The Biblical God As a Deceiver !!

You won’t hear enough of Christian missionaries arguing that the Qur’an describes Allah as plotting and deceiving (refer here), Then they conclude that Allah should not be worshiped because of these verses !!

But first let us refute their argument :

First of all, What is wrong with God deceiving EVILDOERS? Deceiving those DECEIVERS? Read the verse and see whom God deceived.  

“And when those who misbelieve were crafty with thee to detain thee a prisoner, or kill thee, or drive thee forth; they were crafty, but God was crafty too, for God is best of crafty ones!

You cannot compare God to those evildoers. Because those evildoers are deceiving innocent people, while God is deceiving those evil doers in order to stop their evil plots.

It’s like me saying that there are people who murder and kill people. These are bad people. However, can we also call God a blood thirsty murderer for taking the souls of people by sending natural disasters or by allowing people to get brutally murdered? Of course not. You can’t compare. You cannot question God.

So again, What is wrong with God deceiving EVILDOERS? Of course, Nothing is wrong .

But now let us return them the favor and show how the god of the Bible is a deceiver, thus by the Christian missionary criteria the Biblical God  should not be worshipped either.


We read in…

Jeremiah 4:10

Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived (nasha) this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.”  


The word for deceived here is nasha, which means…


 1) to beguile, deceive

    a) (Niphal) to be beguiled

    b) (Hiphil) to beguile, deceive

     c) (Qal) utterly (infinitive)




John Gill states in his commentary…

surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem:
what the false prophets did, that God is said to do, because he suffered them to deceive the people; (John Gill, The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible, Commentary on Jeremiah 4:10,


The New Bible commentary states…

Jeremiah is not indifferent to the message, which he is called to preach. In v 10 a note is struck to which he will return in relation to himself (15:18). In his distress he accuses the Lord of having deceived the people, presumably by having allowed false prophets to convince them with a message of peace (cf. 6:13-14). The only reply is the Lord’s own confirmation that judgment is sure. (New Bible Commentary)


Even though it was really the false prophets who did the act of deception, the Bible is actually shifting the blame to God for actually allowing the false prophets to do the deception. This is what the “inspired” author Jeremiah said and this is what we got to accept. God deceived innocent people.


It seemed that people were so bothered with Jeremiah’s ascription of deception to God that they had to reword the sentence so that deception is ascribed to the false prophets instead.



Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people
The Targum paraphrases this verse thus: “And I said, Receive my supplication, O Lord God; for, behold, the false prophets deceive this people and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace.” The prophet could not reconcile this devastation of the country with the promises already made; and he appears to ask the question, Hast thou not then deceived this people in saying there shall be peace, i.e., prosperity? (Adam Clarke, The Adam Clarke Commentary, Commentary on Jeremiah 4:10,



We have it in…


1 Kings 22:20-22

20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
      “One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’

    22 ” ‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.
      ” ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
      ” ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’


Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it! 


I personally have no moral objections to this since I believe God could at times use means of deception in order to ensure the greater good and to use deception against evil. However, Christians don’t allow this when we talk about Allah deceiving evildoers in the Qur’an. These are double standards.



We even have it in…


Ezekiel 14:9-11

9 ” ‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt-the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’ “


God is punishing him for a crime that He enticed him to do in the first place? Isn’t that entrapment?



Another passage…


Isaiah 37:6-7

Isaiah said to them, “Tell your master, ‘This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard-those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! I am going to put a spirit in him so that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.’ “


God had that spirit spread a rumor so that the King of Assyria can to return to his homeland. In short, that spirit’s purpose was for deception.


Another example from the Bible…


Isaiah 19:14

The LORD has poured into them a spirit of dizziness; they make Egypt stagger in all that she does, as a drunkard staggers around in his vomit.


Here we see God deceiving people to the extent that they become absolutely foolish.


Even though I don’t believe the Gospels teach that Jesus taught he was God, however this example is for those who believe that Jesus is God. Jesus admits that he was speaking figuratively all this time…


John 16:25

25″Though I have been speaking figuratively (paroimia), a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.


The word paroimia could mean…


1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking

a) a current or trite saying, a proverb

2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth

a) esp. a symbolic or figurative saying

b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons

c) an allegory

1) extended and elaborate metaphor



Why wasn’t Jesus speaking in a normal and clear way all the time? Why did Jesus then go and say that he won’t ‘use this kind of language’?


Well, here we find out why…


Mark 4:10-12

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’



So here we see that Jesus was deceiving certain people by speaking in parables so that they won’t (and God forbid!) REPENT AND BE FORGIVEN!


Also in…


2 Thessalonians 2:11

11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie


So God will delude people so that they can believe lies?




Now Christians would argue back and ask us Muslims to understand the context and reasons why God did such a thing. However, when we tell Christians to do the same thing when it comes to analyzing certain Qur’anic verses they don’t want to do it. So why should us Muslims?


And God knows best..


“I have fabricated things against God” is a Lie Against Prophet Muhammed Peace Be Upon Him.

Some pathetic non-Muslims use unreliable quotes from unreliable books. They quote the following from Al-Tabari’s book:


“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)


This is in fact such a weak and stupid argument made by some Christians , and they desperately and shamelessly use it to disprove the prophethood of Muhammed.

For starter, who is Tabari ?!  Tabari  was a HISTORIAN not a scholar, so he does not verify the narrations as we will read in the introduction of his book. Anyway, Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them. Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a COLLECTION OF NARRATIONS on certain events; some of these narrations are ACCURATE, whereas others are NOT. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

 “I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I HAVE MERELY REPORTED IT as it was reported to me.(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)” [ ]    


So this quote is a LIE against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), not just that, but there were many lies invented by the hypocrites from among the Jews in order to REJECT prophet Muhammed. The people were certain that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the awaited one and to defend themselves, the hypocrites from the Jews invented such lies.

Inventing lies is not a big problem for the liars, this is their job. For example, the Prophet once recited some Surahs(verses from Quran) to the pagans in Makkah and prostrated to God Almighty at the end. The pagans who were speechless at the beauty of the recitation also prostrated. When the news spread to the leaders of the pagans, they were upset and were looking to take action against those pagans who had prostrated. In order to defend themselves, those pagans lied that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said good things about their false gods. The lie was made to defend themselves.

If these Christians feel that the hypocrites were telling the truth and he really praised the pagan gods, then he must also accept the hypocrites around Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) who claimed the same for Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Just like the hypocrites invented lies against the Prophets of the Old Testament (sinners, rapists, killers, incest performers, idol worshippers, nudists etc), they invented lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but the difference is that Muslims have rejected these hypocrites and have thrown them of their books .

Another thing, Muhammed peace be upon him was SINCERE, and he was called ”The Trustworthy” and “Truthful” before his prophethood, so how can he fabricate things on God, doesn’t make any sense, dose it ?!

Christians’ conclusion that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had Satan behind him just reminds one of the story of Lazarus when Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) raised him from death by the permission of God Almighty. The hypocrites around him stated that “the devil was behind him”. Such allegations have been labeled at Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well and it is no surprise at all.


So this argument that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) openly said that he lied is just PATHETIC and CHILDISH as can be seen. Making use of the weakest of weak narrations is the job of the HYPOCRITES.


I bear witness there’s no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his final messenger..


And Allah knows the best..

Response To The “Child Molester” Lie Against Our Beloved Prophet, Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him


Aisha in Islam:

Let’s discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet in Islam!

First of all, it is important to know:

Aisha’s parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced.  And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married.  Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet’s marriage was:

-People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia.   They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum.  So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.

-Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries.

It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off.  In other words, when they turn into “women”, then they get married off.  It was quite different for men on the other hand, because physical power and the ability of living an independent life had always been and will always be a mandatory requirement for men to have in life.  So men waited much longer than women in terms of getting married.  The guy had to develop both his body and mind before he was ready for marriage. 

That is why you see girls as young as 9 or 10 were married to men as old as 30 or even older.  The culture back then and in many third world countries today (NON-MUSLIM ONES TOO) is quite different than what you live in today.

Prophet Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!

So to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.

The pedophilia in the bible was quite different, because girls were raped at 3-years of age by Moses and his men.

Also, in Exodus 21:7-11, girls were sold off as slave girls by their own fathers to other men.  So most certainly, no one is qualified to call the Prophet of Islam a pedophile!

An important note:

As Muslims, we do not embrace the pedophilia, rape, terrorism and all of the other forms of evil that exist in the Bible, nor do we believe that the Prophets of Allah Almighty, peace and blessings be upon all of them, ever committed such cruel acts that are falsely attributed to them.

We’re only exposing the corrupted bible and the evil that exists in it.



response to the “Child Molester” lie against Prophet Muhammad:

Every time the Muslims talk about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to the anti-Islamic, the anti-Islamic use Muhammad’s marriage with a girl named Aisha as a point against Islam.   They claim that since Muhammad was in his 50’s and Aisha was only 9 years old, then it’s ok to call him a “Child Molester”:

Narrated Aisha:  “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)”

Notice here that Aisha’s mother and the Muslim women back then were ok with her marriage.  It was part of the Arab custom and still is in many of the Muslim and non-Muslim countries today for girls to marry at a very young age.  When a girl’s body starts showing up (her breasts and her height and physical size), then she would be ready for marriage. 

The “child molester” charge is a terrible unfair attack on Islam because it doesn’t apply to our beloved prophet in any way!

Was Aisha engaged to someone else before she got engaged to Muhammad?

I was told that Aisha was already engaged to a non Muslim man named Jober Ibn Al-Moteam Ibn Oday.  Back then, the people of Mecca did not object to Aisha’s engagement to Jober because she was physically big enough and tall enough to be considered for marriage.  Her parents saw that and they engaged her to Jober.

The only reason why Aisha’s father, Abu Baker Al Siddeek, broke her engagement with Jober is because he was a non-Muslim.  Later, a woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested for Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to marry Aisha, because the Prophet and Abu Baker became best friends.   Prophet Muhammad engaged Aisha for 2 years before he married her. 

All Muslim scholars agree 100% that Prophet Muhammad and Aisha were engaged for 2 years before marriage.  However, some say that she was 7 when she got engaged, and 9 when she got married.  Others say that she was 9 when she got engaged and 11 when she got married.

The Middle Eastern and other Cultures:


If you take the time to study a little bit about the history of the tribes in South America, Middle East, Africa, India and the far eastern Oriental countries 1400 years ago, you would find that many tribes even until today  allow the marriage of females at a very young age.

Do you think it is fair for you to come today and attack our beloved Prophet and call him a child molester when nobody 1400 years ago from his tribe had objected to his marriage? Not even the Pagans of Mecca, nor the Jews and Christians of Medina ever objected to it or used it as a point against Islam as anti-Islamic do today.

We all need to understand the culture that we are talking about. Life in the Middle East is a very simple one. It is a lot simpler than what our brain can imagine, because the simplest to us here in America may be a very difficult or complicated thing to them in the Middle East especially for those folks who live in tribes in the rural areas where they don’t have TV, electricity, or any electrical equipment. They live on natural water and survive on what they have available from fruits, vegetables and animals as food.

Parents look at the girl’s physical appearance when they prepare her for marriage. They don’t care about her age. She could be 9 or 13, it doesn’t matter.

What about Aisha’s parents (mom and dad), are they too “Child Molesters”?


Since Aisha’s parents both approved of her engagement with Jober and later approved to her marriage to Muhammad, is it fair for anyone to call her mom and dad and former fiancée and whole tribe all child molesters? I think whoever does that would be out of his mind and needs to study a little history about the Middle East.

More on Aisha’s Marriage and its acceptance by the Arab culture back then:

Firstly – if indeed the marriage of Lady Aisha was something which was despicable even at that time and in that culture, this fact would never have been recorded for posterity and all efforts to conceal or cloud it would have been undertaken.

But the fact that this hadith had reached us after it was recorded centuries ago and to all the Muslim generations in between proved that the marriage was culturally and morally acceptable and the fact is also that the Muslim community at that time remained unshakened in its faith in his Prophethood and the message which he had brought bear testimony to this assertion.

Secondly – we have to look at the life of Lady Aisha afterwards.  She was without doubt one of the foremost scholars of Islam. It is even said that she had attained in her lifetime the position of Mufti – someone capable of giving religious rulings – a position very few Muslims will ever occupy.

She was seeked by many, both men and women, who hungered for knowledge and they came to her from all directions, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria. History does not know of any woman who was approached by so many for such a noble purpose.

If indeed she had became a victim of sexual abuse she would in most probability be devastated emotionally, psychologically, mentally and perhaps even physically but the achievements she had made in her life after the death of the Prophet proved that she was a woman who was in complete control of her faculties, becoming one of the intellectual giants of Islam.

And the fact that she had spoken so dearly of the Prophet was indicative of the innocence of the marriage and of the impeccable character of her husband because given the trust enjoyed by her by the virtue of her relationship with him, she could have unleashed a vengeful attack against him by attributing to him words or deeds of horrendous nature if indeed she was a victim of his supposed lust, destroying both the Prophet and Islam.

No sexual abuse victim would ever spoke positively of her attacker, much less becoming a channel that promote love and understanding of him and the message which he had brought.”

But still, she is considered a child in our standards today!


Well, a lot of the things we do today are not right in the eyes of many.  Our “standards” today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago.  Today, anyone under 18 years old is considered a “child”, a baby still under his mommy’s and daddy’s care.  Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age of 18 were considered wise and very mature.

Let me share this Islamic story with you:

There is a famous Islamic figure called “Osama bin Zayd (or Zaid)”.  I was told that this man was once a leader or one of the leaders of the Muslims who met the Roman Christians.  He defeated them.  He was only 16 to 18 years old.

So the point is, Aisha, peace be upon her, might look as child to you, but back then she certainly was considered as “woman” who was qualified for marriage.

What about Mary, Jesus’ Mother peace be upon both of them?  How old was she when she got pregnant?


Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl it was also common in the Jewish society.  The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind, in non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus.  Mary had already been “BETROTHED” to Joseph before conceiving Jesus.  Joseph was a much older man. therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was “BETHROED” to Joseph.  We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the “Holy Ghost” of the Bible, that “Impregnated” Mary as a “Rapist” or “Adulterer”.

“….it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age….” (Source) [2]

According to the Priest of Saint Mary’s Catholic Church: “Mary was approximately 14 years old when she got pregnant with Jesus.  Joseph, Mary’s Husband is believed to be around 36.  Mary was only 13 when she married Joseph.  When she first was arranged with Joseph she was between 7 to 9 years old.”

According to the “Oxford Dictionary Bible” commentary, Mary (peace be upon her) was 12 years old when she became impregnated.

So if I want to be as silly and ridiculous as these Christians, I would respond to them by saying that Mary was psychologically and emotionally devastated for getting pregnant at a very young age.  And speaking of “child molesting”, since most Christians believe that Jesus is the Creator of this universe, then why did GOD allow himself to enter life through a 12-year old young girl’s vagina?  Please note that we Muslims love and respect Allah Almighty, Mary, Jesus and Allah’s Message to the People of the Book (The Jews and Christians).  In other words, we Muslims would never make fun of Christianity through such childish topic like this one as these ridiculous Christians do make fun of Islam through our Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage.

 Joseph, Mary’s husband, was “90 years old” when he married 12 to 14-year old Mary!  Was he a pedophile too?

Hypocrisy of Jews & Christians

It is quite hypocritical of Jews and Christian to criticize the marriage of Aisha. Talmud (Jewish scripture) says:

“Marrying off one’s daughter as soon after she reaches adulthood as possible, even to one’s Slave. (From the Talmud, Pesachim 113a)”

As we discussed, in biblical times adulthood could refer to the age of Puberty or even younger age.

Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia (, says:

“When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”). A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place.”

Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early

Christian writing including apocryphal writings.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude “…retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.” If Christians do not find any difficulty in accepting “Mother of God” (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia), who was 12-14, marrying a 90 year old man then why do they raise objection towards the marriage of Aisha (RA) to the Prophet?

 What about the Bible’s Prophets’ marriages?


When we read the Bible, we learn about some Prophets marrying many wives, even hundreds of wives in some cases.  Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon’s son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

And knowing that the Bible’s Old Testament allowed before for men to have sex with girls who were at the age of 3, then it wouldn’t surprise me that those Prophets who had 700 wives for instance, had many very young “teenage” girls before as their wives.

It wouldn’t surprise me if they too had wives that were younger than Mary when she got pregnant, and younger than Aisha when she got married.

Since there are so many wives that those Prophets married (hundreds of wives), then how would anyone know that they didn’t marry young women as our beloved Prophet peace be upon him did with his marriage to Aisha peace be upon her?

What about the X-Rated Pornography in the Bible?

When we read the Bible, we learn about some weird pornographic teachings that are certainly not appropriate for anyone with morals to read.  Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible to see the many pornographic verses in the Bible.  You will read for instance, about Solomon’s wife’s vagina tastes like wine for him!

You will also see examples of Prophets sleeping with their neighbor’s wives, such as the following:

David watches a women bathe, likes what he sees, and “goes in unto her.”   Let us look at 2 Samuel 11:2-4  “One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, ‘Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?’  Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home.”  This Holy Figure in the Bible is a pervert!. 

So what happened to “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.  (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:10)”????

How come Leviticus 20:10 was compromised in the Bible and was never applied to King David?!   Didn’t King David know about this law?  Yet, the Jews use his star as their holy symbol; the David Star, and the Christians call Jesus his son; “Son of David”.

It seems to me quite clearly that the Bible is nothing but a compromised corrupted Book as Jeremiah 8:8, 2 Samuel 11:2-4 and Leviticus 20:10 suggest.

If the strong eats the weak in the Bible, then what moral and wisdom are we to learn from this book?


Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him WAS NOT a child molester as the haters of Islam claim.  He was a Noble Messenger of God.  Muhammad peace be upon him lived in a society and culture that existed 1400 years ago, and we must not judge what he or others did based on our standards today.  It is wrong and foolish to do so.

The Amazing Sunnah Of The Prophet Muhammad’s Sleeping Posture

By Bassam Zawadi

Here are some Hadith from Riyad As Saaleheen that shows the Islamic way of sleeping…

814. Al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib said, “When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to retire to his bed, he would lie on his right side and then say, ‘O Allah, I surrender my soul to You and I turn my face to You and I entrust my affair to You and I seek Your support with hope and fear of You. There is no refuge from You but to You. I have believed in Your Book which You sent down and Your Prophet whom You sent.'” [al-Bukhari]

815. al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib reported: ‘The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to me, ‘Whenever you go to bed, do wudu’ as you do wudu’ for the prayer and then lie down on your right side. Then say…'” and he mentioned the rest of it and in it is, “Make that the last of the words that you utter.” [Agreed upon]

816. ‘A’isha said, “The Prophet , may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to pray eleven rak’ats at night. When it was dawn, he would pray two quick rak’ats and then lie on his right side until the mu’adhdhin came and gave the adhan.” [Agreed upon]

818. Ya’ish ibn Tikhfa al-Ghifari said, “My father said, ‘Once while I was lying on my stomach in the mosque, a man moved me with his foot and said, “This is a position which Allah hates.”‘” He said, “I looked up and it was the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” [Abu Dawud]



128. Chapter: On the permission to lie on one’s back and put one leg across the other when one’s private parts are not exposed, and the permission to sit cross-legged and sitting with one’s legs drawn up

820. ‘Abdullah ibn Zayd reported that he saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, lying on his back in the mosque with one foot on top of the other.” [Agreed upon]



So from these Hadith we see that it is okay and recommended to sleep on one’s back and right side. However, not recommended to sleep on one’s stomach. There is no prohibition of sleeping on the left side, however it seems that the Sunnah is on the right side or back. 

What does science today tell us about sleeping positions?


In my experience, vagal maneuvers have worked sometimes to terminate my AF, but usually not on the first try.  Light exercise can also terminate AF, particularly when it has lasted into the morning or early afternoon.  Several posts to the atrial fibrillation message board have also reported that sleeping on the left side can trigger AF during the night (this has also been my experience), and I have found that I can avoid AF by sleeping on the right side or on the back.  It can also help to elevate the head and upper part of the body when sleeping, either by using several pillows or a bed that can be adjusted to do this.



Sleeping on one side
Question: I am a 50-year old male. I can only get to sleep lying on my right side. I always wake lying on my right side and my bed partner says I spend the whole night on my right side. Is this normal or harmful.

Answer: This is very normal and not harmful.



Gilbert found that if researchers had pooled the results of the oldest studies and analyzed them, they might have gotten a big hint by 1970 that putting babies to sleep on their stomachs raised the risk of SIDS. Instead, that observation did not become convincing until the late 1980s.

Researchers now know that sleeping on the stomach raises the risk of SIDS sevenfold. That realization led to “Back to Sleep” campaigns in Britain in 1991 and in the United States in 1994.

Between 1970 and the unveiling of that advice, 11,000 British infants — who might have survived if sleeping on the back had been the norm — died of SIDS. In the United States, Europe and Australia, “at least 50,000 excess deaths were attributable to harmful health advice,” Gilbert and her colleagues wrote.



Today science tells us that it is best to sleep on the right side or back and not on the left side and stomach. Glory be to Allah, how did the glorious Prophet Muhammad know this back in his time? Truly he is a great example for us all to follow (Surah 33:21) for all time.



And God knows the best..

Fitna Debunked..



By Sami Zaatari




Indeed we now live in an age where Islam is being continuously and viciously attacked from all sides. The attacks now range from everything we Muslims believe in, from the Noble Quran, to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to the Islamic law.


So what should the Muslim do in the face of such assaults and attacks against the true and mighty religion of Islam? Well for starters we should remain calm, and not give in to the provocations because that is one of the intended goals of these people. They want the Muslims to become very angry and do something foolish; therefore we should not give into this and must remain calm at all times. Let your rationality overcome your anger.


As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us Muslims:


Saheeh Bukhari


Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.”


So a Muslim should always keep his anger in check. I know it is hard, but when we become angry we lose our senses and this makes us unfit to defend Islam as we are not thinking properly.

So what should we do in the face of such attacks against our religion? The answer is extremely logical; we must study our religion so that we will be able to defend it. How can we defend our religion when we do not even know much about it? Thus, if Muslims want to do something about it then they should start learning about their faith.

So the answer in such times is not anger, it is wisdom. It is not shouting and burning things down. Truth will always crush the falsehood and lies, as the Quran says:

YUSUFALI: And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.”

YUSUFALI: Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).


So all we need is the truth and we do have the truth. All we must do is reveal the truth against the lies and the lies shall crumble and fall apart.

These points are crucial for a Muslim to understand because if there is no wisdom in defending the religion, then the religion shall never be defended and the lies shall continue to be spread against the true religion of Islam.

The goal of this booklet is to apply the correct method of responding against falsehood, and that is by employing the truth. As many of you might know, one of the most recent attacks against Islam was the new documentary titled ?Fitna’. The documentary’s goal was to try and show that the Quran is an evil and fascist book and that the Quran is a book that incites violence and terrorism. The maker of the documentary was a right wing Dutch MP named Geert Wilders.

What we shall do in this booklet is bring up the verses he produced in his documentary and examine the verses in light of their textual and historical context. We do this for the sake of Allah in order to defend His noble religion and His noble speech, which is the Quran. We are also doing this for the Muslims so that they shall be equipped with the truth and knowledge to respond to such claims in the future. I hope you all shall find this work beneficial and helpful.

We will separate this booklet into 5 parts, for the 5 verses he has brought up.



Surah Al-Anfal Verse 60


The first verse that Wilders produced in his documentary was that of Surah 8, which is titled Surah Al-Anfal, verse 60. The verse reads like this:

YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

So from this verse Geert wants to assert that the Quran advocates violence and terrorism against the non-Muslims. As the verse says, the Muslims should prepare our strength and power so we can fight against the enemies, as well as casting terror in their hearts.

Without a doubt when one reads this verse by itself it can paint the picture that Geert is trying to assert. Yet, as we all know this is not how it works in the field of literature and understanding the content of a book. In the field of literature or in any other field when one wants to examine a statement one must be aware of the statement’s CONTEXT.  One cannot simply choose one statement and verse while ignoring the rest. In fact this form of argumentation being used by Geert, which is taking a verse out of its proper context is very unscholarly and cheap. It is amazing that this man is a member of the parliament! You would think a member of the government would adhere to the proper scholarly principals of argumentation, yet Geert completely ignores this basic rule.

So let us now quote the verse in its proper context, so the reader will get the true meaning of what the passage is actually saying:

60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

So notice what verse 61 says right after verse 60, verse 61 tells the Muslims that if the enemies want to make peace, then we Muslims should make peace as well. How could Geert intentionally leave this verse out? How can those who support Geert have the audacity to say he is a great man and a hero?

We are still not done with the context, let us now quote the verses that come before verse 60 so the entire context of this situation can be known, and made clear to the reader. So here is verse 60 put in its proper context:

They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah..  If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.  If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.  Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.  But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (56-61)

So here is the proper context starting from verse 56. As you can see the context first starts with mentioning the non-Muslims who BREAK their covenants, which they have made with the Muslims and fighting breaks out as a result of this. The context of the verse continues to verses 59-60, which is warning the non-believers to not attempt to INSTIGATE against the Muslims and then it commands the Muslims to make themselves ready for such treacherous people. Then we get to the ending of the context with verse 61, which tells the Muslims that if these people want to eventually make peace then we Muslims should also make peace.

As you can see there is nothing within this context that advocates violence nor terrorism, Wilders has unscholarly twisted a verse out of its proper and clear context to paint a very false picture. The verses are all about wars in which the Muslims are on the DEFENSIVE reacting against an enemy who instigates and begins the war.

Now that we have seen the context of the passages, what about the historical context? Well the 8th Surah of the Quran (Al-Anfal) was revealed during a time in which the Muslims began to fight back against the Pagans of Makkah. This was a period of war and the meaning of Al-Anfal itself means the spoils of war.

Now why is its historical context important? The historical context of this Surah is extremely important because one must know what was happening around the Prophet (peace be upon him) at the time. By knowing such things it allows for a better evaluation of the verses in question. As we said, the historical context of this time was a time of war between the Muslims and the Pagans. It was a war in which the Pagans had instigated and the Muslims were now finally fighting back. By not giving the historical context of the verses Wilders yet again twists the verse completely out of its proper usage and meaning.

So let us summarize what we have so far:

– Surah Al-Anfal was revealed during a time of war between the Muslims and the Pagans

– It was a war in which the Muslims were fighting back against Pagan oppression and attacks.

– The Muslims were ordered to prepare themselves against non-Muslims who seek to instigate a war against the Muslims

– If the non-Muslims who instigated the war wanted to make peace, then the Muslims were to accept it and make peace as well

So the case is closed. There is nothing within these verses that advocate any violence or terrorism. Wilders should be ashamed of himself for intentionally twisting the Quran to give a false image and for this he is a liar because no one could possibly do what he did when they read the context of these passages.

Wilders knew exactly what he was doing. It was calculated and precise. It was meant to deceive his people and the non-Muslims who have no knowledge of Islam or the Quran. He was simply playing on their fears and he knew that all he had to do was quote verse 60 all alone and he would manage to dupe them into believing his false arguments.

So that is one down, four more to go.



Surah An-Nisa Verse 56


The next passage Wilders brings up is from the 4th Surah of the Quran, verse 56.

Let us now quote the verse that Wilders has brought up, which is verse 56, and it reads:

56. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.


I really fail to see the argument here. The verse is clear; if you reject the signs of God, and remain a disbeliever then the hell-fire awaits for you. This is the sad truth, however you must accept the truth of God and His prophets if you want salvation and to be safe in the Hereafter.


I don’t see why non-Muslims are complaining, the Quran is WARNING the disbelievers about the consequences that awaits them in the Hereafter. The Quran is warning them so they make the right choice and come to Islam and be saved in the Hereafter.


As the Quran says:


25. But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: “Why, this is what we were fed with before,” for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).


This is from Surah Al-Baqara, which is the 2nd Surah of the Quran, verse 25. As you can see Allah tells mankind that those who believe and work righteous deeds will be saved and that they will be granted paradise.

Allah has told you to come to Islam, therefore why do you complain when Allah warns you of punishments? If someone warns you of a punishment and a way to avoid that punishment for something much better would you not listen to the advice so you can avoid the harm? Off course you would, therefore if non-Muslims have a problem with Surah 4 verse 56 then they should become believers and become saved and have the glad tidings of Surah 2 verse 25!


As the Quran says in Surah 2 verses 38-39:


We said: “Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.  “But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.”


As you can see Allah tells us to follow His guidance and then we shall be saved, but He gives us a warning that if we do not follow His guidance then there is a harsh punishment awaiting us.


There is nothing hateful with Surah 4 verse 56, it is the harsh reality. On the contrary, it indicates a message of love. If Allah did not love that His creation earns eternal salvation then why would He warn them?


Now having said that how does Surah 4 verse 56 advocate violence or terrorism? Is Wilders trying to say that the verse is what Muslims will do to non-believers? We will quote the verse again:


56. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.


Is Wilders trying to say that the word ?We’, which is mentioned here is referring to the Muslims? That it is the Muslims who will do such a thing?


For starters incase he is arguing that then I have a simple question for Geert, unless Muslims are so advanced in skin operations then how in the world is it possible for us to burn someone completely and then replace his skin with a new set of skin?! Secondly, I challenge Wilders to bring up one case in Islamic history where Muslims have burned people and then replaced the burnt skin with new skin.


The ?We’ who is referred to in this verse is referring to Allah, to God, it is He who will burn the disbelievers in the Hereafter and it is He who will replace the skin with new skin. He is our Creator and the All Powerful and that shouldn’t be difficult for Him.


Now there are some people who will say why does Allah say “we”? Is Allah made up of more than one persons or is Allah referring to Himself and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or is Allah referring to Himself and the angels?


It is neither of the above. The “we” that Allah uses is His way of signifying His Majesty and this is something for very common in languages including English. Often times you will even hear the queen of England referring to herself as WE. It is a very common usage of language, which is used by royalty and leaders.

Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade that someone be burnt as a punishment:


Saheeh Bukhari


Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:


Narrated `Ikrima:


Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”


Before this order was issued, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did initially order that specific individuals be burnt as a punishment. However, it is totally prohibited now. Also, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) did initially apply this punishment it wouldn’t have anything to do with Surah 4:56, since he obviously did not have the ability to reattach the skins of those being punished and having them burnt over again.


Now what makes this more interesting is that the Bible teaches that disbelievers will go to hell as well, so why doesn’t Wilders argue against that? And why do the Christian fans of Wilders have no problems with the Bible condemning people to hell, but have a problem with the Quran when it does so? Here is the Bible condemning people to the hellfire:


11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.  13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelations 20:11-15)


So as you can see non-believers according to the Bible will be thrown into the lake of fire. So if the Quran is evil for such a teaching, then so is the Bible and every Christian fan of Wilders must now disregard their Bible or show the world that they are hypocrites preaching from two mouths.







Surah Muhammad verse 4


The third verse that Geert cites in his bankrupt documentary comes from the 47th chapter of the Noble Quran, Surah Muhammad. The Islamophobe cites verse 4 which reads as follows:


YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.


It is truly shocking that one could try to use this verse to try to prove that Islam advocates terrorism. The verse explains itself quite properly, and the other two main English translations of Shakir and Pickhtal have translated it more properly:


PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.


The verse is referring to a battle! Has Geert never witnessed a battle in his life before? Does Geert believe that when battles take place the opposing armies trade jokes with each other while serving tea and biscuits to one another? When there is a battle between two opposing armies they fight each other to the death unless one of them decides to retreat or surrender.


Secondly, the Quranic passage that is cited here was referring specifically to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his fellow Muslims, and back then when they would battle they would use swords. Hence the Quran is giving logical instructions on how to fight in a battle, which is to aim for the neck as to get an instant blow and to nullify your enemy. Also, as we all know after a battle there will always be prisoners to be taken, and these prisoners will usually be ransomed off later.


So what exactly is the problem here? It is very strange that when Islamophobic haters view Quranic passages dealing with battles and wars they some-how use very strange logic which they never apply to other battles and wars that have been waged throughout man’s history.


It is very sad that people are actually praising Geert for ?exposing’ the Quran with such weak arguments.


Three down, two more to go.








Surah An-Nisa verse 89



The Islamophobe Geert goes back to the 4th chapter of the Quran, this time he brings verse 89 which reads:


YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-


Geert is guilty of taking another passage out of its proper context, as well as its historical context. Since he was not scholarly enough to follow the proper forms of argumentation, we shall have to do the work instead. So let us see this passage in its proper context, this will give us a better understanding of what the passage means:


88 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-


So Geert conveniently forgot to mention verse 88, the one right before 89. As you can see the command of verse 89 is very specific, and it is specific to the hypocrites mentioned in verse 88. Geert had intended to show that verse 89 was a general command for Muslims to carry out on all non-Muslims, yet thanks to the context of verse 88, we see the command is referring to the hypocrites amongst the Muslims.


Secondly, the historical context comes into the equation now. The hypocrites that are mentioned in verse 88 are referring to the hypocrites who were alive during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). What these men would do was disguise themselves as Muslims, to basically act like infiltrators in order to cause confusion and chaos. They wanted to break the Muslim community from within.


So due to this fact Allah gave the Muslims the permission to fight these hypocrites. However it is important to take note that since Allah is very merciful He still gives these hypocrites a chance as He says:


But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden).


Notice if these hypocrites stopped behaving the way they did and had a pure heart, then they would have been forgiven and no war would have been waged upon them. However, if they persisted then the Muslims would have a legitimate reason to fight these people.


These hypocrites are no different than an army who sends an infiltrator to an opposing army to act like one of them as to get information, basically like a spy, as well as carrying out sabotage acts to break the opposing army.


The Muslims were forced to act on these hypocrites because that is exactly what they were.


Therefore to summarize:


1-The Quranic command is specifically referring to HYPOCRITES who infiltrate the Muslim community and act like Muslims only to spy on them and to break the community from within.


2-The hypocrites are still to be given a chance to repent before war is waged upon them, hence war is not the first option. The hypocrites are given a chance as Allah is merciful.


3-The passage was revealed in a historical period when there were hypocrites who were infiltrating the Muslim community during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).



Of course Geert ignored all of this.


So with four verses down, only one remains now.





Al-Anfal verse 39


The Islamophobe Geert goes back to 8th chapter of the Quran and this time he quotes the 39th verse of the chapter which says:


YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


This verse proves that Islam is a religion of peace, rather than a religion of violence. The passage calls on the Muslims to fight against oppression, and to make sure that justice prevails. Is this not a noble cause that all humans should strive for?


The non-believer may claim the passage says that Muslims should fight to convert people because it says:


And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah


However so when we read the ending of the passage we know that this is not the exact cause of fighting:


And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease


Notice the passage says that we should fight until there is no more oppression, and then the verse ends by saying “but if they cease”, obviously this refers to them ending their oppression.


Thus, Muslims are commanded to fight against oppression to make sure justice stands. Notice the verse says to fight them to stop oppression and does not say “fight them to convert them to Islam”.


The reason why the Quran mentions that we should also make people believe in Allah is very simple. Muslims do not fight under the banner of nationalism, we fight for God. This is why when Muslims go out to fight oppression we should also try to make the people living under the oppression see the truth of Islam. It is not an ultimatum, for it is up to them, but the Muslim must still try to bring Islam to them as we fight against oppression in the cause of Islam.


Here is the passage again:


YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


No where does it say that we should fight them until they all convert to Islam or that we should fight them because they aren’t Muslims. The command to fight them is because of the oppression they are inflicting.


It is important to take the historical context as well, which is something that Geert has not done. Remember the 8th chapter of the Quran was revealed in a time of war, a war against the brutal oppressive Qurayshi pagan regime, who would not allow Muslims the right of freedom of religion. The Quraysh committed several oppressive acts, not only in the area of freedom of religion, but also in their treatment of women and the poor. So the Muslims were fighting back now and were commanded to fight against this oppression that the Quraysh were committing.


If the Muslims were all about fighting the pagans because they were not Muslims then how was it that at the same time the Muslims were living side by side with the Jews of Medina? Not only were the Muslims living side by side with the Jews of Medina, there was a written constitution between both parties, which was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which allowed the freedom of religion in Medina, meaning no one was forced to convert to any religion and could follow their own!


This historical importance of this refutes any claim that Surah 8 verse 39 was a command to fight the pagans just because they were not Muslims and to force them to Islam. If that was the case then the Muslims first victims would have been the Jews of Medina, they would have forced them to convert, yet that was never the case.


The fact is Surah 8 verse 39 is all about the pagan oppression and it is as simple as that.





We have read and analyzed the Quranic passages that Geert has raised. We have seen from both their textual context, as well as their historical context that none of these verses advocate terrorism.


All we have seen is that Geert abused the Quranic text by taking passages out of their context to paint a false picture and to benefit his right wing agenda.


One positive note we can say is that Geert is doing Allah’s work. Thanks to Geert’s documentary it has given so much attention to the Quran and has caused it to sell out in the Netherlands, as well as giving it the spot light to the rest of the world. People will be very eager to read the Quran now and they will see the truth and the beauty of it, as well as Geert’s wicked distortion.


As Allah has said, while they plan, He too is planning.


And Allah Knows Best!

Muslims don’t Worship a Moon God: Refuting the Moon God allegation

By Sami Zaatari

One of the most common argument thrown against Muslims is that us Muslims worship a moon God! Indeed this claim is very strange since there is not a single Islamic source that says that we Muslims should worship the moon, nor is there a single Islamic source that says that our God is a moon God. Not only that, there is not a single source that shows any Muslims including the first Muslims in Mecca who used to worship the moon.


So just with that information we have there we can simply lay this argument to bed, because the burden of proof is not on the Muslims to prove that our God is not a moon God, rather the burden of proof is on those who claim that our God is a moon God. The person who is making the claim must at least bring a shred of evidence from Islamic sources (Quran, Hadiths, Tafisr etc) that the God of Islam is a moon God. So far what we have is an argument from silence, which is made up of simple assumptions and personal assertions not backed up by any evidence.


Now even though the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the God of Islam is NOT a moon God I shall still go ahead and do it. It is rather very easy to prove that Allah is not a moon God, and we don’t have to go into fancy work and books to try and prove this like some others have done, at the end of the day we have the very best book there is which is the Noble Quran, so we should simply what it tells us regarding the matter and conclude from there. 


Basically all I have to show from the Quran is a direct command from the Quran that tells us to NOT worship the moon, if I can produce this verse then the argument is closed and finished. It does not make much sense that we Muslims worship a moon God when our God in the Quran tells us to not worship the moon now does it? Off course not.


Here is the direct command of the Noble Quran that we Muslims should not worship the moon:



YUSUFALI: Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.
So the verse is very explicit that we Muslims should not worship the moon nor the sun, and that the moon is a creation of Allah. This verse completely crushes the lie that we Muslims worship a moon God, I mean does it make sense that we Muslims worship a moon God when we have such a verse? Off course not!


Let us read Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of this verse:


Here Allah reminds His Creation of His power, and that He is the One Who has no equal, and He is Able to do all things. Allah’s saying;


(And from among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon.) means, He created the night with its darkness and the day with its light, and they alternate without ceasing. And He created the sun with its shining light, and the moon with its reflected light. and He allotted their stages and gave them separate orbits in the heavens, so that by the variations in their movements man may know the stages of night and day, of weeks, months and years, and time periods related to people’s rights, acts of worship and various transactions. Moreover, because the sun and moon are the most beautiful of the heavenly bodies that can be seen in both the upper and lower realms, Allah points out that they are created entities which are in a state of enthrallment to Him, subject to His dominion and control. So He says:


 (Do not prostrate yourselves to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him.) meaning, `do not associate anything in worship with Him, for your worship of Him will be of no benefit to you if you worship others alongside Him, because He does not forgive the association of others in worship with Him.’ He says:


 (But if they are too proud, ) i.e., to worship Him Alone, and they insist on associating others with Him,


So it crystal clear that the moon is a creation of Allah and that it should NOT be worshipped.


Here are some other verses which make it very clear that Muslims do not worship a moon God:



YUSUFALI: Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o’er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!
 Notice the moon is CREATED entity. 



YUSUFALI: Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.
 The moon is under the control and command of Allah, obviously the moon is not a god.



YUSUFALI: It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
Once again we see that the moon is a CREATED entity, created by the all powerful God.


So it is crystal clear that the Quran forbids the worship of the moon, and that the Quran shows us that the moon is a created entity under the command of God.


Since we have established enough proof from the Quran that Muslims don’t worship the moon, let us now turn our attention to the hadiths and see what they say regarding this matter:


Volume 4, Book 54, Number 425:


Narrated ‘Aisha:

On the day of a solar eclipse, Allah’s Apostle stood up (to offer the eclipse prayer). He recited Takbir, recited a long recitation (of Holy Verses), bowed a long bowing, and then he raised h is head saying. “Allah hears him who sends his praises to Him.” Then he stayed standing, recited a long recitation again, but shorter than the former, bowed a long bowing, but shorter than the first, performed a long prostration and then performed the second Rak’a in the same way as he had done the first. By the time he had finished his prayer with Taslim, the solar eclipse had been over. Then he addressed the people referring to the solar and lunar eclipses saying, “These are two signs amongst the Signs of Allah, and they do not eclipse because of anyone’s death or life. So, if you see them, hasten for the Prayer.”


Volume 4, Book 54, Number 426:


Narrated Abu Mas’ud:

The Prophet said, “the sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life of someone, but they are two signs amongst the Signs of Allah. So, if you see them, offer the Prayer (of eclipse).”


Notice how the sun and the moon are both refered to as signs from God, obviously had the moon been worshiped as THE God it wouldn’t have been called a sign of God but rather God himself. In Islam when the phrase a sign of God is mentioned this means a miracle or an event that happens by God to show you that he exists, in this case it is the occurrence of the eclipse which involves both the sun and the moon, because one has to wonder how can such events occur without a divine being who controls both the sun and the moon causing the moon to eclipse the sun during the day, this cannot be a mere coincidental event happening in the universe on its own.


So with all this information we have we can have no other conclusion than the fact that the moon was not worshipped by Muslims, the Muslims did not believe the moon was God, and the Quran does not tell us to worship the moon either. Any person who claims that we Muslims worship the moon after knowing these facts will simply be a liar.


And Allah Knows Best and Indeed Allah is not a moon but rather he is the One who created the moon!