new which has not already been addressed and refuted by him in his original post. The "Muslim" then claims victory and goes on to challenge others to "debate" him on the issue.

His false show of confidence (or maybe it's not false, maybe he really does think his replies are great) gives a casual reader the impression that he is right and his opponents are wrong. So, according to his, and many other Muslim apologists logic, the person who expresses the most bravado and has the last word is the victor.

Why am I discussing this here? Well, it's because the same is true for many of the Muslim "responses" and "refutations" to critics of Islam.

For example, one site has an article titled, "Refuting Prophet Muhammad said beat children who do not pray". When I viewed the title of this page, I instantly knew that it was not going to be "refuting" anything because the hadith literature clearly tell us Muhammad commanded the beating of children who do not pray.

And I was right. It simply quotes a fatwa by a respected Islamic scholar (a scholar which sites like WikiIslam also use as a source) who confirms what the critics claim, whilst also adding that:

...the educator must be merciful, forbearing, easy-going and approachable, not foul-mouthed or unkempt, arguing in a manner that is better, far removed from insulting, rebuking and beating, unless the child is one of those who willfully disobey and rejects his father’s commands and neglects his duties and does haraam things; in that case it is better to use stern measures with him, without causing him harm.

So how does this article "refute" the claim "Prophet Muhammad said beat children who do not pray"? It doesn't, and in fact supports the claim of the critics.

The same thing is done in another of their articles titled, "Refuting Muhammad said sick men heal by drinking camel urine". Rather than refute anything, it actually confirms what the critics are saying by actually trying, and failing, to prove that camel urine is a "scientific miracle".

So why the inaccurate titles? Again it's both a false show of bravado and the belief that he who has the last word is the victor. Links to these articles are then posted on forums in response to articles by critics, usually with accompanying smilies declaring victory and the text "Already refuted". This is usually enough to kill the thread, but if those who had initially posted the articles by critics spent some time in actually reading the links posted by Muslims, then they would clearly see that this is not the case.

In Islam, Heaven Is Not Exclusive; Oh Really? The Lies of Ahmadiyya Missionaries

Today I came across an article by an American named Dr. Faheem Younus, on his Huffington Post‎ blog, titled "In Islam, Heaven Is Not Exclusive".

Claim

Islam's holy Quran provides not one, but many ways to the heaven (29:69). Yes, some are straight -- like belief (3:85) and good deeds (5:10) -- while others are convoluted. It's like going to New York City. You could take the bridge, tunnel, ferry or simply fly into the Big Apple. 

God's grace though, truly leads the way to salvation. "He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases (5:19)" to me, assures that no matter which way you take, you won't hit traffic, accidents or bad weather. 

To the Jewish man mentioned above, some Muslims may say: No way! How can a Jew or a Christian ever go to heaven? To them I present this from Quran: "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians -- whichever party believes in God and the Last Day and does good deeds -- shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve (2:63)." 

How can the Quran charge Jews and Christians of the notion of an exclusive heaven and then turn around to claim the same? 

This is not a fringe interpretation, applicable to Jews and Christians only. Prophet Muhammad (sa) paved the way to salvation -- ultimately for all humans -- in a famous narration from the book of Muslim, "A man said: By God, God will not forgive so-and-so. At this, God said: Who is he who swears by Me that I will not forgive so-and-so? Verily, I have forgiven so-and-so and have nullified your good deeds."

Reality    

From WikiIslam:

Those who believe in God, Christians and Jews, shall be in Heaven (2:62)

Verse

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." [Qur'an 2:62]

Meaning of Verse

This verse is often quoted by Muslims in an effort to prove Islam is tolerant and inclusive of other faiths. After all, how much more tolerant can a faith be than to allow the followers of other faiths into its vision of heaven?

However, this is in direct conflict with the following:

"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" [Qur'an 48:13]

As most Muslims will already be aware, this is not a contradiction per se, when you take abrogation into consideration. Verse 2:62 has been abrogated by verse 3:85.

"And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." [Qur'an 3:85]

Conclusion

Heaven in Islam is exclusive to Muslims. Christians and Jews may believe in God, but they do not believe in "His Messenger". Thus they are destined for the "Blazing Fire".

The only way a Christian or Jew can make it into heaven is by accepting Muhammad as a prophet, but then they would no longer be Christians or Jews, they would be Muslims.

In fact, Muslims will be spared hell-fire by Allah on the Day of Resurrection by making innocent Christians and Jews take their place and be thrown into hell.

"Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire." [Sahih Muslim 37:6665, See also: Sahih Muslim 37:6666, Sahih Muslim 37:6667, and Sahih Muslim 37:6668]

Dr. Faheem Younus  

According to his bio on Huffington Post, Dr. Faheem Younus is an Ahmadi:

Dr. Faheem Younus serves as the Adjunct Faculty for Religion and History at the Community Colleges of Baltimore County and a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland. He is a recipient of the prestigious Presidential Service Award (Gold) by Barack Obama in 2009 for his work with Muslim Youth in America, Dr. Younus served as the National Youth President of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA (MKA USA) from 2006-10. This leading Muslim Youth group has thousands of members organized in over 63 chapters all across USA. He currently serves as the National Secretary for Education for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. Being an expert on issues surrounding Muslim youth in America, Dr. Younus launched his blog www.Muslimerican.com where you can find an archive of his works .

 Dr. Younus teaches a popular course, Islam: Fact and Fiction, at multiple campuses across community colleges in Maryland. Dr. Younus has represented Islam on FOX News, ABC News and NPR. His Op-Ed pieces have been published in National Media outlets and newspapers such as The Christian Science Monitor, The Huffington Post, AOL News, The Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel, Express Tribune, The Asbury Park Press, The Star Press and others. His short pieces have been published in prestigious newspapers and magazines including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Boston Globe, and The Economist.

Dr. Younus is a respected physician, currently in the practice of Infectious Diseases at a Maryland Hospital, who remains committed to the spirit of volunteerism. He was awarded a Governor’s Citation by Robert Ehrlich for his humanitarian services in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

Ahmadiyya Islam is a peaceful religion, but Ahmadis passing themselves off in the West as "Muslims" is thoroughly dishonest.

Ahmadiyya Islam has an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and additional religious texts (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's writings). So they are as different to mainstream Islam as Islam is to Christianity. After all, Islam is simply an additional Prophet (Muhammad) and some additional religious texts (Qur'an and Sunnah). But do you ever hear Muslims claim they are Christians? And if Muslims did claim to be Christians, then they would not fool anyone.

Accordingly, Ahmadis are widely persecuted in Islamic countries because they are viewed as infidels by Muslims. In fact, they are often viewed as less Muslim than Christians and Jews.

From WikiIslam (visit the original page for references):

Ahmadiyya (sometimes referred to as Qadiani) is a religious movement founded towards the end of the 19th century. Central to the Ahmadiyya is the belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.

Ghulam Ahmad was a religious figure who claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times, who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various world religions and bring about the final triumph of Islam as per Islamic prophecy. He claimed that he was the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century.

Orthodox followers of Islam do not consider the Ahmadis to be Muslims, due to their beliefs, as with the beliefs of the Baha'is and Qur'anists, differing vastly from those of mainstream Islam. This has lead to the widespread persecution and killing of Ahmadis around the world.

At the 1974 annual World Muslim League conference held in Mecca and attended by 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organizations from all over the world, it was unanimously agreed that the Ahmadiyya are "a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam."

The sale, publication and distribution of Ahmadiyya litriture has also been banned in Bangladesh, the Muslim Council of Britain have stated that members of the Ahmadiyya faith are "outside the fold of Islam", they have been banned from practicing their religion publicly in Indonesia's East Java, West Java, and South Sulawesi provinces, and Pakistan has officially declared them to be non-Muslims.

Likewise, according to Ahmadi beliefs, only those who accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's prophethood are considered Muslims.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died of diarrhea in Lahore on the 26th of May, 1908. There are numerous unflattering accounts which claim he died in a public toilet.

Whilst they often claim to have up to 200 million adherents worldwide, in reality the Ahmadiyya faith has only 10 million adherents.

Ahmadiyya Islam puts particular emphasis on  missionary work. Many western converts to Islam, being fooled by Ahmadi missionaries into believing Islam is pacifistic, actually begin their religious lives as Ahmadis before moving on to the less tolerant mainstream Sunni Islam. Dr. Faheem Younus' articles have a clear goal in converting Westerners, whether atheists, Jews or Christians:

I don't know how, but people say this all the time: "He cannot go to heaven because he does not believe in [insert your Prophet or God's name here]." According to a 2008 Pew survey, one in five Christians in America believe that non-Christian faiths cannot lead to salvation. That number soared to 60 percent for white evangelical Protestants who attend church once a weak.

Frankly, I would have checked out of my faith, Islam, if it took such a position. Thank God (or Allah) that it doesn't.

Conclusion  

Maybe it's time that Dr. Faheem Younus "checked out" of being a Muslim....

Oh wait, what he believes in is heretical to Muslims, has been universally condemned by mainstream Islamic scholars, and would certainly get him killed in some Muslim countries, so he was hardly a “Muslim” to begin with.

Turks Hospitalized after Drinking Camel's Urine; Embarrassed Retired Cleric Commits Blasphemy

Note the dishonest retired cleric who, like the equally dishonest Wikipedia user NarSakSasLee with his edits on “Urine therapy”,  would most certainly be aware of the many positive references to camel urine in Sahih hadiths, and the fact that drinking it, taking it in capsule form or applying it to the face and head is widespread across the Middle East purely because of its recommendation by Muhammad.

If you Google "Camel urine" you will find many Muslim websites trumpeting its alleged "health benefits" as one of Islam's "scientific miracles" and some of the world's most respected Islamic scholars and fatwa websites do likewise.

In essence, this cleric from the comparatively civilized country of Turkey, has labeled his own Middle Eastern Arab prophet as an "ignorant" by claiming those Turkish men who drunk camel urine following Muhammad's advice, "must have been ignorant".

From Hürriyet:

Two Turkish men were hospitalized on arrival to Turkey after drinking camel's milk and urine while on an umrah visit, daily Hürriyet reported.

The men believed the camel's milk and urine to be good for health, claiming it was written in a hadith. An imam, according to the Turkish men, also drank the milk and urine with them.

The visitors were hospitalized due to high fever and unusual levels of liver enzymes. Further tests revealed that the two men had been infected with the "alkhurma" virus, reportedly catching the virus from the milk.

The alkhurma virus is very dangerous and highly contagious and has a fatality rate of 25 to 35 percent, daily Hürriyet reported.

İhsan Özkes, a retired religious cleric and current member of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), denied the existence of any hadith that would encourage people to drink camel's milk and urine.

"Those who did drink it must have been ignorant," he said.

"If a white girl is abused, the police come break down the door. If a black girl is mutilated..." FGM in the UK

It is against the law to arrange FGM in the UK, but despite its prevalence here,  no one has ever been convicted of the offense.  You can be damn sure that this would not be the case if it weren't for a certain religion promoting this barbaric practice.

From the Guardian:

As many as 100,000 women in Britain have undergone female genital mutilations (FGM) with medics in the UK offering to carry out the illegal procedure on girls as young as 10, it has been reported.

Investigators from the Sunday Times said they had secretly filmed a doctor, dentist and alternative medicine practitioner who were allegedly willing to perform FGM or arrange for the operation to be carried out. The doctor and dentist deny any wrongdoing.

The practice, which involves the surgical removal of external genitalia and in some cases the stitching of the vaginal opening, is illegal in Britain and carries up to a 14-year prison sentence. It is also against the law to arrange FGM.

The procedure is widespread across parts of Africa. Victims are rarely given anaesthetic and frequently suffer long-term damage and pain.

Research suggests that every year more than 22,000 girls in the UK and up to 6,000 in London are at risk of the potentially fatal procedure.

The Metropolitan police said that since 2008 it had received 166 reports of people who feared they were at risk of FGM. Across all 43 forces in England and Wales, no one has ever been convicted of the offence, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper added that only two doctors had been struck off by the General Medical Council since 1980.

According to Forward, a charity which campaigns against FGM, an estimated 100,000 women in the UK have undergone mutilation.

The model Waris Dirie, who was mutilated as a child, is a vociferous opponent of the practice.

Calling for a crackdown on FGM, she said: "If a white girl is abused, the police come break down the door. If a black girl is mutilated, nobody takes care of her. This is what I call racism."

Scripture Quote of the Week: Muhammad Allows Muslims to Lie & Kill in Order to Silence Critics

Muslims often claim lying in Islam is restricted to its use in war, but in the following narration, Muhammad permits a Muslim to lie in order to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem which offended him.

From Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). " The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin 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." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama 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." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab 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?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail 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, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " 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." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad 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 Muhammad 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. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

Culture or Islam? The Case of Female Genital Mutilation

Yes, as with the issue of forced underage marriages, we've all heard the claims that female genital mutilation "has nothing to do with Islam", that "most Islamic scholars have forbidden it, or the minority who approve only allow it in a mild form", that "all the hadith references are weak", and that "it's the fault of backward Arab and African culture". But is any of that true?

Analysis

Unfortunately, every claim made by Muslims and their apologists are demonstratively false:

• There are several reliable references to this vile practice in the hadith literature, including the Sahih Bukhari collection, the Sahih Muslim collection,  and a Sahih (not "weak") narration in the Abu Dawud collection.
• Within mainstream Sunni Islam (up to 90% of all Muslims follow this form of Islam) there are four mainstream schools of thought which are accepted by one another. According to all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, scholars are unanimously agreed that female genital mutilation is not haram or disliked. It is either Sunnah (thereby it is recommended) or compulsory (the majority hold to the latter).
• Religious ritual mutilation of female genitalia is not limited to the "mild" Type I FGM as defined by the WHO. One of those four aforementioned schools of Islamic law is the Shafi'i madhhab. According to a book of Shafi'i Fiqh endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, circumcision is obligatory for every male and female. Circumcision of the female is by "cutting out the clitoris".

References

"Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed. 

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed [...]

Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it is makrooh or haraam." - Circumcision of girls and some doctors’ criticism thereof, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 60314

And:

"e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)" - Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

And:

"We do not know of any hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that his wives or daughters be circumcised, but it is narrated that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised a woman who did circumcision in Madeenah as to the proper way of circumcision. It was narrated by Abu Dawood (5271), al-Tabaraani in al-Awsat, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcision in Madeenah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

According to another report: “Take only a little and do not go to extremes.”

It is also indicated by the general meaning of the evidence that has been narrated concerning circumcision, such as the hadeeth in al-Bukhaari (5891) and Muslim (527) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) [...]

The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them." - Is there any saheeh hadeeth about the circumcision of females?, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 82859

And:

"My brother, we have talked about circumcision many times. I counsel every Muslim man on the face of the earth, and also every Muslim woman on the face of the earth: Brother, take the little bit of trouble it requires to get yourself a book of fiqh! Inconvenience yourself a little for Allah's sake. Just take five minutes. Any book--do you have the book "Fiqh al-Sunna" by Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq (may Allah have mercy on him)? Do you have "Al-Mughni" by Ibn al-Qudama, or "Kitab al-Umm" by Imam al-Shafi'i? Do you have Fath al-Bari's explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari? Any of the books of fiqh--I mentioned to you some books of fiqh and some books of hadith--open any of the books of fiqh. Open them. That's it, plain and simple. 

Review the words of scholars. Don't just take the words of Muhammad Hassan, or this shaykh, or that shaykh. Look at any of the books of fiqh from our imams, respected leaders, and scholars--ask them. You will find that our scholars have said that circumcision of women--there are some who say that it is obligatory while others say that it is commendable. Some say it is obligatory, and others say it is commendable. There are some scholars who say it is obligatory, and there are some who say it is commendable.

To whoever says that circumcision is an ancient Egyptian custom with no origin in the sunna, I say, Brother, review the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Let us consult the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "If you touch the male or female circumcision…" This hadith deals with the highest level of community health. In the highest level of health: "If you touch the male circumcision," meaning the circumcision of men, "or the female circumcision," meaning the circumcision of women, "washing is obligatory." These are the true words from the Prophet." - Egyptian Shaykh: FGM Not An Inherited Custom. Muslim Scholars Say It Is Either Obligatory or Commendable, Egyptian shaykh Muhammad Hassan

Additional links

Female genital mutilation “is part of the Sunna of the Prophet”, from Winds of Jihad (caution is advised, contains extremely graphic images)

From RationalWiki: BNP Using Islam as a Platform to Push their Racist Views

As you're probably already aware, I despise the BNP. I noted previously how I think they, like some others, are simply using Islam as a platform to push their racist (and anti-Jewish) views.

From RationalWiki (visit the original page for references):

The current BNP was formed in 1982 from the ashes of previous right-wing political parties in 1970s Britain. John Tyndall, founder of the BNP, was a member of the openly racist National Front, which he led a splinter group from in 1980, founding the New National Front, which would become the BNP two years later. 

Early BNP leaders did not deny their racist connections. Tyndall is known to have remarked that "Mein Kampf is my bible". After the current wonky-eyed Chairman and Fat Hitler impersonator, Nick Griffin (no relation to Peter Griffin of Family Guy), replaced Tyndall in 1999 and Tyndall was expelled from the party, the BNP has attempted to change its image by using spin and political euphemisms. For example, the BNP denies that it is a white supremacist organisation, claiming instead that it represents the interests of "the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia". [...]

The British National Party advocates British withdrawal from the European Union, and, according to its constitution, "is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." Hence the party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." 

If enacted, this policy would involve deporting "back to their own country" not only recent immigrants, but all members of the sizeable Asian and West Indian communities that have grown in Britain over the past sixty years, Chinese communities that have been in Britain for over 200 years and African communities that have been in Britain for over 500 years, notwithstanding that most of the current generation of these ethnic minorities have lived their entire lives in Britain.

In a statement of the party's policies and intentions, Griffin repeatedly emphasised that the party is "not racist", while describing Britain as a "fundamentally white nation", condemning miscegenation as unnatural, and reiterating that he considers non-caucasians, or white citizens who choose non-whites as sexual or marriage partners, are unsuitable for party membership. He stated that, once the BNP has removed the majority of immigrant groups from the country, "[t]hose non-Europeans who stay will have British passports and will be protected by our laws, but they will be regarded as permanent guests, and not as native English, Scots, Welsh or Irish, because such status springs from blood and not from printers’ ink." 

Antisemitism has also been a significant aspect of BNP ideology, and BNP leaders, including Nick Griffin, have made several statements of Holocaust denial. On Question Time, Nick Griffin was challenged on it but refused to comment on why he changed his views or why he originally denied it, muttering something about it being illegal and free speech or something, even after Justice Secretary Jack Straw pointed out that he could not, and would not be prosecuted for it (Holocaust denial is not actually a crime in the UK, as it is some European countries). However, in recent years the party has decided that its major enemy is Islam. A BNP statement during 2006 asserted that "[t]he real enemies of the British people are home grown Anglo-Saxon Celtic liberal-leftists who seek to destroy the family as the building blocks of society and impose multiculturalism on a reluctant indigenous population and the Crescent Horde - the endless wave of Islamics who are flocking to our shores to bring our island nations into the embrace of their barbaric desert religion".

The BNP's attempts to disguise its racialist roots and pose itself as a legitimate political force are not at all convincing, especially as many of its prominent members have past convictions for violent offences and hate crimes. Its attempts to sound the alarm about the supposed Islamic "threat to all of us" also comes off as hollow in the wake of this quote from Mr Griffin: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group—some people say we should attack the Jews... But ... we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it ... the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power."

Germany: Islamists Use "Lies!" to Gain Converts

This is absolutely hilarious. The name of the project “Read!” is a translation of the German “Lies!” Aptly named, considering they've edited out many of the Jihad verses in the Qur'an's they're handing out.

From the FFI Forum:

GERMANY: Muslims hand out 25 million free korans

The mass proselytization campaign — called Project “Read!” – is being organized by dozens of Islamic Salafist groups located in cities and towns throughout Germany, as well as in Austria and in Switzerland.

The campaign to place a Koran in every German household is being spearheaded by a Rheinland-based Salafist, Ibrahim Abou-Nagie, a Palestinian preacher of hate, who leads a radical Islamic group called “The True Religion” (“Die Wahre Religion”).

According to Die Welt, German authorities view the Koran project, which fundamentalists are using a recruiting tool, as a “most worrisome” campaign for radical Islam. Security analysts say the campaign is also a public-relations gimmick intended to persuade Germans that the Salafists are transparent and “citizen friendly.”

In an effort to improve their image, the Salafists have removed from their “information booths” all literature about the role of women in Islam or the supremacy of Islamic Sharia law over democracy. Moreover, the German translation of the Koran has edited out many of the verses which call on Muslims to make war on non-believers. According to BfV, the German domestic intelligence agency, the German version of the Koran is “rather non-controversial.”

Muhammad's Farewell Sermon: "A White has No Superiority Over a Black", A Proven Fabrication

This fabricated sermon is often used by insecure self-deluding black Muslims in desperate need of something to justify their adherence to a faith that makes the KKK look like a hippies convention.


From WikiIslam:

The following rendition of Muhammad's 'Farewell Sermon', along with a second version, was for many years quoted on Wikipedia without a primary source.

Despite being fraudulent, it has become popular among Muslims, due to including the lines, "an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white".

O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every *Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my Ahl al-Bayt and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people

S.F.H. Faizi, an Indian, later Pakistani, Islamist is the author of "Sermons of the Prophet", the 1987 book which first rendered this version of the sermon (in the 1991 edition, it can be found on p. 145).

He gets us as close to a source as he could when he describes in the introduction how he translated and published a collection of obscure writings into English:

This book is a collection of some of the selected sermons of the Holy Prophet which include long as well short ones as the situation demanded. They were not available in the form of Khutbas but have been derived from various books of Ahadith and history. It is only recently that some of these have appeared in book-forms along with original texts and translation in Urdu; but the authenticity of the texts thereof is still doubted by ulema. On English language, they are hardly available. So an attempt has been made not only to have them translated in English but also to find out circumstances under which they were delivered so that their delivery date could be ascertained and an elucidation made thereof. How far I have succeeded in my undertaking rests to be adjudged by the readers. Any suggestion or comment shall, however be welcomed to improve upon it.

In summation, Faizi “derived” this version of the sermon from various unnamed books not accepted by the ulema (scholarly Muslim clerics). He does not know the original sources, but welcomes readers to help in his search.

References which are often cited as sources for this fraudulent sermon, once checked, are either misrepresented (i.e. they have nothing to say on the sermon) or in fact refer to the sermon that most fits al-Tabari's rendition ( For example; this site lists al-Tirmidhi as one of the sources. However in Tirmidhi we find the farewell command to beat women, and that they are "like prisoners" in the hands of men).

The following authentic version is taken from al-Tabari, Vol IX, and it's important to note that it is in perfect agreement with the Qur'anic order of wife-beating in Qur'an 4:34. Attempts to add this authentic version next to the other two at Wikipedia, had been met with resistance.

O people, listen to my words. I do not know whether I shall ever meet you again in this place after this year. O people, your blood and your property are sacrosanct until you meet your Lord, just as this day and this month of yours are sacred. Surely you will meet your Lord and He will question you about your deeds. I have [already] made this known. Let he who has a pledge return it to the one who entrusted him with it; all usury is abolished, but your capital belongs to you. Wrong not and you shall not be wronged. Allah has decreed that there will be no usury, and the usury of Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib is abolished, all of it. All blood shed in the pre-Islamic days is to be left unavenged. The first such claim I revoke is that of Ibn Rabiah b. al-Harith b. Abd al-Muttalib, who was nursed among the Banu Layth and was slain by the Banu Hudhayl. His is the first blood shed in the pre-Islamic days with which I shall set an example. O people, indeed Satan despairs of ever being worshipped in this land of yours. He will be pleased, however, if he is obeyed in a thing other than that, in matters you minimize. So beware of him in your religion, O people, intercalculating a month is an increase in unbelief whereby the unbelievers go astray; one year they make it profane, and hallow it another [in order] to agree with the number that Allah has hallowed, and so profane what Allah has hallowed, and hallow what Allah has made profane. Time has completed its cycle [and is] as it was on the day that Allah created the heavens and the earth. The number of the months with Allah is twelve; [they were] in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred, the three consecutive [months] and the Rajab [which is the month of] Mudar, which is between Jumada and Sha’ban.

Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message? [Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 112-113]

After an April 2011 Wikipedia discussion concerning the lack of primary sources for the fraudulent sermons, they were finally removed from the site. But, as is often the case with Islam-related articles, the unreferenced material is constantly reinserted by Muslim editors.