Answering Christianity Research Center

Another thing, Qur'an 3:55 is translated differently by other scholars. So me have indeed used the word die, (i.e. O Jesus, verily, I will cause you to die and will raise you) while others have translated to "raise up" (i.e. O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself).

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/55/default.htm
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=3&verse=55

* "... rationalist Mu’tazilites of the eight century which gave rise to what many observe as the Golden Age of Islam."

A few important points to note about the Mu’tazilites, while it is true that some famous Muslim scientists of their age were Mu’tazilites, they weren't a group that can exactly be called tolerant. During the Abbasid Caliphate, when they obtained government recognition/support, they tried to force their interpretation of Islam on other Muslim scholars. The most famous of these is the "createdness" of the Qur'an. They literally tortured Muslim scholars who did not accept the concept of the "created" Qur'an. The most famous instance is of Imam Ahmed Ibn Hambal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law. They tortured him for (if I remember correctly) around 18 months but Imam Hambal remained steadfast in his viewpoint. If I am not mistaken the Mu’tazilites, because of this persecution, were responsible for creating the first religious inquisition of the Muslims.

After this when revolts started to happen against the government, it had to stop such practices and due to a twist of events, similar to what has happened so many times in history before, the persecutors became the persecuted.

From the scholars that I have read and heard, it was the gaining of political power that resulted in the beginning of decline of the Mu’tazilites. The reason that they declined to non-existence was because of the efforts of the Maturudis and Asharis. Imam Maturudi or Imam Ashari (I don't remember which one) was originally a Mu’tazilite, but he found their conclusions incorrect, therefore he separated from them. Both of these Imams, even though they used different methodologies, reached similar conclusions. The Maturudis and Asharis used the same reasoning or Kalam used by the Mu’tazilite themselves, to debate them. Later, Imam Ghazali (death 1111 CE), the person who is most accredited with combating the Mu’tazilite ideology, came into the picture. One thing that should be mentioned about Imam Ghazali is that, in today's times, he is accused of directly inhibiting the scientific progress of the Muslims, but from what I've read and heard, this is a myth. His writings appear to make attaining scientific or technical skills a social responsibility for the Muslims.

In short, (from what I understand) the Mu’tazilites were persecuted, but they weren't innocent of the same crime. It appears their ideology was defeated because of the arguments of other Muslim groups and the Ummah rejected their interpretations. This is the only way to defeat an ideology because even if a group gets persecuted to extinction, their ideas remain extant.

* "Perhaps the most important realization I have come to is that I would receive the death penalty under Shariah law for simply coming to these conclusions or realizations."

Wasn't he a Muslim debater? Shouldn't he have already known this? And for that matter, shouldn't he have also known that Muslim scholars have for centuries argued against this punishment, it is true that they have been a minority, but they have existed and wrote against this being "Shariah law".

* "This disturbs me to the core and demonstrates how the Ummah uses fear tactics under its Shariah system in order to preserve and strengthen their theological and political agenda."

Again, if he was a Muslim debater he should have known such things. If these things really affected him, these should have made him leave Islam in the very beginning, much before he wasted so much time in debating other ideologies.

Additionally, him using the FFI platform is, to say the least, extremely odd. FFI has been known to not be very objective. If a person wanted to present his views on Islam from an objective point of view, he/she should use a platform known for its objectivity and not one infamous for not presenting all the facts.

Asslam-o-Alaikum,

I doubt you are aware of him, but there is also a prominent Pakistani scholar who, although using a different reasoning/methodology, practically reaches a somewhat similar conclusion. He differentiates between Sunnah of the Prophet and the Hadiths.

He argues that because it was the responsibility of the Prophet to teach to the people, the Deen of Allah that will remain in effect until the day of Judgement, it is not possible that he would have taught those things to just a few people. When it comes to matters of Deen or Sunnah the Prophet clarified those by addressing large gatherings, because of which such commandments we obtain through Muttawatir, Khabr-e-Mustafid traditions or Ijma (Consensus) of the generations of Muslims. These are the matters on which there is very little, if any, difference of opinion. For example, the basic skeleton of prayers, the essential parts of Hajj etc.

On the other hand, when it came to matters that were supposed to be primarily for the time of the Prophet, or something that he wanted to explain, or advise for or against something, to someone; the Prophet told such things to a few people. Such narrations we obtain from traditions classified as Khabr-e-Ahad. These are the matters on which there is usually huge and wide-ranging difference of opinion among scholars. It can be more pious for Muslims to follow these advices of the Prophet but it does not hold the status of obligations or Deen.

If such an understanding is true, it does reconcile nicely and provides a better explanation for the fact of why the Deen of Allah which has to remain in effect until the last Day has so much difference of opinion among its adherents. However, the problem with this interpretation is that it puts into question the obligatory nature of a lot of beloved Muslim traditions which have taken deep-roots in Muslim cultures and societies of today. For example, the "obligation" of keeping beards etc.

On the matter of "...NO hadeeth should have extra-quranic religious authority", that Pakistani scholar also has similar conclusions (albeit different reasoning) but he also argues that there are a lot of Hadiths which apparently look like to be adding to or restricting Qur'anic commands are in reality going along with the actual Arabic wording of the Qur'an verse. For example, there is a Qur'an verse which enumerates the conditions for the things that are Halal for Muslims to eat (animals whose blood has been spilt, Allah's name has been pronounced on them etc.) But there are other traditions of the Prophet which tell us that the Prophet prohibited some additional things too. The scholar argues that these additional prohibitions are based on other Qur'an verses which tell the Muslims that pure things have been made allowable for them and impure things prohibited. If I remember correctly the Arabic words for these were Tahura't and Najais. He gives a similar explanation to the tradition regarding Caliph Umar (or Usman) when he, at a time of famine, did not implement the Qur'anic punishment of thievery on some people.

Regards,

Regarding, "... married one of his wives just after her husband got killed..."

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/safiyyah_the_wife_of_the_prophet.htm
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2009/11/slanders-regarding-holy-prophets-pbuh.html

Regarding the above mentioned arguments, instances of Muslims (under the Rashiudding Caliphate) breaking peace treaties are required to prove that Muslims were spreading Islam by the sword and on the other hand instances when Muslims restricted themselves to fight when they had the capability to do so, disproves the idea that Muslims of those times believed in spreading Islam by the sword.

Additionally, there are cases where the population also sided with the Muslim armies.

In the book "The Great Arab Conquests" Hugh Kennedy writes "The pious biographer of Coptic patriarch Benjamin presents us with the striking image of the patriarch prayed for the success of the Muslim commander Amr against the Christians of the Cyrenaica. Benjamin survived for almost twenty years after the fall of Egypt to the Muslims, dying of full years and honour in 661. His body was laid to rest in the monastery of St Macarius, where he is still venerated as a saint. There can be no doubt that he played a major role in the survival of the Coptic Church"[29] Coptic patriarch Benjamin also prayed for Amr when he moved to take Libya.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt#Egypt_under_Muslim_rule

Also, at other places I remember reading about how the Jews sided with the Muslims in areas ruled by the Byzantine empire (apparently, Heraclius was involved in forceful conversion of Jews and minority sect Christians) and also in the case of Spain (probably the main reason they were so forcefully thrown out along-with the Muslims, when Muslim rule ended in Spain). Also, Muslim armies had significant percentages of Hindu soldiers and generals in India. Mahmood Ghazni apparebtly had 30% Hindu soldiers and around 5/12 Hindu generals. This was at the time when he was moving to destroy the Somnath temple. Along the way he was also helped by another Hindu ruler. A similar case also existed during the conquests of Spain.

Source: https://thedebateinitiative.com/2016/01/11/the-myth-of-destroyed-hindu-temples-and-forced-conversion-of-hindus-by-historical-muslim-rulers-of-india/

This also supports the concept that these were motivated more by political reasons and needs of the times than religion itself.

Have you tried: https://www.facebook.com/IREFPEACE/

One e-mail that apparently was working in 2012: dawahatiref@ya
Source: http://www.islamicfinder.org/getitWorld.php?id=48212&lang=

(Possibly, it is still working)

I think it is a waste of time arguing against such fallacious reasoning using at best circumstantial evidence. Two points, counter arguments for which I had on hand:

• "They deny the inerrancy of scripture."

Muslims aren't the only ones, from what I know serious Bible scholars do too.

• "During the 10 years between 634 – 644, they captured 36 cities, destroyed 4000 churches and built 1400 mosques."

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

“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.”

Source: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&lpg=PA109&ots=E70Hix6sGt&dq=daniel+w.+brown+the+invisible+conquest&pg=PA109&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

From what I've read, the fighting was done, keeping in mind strategic interests. Unlike today's times when nations are usually at peace with each other and they have to declare war, during the early centuries of Islam, these were the times when various world empires used to remain in a state of perpetual war and the uncommon state was to declare peace (completely in contradiction to today's times). Empires used to continuously expand and contract as their power grew or waned. Caliph Abu Bakr, in order to keep the Islamic lands safe from the two surrounding empires captured some areas to create a kind of buffer zones. The Romans were already at war with the Muslims. Regarding the Persians, some traditions tell us that Khosrou of Persia had ordered to arrest Prophet Muhammad, but for some reason it did not happen. In any case, open fighting with the Persians had not started, but it is extremely likely that they would have started it when their internal political disputes got resolved and Muslims became a threat. After all, they had been fighting with the Romans for decades, they had no reason to spare the Muslims (whom they in their arrogance did not believe worthy) and every reason to attack to gain power and wealth (the objectives of those times). After Abu Bakr's action, the Persians started raiding those lands. This led one thing to another and resulted in all-out war between the Muslims, Romans and Persians.