Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.
Rebuttal to Matt Slick's "Contradictions in the Quran" article - Continuation
This article is in response to Matt Slick's article http://www.carm.org/islam/questions2.htm
The answers mostly are not of my own. I just provide them.
Matt Slick said:
What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
Matt Slick said:
Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?
Taken from http://www.muhaddith.org/Islam_Answers/Terrorism.html
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).
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,
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
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.
You can also refer to the following links
As for Surah 9:29, look at the following links
Matt Slick said:
The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam-3.htm#realiz, read number 59.
Matt Slick said:
Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Matt Slick said:
Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
Matt Slick said:
Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
Matt Slick said:
Is wine consumption good or bad?
Obviously I in no way whatsoever deserve any credit for this article. Clearly, all the issues have already been addressed by other Muslims (may Allah greatly reward them). I just found that it might be useful to make a comprehensive article with the rebuttals in them to the so called contradictions that have been put forward.
There are no contradictions in the Quran. I really hope that people out there would be objective and search for the truth and if they think that there are contradictions in the Quran then they should go and search for the rebuttal to it. Then they judge for themselves.
Matt Slick responded back to this article. Read my response here http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_matt_slick_3.htm
Back to Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttal to Carm.org section.
Bassam Zawadi's Rebuttals section.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.