Khaled: More complaints about mis-quotes of Koranic verses? Sad. Part I

Submitted by Plato (India), Jul 2, 2008 at 00:57

Khaled, a quick look at the matter in the site you have given claiming that it gives an in-depth analysis of of misquotes from the Koran reveals that he has selected totally unknown translators. His motive seems to be to show readers that translations are all bogus. For instance the translation of 2:216 by Yusuf Ali, Pikthal or Shakir does not contain the word Jihad, they either use ‘fighting' or ‘warfare'. Nor does Arberry or Sale among non-Muslim translators.

The ‘in-depth analysis' includes this statement:

>>The first mistake in this translation is that this Qur'anic verse actually does not use the word "Jihad". This verse actually uses the word "Qitaal", which refers to physical fighting. Fighting is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and their rights, as well as the rights of others. The obligation to physically defend one's rights, and to establish justice was elaborated on in the previously mentioned article on Jihad….<<

Read the underlined sentence and tell us what rights of Hindus was Mohammed Bin Qasim defending in far away India. Whose rights was Abu Bakr defending when he conducted the infamous ridda wars? Alternatively tell us what rights of Muslims these gentlemen were defending when they went about slaughtering non-Muslims.

This is something else I found on the site:

>>Therefore, the fighting ordained by God in the Qur'an is the fighting to establish justice and security in the land, and this is a duty upon all human beings. We will always hope for peace, but we must realize that without justice, freedom, rights and equity, peace will never be able to survive. Likewise, on verse 2:216, Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes:

War, it has been truly said, is sanctioned by the law of nature – the constitution of man and the constitution of society – and is at times a biological and sociological necessity. Islam, the ideal and practical religion has allowed it, but only in cases of sheer necessity. Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur'an, emphasis added

Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others. Also, the picture becomes even more clear when we take into consideration the historical context of the revelation. <<

Pray what biological (and sociological) necessity does warfare meet. The need to die?? LOL.

Also read what I have underlined. As an Arab you probably know a lot about the Prophet's activities. When he stealthily set out to raid Abu Sufyan's caravan (leading to the Badr skirmish) was he trying to establish justice and security in the land? Would a person interested in establishing justice and security send out armed men who killed and looted a peaceful caravan during the holy months when all fighting ceased in Arabia? (We all know that Allah sent down another of his revelations allowing fighting during the holy months. Why did Allah not transmit this message before the deed of killing an innocent trader and looting of the caravan wealth was accomplished? This is like making a law after a crime has been committed absolving the crime!)

If Islam has designated war only as a last resort and only out of sheer necessity why did he launch a surprise attack on the Banu Mustalik and the Banu Nadir?

To quote Bukhari, vol 3, Bk 46 N 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered ….Their men were killed and their WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE TAKEN AS CAPTIVES; THE PROPHET GOT JUWAIRIYA on that day. [read about the prophet getting Juwairiya, as though she was a piece of furniture]

Bukhari V5 B59 N 512 ‘The Prophet offered the Fajr prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark. He said, ‘Allahu Akbar!' Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a hostile nation to fight, then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.' ….the PROPHET HAD THEIR MEN KILLED; their children and women were taken as captives.'

I have yet to see a hadith telling us why these attacks were a necessity or a last resort. Can you enlighten us, Mr. Khaled?

>>Abdullah Yusuf Ali goes on to explain the historical context in his commentary on verse 2:217: The intolerance and persecution of the Pagan clique at Mecca caused untold hardships to the holy Messenger of Islam and his early disciples. They bore all with meekness and long-suffering patience until the holy one permitted them to take up arms in self-defence… Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, Text, Translation and Commentary<<

That is a big lie by Yusuf Ali. The prophet preached practically uselessly for nearly 13 years in Mecca and gathered a handful of followers. He went about denigrating the sacred idols venerated by generations of Meccans. What did the Meccans do? They went and complained to the powerful uncle of Muhammad, Abut Talib. Talib refused to restrain his nephew.

Except for some rare instances of the Meccans showing their anger at Muhammad and his followers for abusing their religion what evidence do you have for Yusuf Ali's unsubstantiated claim? What do followers of this "persecuted" prophet do now for showing disrespect to him (Muhammad is not worthy of worship, unlike the idols which the Meccans worshipped)? They riot and kill, Mr. Khaled. Can you deny this???

Yusuf Ali has the chutzpah to claim that the incessant raids that the Prophet launched against the peaceful traders of Mecca was taking up arms in self-defence. Why do scholars of Islam indulge in such deceit?

Your link to Commonly mis-quoted verses of the Koran also led me to this little gem. The learned scholar is saying that if there are contradictory verses then the later verse abrogates the earlier one if they cannot be reconciled.

>>Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:

Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer<<

How will you reconcile

6:115 YUSUFALI: The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

And:

16:101: YUSUFALI: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

Do you want to argue that these verses are quoted out of context or mistranslated? Or can you tell us which one abrogates the other as they are mutually irreconciliable.

6:115 is telling you that none can change His word. You can of course say that this applies only to his creatures and does not prevent Allah Himself changing His words. This would imply that He cannot see into the future. It would also contradict Muslim/Koranic claims that previous revelations have been corrupted by their followers. How can they, when Allah claims none can change His words unless scriptures like the Bible and Taurah were not His words to begin with?

What could be clearer than 16:101 which tells you plainly that Allah does substitute one revelation for another (does it matter whether it refers to verses or to entire revelations?). This is a confused god who tailors his revelation to suit the context and changes his ‘eternal' words to suit other circumstances.

A very good example of this confusion in Allah's mind are verses 8:65 and 8:66. It is laughable that Allah does not know the strength of His fighting men!

As to 2:256 ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion…. How will you reconcile it with 3:85: YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

3:85 is not battle specific like 9:5 and is a Medinan verse revealed after 2:256.

I will give my take on the in-depth analysis of the verses that are supposed to be mis-quoted in other posts.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".