بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.




This is a point by point rebuttal to the foolish article "Mohammad NotA Muslim" addressed directly to the writer Paul Marcelrene.



You wrote: The judgment of our leaders about Bin Laden: “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader” Barack Obama “He [Bin Laden] never represented Islam. I actually question whether he was a Muslim or not.” Imam Mohammad Ahmed al Sherif, Imam of the Islamic Center of Nashville. Nashville Scene, May 5, 2011. When the President and an imam declare that Bin Laden was not really a Muslim, it must be true.



Response: What a foolish arguement. If Osama did 9/11 (Click here or here for more on this) and killed innocents, he was wrong (Surah Maidah 5:32). But the question is did he really perform such acts. Well we never know for sure. Evidences suggest that he may or may not be responsible.If an imam, as per his personal understanding, thinks that Osama did so, then that is absolutely his own thinking. U cannot make it an opinion of all people in general. We prefer to say, "we don't know if osama did it or not". The Christian scholar, Professor Bart Ehran's book "Misquoting Jesus" claims they do not even have a "copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy" of anything from the original writings of any of the writers of the Old or the New Testament. Should we make it the opinion of all christians? We leave it to u.


You wrote: According to the establishment, we are to swallow their declarations as the full truth and go on about our business living in a world where all Islam is good. Those “bad” actions are done by I-know-they-are-practicing- jihad-but-they-are-not-really-Muslims Muslims. Or more succinctly: a jihadist is not really a Muslim. Really? A jihadist is not really a Muslim? This news is going to be such a disappointment to Mohammed, the original Mohammed, the jihadist Mohammed. And let us not leave out the jihadist Allah.

Response: It seems you are so misinformed about jihad. Jihad does not mean to kill disbelievers for any reason. Jihad means to struggle. A man once came to Prophet (saw) and told him that he wanted to perform jihad. Prophet(saw) asked him if his parents were alive. He replied in affirmative. Prophet(saw) then told him that he should look after his parents and that would be the greatest jihad for him ( Sahih Al Bukhari Hadith, 4.248). This struggle ,the jihad, can be against all evils such as corruption, adultery, oppression etc. Killing enemies can be called Jihad only when we are in a state of war or some1 is oppressing us. Quran chapter 9 verse 20 talks about jihad. Here is a good description of jihad. It may require fighting in Allah's cause, as a form of self sacrifice. But its essence consists in (1) A true and sincere faith, (2) An earnest and ceaseless activity. Mere fighting, killing and getting killed is opposed to the whole spirit of jihad, while a sincere scholar's pen or preacher's voice or a wealthy man's contributions may be most valuable forms of jihad. Nowhere does god associate killing and getting killed with jihad. In fact He (Allah swt) gives a different colour to it. As in 25:52 doing jihad with Quran not with a sword. This is the biggest jihad with the weapon of Allah's reveleation. Similarly 61:11 talks about jihad, with wealth again killing and getting killed is rejected. So if a person is a jihadist it won't be disappointing to anyone except people who want to promote evils in the world. U seem to be one of them sir.


You wrote: Should we declare that all of the first caliphs who were personal companions of Mohammed were not really Muslims as well? After all, all four of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (the first four leaders of Islam after Mohammed’s death) started where Mohammed left off and waged jihad for their entire lives. They created the first stage of the Islamic empire.Why did they practice jihad? Because they were taught by example by Mohammed.
Response: As i explained above the concept of jihad you have is wrong. Not once were the Khalifas(ra) unjust to anyone.Yes, Because they were taught by the example of the Prophet(saw). But what about your own religious authorities. The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholics against Muslims, though some campaigns were diverted to fight Greek Orthodox Christians in Byzantium. Later campaigns were waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Mongols, and Christian heretics.Orthodox Christians also took part in fighting against Islamic forces in some Crusades. Crusaders took vows and were granted a plenary indulgence by the pope. You also forgot what your own religious scripture taught you. 

1. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT).

2. They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

4. Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

5. But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

6. From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.  (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

7. Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.  (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

8. "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple."  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.  "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!"  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."  (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
These many of enough, you must be knowing many more.


You wrote: Mohammed’s example was crystal clear. According to the Sira, the sacred biography of Mohammed, he was involved in over 65 acts of jihad, or as we say today, 65 acts of terror. And that was in a 9 year period.

Response: Which sira did you found this in? Give references to what u say. Don't talk in air. It all depends on the sira u read from and the way it presents the incidents. Sira by Ibn Ishaq is unauthentic but is used by christians to prove us wrong. All acts of jihad need to be studied first. U have to see when did they take place and under what conditions. Examining the conditions in which the acts were performed is must.. You just cannot declare acts performed by Prophet (saw) and sahaba(ra) wrong on the basis of ur personal understanding and not looking into the history of that act. Rather read the barbaric acts from the bible which I posted above.

You wrote: Bin Laden was small fry, in comparison to Mohammed. Why are we being told that Bin Laden was not a real Muslim?

Response: Yes Prophet Mohammed(saw) was the best man in history. And no one is comparable to him as he was most pious .


U wrote: The propaganda is that violence has nothing to do with Islam. But Islam is based on Mohammed and he was violent in every way. He assassinated those who opposed him, enslaved thousands and sold them for money to wage jihad, he tortured men to death for money, tortured slaves to get information from them, created a policy of rape of Kafir women and on and on.

Response: It is not a propaganda but truth. Every war we fought was in self-defence or when the enemies threatened us unlike crusaders..And why do u again n again make empty claims? Why not give proofs? U claimed Prophet(saw) tortured slaves while prophet told us to consider them as brothers and give them food from what we eat, clothes from what we wear (al bukhari). Then u said prophet allowed rape of slaves. But Abu Musa Al-Asha’ri narrated that the Prophet said: "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward." while your Exodus 21 :4 says “ If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master." The man owns the slave, and even owns his wife and children if the slave got married while he was a slave. And u claimed without proofs that our Prophet enslaved thousands and sold them for money to wage jihad? Before lieng rather read Leviticus 25:44-46
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." What kind of a human value does the Bible give to slaves? If slaves and their children must be inherited and passed down to newer generations as slaves, then how in the world will they ever gain their freedom?


You wrote: The only reason to call Bin Laden a non-Muslim is that he did not do enough jihad. Oops, pardon me, terror. But wait! Maybe the reason that Bin Laden was not a Muslim was because it is true that violent behavior is not Islamic. And since Mohammed was much more violent than Bin Laden, we are left with the conclusion that Mohammed was not a Muslim. He was too violent to be a Muslim.
Response: Again just non-sense empty talk and nothing else.



You wrote: Of course, there is the argument that Mohammed had just the right amount of violence against the Kafirs (non-Muslims) and that he defines what is right about everything Islamic. In that case the imam and Barack Obama were wrong about Bin Laden.

Response: Again generalising the opinion of 2 people. Personal investigatios of imam cannot be made general. We can say he 'maybe' right. if so then Osama won't represent Prophet(saw) because Prophet (saw) never supported killing of innocent . Or the Imam may be wrong which makes Osama blame free.



You wrote: Now we have ourselves in a bind. Was Mohammed wrong or were Obama and the imam wrong? Hmmm. I am betting that Obama and the imam are wrong.
Response: Even if imam is right ,osama would himself be responsible for the acts he performed because Prophet Mohammed (saw) never supported terrorism and his ideas would be considered 100% different than Prophet's. But if imam is wrong then osama will be blame free.


You wrote: Bin Laden was a fine Muslim in the sense of being a fine jihadist, just like Mohammed, only not as violent. But Bin Laden was the student and Mohammed was the master.

Response: Prophet Mohammed(saw) was not violent rather he was a mercy for us. And if any person preaches terrorism (i am not talking about osama) then he has nothing to do with the Prophet(saw).



So it is proved one by one in this whole essay that u have made empty claims and nothing else.. Not once did u quote a reference to support your claim. It is better u stop pointing fingers at us and study ur own bible which is filled with violence..We can only pray for u. May ALLAH guide u to the truth.

Jazakallah.


(Written by Admin ''MP'' and edited by Admin Saaib Ahmed, we have tried to touch all the points but in case we missed any feel free to comment)
Reactions: 
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Response to "Refuting Paul Marcelrene's article ''Muhammad not a Muslim''"

  1. Anonymous Said,

    this looks good :)this looks good :)

    Posted on 18 September 2011 at 11:14

     
  2. paulmarcelrene Said,

    Wow, I just was informed of this overly weak attempt to refute anything of my article.

    When I have time, I will correct every single point you made as being wrong, false, or wrongly interpreted.

    I stand 100% behind as fact every single thing in the original post.

    And, as a side note, when attempting to quote the Holy Bible, use the ONLY valid English version, the KJV. All other versions are invalid, as in not valid translations and quoting them is the same as quoting an invalid version of the quran.

    Posted on 17 October 2011 at 05:29

     
  3. paulmarcelrene Said,

    I'd forgotten about this nonsense attempt to refute my article. After a thorough read just now, there is no point in wasting time to refute your statements. they are simply summarily dismissed and I reiterate everything in the original posting. For further revealed truths, please feel free to visit:

    http://www.scoop.it/t/islam-revealed

    Paul

    Posted on 10 May 2012 at 17:21

     

Post a Comment