Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed" (2)



The misinformed critics arguing that jizya was an unfair system aimed at enriching the Muslim state may be thinking of the divinely blessed taxation and hoarding of riches and spoils by king David and his appointed governors in his conquests. This wealth was dedicated to the building of national religious edifices (on the ruins of other people's) 2Sam8,1Chr18:2,6,8,13,20:1-2,26;26-7 and meant for personal glory as well 2Sam12:29-31. The wise king and prophet Solomon would continue in this pattern, in line with the rules of the monarchy dictating that the king's expenditures (a "heavy yoke" that ultimately caused the scission of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death 1Kings12) should be collected indiscriminately, contrary to the jizya that spares the needy and weak 1Sam8:11 (some exemples of the daily rights, gifts and luxuries of the Jewish monarch to be brought forth by conquered nations in 1Kings5:1-7,9:14-15,27-28,2Chr27:5). Solomon similarily to David had appointed representents that collected his levy from Jews and non-Jews, the difference between the 2 groups being that when the conquered nations could not pay they were reduced to forced labor 1Kings9:21. Contrary to this subduing system aimed at benefiting a party and lowering another, going back to the days of Joshua (Josh16:10) and before, jizya partly financed the functioning of a society in which those who paid it were fully part of.

These are the detailed rabbinic derivations as regards the wealth of foreign nations that fall under Jewish possession after wars of conquest;

(Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 4)”The king is granted license to levy taxes upon the nation for his needs or for the purpose of war. He may also fix a duty on merchandise. It is forbidden to avoid paying this duty. The king has the right to decree that if someone does not pay these duties, his property will be seized or he will be killed.
These laws are derived as follows: I Samuel 8:17 states: 'You will be servants to him, the king.' Previously, Deuteronomy 20:11 states: 'They shall be subject to your levy and they shall serve you.' From this association, it is derived that the king may levy taxes and fix duties.
The statutes that he establishes in these and related matters are accepted as law for all the matters mentioned in the Biblical passage concerning the king are rights to which the king is entitled. He may also send throughout the territory of Eretz Yisrael and take from the nation valiant men and men of war and employ them as soldiers for his chariot and cavalry. Similarly, he may appoint them as his body guard and as footmen to run before him as I Samuel 8:11 states: 'He shall place them among his charioteers and his horsemen and they shall run before his chariot.' He may also take the choicest of them to be his servants and attendants as ibid.:16 states: 'He shall take... your finest young men... to do his work.' 
 
Similarly, he may take all those that are necessary for him from the nation's craftsmen and employ them to do his work. He must pay their wages. He may also take all the beasts, servants, and maids that are necessary for his tasks. He must pay their hire or their value as ibid.:12-16 states: 'He will set them to plough his ground and to reap his harvest, to make instruments of war, and gear for his chariots.... He will take your servants, your maids, your finest young men, and your donkeys to do his work.' 

He may force those who are fit to serve as officers, appointing them as leaders of thousands and leaders of fifties as ibid.:12 states: 'He shall appoint them as leaders of thousands and leaders of fifties for himself.' 

He may take fields, olive groves, and vineyards for his servants when they go to war and allow them to commandeer these places if they have no source of nurture other than them. He must pay for what is taken. This is stated in ibid.:14: 'He shall take your good fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his servants. 
 
He is entitled to a tenth of the produce of the seed and the orchards and the newborn beasts as ibid.:16-17 states: 'He will take a tenth of your seed and your vineyards...He shall take a tenth of your sheep.' 

The Messianic king may take a thirteenth portion of all the lands conquered by Israel as his own. This will be an allotment for him and his descendants forever. 

The property of all those executed by the king, belongs to the king. Similarly, all the treasures belonging to the kings of the kingdoms which he conquers become the property of the king.

In regard to the other spoil which is taken. The soldiers may take spoil. Afterwards, they must bring it to the king. He is entitled to one half of the spoil. He takes this portion first.

The second half of the spoil is divided between the combat soldiers and the people who remained in camp to guard the baggage. An equal division is made between them as I Samuel 30:24 relates: 'The portion of those who go down to the battle will be as the portion of those who stay with the baggage. They shall divide equally.' 

All the lands that he conquers belong to him. He may apportion them to his servants and soldiers as he desires and keep the remainder for himself. In all these matters, the judgement he makes is binding.
In all matters, his deeds shall be for the sake of heaven. His purpose and intent shall be to elevate the true faith and fill the world with justice, destroying the power of the wicked and waging the wars of God. For the entire purpose of appointing a king is to execute justice and wage wars as I Samuel 8:20 states: 'Our king shall judge us, go out before us, and wage our wars.' 

A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them.
Afterwards, he may wage a milchemet hareshut, i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation. 
  
War, neither a milchemet hareshut or a milchemet mitzvah, should not be waged against anyone until they are offered the opportunity of peace as Deuteronomy 20:10 states: 'When you approach a city to wage war against it, you should propose a peaceful settlement.'
If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah's descendents, none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as ibid.:11 states: 'They shall be your subjects and serve you.'
If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both.
The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever.
The tribute they must accept consists of being prepared to support the king's service with their money and with their persons; for example, the building of walls, strengthening the fortresses, building the king's palace, and the like as I Kings 9:15-22) relates: "This is the tribute which Solomon raised to build the House of God, his own palace, the Milo, the wall of Jerusalem,... and all the store-cities which Solomon had... All the people that remained from the Amorites... upon them did Solomon lay a tribute of bondservice until this day."
In contrast, Solomon did not make bondsmen out of the children of Israel. They were men of war, his personal servants, his princes, his captains, the officers of his chariots, and his horsemen. 

In the settlement he offers, the king may propose that he is entitled to take half their financial resources. Or he may propose to take all their landed property and leave them their movable property; or to take all their movable property and leave their land. 
  
If they do not agree to a peaceful settlement, or if they agree to a peaceful settlement, but refuse to accept the seven mitzvot, war should be waged against them.
All males past majority should be killed. Their money and their children should be taken as spoil, but neither women or children should be killed, as Deuteronomy 20:14 states: 'But the women and the children... take as spoil." 'The children' refer to males below the age of majority”.

In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. 

This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. 

The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.

In their legal derivations, the rabbis state that not only exterminating, but hating this specific people is an eternal ordinance 
(Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 4) “It is a positive commandment to annihilate the seven nations who dwelled in Eretz Yisrael as Deuteronomy 20:17 states: 'You shall utterly destroy them.'
Anyone who chances upon one of them and does not kill him violates a negative commandment as ibid.:16 states: 'Do not allow a soul to live.' The memory of them has already been obliterated.

Similarly, it is a positive commandment to destroy the memory of Amalek, as Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Obliterate the memory of Amalek.
It is also a positive commandment to constantly remember their evil deeds and their ambush of Israel to arouse our hatred of them, as ibid.:17 states: 'Remember what Amalek did to you.' The Oral Tradition teaches: ...Remember' - with your mouths; ...Do not forget' - in your hearts.' For it is forbidden to forget our hatred and enmity for them”.
 
Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock 
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby". 
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation 
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones". 
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. The idea finds root in the cataclysmic event of the uprooted mountain and Israel's entering into the divine covenant. The rabbis have linked the tradition to Psalm 76:9. The earth initially feared it would return to its pre-creation state, and only after Israel accepted the Torah did the earth continue existing. Since the whole universe depends on Torah's acceptance God could not risk a negative outcome and had to force it upon the Israelites with a death threat. The Talmudic worldview is thus established, placing God, Israel, and Torah at the center.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God. It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way. 

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed"
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed" (1)



Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca. 

No punishment is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed, see link below.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 
9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".
This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.


None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

Commenting on the rules of wars as stipulated in Deut20, and in regards that specific point of subjugation, Jewish law states that 
“The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever”. (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 4).
Jewish war ethics further say that no arrangement is even considered in case a conquered people refuses to abandon idolatry, until they accept st least the laws of Noah as stipulated in the Torah;

“Similarly, a treaty cannot be made with a city which desires to accept a peaceful settlement until they deny idol worship, destroy their places of worship, and accept the seven universal laws commanded Noah's descendants. For every gentile who does not accept these commandments must be executed if he is under our undisputed authority. 

Moses only gave the Torah and mitzvot as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: 'The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob,' and to all those who desire to convert from among the other nations, as Numbers 15:15 states 'the convert shall be the same as you.' However, someone who does not desire to accept Torah and mitzvot, should not be forced to.
By the same regard, Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants.
If one does not accept these commands, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these commands is called a resident alien. This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars.

A Noachide who converted, was circumcised, and immersed in the mikveh, and, afterwards, decided to forsake God and revert to his previous status as a resident alien is not granted permission to do so. Rather, he must remain as an Israelite in all matters or be executed”.
 
The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The government has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.

Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.

The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.

The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion 
5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".
The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying 
"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims". 
The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. The nature of the compensation to the Muslim state varied depending on the capacities of each one. It was not always monetary and its amount was adaptable to each case. The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said 
"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury". 
It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentioned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma. 

Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government. 

Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran. 

The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
 
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.


Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed"
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, December 13, 2020

Sam Shamoun "Another Verse That Exposes Muhammad as a Fraud: The Nonexistent Temple"


Only one location is said to be dedicated to those performing the ritual prayers, as well as the pilgrimage and it is the Kaaba, Becca, the Ancient House and al masjid al haram, all names referring to one same place with the definite article and with almost identical wording 2:125,158,196,3:96-7,9:19,22:26,29, all connecting the Abrahamic legacy to one and the same place. This unquestionably links the Kaaba, Becca, Mecca with some of the most important rituals of Islam. 

The revisionist argument that these locations are disconnected and unrelated is based upon the faulty mehtodology of isolating statements out of their direct and wider context. The requirement that a particular Quranic statement needs to be fully detailed in each context is unnecessary. Any type of literary research, especially historical, is done by piecing together related information. Conjecture is stripping statements out of their direct and larger context and ignoring surrounding indicators, then drawing clumsy conclusions.

The turning point of the Quraysh's animosity towards the Prophet was following the Night Journey (isra/miraj): Muhammad was transported, according to tradition on a horse like celestial creature called Al-Buraq. 

Heavenly creatures transported previous prophets on otherwordly journeys 2Kings2:11, besides the mention of extraordinary celestial creatures by prophets the likes of Ezekiel. Muhammad was transported from masjid al haram/the inviolable masjid, ie Mecca, to masjid al aqsa/the furthest masjid, ie Jerusalem, then back to Mecca. The event is shortly mentionned in the Quran 
17:1"Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing". 
The manner and process in which this occured is not precisely stated in the verse, nor did the prophet leave any clear-cut explanation of this experience. What can be gathered is that in one night, he was made to see and experience the farthest masjid in relation to Mecca at the time, located in Jerusalem, and certain aspects of it, as if he was physically there. This is very similar to the prophet Ezekiel's experience, when 
Ezek40:1"the hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me there". 
Ezekiel here refers to Babylon where he was preaching to the enslaved nation of Israelites, unto Jerusalem, where he would be shown the appearance and measurements of the new temple. This was done in a strong and compulsive way as is so often denoted throughout this book whenever Ezekiel speaks of his revelational experience 
"In the visions of God He brought me to the land of Israel, and He placed me on a very lofty mountain..." 
Ezekiel was thus "transported" in a manner we cannot fathom "in the visions of God" from one distant place to another, interracting with the physical features of the area 
Ezek47:4"..and he led me through water that reached the loins.." 
He spoke there with entities addressing him with terms indicating physical presence on site 
Ezek40:4"And the man spoke to me, "Son of man, see with your eyes and with your ears hear, and set your heart to all that I am showing you, because in order to show you, you have been brought here; tell all that you see to the House of Israel".
During his metaphysical experience, the prophet prayed and lead the prayer among the prophets of God at masjid al aqsa. On his way back to Mecca, at night, he encountered a caravan in the desert belonging to the Quraysh. He drank their water in their sleep and poured the rest and also saw a camel they had lost on the way. 

The next day in Mecca, the prophet publicly spoke of what had occured to him. This was a bold move by the prophet and some Muslims even apostized when they heard his incredible experience. His opponents tried contradicting him by asking a description of the masjid of Jerusalem. It would be very far fetched to claim the Arabs of Hijaz, caravan merchants who frequently travelled to that region, interracting with the Judeo-Christian communities of the peninsula and beyond, were ignorant that the Temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed then. The Quran itself in the same passage states that twice, the Temple was subject to destruction 
17:8"that they might destroy whatever they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction". 
For them to ask eyewitness testimony means they could falsify his statement in case of wrong answer. But this never happened. The prophet's wordings and descriptions do not suggest that he was speaking of an enclosed building with a roof. Ruins of the Temple had remained there, including parts of the wall surrounding it, as well as other recognizable features. The prophet's opponents asked about a specific detail of the site which they could recognize 
"When Quraysh rejected what I said, I stood in al-Hijir and God showed me Bayt al-Maqdis so I started telling them about its signs while looking at it" 
"Some of them said: How many doors are there in that mosque/masjid? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them". 
They asked him about the gates. Till this day, these gates can be seen and are known by the names of those that recently rediscovered them. One of these gates is even called "the prophet's gate" through which it is said he entered masjid al aqsa on his night journey. These were the architectural features known to the prophet's enemies, present at the site, and which they pressed him about. Had the story been an anachronism, the hadith would have instead portrayed the prophet as describing some characteristics of the site which did not exist at his time. 

As to the prophet refering to the masjid as BAYT, this does not necessarily mean a closed space either. Bayt is used for what provides shelter. It is used in Arabic for a home/house, as well as one's family and even a city. Whether it is in modern day Israel or in the Palestinian territories, in the Hebrew or Arabic, we still find names of cities starting with Bayt, as in Bayt Lahm/Bethlehem, Bayt Lahiya etc. When the prophet was shown Bayt al Maqdis, this could be referring to the city of Jerusalem, more specifically the blessed precincts within 17:1. When the prophet began describing its signs, his opponents pressed him regarding the masjid, the place of prostration within the city/Bayt al maqdis. They did not ask how many gates are there in "bayt al maqdis", rather they wanted to know how many were there in the "masjid" of Bayt al maqdis.

The Quran contains many passages speaking of entering and interracting inside an open area, such as the holy land or even masjid al haram in Mecca, which didnt even have walls at the time of the prophet 5:22,48:27. The Temple of Solomon was a site where Jews prostrated to God. Very devout Jews even considered it the only place fit for a complete prostration. Jewish rituals and prayers, including prostrations were made in that area even before the Temple was built 1Sam1. Hence the appropriateness for the Quran to refer to the area of masjid al aqsa as one 
17:1"whose precincts We did bless". 
It was a blessed and sacred area, a terminology always associated with the land given to Abraham and those that followed him among the Israelites, including Solomon 5:21,7:137,21:71,81. This is why the Muslims were told to prostrate in that direction when the qibla was first changed. The triliteral root S-J-D lit. means the volontary display of weakness in front of someone in order to show that they are in complete control. The best physical display of that concept for humans is when they prostrate. Masjid is thus the place where that action occurs, it is "the place of prostration". 

The word is used for both Muslim and non-Muslim sites 17:7. Whether the place is closed, open or including buildings in which one may prostrate is irrelevant to the meaning of masjid, as seen earlier with the area of masjid al haram. There are narrations where the prophet distinguishes between the Kaaba and the masjid around it, at a time where no building surrounded the area of prostration around the Kaaba 
"One should undertake journey to three mosques: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, and the mosque of Elia".
The Kaaba in itself is not meant for prostration even though one may exceptionally enter it for that purpose. But whether in the prophet's time or later, pilgrims did not practice prostration inside but in the open space around it. The same goes for Masjid al Aqsa today. It is an open area of prostration, once cynically left as a garbage dump by Christians until Umar conquered and restored it. Just as with masjid al haram, this open area of prostration in Jerusalem includes nowadays the dome of the rock (golden roof) and the Qibli mosque originally built by Umar, then expanded 50 years later by the caliph Malik. 

The prophet said in the traditions that the entire Earth was made a masjid for him so that his followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. Early mosques that were nothing but a few stones arranged to mark the mihrab (direction of Kaaba), like those of the Negev region, attest to the fact that a masjid does not need to be a building. This is in accordance with the prophet's teachings. He disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Another Verse That Exposes Muhammad as a Fraud: The Nonexistent Temple"

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, December 12, 2020

Sam Shamoun "A Puppy Trumps Allah, Jibril, and Muhammad!"


Neither Allah, the angels, the prophet nor his followers hated dogs in an absolute sense, nor any other animals, as seen from the many traditions, the Quran itself and the understanding of the scholars towards the fair physical and emotional treatment of all animals. Cynophobia is rather abounding in the HB, as will be shown later.

The prophet did not mind his grandsons having a puppy in his own house, until the incident with Jibril mentioned below. 

There was once an interval of several days where revelation stopped and which distressed the prophet. He began thinking that he had done something wrong, or that, as his opponents taunted him, that Allah had abandoned him. Once revelation descended in the form of sura duha/93 he was told that neither was the case, and that this interruption obeys to a higher reality independent of anyone's whims. This bellies the notion that the reason of the interruption had anything to do with the prophet, whether in deeds (such as having a dog at home) or thoughts. This is further borne out by the fact that the prophet did receive revelation in different locations and conditions, and that a time finally arrived where revelation was about to descend on him. Jibril came to him and told him to prepare to receive revelation at his home. But when it did not occur as announced, it was this time due to a worldly reason specific to his home 
"Jibril came to me and said; "Indeed I had come to you last night, and nothing prevented me from entering upon you at the house you were in, except that there were images of men at the door of the house, and there was a curtain screen with imagines on it, and there was a dog in the house. So go and sever the head of the image that is at the door so that it will become like a tree stump, and go and cut the screen and make two throw-cushions to be sat upon, and go and expel the dog." So the Messenger of Allah did so, and the dog was a puppy belonging to Al-Husain or Al-Hasan which was under his belongings, so he ordered him to expel it". 
The details of the hadith vary depending on the chain, but the primary point remains that angels do not enter houses where specific things are found. 

Angels are not superhumans. They are a different creature. They have likes and dislikes, capacities and limits different than humans. For example the traditions relate how the angel Gabriel himself was limited and could not ascend to where the prophet Muhammad was permitted to enter during the mi'raj. The hadith here does not specify the reason for singling out dogs, so we can only conjecture. A legitimate question one might ask is, since the interruption had nothing to do with an issue with the prophet, that revelation did and could descend anywhere outside his home, with Jibril even coming to him just a night before and at a different location to announce his imminent visit, then why didnt Jibril just choose another place than the "problematic" home in order to reveal sura duha? 

What is first important noting is that these are not any type of angels, but the angels of revelation. Regular persons arent visited by such angels anyway so the issue of keeping dogs inside doesn't necessarily apply to anyone and any circumstance. But seeing how the noblest of them would refrain entering upon a prophet for that reason, makes one appreciate that, besides the representation of unidentified male figures (it was not only about a "puppy"), there must be an intrinsic reason in the dog in question. And this is understood through a contextual analysis of the report. This reveals an important point, one ever stressed by hadith commentators. When one tries to understand a hadith, which is a snippet of a larger statement, it cannot be done in a vacuum but in light of its time and circumstances, the potential question/remark the prophet was reacting/answering to, as well as the vast corpus of extra Quran material so as to establish a pattern of thought and behavior. 

A glaring example is the report 
"Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse". 
The narrator did not report the context of the prophet's statement, which was in fact a condemnation of what some pre-islamic Arabs believed and what contemporary Jews said. There are even reports where the prophet equates belief in bad omen with shirk. 

As to dog, they were extensively used by the Arabs in the prophet's time, for specific purposes and not as pets. The angelic instruction not to keep dogs inside homes could be due to the particular breed of the prophet's environment, one that can potentially be harmful, hence its use to ward off danger. It could have been that this breed of dogs was not meant to be, neither for its own good or the good of the owner, kept in a closed space. The prophet, by allowing a seemingly harmless puppy in his home as a pet so as to please his grandsons, could have given or started a potentially harmful (not sinful) trend in the community. As in many cases, some special circumstances, sometimes having to do with the prophet and sometimes with other members of the community, were used by Allah as a means by which to illustrate what is more appropriate and beneficial for society.  

After this incident, the prophet became more aware of the issue of human interaction with the dogs of his environment, which he might have taken too lightly.  He allowed domesticated dogs for useful purposes in farming, herding, guarding or hunting but discouraged keeping them as pets, inside the homes, except if it is for self-defense. It would be oppressive and cruel to keep these types of dogs and any other such animal as pets. They are unsuited to remain in a confined environment. This could have been another reason for the angelic instruction.
“The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than herding, hunting, or agriculture is decreased every day by a qiraat". 
As a side note, how did this visitor know of the presence of a puppy, hidden somewhere in the house?

Historically there was a problem of disease transmitting dogs in Medina, who carried rabies. These were stray dogs that in addition, were ferocious and attacked people. Although the problem existed, the prophet as a leader in Medina had not turned his attention to it prior to the incident involving Jibril.

The term used in some ahadith is kalb al aakur/biting, wild or rabid dog. The expression covered not only dogs but different types of wild beasts roaming the desert 
"Malik said, about the "kalb akur" which people were told to kill in the Haram, that any animals that wounded, attacked, or terrorised men, such as lions, leopards, Iynxes and wolves, were counted as "kalb akur"". 
As to the dog specie, the harmful ones were recognized by their pitch black color, as the prophet stated in his khutbah on the matter 
"If it were not that dogs were a nation among nations, then I would order that they be killed. So kill every one among them that is all black". 
During that same khutbah, some people asked what should be done with other dogs, namely the domesticated ones, to which the prophet stated they should be spared. This was a clarification of his statement that dogs, as a nation like any other isnt intrinsically evil/harmful, and should therefore not be indiscriminately killed, but there are evil/harmful elements among them who should be. 

Due to the problems they caused, the prophet referred to these black dogs as devils, as is often used in Arabic in reference to something harmful. We're not talking of chihuahuas here but specially aggressive dogs. The fear they instilled, and consequent distraction, caused prayers to be disrupted if they approached while one is performing the rituals. Even what we consider today as pet dogs are put to death by the authorities when deemed too dangerous. There is thus nothing insensitive or extraordinary in the prophet's decision, in light of the reality of his time. Following the prophet's khutbah, some people were over-zealous in the application of the command, killing dogs indiscriminately 
"Allah's Messenger ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil."
Dogs are not impure in and of themselves otherwise the Quran would not have made it permissible to consume the game hunted by trained dogs/mukalibeen 5:4. It also specifically mentions the dog that slept for years next to a group of righteous people 18:18. These people and their dog had divine miracles performed on them. 

The simple fact is the Quran had many occasions to declare these animals impure or evil but did not. Even in the case of wild/street dogs, impurity does not equal to mistreatment. In a report the prophet said 
"A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that". 
In a similar narration where a man went down a well to save a dog from thirst, the people reacted, asking 
"O Allah's Messenger, Is there a reward for us in serving (the) animals?" He replied, "Yes, there is a reward for serving any animate". 
There is thus a general principle, well established in the Quran and traditions as regards animal and environmental welfare 
"When Allah's Messenger was asked about donkeys, he replied, "Nothing particular was revealed to me regarding them except the general unique verse which is applicable to everything: "Whoever does goodness equal to the weight of an atom (or small ant) shall see it (its reward) on the Day of Resurrection".
This is because, according to the prophet 
"In every living being there is a reward for charity" 
further 
"There is no Muslim who plants a tree or sows seeds and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats from it except that it is regarded as a charity for him"
 and 
"If someone kills so much as a sparrow or anything larger without a just cause, then Allah the Exalted will ask him about it on the Day of Resurrection".
 
There would have been ground for general assumptions as regards the Islamic stance on dogs, had there been similar depictions as the ones found in the Bible, in which one finds nothing but Contempt and negative metaphors of dogs. Whether in the mouth of Jesus in Matt7 who parallels human wickedness to the most hated animals to a Jew, dogs and pigs, or in the writings of the prophets of the HB. Down to the book of Revelation22, dogs are associated with the most wicked dwellers of hell. Even the price for which a dog, any dog, is sold is forbidden to be brought into the Temple for a vow
 Deut23"you shall not bring a prostitute's fee or the price of a dog, to the House of the Lord, your God, for any vow, because both of them are an abomination to the Lord, your God".
 This is a reoccurring theme; dogs, like swine and other morally degenerate people like prostitutes and sorcerers are intrinsically evil and hateful. YHWH's cynophobia, not that of His angels or the humans, is such that He cannot stand their presence or anything related to them in His most sacred site. 



Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "A Puppy Trumps Allah, Jibril, and Muhammad!"

Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "A Docile Beast Falsifies the Quran: How A Sheep Trumped Allah and His “Messenger”!"



This article answers Sam Shamoun "A Docile Beast Falsifies the Quran: How A Sheep Trumped Allah and His “Messenger”!"

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)