Why Do Some Muslims Use Mind Games To Draw People Into Islam?

Categorically, Islam against: Murder, Manslaughter & Terrorism all in the Name of Allah

I. Introduction

Often, criminals are of two kinds: there are those who know that the wrong they do is wrong -- and there are those who think -- who actually believe -- that their deeds are virtuous. When those of the latter category have a religious basis for their activities, they can rarely be dissuaded by legal and penal measures alone, for bearing chastisement is in itself sublime to them -- something that gives them a cause to rejoice in being 'persecuted for righteousness' sake' -- something that only adds to their commitment. The best Defence against these people is an attack on the religious foundation their leaders use to convince them. A fortiori, legal and penal measures must be accompanied by propagation of counter arguments. For this purpose, arguments developed on the basis of superficial study won't do. No one is easily convinced into becoming a murderer on religious grounds and no one is easily dissuaded once so convinced. Only arguments truly emanating from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and cogent enough can be effective. Unfortunately, very little work has been done in this regard by government as well as private institutions.

It is important to know what arguments the militants use to justify their deeds and to see whether these arguments have any basis in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This dissertation discusses some pertinent issues in this regard, including incendiary questions as the following:

Does Islam give an individual or a group the right to use violence to end wrong? 

What arguments do the militant Islamists have to justify their acts of terrorism and violence? 

Is the government of Pakistan un-Islamic? 

When is an individual or a group allowed by Islam to rebel against the State? 

What are the punishments in Islam for those who rebel against the State or cause disruption in society? 

What exactly is the meaning of Jihad and who has the right to wage it? 

Is 'turning the other cheek' a Christian belief only? 

What are the rules for a preacher in Islam? 

What is the actual responsibility of religious leaders? 

Does an individual or a group have the right to declare a Muslim a Kafir? 

What are the rights of the non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State? 

Who has the authority to punish a person or a group for blasphemy? 

What steps does the government need to take to end violence and terrorism now rampant in our society in the name of religion?

This dissertation, a major part of which is based on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's research work (a meritorious religious scholar and founder of Al-Mawrid, an institute of Islamic education), has three main sections:

The first gives a summary of the main conclusions drawn in the article, 

The second recommends certain strategies to the government for dealing with sectarian violence and terrorism, and 

The last section contains the main article. An appendix at the end responds to some criticisms on the views expressed in the dissertation.

II. Summary of the main conclusions

A. Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.

B. The Prophet's saying (saws) usually cited to give credence to the idea that Islam allows an individual or a group the use of force to end wrong is actually related to the use of power within the confines of the social and legal authority.

C. In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State.

D. The argument that the government in Pakistan is not Islamic is baseless. In an independent State, any government formed on the basis of amruhum shura baynahum (their affairs are by consultation among them) -- in modern times through the vote of the Muslim citizens in an election -- is an Islamic government so long as the rulers do not unequivocally deny Islam or their faith in it.

E. Rebellion against the State (Khuruj) is allowed -- that is it is permissible not obligatory -- only when all of the following three conditions exist:

The Rulers unequivocally deny Islam.

The government is a dictatorship and does not have the support of the Muslims and cannot be changed by their vote.

The leader of Khuruj is one who, without any doubt, has the support of the majority of the nation.

Moreover, in case of an armed rebellion, there is an additional condition: the leader of the Khuruj must migrate with his followers to another land and form an independent State.

In the absence of even one of these conditions, those leading the Khuruj can be sentenced to death by the State under Islamic law.

F. Allegiance to the Islamic State and obedience to its government are obligatory on a Muslim even if the rulers are morally corrupt. According to a reported saying of the Prophet (saws), he who detaches himself from the collectivity of the Muslims and dies in that condition dies the death of ignorance.

G. No individual or group has the right to declare a person a Kafir (one who deliberately denies Islam even after its truth has been made clear to him/her by the Prophet (saws); plural: Kuffar). Takfir -- declaring someone a Kafir is the prerogative of the Prophet (saws) -- who does that through Divine revelation. Declaring someone a non-Muslim is the prerogative of the collectivity of the Muslim community represented by their State.

H. The argument of the militant Islamists that their aggression is in self-Defence is baseless. The difference between self-Defence and aggression is manifest. Also, the law of Qisas in Islam is to be implemented by the State not by any individual or group. The aggrieved person has the right to demand Qisas, and it is the responsibility of the State to provide him with justice. The aggrieved or his heir also has the authority to forgive the offender and demand penalty. But there is no room in Islam for personal vendettas, in which people take the law into their own hands.

I. Religious scholars and leaders of religious movements can best serve Islam by staying out of politics and confining themselves to academic work and Da'wah (propagation of religion). They must remember that their primary responsibility is Indhar (admonition) and Da'wah. Their goal should be conquering the hearts of people rather than killing them. For the conquest of hearts one has to be slain rather than slaying others. One has to forgive rather than avenge. And one has to repel evil with goodness.

Some other points of relevance to which this article alluded are:

A. Death punishment for apostasy was confined only to the people the Prophet (saws) was directly sent to -- the Banu Isma'il. No one can now be punished to death on that basis as no one after the Prophet (saws) can claim to have done Itmamu'l-Hujjah (manifesting the truth to such an extent that no excuse whatsoever is left for a person to deny it) in his individual capacity. (Of his direct addresses, the People of the Book were not given death punishment as they did not profess polytheism as their religion. However, they were given certain other punishments).

B. There are only two valid reasons for Qital:

Injustice and oppression and 

Itmamu'l-Hujjah. 

After the Prophet (saws), his authorized companion were Divinely appointed witnesses to the truth of Muhammad's religion - Shuhada 'ala'l-Nas (2:143). They had the authority to extend his mission to other specified non-Muslim states. In other words, they had the authority to invite these states to accept Islam on the basis of Itmamu'l-Hujjah done by the Prophet (saws) or face war. After the Prophet (saws) and his authorized Companion, no individual or group or state has the right to wage war against any non-Muslim country for the propagation of Islam. Now Jihad, or Qital to be more precise, can be done by an Islamic state only for purpose of ending oppression (4:75).

C. Lynching non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State for blasphemy is absolutely against Islam even if the criminal is caught red-handed. Punishing a person or a group for any crime against anybody is the prerogative of the Islamic State -- which does that through its organ, the judiciary, after determining for sure that the crime had actually been committed and deciding on the appropriate punishment.1

No individual has the right to take the law into his own hands on any account. Even the closest of the Prophet's companions (saws) never killed a single of his opponents even when invectives were hurled at him day and night in the first thirteen years of his Da'wah at Makkah. Nor did they kill anyone in retaliation when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if.

III. Recommendations

In relation to the points discussed above, the following measures are suggested to the government of Pakistan:

The government should use its propaganda machinery -- including the mass media -- to dissuade youngsters from falling into the trap of those religious leaders who equate terrorism and sectarian violence with Islam. 

The government should take help from genuine scholars of Islam for this purpose and present its views on the solid basis of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. 

It should become obvious to every man and woman -- even to the militant Islamists themselves -- that the violence and terrorism of the militant Islamists is absolutely against Islam.

Known and self-proclaimed offenders should immediately be arrested or shot on sight for Muharabah, and Fasad fi'l-Ard. 

The arrested criminals should be punished on these bases in an exemplary manner. The government should publicise the reasoning behind these punishments so that everyone is aware of the correct stance in this regard and potential offenders are deterred from the path of violence.

Those religious organisations which believe in rebellion against the State should be given a stern warning. 

The correct picture of Islam regarding Khuruj should be publicised a great deal so that sufficient ground work is done to make the masses mentally accept the idea of the government crushing the very first insurrection to nip the evil in the bud. And that the government should do: completely crush the first insurrection to emerge so that no one is encouraged by the rebels to follow suit.

The government should take steps to eliminate the duality in our education system. Religious schools breed sectarianism and modern schools breed scepticism. To deal with this problem, our education system needs to be changed. Unless the modern, educated people -- especially those belonging to the elite and affluent classes -- are instructed at least in the basics of religion, the monopoly and influence of sectarian schools is bound to remain.2

The mosque has a very important role to play in an Islamic society. Few people today realise the extent to which this institution influences the minds of the masses. Unfortunately, mosques in our society have become citadels of sectarianism. There is great need to overhaul this institution. The key point here is that the Mosque is a State institution and the elected representatives of the people running their State affairs ought to be their leaders in prayer rather than the mullahs. The Sunnah in this regard is that the Head of the State and his representatives in the administration should lead the Friday prayer. On the basis of the Sunnah, one can suggest that the government should supervise the mosques and not let any particular sect control them. A number of steps should be taken in this regard: 3

The centre of every administrative unit of the State should be a Jami' Masjid, and the division of these units should be such that one Jami' Masjid should suffice for one unit.

Within each unit, all the administrative offices and courts should be instituted adjacent to this Jami' Masjid. The State capital, together with the provincial capitals, should have a central Jami' Masjid.

The address of the Friday prayer should be delivered only by the Head of State and only he should lead this prayer in the central Jami' Masjid of the capital. The provincial governors should be entrusted with this job in the central Jami' Mosques of the provinces, while the representatives of the government should perform this duty in the Jami' Mosques of the various administrative units.

The Friday prayer should be prohibited in all mosques except the above ones.

Mosques should be supervised by the government itself.

Any religious scholar should be allowed to teach, educate and instruct his students according to his own views in any of these mosques.

The government should make it clear to all Muslims that there is no room for lynching in Islam. No one can be punished for blasphemy unless his crime is proved in a court of law and only the State has the right to execute the sentence. It should also be made clear that violation of the rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic State is a serious offence.

Whether a Mu'ahid or a Dhimmi4 , the rights guaranteed to a non-Muslim must not be violated by any Muslim. The Qur'an says: And fulfil the covenant. Verily the covenant shall be questioned about. (17:34)  In Abu Da'ud's Kitabu'l-Jihad, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said5: Beware! He who oppresses a Mu'ahid or does him injustice or burdens him more than his strength or takes anything from him without his consent, I myself shall plead against him on the Day of Judgement. These words of the Prophet (saws) should be enough for any Muslim to realise the gravity of the sin of oppressing a Mu'ahid. Even in case of enmity, the Qur'an does not allow the Muslim to do anything against the principles of equity and justice. 6  Therefore, unless a Mu'ahid is found guilty of some crime by a court of law -- in which case it is up to the court to decide what punishment is to be meted out --, he has the right as a citizen of an Islamic State to demand the protection of his life, honour and property and to demand all his fundamental rights including the right to practice and preach his religion in a manner which does not cause disruption in society.

IV. Text of the dissertation

Murder, Manslaughter and Terrorism All in the Name of Allah

The Qur'an says:

,  that whoever took a life7, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth8, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind. (5:32)

And:

And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever,  (4:93)

How can someone who believes in this book commit murder?

Here's how:

In his mind -- and perhaps even in his heart -- the murder he commits is not murder: it is an act of virtue.

Those who do evil can be of two kinds. There are those who know that the evil they do is evil, and there are those who don't. In fact, those of the latter kind might even be absolutely certain that the evil they do is not evil but virtue. When that is the case, murder and terrorism can, in their minds, become Jihad.

The good intentions of these 'pious evil-doers' might become an excuse for them on the Day of Judgement, but in this worldly life of ours, when murder and terrorism are the issue, their error of judgement -- howsoever noble their intentions might be -- does not, in any way, exonerate them from the responsibility for causing disruption and disorder in society. Therefore, these people need to be dealt with -- and when human lives and law and order are at stake, there can be two ways of doing that: either you succeed in convincing them that their 'virtue' is actually evil and that their Jihad is in reality Fasad9 or Muharabah10 or you sentence them to death.

Two pertinent questions are: how do you convince them? and would the State be morally justified if, after having taken reasonable measures to solve the problem through dialogues and discussions, it has to award them the death punishment?

To convince such Islamist groups as resort to murder and terrorism that, howsoever noble the goals, their methods are against the teachings of their own religion, one has to understand the arguments they themselves use to justify their deeds. Of such arguments some of the more important ones are discussed here.

One of their arguments is based on a narration in which the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said:

He amongst you who sees any wrong should change it with his hand11; if that is not possible for him, then with his tongue; if that is not possible for him, then [he should condemn it] in his heart -- and that is the weakest level of faith. (Muslim, Kitabu'l-Iman)

Ghamidi points out that this statement of the Prophet (saws) has a specific context in reference to which the statement merely means that it is the duty of every Muslim to try for the eradication of evil within the confines of the social and legal authority he or she has12. For example, parents are afforded the authority by the conventions of society to use some mild form of physical punishment, if required, for the proper upbringing of their children. This obviously does not mean that they have the authority to batter their children. Similarly, the government -- a court of law to be more precise -- has the legal authority to award a suitable sentence to an offender if he is found guilty. Now, if some parents did not use their authority to stop their children from becoming heroin addicts, they would certainly be at a weaker level of faith, especially if physical punishment of a sort would have helped and it were love which stopped them from using their authority. Love does not mean that you let those you love do wrong. Similarly, a judge who, under some pressure, gave a lighter punishment to an offender would certainly be at a weaker level of faith. Indeed, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, he might even be regarded as being devoid of faith altogether on the Day of Judgement.

The Prophet of Allah (saws) never took the law into his own hands. During the thirteen years he preached Islam in Makkah, he never went beyond the confines of the law of the land. The few companions and followers he had during those years were indeed more loyal to him -- and hardly any Muslim would doubt that -- than his followers today can ever claim to be. Many a Muslim today will hardly take any time to decide that it is a matter of his faith to kill anyone -- even the most influential person around -- who blasphemes -- or is even suspected of blaspheming -- against the Prophet (saws). But the followers of the Prophet (saws) never murdered even a single of his opponents even when he was pelted with stones at Ta'if. In Makkah, invectives were hurled against him day and night, yet none of his followers regarded it a matter of his faith to kill a few offenders to avenge the Prophet (saws). Had all of his companions -- even those truly close to him as Abu Bakar (raa) and Ali (raa) -- chosen to remain at a weaker level of faith? And had the Prophet (saws) himself chosen not to do anything about the weak faith of his companions? Why didn't he exhort them to do something in retaliation?

It was only after the Prophet (saws) had established an independent State at Madinah that laws were enacted and implemented by him -- and that too was done gradually so as to avoid imbalance in society. The reason for this restraint is that in Islam armed struggle is allowed only at the level of the State13. An individual or a group is not permitted to wage an armed struggle so that anarchy does not prevail in society.

Militant struggle by an individual or a group in an Islamic State amounts to Fasad (disorder, disruption, etc) or, when it becomes a rebellion against the State, Khuruj (rebellion, revolt, etc). In either case, the Islamic State has the right to give the militants a severe death sentence.14 Only when certain conditions have been met is Khuruj allowed.15

The militant Islamists would argue that (a) the government in Pakistan is not Islamic and (b) they -- the militants -- are fighting against Kuffar (sing. Kafir: infidel), who ought to be killed to save Islam from its enemies.

It should be obvious from the points made above that even if Pakistan were not an Islamic State and some of those accepted by the State as Muslims were Kuffar, there would still be no room in Islam for the militant Islamists to take the law into their own hands and kill people. The militants are not more pious than the Prophet (saws) and his close companions (raa).

But let's take a look at this stance as well. Does a State having a morally and religiously corrupt government become un-Islamic? And who has the right to declare a group (or a person) in the Ummah (the whole Muslim community) as non-Muslims or Kuffar?

The Islamic principle on which a State is founded is described in the Qur'an (42:38) in the words amruhum shura baynahum (their affairs are through consultation amongst them)16. This principle entails that the State affairs be run by the vote of the majority of Muslim citizens. When a people establish their government in a geographically independent area over which they have power and authority, the State is formed. Therefore, when the majority of Muslims in a geographically independent area, over which they have power and authority, form their own government through consultation -- elections in modern times --, that government, in accordance with the verse quoted above, represents the Islamic State. Allegiance to that government is a religious obligation on the Muslim citizens of that State17:

Obey Allah and the Prophet and those who are in authority among you. Then if there is difference of opinion among you, refer it back to Allah and the Prophet (The Qur'an 4:59)

It is evident from this verse that even in case of any difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the contents of religion, the matter should be resolved through the Qur'an and the Sunnah18 rather than through guns. And, from the verse quoted earlier (42:38), it is clear that the verdict of the majority of the Muslims regarding the correct interpretation must be accepted as the law of the land. Thereafter, those who dissent do have the right to express their points of view in a peaceful and constitutional manner, but they do not have the right to create a law and order situation or rebel against the State. In Muslim's Kitabu'l-Imarah, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said19: You are organised under the rule of a person and someone tries to break your collectivity apart or disrupt your government, kill him.

It is only when a Muslim is ordered to do something against the directives of Allah or of the Prophet (saws) is he required to disobey those with political and legal authority in the system he lives in. The Prophet (saws) is reported to have said (Muslims, Kitabu'l-Imarah)20: Whether they like it or not, it is obligatory on the faithful to listen to and obey their rulers except that they be ordered to commit sin. If they are ordered to commit sin, they should neither listen nor obey.

The Qur'ânic words 'obey Allah and the Prophet, ' require that a Muslim not obey any command against the directives of Allah and the Prophet (saws). But even then, he is not allowed to disrupt the system or commit murders. The reason is that when a government is formed in accordance with the Qur'ânic principle of amruhum shura baynahum and can be changed or deposed on the same basis, any rebellion against that government amounts to a rebellion against the collectivity of Muslims, which in Islamic terminology, is Muharabah and which, as the statement of the Prophet (saws) quoted earlier explains, is an offence punishable by death.

Prominent people of this Ummah as Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik ibn Anas and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal never resorted to violence, vandalism, terrorism or rebellion in spite of facing extreme hardships to propagate the truth.21 In Al-Masa'il al-Rasa'il al Marwiyyah 'an Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ahmad ibn Hanbal is reported to have said: Far be it from Allah [all that is wrongly associated with Him], blood is but blood22. I do not believe in it nor do I recommend it. Enduring what is on us23 is better than disruption, in which blood is shed, people's wealth is expropriated and things and matters sacred are desecrated.24

In Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal25, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said26: I order you five things: pledging allegiance to the State, listening to and obeying [your rulers in that State], Hijrah27 and Jihad in the way of Allah.

In Bukhari's Kitabu'l-Fitan, the Prophet (saws) is also reported to have said28: He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the State and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance.

In another version in the same collection of his sayings, the Prophet (saws) is reported to have said29: He who sees something despicable in his ruler should bear with it, for he who detaches himself to the slightest degree from the Sovereignty and dies in that condition shall die the death of ignorance (Kitabu'l-Fitan)

Ghamidi explains that in these two versions, the words Al-Jama'ah (the State) and Al-Sultan (the Sovereignty) have been used interchangeably, which clearly shows that this directive of the Prophet (saws) pertains to such a body as has political sovereignty in a geographically independent area in which there is a system of government.30

It should be obvious from the arguments given above that the government in Pakistan, which is brought to power through the mandate given to it by the majority vote of the Muslim citizens is the embodiment of the sovereignty of the State and as such it represents the State. Therefore, a Muslim does not have the right to rebel against the government (Similar opinions are also held by some of the earliest and very highly venerated Muslim political thinkers like Al-Mawardi (Al-Ahkamu'l-Sultaniyyah w'al-Wilayat), Nizamu'l- Mulk (Siyarul-Muluk) and (especially) Ghazali (Nasihatu'l-Muluk). It is indeed the duty of a Muslim to propagate the truth with wisdom and sagacity and, if need be, with personal sacrifice. The way the likes of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Malik Ibn Anas and Abu Hanifah bore persecution at the hands of the rulers of their respective times is a testimony to the fact that the prominent scholars of Islam have never shirked from making sacrifices for the sake of truth, yet have always distanced themselves from vandalism, terrorism, disruption and rebellion even if the rulers were morally corrupt. Indeed, it is this kind of propagation which was termed as a great Jihad by the Prophet (saws). In Tirmidhi's Kitabu'l-Fitan, he is reported to have said31: Verily, words of truth and justice are a great Jihad especially when said in front of an oppressive ruler.

Ghamidi has explained in detail the conditions that must be fulfilled before rebellion against the State is allowed.32 A brief mention of these conditions would not be out of place here:

The first condition is that the rulers unequivocally deny Islam or any of its directives. The fourth verse of the 59th chapter of Qur'an quoted earlier points out that obedience to rulers is obligatory as long as they are from within the Muslims ('those in authority among you').

The Prophet (saws) is also reported to have laid down the same condition for refusal to accept the authority of the rulers.

,  when you see unequivocal denial by them and in a matter regarding which you have an explicit directive from Allah. (Muslim, Kitabu'l-Imarah)

The second and the third conditions, based on amruhum shura baynahum -- 'their affairs are by consultation among them' (the Qur'an 42:38) --, are that the government against which Khuruj is taken place should be a dictatorship which does not enjoy the support of the masses and that the leader of the Khuruj should be a person who has the indubitable support of the nation.

All these conditions are essential in that even if one of them is missing, Khuruj is not permissible.

Furthermore, in case of militant struggle, there is another condition: the rebels must migrate to another land and form an independent State there.

Before discussing the basis and the reason for this condition, it would be pertinent to point out here that the militant Islamists often term all their subversive activities as Jihad. Actually, Jihad is a nomen verbum of Jahada, which means to make one's utmost effort. In Islamic terminology, the word denotes one's utmost effort in the way of Allah. One of the connotations of the word is making one's utmost effort in a militant struggle for Allah. In that sense it is used as a synonym for Qital fi sabil Allah (killing in the way of Allah), which is the more precise term for any kind of militant religious struggle -- be it a battle or war or a rebellion (Khuruj). And in any case, Qital fi sabil Allah is a prerogative of the State. In other words, in Islam there is no concept of Jihad or Qital (militant struggle) of any kind without the authority of the State.

The basis for this condition is that God Almighty did not ever give the permission to use the sword even to the Prophets (saws), who are the final manifestation of the truth for their people, until they had established their rule over their followers as their political sovereigns after migrating with them to another land and forming an independent State there. Moses (As) was given the directive for Jihad only after this condition had been met and, similarly, the Prophet (saws) and his followers were also allowed to do Jihad only when after the Pledge of 'Aqabah they were able to establish an independent State at Yathrib (later known as Madinah).33

The reason for this condition is that without the authority of the State Jihad often becomes Fasad. A group which does not even have the legal authority to sentence a criminal cannot be allowed to gamble with the lives and property of people. For this reason, Muslim jurists have always regarded this condition as essential:

And the third category of collective duties is one in which [the authority] of the Head of the State is a necessary condition, for example Jihad and the implementation of the Islamic law of punishments.34

This is the gist of augments given by Ghamdi for the conditions for Khuruj. Earlier, Hamidu'l-Din Farahi and Amin Ahsan Islahi, two exegetes of the Qur'an, had also expressed similar views in very strong tones. Writes Farahi: Jihad in one's own country is not allowed unless one migrates to another land. Accounts of Abraham's life (As) and other verses [of the Qur'an] related to Hijrah (migration) also point up this principle. The events of the Prophet's life (saws) also corroborate it. The reason for this principle is that without the authority of one who represents the collectivity of the Muslims in the State and has political sovereignty, Jihad is merely chaos and disruption and anarchy and disorder.35

Amin Ahsan Islahi, makes the following comments on the same principle: The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the disruption and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative, righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them. For this reason, God Almighty has not given the right to wage war to a group which is dubious and obscure, the power and authority of which is undefined, which is without the sovereignty of a ruler, the loyalty and obedience of which is untested and the members of which are disorganised and undisciplined -- who can disrupt a system but cannot prove that they have the ability to integrate a disintegrated environment. This confidence [that a group will be able to create harmony and integrate a disorganised environment into an organised system] can only be reposed in such a group as has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that it can be termed as Al-Jama'ah [the government as a representative of the State]. Until a group attains this position, it can strive to become Al-Jama'ah [through religiously allowable and through legal and constitutional means] -- and that endeavour of its would be its Jihad for that time -- but it does not have the right to wage an armed Jihad and a war.

The second reason is that the import of the authority which a group engaged in war gets over the life and property of human beings is so great that such authority cannot be given to a group in which the authority of the leader over his followers is merely moral36. Mere moral authority is not a sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from Fasad fi'l-Ard37. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords38 merely on the basis of his spiritual relationship with them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Those revolutionary groups the object of which is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous group must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the lives and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances or create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end.39

It should be obvious from the passage quoted above that the right to wage war cannot be given to a group of individuals, who do not even have the legal authority to award punishment to a criminal. Without political sovereignty, Jihad is often nothing short of Fasad. Thus, such militant groups as mislead their followers into believing that their terrorism is a form of Jihad have no Islamic basis whatsoever for their claim.40

Now, let us analyse the next argument of the Islamist militants: that they only kill Kuffar41, who are out to destroy Islam. Let's see who is really a Kafir (singular of Kuffar) and who is not. And let's also take a look at whether any individual or group has the authority to declare a Muslim a Kafir.

Ghamidi believes that Takfir, or declaring anyone a Kafir, was the prerogative of the Prophet (saws) -- who did that on the basis of Divine revelation. The authorized companions of the Prophet (sws) had the Divine sanction to give the punishment for Takfir to other specified non-Muslim nations apart from the direct addressees of the Prophet (saws) on the basis of Itmamu'l-Hujjah done by him. After the Prophet (saws) and his Companions, no one has the right to declare anyone a kafir.

The reasons Ghamidi gives for this principle are as follows:

A Kafir as a Qur'ânic term refers to one who denies a Rasul even after the truth of his message has been made absolutely clear to him. Such manifestation of the truth by those messengers of God (termed Rusul; sing. Rasul) who are sent as His final judgment to a people may be termed as Itmamu'l-Hujjah. This takfir, therefore, is actually done by God Himself. The polytheists of Banu Isma'il received death punishment on this basis as is described in Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11). Of the Prophet's direct addressees, the People of the Book were given other punishments (described in the same surah) but were spared the death punishment as they did not profess polytheism as their faith.42

The Prophet (saws) was the last messenger of God. With his status as a Rasul, the Prophet (saws) was in a position to do Itmamu'l-Hujjah even as an individual. No one after him has that privilege. No individual can do Itmamu'l-Hujjah now because no individual can claim that his propagation has manifested the truth to the extent that no excuse is left to deny it. Indeed, an individual cannot even be absolutely certain of having understood the truth absolutely correctly. He can only be certain that God will reward him for doing his duty as he has 'been given the light to see it'. Only the Prophet's word (saws) is final in religion. According to Ghamidi, after the Prophet (saws), the responsibility of bearing witness to the truth of Islam was passed on to his Companions43, who were declared Ummah Wasat (the intermediate people) and the shuhada 'ala'l-Nas (witnesses over people).44 The Qur'an says: He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this [Qur'an]: [He chose you so that] the Rasul may be a witness [of this religion] to you, and you be witnesses of this religion to non-Muslims [of your time]. (22:78)

Thus we have made you an intermediate group so that you be witnesses [of this religion] over the nations, and the Rasul be such a witness over you. (2:143)

Ghamidi believes that this special status of the Companions ended with them, no one now has the right to declare anyone a Kafir or to punish him on that basis.

As far as the issue of declaring someone a non-Muslim is concerned, Ghamidi regards it as essentially a legal one. Therefore, in his opinion only the state has the right to decide in this regard. A person who professes Islam is a Muslim unless the Islamic State, which represents the opinion of the Muslims in a land, declares him otherwise. Ideally, effort should be made to convince him of a truth (without coercing him in any manner). If it all he has to be declared a non-Muslim, it should preferably be done at the level of not one Islamic State but at the level of a body representing all Islamic States so that a person is not a Muslim in one Islamic State and a non-Muslim in another. According to Ghamidi, the Qur'ânic guideline to the Islamic State in this regard in Surah Tawbah (9:5 & 9:11) is that a person who professes to be a Muslim should be considered one if he:

accepts the fundamentals of Islam (what are those fundamentals can again be decided on the basis of amruhim shura baynahum in relation to the Qur'an and the Sunnah).

says the obligatory prayer, and

pays zakah (the obligatory payment of tax on Muslims).45

However, all these principles do not indicate that Muslims should be indifferent to dissents and heresies in religion. It is especially incumbent upon scholars and intellectuals to carry on the task of Da'wah (propagation of the truth) and of Indhar (admonition).

Experience has shown that scholars and intellectuals can best fulfill this responsibility by staying out of politics. It is indeed very fortunate when a political leader is religious, but when a religious leader is political he usually ends up being neither a politician nor a religious leader. Moreover, religious leaders need to understand that there are occasions when speaking out the truth is a requirement of faith and there are occasions when restraining oneself is a requirement of sagacity -- and that the Qur'an requires Da'wah with wisdom and sagacity: a Da'wah which vanquishes the hearts of people rather than killing or battering them.46

Some militant Islamists also argue that their militancy is for self-Defence. Their argument is that as a result of their Da'wah, opposing groups become aggressive, which entails self-Defence.

There is a big difference between what can legitimately be termed as 'self-Defence' and the 'aggression for the sake of self-Defence' that these Islamists usually commit. Extending the meaning of self-Defence to include downright aggression is carrying things too far. Many of these groups argue that not retaliating to aggression is a Christian attitude of 'turning the other cheek'. Islam gives the concept of Qisas, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

It should be borne in mind that an Islamic State has not only the responsibility but also the sole authority to implement the Law of Qisas. Qisas has often been rendered into English as 'retaliation'47 -- a translation which has misled many into believing that personal vendettas are allowed -- in fact encouraged -- in Islam (for example, a report on terrorism 'Bosnia -- A Springboard for Terrorism' prepared by a special task force of the U.S. Senate presents the same view of Islam, which viewpoint is further stressed in the Task Force's reply to a letter of protest by the American Muslim Council). It seems that the argument rests on an incorrect understanding of a Qur'ânic verse: And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir the authority. Therefore, he [the heir] should not exceed in killing, for verily he has been helped. (17:33)

The last part of the verse 'for verily he has been helped' refers to the fact that the State and the law are on his side. 'We have given his heir the authority' means that the heir has the authority to either demand Qisas or forgive the offender. 'He should not exceed in killing' means that since the society is now on the heir's side he should not exceed the limits either by taking the law into his own hand or by demanding a greater punishment than what the offender actually deserves. Ghamidi points out that the fact the Islamic penal laws were implemented only after the establishment of the State and the fact that the whole society has specifically been addressed in most Qur'ânic verses (for instance 6:178-179 and 5:45) pertaining to these laws prove beyond doubt that the directive of implementing the law of Qisas relate to the whole society -- which obviously works through the State and its organs (as the judiciary in this case)48. Therefore, lynching and engaging in personal vendettas have no room in Islam. As already explained, prominent Muslim jurists have always maintained that in some matters related to the collectivity of the Muslims, the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example Jihad (that is Qital) and the implementation of the law of punishments (Iqamatu'l-Hudud):

And the third category of collective responsibility is that in which the authority of the Sovereignty is a necessary condition, for example Jihad and the law of punishments.49

Nothing could be farther from the truth than the idea that Qisas refers to retaliation by an individual or a group. Such retaliation, even if equal harm is done to the offender, simply negates the purpose of the law of Qisas. The words of the Qur'an 'In Qisas there is life for you' refer to the fact that when the State does not provide the people in a society with justice, they often resort to personal vendettas and revenge, which shake the very foundation on which the edifice of a social set-up rests.

A Muslim who has been wronged has the right to demand Qisas and it is the duty of the State to provide him with justice. The Qur'an entails that much. But the Qur'an also goes further than that. It gives a high place to an attitude of forgiveness. Turning the other cheek is not merely a Christian attitude. Jesus (sws) was not telling the judge in a court of law to turn the other cheek while deciding the fate of a serial killer. He was not telling that to the State facing an enemy State in war. He was telling that to a preacher out to conquer the hearts of people. To conquer hearts one never slays, but is slain. One does not take revenge, but forgives. These are the rules for a preacher. Though not the law, they are a great honour and a great privilege. The Qur'an says: The good and the evil are not equal. Repel evil with that which is better than all others; then you will see that he, between whom and you there was enmity, has become as if he were a truly close friend. And this sagacity is not afforded to anyone except those who persevere and this wisdom is not granted except to those who are indeed very fortunate. And if you feel any evil incitement from Satan, seek refuge of Allah. Verily, He is the Hearer, the knower. (41:34-36)

This is the attitude of a Muslim towards those who wrong him because of his Da'wah -- an attitude the Qur'an terms as something truly sublime. With this line of thinking, how is it possible to think of retaliation and personal vengeance? And more than that, how is it possible for any Muslim to believe that he will be able to justify himself on the Day of Judgement for killing innocent people?

V. Appendix

Response to some criticisms on the views presented in the dissertation

@babyosisi,

Well, what could I say? One really could (and should, sometimes) empathise with the simple-minded Muslim who hates to see these matters (I know how it feels because I've been there before). There are so many Biblical events and narratives that the Qur'an seems to adopt, albeit with a recasting that twists the established accounts in the Bible. When I started reading the Bible with a mindset to "hunt out" perceived inconsistencies, I was awestruck at the simplicity, honesty and openness to scrutiny found in it than the Qur'an offers. It wasn't that easy to see the light, but all through the struggles in my heart, the God who speaks in the Bible was so patient and merciful as to forebear with all the nasty things I'd done previously. . . and then still wait to offer me His grace.



@firdaus4us,

Many thanks for your offer of those verses - they were in very fact some that I struggled with while still a Muslim. However, I would ike you to consider how I see them now that the scales have fallen off my eyes by God's true mercy:


Could you please ask yourself just one question: Where did Muhammad get his idea from that Christians were worshipping Mary as part of the Trinity? Nowehere in history as far as I know, and the Trinity has always been the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (not Mary the mother!). I may not know how Muhammad got his summation that the Trinity comprised the Father, the Mother and the Son; but what I do know is that he was misled into believing his own made-up accusations against Christians that he couldn't even check out the facts of what true Christians believed.


How could we trust Muhammad's "revelation" to be true if he was wrong in the previous verse? I'm sorry, but if he was wrong in the preceding verse, it would be foolhardy to trust the subsequent verse.

Moreover, any account of the actual life, teaching and ministry of Jesus Christ should be obtained from the Bible, not the redaction found in the Qur'an. While Jesus ministered among men on earth, He was not merely a witness but the very incarnate Word who was the only begotten of the Father - see it for yourself:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14.

Indeed, Jesus in the Bible is the faithful witness (Rev. 1:5); but more than that, He is the divine Word who is Himself actually God incarnate -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. - Rev. 19:13.

This is what Muhammad tried to deny all through the Qur'an and his career - the deity of Jesus Christ, His divine Sonship, and His atoning and vicarious sacrifice and resurrection. Instead, Muhammad placed the death of Jesus Christ at the end of the world - and guess where? Not in the Qur'an but in the Hadith where he supposed that Jesus would die after destroying the antichrist and making Muslims of everyone. My question is - why would Jesus need to die at all at the end of the age after destroying the antichrist, and not possible for Him to have died and risen before even the emergence of the antichrist?


I sympathise with your convictions; however, I've come to realise that a loving God is not all about "punishing servants" but showing mercy to His chosen. When Jesus spoke of believers, He elevated them from the mere estate of servitude to one of friendship - see again for yourself:

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. - John 15:15.

Isn't that wonderful - and is that not how one longs to know and worship God. . . without fear, ignorance and bias? Jesus wanted us to have that amazing love of His friendship, so that we could know the Father's loving heart, His amazing love, and His power to uplift, bless and establish people's lives in righteousness. That doesn't mean we cease being servants of God; but it does uplift our hearts to know that He loves us and is willing to declare the Father's heart of mercy to us, rather than a picture of "punishing servants".


Thank God for that if you long for such a garden. However, I long for the divine Palace known as the New Jerusalem, the holy city, where the streets are paved with gold (Rev. 21:21). I'm sorry, but that's the choice I've made for the One who promised me that blessing and whose word is as sure as can be. I know in myself that nothing I do can get me there (and there are too many things that I'd done in the past); but this one thing quailifies a person for that place: to have one's name written in the Lamb's book of Life - see for yourself:

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
  - Rev. 21:23-27

Thank you again for your calm and amicable concern. But do please consider what I have been missing out on. . . until I became a Christian.

They won't ever see that, because they don't know what Christianity actually is. Often, they would rather cry hoo-ha at the West than tackle issues in Islam that is making their fellows in the Middle East to be so bellicose. Before the allied forces went to Iraq, was Saddam Hussein a Muslim? And was it American policy that made him kill his own people? That's just one example among the many that show that Muslims don't need any kind of political action from any part f the earth to turn upon themselves.

Al-Quran

Surah Al-Ikhlas (The Unity, Sincerity, Oneness Of God)
Chapter 112:

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Verses

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none like unto Him.

AlQuran

Surah Al-Mulk (The Sovereignty, Control)

Chapter 67: 

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Verses

1. Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion; and He over all things hath Power;-

2. He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;-

3. He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of ((Allah)) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

4. Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.

Please do a research on sovereign use of language and open your heart. Allah is One and Only. Alone in His Glory. No partner, No assistant, No wife, No consort.

Sorry, after I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, my vision became clear enough to see the difference - the Qur'an is not presenting the One True and Living God, and those who are refusing to see it will remain in blind dogma.


You're still failing to examine your claims. A deity who claims to be "One" and "Only" and "Alone" in his glory should not be using WE in speaking of his works in creation - that is as clear as the noonday that he is joining partners with himself. If he could not be the Only creator of the world, then it is obvious he has to share his glory with those he has joined with himself, regardless the denials to the contrary. In a situation where he alone created all things without his assistants, then he should not have spoken of "WE created".

Who are the partners that Allah joins to himself in stating "WE created" in the Qur'an?

Quoting more verses in the Qur'an is not going to change the facts - "Allah" in the Qur'an associates himself with partners in creation while forbidding his worshippers from recognizing those partners.

My dear friend, its not good to be obstinate when you see the Truth. Allah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He revealed the Quran to Prophet Muhammad.

Al-Quran
Surat Nisai Chapter 4

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Verse

82 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

Let me refer you to an article and when you read it, dont just flip over it, research it and ponder over your findings. Then you will know that Allah is your Creator as well as the Creator of your progenitors. He alone is to be worshipped and there is none like unto Him.

''  Tariq Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the Holy
Qur'an that mention one thing is equal to another,
i.e.  men are equal to women.  Although this makes
sense grammatically, the astonishing fact is that the
number of times the word man appears in the Qur'an is
24 and the number of times the word woman appears is
also 24, therefore not only is this phrase correct in
the grammatical sense but also true mathematically,
i.e.  24 = 24.

Upon further analysis of various verses, he discovered
that this is consistent throughout the whole Qur'an,
where it says one thing is like another.  See below
for astonishing result of the words mentioned number
of times in Arabic Qur'an:

Dunia (one name for life) 115.  Aakhirat (one name for
the life after this world) 115
 Malaika (Angels) 88 .  Shayteen (Satan) 88
Life 145 ,   Death 145
Benefit 50 .  Corrupt 50
People 50 .  Messengers 50
Eblees (king of devils) 11 .  Seek refuge from Eblees
11
Museebah (calamity) 75 .  Thanks 75
Spending (Sadaqah) 73 .  Satisfaction 73
People who are mislead 17 .  Dead people 17
Muslimeen 41 .  Jihad 41
Gold 8 .  Easy life 8
Magic 60 .  Fitnah (dissuasion, misleading) 60
Zakat (Taxes Muslims pay to the poor) 32 . Barakah
(Increasing or blessings of wealth) 32
Mind 49 .  Noor 49
Tongue 25 .  Sermon 25
Desite 8 .  Fear 8
Speaking publicly 18 .  Publicising 18
Hardship 114 ,   Patience 114
Muhammed 4 .  Sharee'ah (Muhammed's teachings) 4
Man 24.  Woman 24
And amazingly enough have a look how many times the
following words appear:

Salat 5,
Month 12,
 Day 365,
Sea 32, Land 13
Sea + land = 32+13= 45
Sea = 32/45*100=71.11111111%
Land = 13/45*100 = 28.88888889%
Sea + land =100.00%
Modern science has only recently proven that the water
covers 71.111% of the earth, while the land covers
28.889%.

Is this a coincidence?
Question is that Who taught Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
all this?

Reply automatically comes in mind that ALMIGHTY ALLAH
taught him this.   "

@nuru,

Your efforts are much appreciated, and it's obviously not an easy feat to discover those number-significances in the Qur'an. I could guarantee you that in my little knowledge of the Bible, numbers are significant as well, but the difference is that they have practical applications to our lives than merely discovering their coincidences in any sacred writ. Sometimes, I have asked my friends about the significance of the numbers in the Qur'an, and none has been able to give a salient answer other than what they've been told: "it's a miracle" - and yet, they can't explain what the miracle points to or indicates.

For example, Muslims are told that "Allah" has 99 wonderful names - my question has always been: "what is the significance and practical application of the number 99?" And when they speak of the number 19, one has to ask the same question - and yet no answers are forthcoming. So, you see my dear friend, it's not really helping us get anywhere to just discover some "miraculous numbers" in the Qur'an; but one must ask how those numbers help us understand the counsels of the true and living God.

Now, notice what you might have missed in your post:


To be sure, there are lots of discrepancies in the Qur'an that are explained away by muslim apologists in the past and present. One such is the discrepancy of Allah's identity in the Qur'an - is he monotheistic or polytheistic? If he is monotheistic, why then was he often speaking of "WE" in the Qur'an, especially in matters that had alone to do with God? Is it only Allah (a single being) that created the world, or were there more than one Allah (several beings) that created it? You cannot use a "WE" in speaking of something ascribed to just a single being! That is an obvious discrepancy that most Muslims today are not willing to examine.


I'm sorry, but the "Allah" of the Qur'an is not my creator nor of my progenitors; and I can't worship him even if I'm thrown in the fire or beheaded. The One true and Living God who is worthy of my worship and eternal love and devotion is found in the Bible, and Muhammad only mentioned elements of the Biblical faiths (Judaism and Christianity) to make it look like he was sent by that same God.


In my opinion, Tariq Al Swaidan may have discovered the numbers in the Qur'an enunciated in your reference, but he obviously was not correct in his analysis and application. First, some of us know that in Islam, one thing is not equal to another - and when you read the Qur'an and Hadith, you'll find that in practical terms, men are never equal to women! I'll spare readers the repetition of references to the point; but it's no longer secret that in Islam women are regarded as subhuman and treated that way.


You'll notice that I've been selective in picking out a few items for comparison and contrast.

Now ask yourself: does it really make any sense at all that one thing equals another (or is like the other) in the list you gave from Tariq Al Swaidan? Notice them again:

 ¤ are angels (malaika - 88) really equal to (or like) Satan (shayteen - 88)?

 ¤ is life really equal to death?

 ¤ is benefit really equal to corruption?

 ¤ is calamity really equal to thanks?

You already have the answers even before you read the last question - NO!! And in just the same practical way that women are never regarded as being equal to (or like) men in Islam, so nothing is really equal in the Qur'an. It would be interesting to see how many times "Allah" is mentioned in the Qur'an and what he would be equal to!  :-X


Don't be too quick about that, because similar claims have been made by the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) for the LDS founder, Joseph Smith. When you read the whole Qur'an and ask yourself the same question, you probably might fidget in your seat and not be too quick to give the same response. Take a few examples:

 ¤ who taught Muhammad that it was alright to lust after his maternal and paternal cousins? (Q. 33:50)

 ¤ who taught Muhammad that it was forbidden to inherit women against their will and yet he did the
    exact same thing himself in acquiring "war booties" (female captives) for sex against their will? (Q. 4:19)

 ¤ who taught Muhammad that it was forbidden to lust and yet he expressly displayed lust? (Q. 4:24)

You may not actually like what you're reading, but you see it's of no use quoting numbers in the Qur'an if the moral life of the Prophet who brought Islam is held in shrouded secrecy. I may never understand the numbers; but I do understand that a person's moral life determines his eternal destiny.

David, there is no need to use foul language on this thread.

Malik, we have explained to you so many times to use of plural to underscore soveriegnty, majesty and respect. You wrote that one cannot use

"WE" in speaking of something ascribed to just a single being! .

Ask any Yoruba man from Nigeria how such is used in their language and you would see that such language usage is an everyday thing and people get to understand themselves. This is a language that is not even the Arabic in which the Quran was revealed. If you care to know the Truth, research other languages of the world. 

Afterall, the Originator of human beings that are using languages to communicate is Allah.

The Quran is the Word of Allah, if you do not believe it's your cup of tea. Muslims dont use miracles to preach Islam, but when Allah shows us His Signs, we tell whoever cares. As for the meaning of those congruent numbers, please use your faculty to think them out. In Islam, we are encouraged to research and to ponder on the creations of Allah. You have to discover the Truth by yourself once the route is shown to you.

Allah is the Creator of the every being. Islam is the natural religion of mankind. I am praying that it will not be too late before you realise the Truth.

Less I forget, please do not use foul languages.

Malik,

Allah is the Lord over the Yorubas as well as other tribes. I have to give the example of Yorubas because such language usage seems strange and impossible to you.

Now that you accept that it is possible to speak majestically, you would now ask why Allah used such language slant for Himself. The answer is that He is Our God. He knows us, He knows that He has allowed different language slants to be in use among His creatures. Mind you the language we speak is not what the animals speak, yet they understand themselves. For us human beings, out of His Mercy He has sent down His Books throughout the generations in different forms and formats and in different languages. So that no one will have any excuse of not hearing the message. He knows that among some us, it is the use of language majestically that will convey the message in concrete terms. He knows some other language style will suit others. So He spoke to all of us and yet affirm His singularity. And that is why the common denominator in the messages of all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah including Christ Jesus is the worship of One God.

As for miracles with numbers, you and I know that Our God created the world and all in it with order and rhythm. In this age that we happen to be around, orderliness is mostly expressed in numbers. Our great computer system is based on simple ordering of 1 and 0.

Why 1 and 0, because our Creator is 1 all of us put together is 0. That is the meaning of Lailaa illa LLAU, there is no ( 0 ) god Except Allah (1 ).

Come to think of it Number 19 are two digits, add the two, you get 10, two other digits confirming Allah as 1 and others 0.

These are some of the knowledges that are applicable to our age and generation that prove our Origin. In every age and civilization, there will always be prove of One God. What it will be in the next generation, we cant fathom now.

But our God, Allah, Oloun, Eledumare, Ubamgiji, Chineke is One. To Him belongs all the beautiful names and to Him all True Worship should be directed.

May Allah continue to bless us.

Malik,

Why are you trying to play blind. Allah Alone is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He is one. Even the english that I am using to communicate with you recognises Imperial Talks.

If you are not convinced that Allah is One, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but dont misrepresent a fact that is clear.

Your Lord, your God is One. He has no partner and Him alone you should worship.

My dear nuru,

English has rules of grammar is not confusing - it's either a singular pronoun (I, ME, MY, or MINE) or a plural pronoun (WE, US, OUR, or OURS). "Allah" in the Qur'an used the plural pronouns "WE" in "WE created".

Simple question - Who are the 'WE' in 'WE created'?

You keep going round in circles dodging this question. Is it because the truth is obvious - that Islam is actually polytheistic but just brags that it is not? With whom did Allah create the world that he could not have used the singular pronoun "I created" instead?? Who are the 'WE' in 'WE' created?

My dear nuru,

Blind, deaf and dogmatic are adjectives you use for a person who refuses to consider the obvious polytheism in the Qur'an - e.g., YOU.

My questions received no answers from you and you have the temerity to call me deaf and prejudiced - because you can't see that there's no oneness in 'WE created'? Where is the oneness in the plural pronoun "WE" as used of 'Allah' in the Qur'an? Who actually are the 'WE' in that statement? It's either there's only one creator ('I created' - singular), or there are several of them as in the Qur'an ('WE created' - plural). Is that too difficult for you to understand?

The "Allah" of the Qur'an is not my God, for he is nothing like the true and living God in the Bible. If you have no answers, I'd understand that. But to be additionally arrogant in addressing me as you've done only makes matters worse.

I bear witness that My Creator, My God is One as found in the Biblical faith, and and confessed by all who have experienced His Love in His beloved Son Jesus Christ. I also bear witness that Muhammad is not His messenger and prophet in as much as the true and living God does not approve of a sinner as His messenger.

Islam has never been easy for me to practise.

The "peaceful religion" in action 2004.
Don't be deceived.

Muslim Governor Orders Destruction of Nigerian Churches

It appears that the situation in Nigeria is worse than I thought.

Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State, has ordered the demolition of all churches in the state, as he launched the second phase of his Sharia project yesterday.

Speaking at the launch in Gusau, the state capital, Governor Sani disclosed that time was ripe for full implementation of the programme as enshrined in the Holy Quran.
He added that his government would soon embark on demolition of all places of worship of unbelievers in the state, in line with Islamic injunction to fight them wherever they are found. The questions is, will the federal government of Nigeria actually do something to enforce the country's constitution, which guranatees full religious freedom? Indeed, given the violent atmosphere that already exists, would it even be possible to do so without creating a state of civil war?

In any case, the story is still being buried by secular media in the United States, though it is highly relevant given the current state of war with Islamo-facists in the Middle East. We should not kid ourselves. What is happening in Nigeria is not an abberation where radical Islam comes to power.

Hat Tip: Clayton Cramer

@Nuru,
Based on your own words, Allah indeed sent down various books throughout the generations.  From my understanding, Muslims regard the Torah and the Gospels as these books.   From what I've learnt also, you all are encouraged not to believe these books because according to your double-minded prophet, they have been corrupted.

Now tell me how that can be possible when the same prophet proclaims that Allah's words can never be changed?  Want references?  Check out the following from your Qu'ran:
006.115
YUSUFALI: The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
PICKTHAL: Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR: And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

006.034
YUSUFALI: Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.
PICKTHAL: Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).
SHAKIR: And certainly messengers before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers.

010.064
YUSUFALI: For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.
PICKTHAL: Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.
SHAKIR: They shall have good news in this world's life and in the hereafter; there is no changing the words of Allah; that is the mighty achievement.

Can you reconcile these anomalies?