Answering Christianity Research Center

Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
[/size][/color]R[/font][/size][/color]egarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, [/font][/color][/size]the article that was linked [/color][/size]has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included[/size][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]T[/font][/size][/color]here is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]side from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are [/font][/size][/color]many[/size][/font][/size][/color] other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning[/font][/size][/color]. [/font][/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]lso, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Bukhari[/size][/font][/size][/color] and [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Muslim[/size][/font][/size][/color] get compiled but there were many other books and authors [/font][/size][/color]before[/size][/font][/size][/color] these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]s a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being [/font][/size][/color]Al-Furqan[/size][/font][/size][/color] (the measure or the criterion) and [/font][/size][/color]does[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it [/font][/size][/color]can[/size][/font][/size][/color] be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.[/font]
[/size][/color]Ghamidi  basically argues that stoning was according to the [/font][/size][/color]Surah Maidah[/size][/font][/size][/color] punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning [/font][/size][/color]did[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, [/font][/size][/color]w[/font][/size][/color]hich is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it [/font][/size][/color]is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the[/font][/size][/color] conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even [/font][/size][/color]Hijab[/size][/font][/size][/color], maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34.[/font]

Not exactly cherry picking. The Hadith also includes laws that conform to modern morality too. If I remember correctly, for example, non-Muslim women, children, old men and physiologically impaired persons are exempt from paying the Jizya. If a Muslim rejects all the laws which he doesn't like and accepts the ones he does, without any common objective criteria to judge among the two, then that Muslim is likely committing the cherry picking fallacy.

That "common objective criteria" for Muslims having non-conservative interpretations happen to be usually either historical criticism of the Hadiths involved or the lack of evidence for the idea that a particular law defined in some particular Hadiths has the status of being a part of God's everlasting divine law and not some temporary law, according to the needs of the age. In the latter case, it is upon the Muslim generations to decide whether they want to continue with that law or not. Discontinuing with such laws would not incur sin on the Muslims.

The narration and your link appear to say that Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh was first granted protection on the request of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan and then later he came back to Islam.

This is the likely case because otherwise, it would mean that an apostate requires the permission of Prophet Muhammad (or the leader of the Ummah) to come back to Islam, which goes against core Islamic doctrine. How could the Prophet refuse to accept "his allegiance"? If by "allegiance" means "coming to Islam" how could it be refused? Why was it refused twice?

Additionally, we have that case when in the heat of battle a disbeliever came under the power of a Muslim, the disbeliever converted to Islam, but the Muslim still killed him thinking it was just a ploy to save his life. The Prophet rejected this killing and probably because of this event we have the ruling that even if a disbeliever converts to Islam just to save his life, it creates the possibility for his forgiveness.

So how could that same Prophet be so hesitant to accept ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh "allegiance"? And even after accepting, "Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?"? Would the Prophet have such feelings for a Muslim?

Furthermore, the main issue I raised was: "... what is the evidence from Qur'an or Hadith which mention that a person who was born in a Muslim family and did not convert to Islam, [even] when such a person adopts a religion different to Islam he should also be killed."?

You have to show unequivocally that the capital punishment is a part of God's timeless divine law and not among the ones which were dependent on a particular time or ruler.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of Muslims believe in the death penalty or not. This is appeal to authority or the bandwagon fallacy.

The relevant thing is whether the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith can be used to prove the punishment. The Qur'an doesn't talk about it and even appear to be contradicting the punishment. Hadith literature, on the other hand, is from where the entire evidence for such a punishment comes from. It should be mentioned here, that while Qur'anic interpretation has comparatively less difference of opinion, Hadiths have a lot more debate on their interpretations.

One likely reason earlier Muslim generations did not question the law as much as today's generation does, is because of the difference in their environment. In those times the other major religion Christianity enforced the punishment so Muslims are likely to not have much misgiving about it. An indication of this is seen when past Muslims and even present-day Muslims still use the presence of this punishment in the Bible as evidence of this being a divine law for Islam too. For critical Muslims, such evidence is hugely problematic.

In any case, many arguments have been made against the evidence in support of this punishment which has made it equivocal and uncertain for a lot of Muslims.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_2.htm

Regarding the incident, Fireman Sam have officially apologised and will not work with the animation studio responsible for the issue. They are also trying to immediately remove the episode from circulation.

https://www.facebook.com/FiremanSam/posts/10154140820915067

I might be wrong, its a minor point but I don't think the Qur'an says that God sends a book in the language of his people.

Regarding the main question, see:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran_for_mankind.htm
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/696
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__warners_sent_to_all_mankind_before_muhammad__

The last one is kind of related to a different topic, but it indicates a distinction between, the more specific term, his "Qawm" (i.e. his people) and the more general term "Ummah". This distinction is interesting.

Another point to keep in mind is that while the messages of the previous messengers did not reach all of mankind, they reached only particular groups of people for limited time, such is not the case for Prophet Muhammad.

I am not going to try to refute every single point, frankly I didn't even read the whole thing. The parts I did read are all old allegations, why waste time on them.

Sure, there were Muslims who plundered and killed innocents, across a thousand years it is pretty much a statistical impossibility for that not to happen. And regardless of whether Islam is a great religion or not, it does not have the capacity to automatically change every single individual that claims to follow it.


Barbarity of Islamic Conquests?

Dr Daniel W. Brown’s Opinion

In his book 'A New Introduction to Islam' (under the subtitle 'The Invisible Conquests'), Dr. Daniel W. Brown says:

"Archaeological data tell a somewhat different tale. If we look for evidence of the burning, looting, or destruction described by Bishop Sophronius in 635, we find none. No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to religious and communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eight century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690, and the urban landscape of the Near East remained largely unaffected by the conquests (Pentz 1992). There was certainly change, but in the same directions and at the same pace as before the conquests (Morony 1984: 507-26). Two key measures offer telling evidence that the conquests brought little immediate disruption to the patterns of religious and social life in Syria and Iraq: production of wine (forbidden in Islamic Law) continued unchanged, and pigs (considered unclean by Muslims) continued to be raised and slaughtered in increasing numbers (Pentz 1992).

"Neither do we find evidence of dramatic change in the law or political institutions of conquered territories in the years immediately following the conquests. What did change was the ruling class. The new rulers spoke Arabic, represented a different ethnicity, and kept aloof from their conquered subjects. But for all the differences change came slowly even at the highest levels of political affairs. The new rulers continued to use Greek and Persian in administrative documents. They continued to mint Byzantine-style coins complete with the image of the emperor holding a cross, and Sassanian-style coins bearing Zoroastrian symbols and Sassanian dates (Morony 1985: 38-51). They were dependent on the old Persian and Greek bureaucrats and institutions. Major reform of the language of administration or of coinage did not take place until 695 -- sixty years into Arab rule. Earlier attempts at reform reportedly failed in the face of stiff popular resistance. The Arab rulers also continued the same patterns of taxation. The conquests replaced the top rung of the Byzantine and Sassanian ruling class with Arabs, but they did not immediately or violently alter the administrative, religious, economic, or cultural landscape of the Near East."

Opinion of T. J. Winter & John A. Williams

Answering the question ‘Was Islam spread by the sword?’ Cambridge based Islamic scholar and theologian T. J. Winter or now known as Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad and John A. Williams of College of William and Mary write:

“In general, no. The laws of Muslim warfare forbid any forced conversions, and regard them as invalid if they occur. The political sway of Muslim rulers has sometimes been achieves through warfare, but this must be distinguished clearly from the spiritual expansion of the Islamic religion. There has never been a large-scale Muslim ‘inquisition’ or a Muslim ‘crusade’ which set out to massacre unbelievers or convert them by force, except against Arab idolators when they continually attacked the Muslims. The Qur’an insists that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), and Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Shall you then force people to become believers? (10:99)”

Source: http://unveiling-christianity.org/2012/09/13/islamic-conquests-jizya/

Although military might was the predominant vehicle of Islamic power, the strength of Muslims at the zenith of Abbasid power in the ninth century was represented through a great cultural renaissance which took place in literary criticism, philosophy, poetry, and science. This marked the beginnings of “Muslim genius” as individuals such as Abu Bakr Al Razi (864–925) studied medicine and uncovered unique contraceptive methods; and Abu Nasr Al Farabi (870–950) incorporated logic and politics into philosophy. As Armstrong explains, such was the grandeur of this era that the Muslim scholars made more scientific discoveries during this time than in the whole previously recorded history put together.

As Francesco Gabrieli explains, the traditional theory of the conquests being characterized merely by Bedouin neophytes of Islam rushing from their desert birthplace to convert other nations with the sword has been completely dismissed by modern historiography. In fact, Arabs were quite content with their passive non-Muslim subjects known as dhimmis (those who were second-class citizens under Islamic law, yet protected under this status) and no real effort was made to convert them. This hands-off approach actually led to an increase in Islamic converts regularly throughout the Islamic Empire as individuals were pleased to make their own decision about religion, which is something that had not been afforded them under Byzantine rule.

Source: http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/The-Spread-of-Islam

As a final point, lets say we accept all the Muslim evils, every single one of them. What does it change? As long as one does not make fallacious arguments it still will not be able to disprove Islam.