On Muhammad and death for blasphemy

On Thursday, May 12, a grisly video surfaced on Twitter.

Deborah Emmanuel, a student of the Shehu Shagari College of Education in Sokoto State, Nigeria, was stoned to death by a raging Muslim mob and her body was burnt for alleged blasphemy against Muhammad.

Her killers not only dehumanised her in the most agonising way possible, but also revealed their own faces and boasted of their action in the video footage.

Deborah had in a WhatsApp voice note, reacted against the frequent posting of Muslim contents in their class group chat on the social media platform. According to a translation of her voice note, she reminded her colleagues that the platform was created for school assignments and not distracting broadcast messages which she described as “nonsense.”

This stirred up the anger of her Muslim colleagues who then resolved to kill her. In spite of being kept in hiding by the school security, a Muslim mob surrounded the building, forced their way in, dragged her out and killed her. In the ensuing days, Muslims at different stratas across various social media groups and pages lauded the mob action.

It’s also instructive to note that on that same day, ISWAP released a video where 20 Nigerian Christians were executed to avenge the killing of Islamic leaders in the Middle East.

One of the reasons religious violence keeps occurring in Nigeria is because for decades, the fundamentalist form of Islam that justifies, rationalises and endorses the murder of “infidels” has been upheld by institutions that are supposed to establish justice and sanity.

In a society where maniacs are so indulged, why would violence stop? We have had countless instances of religious violence in Nigeria, but we have not had a matching number of trials and sentencing of the perpetrators. And with the present regime, Islamic fundamentalism has received a boost: it has grown wings and extended its tentacles.

Over a period of days, there have been protests by Muslims urging the authorities to release Deborah’s killers and some key Muslims have reiterated that the penalty for blasphemy was indeed death.

Others have said Deborah should have been handed over to a Sharia court for the right judicial penalty instead of a mob action. This is coming from the same people who want us to believe “Sharia has nothing to do with non-Muslims.” Sharia is only operational in 12 Nigerian states and it’s still subordinate to the Nigerian constitution which operates through a democracy.

The remarks of the Kaduna-based Muslim scholar, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, in a video clip translated by PR Nigeria, was quite interesting. He argued that Muhammad didn’t kill those who insulted him.

I am not sure if he actually said this or this was an agenda taken up by the media to misinform others, but whichever way you look at it, it doesn’t stand up to the facts.

Gumi was quoted to have said, “If we think by killing Deborah, people who are not of the same faith with us will stop insulting our prophet, then we are in delusion. Hence, anyone who kills a non-Muslim who they have agreed to live peacefully with, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise for 40 years.”

Gumi, a medical doctor and retired military officer, is the current Mufti and Mufassir at the Kaduna Sultan Bello Central mosque. He has been a major Islamic figure negotiating with Boko Haram and ISWAP in Nigeria seeking amnesty from the government for a band of mass murderers and rapists who have wrought havoc on the lives of many military and civilian victims.

In February 2021, Gumi reportedly told his Muslim terrorist friends that they were being attacked by the Christians within the military.

“What I want you people to understand is, soldiers that are involved in most of the criminalities are not Muslims. You know, soldiers have Muslims and non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are the ones causing confusion just to ignite a crisis,” he said.

You can tell that this man knows the religious currency of hate and understands the stance a real Muslim is supposed to have towards “kafirs.” But he wanted us to believe Prophet Muhammad didn’t murder anyone who insulted him. Is this really true or just another attempt to pull wool over the public’s eyes? Let’s find out.

While the Quran does not explicitly stipulate murder as a penalty for speaking against Muhammad and Allah, it gave some hints of it. For example:

“Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next – He has prepared a humiliatory punishment for them and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin…

“If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Muhammad] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed” (Sura 33:57, 60-61)

Verse 63 says “Do they know that whoever opposes God and His Messenger will go to the Fire of Hell and stay there? That is the supreme disgrace.”

The Quran also made it clear that people who speak against Islam are in the same category as those who physically fight against Muslims.

“But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism, then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish pagans of Makkah) – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions).” (Sura 9:12)

“They (the disbelievers, Jews and Christians) want to extinguish Allah’s light (which Muhammad has been sent – Islam) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that his light should be perfected even though the kafirun [infidels] hate it” (Sura 9:32)

In the hadiths and Muhammad’s biographies, we find several examples of how he countenanced or directly called for the assassination of his critics.

“A Jewess who used to insult the prophet and disparage him was strangled to death by a man. When the case was reported to Muhammad, the apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood” (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4349).

“Now al-Nadr b. al-Harith was one of the satans of Quraysh; he used to insult the apostle and show him enmity. He had been to al-Hira and learnt there the tales of the kings of Persia, the tales of Rustum and Isbandiyar. When the apostle had held a meeting in which he reminded them of God, and warned his people of what had happened to bygone generations as a result of God’s vengeance, al-Nadr got up when he sat down, and said, ‘I can tell a better story than he, come to me.’ Then he began to tell them about the kings of Persia, Rustum and Isbandiyar, and then he would say, ‘In what respect is Muhammad a better story-teller than? (Alfred Guillaume, ed, The Life of Muhammad [translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah], Oxford University Press, pp. 135-137).

Al-Harith was one of two prisoners who was captured after the battle of Badr and was not allowed to be ransomed by his clan (which was often the usual practice among the Arab tribes). He was beheaded by Ali at the behest of Muhammad.

Uqba bin Abu Muayt mocked Muhammad and wrote derogatory verses about him in Mecca. When he was captured at the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck (Bukhari 4:2934).

A blind man also had a slave mother who used to insult Muhammad. The man tried to stop her but she didn’t quit:

“One night she began to slander the Prophet … and abuse him. So he [the blind man] took the dagger, placed it on the belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who was between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.” When Muhammad heard this and that the victim used to insult him, he said “Oh be my witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood” (Bukhari 3:4348)

One of his victims was Abu Afak, a 120 year old Jewish man who opposed Muhammad through poetry. When a call was made for his murder, Salim ibn Umayr said:

“‘I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him’. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till he reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed…” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir 2:31).

When Asma bint Marwan heard of this evil, she began to speak out against Muhammad with her poems. Muhammad said to his thugs:

“Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter? ‘Umaryr bin Adiyal Khatmi who was with him heard him and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning, he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, ‘You have helped Allah and his apostle Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulallah, translated by A. Guillaume, 1955, pp. 675-76).

After the battle of Honain, Abbas, one of Muhammad’s soldiers, complained about how the booty was shared and recited some little, nasty poems. “The Apostle overheard him and said with a smile, ‘Take that man from here and cut out his tongue” (Sirat, p. 595).

In another instance, Ka’b Al-Ashraf was reciting poems to criticize Muhammad. He asked his henchmen, “Who will help me get rid of this rascal?” then “Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying ‘O Allah’s apostle! Would you like that I kill him? ‘The Prophet said ‘yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (to deceive Kab). The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ This man went on to Kab and acted like a friend till he killed him (Bukhari 5:369).

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he said: “There are four persons whom I shall not give protection” He identified them as the “two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam” (Abu Dawud, 2684).

In Sunan an-Nasai (Book 37, Chapter 14), we read this same narration, this time with the names of six victims:

“On the day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah granted amnesty to the people, except four men and two women. He said: ‘Kill them, even if you find them clinging to the covers of Ka’bah.’ (They were) ‘Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl, ‘Abdullah bin Khatal, Miqyas bin Subabah and ‘Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi As-Sarh.

Abdullah bin Khatal was killed because he “joined the pagan Arabs as an apostate. He was never repentant at this heinous crime but rather employed two women singers and incited them to sing satirically about the Prophet (Safiu Rahaman al-Mubarakpuri, ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum, pp. 396-397).

Under Sharia law, a Muslim can receive a death penalty for uttering statements of unbelief; sarcastic comment about Allah’s name or command; slander against Muhammad; denying any part of the Quran; reviling Islam or being sarcastic about Islamic laws (Ahmad al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveler, 597-98).

Some jurists stipulate death for non-Muslims who insult Muhammad or attempts to lead a Muslim away from Islam. Generally, the punishment ranges from imprisonment, paying fines, hanging, beheading or immediate conversion to Islam to avoid death.

The facts are clear and Muslim leaders should stop speaking from both sides of their mouths. If they truly believe Muhammad was a mere human and has not been deified, then he can’t be blasphemed. You can’t blaspheme a human being, only God, or a Divine Being (such as the eternal Holy Spirit) can be blasphemed.

Furthermore, the idea of “blasphemy” against Muhammad is not (and should not be) a crime because we are not in a theocracy. In fact, Muslims gratuitously blaspheme Jesus each time they say He was only a human messenger of Allah and no one had put their necks on a chopping block over this.

There are some places where the Quran says what Christianity would regard as blasphemous against Jesus Christ. A few examples are in order:

1. Sura 21:98 says, “Certainly! You (disbelievers) and that which you are worshipping now besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it.”

This is not only referring to non-Muslims such as Christians,  but also includes Jesus Christ, the Divine Person whom Christians worship. It’s blasphemous to declare that He will burn in hell.

2. Sura 5:17 says, “Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah – He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth?…”

For whoever is speaking in the Quran to declare that he wished to destroy Jesus Christ the Messiah is regarded as another blasphemy.

3. Sura 3:59 says, “Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, ‘Be’ and he is.”

Jesus is not “dust.” Even the Quran calls him “God’s Word” (4:171) and tells us that He was taken to heaven alive. Of course, Muhammad was dust and went back to the dust. Therefore, to denigrate Jesus to the level of a mere dust is blasphemous.

So we can draw the following conclusions:

Fact 1: Blasphemy is speaking against God/Divine Persons.

Fact 2: Muhammad is a mere human, not God or a Divine Being.

Fact 3: The idea of “blaspheming” a mere human long dead and gone is either shirk (polytheism) on the Muslim side or absurdity on the Christian side.

Fact 4: Islam actually blasphemes the divine persons of other religions not only by its authoritative texts, but also by word-of-mouth and in literature.

Fact 5: Christianity does not prescribe death for actual blasphemy of its own Divine Persons. It is a sin, but not a crime.

Fact 6: Since Christianity does not murder people for blaspheming Jesus or the Holy Spirit, Islam has no right to kill any Christian for allegedly blaspheming a mere human who died 14 centuries ago. This is true equity and fairness which must be instituted.

Ah, but Prophet Muhammad was Sinless!

I was recently talking about slavery in Islam on a social media platform when the report of African immigrants being dehumanized in Saudi Arabia was trending.

Several Muslims responded to me in that thread, with a few challenging me to prove my stance and I proceeded to document not only the legality of slavery from Islamic sources, but also highlight the fact that in almost every instance where the hadiths make references to Muhammad’s slaves, they were either Jews or Africans.

This unearthing of bare bone facts didn’t (expectedly) go over well with our Muslim friends who resorted to their well-worn tactics when confronted with ugly truths about their prophet:

  1. Dismiss the quotes from the hadiths as “weak narrations.”
  2. Allege that the statements or deeds quoted were fabricated by the Jews or “the west.”
  3. Claiming that the opponent is maliciously quoting the source out of context to paint Islam or its prophet in a bad light.

When one of them realized that his trump cards weren’t bringing out the best result, he told me as a matter of fact that dehumanizing non-Muslims at the time wasn’t really bad, after all, they were thinking and planning bad stuff against the powerful prophet:

“It was dehumanizing for the enemies, yes. You wanted them to be honoured after wanting to kill the Prophet? Even though they were enemies when they were prisoners of war, they were treated like eggs by the Muslims, they were fed like children and were allowed to earn their freedom.”

This line of thinking is quite problematic. First, it trades on a circular argument (“our prophet said he believed that his victims wanted to kill him so I believe it too”) and accepts the accusations and performative violence without any objective proof.

Second, he’s trying to find a moral justification for capturing, enslaving, torturing, dehumanizing and sexually assaulting other people as long as they are labelled as “enemies.”

This is similar to the excuses of most hardened criminals (“I raped her because she made my blood heat up” or “We beheaded them because they deceived our parents.”)

The most striking part was his egregious lie. Where in their hadiths were slaves “treated (carefully) like eggs”? None.

Even in his desperate bid to defend the indefensible, he contradicted himself. How on earth do you admit that slaves owned by Muslims were dehumanized and in the next sentence claim they were treated with care and “fed like children”?

You see, none of these lurid accusations levied against Muhammad’s enemies were documented, Muslims have had to invent most of them because they needed to uphold an underlying tenet of their religion: the alleged sinlessness of prophet Muhammad.

Muslim scholars are of the opinion that prophets are either sinless or at least free from all major sins or faults. One scholar wrote:

“All the prophets of God were men of good character and high honor … Their honesty and truthfulness, their intelligence and integrity are beyond doubt. They were infallible in that they did not commit sins or violate the Law of God.” (Abdalati Hammudah, Islam in Focus. American Trust Publications: Indianapolis, 1975, p. 27)

If a Muslim should admit that Muhammad actually committed acts of wickedness by enslaving, raping women, or assassinating people, he would also be admitting that he sinned, and that ultimately destroys his belief in isma (impeccability) and the other Islamic lies that go with it. It’s like a chain; it’s only as strong as its weakest link.

“Yeah, he was sinless,” said my Muslim opponent, “name one sin [he committed],” he ordered.

This is like someone challenging me to prove that the sky is blue. It’s a philosophical paradox that it’s easier to prove the ominous than to prove the obvious. It’s easier to prove that angels are real than to prove that grasses are green.

If a person is demanding evidence that zebras have stripes, you will wonder if his eyes and brains are functioning right. It’s just the same as someone who has refused to see enslaving others as sin but is now asking me to name a sin his guru was guilty of.

The fact is, the burden of proof is not on us to prove that Muhammad was a sinner, it’s rather on the Muslims to prove to us where the Quran or Hadiths ever stated that Muhammad was sinless.

When we look into these sources, we see that Muhammad was just like every other man – he sinned.

In Sura 18:110, Allah commands him: Say (O Muhammad): “I am no more than a human being like you; one to whom revelation is made…”

Muhammad was simply a man like his followers, the fact that he received a revelation doesn’t make him infallible.

Sura 40:55 says “So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [Allah] with the praise of your Lord, morning and evening.”

Sura 48:1-2 say: “Indeed, We have granted you a manifest triumph. That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future and complete His Favor on you and guide you on the Straight Path.”

Sura 47:19 says: “So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.”

The only way a Muslim can successfully weasel his way out of these passages is to argue that Allah was wrong to ask Muhammad to ask for forgiveness because he had nothing to forgive! A damning admission, that one.

Yet, Muslim translators have dug into their bag of tricks to work some “abracadabra” on these passages.

The Arabic word “dhanb” or “thanb” was used in the texts, which according to The Hughes Encyclopedic Dictionary of Islam means, “a sin or a crime, or the charge of such.” The word is used in several other places and rightly translated as sin or crime (see Suras 3:11, 16, 31; 5:18, 49; 6:6; 7:10 etc).

But Muslim translators cannot allow Muhammad to be a sinner or criminal as their book says, so in those passages where dhanb was used, they deliberately rendered it as “fault” – a minor mistake or mild error that can be overlooked.

One English translator even smuggled in the words “attributed to you by Meccan polytheists” in parenthesis after “your sins” in Sura 48:2. His doctrinal presupposition was so strong that he had to bring up a sledgehammer and beat the text into conformity with it.

The doctrine of isma was actually a later innovation in Islam. It was first formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II where it was stated that:

“All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part.” (Arent Jan Wensinck, The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, p. 192).

Even the hadiths which attempted to don Muhammad with a legendary clothing tell us the same thing: that he was a poor sinner in need of forgiveness and redemption:

The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth…”(Bukhari 8.379:  Narrated ‘Aisha)

The fact that Muhammad kept praying for forgiveness and seeking refuge from the punishment of the fire of hell is proof that he was a sinner, his sins were indeed serious, and he knew their consequences were awaiting him beyond the grave.

The Prophet used to invoke Allah with the following invocation: [Arabic translation] “O my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits of righteousness in all my deeds and what you know better than I … Forgive my sins of the past and of the future with I did openly or secretly.” (Bukhari 8.407:  Narrated Abu Musa)

What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation? Muhammad replied, I say, “O Allah, set me apart from my sins as the East and Westest are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned from dirt. O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail.” (Bukhari 1:711 Narrated Abu Huraira)

The Prophet used to say frequently in his bowings and prostrations, “O Allah! Our Lord! All praises are for You. O Allah! Forgive me.” (Bukhari 1:781 Narrated ‘Aisha)

I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to him in repentance more than seventy times a day.” (Bukhari 8:319, Narrated Abu Huraira)

Muhammad’s wife, Aisha records that the early Muslims didn’t regard Muhammad as sinless (but rather as one whose sins were forgiven).

They said, “O Allah’s Prophet! We are not like you. Allah has forgiven your past and future sins” (Bukhari 1:19).

“The Prophet entered my house when a Jewess was with me and she was saying: Do you know that you would be put to trial in the grave? The Messenger of Allah trembled (on hearing this) and said: It is the Jews only who would be put to trial. Aisha said: We passed some nights and then the Messenger of Allah said: Do you know that it has been revealed to me: “You would be put to trial in the grave”? Aisha said: I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge from the torment of the grave after this.” (Muslim 4, No. 1212, Narrated Aisha)

If Muhammad was only guilty of minor mistakes and little faults, why did he tremble and why was he earnestly seeking refuge from the torment of the grave?

These narrations give a lie to the fantastic claims of Muhammad being “cleansed” by angels as a baby or being untouched by Satan at birth.

In the hadith Mishkat al Masabih (1990 ed.), Aisha said Muhammad used to say: “O God, I seek refuge in Thee from the evil of what I have done…” (p. 525)

Indeed, Muhammad did many evil acts – raiding, gruesome murders, and sexual depravity.

In the same hadith, Abu Musa al-Ashari quotes Muhammad saying:

“O God, forgive me of my sin, my ignorance, my extravagance in my affairs and my frivolous sins, for I am guilty of all that; O god, forgive me my former and my latter sins, what I have keep secret and what I have done openly.” (p. 529)

Ah, but Muhammad was sinless! No he wasn’t. In fact, his religion and rituals failed to cater for his own sins much less the sins of his followers.

But as the centuries ensued, many Muslims who realized from the Bible that Jesus Christ is absolutely sinless and their guru was inferior, in ways more than one, tried to tailor their prophet along that line by attributing miracles to him and adopting isma, but the skeletons keep falling out of the cupboards.

Jesus didn’t have to pray for forgiveness or seek refuge in fear from the fire of hell, for he had declared: “For the prince of this world [Satan] is coming. He has no hold over me” (Jn. 14:30). 

We invite our Muslim friends to come to Jesus Christ, the Righteous One who has the power to save one from sin and deliver one to the uttermost.

 

 

 

On Islam and its Book of Violence

download

Premium Times, one of the leading Nigerian media outlets, published a report yesterday titled, Boko Haram, Ten Years On: How hundreds of girls bear brunt of insurgency.

A Muslim named Akeem, in his reaction to the report, trotted out a liberal cop out to Islamic violence which is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice. This comment caught my attention and I responded to it.

Another Muslim, Tajudeen, replied to me, and eventually resorted to attempting to bullying me into a free-for-all debate by boneheadedly “challenging” me to read the Quran.

Of course, over the years, I have developed certain criteria that guide me in who I engage and how I engage them on social media, and the limit to which I invest my time and energy in such pursuits.

I’ve been debating with Muslims online for 8 years now and I can almost predict each encounter. I don’t respond to everyone on every issue. I pick my battles with wisdom.

However, for the purpose of educating our Muslim friends out there, I’ve decided to publish this exchange here.

Let everyone who wishes to know the truth about Islam read the links provided and come to their own conclusions about who between us is presenting the truth or muddying (and denying) the facts.

Akeem’s words will appear in red, Taju’s in blue and mine in black.

The more reason why you need to use your own common senses given freely to you by God to know when you’re being led astray and when you’re on the right path.

Again, the problem with those being misled is that ‘they can’t read, understand nor interpret the Book being quoted for them’, but listen to the ‘words from the evil ones’.

Or could it be that the book itself turns good people into evil ones?

Couldn’t it be that this book is a veritable textbook of hate that robs those who soak it in of their humanity and common sense?

Your argument would have made sense if only Nigeria were plagued with such “misleadings,” but even a 10 year old knows that Islamic insurgency is found everywhere the religion holds sway.

When people from diverse cultures, geographical locations, religious exposures, social strata and political system all subscribe to the same violent ideology, then they are drinking from a common ideological fountain: a religious book of violence.

Have you read the ‘Book’? Can you expressly affirm that those who perpetrate violence are doing so based on the injunctions of the ‘book’?

Yes Tajudeen, I’ve read the Quran for more than a decade now. And I’ve read a number of hadiths. My first exposure to the Quran was in 2002. Frankly, it’s not a book of love, peace or justice.

So it would be very strange if I by now, I still didn’t know what its injunctions are, or whether Muslim jihadists have a credible support from Islam’s texts or not.

Perhaps you need to catch up on your history lessons to rediscover how yet another popular ‘book’ was used to enslave, violate, plunder and totally destroy other races by those claiming to be custodians of the messages of that specific book.

Don’t even try to deviate this issue to the Bible or Vedas or Adi Granth. The Bible or any other religious book beside the Quran is NOT the book being discussed here.

This is the well-worn path of the Muslim once they are backed up into a corner – deflecting to the Bible. They can’t defend their book without attacking another because they feel uncomfortable discussing their own book without running off in tangents. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the Muslim diversionary handbook.

Those who fight jihad read, quote and obey the Quran, not the Bible. They also follow Muhammad’s examples in the hadiths. They don’t follow the Bible or emulate Jesus Christ. Nice try, but I won’t fall for it.

The fact is, humans will always find justification for whatever they do, be it good or evil. And their ‘infallible’ argument will come from whichever ‘book’ they subscribe to.

Not in the case of Muslims who take their ideology from the Quran. That’s why you can prattle that “misinterpreted” line from here to Ceylon, it won’t fly because you have a religious figure – Muhammad – whose actions constitute your ethos and ethics.

He is your perfect example (uswa hasana) and you are expected to be violent as he was violent, fight as he fought his enemies, treat your wives as he treated his women, take people as slaves as he enslaved people, and by the “perfect legacy” he laid down for you to gain Allah’s approval, all his other heinous sins, practices and misguided worldview have become legally enshrined in your religious dogma.

That’s far off the bat from a person who seizes on certain Bible verses to approve of war, slavery or rape. These are opposed to the teaching and spirit of Christ. The Muslim who emulates Muhammad is the true Muslim and a Christian who doesn’t live as Christ lived is not of Christ. It’s as simple as that.

But before you go tripping with baseless conjectures and flaunting ignorance, Google the said ‘book.’ The English or Yoruba translations should be accessible to you.

In the Muslim mind, there’s no way you would read their Quran and not bow to Allah in adoration. To them, anyone who disagrees with Islam and its book must be labouring under baseless conjectures and ignorance. This is emotional bullying; like the high school jock calling a girl a lesbian for not accepting to dance with him.

It doesn’t occur to them – or they want to avoid accepting the possibility – that one can reject a religious system precisely because one has studied it through and through, but finds it spiritually objectionable, morally deficient, historically flawed and logically full of holes.

I promise, you will be amazed and astounded with what you find.

There’s nothing amazing and astounding in that book. It’s even an insult to the human intellect.

What do I want to find astounded with verses about rocks falling down in fear, Allah’s golden cow, sun sinking in the stream, meterors being thrown at jinn, an ant and Hoopoe bird talking to Solomon, semen being formed in the vertebra, the moon being splitted, a Jesus who escaped the cross and other outlandish claims that can only be found in a poorly written fiction for children?

I assure you that those who perpetrate violence/terror in the name of Islam, are not muslims.

That “they are not muslims” card has been overused. It’s time you guys cut it into pieces and threw it away.

***

Its a lie, you have not read the Qur’an. Neither have you studied the hadiths. If you have, you would quote expressly where hate and violence is sanctioned just to spite every muslim.

You will buttress your points with verses and bash me in the face with facts, rather than tender these same worn out, threadbare arguments.

I don’t have to respond to you in accordance with your expectations. I don’t have to bash anyone in the face with facts, after all, your initial claim was that I was ignorant of your religion and you presumably know better.

It’s empty barrels that make the loudest of noise. Knowledgeable people are not always in an impulsive fit to bully people into accepting what they say.  That was your expectation, but I’m above that.

It was Sigmund Freud who first proposed what psychologists call “projection.” It’s an ego defense mechanism that propels a person to attribute their own negative (and positive) traits to others. For instance, when a person is a self-serving narcissist, he also sees others as narcissists. It’s a windscreen syndrome.

When a person lacks the internal capacity for telling the truth, even in the simplest of matters, he will be quick to label others as liars. He will find it difficult to take people’s words for it because truth is the farthest thing from his own mind.

When a man is intellectually insecure, emotionally immature and lacking in self-confidence, he will have an overwhelming urge to “overcompensate” by always wanting to throw his weight around or preening to impress the public with the shallow stuff he owns or knows.

Taju, I’m sorry I don’t fit into that box you are familiar with. I’m not interested in impressing you or anyone, I am more interested in presenting the truth. However, you are welcome to read my two-part article, Islam: the Religion of War (one and two) where I quote copiously from your authoritative texts.

In any case, you can still bash yourself in the face with facts by picking up your Quran and reading it and noting the violence taught in it.

Too many people, like you, have been thoroughly brainwashed by the vociferous and fully loaded ‘islamaphobia industry’. Their knowledge of Islam is at best third hand. Certainly not a direct intellectual enquiry.

Really? Well, such banal, pablum drooling scribblings are getting real old. I’ve had it up to my chin. That’s another distraction: poisoning the well. First you say I’m completely ignorant of Islam, next you accuse me of having a third hand knowledge of it.

Somehow, you pit yourself as some omniscient guy who implictly knows the nature and extent of what I have read.

The truth is, you can’t deal with the fact that I reject Islam because it’s false and destructive, so you try to make up all sorts of wild scenarios in your head about me to cement your malformed worldview. The whole world doesn’t revolve around you and your religion.

Speaking of “islamophobia,” you are deploying a worthless term like “homophobia,” used by liberals for smearing others. We are not “phobic” of Islam, we reject it, period. And you are very much welcome to interrogate our reasons for rejecting it rather than hiding behind stupid slogans.

But you see, your hatred of Islam is your personal choice. But it does not change its meaning and essence, which millions have discovered through the centuries.

But you see, your hatred of Christianity is your personal choice. But it does not change its meaning and essence, which millions have discovered through the centuries. And in this case, for at least five centuries before Muhammad arose in Arabia.

When people pout the word jihad without even knowing its meaning, I laugh. You don’t know what Jihad means, but I can tell you for free, it is aeons away from fighting or killing.

Yeah sure. Because you say so. Why don’t you “buttress your points with verses and bash me in the face (not literally, of course) with facts, rather than tendering these worn out, threadbare arguments” mouthed by lying Islamic apologists?

And too bad for those who think otherwise. Because they are ignorant. You don’t even know jack about the prophet of Islam.

You haven’t demonstrated anything of the sort, you have only given me an autobiographical window into the state your soul. Your barks are far out of proportion to your bites. Since you have failed to persuade those reading this, you have to resort to blustery and bombastic words.

You are free to refute any of these articles

The Sex Life of the Prophet

Islam and Sex Slavery

The Tongue of the the Prophet

The Cruelty of the Prophet

The Wickedness of the Prophet

The Miracles of the Prophet

The Prophet and his Demons

The Danger of Blind Belief

A Tiptoe through the Hadiths

Allah, Satan and the Hadiths

The Cult of the Slave Masters

Islam: the Demise of Love

Please read books written by both enemies and friends of Islam, then you will be illuminated.

Did you just say I should read books authored by enemies of Islam? I thought you earlier said that I have “been thoroughly brainwashed by the vociferous and fully loaded ‘islamaphobia industry'” who lack “intellectual enquiry” and whose knowledge of Islam is third hand?

Politics has found its way into religion across board. The terrorist are not Muslims. To you that is a cliche, to us it a living fact.

Alright, bring those living facts along and refute these

The Two Faces of Islam

The Seed of Jihad

It doesn’t really matter what you think. Islam has stood the test of time. It will still be here when we are all gone.

You should be more concerned about Islam’s fraudulent “plan of salvation” and where it is taking you when you leave this earth.

This is the problem, you guys have been indoctrinated into seeing yourself so intertwined with Islam that you take it as a personal offence when it is questioned. But faith is supposed to be personal. You should be more concerned about how your investigation of Islam will affect you as a person, rather than how it will affect the public image of Islam which you have been conditioned to uphold.

I challenge you yet again to read the Qur’an

Your challenge has been met years ago. Here is an example.

Salamu Alaikum brother Victor. Peace and blessings of God be with you.

And also with you.