Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Samatar Mohamed Still Desperately Attacking the Qur'an

Here's Samatar's latest:

And what I meant by the fight used in 9:29, was that fight is not ONLY used for the physical violence, but rather any fight against disbelievers whether through violence or not violence. When a muslim debates a non muslim to defend his way of life, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim decides not to drink alcohol while some schoolmates try to convince him otherwise, he is fighting a Jihad. When a muslim prays in a public school even though they do not allow him to, he is fighting a Jihad for Allah (swt). And when a muslim goes to war against disbelievers to defend his people from oppression, that is also a Jihad. My point is that Jihad is a term that applies in many different circumstances, and the same goes with 9:29 of the Noble Quran. Back to surah 9, sami goes over the historical context of the surah to show how it was used. Because, if Surah 9:29 applied in every case, then the prophet would surely have used 9:29 when he returned in the conquest of Mecca. He could have fought and killed all unbelievers if that was what the verse meant, but when you dive into the historical context as Sami has done, you see quite otherwise.

Absolutely hilarious. I've already shown that Allah himself defines the "fighting" in Surah 9 as involving "slaying" and "being slain," yet Samatar wants to interpret this as "debating"? How many people have a debate where one side gets up and starts killing until they get killed?

But there are even bigger problems for Samatar. Like Sami Zaatari, Samatar tries to convince us that the "fighting" of Surah 9:29 may refer to peaceful "fighting," i.e. praying in a public school, debating, or not drinking. Here are a two irrefutable difficulties:

(1) The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands. If Allah had meant something other than actual fighting, couldn't he have used those words? If he had meant "debate the unbelievers," couldn't he have said that? He might have saved hundreds of millions of lives! By telling us that Allah meant something other than what he actually said, Samatar is telling us that Allah isn't clear! So the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands, but it isn't clear at all. Hence, the Qur'an is false.

(2) Notice what the verse actually says. Muslims are to "fight" those who don't believe in Allah, "until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Now for a reality check. Are people ever going to pay the Jizyah because a Muslim is praying in a public school? No. Are people ever going to pay the Jizyah because a Muslim refuses to drink alcohol? Absolutely not. Has anyone in history ever paid the Jizyah because of a debate? Not a single person. People pay the Jizyah to avoid being killed. So if the verse commands Muslims to fight people until they pay the Jizyah, it's obviously referring to fighting them until they pay to avoid being killed.

Samatar adds the absurd notion that "if Surah 9:29 applied in every case, then the prophet would surely have used 9:29 when he returned in the conquest of Mecca." Utter ignorance. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, 9:29 hadn't even been "revealed" yet! So how would Muhammad have applied a verse that hadn't yet been revealed? This is just getting silly!

So here's where we are. (1) The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear in its commands. (2) The Qur'an commands Muslims to fight unbelievers. (3) Allah defines the "fighting" of Surah 9 as something that involves "slaying" and "being slain." (4) The "fighting" of Surah 9:29 is something that would compel non-Muslims to pay tribute to Muslims in order to avoid it. (5) Muhammad himself believed that this was a command to fight unbelievers simply for being unbelievers. (6) After receiving this "revelation," Muhammad launched a military campaign against the Romans (rather than, say, calling for public debate). (7) Samatar is so embarrassed by what his religion teaches, he's willing to ignore all of this and say, again and again, that when Allah commands Muslims to fight the unbelievers, he may have something peaceful in mind (though Allah apparently lacked the ability to communicate these peaceful intentions).

This is the great dilemma faced by Westernized Muslims. They believe their religion comes from God, yet they are utterly repulsed by what their religion teaches. So they cling to ridiculous reinterpretations in an effort to rescue their god and their prophet. Welcome to Islam.

Our response is simple. If Muslims like Samatar want to reinterpret the clearest teachings of the Qur'an, then we get to do the same. If Allah said "fight" when he really meant "debate," then Allah is the worst communicator in history, and his words are practically meaningless. Hence, when Allah says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, and didn't claim to be divine, and isn't part of the Trinity, I'm going to reinterpret Allah's words. The Qur'an actually teaches that Jesus died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that he is the second person of the Trinity. Muhammad was a Bible-carrying, Gospel-preaching Christian. Samatar can't prove me wrong, because his quotations from the Qur'an are worthless, for his god has a speech disorder.


Dragostea said...

"How many people have a debate where one side gets up and starts killing until they get killed?"

That was good David...Why couldnt I have come up with that one?

And one more that cracked me up:"for his god has a speech disorder." That actually explains many things:

1.not only that his "god" only speaks one language (arabic), but he doesn't do very well not even with that one (because of his speech disorder) light of the new discovery (the speech disorder), we can read 9:29 as follows:
Love those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - love them until they give their hearts to Allah willingly while they are humbled.

3.The satanic verses where actually good verses that MuhaMAD didnt hear them correctly because of "his god" speech disorder and because they were new buddies, but later on, in time, once MuhaMAD was able to understand better what he was actually saying, he rectified the verses. Because, YOU SEE, the names of the pagan goddesses "Lat, Uzza, and Manat" spoken in arabic, sounds very much like "there is only one god", especially when you have a speech disorder.

It's so clear to me now: IT'S LIKE LIGHT...

Joe Bradley said...

Samatar Mohamed appears to be one of a growing number of Muslims who, while attempting to be portrayed as a moderate, mainstream Muslim, blasphemes the Qur'an through its reinterpretation. Their philosophy is, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

In another thread on this blog, there was a commenter/blasphemer who would have the reader believe that the Qur'an disavowed wife beating. When Surah 4:34 of the Qur'an was cited, by other commenters, as the Quranic justification for such an act, she stated that Muslims were getting it wrong because of a failure to properly interpret this Surah.

It is truly amazing that there are an emerging number of rogue, lone wolf re-interpreters of the Qur'an who desperately seek to convince an audience that theirs is the TRUE interpretation of the Qur'an.

Perhaps there will be offshoots from mainstream Islam in the future because of varying interpretations of the Qur'an, such as that which occurred in Catholicism and biblical interpretations giving rise to the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Protestants, etc..

One could choose to subscribe to their own version of blasphemy, such as being a . . .

Samatar Muslim

or an . . .

Akram Muslim

or . . .

? ? ?

Ermac said...

Samatar is committing shirk all over the place, if you think about it. He's saying, "Allah, Muhammad, Qur'an and Hadith are all wrong. No matter what they say, MY opinion of what they ought to say and what you ought to think despite facts is what you should go by". He is giving himself the quality of omnipotence and he thinks he's a better communicator than Allah. Shame!

Dk said...

Well said David.

To Samatar I actually went to Zaatari's link you have posted, it would actually take a while to document all the various problems, but here is a few i've found.

1) Zaatari first defends the interpretation that "fight" can be a verbal or spiritual division on the basis that Jesus uses the word "Sword" in a similar way. However Zaatari then goes on to contradict himself and post two commentaries (one by Maududi) that contradict his previous claim that it is referring to spiritual or verbal warfare, and demonstrate this was physical warfare.

2) Oddly enough Zaatari also complains about the fact that Christians need to read the reason for revelation and the historical context and he provides this context, but still advocates the possible interpretation that "fight" here can mean warfare by the tongue. So why complain to Christians about historical context, give the historical context and then still contradict your own suggestion and say it can also mean warfare by tongue in this context? after proving it doesn't mean that in this context. Then don't complain in the first place!

Now to the actual commentaries themselves.

Firstly the commentaries seem to be advocating a view that while the commandment to fight is offensive, it was necessary because the best defense is a good offense. The entire premise is that the Roman Empire was eventually going to wipe out the Muslims and they were building and army to do so, so the warfare while being offensive was primarily also "defensive".

Lets look at some problems with that.

1) Before the battle of Tabuk, Mohammed is said to have sent an army of 3000 to Mu'tah to extract revenge on the Romans who had in turn killed 15 Arab Muslims spreading the tidings about the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to fellow northern Arab clans, among them one of these men was said to be Mohammed's personal ambassador Al-Harith bin Umair who had been sent on an envoy with a message for the Governor of Busra who in turn should deliver this message to the Casear.

Firstly, to send 3000 men for the death of 15 Muslim men is a certainly a declaration of war from Mohammed. The commentators mention no idea of negotiation or a peace treaty or even "repentance" sort by Mohammed or his allies.

Secondly the commentators fail to comment on the "content" of the message originally sent to Caesar in the first place! What was the content of the original message sent to the Governor and the Casear? What might cause them to kill those Muslim men? (If in fact that did happen).

No doubt in my mind this could actually be the famous letter to Hercules, king of the Byzantines or something very similar to it, Mohammed is known historically to have sent the the same theme based letter to every ruler.

Here it is:

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
From Muhammad, the slave of Allâh and His Messenger to Hercules, king of the Byzantines.
Blessed are those who follow true guidance. I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, Allâh will give you double reward, but in case you turn your back upon it, then the burden of the sins of all your people shall fall on your shoulders. "Say (O Muhammad [pbuh]): ‘O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh.’ Then, if they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’ " [The Noble Qur'an 3:64] [Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/4,5]

Dk said...

2) Mohammads Army and his revenge on the Romans.

Here is a quotation from Maududi's commentary:

"Accordingly, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula A. H. 8, he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma'an, the Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army of one hundred thousand to fight-with them and that the Caesar, who himself was at Hims, had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news, the brave small band of the Muslims marched on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M'utah. And the result of the encounter in which the Muslims were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33), as very favorable, for the enemy utterly failed to defeat them"

Clearly Zaatari and Samatar expect us to believe this fanciful legend, but under what basis? none is provided. Not only does it say 100,000 Romans failed to defeat 3000 Muslims, it indicates that the two groups were actually "fighting" in combat and the Romans still failed! No explanation is given as to how, not even an assertion of a divine miracle! What happened to the captives? What about the sex slaves and bootay? Maududi is stunningly silent. Allegedly this victory gave rise to mass conversions to Islam including the commander of one Roman Army, whom Casear killed for not leaving Islam. (Sounds more more propaganda to wage war against Rome if you ask me).

3) Accordingly both commentators go on to say:

"No wonder that such events as these made the Caesar realize the nature of the danger that was threatening his Empire from Arabia."

"realizing all that, Caesar was aware of the progressive danger threatening his borders, especially Ash-Sham-fronts which were neighbouring Arab lands. So he concluded that demolition of the Muslims power had grown an urgent necessity. This decision of his should, in his opinion, be achieved before the Muslims become too powerful to conquer, and raise troubles and unrest in the adjacent Arab territories."

The commentators themselves confirm that Casear was wanting to protect his borders and was worried about his empire, so he allegedly raised an Army to defend his borders.

3) This would be a legitimate justification (even if it were true) for a King, but Maududi concedes his position is not accepted by most historians:

"In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that the general impression given by the historians of the campaigns of the Holy Prophet about the Campaign of Tabuk is not correct. They relate the event in a way as if the news of the mustering of the Roman armies near the Arabian frontier was itself false. The fact is that the Caesar had begun to muster his armies, but the Holy Prophet forestalled him and arrived on the scene before he could make full preparations for the invasion"

4) Maududi also highlights the ridiculous conditions in which Mohammed's army assemble and endure. The economy was harsh, most Muslims and Muslimah's had to sell close to everything they had to support Mohammed's endeavor. Mohammed insisted those not aiding were really hypocrites, The journey itself a ultra hot desert climate with little to no water or resources including camels, it was a long foot wal, spirits were low. But Mohammed was adamant, no matter how poor and unready and unequipped for war the Arabs were, Mohammed still persisted in Jihad.

Before battle Mohammed is said to have according to al-Mubarakpuri (Zaatari's second commentator):

"Arriving at Tabuk and camping there, the Muslim army was ready to face the enemy. There, the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh] delivered an eloquent speech that included the most inclusive words. In that speech he urged the Muslims to seek the welfare of this world and the world to come."

Best of both worlds eh! Bootay!

Dk said...

5) Next Maududi tells us:

"When they arrived at Tabuk, they learnt that the Caesar and his allies had withdrawn their troops from the frontier and there was no enemy to fight with. "

Probably because as Maududi concedes the majority of historians knew there was no army waiting for them. And Mohammed's supposed "victory" over 100,000 seems incredibly unlikely. Hence I believe the evidence indicates he straight went there and took over with no-body to stop him and his hordes.

However the alledged justification by Maududi for the Roman Army's absence is "Of course they evaded! How can they be there when Mohammed's original 3000 beat 100,000, imagine 30,000 defeating 200,000 easy!!" Truely a faithful spin.

6) What happened next?

Mohammed takes over the region and forces the tribute of jizya!


"he brought pressure on the small states that lay between the Roman Empire and the Islamic State and were at that time under the influence of the Romans, and subdued and made them the tributaries of the Islamic State. For instance, some Christian chiefs Ukaidir bin Abdul Malik Kindi of Dumatul Jaiidal, Yuhanna bin D'obah of Allah, and the chiefs of Maqna, Jarba' and Azruh also submitted and agreed to pay Jizyah to the Islamic State of Al- Madinah. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islamic State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, and the majority of the Arab clans, who were being used by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans."

An example from al-Mubarakpuri:

"As it was a moony night Khalid could see Ukaidir come out to hunt them, so he captured him ? though he was surrounded by his men ? and brought him back to the Messenger of All⨠[pbuh], who spared his life and made peace with him for the payment of two thousand camels, eight hundred heads of cattle, four hundred armours and four hundred lances. He obliged him to recognize the duty of paying tribute and charged him with collecting it from Dumat, Tabuk, Ailah and Taima'."

7) Finally Mohammed returns home, and destroys the mosque where his opposition was plotting against him just in case he lost the war. Yep "all opposition" eliminated. The opposition known as "munafiq" aka hypocrites. Yet who can really conceive of a conquered people being hypocrites when they despise the conqueror?

al-Mubarakpuri concludes:

"The effect of this invasion is great as regards extending and confirming the Muslims' influence and domination on the Arabian Peninsula. It was quite obvious to everybody that no power but Islam's would live long among the Arabs. The remainders of Jahiliyin and hypocrites ? who used to conspire steadily against the Muslims and who perpetually relied on Byzantine power when they were in need of support or help ? these people lost their expectations and desires of ever reclaiming their ex-influence. Realizing that there was no way out and that they were to submit to the fait accompli, they gave up their attempts.

From that time on, hypocrites were no longer treated leniently or even gently by the Muslims. All⨠not only bade Muslims to treat them severely but He also forbade them to take their gift charities or perform prayer on their dead, or ask All⨦#146;s forgiveness for them or even visit their tombs."

In conclusion, there goes freedom of religion, speech, tolerance and the Islamic Supremacy is now born!

Dk said...

Samatar as you can see, ultimately not only is Jihad referring to physical warfare, conquering, collecting plunder and women, tribute and submission, the likelihood that this war was a defensive war against the Roman Empire is completely unsupported.

If it was a defensive war Mohammed also had the perfect opportunity to return home after the Roman army never showed up. But instead he subdues the Christians, accumulates the plunder and forces the jizya tribute tax among the people.

Make sure to address everything. And don't appeal to sloppy non-historical pseudo scholarship like Zaatari has.

Chinchilla PetVerse said...

Dear David,

God Bless you for all the work you do. I am frequently stunned by the amount of research and work you do. We all have 24 hours in a day but the output that guys like you, Bro. Sam, Samuel, etc derive is nothing less than astronomical.

To be quite honest with you, I sometimes think that probably you may end up quoting an Islamic verse out of context, but then when I see the responses and the bending over backward attitude of people such as Samatar, Saami, Shabir, Osama, etc... I am convinced that you are obviously not misquoting.

Top it all, your logic is irrefutable and the humor scathing...

Once again.. a big THANK YOU, HAPPY NEW YEAR and GOD BLESS.

Nakdimon said...

What I find especially deceptive about Muslims is that when they mention the supposed different noble forms of Jihad they always omit the most important form of Jihad: fighting for Allah offensively, to subjugate others under islamic rule.

They are quick to mention fighting inwardly or fighting against oppression, but almost never mention the one form of Jihad which is mentioned the most frequent in the Quran.

Zack_Tiang said...

I always look forward to such posts in response to certain commenters.
Always enlightening, although at the same time, disappointing and even upsetting with regards to the commenter being responded to...

curly said...

Thank you for sharing summary to us what you read the link.

gabriella oak said...

Thank you David.
It's from posts like these that I learn so much. Mainly how to argue effectively, which I endeavour to do in-between avoiding nauseating Osama Abdullah's advances.

Dk said...


After finding Maududi's introduction to Surah 9 At Taubah. I noticed that Zaatari in his link has specifically omitted a very relevant section of Maududi's real conclusion and opinions which directly contradict Samatar and Zaatari own views, once again the misuse of sources will be exposed.

Here it is for everyone:

Dk said...

"Problems of the Period

If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,

to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,

to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and

to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted: A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of 'ignorance' should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriksshould not be allowed even to come near the "House" (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the "House" that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of 'ignorance', was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere). In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah(v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

Dk said...

The third important problem was to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, who had hitherto been tolerated in spite of their flagrant crimes. Now that there was practically no pressure upon them from outside, the Muslims were enjoined to treat them openly as disbelievers (v. 73). Accordingly, the Holy Prophet set on fire the house of Swailim, where the hypocrites used to gather for consultations in order to dissuade the people from joining the expedition to Tabuk. Likewise on his return from Tabuk, he ordered to pull down and burn the 'Mosque' that had been built to serve as a cover for the hypocrites for hatching plots against the true Believers.

In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a' conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. (vv. 81-96).If the above-mentioned important points are kept in view during the study of this Surah, it will facilitate the understanding of its contents."

Dk said...

As you can see in the long run Maududi's opinion is no different from that of the likes of Ibn Kathir himself. How this important fact was omitted is beyond words!

Derek Adams

Dk said...

Exposing these commentaries cited by Zaatari even further:

Derek Adams