Saturday, July 30, 2016

The Masked Arab and the Dunning Kruger Effect, Does islam Encourage killing innocent civilians?


(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)

Introduction:

The masked arab has started a new series in regards to ISIS and do they represent true teachings of islam, I’ve ignored his first video duo to the fact that it’s weak and doesn’t provide much arguments, however I will deal with this one in regards to killing innocent civilians, although the arguments are just recycled and cliché , it should not be ignored, If I make any mistake here, correct me in civilized manner, and if I cited a weak narration cite your sources that verifies it and I’ll remove it

Issue#1:
The masked arab starts with citing verse 5:32, where he states that muslims will cite this verse and expect the problem to go away, I’m not sure why the masked arab think this is the Only verse Muslims will cite as counter argument for the typical polemicist claim of condoning killing innocent civilians in the quran, but let us deal with it
@1:30 the masked arab start with the argument that the God of the Quran instructed to the Israelites instructions that was not given to the muslims, and he cites the Sabbath as an example, although muslims don’t have official day of rest where they do prayer and refrain from work that is called Sabbath the masked arab magically forgot about the Friday prayer where is extremely similar to the Sabbath that the Israelites observe, which is known as Yaum Al-Ju’m, literally means the Friday , where muslims gather in a mosque to pray in regular calendar it’s also regarded as the seventh day in the week, How did the masked arab brushed this fact off is beyond me, although to be fair an instruction to jews is not always obligatory on muslims, But that depends on what type of instruction it’s, are the muslims obligated to pray just like the jews? No, are they required to prostrate and celebrate the same holidays as the jews? No, are they obligated to use the same terms as the jews use? no, but what about moral and political obligation? We have not seen any difference between the commandments the jews are obligated to follow and the commandments the muslims are obligated to follow, so how the hell did the masked arab used a Jewish holiday to make his argument that verse 5:32 is not obligated on the muslims?
But let us see now what major Tafsir scholars said in regards to this verse
Keep in mind as I stated before, the books of tafsirs are filled with weak narrators, so if I cite a weak narration please correct me on it

"حُدثت عن الـحسين، قال: سمعت أبـا معاذ، قال: ثنـي عبـيد بن سلـيـمان، قال: سمعت الضحاك يقول فـي قوله: { مِنْ أجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنا علـى بَنِـي إسْرَائِيـلَ } يقول: من أجل ابن آدم الذي قتل أخاه ظلـماً"[1].

Translation:
Hussain Told us, said: I Heard aba Mu’ath said: ‘Ubaid bin Sulaiman said: I heard Dahak say: God says {Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel} says: this is in reference to the sun of Adam who killed his brother unjustly

So according to tafsir scholars and this narration, in particular, the reference to the children of Israel was in regards to an incident that happen to them, NOT that this commandment was exclusive to the jews

To claim that since the Israelis are mentioned here therefore this commandment is exclusive to the Jews only is a non sequitur fallacy, if I was a judge and I was handed a case of murder between a man of a tribe named Quraish where a man killed another innocent brother of his tribe, then proclaim punishment of the murderer does this mean this punishment is exclusive only to the Quraish tribe?

However, some might say “that is still not a good enough evidence, do you have explicit statement that this verse is applicable to the Muslims aswell from the tafsirs?” the answer is arguably Yes indeed it’s
Let us see a shocking statement that will drag the carpet from desperate masked arab fans and from the masked arab himself that will more likely refute even his entire video

"حدثنـي الـمثنى، قال: ثنا سويد بن نصر، قال: أخبرنا ابن الـمبـارك، عن سلام بن مسكين، قال: ثنـي سلـيـمان بن علـيّ الرَّبْعي، قال: قلت للـحسن: { مِنْ أجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنا علـى بَنِـي إسْرَائِيـلَ أنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ }... الآية، أهي لنا يا أبـا سعيد كما كانت لبنـي إسرائيـل؟ فقال: إي والذي لا إله غيره، كما كانت لبنـي إسرائيـل وما جعل دماء بنـي إسرائيـل أكرم علـى الله من دمائنا"[2] [3].

Translation:
Muthana told me: Swaid bin Nasir said: bin al-mubarak, from salam bin misken, said: Sulaiman bin Ali al-rubai’I said: to Hussain {Because of that, we decreed upon the Children of Israel} …. the verse, is it for us aba Sa’id just as it was for the people of Israel? He said: Yes, by the god in which there is no other god, just like how it was to the people of Israel, which didn’t make the blood of the people of israel more precious than ours

This is a slap to the face of the masked arab and his fans who argue this verse is not applicable to the Muslim community and only the Israelis
Of course I’m not stating this is the only interpretation, but to argue that there is no other way around this and this is not applicable to the Muslims is simply false, I’m aware that the masked arab later on agree for the sake of the argument that this could possibly be referring to Muslims aswell, but he only do so from the side of an assumption, but who I’m directing my speech at? I’m directing it to all of his fans who pick up from the first assumption that this could not be possibly referring to Muslims aswell, never the less, I’m also fully prepared to accept the possibility that this could be only to the jews of Israel, because there are many more verses of peace I can cite other than this, which I’m still perplexed why he focused on it as his first rebuttal
Now let us start debunking his interpretation of the verse

Issue#2(updated thanks to sceptical77 for pointing a mistake here):
@2:34 the masked arab cites Tafsir Jalalyan to claim that disbelief is cited as one of the lists of the conditions excluded from punishing a murdered, however let me first expose what he did, he stated this as this somehow is the Only interpretation available for the conditions excluded from murder,i shall deal with what scholars regarded this verse means.

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذٰلِكَ } الذي فعله قابيل { كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِى إِسْرٰءيلَ أَنَّهُ } أي الشأن { مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ } قتلها { أَوْ } بغير { فَسَادٍ } أتاه { فِى ٱلأَرْضِ } من كفر أو زنا أو قطع طريق أو نحوه { فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا } بأن امتنع عن قتلها { فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً } قال ابن عباس: من حيث انتهاك حرمتها وصونها { وَلَقَدْ جَاءتْهُمْ } أي بني إسرائيل { رُسُلُنَا بِٱلّبَيّنَٰتِ } المعجزات { ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيراً مّنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذٰلِكَ فِى ٱلأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ } مجاوزون الحدّ بالكفر والقتل وغير ذلك[4].

Translation:
{ Because of that} what Qabil have done { which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel} in regards { that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul} slayed it { or for} other than { corruption} committed { in the land} like disbelief or zina or waylaying or like that { it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether} and how ever save a life { it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind} Ibn ‘Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul’s] sanctity [respectively]. {And our messengers had certainly come to them} meaning the people of Israel { with clear proofs} with miracles { Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.} by overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like.

The part that contain the word “overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like.” Was NOT referring to the meaning of mischief and manslaughter, But rather the end of the verse that is referring to “Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.”
I’m honestly now even more perplexed on how he managed to deceive his audience here, are they this gullible? Didn’t anyone of them fact check this?

Issue#3:
@3:15 the masked arab cites Tafsir Ibn Kathir in regards to this verse
This is supported by @3:02 he says “we see here that disbelief is classified as one of the criteria for spreading mischief in the land”
But I stated before that there are multiple interoperation to this verse, so what did the commentaries said in regards to this?
According to Tafsir Al-Tabari


ثم اختلف أهل التأويـل فـي تأويـل قوله جلّ ثناؤه: { مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أوْ فَسادٍ فِـي الأرْضِ فَكأنـمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أحْياها فَكأنَّـما أحيْا النَّاس جَمِيعاً } فقال بعضهم: معنى ذلك: ومن قتل نبـياً أو إمام عدل، فكأنـما قتل الناس جميعاً، ومن شدّ علـى عضد نبـيّ أو إمام عدل، فكأنـما أحيا الناس جميعاً

Translation:
The people of interoperation differed in regards to how to interpret this verse { whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.} some of them said : the meaning of this: who ever kills a prophet or a just Imam, it’s as he killed entire mankind, and who ever follow a prophet or a just Imam it’s as he saved entire mankind
So right of the bat we do have multiple interpretation to this verse, not a unified interpretation, but spoiler alert, this won’t be the first time in this article we see the masked arab cherry pick an interpretation that fits his criteria

But let us now brush this aside shall we, let’s ignore the fact that he cherry picked an interpretation that fits his propaganda, and let us examine the very Tafsir he himself used Tafsir Ibn Kathir but what no one have ever seen is that even in the English version provided by the website there are multiple interpretation
1-     (that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.[5]
2-     (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.'' Similar was said by Mujahid;[6]
What interpretations does Tafsir Ibn Kathri give us in the original source, the Arabic translation that doesn’t exist in the English version?

يقول تعالى: من أجل قتل ابن آدم أخاه ظلماً وعدواناً { كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِىۤ إِسْرَٰءِيلَ } أي: شرعنا لهم وأعلمناهم: { أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى ٱلأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـٰهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً } أي: من قتل نفساً بغير سبب؛ من قصاص أو فساد في الأرض، واستحل قتلها بلا سبب ولا جناية، فكأنما قتل الناس جميعاً؛ لأنه لا فرق عنده بين نفس ونفس، ومن أحياها، أي: حرم قتلها، واعتقد ذلك، فقد سلم الناس كلهم منه بهذا الاعتبار، ولهذا قال: { فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً } وقال الأعمش وغيره، عن أبي صالح، عن أبي هريرة، قال: دخلت على عثمان يوم الدار، فقلت: جئت لأنصرك، وقد طاب الضرب يا أمير المؤمنين فقال: يا أباهريرة أيسرك أن تقتل الناس جميعاً، وإياي معهم؟ قلت: لا، قال: فإنك إن قتلت رجلاً واحداً، فكأنما قتلت الناس جميعاً، فانصرف مأذوناً لك، مأجوراً غير مأزور، قال: فانصرفت، ولم أقاتل. وقال علي بن أبي طلحة، عن ابن عباس: هو كما قال الله تعالى: { مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى ٱلأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـٰهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً } وإحياؤها ألا يقتل نفساً حرمها الله، فذلك الذي أحيا الناس جميعاً، يعني: أنه من حرم قتلها إلا بحق، حيي الناس منه، وهكذا قال مجاهد: ومن أحياها، أي: كف عن قتلها[7].

Translation:
God Says for killing the son of Adam unjustly and in enmity { We decreed upon the Children of Israel} meaning : we declared to them a legislation and teaches them : { that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely} meaning: who ever kills a sole with no reason without justification and spreading corruption, and made it lawful to kill it without a reason or felony, it’s like he killed entire mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another. (and if anyone saved a life...) by preventing its blood from being shed and believing in its sanctity, then all people will have been saved from him, so, (it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, "I entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!' He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.' So I went back and did not fight.''' `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is as Allah has stated, (if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.'' Similar was said by Mujahid: and who ever save it by not killing it.

وقال عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم: من قتل نفساً، فكأنما قتل الناس، يعني: فقد وجب عليه القصاص، فلا فرق بين الواحد والجماعة، ومن أحياها، أي: عفا عن قاتل وليه، فكأنما أحيا الناس جميعاً، وحكى ذلك عن أبيه، رواه ابن جرير، وقال مجاهد في رواية: ومن أحياها، أي: أنجاها من غرق أو حرق أو هلكة

Translation:
And Abdulrahman Bin Zaid Bin Aslam said: who ever kills a sole, it’s like he killed entire mankind meaning: punishment should be described to him, because there is no different between one and group of people, and who ever saves it meaning who ever refrain from killing it, it will be as he saved entre mankind, and this was said to his father narrated by bin Jarir and Mujahid said in a narration and who saves it meaning saving it from drowning or burning or death

Second of all, if we get to accept that this is referring to Muslims only then what is the point of saying “as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely”? what is the point of using the word mankind which include also non-believers?

Issue#4:
@3:45 the masked arab cites verse 4:93 which reads the following
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.”
Here he seems to imply the hypothesis that the Quran at no point condemn the killing of non-believer or having peace treaty with them, let us examine this, I shall cite a couple of verses

Quran 17:33
“And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of] taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law].”

here this is referring to any sole, it didn’t distinguish between a believer sole and a non-believer

60:8
“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.”

8:61
“And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

However, this is not the main focus of the article, let us now get into the main premise of the video

Issue#5:
@4:15 the masked arab cites 16:126 of the Quran
“And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient.”
And @ 4:29 the masked arab cites 2:178
"O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment.”

Here the masked arab will later make a shocking statement that a single look at regular commentaries will show how idiotic his argument is, let us examine what he interpreted it to be
@5:13 he says and I quote “so it basically tells us when two sides are fighting, you can retaliate by killing a person from the opposing side, but only if you kill a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave a woman for a woman, instead of banning this barbaric practice of retribution, the author of the quran endorses it, just as long as the person killed in the retaliation is of the preserved equal value of the person who was murdered in the first place, this obviously isn’t very fair innocent people will be killed here, you would have thought the religion of peace would not tolerate such ancient retribution, and be very clear that only the person guilty of the murder can be punished, regardless of wither he was free a slave or wither it was a woman”

This is literally what he said, he literally interprets it as somehow a random innocent free or slave or woman to be killed as long as they are of equal value, he cited no sources no references to claim that a random innocent is to be killed here, but what is my refutation if you might ask
Do Muslim scholars comment on whom to be killed? The answer is Yes
In Tafsir Al-Tabari

فإن قال قائل: وكيف قال: { كُتِبَ عَلَـيْكُم القِصَاصُ }؟ قـيـل: إن معنى ذلك علـى خلاف ما ذهبت إلـيه، وإنـما معناه: يا أيها الذين آمنوا كتب علـيكم القصاص فـي القتلـى، الـحرّ بـالـحرّ، والعبد بـالعبد، والأنثى بـالأنثى. أي أن الـحرّ إذا قتل الـحرّ، فدم القاتل كفء لدم القتـيـل، والقصاص منه دون غيره من الناس، فلا تـجاوزوا بـالقتل إلـى غيره مـمن لـم يقتل، فإنه حرام علـيكم أن تقتلوا بقتـيـلكم غير قاتله[8].

Translation:
And if someone ask : and how it was said {prescribed for you is legal retribution} ? then the reply to it: this means unlike what it was revealed about, which means, oh you believers prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered  the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, Meaning if a free killed a free, then the blood of the murdered is required for punishment, in regards to punish other than the murdered then it’s Not allowed to punish other than the murderer himself, because it’s Haram (forbidden) for you to kill in retribution what you lost among you other than the one who murdered him.
This just flies in the face of the masked arab, this is not a narration but rather the opinion of Tabari himself

Of course, I’m not insinuating this is the only interpretation but let us go to the next point

Issue#6:
@6:01 the masked arab cites Tafsir Qurtubi page 496
"Fight them until there is no more fitna and the deen belongs to Allah alone. This is a command to fight every idolater in every place according to those who say that it abrogates the previous ayats. According to those who say that it does not abrogate other ayats, it means: fight those about whom Allah says, "if they fight you". The former is the more likely meaning. It is an unqualified command to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah, "and the din belongs to Allah alone." The Prophet said, "I was commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' The ayat and Hadith both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says, "until there is no more fitna," meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear."

The masked arab from the above commentary as I understood it, seems to suggest that according to him, muslims are allowed to kill any non-believer at any place with no reason what so ever, this required evidence, as the above commentary Doesn’t suggest such interpretation, but rather suggest was is militarly known as a preemptive strike, muslims are allowed to conduct a raid and an attack even before the enemy plans for it, we have seen that in the Banu Qurayza attack when they betrayed Muhammad and planned for an assassination, they didn’t prepare an army or attacked muslims , but rather planned for it as the news reached Muhammad and he acted upon it to punish them, we will deal with it in future articles
What I’m insinuating here is that here is according to the above commentary, Muslims are allowed to initiate a preemptive attack, NOT the Muslims are allowed to kill any non-believer for no reason at all
1.      EVERY SINGLE NATION that has ever existed has probably taken part in warfare. Islam originally largely spread through conquest firstly and da’wah and such was secondary. Conquering other nations is completely normal.



2.      Jihad and terrorism are two completely things. Offensive jihad is done under a ruler and I've never heard of a scholar who argued offensive jihad is done without an Imam.


3.      Killing civilians is condemned by consensus because we have texts forbidding the killing of women, children and such. Some like ibn Taymiyyah by qiyas also include the general worshiper in this.


‏ اغْزُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ تُقَاتِلُونَ مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ لاَ تَغُلُّوا وَلاَ تَغْدِرُوا وَلاَ تُمَثِّلُوا وَلاَ تَقْتُلُوا الولدان و لا اصحاب الصوامع[9]

Now, does Islam forbid the killing of those who don’t pose harm to Muslims, according to numerous scholars the answer is yes
“Make your raids in the name of Allah in the way of Allah. Fight whoever denies Allah. Do not steal from the booty, and do not act treacherously. Do not mutilate and do not kill children, do not kill monasteries owners”

قال أحمد بن حنبل في تعليل أمره صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتل الشيوخ : إن الشيخ لا يكاد يسلم والصغير أقرب إلى الإسلام . قوله : ( ولا تغلوا ) سيأتي الكلام على تحريم الغلول والغدر والمثلة . قوله : ( وضموا غنائمكم ) أي اجمعوها . قوله : ( ولا أصحاب الصوامع ) فيه دليل على أنه لا يجوز قتل من كان متخليا للعبادة من الكفار كالرهبان لإعراضه عن ضر المسلمين[10]

Translation:
And Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal said, in regards to the prophet Muhammad and killing of the elderly, the elderly barley convert and the young ones are the closest to convert , and in his saying (and don’t be dishonest) we will discuss dishonesty and betrayal and like it soon, and his word (and collect your spoils) meaning gather it, and his saying (, do not kill monasteries owners) this is an evidence that you should not kill whoever is devout to worship from the disbelievers like monks because he is not posing any harm or danger to muslims

Because he is not posing any harm or danger to Muslims, so it seems here that the premise is depending on wither or not they pose danger to the Muslims

This is further commented upon by Al-Shawkani
“an analogy can be made between those who have been documented and whoever sits out [of fighting against muslims], or the blind or the like from whom nether benefit [for fighting against muslims] nor permanent harm [against muslims] can be acquired[11]
Imam Muhamad bin Abi bakir al-jwziah in his book Ahkam Ahil Al-dhimma made a very very interesting note:

ولأن القتل إنما وجب في مقابلة الحراب لا في مقابلة الكفر ولذلك لا يقتل النساء ولا الصبيان ولا الزمني والعميان ولا الرهبان الذين لا يقاتلون، بل نقاتل من حاربنا و هذه كانت سيرة رسول الله في اهل الارض كان يقاتل من حاربه الى ان يدخل في دينه او يدخل تحت قهره بالجزية و بهذا كان يامر سراياه و جيوشه اذا حاربة اعدائهم كما تقدم في حديث بريدة[12]

Translation:
Killing is only obligatory in when facing warfare, not when facing kufor, for this reason nether women to be killed nor children, nor the elderly nor the blind, nor those who worship who do not fight rather we fight against those who fight us, this was the way the messenger of god deals with the people on earth, he used to fight those who fight against him until they either enter the deen, make an agreement or treaty with him, or came under his authority by paying jizyah, this is what he used to instruct his armies if they fight against their enemies, as proscribed from the hadith of buraydah

I can go further more but I will encourage you to read and download
“The Killing of Alan Henning:  Mizanur Rahman aka “Abu Baraa” and his errors regarding the covenant of security and the definition of a combatant in the shari'a “
Source


Issue#7:
@7:08 of his video he cites the commentary of Qurtubi in regards to verse 4:94
“O you who have believed, when you go forth [to fight] in the cause of Allah, investigate; and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of worldly life; for with Allah are many acquisitions. You [yourselves] were like that before; then Allah conferred His favor upon you, so investigate. Indeed, Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.”
He cites this particular part and translate it

الخامسة ـ والمسلم إذا لقِي الكافر ولا عهد له جاز له قتله، فإن قال: لا إله إلا الله لم يجز قتله؛ لأنه قد اعتصم بعصام الإسلام المانع من دمه وماله


Translation:
If a Muslim met and infidel who has not been offered protection, he can kill him but if he says “there is no god but Allah” he can no longer be killed because as a Muslim his blood can no longer be shed”
Now the translation is not what annoys me here, what annoys me is the cheeky tactic here, the masked Arab as he did before in the video regarding the nun being a whale the carries the earth, as I demonstrated he took one meaning (or interpretation in this case) and used it as the only meaning, it’s actually quite shocking what he did at the start, because the start of the screenshot he gave read like this
الخامسة
Laterally means “and the fifth one” fifth one in what? Why didn’t TMA show this part? Why did he hide it all the sudden from his gullible audience? Let us examine the first page of the tafsir he used

Right of the batt Quratubi state the following

فـيـه إحـدى عشـرة مسألـة[13]:

Translation:
“there are 10 interpretations of it”

10 interpretations or meanings? 10? And the masked arab used only one and covered the rest to fit his propaganda? Seriously how can anyone take what he did here as acceptable? He took one interpretation and claimed it to be the only one, let us see one of the 10 interpretation used


الثالثة ـ قوله تعالى: { وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ لِمَنْ أَلْقَىۤ إِلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلاَمَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِناً } السّلَم والسِّلْم؛ والسّلام واحد، قاله البخاري. وقُرىء بها كلها. واختار أبو عبيد القاسمُ بن سلاّم «السلام» وخالفه أهل النظر فقالوا: «السلم» ههنا أشبه؛ لأنه بمعنى الانقياد والتسليم، كما قال عز وجل:
{ فَأَلْقَوُاْ ٱلسَّلَمَ مَا كُنَّا نَعْمَلُ مِن سُوۤءٍ }

Translation:
the third one: his word almighty { and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace "You are not a believer,"} al salam and peace, and salam is one thing, Bukhari said it: and read with all of it, and it was chosen by abu ‘ubaid al-qasim bin salam  »al salam« but the people of interpreting contradicted it they said »al salam« here is similar, because it’s of the meaning of greeting and peace just like how god said { and [who] then offer submission, [saying], "We were not doing any evil}

so this is just one out of 10 interpretation

@7:24 the masked arab cites Hadith Sunan Ibn Majah
“A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever.”[14]

We already dealt with the issue of retaliation, and who it was directed to back in Issue#5
I could leave it right there but let us explore what Hadith explanation said in regards to this narration, it just happen that this narration does also exist in Sahih Mukhari
And Ibn Hajar al-asqalani sain in his explanation

قوله : ( باب لا يقتل المسلم بالكافر ) عقب هذه الترجمة بالتي قبلها للإشارة إلى أنه لا يلزم من الوعيد الشديد على قتل الذمي أن يقتص من المسلم إذا قتله عمدا ، وللإشارة إلى أن المسلم إذا كان لا يقتل بالكافر فليس له قتل كل كافر ، بل يحرم عليه قتل الذمي والمعاهد بغير استحقاق


Translation:
His words (chapter : A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever) after this translation in which before it we described that Dahimi (non-believer under protection) who is killed the punishment must apply to the muslim who kill him if he kill him intentionally (not in retaliation), and the indication that if a muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever doesn’t mean he can go and kill any disbeliever, but it was made forbidden to him murdering the dahimmi, and those under the protection or treaty without reason of justification

Since we already established that you can’t kill a disbeliever for no reason at all.
One question that might be asked
Will who is the disbeliever that need to be killed here?

فيلزم أن يقيد الكافر في المعطوف عليه بالحربي كما قيد في المعطوف ، لأن الصفة بعد متعدد ترجع إلى [ ص: 16 ] الجميع اتفاقا ، فيكون التقدير : لا يقتل مؤمن بكافر حربي ولا ذو عهد في عهده بكافر حربي ، وهو يدل بمفهومه على أن المسلم يقتل بالكافر الذمي[15] .

Translation:
It’s obligatory that a disbeliever should be categorized in what is ascribed to him in warfare, because the attribute here after the plural should be ascribed to everyone, so it’s estimate: a Muslims should not be killed in retaliation for a fighter of the disbelievers, and for those with no treaty in his nature being a fighting disbeliever, and this is evident by meaning that a Muslim can be killed for killing a dhimmi disbeliever

From the above narration, we can see that only if the disbeliever is a fighter or in warfare, a Muslim should not be killed if he kills him, but a Muslim WILL be killed if he kills a dhimmi

It was also narrated

وقد تمسك بما روي عن عمر مما ذكرنا مالك والليث فقالا : يقتل المسلم بالذمي إذا قتله غيلة . قال : والغيلة أن يضجعه فيذبحه

Translation:
And it was established as correct what was narrated from ‘umar from what we mentioned from Malik and Laith who said: a Muslim should be killed if he killed a Dhimmi in Gila, and Gila means if he lay him down and slaughter him
it was also narrated:


 [16][17]" وأن لا يقتل مسلم بكافر " دليل على أن المسلم لا يقاد بالكافر ، أما الكافر الحربي فذلك إجماع

Translation:
And a Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for a disbeliever, evidence for that is the hadith, But if the disbeliever is a fighter then he is not to be punished, and there is general consensus regarding that

so it should be clear by now that a Muslim who kills a disbeliever all depends on who this disbeliever was, if he was a fighter then the Muslim should not be killed if he kills him for retaliation


Issue#8:
But here the masked arab cites Islam Q&A website, now what makes it odd here is that here the website answering panel replied that killing a Muslim is one of the most major sins, the masked arab said “see how a murder is a major sin Only if the victim was a Muslim” here the masked arab ironically just proved that ISIS is committing a major sin in Islam, because the majority of ISIS victims are Muslims, this is pathetic, he actually just refuted his entire video by showing this article

Issue#9:
Finally here we come close to what it seems a force conversion command given by Muhammad in an authentic hadith
@8:12 the masked arab cites the hadith of Sahih Bukhari
Allah's Messenger () said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."[18]
Now what is the problem here? It seems the masked arab is insinuating that this hadith is suggesting to spread islam by sword and force people to convert, how he managed to get this without evidence is beyond me, however it seems that he got this idea from the part that says “the people” but are the people here everyone? NO, this is Not referring to everyone for example does the verse 22:27 “And proclaim to the people the Hajj [pilgrimage]; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass – “refers to everyone to participate in haj? Or the people here means muslims? But I’m I goanna stand he make this argument without any evidence like the masked arab? No.

Special thanks to the scholar Abu Islam al-maghrib the owner of the website https://antitansseer.wordpress.com/  the following are from his article https://antitansseer.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/omerto/

ثَالِثُهَا : أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ الْعَامِّ الَّذِي أُرِيدَ بِهِ الْخَاصُّ ، فَيَكُونُ الْمُرَادُ بِالنَّاسِ فِي قَوْلِهِ ” أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ ” أَيِ : الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ ، وَيَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ رِوَايَةُ النَّسَائِيِّ بِلَفْظِ ” أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ[19]


Translation:
The third one: from the public here is a specific group, what is meant here by people in his word “fight against the people” meaning the Polytheist and not from the people of the book, and this is evident by the narration of Nisai “I was ordered to fight the polytheists”

And yes I understand that the existence of the word “the third one” can suggest another interpretation, so I’m not claiming that the above is the only interpretation available, as I don’t want to deceive any reader here and block out a part and not translate another

This is contrary to what the masked arab said @8:43 “here he says clearly he has been ordered to fight against the people referring to them in a general sense”

Further evidence comes from the following similar narration:
“The Prophet [SAW] said: "I have been commanded to fight the idolators until they bear witness to La ilaha ill-Allah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha ill-Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth become forbidden to us except for a right that is due.".[20]

Now a possible reply to this refutation will be as follows so let me preemptively refute the responses to me
Even if this is referring to polytheists only, you can’t just force them to convert and fight them for no reason

In reply to this I already established with evidence and I provided sources that back up my conclusion that those to be killed are fighters, but still here are few more sources that are EVEN linked to this very hadith

قوله تعالى ( فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ ) عامٌّ في كل مشرك ، لكنَّ السنَّة خصَّت منه من تقدم ذكره قبل هذا من امرأة ، وصبي ، وراهب ، وحُشوة [ وهم رذال الناس ، وتبعهم ، ومن لا شأن له فيهم ] ، حسبما تقدم بيانه ، وبقي تحت اللفظ : مَن كان محارباً أو مستعدّاً للحرابة والإذاية ، وتبيَّن أن المراد بالآية : اقتلوا المشركين الذين يحاربونكم[21]

Translation:
His words almighty {fight the polytheists} this is general on every polytheist, but the Sunnah made it specific and mentions women, children and monks and the weak of people according to what have been established, and what is left under the meaning: whoever was a fighter or ready to fight and cause harm as it was mentioned in the verse: fight the polytheists who fight you

If this is not good enough, here is Ibn Taymiah one of the most influential scholars in classical era, even making a comment on the masked arab hadith

وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ( أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلهَ إِلاَّ الله وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ الله وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ وُيُؤتُوا الزَّكَاة ) مراده : قتال المحاربين الذين أذن الله في قتالهم ، لم يُرد قتال المعاهَدين الذين أمر الله بوفاء عهدهم[22]

Translation:
and the hadith of the prophet: (I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity) what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah



Ibn Taymiyah also stated
القتال هو لمن يقاتلنا إذا أردنا إظهار دين الله ، كما قال الله تعالى ( وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ[23]

Translation:
Fighting is only for those who fight us when we spread the religion of God, just like how god said: {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.}

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiah responds to those who claim that the peaceful verses have been abrogated by the verse of the sward by stating the following

فإن من الناس من يقول : آيات المجادلة والمحاجة للكفار منسوخات بآية السيف ؛ لاعتقاده أن الأمر بالقتال المشروع ينافي المجادلة المشروعة وهذا غلط ، فإن النسخ إنما يكون إذا كان الحكم الناسخ مناقضا للحكم المنسوخ[24]

Translation:
of those people, some say: the verses of the peaceful discussion and arguing with the disbelievers were all abrogated by the verse of the sward by thinking that the order of the legalized fight contravenes the peaceful legal arguing, and that is wrong because abrogation only apply with a legislation contradict the abrogated one


Issue#10:
@9:00 the masked arab says that Islam does seem to forbid the killing of certain categories of non muslims
Those who are paying jizyah tax and living in the Islamic state as lesser subject
And those who have been offered protection under more temporary basis

He cited no sources no evidence that protection is temporary


Issue#11:
@9:38 the masked arab said that among those who were killed of Banu Quraysh were all men and boys above the age of puberty

Now the issue of banu qurayza will not be the subject of this article, as this issue requires a complete article on it’s own, but I shall deal with the following claim “Muhammad killed all men and boys who reached puberty of the jews of Banu qurayza”
Here we have 2 issues
Was Muhammad the one who ordered the killing of these men?
Were the men and the boys the only victims or was it again the fighters who have been killed?

The answer to the first question is no, Muhammad wasn’t even the one who decided the judgment upon the tribe of banu qurayza
And the answer to the second question is no, only the fighters were killed

The source for both of the answers is a single narration from Sahih Bukhari
“When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sa`d's judgment, Allah's Messenger () sent for Sa`d who was near to him. Sa`d came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Messenger () said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sa`d came and sat beside Allah's Messenger () who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sa`d said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet () then remarked, "O Sa`d! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."”[25]

The masked arab later asked “then why did they even bother to check for pubic hair?” how could they then distinguish between children who didn’t reach puberty and those boys who passed puberty and capable of fighting?

@10:50 the masked arab cites hadith of Sahih Muslim
“It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (
), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said:
They are from them.”

so what it seems here is that the masked arab claims that Muslims can still kill women and children , however this is not true, and I have already dealt with this in the following article in my blog[26]
According to the following explanation by Imam Nawawi
“The Ulama Agreed on the execution of the Hadith, and prohibiting the Murder of Women and Children If they didn’t Engage in Battles, But if they do Engage and attempt to kill Muslims then only in this case they should be killed[27]

“And it’s not allowed according to the Ijma of Ulama the Murder or killing of Women and Children in wars because they mostly don’t engage in battles according to the Quran {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you.}”[28]

So the killing of women and children Can be allowed if they engage in battle

Issue#12:
@11:37 the masked arab calls the mentality of the innocent being killed as collateral damage and will go to heaven as being “sick” but let us ignore this value statement fallacy and go directly to his evidence, he cites the hadith:
“Allah's Messenger () said, "An army will invade the Ka`ba and when the invaders reach Al-Baida', all the ground will sink and swallow the whole army." I said, "O Allah's Messenger ()! How will they sink into the ground while amongst them will be their markets (the people who worked in business and not invaders) and the people not belonging to them?" The Prophet () replied, "all of those people will sink but they will be resurrected and judged according to their intentions."”[29]
The masked arab yet again provided no explanation no tafsir for this hadith, but I shall do this job again
According to Ibn Hajar al asqalani

ويتردد النظر في مصاحبة التاجر لأهل الفتنة هل هي إعانة لهم على ظلمهم أو هي من ضرورة البشرية ، ثم يعتبر عمل كل أحد بنيته . وعلى الثاني يدل ظاهر الحديث . وقال ابن التين : يحتمل أن يكون هذا الجيش الذي يخسف بهم هم الذين يهدمون الكعبة فينتقم منهم فيخسف بهم[30]


Translation:
And the investigation into why would people who work in the market be among them, is it to aid them in their injustice? Or is it a human necessity, then the work of everyone is his own intention, and the latter is the more likely meaning, and ibn al-teen said: it’s possible that this army that has the ground sink to them are those who want to destroy Ka’bah so Allah will avenge them and will sink them

So it’s apparent that these people of business are there to provide aid not to fight along their side and to help them in destroying ka’bah

How does that make them innocent?

But this is not my biggest problem here, the masked arab said @ 12:04 said “so Muhammad basically says even those caught up in the death and destruction who are innocent will just die and be judged by God”

HOW do you know they are innocent? Forget that they are aiding them in their raid against the Ka’bah, forget the explanation that I cited that clearly says they are guilty, but how do you know they are innocent?


Conclusion

Is this the supposed great series in ISIS and Islam? So far we have seen deliberate strawman, misquotation, misinterpretation, deception, dishonesty, and nothing more

How could anyone take this man seriously? The fact that he is being shared by atheists community is troubling to how they think and how critical they are




[6] Ibid
[9] Imam Ahmed vol.5 page.352
[11] Nayl Al-awtar by Imam Al-Shawkani vol.8 page.56
[12] Ahkam ahil al-dhimma vol.1 page.17
[16] ‘Awn Al-‘ubod by shams al-haq al-‘ubadi vol.12 page.261
[17] Nail Al-Awtar By Al-Shawkani vol.5 page.162
[19] Fatih Bari Bi Sharih Sahih Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani vol.1 page.72
[21] Ahkam Al-Quran By Ibn Arabi Al Maliki vol.4 page.177
[22] Majmu’ Al-Fataw vol.19 page.20
[23] Ibid vol.28 page.354
[24] Aljawab al Sahih liman badala deen al-masih vol.1 page.218
[27] Sahih Imam Muslim By Explination of Imam Al-Nawawi Vol.12 Page.73 Dar Al-Rushod Edition
[28] Sharih Sahih Bukḫari By Imam Ibn Batal Vol.5 Page.170 Dar Al-Rushod Edition

34 comments:

  1. The comments praising this(masked arab) charlatan, UGH!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let them prise him all they want, lions don't worry about what filthy dogs says

      Delete
  2. ""we have seen that in the Banu Qurayza attack when they betrayed Muhammad and planned for an assassination, they didn’t prepare an army or attacked muslims , but rather planned for it as the news reached Muhammad and he acted upon it to punish them, we will deal with it in future articles"" when is that article on Banu Qurayza coming? And can you mention briefly what your arguments in defense will be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. depends on who I'm addressing, if i see for example converted2islam make a video about it i might dedicate an article about the issue, defense? i assume you mean in defense of the muslims, my argument is not only they betrayed muhammad and planned for attacking him, they also betrayed the muslims during the battle of khaybar and were putting muslim lifes in grave danger,so according to muslim sources they did more than planning and betrayal, i will mention this with sources in the article that i will dedicate in regards to banu qurayza.

      Delete
    2. Well I have read muslims' articles on the issue which try to justify Muhammad's act.Im not convinced.However,I have never heard about that khaybar issue before. Now that you dont know when the article will come,Im curious,can you pls just give me the sources/links that mention of Qurayza intending to kill muslims in khaybar so I can read it myself? I wanna see if that argument can justify the execution

      Delete
    3. sources Various on many things Qurayza did in Khayvar, i don't know if you speak arabic but I'll cite few and translate them for you
      شهدت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مشاهد فيها قتال وخوف، شهدت المريسيع، وخيبر، وكتاب الحديبية، وفي الفتح، وحنين، لم يكن ذلك أتعب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أخوف عندنا من الخندق، وذلك أن المسلمين كانوا في مثل الحرجة، وأن قريظة لا نأمنها على الذراري. فالمدينة تحرس حتى الصباح تسمع فيها تكبير المسلمين حتى يصبحوا خوفاً
      Translation:
      I witnessed with the prophet of god many scenes of killing and fear, I witnessed Marisa’ , and Khaybar, and the book of hudaibia, and in faith and hanin, and there was nothing more troubling and horrifying to the prophet and us other than the khandaq, and that muslims were in a critical situation, and Qurayza were not trusted in keeping the strains safe, so the city was guarded till the morning you can hear the takbir of the muslims until they wake up to horror
      Source:
      Fi dilal al-quran vol.21 page.548
      كانت خيبر هي وكر الدس والتآمر، ومركز الاستفزازات العسكرية، ومعدن التحرشات وإثارة الحروب، فلا ننسى أن أهل خيبر هم الذين حزبوا الأحزاب ضد المسلمين، وأثاروا بني قريظة على الغدر والخيانة، ثم أخذوا في الاتصال بالمنافقين - الطابور الخامس في المجتمع الإسلامي - وبغطفان وأعراب البادية، وكانوا هم أنفسهم يستعدون للقتال، وقد عاش المسلمون بسببهم محنًا متواصلة، اضطرت المسلمين إلى الفتك ببعض رؤوسهم أمثال سلام بن أبي الحقيق وأسير بن زارم، ولكن كان لابد من عمل أكبر من ذلك إزاء هؤلاء اليهود، وما كان يمنع النبي من مجابهتهم إلا وجود عدو أكبر وأقوى وألد ألا وهو قريش.

      Translation:

      Khaybar was the nest of trickery and plotting, and the center of military provocations, and the metal of harassment and spreading wars, so we shall not forget that the people of Khaybar are the ones insinuating the tribes against the muslims, and banu qurayza were insisted on betrayal and trickery, so they came in contact with the hypocrites - the fifth column in Islamic community- and gitfan and the arabs of the villages, and they themselves also were ready to fight (referring to banu qurayza), and the muslims because of them lived critical and hard times, the muslims had to kill their heads like salam bin abi haqiq and asir bin zarim, but something bigger has to be done to remove these jews, and Muhammad didn’t want to fight them at that time because of a bigger enemy and that is Quraish
      Source:
      Gazwa Khaybar, diros wa ‘ibar page.11


      these are just a quick search, if i could dedicate an article i could bring more

      Delete
    4. great article bro. keep it up

      Delete
  3. ""that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul} slayed it { or for} other than { corruption} committed { in the land} LIKE DISBELIEF or zina or waylaying or like that"" -jalalayn

    Here,disbelief is given as an example of corruption. How is that "misquoting",thats what al-Jalalayn clearly says?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There seams to be some sort of a problem here or an error, first thanks for pointing this out i shall proceed into dealing with it proparly

      Delete
    2. Thanks for pointing the error, i have fixed it

      Delete
    3. Sorry but I dont understand what you mean. So you are saying the last part of the explanation,saying "disbelief ..." refers to "transgressors",however that still doesnt change the fact that in the first part,disbelief is seen as a kind of corruption : "corruption committed { in the land} LIKE DISBELIEF" .the last part is about people who dont believe prophets,the first describes what corruption is

      Delete
    4. If you look at the masked arab video he provided a screenshot with two parts of English tafsir Jalalyan highlighted and the rest are darkened, the last part he highlighted he associated it with the first part of the tafsir, when in reality the last part was in reference to "{ Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.}by overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like."
      Not corruption persay

      What I'm doing here is correcting his interpretation regarding the first part

      I already dealt with what corruption means in issue#3
      The last part mentions disbelief in regards to overstepping bounds, yes corrosion is mentioned first aswell along side disbelief but the issue here is that he false associated the last mentioning of disbelief with the first part of the Explination
      You can go to his video and see the screenshot with the two highlighted parts the first one mentions corruption, the second highlighted part originaly reffers to overstepping bounds but he falsely attributed it to the first highlighted part


      As for corruption meaning aswell disbelief i already told you that I corrected it, also issue#3 deals with how scholars interpreted this verse

      And later on in have several conditions as to whom need to be killed of disbelievers according to islamic doctrine

      Delete
    5. Hi Zaid, first let me tell you that your English is very good . I wish you can take on a Saudi guy called Al Fadi, he was a devout Muslim then he converted to Christianity. You should watch his videos how he puts down the Quran & talks about our prophet with such vulgarity. Nice to know you.

      Delete
  4. Oh My God...Mash Allah I see the so called "intellectual ex-Muslims" talking about how TMA destroys Islam and Muslims are afraid to watch his videos because they cant refute his arguments. Now at least one thing can be proudly said that his arguments are not going unanswered and Muslim's with in depth knowledge of Islam do have responses to his arguments and so the notion that his videos cannot be refuted has been laid to rest.

    May God bless you
    As-salamu alaykum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. its exactly these types of claims and comments about his legitimacy that got me involved into taking him on, and show people how he is simply a copy and paste jober with the only difference is his editing skillz and British accent and some humor, that is it, that is what defines him

      Delete
    2. I am so glad that at least there is someone like you who the Muslim community can rely on to bring down theses ignorant clowns. The mask Arab thinks he is on a winning horse & no one can get him off that horse. Well done, may Allah 's blessing be upon you.

      Delete
    3. The style of writing your articles and the way you respond to arguments is very similar to Jeremy R. Hammond i would really recommend you to read his articles.You're doing a great job by the way.Keep it up!

      Delete
  5. Nice articale but could you explain why anyone who had pubic hair was killed? also, the hadith said "The Prophet (ﷺ) then remarked, "O Sa`d! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."” so why did the peophet approve of his judgement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you provide evidence that everyone who had pubic hair was killed? Although I already dealt with this and showed that only fighters were killed, but could you show me that other people other than fighters who had pubic hair was killed?

      Why did the prophet approved, will after betraying muhammad, breaking the treaty and planning for an attack and on top of all that putting muslim lives in grave danger

      شهدت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مشاهد فيها قتال وخوف، شهدت المريسيع، وخيبر، وكتاب الحديبية، وفي الفتح، وحنين، لم يكن ذلك أتعب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أخوف عندنا من الخندق، وذلك أن المسلمين كانوا في مثل الحرجة، وأن قريظة لا نأمنها على الذراري. فالمدينة تحرس حتى الصباح تسمع فيها تكبير المسلمين حتى يصبحوا خوفاً
      Translation:
      I witnessed with the prophet of god many scenes of killing and fear, I witnessed Marisa’ , and Khaybar, and the book of hudaibia, and in faith and hanin, and there was nothing more troubling and horrifying to the prophet and us other than the khandaq, and that muslims were in a critical situation, and Qurayza were not trusted in keeping the strains safe, so the city was guarded till the morning you can hear the takbir of the muslims until they wake up to horror
      Source:
      Fi dilal al-quran vol.21 page.548
      كانت خيبر هي وكر الدس والتآمر، ومركز الاستفزازات العسكرية، ومعدن التحرشات وإثارة الحروب، فلا ننسى أن أهل خيبر هم الذين حزبوا الأحزاب ضد المسلمين، وأثاروا بني قريظة على الغدر والخيانة، ثم أخذوا في الاتصال بالمنافقين - الطابور الخامس في المجتمع الإسلامي - وبغطفان وأعراب البادية، وكانوا هم أنفسهم يستعدون للقتال، وقد عاش المسلمون بسببهم محنًا متواصلة، اضطرت المسلمين إلى الفتك ببعض رؤوسهم أمثال سلام بن أبي الحقيق وأسير بن زارم، ولكن كان لابد من عمل أكبر من ذلك إزاء هؤلاء اليهود، وما كان يمنع النبي من مجابهتهم إلا وجود عدو أكبر وأقوى وألد ألا وهو قريش.

      Translation:

      Khaybar was the nest of trickery and plotting, and the center of military provocations, and the metal of harassment and spreading wars, so we shall not forget that the people of Khaybar are the ones insinuating the tribes against the muslims, and banu qurayza were insisted on betrayal and trickery, so they came in contact with the hypocrites - the fifth column in Islamic community- and gitfan and the arabs of the villages, and they themselves also were ready to fight (referring to banu qurayza), and the muslims because of them lived critical and hard times, the muslims had to kill their heads like salam bin abi haqiq and asir bin zarim, but something bigger has to be done to remove these jews, and Muhammad didn’t want to fight them at that time because of a bigger enemy and that is Quraish
      Source:
      Gazwa Khaybar, diros wa ‘ibar page.11


      You would expect muhammad to approve of sa'ad judgment on banu qurayza

      Delete
    2. Sunan an-Nasa’i:
      It was narrated that Kathir bin As-Sa’ib said: “The sons of Quraizah told me that they were presented to the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Quraizah, and whoever (among them) had reached puberty, or had grown pubic hair, was killed, and whoever had not reached puberty and had not grown pubic hair was left (alive).” (Sunan an-Nasa’i Volume 4, Book 27, Hadith 3459).

      Sunan an-Nasa’i:
      “It was narrated that ‘Atiyyah said: ‘I was among the prisoners of Quraizah; we were examined, and whoever had grown (pubic) hair was killed, and whoever had not grown hair, he was allowed to live and was not killed.” (Sunan an-Nasa’I volume 5, Book 46, Hadith 4984).


      I personally believe that nothing can justify that horrible massacre

      Delete
    3. I will repeat myself again, where are your evidence than non combatants fighters where killed among them?

      “When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sa`d's judgment, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent for Sa`d who was near to him. Sa`d came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sa`d came and sat beside Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sa`d said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet (ﷺ) then remarked, "O Sa`d! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah"

      Delete
    4. Oh again,ur playing the same game. I gave u the hadiths telling that all those who had pubic hair were killed. Banu Qurayza didnt actively fought,they just helped Meccans. If they had actually attacked muslims with arms,there wouldnt be any muslim left, all would have died. Did every single one of 400-900 men deserve to be killed? Honestly? Where is your evidence every one did fight and none were innocent? And what about the women&children sold as sex slaves at markets ,did they also deserve that?

      Delete
    5. I'm going to repeat myself on especially again, where are your evidence that everyone including non fighters were killed? You too talk ignored and blind sided the hadith that came from the executioner himself sa'ad 

      “When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sa`d's judgment, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent for Sa`d who was near to him. Sa`d came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sa`d came and sat beside Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sa`d said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet (ﷺ) then remarked, "O Sa`d! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah"


      "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed"
      "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed"
      "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed"

      What does that mean to you? Why did you ignore my question? Why did you ignore this hadith?
      And no I didn't ignore the hadith you cited, i responded to them directly and criticly in this very article we are discussing under
      If you gonna continue this argument and not cite a single evidence that non combatants were killed
      I distinctly responded to the accusation of why these with pubic hair were killed

      Delete
    6. And i already showed you evidence that banu qurayza had way more aggression long before this attack occurred, they did so in the battle of Khaybar as they were also attacking and exposing muslims, but muhammad ignored them at first because he had to deal with a bigger enemy

      شهدت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مشاهد فيها قتال وخوف، شهدت المريسيع، وخيبر، وكتاب الحديبية، وفي الفتح، وحنين، لم يكن ذلك أتعب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أخوف عندنا من الخندق، وذلك أن المسلمين كانوا في مثل الحرجة، وأن قريظة لا نأمنها على الذراري. فالمدينة تحرس حتى الصباح تسمع فيها تكبير المسلمين حتى يصبحوا خوفاً
      Translation:
      I witnessed with the prophet of god many scenes of killing and fear, I witnessed Marisa’ , and Khaybar, and the book of hudaibia, and in faith and hanin, and there was nothing more troubling and horrifying to the prophet and us other than the khandaq, and that muslims were in a critical situation, and Qurayza were not trusted in keeping the strains safe, so the city was guarded till the morning you can hear the takbir of the muslims until they wake up to horror
      Source:
      Fi dilal al-quran vol.21 page.548
      كانت خيبر هي وكر الدس والتآمر، ومركز الاستفزازات العسكرية، ومعدن التحرشات وإثارة الحروب، فلا ننسى أن أهل خيبر هم الذين حزبوا الأحزاب ضد المسلمين، وأثاروا بني قريظة على الغدر والخيانة، ثم أخذوا في الاتصال بالمنافقين - الطابور الخامس في المجتمع الإسلامي - وبغطفان وأعراب البادية، وكانوا هم أنفسهم يستعدون للقتال، وقد عاش المسلمون بسببهم محنًا متواصلة، اضطرت المسلمين إلى الفتك ببعض رؤوسهم أمثال سلام بن أبي الحقيق وأسير بن زارم، ولكن كان لابد من عمل أكبر من ذلك إزاء هؤلاء اليهود، وما كان يمنع النبي من مجابهتهم إلا وجود عدو أكبر وأقوى وألد ألا وهو قريش.

      Translation:

      Khaybar was the nest of trickery and plotting, and the center of military provocations, and the metal of harassment and spreading wars, so we shall not forget that the people of Khaybar are the ones insinuating the tribes against the muslims, and banu qurayza were insisted on betrayal and trickery, so they came in contact with the hypocrites - the fifth column in Islamic community- and gitfan and the arabs of the villages, and they themselves also were ready to fight (referring to banu qurayza), and the muslims because of them lived critical and hard times, the muslims had to kill their heads like salam bin abi haqiq and asir bin zarim, but something bigger has to be done to remove these jews, and Muhammad didn’t want to fight them at that time because of a bigger enemy and that is Quraish
      Source:
      Gazwa Khaybar, diros wa ‘ibar page.11


      In islamic traditional, banu qurayza were not innocent in any shape or form

      Delete
    7. and here are more atrocities done by banu qurayza that is not included in the above sources i gave
      قال ابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، قَالَ : كَانَتْ صَفِيَّةُ بِنْتُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ فِي فَارِعٍ ، حِصْنِ حَسَّانَ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ ، وَكَانَ حَسَّانُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ مَعَنَا فِيهِ مَعَ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ حَيْثُ خَنْدَقُ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَتْ صَفِيَّةُ : ” فَمَرَّ بِنَا رَجُلٌ مِنْ يَهُودَ ، فَجَعَلَ يَطِيفُ بِالْحِصْنِ ، وَقَدْ حَارَبَتْ بَنُو قُرَيْظَةَ ، وَقَطَعَتْ مَا بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، وَلَيْسَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ أَحَدٌ يَدْفَعُ عَنَّا ، وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ فِي نُحُورِ عَدُوِّهِمْ ، لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ أَنْ يَنْصَرِفُوا إِلَيْنَا عَنْهُمْ إِذَا أَتَانَا آتٍ ، فَقُلْتُ لِحَسَّانَ : إِنَّ هَذَا الْيَهُودِيَّ يُطِيفُ بِالْحِصْنِ كَمَا تَرَى ، وَلا آمَنُهُ أَنْ يَدُلَّ عَلَى عَوْرَتِنَا مَنْ وَرَاءَنَا مِنْ يَهُودَ ، وَقَدْ شُغِلَ عَنَّا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَصْحَابُهُ ، فَانْزِلْ إِلَيْهِ فَاقْتُلْهُ ، فَقَالَ : يَغْفِرُ اللَّهُ لَكِ يَا بِنْتَ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ عَرَفْتِ مَا أَنَا بِصَاحِبِ هَذَا ، قَالَتْ صَفِيَّةُ : فَلَمَّا قَالَ ذَلِكَ احْتَجَزْتُ عَمُودًا ، ثُمَّ نَزَلْتُ مِنَ الْحِصْنِ إِلَيْهِ ، فَضَرَبْتُهُ بِالْعَمُودِ حَتَّى قَتَلْتُهُ ، ثُمَّ رَجَعْتُ إِلَى الْحِصْنِ ، فَقُلْتُ : يَا حَسَّانُ ، انْزِلْ فَاسْتَلِبْهُ ، فَإِنَّهُ لَمْ يَمْنَعْنِي أَنْ أَسْتَلِبَهُ إِلا أَنَّهُ رَجُلٌ ، فَقَالَ : مَا لِي بِسَلَبِهِ مِنْ حَاجَةٍ يَا بِنْتَ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ ”

      Translation:
      Ibn Ishaq said: yahya bin abad told us, from Abdullah bin zabir, from his father said: saffiyah bint abdulmutalib was in fari’, the fortress of hasan bin thabit, and hasan bin thabit was with us with women and children in the trench with the prophet, saffiyah said : a Jew came by us he circulated the fortress, and banu qurayza were fighting and they broke what’s between them and Muhammad, and there was NO one between us and them that could protect us, the prophet Muhammad and the muslims were busy fighting their enemies, they could not come back to us and protect us from them, she told hassan this jew is going around the fortress, and there is nothing that can protect our ‘Awra and the jews are behind us. And the prophet were busy with his companions, so he came upon him and fought him and he said: my god forgive you daughter of abdul mutalib, by god I never know who this man, saffyah said: I then took hold of a pole , and I came down the fortress and I hit him with it until he died, then I returned back to the fortress, she said: oh Hassan come down and take him, for he didn’t prevent me from taking him as he is a man, and he said, he has nothing for me to take him daughter of abdul mutalib
      Source
      Sira Nabawyah by Ibn Ishaq vol.3 page.711

      Delete
    8. Its like talking to a brick wall.

      They,by the way,also gave muslims tools to dig the trenches,which muslims always ignore.Just bcs they had pubic hair does not mean every single one of 400-900 men actively fought and engaged in war. Puberty does not make one "a warrior".He could have killed just their leading members instead of wiping out the whole. He could have been more merciful.He doesnt seem so,right?

      """On the day of Qurayza’s (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you"
      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:449""

      ""When the apostle approached their forts he (Muhammad) said: "You brothers of monkeys.., has god disgraced you and brought his vengeance upon you?" Banu Qurayza replied: "O Abul Qasim (Muhammad), you are not a barbarous person"
      Ibn Ishaq: 684


      """Then the apostle sent for Sa'd bin Zayd al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.
      Ibn Ishaq: 693. ; Muhammad Husayn Haykal - The Life of Muhammad. (p. 338) --What was the guilt of those women?

      If a terrorist group like Isis today did the very same thing as Muhammad,all muslims will shout ""they have nothing to do with islam!!" ,yet now ur vigorously defending Muhammad.People cant think critically and in an unbiased way when it comes to religion.

      I wont bother myself to try to answer you,and I really wonder if you honestly think that there is nothing wrong in that massacre or just trying to convince yourself.

      Go on defendind the indefensible

      Delete
    9. this is my reply to you
      http://pastebin.com/gJYQaZvn


      this conversation is over

      Delete
    10. The Quran has the verse to abrogate other verse. From this dual principles the ten of thousanda tafsir are derived. The basic point in the midst of all this confusion is Muslims are encouraged to follow the prophet. That means the Sira prevails. And in the Sira he was brutal & unholy. The case for Islam as a religion of peace is still very weak. In fact the case for it to be a religion isntead of a political system is also very weak. The masked Arab is correct. Islam is harmfull & dangerous.

      Delete
    11. "The Quran has the verse to abrogate other verse. From this dual principles the ten of thousanda tafsir are derived. "
      dual principles? are you referring to abrogation? if so then your argument is a non sequitur
      also regarding abrogation, what verses? what phase was it revealed? what timeline? do you have any evidence at all for it?
      "That means the Sira prevails"
      Sira is drives from words of narrators mentioned by Ibn Ishaq who is regarded as saduq yarwi 'an thuafa, meaning that he is trust worthy but narrate from weak ones
      "And in the Sira he was brutal & unholy."
      i'm sorry how is he brutal and unholy?
      "The case for Islam as a religion of peace is still very weak. "
      where did i said islam is religion of peace?
      please verify your claims with evidence
      "In fact the case for it to be a religion isntead of a political system is also very weak. "
      to use the word "weak" you will need to provide counter arguments with sources for your claims, so far you claimed that it's a political ideology and not a religion, an asinine claim with no sources to back it up

      "The masked Arab is correct. Islam is harmfull & dangerous."
      in your entire comment, you cited no sources no references, simply denied and denied everything i said, strawmanned my position, made unverifiable claims, didn't counter any point i made in the article, and declared the masked arab to be correct

      if there is a position that is "weak" it's yours

      Delete
  6. On the matter of providing tools for digging the trench, a good "absurd example" to give is that if Daesh gives a person a couple of hundred bucks, or food for a night does Daesh now has the right to kill that individual's family? I personally feel that helping someone in the first place to make those people complacent and then turning against them, gives evidence more for Banu Quraidah malicious intentions and planning from the beginning then their open hearts.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the pubic hair could have been used to distinguish children who *did* fight and men who also fought. Under religious laws (probably both Jewish and Muslim) under puberty individuals are not considered responsible or guilty for their actions, so possibly this was done to distinguish who is going to be punished and who isn't. Additionally, the Jewish law also prescribed captivity for under-puberty individuals which was another reason to find out who was past puberty and who wasn't.

    Not that it significantly matters the argument, but what are your thoughts on the arguments Muslims use to indicate that the 800 killed figure is not reliable because of various points of historical criticism (like why such a huge figure wasn't buried in the already dug trenches), or at the very least we have no way of judging its reliability, as the narrators are unknown?

    With the risk of of being used as an excuse for more irrelevant criticisms, on the matter of selling of the captive women, I wanted to ask whether this information is from an authenticated hadith or among the information we obtain from Ibn Ishaq for which we don't have a way of judging authenticity?

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who ru talking to? me or the author?

      Delete
    2. "gives evidence more for Banu Quraidah malicious intentions and planning from the beginning then their open hearts."
      research need to be done, although i already provided a couple of sources that shows that banu qurayza attacked and open a critical hole in muslim defenses during the battle of khaybar, not only that they also attacked saffiyah and the rest of the muslim women and took it as an opportunity when muhammad was busy fighting his enemies, saffiyah and the rest of the muslim women had no tools and no one to defend them for qurayza

      "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the pubic hair could have been used to distinguish children who *did* fight and men who also fought. "
      ones you grow pubic hair (or at least as mentioned in the hadith *thick pubic hair* not soft one) you are no longer consider a child

      "Under religious laws (probably both Jewish and Muslim) under puberty individuals are not considered responsible or guilty for their actions,"
      if they didn't threaten muslim lives then yes if they didn't reach puberty
      "so possibly this was done to distinguish who is going to be punished and who isn't"
      it's used to distinguished who is the child and who isn't and who reached puberty, so anyone who participated in fighting and be killed should not be a child
      "Additionally, the Jewish law also prescribed captivity for under-puberty individuals which was another reason to find out who was past puberty and who wasn't."
      depends on what they have done
      "but what are your thoughts on the arguments Muslims use to indicate that the 800 killed figure is not reliable because of various points of historical criticism (like why such a huge figure wasn't buried in the already dug trenches), or at the very least we have no way of judging its reliability, as the narrators are unknown?"
      there isn't really and estimate number, some sources say 400, others say 600 others say 800
      "With the risk of of being used as an excuse for more irrelevant criticisms, on the matter of selling of the captive women"
      that depends, where they set free after they have been sold?
      "I wanted to ask whether this information is from an authenticated hadith or among the information we obtain from Ibn Ishaq for which we don't have a way of judging authenticity?"
      if it's from Ibn Ishaq then a sand is required, since there is a huge gab between him and the prophet, making his accounts regarded as Mursal in hadith scince

      Delete