DID I REALLY QUOTE THE QURAN IN THE WRONG CONTEXT?

 Roshan Nisar

Dear friends,

                     One of the readers of my article, “Is Islam really a religion of peace?”, most graciously responded to it telling me that I had quoted the Quran in the “wrong” context. He also sent me a video which supposedly “proves” that “my” interpretations are “erroneous.” A girl stepped forward and magnanimously offered to engage in an intellectual dialogue with me so my “misconceptions” about Islam may be “cleared.” I responded to both of them. Those of you who care about human rights or women’s rights or wonder why India has always been targeted by Islamic terrorists or simply want to know what the truth is, will find my response, “Did I really quote the Quran in the wrong context?” inordinately helpful.  Please watch the video that he sent andONLY then proceed to reading my response. You may feel free to print, publish or forward this mail to anybody who is sincere in his search for truth and is honest enough to call a spade a spade.

                                     Even before motives are attributed to my writings let me make my stand as perspicuous as possible so I leave no room for conjecture. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that no human being, irrespective of his social standing, is in any way superior or inferior to any other human being in terms of human dignity or value. Period! I believe that all human beings, irrespective of their race, class, sex, religion, caste, colour or appearance are equally precious in the sight of God. I believe that the free will of every human being should be respected and upheld. I believe that we, the human race, are but a single brotherhood. I believe that it is every man’s duty to work incessantly towards building a beautiful world in which love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, helpfulness, tenderness and truth reign supreme. 

My pen shall never run out of ink in both exposing and fighting against fascist, evil and demonic ideologies that exploit barbarians and make savages out of moral men.

Did I really quote the Quran in the wrong context?

                       At the outset, what I find most amusing is that I write an article based on nothing but the teachings of the Quran; the Sunnah of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith; the historical context as recorded in the Sira and the elucidation as shown in the Tafseer (quranic exegesis) and in response to all of this you send a video of Zakir Naik as proof of why my article is wrong. On a serious note, is this the best you can do? Kindly note that the interpretations you find in my article are not mine but those of Muhammad, his contemporaries and your own Islamic scholars and historians. So, when you allege that “my” interpretations are wrong you are, in effect, stating that Muhammad and the whole bandwagon of his companions, your theologians, scholars and historians were grossly mistaken. I hope you are not telling me that Muhammad did not understand Islam as well as Zakir Naik does!!!

1. My response to your video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u-5ZJ2Frzk

Your tactic is a classic example of the Strawman fallacy (A logical fallacy that results when a person sets up a misrepresentation/caricature of his adversary’s actual standpoint so he may knock it down easily and then go on to assume victory for disproving his opponent’s viewpoint.) You accuse me of quoting surah 9:5 and leaving out 9:6 (which allegedly has the answer) when in fact I never quoted Surah 9:5, in my article, at all. Having said that, let us examine how honest Zakir Naik is in his rendition as seen in the video. Let us witness how he beguiles some millions of innocent, gullible, uninformed and unsuspecting listeners who accept as absolute truth every unconscionable lie that he utters. Please bear in mind that he did NOT bolster his interpretation with relevant evidence from any of the Islamic texts. The Quran says in Surah 27:64,“Bring forth your proofs, if you are truthful.” The following are my proofs from YOUR OWN ISLAMIC TEXTS viz. The Quran, The Sira and The Tafseer of Ibn Kathir who is touted as the greatest Muslim savant and Quranic commentator who ever lived.

The Sira exposes Zakir Naik’s reprehensible lie that Surah 9:5 was revealed in the battlefield. The Sira clearly says that Muhammad received 9:5 long after he and his men had subjugated the pagans of Mecca in the Arabian peninsula and long after he had made a truce with them. He was loath to allow the pagans to practice their own religion and then he himself broke the peace treaty that he had made with them. He claimed to have received a revelation from Allah that permitted him to break his truce. Zakir Naik accuses the critics of  Islam of quoting Surah 9:5 and conveniently ignoring Surah 9:6. I wonder why Zakir Naik conveniently omitted Surah 9:1 which clearly says that it was Muhammad who initiated the oppression of the pagans of Mecca and that he himself annulled the truce, based on a “revelation” of Allah.

Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty. (Quran 9:1) 

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:5)

And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. (Quran 9:6)

Now let us see what the tafseer says about verses 5 and 6 of Surah 9: “And besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush, do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” (Tafsir ibn kathir, Surat At-Tawbah, Aayah 5 (Aayah of the sword)).


The Aayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants. Ibn Abi Naj ih narrated that Mujahid said that this Ayah, "Refers to someone who comes to you to hear what you say and what was revealed to you (O Muhammad). Therefore, he is safe until he comes to you, hears Allah's Words and then proceeds to the safe area where he came from.' (Tafsir ibn kathir, Aayah 6)

In a nutshell, Sura 9:6 proves my point. It does NOT contradict it. The historical context of verses 5 and 6, as we have seen, is as follows: “Announce to the non-muslims that Allah has freed the Muslims of their obligations (violation of the truce) towards them. Tell them that they can no longer perform hajj. Give them 4 months to accept Islam and after that, if they still don’t, then lie in wait for them, ambush them, fight them, torture them and kill him but if they give in and embrace Islam then lead them to a safe and secure place.” Does this really sound peaceful to you? By this yardstick, a nefarious abductor, who delivers the abducted child safely, after the parents of his victim (having submitted to his intimidation and blackmail) give him the ransom he had demanded, should be applauded for his non-violence and for the safety and security he had provided to the child.


2. My response to your warm greetings, “asalam, my friend.” 

To this, I gladly respond with wa alaikum assalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Although I cherish the regard you showed me I was taken aback when you gave me greetings first and called me a friend (out of complete disrespect to Muhammad, trampling underfoot his command and disregarding Allah’s word.) Let me show you what Muhammad (whose Sunnah you are supposed to follow meticulously) commanded Muslims to do:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: DO NOT greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 26, Hadith no: 5389)

O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each ther; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Quran 5:51)

Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (Quran 3:28)

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol: 9, Book 89, Hadith no: 251)

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (Quran 33:36)

3. My response to your claim that Muhammad never asked his followers to attack anyone. 
It was narrated that Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah said:
"The Messenger of Allah said: 'There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire: The group that INVADES INDIA, and the group that will be with 'Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him.' (Sunan an-Nasa'i, Vol: 1, Book 25, Hadith no: 3177)

I’m cognizant of the chicanery that Islamic polemiscists foist on unsuspecting and uninformed listeneres that the Isnad (chain of transmission) of this Hadith is Daif (weak) and not Sahih (strong/sound) although the truth is otherwise. Let us look at the horrific effect that Islam (in all of its blood spattered glory) had on India, through this hadith.

1. Mohammad Bin Qasim : Invasion of Sindh (715 A.D)
2. Turk Sabuktagin : Invasion of India (986 AD)
3. Mahmud of Ghazni : Seventeen invasions of India (1001-1027AD)
4. Mohammad Ghori : Seven invasions of India (1175-1197 AD)
5. Muhammad Khilji : Plunder and conquest of the fort of Bihar (1193 AD)
6. Jalaluddin Khilji : Conquest of nearly the whole of North India (1297-1311 AD)
7. Feroz Tughlug : Invasion of Jajnagar and subsequent effacement of temples (1360AD).
8. Timur : Obliteration of temples in North India, brutal killing of thousands of people and the 15 day pillage of Delhi (1398 A.D).
9. Ibrahim Lodi : Ascension to the throne (1517 AD) and subsequent conquest of Gwalior.
10. Babur’s ascension to the throne of Agra (1526 A.D) and subsequent pillage and extirpation of Hindu temples and barbaric slaughter of innocent people who refused to embrace Islam.
11. Akbar : Conquests of Chittor (1568 AD), Ranthambhor & Kalinjar (1569 AD), Bengal, Gujrat, Kashmir and Kabul (1589 AD) and Sind & Kandhar (1595 AD) and Ahmednagar (1596 AD).
12. Aurangzeb : (1658-1707AD) The imposition of Jizya on the non-Muslims of India and the annihilation of Hindu temples and forced conversion of thousands of Hindus to Islam by giving them a choice between Islam and death. (Do you remember Ibn kathir’s tafsir of Surah 9:5?).
13. The Muslims invaded India at the time of Mu‘aawiyah, in 44 AH, and there occurred things which will be explained below. It was also invaded by the great ruler Mahmoud ibn Sabuktagin, the ruler of Ghaznah who conquered India around 400 AH. He invaded the land, where he killed, took prisoners and captured booty. He entered Somnath where he broke the greatest idol that they used to worship, and he captured its swords and necklaces. Then he returned, safe and victorious. (Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya (the beginning and the end) – This is one of the best works of Islamic historiography recorded by your OWN Islamic scholar and historian, Ibn Kathir.
14. And numerous more until the war with India by Ajmal Amir Kasab and Co. (2008 AD).

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
- Will Durant

Is it any wonder that Pakistan and Bangladesh, two of the neighbouring Muslim countries, currently wage three different wars with India viz. a) Destabilization of the Indian economy through introduction of fake currency b) Cross-border infiltration for espionage and plotting terror and c) Sabotage and terrorism.

Dear Aisha (Name changed to conceal identity), I admire your zeal and alacrity in stepping forward to initiate an INTELLECTUAL dialogue with me concerning the ISLAMIC RELIGION so as to dispel my “misconceptions.” However, your own Islamic text says....

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone MORE DEFICIENT IN INTELLIGENCE AND RELIGION THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her INTELLIGENCE. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion.”(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol: 1, Book 6, Hadith no: 301)

Obviously, I do not subscribe to this kind of balderdash. However, the point is that if you believe your texts to be true then you have to necessarily believe that you, by virtue of being a woman, are severely deficient in INTELLIGENCE and if you are severely deficient in INTELLIGENCE should you not stay away from INTELLECTUAL discussions especially on the ISLAMIC RELIGION? On the other hand, if you insist that you are INTELLIGENT then you discredit your own Islamic texts and dissent with Muhammad in which case there is nothing for you to clarify as we are in consensus.

In conclusion, let me be gracious with both of you and for the sake of argument let’s assume that I did indeed quote the Quran in the wrong context (although I did not). When you allege that a particular context is WRONG you presuppose that there is a RIGHT context. After all, you can call something crooked only when you know what is straight. So, go ahead and enlighten me on what exactly the RIGHT context is, that supposedly JUSTIFIES raping non-muslim women (Quran 4:24), beating one’s wife/wives (Quran 4:34), using non-muslim women, captured in war, as sex slaves and swapping them with those of fellow Muslim men (Quran 33:52), fighting people merely because they are not Muslims (Quran 9:29) and butchering people who refuse to embrace Islam (Quran 9:5). I can go on and on but this should suffice for now.