logo.gif (6340 bytes)

To Attacks Against Islam



Page last updated:



Bismillaah al Rahmaan Al Raheem

When "attacks" against Islam are examined rationally,
it comes out ON EACH ISSUE
that Islam should be the accusing party indeed,
not the other way around.

"Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned* as Muhammad."
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina,  Oxford University Press, 1956.
* ma-lign: v.t. to speak harmful untruths about... (R. H. Webster's).


Introduction | The Answers (Summary)


Please also visit the following sites for more Answers:

Islamic Awareness


For Comments or questions, click here

False-Prophet? | Atonement | Grammatical-Mistakes | Polygamy | Early Marriage | Inconsistency | Theological-Errors | Woman's-Status | Islam and "Terrorism" | Jesus-&-Muhammad-PBUT

  • "Islam Answers" Geert Wilders' video Fitna: Click here to download "part 1" (in Microsoft Word format: /doc)

  • The Twin Towers terrorist attack represents an affront to Muslim values.

    Our Prophet PBUH said (concerning wars):

    {... do not burn a plant, nor cut a tree, nor kill an older man, a young child, or a woman... nor monastery dwellers...} 

    (Al Kanz, citing Ibn Zanjaway, in addition to multitudes of similar hadeeths)

    Islam thus prohibits the killing of civilians during war
    (even though modern governments allow it to themselves).
    Needless to say, if armies at war are so prohibited, the killing of innocent civilians by other parties (such as the Twin Towers tragedy) is a much greater crime.

    When the principles of a religion are violated by any of its members (such as by Hitler or the Twin Towers terrorists, etc...), it is wrong to attack that religion because of the actions that specifically violate its principles.

    People doing those false accusations must realize that they are part of a circle of blinding hatred, sharing that feature with those violators themselves.


    We received the following 2 (similar) e-mails, Islam's answer follows:

    One e-mail mentions:
    In light of the fact that "pure Islam" is being preached as  a religion of peace, what is the meaning of the following verse in the Koran?
    So when the sacred months have passed away, then SLAY THE IDOLATERS wherever you find them,and TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH.
    Sura [9.5]

    Another e-mail mentions:
    Surah 9: 5 states:"When the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. But if they convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way."
    Would you please explain this passage to me?  I am a Christian and I heard Pat Robertson read this passage of scripture from the Quran and I am wondering what this means.  I have heard that Muslims are peaceful and my experience with them has been just that, very peaceful.  
    But does the Quran really teach that killing is justifiable against those who don't believe as the Quran teaches and that it teaches to kill those who don't agree with it?

    Islam's answer (adopted from our original e-mail answer):
    The person you heard, reading this passage from the Quran, seems to have so much hatred against Islam, whereby he did not allow himself to examine the rest of the passage (let alone other passages of the Quran, explicitly prohibiting violence against nations that did NOT transgress, as will be quoted below the current discussion).
    In other words, you heard something taken completely out of context, which contradicts the truth as well as what you know (according to your words).
    This is if we give him the benefit of the doubt (that he did not read the remainder because of his hatred), which is extremely far fetched and presumes enormous irresponsibility for a person in his position:

    The passage quoted is a disavowal of a specific peace treaty, because of its PREVIOUS breach by the enemies of the Prophet.
    Indeed the passage mentions the declaration of disavowal, and the order to fight, then clearly specifies the exception of those WHO DID NOT VIOLATE THEIR SPECIFIC TREATY:
    <<(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you.>>
    The treaty was NOT dissolved with those who have NOT violated it, nor aided...
    So with whom was it dissolved? With those who violated it. This does not need a lawyer or a PHD in logic to decipher.

    This is similar to the case of the verse: 
    <<O you who believe, do not approach prayer while being drunk, until you become able to know what you say.>>
    We use it as a good example when somebody intentionally takes something out of context by truncating it: 
    <<O you who believe, do not approach prayer.>>
    The person you heard, just dropped the "but" from the end. One needs to ponder why?
    I presume the jist of his words were to prove that Islam is not peaceful, etc.
    Yet to me, his distortion of the truth indicates so much about him, his "peacefulness" as well as his truthfulness.
    Why did he omit the remainder, immediately following his quotation:
    <<(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught,>>

    Here is the translation for your review, I just copy-pasted:
    The Meaning of the Holy Quran. By Yusuf `Ali
    SURAH 9: AL TAWBAH (The Repentance) or BARA'AH (The Disavowal).
    p 187.
    1- A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances-
    -2- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
    -3- And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If, then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
    -4- (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
    -5- But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    -6- If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

    This is further elucidated by Surah 2, Aayah 193:
    And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who transgress.

    Question from the above e-mails:
    But does the Quran really teach that killing is justifiable against those who don't believe as the Quran teaches and that it teaches to kill those who don't agree with it?)

    Islam's answer is from its own scriptures, as well as from the practice of its nations across 1400 years of history:

    • - Islamic Scriptures:
      Verse 6 of Surah 9 is the guideline prohibiting war against any party that allows the word of Allah to be heard (the equivalent of "free speech"):
      If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

    • - Islamic History:
      If any Islamic nation misunderstood the above verse, or misunderstood the interdiction to force people concerning religion, there would have been no Christian nor Jew in any Muslim country today.
      This is further witnessed to by two facts:
      - We are talking about various nations across fourteen centuries, which inherently includes the possibility of extremism and misunderstanding. Yet the Islamic scriptures and the way they have been applied, guaranteed that no transgressions occur to non-Muslims.
      - The opposite proves this point: 
      Each time Christianity "invaded" any Muslim country, Muslims have simply been slaughtered, by the hundreds of thousands:
      When Jerusalem was captured (twice) by the crusaders (when the Muslims recaptured the city, Christian inhabitants were not harmed), and when all of Muslims in Spain were forced to enter Christianity under the most tenebrous ages of the inquisition.
      When Khalid Ibn Al Walid, Companion of the Prophet, had to retreat from the city of Hums (upon the advance of the Roman army in Syria), he sent an emissary to the Christian inhabitants of the city, returning their taxes with the message: "These taxes were in return for your protection; now that we have to retreat, we cannot protect you any more").
      If Khalid's perception of the scriptures were as twisted as Mr. Robertson's, he would have slaughtered the Christians upon his initial capture of Homs. Why didn't he do it? 
      Why didn't the "religion of the sword" preaching "violence" and oppression not influence him to do that, as the ill-intentioned falsifications try to insinuate today (nor influence the Muslims capturing Jerusalem twice after that)? After all, the peaceful and loving religion of Christianity can be accused of somehow influencing its adherents to massacre Muslims as well as prosecute the Jews across history.
      And why were the Jew and Christian minorities not slaughtered by later Muslim generations, less "pious" than Khalid? 
      If Islam is so "inferior" to Christianity on the issue of violence and prosecution, there surely would have been some evil people or evil rulers to "exploit" or "distort" Islamic texts and regulations.
      Many apologetic denials have been expressed by sincere Christians, the fact remains that the slaughters were adopted by whole nations in the name of their religion; the attack should be against them, not against the religion that succeeded to prevent such "official" massacres".
      Is this how "the Quran teaches that killing is justifiable against those who don't believe as the Quran teaches, and teaches to kill those who don't agree with it"?
      We repeat that we are citing the undeniable facts of history, and how the Islamic nation applied its own scriptures (in response to ill-intentioned outsiders distorting our own texts).

    • We understand and support the total repulsion of oppression in the name of religion. 
      It is just that Islam has always been on the "receiving" end.

    • The above only compares Islamic countries' official behavior across history, with the official behavior of Christian countries.
      Yet if the "official" behavior of other countries is also considered (not for the declared sake of Christianity), Muslims and other nations have also seen two and a half million Algerians die in struggle for their independence from France, hundreds of thousands of people wiped out in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in a "formally" declared war), as well as one and a half million Iraqi children die because of sanctions approved and enforced by a nation.

    • The impartial and sincere person can judge for himself if Islam should be the accused party or the opposite.

    The world has seen inexplicable acts of fanaticism and hatred, even among religions that claim the utmost in mercy and peace. 
    It is not possible to forget that Ghandi was murdered for simply insisting on meeting with Muslims, nor that Baruch Goldstein (an Israeli Jew) shot 29 Muslim worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994.
    Similarly, Islam is not immune from transgressions by its own people such as the case of the tragic Twin Towers terrorist act. Yet the latter can not be used to single out Islam since this atrocity is dwarfed by slaughters committed by members of other religions, whether "officially" or not:
    Islam calls to the stand:
    - The acts of Hitler, the colonization of vast countries in the 19th and early 20th century.
    The apartheid in Africa.
    - Islam also calls to the stand the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
    - The million and a half dead Iraqi children - 5000 die every month according to the United Nations - due to the insisting total embargo on that country across more than a decade.
    Other nations have allowed to themselves such deaths as due to "officially declared wars" or "legitimate sanctions", ISLAM HAS NOT, history is the witness.

    Historical facts are, alas, missing or distorted in the countries that brag the most about "freedom of expression". Facts are conveniently hidden from school children, thus allowing enough time to bring them up to the hatred of Muslims, and to accept beyond doubt that Islam is the ugly savage terrorist renegade religion.

    Following are excerpts from Time Magazine (Oct 1, 2001, Vol 158 No. 15), saving us tedious gathering from history books. 
    We do not endorse (nor reject) all of the author's comments; the point in question is stating historical facts from non-Islamic sources.

    Page 2 of Time Magazine's article:
    While most Arabs detest Saddam for his own brand of brutality and arrogance, they don't understand why the U.S. continues to insist, 10 years after the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait, on worldwide sanctions that are devastating the Iraqi people. According to the U.N., some 5,000 Iraqi children die every month of malnutrition and disease because of the sanctions.

    ." Islamic radicals keep a list of what they consider our casual cruelty, although their definition of who is inflicting the pain sometimes includes all of Christendom. They list the U.S. sanctions against Syria, Libya, Iran and Sudan--all Muslim countries (and all, not coincidentally, considered by the State Department to be sponsors of terrorism). They list the U.S. missile strikes in 1998 on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (Washington originally claimed the plant was making chemical weapons but has quietly backed off the charge). They believe Western powers tolerated for too long--from 1992 until the NATO bombings in 1995--the ethnic cleansing by Christian Serbs of Bosnian Muslims and the later killings by Serbs of ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. Another grievance is the fact that the U.S. has done little to stop Russia's savage war against separatist Muslims in Chechnya because it considers the conflict an internal matter for Moscow. To Americans, all these matters are proof that it is a messy world out there. To many Muslims, it looks like a conspiracy against their fellow believers.

    [To Al Muhaddith site, it answers recent fanatic remarks that "there must be something caused by Islam's teachings, that allows fanatics to act that way in its name". We invite applying that (unacceptable) logic to Christianity].

    The brutality of Christendom's efforts to conquer the Holy Land from the Muslims in the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries is not forgotten in the Middle East

    after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the colonial powers of France and Britain carved the Middle East into arbitrarily drawn mandates and states governed by handpicked local leaders. "Many Arabs and Muslims feel they had 10 centuries of great cultural achievement that ended with European colonialism," says John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

    End of the excerpts from page 2 of Time Magazine's article (Oct 1, 2001, Vol 158 No. 15).
    Click here for full article.


In another e-mail, we received:


Our Answers (further edited for the site):
1- You wrote:
We published on our site the Islamic texts on this issue. You can verify it on any other Islamic site or news media.
Yes our religion allows us to fight in response (to an aggression, which is not the case here). There is no State or country that does not.
<<O you believers, fight those WHO FIGHT YOU...>>

2- You wrote that for them to do that, they must have a A VERY STRONG BELIEVE OBVIOUSLY.

Two comments are necessary:
a- There is no excuse for a Muslim to violate his own religion (prohibiting the killing of innocent civilians).
You can visit as many Islamic sites as you can, listen to as many news channels as you want.
Only an extremely fanatic and blind person will reject all our declarations.

b- Since they violated our religion, it is important to find out what made them go berserk?
We understand the chagrin your nation feels.
In fact, is there nation now that understands it better our nation?
Millions among us know the feeling and have endured it daily for long decades, not for one incident.
We quote again Time Magazine (Oct 1, 2001, Vol 158 No. 15): While most Arabs detest Saddam for his own brand of brutality and arrogance, they don't understand why the U.S. continues to insist, 10 years after the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait, on worldwide sanctions that are devastating the Iraqi people. According to the U.N., some 5,000 Iraqi children die every month of malnutrition and disease because of the sanctions. End of quote.
As an example, my family and relatives are western educated pacifist business people (just like you), and my FIRST COUSIN, MY DEAREST PERSONAL FRIEND, was shot down in cold blood by Israelis (he was in a Libyan commercial plane that "crossed" the Sinai border by mistake en route from Libya to Cairo, hundreds of miles away from any Israeli civilian).
Our family saw the tragedy as a great injustice, and this is where reasonable people stop.
But among the other millions who have endured the same, if not more, we ask:
How many have perceived that whoever assists or helps or abates their aggressor, also shares the same guilt, and them allowed for themselves to transgress against them?
Does it make it easier for them to know that the thousands of children dying every month, are dying because of an "official" action by a government? Many of the children's relatives would regard it as legitimized crime in the grandest hypocritical manner, condoned by a whole nation, while the Twin Towers terrorist attack was an individual attack rejected and condemned by every Arab country and Muslim organization on earth.
Wouldn't that be reason enough for one in every 10 millions to go berserk (and transgress against his own religious rules)?
After all, many Muslims have been killed in the US now "hate crimes". We find it once on this or that other US channel, then its mention disappears altogether. (I saw it on msn.com a few days ago).
Are we to judge somebody else for their going berserk, or judge the ideals of their nation - which they violated -, for after all, some of them will get caught, no doubt, and they will have major problems. They knew they were risking it when they were killing those people, so did they need to have the "promise to go to paradise" in order to do their act? or was their anger enough (FOR THEIR SICK MINDS) to make them lose balance and do it? I am sure MOST of them had no immediate relative connected, yet they "crossed" the line of sanity, so we should expect that the chances are HIGHER of such criminal insanity among millions who have been hurt more - or similarlily - and for decades, and trying unsuccessfully for decades to obtain justice.

As another example: The Japanese committed Kamikaze in much larger number.
So, are religions to blame for believing in an afterlife?

For these terrorists, and for the Kamikaze suicide pilots, the problem is not that they believe they will enter "paradise" or the like, the problem is how powerful a force it was that made them "cross" all lines of fairness and sanity.

As for these guys going to Paradise or not:
The ruling is not mine, but according to my religious rules, the guys have violated the rules of religion, humanity and Islam, and this is not the way to go to heaven.

In another e-mail, we received:
Its good to see what is written on this site about this attack.
This attack will demage the Multi culture of the Netherlands and other country's,
My question is if the good and peaceful islam can be the voice of the totally islam, till before i thought there was only the islam people burning down puppets and vlags. now my eyes are more and more open butt will this be on time for the peace in the world?
Another question in the dutch churches there was years ago spoken of the unbelieving people will stand bysite when god wil come to rescue mankind. on dutch tv in a islam programm was the text " the unbelieving people will be the fuell for the fire" I ask you directly is there place for such a remark in this new modern times?
I dont know what the world will face the next years butt i hope the best (peace) for all people on earth

Our answer (edited):
You wrote:
" the unbelieving people will be the fuel for the fire"
I ask you directly is there place for such a remark in this new modern times?

Our response:
First, of course, there is no place now or any time for such incendiary remarks.
They so out of place that they even difigure the truth: Islamic principles accept that innocents will not suffer in the after-life, Muslims or not.
When asked by a lady:
Did you say that God is more Merciful to his creatures than the mother is to her children?
Our Prophet answered:
Yes, by Allah I said so.
The lady asked:
So how will He cause his creatures to suffer in fire (in the after-life, for being unbelievers)?
He (wept and) answered:
God will ONLY punish those who REFUSED. (i.e. those who saw the truth and refused it, this is the UN-believer).

Second, since Islam is so much under attack now, I draw your attention that the expression itself "the unbelieving people will be the fuel for the fire"  is a truism to every heavenly religion: believers go to heaven, but there is also hell, by definition.
The problem is not that religions have the concept of heaven and hell, it is the incendiary nature of using a quotation in its wrong place, I mean for a Muslim to use that quotation if he does not specify its generality (as I have done), but we have such extremists in every nation or religion, under different disguises. I remind you of murders committed the last few days in the US against innocent Muslims. Whoever killed them belong in the same circle of deranged criminals as those who committed the hijackings: their crimes are not exclusive to any nation or religion.

According to CNN (click for CNN's original article)

Atta's will, written in 1996, shows he had planned for years to die in the name of Islam.
"I only want to be buried next to good Muslims, my face should be directed east toward Mecca," the will says. "A third of my money would be donated to the poor and needy. My books, I will give to one of the mosques."

Our comment:
Again, the Twin towers terrorist attack is against Muslim values, teachings and practices, yet some remarks are in order:
CNN's words, if taken with good faith, show unexplainable superficiality: "Atta's will, written in 1996, shows he had planned for years to die in the name of Islam".
The article puts the non-learned reader in a "mindset", inviting the demagogue toward more hatred and suspicion against Islam as a whole.

Here is the actual description of that will:

  • The concept of leaving a Will:
    It is the sacred duty of every Muslim regardless of gender or age, to have a will ready, listing his obligations as well as his will. 
    Are we then to consider that almost every other Mulim's house is planning a terrorist action because they have an almost identical will prepared?
    The Prophet of Islam said:
    "No Muslim, who has anything to include in his will, has the right to stay two nights without having written a will". (Authentic, narrated by Muslim).
    "Whoever dies with a will, dies on a (correct) way, pure, witnessed (for paradise), and forgiven." (Ibn Majah, citing Jabir).
    Imaam Munawi states in the explanation of this hadeeth: The will is therefore considered and obligation (on every Muslim).
  • The contents of the Will:
    The elements mentioned in that will: are so "matter of fact" that any person learned with Islamic teachings gets astonished at the ignorance - of the tens of thousands of expert investigators - to recognize that such a will would be available in every practicing Muslim's house.
    • To be buried among Muslims: 
      This is the desire of every Muslim, and the advise of our Prophet. It is hard indeed to find a Muslim who does not include it (or imply it) in his will, especially Muslims living overseas. Are we now to suspect them for writing such wills? 
      The issue is not to defend the person in question, it is to defend normal Muslims from being oppressed against practicing this element of their religion for, as of now, they will be considered as terrorists if they include such preference in their will: Haaa! this is a terrorist.
    • "Facing Mecca":
      This is the only way prescribed in Islam. Again, it will be the elementary item in every will.
    • Women not to visit his tomb: 
      The writer of the will ascribes to one (of the major streams of Islam) that does not encourage women to visit the graves. It is simply flabbergasting to find a relationship linking this to the intentions of terrorism.
    • Leaving the third of his money to the poor (and donating books to a Mosque).
      This is the most preferable "split". One companion mentioned to the Prophet that we will all his belongings to go to the poor. The Prophet explained to him that it is better not to leave his family needy. The man kept decreasing the share of the poor until it reached the third. The Prophet agreed, adding: The third (is acceptable), and the third is (still) too much.
      It is simply appalling to see how the enormous team of expert investigators count such a document as evidence. 
  • The age of the Will:
    Written in 1996? This will was therefore not revised during the last five years. 
    Muslims understand why: It is a "standard" will, the burden on every Muslim's conscience.
    It is hard to imagine how a person getting closer and closer to his known death, would not change such a "standard" will within the last five years.

Islam condemns the terrorists attack, but any fair person is repulsed by brandishing such a will as "evidence of being a terrorist" and "planning in advance to die for Islam", for after all, a large percent of Muslims have a similar will and, as detailed above, the important elements of that will are better arguments against the theory that it was written by a person "planning to die years ago".

The terrorist crime was enormous indeed, but inflaming people's emotions wrongly against Muslims is a grave crime too, for it re-fuels the series of hate crimes and murders that no civilization can be proud of, yet which are happening in the elite Western Countries almost every day.