(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
In an attempt to legitimize the state of ISIS Sharif made a video declaring that ISIS is true Islam and there is no other interpretation around it, and moderate Muslims are your typical non practicing Muslims
In this article I shall criticize his approach and respond to it one by one showing his fallacious reasoning behind his arguments
Now before I was watching the rest of this video I was wondering what sources he will bring for his hypothesis, all be it I was not surprised of how insignificant and nonacademic his sources are, one thing in the video description that got my attention
“- I myself was sentenced to prison for defending LGBT rights and being an atheist. also I an Ex-Muslim who memorizes the whole Quran and studied the history of Islam and religion for years. so please don't say i don't know about Islam, i know it better than you.”
One thing caught me here, is his argument that he memorized entire quran and studied islam for years like I did
But the last part is what seems to be more moronic, he said that he knows islam better than me, now I never made such claim and such idiotic statement saying that I know islam better than anyone, this not only makes me a megalomaniac cocky but also degrade me and shows that I don’t wish for a dialog or any form of discussion, there is no such a thing as “I know islam better than you” even if you memorized the entire quran which I doubt that he did
That is just another reason why I use the term dunning kruger effect on polemics like sharif and the masked arab, they simply think they are above all muslim and more knowledgeable than your average muslim, there are well over 1.7 billion to claim you know islam better than all of them is simply pathetic at best
Anyways let us proceed to his video
@00:23 the state “the majority of places where Islam exists you will find what you find with ISIS” not factoring drug cartels and gang members who do acts of beheadings this argument is garbage at best, there are well over 50+ Islamic countries around the world, how could you argue that the majority of them suffer the same problems as places where ISIS exist, not only that he never cited a single evidence for this claim, I suspect the rest of this video is his “evidence”
@00:32 Sharif state that right after the prophet death the conquest of India started
This is not true, prophet Muhammad death happened during the end of the 7th century, the Islamic conquest of india started between 13th century and 15th century sometimes as early as 11th century
The large scale spread of islam in sing and elsewhere in india really began later, with the activities of ghaznavids and other dynasties based in Afghanistan in the eleventh century CE and later[1]
Right of the bat we have a shaky start to this video, we didn’t even get into his argument and right of the bat he makes a historical blunder, and this kid claims to know islam better than 1.7 billion people?
@00:36 he cites will Durant stating the Islamic conquest of India is the bloodiest story in history
All be it the source he provided was a direct reference to the book, I had to look up this very claim and I came across it in danialpipes website as well as several other anti-muslim propaganda websites like the muslim issue
Also wikiquote made a reference to this quotation
So far we have not seen why and what evidence are presented for such hypothesis, I was able however to get the original copy or the source marital in from which where this claim came from, it comes from the book Our Oriental Heritage, the story of civilization, VI. THE MOSLEM CONQUEST on page.495, the problem is, will Durant never cited any evidence for any of his claim, his chapter lacked any footnote let alone any statistics or figures he gave
However, I should note I did find a couple of footnotes written in an obscure matter in that chapter, but none of them lead to that ridiculous conclusion that will Durant made
There are well over 9 recorded footnotes in the chapter that will duran made this claim on, each of these footnotes is related to the treasures and war spoils that Mahmood Ghazni got, but Will Durant doesn’t cite any statistics or any poll date and made the conclusion upon his abstract, there is complete lack of date in that chapter, instead he tries to argue in relation to the wealthiest of muslim empire in india, the closest of what we got of a figure of a death tool in that chapter is the following quote” Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenseless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand. `011678”[2]
He also stated the following: “attempted a rising, Sultan Alau-d-din (the conqueror of Chitor) had all the males- from fifteen to thirty thousand of them- slaughtered in one day.”
Yet again no figure or source was given even if we get to count 60,000 death tool within three days to this 30,000 reaching 90,000 this can’t be considered the “bloodiest story in history”
Why didn’t sharif bother reading further from the original source before making this asinine claim?
He also stated that Ghazni “the richest king that history has ever Known”[3]
This is empirically false, not only will Durant didn’t give an estimate figure of his wealth he completely neglected far larger than life figures who hunter and build empires far greater than Mahmood Ghazni ever dreamed of dare I say like Mansa Musa
Mansa Musa, the king of Timbuktu, who lived between 1280 and 1337.
It has been told that his wealth reached well over 400 billion dollar [4]
I shall address later on what was the causes for the conquest
@00:47 sharif gabir stated that the number of people who died by the hands of Muslims in India is well over 80 million, this was very predictable, I came across this nonsense so many times that when I was watching his video for the first time I knew he will come up with this figure before he spoke it out
However I will leave an article that took down this claim by it’s roots and show that this figure of 80 million is nothing but a myth escalated by bill warner, a nonacademic polemics with no qualification of Islamic studies, please read the following article[5]
@00:56 Sharif asks why did those leaders entered India? He answers that its to spread Islam
He cites a book by another nonacademic no critical author Masood Ali Khan “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery”
Again no evidence was presented, however I should note that this author as I said is nonacademic and let me break down sharif logic, so by stating that breaking down temples and shrines of Hindus therefore Muslim leaders wanted to spread Islam? This is a non sequitur argument, it doesn’t follow
In fact, Muslims had interest in mind in India for many years prior to the conquest, why didn’t they start already from that period?
Classical Muslim historians have paid scant attention to the ·beginnings of Islam in India. Their relative neglect of the subject was due mainly to the fact that India did not become an important part of the Muslim world prior to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century AD. Even al-Baliidhuri, who devoted a whole chapter in his Futitz al-Buldiinl to the early conquest of Sind and subsequent events there, has furnished us with very little actual information concerning the early history of Islam on the subcontinent[6]
al-Ya'qubi also writes from the vantage point of the 'Abbasi capital and events in Sind interest him only to the extent that they are relevant to important developments in the 'Abbasi empire. The contribution of late. Indo-Persian historiography is not significantly greater. Firishta says, for instance, regarding Multan, that Islam appeared there at the time of Mul).ammad b. al-Qasim. As for the period between·him and,Mal).mftd of Ghazna, "no one recorded the affairs of Multan in the history books; neither are there abundant oral traditions[7]
now here is a closer look at the motivations behind the indian conquest lead by Muhammad Al-Thaqafi
Though the unwillingness of the first caliphs to raid India diminished with the passage of time, it was only during the reign of al-Walid b. 'Abd al-Malik that a major military operation against India was undertaken, backed by the whole might of the caliphate. According to al-Baladhuri's account, the operation was brought about by an' incident involving a ship carrying Muslim women, which had been seized by Pirates off the shores of Sind. Al-haJajjaj demanded that Dahir, the king of Sind, use his authority to release the prisoners; Dahir replied that he was unable. to force the pirates to submit to his will. This reply was considered unsatisfactory by al-hajajjaj, who decided to attack Sind. After two unsuccessful attempts, he appointed the youthful Muhammad b. al-Qasim al-Thaqafi to head the expedition, gathering a large force and making careful preparations to ensure success. One part of the troops took the land route, while another, together with weapons and equipment, was sent by sea. The first Indian city to be stormyd was the port of Daybul. The immediate establishment of a Muslim quarter and the erection of a mosque in the city gave the conquest of Daybul an air of permanence which was lacking during the earlier campaigns. [8]
However, it becomes furthermore clear as we read that the motivations behind the conquest were for imperialist and to further expand upon the caliphate
Modem writers in Arabic and Urdu have extolled the young conqueror's statesmanship· and his alleged religious tolerance. Though many questions regarding this campaign must remain unanswered until new sources hopefully come to light, our knowledge of it is much more detailed than that of the immediately subsequent period in the history of Islam in India. The downfall of Muhammad b. al-Qasim after the accession of Sulayman b. 'Abd al-Malik weakened the Muslim hold on Sind. The army which fought there, composed as it was from the supporters of al-hajjaj, was denied caliphal support: A message sent to it by Sulayman read: "Sow and plow (where you are), for Syria is not yours (anymore)" A new expeditionary force was sent to the Indus region - it is not clear whether the enemy was a local Indian prince or Muslims disloyal to the new caliph[9]
With regards to force conversation
Some historians say that the early invaders tried to convert forcibly the inhabitants of the occupied areas, though they find it difficult to estimate the results of these proselytizing endeavors, some scholars
have argued that members of the low castes needed little persuasion to embrace Islam, which saved them from the disabilities imposed upon them by the Hindu society and drastically enhanced their social status [10] [11]
Even after the collapse of the Muslim empire in India and after Muhammad Al-Qasim committing suicide, Muslims didn’t find a safe place from Hindu aggression[12]
However, the argument saying that the down-trodden elements of the Indian population saw in Islam a social order which was capable of liberating them from the oppression from which they suffered, does not give adequate consideration to the Hindu belief according to which the social status of a person is part of the unchangeable world order in which each person and each caste must ungrudgingly perform the duties imposed on it.[13]
In short, there is no clear answer to why there was mass conversion of Hindus into Islam, scholars from both sides argued extensively yet no evidence to be presented that could confirm either a willful conversion of a force conversion
@01:27 Sharif state that the so called slaughter that he is yet to prove with evidence from this source due to the mass genocide was later called Hindu Kush i.e Hinu slaughter, all be it some sources agree that this is the meaning of the name, no evidence present that it was named after an alleged slaughter of Hindus, so far we have seen no figure of any number of death toll at all, how could we affirm the slaughter if no figure or data was given
I’m not denying the existence of any genocide or mass killing but we have no figure no date no poll was presented, so how could we trust this claim?
However, I was able to trace back one of the sources mentioned such claim
It’s found an article titled “Islamic India: The Biggest Holocaust in World History… Whitewashed from History Books “written by Kanhaiya Kumar in academia
Where he writes: “The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).” He also writes in his book “Negation in India”: “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”[14]
This is extremely similar to the text shown by sharif in his video, so I assume this is his source
However, if we try to look for this book “Negation in India” there is no result, I tried looking for this book for that author he attributed to, but I did find the intended book and the title is “Negationism in India: concealing the record of Islam”, don’t know if that was a typo error on his part or not, anyways we shall proceed
This book seems to mirror again the same old alleged claim that Muslims killed 80 million Hindus
Here is why this author should not be trusted
To quote the same article I suggested before
“It is claimed that the number is estimated by Elst (who is known for right-wing anti-Muslim bias). However, when we take a look at his book we see this:
As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal’s estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.
So it’s not Elst’s estimate, but Lal’s estimate. And moreover, it is not an estimate of 80 million murders. It’s an estimate of a population decrease in five centuries, the causes of which may be many, including natural population decrease, conversions, etc.
The problem, however, is that Lal’s estimates are simply fantasies. One cannot take seriously any such estimates based on extremely fragmentary demographic data for the year 1000. Simon Digby writes in his review of Lal’s book, after addressing some of Lal’s assumptions (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 38, no. 1, 1975, p. 177):
Regarding the population of India before A.D. 1000 Lal quotes the guesses of Colin Clark - 70 millions - and Jyotindra Mohan Datta - 200 to 300 millions. He himself prefers 200 millions and he believes that, mainly as a result of the Muslim invasions and presence, the population of India fell from 200 millions in A.D. 1000 to 125 millions in A.D. 1500, to rise under more amiable Mughal rule to 175 millions in 1700.
[…]
The author is known for his detailed studies of the Khalji dynasty and of the fifteenth century Delhi sultanate. He is well versed in the sources of medieval North Indian history. In the present study he has assembled almost all the conceivably relevant data and for this reason it will remain of value as a compendium of references. Yet the unknown variables are so great and the quality of the data yielded by our sources so poor that almost any detailed general estimates of population based upon them must appear willful, if not fantastic. At the time when this review was being written, E. J. Hobsbawm (in New Society, 11 July 1974, 76) called the attention of historians of premodern Europe, who dabble in social statistics based on sources of comparable quality to those of Lal, to an axiom of computer operators ‘GIGO’: this stands for ‘Garbage in - Garbage out’!
A reasonable person can agree with this conclusion. Thus, the figure of “80,000,000” Hindus murdered by Muslims is based on nothing but weak speculations.
Interestingly, elsewhere Elst writes:
Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.”[15]
So if we boil it down, Sharif quoted an author who later referred to an anti-muslim right-wing propagandist, and who later was actually citing another author who didn’t provide accurate estimation to the so-called genocide, even by the admission of Elst the estimate of genocide by K.S. Lal is hard to substantiate
What makes it more embarrassing is this 80 million figure as I said before is a population decline and not murder
Later sharif cites the 50 million figure which is again have been dealt with above
@01:58 Sharif said “it was normal that at that day more than 100 thousand human is slaughtered” now hold on there, where are your evidence?
Of course later sharif state that there was mass genocide murder torture and force conversation, all be it I dealt with force conversation earlier, where are the estimate and the sources for all his alleged claims?
@02:14 we finaly see his source for this alleged 100 thousand murder per day, but the ridiculus thing is that his source not only didn’t cite a single reffrence, but also says 100 thousand in every campaign
Campaign is Not a day sharif, so not only you cited a weak anecdotal source, you also strawmaned it
However yet again in his video he doesn’t show what book he is citing from but never the less I was able to find out his source, and his source is Yet again “Negationism in India: concealing the record of Islam” the same book that I have shown earlier to be weak and uncritical
@02:55 we finally leave his weak sources and he says that ISIS studied Islam and know it very well
Where are his sources?
Of course later Sharif cite the infamous incident of Banu Qurayza and how Muhammad killed 700 jew, I will leave a link to a discussion I had in my blog discussing this issue, I might do an extensive research on the issue of banu qurayza
In the meantime here is the discussion[16]
“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:
Gaza Khaybar, diros wa ‘ibar page.11”
Of course, I have cited my blog because there is a footnote that provides a traditional hadith that indicate it was Not Muhammad who ordered to kill allegedly 700 Jews so please read the article first then proceed to read this section above
However, as I was looking at his description in regards to the jews if banu qurayza, he cites an Arabic website, the problem is again as expected (and I started to see a theme here) sharif is citing a writer that provided no sources at all, the thread of the article is directly taken from a writer by the Name of Muhammad Yusif Al-Malifi, the thread gives a link to the original post where it came from, the problem is, the link is broken and return an error 404
So not only the original source is missing, the author provided no sources no reference for any of their claim
@03:18 Sharif cites a story and allegation of the murder of nazir bin Harith
I already dealt with this alleged story and shall link my blog Again[17]
Later he cites story of Um Qarfa the old lady that Muhammad allegedly cut her in half
Is this story true?
The answer is no, infact if you can read Arabic and look up the story, you will literally find hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim websites debunking it, this story is classified as one of the weakest and the easiest to refute, of course I will not use any website, instead I I will use the only source that provide an actual Sanad to this story
أخبرنا أبو محمد بن طاوسو أنبا ابو الغنائم بن ابي عثمان قالوا: أنا عبد الله بن عبيد الله بي يحيى المؤدب, نا أبو عبد الله المحاملي, نا عبد الله بي شيب, نا أبراهيم بن يحيى, حدثني ابي عن محمد بن اسحاق, عن زهري, عن عروة, عن عائشة قالت:
أتانا زيد بن حارثة فقام اليه رسول الله يجر ثوبه فقبل وجهه, فقالت عائشة: و كانت أم قرفة جهزت اربعين راكب من ولدها وولد ولدها الى رسول الله ليقاتلوه, فأرسل اليهم رسول الله زيد بن حارثة فقتلهم و قتل أم قرفة و أرسل بدرعها الى رسول الله فنصبه بالمدينة بين رمحين[18]
Translation:
Abu Muhammad bin Tawoos said and Abu Al-Ganaim bin abi Uthman both said: we were told by Abdullah bin Ubaid bin Yahya Al-Muadab, abu abdullah al-muhami told us, abdullah abi sahib told us, Ibrahim bin Yahyah told us, from my father from Muhammad bin Ishaq, from Zuhri from Urwa from Aisha she said:
Zaid bin Harith came to us so the prophet stood up dragging his clothes running toward him and kissed his face Aisha said: and Um Girfa gathered a group of forty men among them are her sons and her son’s sons to the prophet to assassinate him, so Muhammad in response sent to them zaid bin haritha so he killed them and killed um qirfa, and sent her body to the prophet and he placed it on two spears in madina
Right of the bat we see the justifications, umm qirfa was trying to kill Muhammad, even if we accept the authenticity of this narration, Muhammad has the right to defend himself, but why didn’t sharif mention this in his video? Either he is dishonest or that he is not as knowledgeable as he claims to be
Now let us see if this story stands to its merits
As you can see, I made underline under two names, these names are weak narrators who are unacceptable
The first one, Ibrahim bin Yahya
“Ibrahim bin Yahyah bin Muhammad bin Ubad bin Hani Al-shajari and from his father
Ibn Abi Hatim considred him weak
And Muhammad ibn isma’il al-tirmidi: I never saw one more blind in heart than him\
I told him your father told you and he said: your father told you? I told him Ibrahim bin Sa’ad and he said: Ibrahim bin sa’ad told you
Al-Azdi said he is denied in hadith”[19]
Al-Duafa Wa Al-Matruken vol.1 page.60
“Ibrahim bin Yahyah bin Muhammad bin Hani Al-shajari
Ibn Abi Hatim said: he is weak, and azdari said: he is denied and from his father”[20]
So we already see that both he and his father are weak, but what about only his father?
“yahyah bin Muhammad bin Mu’ad bin Hani al-Shajari, father of abu Ibrahim narrating from bin Ishaq
Abu Hatim Al-razi considered him weak
And Uqaili said: in his Hadith denied narrations and errors and he was weak in what he narrate to me and he had to be corrected….(he later on the next page narrate the same story sharif is citing an example of this weak narrator)……I said this hadith is Munkar (denined) Ibrahim from his father were mentioned in it”[21]
What about Muhammad ibn Ishaq? Will he is considered mudalis, meaning he fabricate stories (this is the man who wrote the biography of the prophet so next time you hear someone say read the biography of the prophet tell them they need to provide sanad and authentication for each story)
“5725-Muhammad ibn Ishaq Al-yasar….trustworthy but fabricates”[22]
Conclusion to part-1
This is going to be the first part of my initial reply, I noticed that if I continue to make this a full reply to the full video the article will be too long to read, the next part will come some
I also needed to post this sooner due to the fact I was away from the blog just to keep it active
The next part will be coming soon inshallah
[1] Friedmann, ‘‘A contribution to the early history of Islam in India’’; Gabrieli,
‘‘Muhammad ibn al-Qa ¯sim al-Thaqaf ı ¯ and the Arab Conquest of Sind.
[4] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/king-mansa-musa-named-richest-history-article-1.1186261
[5] http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39361_Fact-Checking_Pamela_Geller-_270_Million_Victims_of_Islam
[6] A contribution to the early history of Islam in India by Yohanan Friedmann page.309
[11] Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford, 1964), 82; Abdur Rauf, Renaissance of Islamic Culture and Civilization in Pakistan (Lahore, 1965), 74-79; W.W. Hunter, "The religions of India," The Times (February 25, 1888) (quoted in Arnold, The Preaching of Islam [London, 1896], 229-230); Ram Gopal, The Indian Muslims (Bombay, 1964), 1; Habibullah, The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India (Allahabad, 1961), 1
[13] H. Zimmer, Philosophies of India (New York, 1960), 40-41, 106, 151-153, 163; cf. K.S. Lal, Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (Delhi, 1973), 193
[14] https://www.academia.edu/19900006/Islamic_India_The_Biggest_Holocaust_in_World_History_Whitewashed_from_History_Books
[15] http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39361_Fact-Checking_Pamela_Geller-_270_Million_Victims_of_Islam
[16] http://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-masked-arab-and-dunning-kruger.html
[17] http://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-masked-arab-and-dunning-kruger.html
[18] Tarikh Madina Dimasq Vol.19 Page364
[19] Mizan Al-I’tidal li nagid al rijal by Imam Sahms Al-din Al-zahabi vol.1 page.202-203
[20] Al-Duafa Wa Al-Matruken vol.1 page.60
[21] Mizan Al-I’tidal li nagid al rijal by Imam Sahms Al-din Al-zahabi vol.7 page.217
[22] Takrib al-Tahdib by Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani page.403
