Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part II), a post from JihadWatch.org, with comments

Continuing my responses to the disingenuous Islamic apologetics of Ahmadiyya leader Rizwan Khan in reply to Hugh Fitzgerald, which I began here.

7. Why did Muhammad attack the Jewish date farmers at the Khaybar Oasis?
What narration says that date farmers were attacked? Sahih Bukhari narrates that the farmers took refuge in the fort before battle began: “The Prophet (ﷺ) reached Khaibar in the morning, while the people were coming out carrying their spades over their shoulders. When they saw him they said, “This is Muhammad and his army! Muhammad and his army!” So, they took refuge in the fort. The Prophet (ﷺ) raised both his hands and said, “Allahu Akbar, Khaibar is ruined, for when we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then miserable is the morning of the warned ones.”” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/200)
Only after the people of Khaibar were given opportunity to prepare did battle between 1,600 Muslims and 10,000 Jews begin. Sahih Bukhari narrates: “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) reached Khaibar at night and it was his habit that, whenever he reached the enemy at night, he will not attack them till it was morning.” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/237)

Look closely at the quotations Khan provides, and you will see that they contradict his narrative. He claims that “Only after the people of Khaibar were given opportunity to prepare did battle between 1,600 Muslims and 10,000 Jews begin,” and offers as evidence of this a hadith that says that Muhammad reached Khaybar at night but didn’t attack until morning. But when Muhammad arrived that night, did he actually give the Jews of Khaybar “opportunity to prepare” for battle? No. The next morning the Jews of Khaybar did not come out for battle, but “were coming out carrying their spades over their shoulders,” and were completely surprised by the Muslims’ appearance. Obviously, no “opportunity to prepare” was given.

Moreover, Khan doesn’t actually answer Hugh Fitzgerald’s question, which was “Why did Muhammad attack the Jewish date farmers at the Khaybar Oasis?” All Khan does is try to fool us into thinking that Muhammad attacked in a humane manner. He leaves unaddressed the uncomfortable question of why Muhammad attacked a group of inoffensive farmers, because the answer is even more uncomfortable: he attacked them because they did not convert to Islam. They were “warned,” and did not heed the warning.

8. How many wives did Muhammad have, and why was he allowed more than anyone else?
All of his wives mentioned in authentic Ahadith were widows except for one wife who was divorced and one wife who was a virgin. He was allowed to marry more than anyone else to set an example for his people on how to fulfill the responsibilities of supporting older widows and their orphan children.

Well, that’s convenient. Funny how the master of the universe and creator and sustainer of all things couldn’t think of any way to illustrate the importance of fulfilling the responsibilities of supporting older widows and their orphan children except by allowing his favored prophet to live a life of unremitting debauchery.

9. Did Muhammad own slaves?
It is forbidden to make any free person into a slave. Sahih Bukhari narrates: “The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.’”” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/34/174)
Islam teaches that those who are already slaves are to be integrated and then gradually emancipated. Islam does not teach that slaves all slaves should be emancipated all at once. To emancipate without first integrating those who have been institutionalized into slavery is a meaningless emancipation.
Those captured as prisoners of war are not slaves, they can at the most only be held until the end of the war: “And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance.” (47:5) The Quran places the further restriction that enemy soldiers can only be captured on the battlefield: “It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land.” (8:68)”
There is no need to go into the many commandments on slavery found in the Bible.

Notice that Rizwan Khan doesn’t actually answer the question. Nowhere in his answer does he quote anything to the effect that Muhammad did not own slaves. The closest he gets is Qur’an 8:68 (8:67 in most numerations), which has Allah telling Muhammad not to take captives “until he engages in regular fighting in the land,” or, as it is more commonly translated, “until he inflicts a massacre in the land.” That is a call to kill some before he enslaves others. How moderate!

The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)

Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:

Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

And as for slavery in the Bible, yes, it is there. So is the idea of the dignity of all human beings before God that led to the abolitionist movement, which was spearheaded by Christian clerics. There was no abolitionist movement in Islam. Islamic countries only discarded slavery under Western pressure, and it is still widely practiced in North Africa.

10. Did Muhammad approve of slavery?
It is forbidden to make any free person into a slave. Sahih Bukhari narrates: “The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.’”” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/34/174)
Islam teaches that those who are already slaves are to be integrated and then gradually emancipated. Islam does not teach that slaves all slaves should be emancipated all at once. To emancipate without first integrating those who have been institutionalized into slavery is a meaningless emancipation.
Those captured as prisoners of war are not slaves, they can at the most only be held until the end of the war: “And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance.” (47:5) The Quran places the further restriction that enemy soldiers can only be captured on the battlefield: “It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land.” (8:68)”
There is no need to go into the many commandments on slavery found in the Bible.

Khan here simply repeats his answer for #9, again without answering the question. It is clear from my answer to #9 that Muhammad, the supreme model for emulation for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), approved of slavery.

Egypt: Sisi calls for restrictions on verbal divorce, al-Azhar says no
Two Muslims plead guilty to jihad plot to set off pressure-cooker bomb in New York City for the Islamic State

COMMENTS

  1. mortimer says

    February 12, 2017 at 4:45 am

    Rizwan Khan twists his mind around depravity, opportunism, sex addiction, sadism, bloodlust, extortion, highway robbery, enslavement, human trafficking, rape, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

    His conclusion? Mohammed had a compassionate character!

    This is how Islam destroys the mind.

    • Dacritic says

      February 13, 2017 at 2:43 am

      Yea. Very mysterious. If you repack who Muhammad is and give him another name, perhaps a Jewish or Christian name, they would agree with the rest of the world that that person was inhumane and probably should be killed for crimes against humanity. But when it’s Muhammad…suddenly its, “Oh, well…….er…….I’m sure he had a good reason for doing so.”

  2. efoc says

    February 12, 2017 at 5:22 am

    It’s great watching this exchange as an excellent example of how to rebut Islamic lies and deceit. Thank you Robert and Hugh.

  3. Angemon says

    February 12, 2017 at 8:15 am

    Sahih Bukhari narrates: “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) reached Khaibar at night and it was his habit that, whenever he reached the enemy at night, he will not attack them till it was morning.”

    Why did he wait until morning?

    https://sunnah.com/bukhari/10/8

    Narrated Humaid:

    Anas bin Malik said, “Whenever the Prophet (ﷺ) went out with us to fight (in Allah’s cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them.” Anas added, “We reached Khaibar at night and in the morning when he did not hear the Adhan for the prayer, he (the Prophet ) rode and I rode behind Abi Talha and my foot was touching that of the Prophet. The inhabitants of Khaibar came out with their baskets and spades and when they saw the Prophet (ﷺ) they shouted ‘Muhammad! By Allah, Muhammad and his army.’ When Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) saw them, he said, “Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.”

    “Adhan” is the islamic call to prayer. It’s not that muhammad was some sort of benign aggressor (as if such a thing was even possible), it’s just that he wanted to make sure that he was not attacking muslims. He didn’t hear the islamic call to prayer so he attacked.

  4. jewdog says

    February 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    Here are a couple of questions:
    1) Why did Adolph Hitler praise Islam over Christianity?
    2) Can I get a taqiyya salad at an Ahmadiyya restaurant, or are they only served at Mexican restaurants?

  5. Shan Lim says

    February 13, 2017 at 6:31 am

    The word translated as “slave” from the OT Hebrew word is `ebed עֶבֶד (a noun pronounced as eh’·ved). It stems from the root word (verb) עָבַד`abad (pronounced as ä·vad), which simply means to work or to serve. So, when you work for an employer, you’re working for the boss as in עָבַד`abad. When you’re forced against your will to work as a forced labor you’re also working as in עָבַד`abad.

    Therefore, the noun `ebed עֶבֶד can mean a slave (forced labor) as we understood in modern term or a bonded/indentured servant as practiced in ancient agricultural and pastoral society. The context will tell us which translation is the most correct.

    Therefore, not all translation where the Hebrew word is used means “slave” as we commonly understood, i.e. a forced labor. Certainly when it comes to islam’s captured booty of war, who is consigned to slavery or being raped like a piece of meat as described in the islamic texts, there is never a moral equivalent to God’s way as some islamophilic leftists and muslims would try to sell you.

    The following comparison of verses from the Bible will make it clear:

    Exodus 1:11-14 “Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

    Notice the descriptive terms “set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens”, “they were grieved”, “Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour”, “they made their lives bitter with hard bondage” …etc.

    This is a description of forced labor. Not an indentured servant who sold himself/herself or his/her children to work for a living. Furthermore, God delivered the Israelites from the slavery imposed by the Egyptians. Unlike islam, this is not an example commanded by God that as Christians we should do as described. On the contrary, Christians should do as what God did to save the Israelites, by saving those still serving as slaves in some part of the M.E. and elsewhere in our modern world.

    Compare this to the following verses:

    Deut 15:12-15 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.”

    Notice here that it is a Hebrew brethren willingly selling himself or herself to work or serve the Hebrew master. The servant isn’t captured as a booty i war.

    When you sold something, you get payment for what you sold. In this case, it’s the selling of one’s labor or service to work or serve the employer. The word translated as “sold” in this verse is the same Hebrew verb `ebed עֶבֶד, to work or to serve, as mentioned earlier before.

    So, when it comes to work as in forced labor, i.e. slavery, as experienced by the Israelites in Egypt, God clearly condemns it and thereby set to delivery them from this cruel slavery.

    In islam, however, the war captured infidel men, women and children suffered much worse fate. Hence, slavery in islam has a close moral equivalent to the Egyptian treatment of Hebrew slaves or much worse in terms of islamic sanctioned rape of women and young girls after witnessing the whole family members being slaughtered.

    Furthermore, in Deut 15:12-15, God clearly set down guidelines for the Hebrew master to treat their servants with kindness and to set them free with abundance in the 7th year no matter whether the servant is still indebted or not. The same cannot be said of islam.

    Also, if you buy a house, furniture, vehicle, etc, on loans and carry huge credit card debts in your household, you are in effect a slave having to work long hours and two jobs just to pay your mortgage and other debts in order to keep what you have and a roof over your head. In this case your masters are the global ruling cabal in high places who print money out of thin air and control everything you own and your livelihood. These devil’s spawn would want to project their own vice and wickedness unto Hebrew-Christian God so that you would lose faith in your belief in Christ. Never give them even an iota of chance!

  6. Rick Spencer says

    February 13, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    The reality is, and I say this knowing that they have also been brainwashed, that the Ahmadi Muslims are terribly persecuted by ‘mainstream’ Mohammedans, especially Sunni. The Ahmediyyas don’t carry out terror attacks, nor do they rape and plunder. They’re actually a rather peaceful bunch who have assimilated rather well in Britain (particularly) and in other parts of the West.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s