Appropriation and Disowning

Islam’s Paradoxical Claim About the Previous Scriptures

Introduction: The Tension at the Heart of Islamic Apologetics

One of the most striking features of Islamic theology is its relationship to the scriptures that came before it — the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel. The Qur’an is unambiguous: these texts were revealed by Allah to earlier prophets, all of whom were, according to Islam, Muslims. Moses, David, and Jesus were not Jewish or Christian in the Qur’anic telling; they were part of an unbroken chain of Islamic prophecy leading up to Muhammad.

Yet, the same Qur’an also insists that Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures (Arabic: taḥrīf). This creates an unavoidable paradox. If these were originally Islamic revelations, then to say they were corrupted is to admit that Islam’s own scriptures failed to remain intact. And if they are so corrupted as to be unreliable, then Muslims cannot consistently claim that Muhammad is foretold in them.

This essay explores that tension — how Islam both appropriates the Jewish and Christian scriptures as its own, then later disowns them as corrupted when they contradict Qur’anic claims, while still cherry-picking verses to retroactively insert Muhammad. It is a theological tactic that collapses under scrutiny, exposing Islam’s uneasy dependence on texts it simultaneously dismisses.

---

Step One: Appropriation — The Previous Scriptures as Islamic Texts

The Qur’an presents itself not as a new revelation but as a continuation:

• Surah 3:3 — “He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before as guidance for mankind.”

• Surah 21:48 — “And We gave Moses and Aaron the Criterion and a light and a reminder for the righteous.”

• Surah 57:27 — “We sent Jesus, son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.”

In all these cases, the Qur’an insists these books were revealed by Allah. They are not “Jewish” or “Christian” scriptures but Islamic scriptures entrusted to Muslim prophets.

From this framework, the Torah is not the property of Israel but Allah’s word; the Psalms are not Hebrew hymns but divine revelation; and the Gospel is not a Christian innovation but Allah’s message to Jesus.

Thus, Islam begins by claiming ownership of the very texts that define Judaism and Christianity.

---

Step Two: Disowning — The Charge of Corruption

Once this appropriation is established, however, Islam faces a serious problem. The existing Torah and Gospel contradict the Qur’an on every key point:

• The Torah affirms Israel’s covenant with Yahweh, not with “Allah” in the Qur’anic sense.

• The Psalms celebrate Zion, Jerusalem, and Davidic kingship, not a coming Arab prophet.

• The Gospels proclaim Jesus as the crucified and risen Son of God — the opposite of the Qur’an’s denial.

Instead of reconciling with these texts, the Qur’an pivots: it declares them corrupted.

• Surah 2:75 accuses some Jews of “hearing the words of Allah then distorting them after understanding.”

• Surah 3:78 charges them with “twisting their tongues with the Book so you may think it is from the Book when it is not.”

• Surah 5:13–15 repeats the claim of distortion and concealment.

This allows Islam to dismiss contradictions wholesale. Anything that disagrees with the Qur’an is “corruption”; anything that can be forced into agreement is “authentic.”

But this strategy is double-edged. If the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel were originally Islamic revelations, then the corruption claim is an admission that Allah’s own revelations were not preserved. In other words, Muslims cannot condemn Jews and Christians for corrupting their scriptures without simultaneously declaring that Islam’s scriptures were corrupted long before the Qur’an appeared.

---

Step Three: Cherry-Picking — Forcing Muhammad into the Texts

Despite branding the earlier texts as corrupted, Islam still insists that Muhammad was foretold within them.

Surah 7:157 claims Muhammad is described in “the Torah and the Gospel.” Muslim apologists for centuries have tried to find him:

• In Deuteronomy 18:18, they argue Moses foretold a prophet “like him” — claiming Muhammad fits better than Jesus.

• In Song of Songs 5:16, they read the Hebrew phrase maḥmaddîm (“altogether lovely”) as a veiled mention of “Muhammad.”

• In John 14–16, they argue Jesus’ promise of the “Paraclete” (Greek: paraklētos, helper/advocate) is actually a corruption of periklutos (“praised one”), which they equate with Muhammad.

The problem is obvious: if these texts are truly corrupted, then they cannot be used as evidence for Muhammad at all. And if they are trustworthy enough to predict him, then the charge of corruption collapses.

This is what logicians call special pleading — creating an arbitrary rule that only applies when convenient. Muslims accept “corruption” when the Bible contradicts the Qur’an, and “authenticity” when they think it supports Muhammad.

---

Logical Contradictions in the Corruption Claim

The Islamic position produces several fatal contradictions:

1. Self-Refutation

   • Premise 1: The Torah, Psalms, and Gospel were revealed by Allah.

   • Premise 2: They were corrupted by men.

   • Conclusion: Allah’s revelations are vulnerable to corruption.

   This undermines the Qur’an itself. If earlier revelations could be corrupted, what guarantees the Qur’an is not also corrupted?

2. Inconsistency

   • Muslims claim the Bible is too corrupted to trust — except when it allegedly predicts Muhammad.

   • This is a textbook case of cherry-picking and special pleading.

3. Historical Inaccuracy

   • The Qur’an assumes Jews and Christians deliberately rewrote their scriptures.

   • But manuscript evidence (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) shows remarkable textual stability centuries before Muhammad.

   • There is no evidence of a coordinated “corruption” campaign.

---

The Historical Record: No Evidence of Qur’anic Claims

Modern textual criticism decisively disproves the Qur’anic accusation.

• The Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BCE–1st century CE) confirm that the Hebrew Bible was stable long before Islam.

• Early New Testament manuscripts from the 2nd–3rd centuries CE (e.g., Papyrus 52, Papyrus 46) align closely with modern Bibles.

• The Codex Sinaiticus (mid-4th century CE) contains the full New Testament centuries before Muhammad.

By the time the Qur’an appeared in the 7th century, the biblical texts were already globally disseminated in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages. Any claim of wholesale corruption is historically impossible.

Thus, the corruption narrative is not evidence-based but a theological coping mechanism to explain away contradictions.

---

Appropriation and Disowning as a Tactic

When viewed as a whole, Islam’s strategy toward the previous scriptures can be summarized in three steps:

1. Appropriation — The Torah, Psalms, and Gospel are Islamic revelations given to Muslim prophets.

2. Disowning — When contradictions with the Qur’an arise, Muslims accuse Jews and Christians of corrupting them.

3. Cherry-Picking — Despite declaring them corrupted, Muslims still insist Muhammad is foretold in them.

This pattern is not unique to Islam; it is a classic case of intellectual appropriation followed by rejection. Islam cannot afford to ignore the Bible entirely because it provides historical legitimacy. But it also cannot accept it as it stands, because it contradicts core Islamic claims. The result is a selective, inconsistent, and ultimately incoherent doctrine.

---

Why This Matters

The corruption argument is more than an academic quibble. It shapes how Muslims engage with Jews and Christians today:

• Dialogue is undermined, since Muslims begin with the presumption that the other side’s scripture is unreliable.

• Missionary claims (da’wah) depend on forcing Muhammad into texts that are simultaneously discredited.

• Theological insecurity is masked by rhetorical confidence, but the contradictions are transparent once exposed.

For critics, apologists, and scholars alike, this issue is a litmus test of Islam’s intellectual credibility. If the Qur’an is Allah’s word, it must withstand historical and logical scrutiny. But on this point, it fails on both counts.

---

Conclusion: The House Built on Contradiction

Every time Muslims argue that the previous scriptures were corrupted, they are effectively saying that their own scriptures — revealed to earlier Muslim prophets — were corrupted. Every time they claim Muhammad is foretold in those same scriptures, they contradict their own corruption narrative.

The strategy of appropriation, disowning, and cherry-picking cannot hold up under critical examination. It is a theological escape hatch, not a coherent doctrine.

In the end, Islam’s claim collapses into self-refutation: it both owns and disowns the same scriptures, accuses them of corruption while relying on them for prophecy, and asserts their divine origin while denying their integrity. This is not revelation but contradiction.

---

Disclaimer: This post critiques Islam as an ideology, doctrine, and historical system—not Muslims as individuals. Every human deserves respect; beliefs do not.

Revaluation of Salvation for Non-Muslims

Traditional View: Salvation Exclusive to Muslims

In classical Islamic theology, many scholars historically held that salvation (eternal paradise) was primarily or exclusively reserved for Muslims—those who believed in the finality of Prophet Muhammad’s message and adhered to the core tenets of Islam. This view was often supported by verses such as:

• Quran 3:85:
  "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers."

• Quran 9:30:
  "The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah,' and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?"

These verses were traditionally interpreted as clear evidence that non-Muslims could not attain salvation, leading to a widespread belief in the exclusivity of paradise for Muslims.

---

Contemporary Reevaluations: A More Inclusive Approach

In modern times, many Islamic scholars and thinkers have reexamined the Quran and Hadith with a focus on context, linguistic analysis, and the broader message of divine mercy and justice. They argue that several verses provide a more inclusive view of salvation:

• Quran 2:62:
  "Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans—those who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."

• Quran 5:69:
  "Indeed, those who believe and those who are Jews, Sabeans, and Christians—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteousness—no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve."

These verses suggest that faith in God, righteous deeds, and sincerity are the primary criteria for salvation, regardless of religious label. This interpretation has led some scholars to propose a more universalist approach, where individuals of various faiths may attain salvation if they sincerely believe in God and act righteously.

---

Scholars Advocating Inclusivity

Several contemporary scholars have contributed to this inclusive understanding:

• Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905): An Egyptian scholar and reformer who emphasized rationalism and argued that salvation is linked to one’s morality and faith in God rather than religious identity.

• Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988): A Pakistani-American Islamic thinker who highlighted the Quran’s ethical teachings and argued that its spirit promotes divine justice, which is incompatible with condemning all non-Muslims.

• Seyyed Hossein Nasr: A contemporary Islamic philosopher who advocates for a spiritual and ethical understanding of Islam, emphasizing the universality of divine mercy.

• Tariq Ramadan: A Swiss-Egyptian scholar who has written extensively on the compatibility of Islam with pluralism and has argued for an understanding of salvation that is inclusive of all sincere believers.

---

Logical and Theological Justifications

Proponents of this inclusive interpretation argue based on:

• Divine Justice: An all-just and all-merciful God would not punish righteous individuals simply for adhering to a different religious tradition if they sincerely believed in God and practiced virtue.

• The Nature of Revelation: The Quran acknowledges the existence of earlier revelations (Torah, Gospel), and God’s guidance to various communities, implying a broader divine plan beyond Islam alone.

• Human Limitations: Since humans are not responsible for their birthplace or initial religious upbringing, punishing sincere non-Muslims would contradict divine fairness.

• Contextual Interpretation: The exclusive salvation verses are viewed as context-specific, related to rejecting the message of Prophet Muhammad after clear understanding rather than condemning all non-Muslims universally.

---

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Opponents of the inclusive view argue that it undermines the necessity of Islam as the final and complete revelation. They maintain that:

• Islam’s Finality: Accepting multiple paths to salvation could negate the purpose of Islam as the final, perfected religion (Quran 5:3).

• Clear Warnings in the Quran: Several verses explicitly warn against disbelief and emphasize that those who reject the Prophet’s message will not be saved.

• Risk of Relativism: An overly inclusive interpretation may lead to the idea that all religions are equally valid, which contradicts Islamic doctrine.

---

Conclusion: A Continuing Debate

The reevaluation of salvation in Islam reflects an ongoing debate between traditionalist exclusivism and modernist inclusivism. This debate highlights the dynamic nature of Islamic theology, where scholars continue to reexamine the Quran and Hadith in light of reason, context, and ethical principles.

Contextual Understanding of Jihad

Traditional View: Dual Aspects of Jihad

In early Islamic jurisprudence, the concept of jihad was understood in two primary forms:

1. Greater Jihad (Al-Jihad al-Akbar): Refers to the internal, spiritual struggle against one’s own desires, sins, and shortcomings. It is a personal and moral effort to attain piety and righteousness.

2. Lesser Jihad (Al-Jihad al-Asghar): Refers to the external struggle, which could include armed combat to defend the Muslim community (ummah) against aggression or oppression. This form of jihad is often associated with military conflict.

Classical Islamic scholars, such as those from the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali), provided detailed rulings on the conduct of jihad, including:

• Justification: Jihad was permitted primarily for defense or to protect the Muslim community.

• Conduct: Rules of engagement were established, such as prohibiting harm to non-combatants, women, children, and religious clerics.

• Authority: Only a legitimate Muslim ruler could declare jihad.

These understandings were based on Quranic verses such as:

• Quran 2:190:
  "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors."

• Quran 9:29:
  "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful..."

• Quran 22:39:
  "Permission to fight is given to those who are being fought, because they have been wronged."

These verses, in their traditional interpretation, were understood as divine commands for the Muslim community to defend itself against external threats.

---

Contemporary Reevaluations: A Contextual Approach

In modern times, many Islamic scholars have reexamined the concept of jihad, focusing on its spiritual, ethical, and contextual aspects. They argue that:

• Jihad is primarily spiritual: The greater jihad (struggle against the self) is emphasized as the core meaning of jihad, while the lesser jihad (armed struggle) is seen as a secondary and conditional aspect.

• Historical Context Matters: Many of the verses related to military jihad are understood to be context-specific, revealed during periods when the early Muslim community in Medina was under threat from hostile tribes or empires.

• Conditional Warfare: Even when military jihad is permitted, it is strictly regulated, and its primary purpose is defensive rather than offensive. Aggression, excessive violence, and targeting civilians are strictly prohibited.

• Global Ethics: Scholars argue that the universal ethical principles of Islam, such as justice, mercy, and the protection of human dignity, take precedence over any specific historical commands.

Key Quranic verses often cited in this modern understanding include:

• Quran 5:32:
  "Whoever kills an innocent soul—it is as if he has killed all of humanity. And whoever saves one—it is as if he has saved all of humanity."

• Quran 60:8:
  "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes—from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."

---

Scholars Advocating Contextual Understanding

Several contemporary scholars have emphasized this contextual understanding:

• Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905): The Egyptian reformer argued that jihad must be understood in light of its moral purpose—protecting the oppressed and ensuring justice.

• Fazlur Rahman (1919–1988): A Pakistani-American scholar who highlighted the ethical principles of the Quran and argued that jihad should always aim for peace and justice.

• Tariq Ramadan: A Swiss-Egyptian scholar who stresses that the spiritual and moral aspects of jihad must take precedence over any militant interpretations.

• Yusuf al-Qaradawi: A prominent Egyptian scholar who, while accepting the legitimacy of defensive jihad, emphasized that aggression is prohibited and that jihad must always align with ethical principles.

• Hamza Yusuf: An American Islamic scholar who has emphasized that the term "jihad" has been misunderstood and misused by extremists and that its primary meaning is spiritual struggle.

---

Logical and Theological Justifications

Proponents of the contextual understanding of jihad base their views on several key arguments:

• Ethical Priority: Islam's ethical principles (justice, mercy, and peace) are universal and must guide all interpretations of jihad.

• Historical Specificity: Verses of the Quran revealed in the context of warfare (such as during the battles of Badr, Uhud, and the conquest of Mecca) should be understood within their specific historical context.

• Prophet Muhammad’s Conduct: The Prophet’s interactions with his enemies, including his clemency at the conquest of Mecca, are viewed as evidence of a preference for peace and forgiveness.

• Divine Prohibition of Aggression: The Quran’s clear prohibition of transgression in warfare (Quran 2:190) is cited as a foundational principle.

---

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Those who reject this modern, contextual interpretation argue that:

• Classical Jurisprudence is Clear: The traditional rules of jihad, as defined by the four Sunni schools, should not be reinterpreted based on modern sensibilities.

• Islam’s Universality: Some traditional scholars maintain that jihad can be used to establish Islamic governance over non-Muslim lands, viewing it as a divine mandate.

• Risk of Dilution: Overemphasizing the spiritual aspect of jihad may weaken the Muslim community’s ability to defend itself.

• Literalism: Groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda have exploited a literal, militant interpretation of jihad to justify terrorism, rejecting the modern contextual approach.

---

Modern Applications and Peacebuilding

The contextual understanding of jihad has led to several modern applications:

• Educational Campaigns: Scholars like Hamza Yusuf and Tariq Ramadan have led educational initiatives to clarify the true meaning of jihad.

• Interfaith Dialogue: Emphasizing the spiritual and peaceful aspects of jihad has facilitated better relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

• Counter-Terrorism: Many Muslim-majority countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have promoted this understanding to combat extremist narratives.

• Humanitarian Initiatives: Jihad is often redefined as a struggle to alleviate suffering, fight poverty, and promote education.

---

Conclusion: A Continuing Debate

The reinterpretation of jihad is a central issue in modern Islamic thought. It reflects a broader struggle between traditionalist literalism and contextualist ethical approaches. While extremist groups misuse jihad to justify violence, mainstream Muslim scholars emphasize its spiritual, defensive, and ethical dimensions.

 What was Jihad in Mohammad's time?

Jihad in Muhammad’s Time: A Historical Analysis

1. Definition and Meaning

During the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (570–632 CE), the term "jihad" (جهاد) primarily meant "striving" or "struggling" in the way of God (fi sabilillah). This struggle took various forms:

• Spiritual Jihad: The internal struggle against sin, temptation, and immoral behavior.

• Verbal Jihad: Proclaiming the message of Islam and refuting falsehoods through peaceful means.

• Social Jihad: Working for justice, charity, and the betterment of society.

• Physical Jihad (Armed Struggle): Defensive military action to protect the Muslim community from aggression.

---

2. Stages of Jihad in Muhammad’s Life

Jihad in Muhammad's time can be divided into three major phases:

A. Meccan Period (610–622 CE): Peaceful Struggle

• Muhammad began his mission in Mecca, where he and his followers faced severe persecution, including verbal abuse, economic boycotts, and physical violence.

• During this period, Muslims were commanded to remain patient and avoid retaliation:

  • Quran 16:125: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in the best manner."

  • Quran 73:10: "Be patient over what they say and avoid them with gracious avoidance."

• No permission for armed resistance was granted in Mecca. Jihad here was purely spiritual and verbal, focusing on patience and perseverance.

---

B. Early Medinan Period (622–624 CE): Defensive Warfare

• After the Hijra (migration) to Medina, the Muslim community established a city-state, but they were still threatened by the Quraysh tribe of Mecca.

• Permission for defensive fighting was granted:

  • Quran 22:39-40: "Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... and Allah is capable of granting them victory."

• The first significant battle, the Battle of Badr (624 CE), was fought in this context:

  • A defensive response to a Meccan army threatening the Muslim community.

  • Muslims saw this victory as a divine confirmation of their mission.

---

C. Late Medinan Period (624–632 CE): Regulated Warfare and Peace Initiatives

• Jihad evolved into a broader concept of "regulated warfare" with strict ethical guidelines:

  • Prohibition of targeting civilians, women, children, and religious figures.

  • Protection of prisoners and humane treatment of captives.

  • Prohibition of destroying crops, livestock, and religious sites.

• Key conflicts during this period included:

  • Battle of Uhud (625 CE): A defensive battle where Muslims were initially successful but faced defeat due to disobedience among some fighters.

  • Battle of the Trench (627 CE): A defensive siege where Muslims dug a trench to protect Medina from a massive Meccan coalition.

  • Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (628 CE): A peace treaty with the Quraysh, showing that Muhammad preferred peaceful resolutions when possible.

• After the conquest of Mecca (630 CE), Muhammad granted amnesty to his former enemies, declaring:

  • "Go, for you are free."

• The final major campaign, the Battle of Tabuk (631 CE), was a preemptive defensive measure against a possible Byzantine invasion, but it ended without combat.

---

3. Ethical Principles of Jihad in Muhammad’s Time

• Prohibition of Transgression:

  • Quran 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors."

• Commitment to Peace:

  • Quran 8:61: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah."

• Justice and Mercy:

  • Prisoners of war were treated humanely, and many were released without ransom.

  • Non-combatants were strictly protected.

---

4. Was Jihad Primarily Offensive or Defensive in Muhammad’s Time?

• Primarily Defensive:
  Most battles in Muhammad’s time were defensive, responding to direct threats against the Muslim community (e.g., Badr, Uhud, Trench).

• Strategic Preemptive Measures:
  Some campaigns (like Tabuk) were preemptive to counter external threats, but these were not general wars of expansion.

• Diplomatic Efforts Preferred:
  Muhammad’s willingness to negotiate peace (Hudaybiyyah) and his leniency after the conquest of Mecca highlight a preference for peaceful solutions.

---

5. Key Misconceptions Corrected

• Jihad was not a "holy war." The term "holy war" (a concept from medieval European Christianity) does not exist in Islamic scripture. Jihad is a broad concept that includes spiritual, social, and defensive military aspects.

• Jihad was not for forced conversion. Quranic teachings clearly state:

  • Quran 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion..."

• Military Jihad was conditional and regulated: It was only permitted under specific circumstances (defense, protection of the oppressed) and with strict ethical rules.

Historical Instances of Forced Conversion or Religious Violence in Early Islam

A Strict Evidence-Based Analysis

To determine if there were forced conversions or religious violence in early Islam, we must rely strictly on primary historical sources (Quran, Hadith, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Al-Tabari’s History of Prophets and Kings) without relying on later interpretations or doctrinal defenses.

---

1. Quranic Principle: No Compulsion in Religion

• Quran 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands clear from falsehood..."

• This verse is often cited as a fundamental principle of religious freedom in Islam.

• However, this verse must be examined in the context of historical actions to see if it was universally applied.

---

2. Forced Conversion or Religious Violence in Practice

A. Campaign Against Banu Qurayza (627 CE)

• Source: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari.

• Event: After the Battle of the Trench, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza was besieged, accused of conspiring with the Quraysh against the Muslims.

• Outcome:

  • All adult male members of the tribe (estimated between 600–900) were executed.

  • Women and children were taken as slaves.

  • There is no record of forced conversion, but the violence was severe and aimed at ensuring political dominance.

B. Conquest of Mecca (630 CE)

• Source: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, Sahih Bukhari.

• Event: Muhammad led an army to conquer Mecca.

• Outcome:

  • General amnesty was declared, but a list of individuals (around 10-12) was exempt from this amnesty and sentenced to death for crimes against the Muslim community.

  • These individuals could avoid death by accepting Islam.

  • In practice, most were forgiven upon conversion or repentance.

C. Conversion of the Thaqif Tribe at Ta'if (630 CE)

• Source: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari.

• Event: The tribe of Thaqif initially resisted and was besieged at Ta'if.

• Outcome:

  • The siege ended without success, but the tribe later accepted Islam.

  • It is debated whether this was voluntary or due to economic and social pressure following their isolation.

---

3. Specific Cases Indicating Pressure for Conversion:

• Yemen under Ali ibn Abi Talib:

  • Source: Sahih Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 53, Hadith 384).

  • Ali, acting as Muhammad’s governor, was instructed to offer Islam to the people of Yemen, with the options being conversion, payment of Jizya (tax for non-Muslims), or conflict.

• Bahrain and the Conversion of Banu Hanifa:

  • Source: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari.

  • Following Muhammad’s death, the Banu Hanifa initially apostasized (left Islam) but were later reconquered under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

---

4. Analysis: Forced Conversion vs. Coercion through Pressure

• Direct forced conversion (convert or die) is not clearly documented in early Islamic sources.

• However, coercion through pressure (social, economic, political) was applied in many cases.

• In conquered areas, populations were often presented with three options:

  1. Accept Islam.

  2. Pay the Jizya (tax) and remain non-Muslim.

  3. Engage in conflict.

• The choice of paying Jizya was a means to allow non-Muslims to retain their faith but placed them in a subordinate position as dhimmis (protected but second-class citizens).

---

5. Conclusion:

• The Quranic principle of "no compulsion in religion" was not universally applied in practice.

• While direct forced conversion was rare, religious violence (Banu Qurayza) and conversion under pressure (Ta'if, Yemen) did occur.

• Conquered populations were often given a choice between conversion, paying Jizya, or facing conflict.

Early Islamic Conquests

Evidence-Based Analysis

Introduction

This document provides a strictly evidence-based analysis of the major battles, conflicts, and events in early Islamic history, focusing on the role of religious violence, forced conversion, and coercion. All events are examined using only primary historical sources (Quran, Hadith, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Al-Tabari’s History of Prophets and Kings) without any reliance on traditional Islamic narratives or doctrinal justifications.

1. The Battle of Badr (624 CE)

• Primary Source: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari.

• Event: Muhammad led a Muslim force to raid a Quraysh caravan.

• Outcome: The Quraysh mobilized a force to defend their caravan but were defeated at Badr.

• Nature of Conflict: Offensive (Muslim-initiated raid) transformed into a defensive battle for the Quraysh.

2. Banu Qurayza Massacre (627 CE)

• Primary Source: Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Bukhari.

• Event: The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza was besieged by Muhammad, accused of treachery.

• Outcome: All adult male members (600-900) were executed, women and children enslaved.

• Forced Conversion: Some members were given the option to convert to Islam to save their lives.

• Nature of Conflict: Religious violence and forced conversion.

3. Conquest of Mecca (630 CE)

• Primary Source: Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim.

• Event: Muhammad entered Mecca with a large army.

• Outcome: General amnesty declared, but specific enemies were executed unless they accepted Islam.

• Nature of Conflict: Religious violence and coerced conversion for some.

4. The Ridda Wars (632–634 CE)

• Primary Source: Al-Tabari, Sahih Bukhari.

• Event: Abu Bakr fought Arab tribes who abandoned Islam after Muhammad's death.

• Outcome: Thousands killed, tribes forcibly reconverted to Islam.

• Nature of Conflict: Religious violence and forced conversion.

5. Conquest of Persia (636–651 CE)

• Primary Source: Al-Tabari, Baladhuri’s Futuh al-Buldan.

• Event: Muslim armies defeated the Sassanian Empire.

• Outcome: Zoroastrians forced to convert, temples destroyed, heavy Jizya tax imposed.

• Nature of Conflict: Religious violence and forced conversion through economic pressure.

6. Conquest of Egypt (640–642 CE)

• Primary Source: Al-Tabari, Baladhuri.

• Event: Muslim forces under Amr ibn al-As invaded Egypt.

• Outcome: Copts were forced to choose between Islam, paying Jizya, or death.

• Nature of Conflict: Religious violence and forced conversion through economic pressure.

7. Jizya Tax as Coercion

• Primary Source: Quran 9:29, Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir.

• Event: Non-Muslims were required to pay Jizya under Muslim rule.

• Outcome: Those who could not pay faced imprisonment or conversion.

• Nature of Coercion: Economic pressure leading to conversion.

Conclusion

The historical evidence is clear: forced conversion, religious violence, and coercion were integral to the early expansion of Islam. Despite the Quranic principle of "no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256), the practice of early Islamic conquests reveals a consistent pattern of forced conversions, massacres, and coercion under economic pressure. This reality directly contradicts the narrative of peaceful Islamic expansion. 

 What would Islamic belief look like if Hadiths were removed entirely? 

What practices would disappear?

If Hadiths (sayings and actions of Muhammad) were entirely removed from Islamic belief and practice, Islam would be fundamentally transformed. This is because Hadiths are the primary source for many essential beliefs, rituals, and legal rulings in Islam that are not explicitly detailed in the Quran.

1. Core Beliefs: Minimal Impact

• Tawhid (Oneness of God): Remains intact because it is directly derived from the Quran.

• Prophethood of Muhammad: Remains but is limited to his role as a messenger without detailed knowledge of his life or character.

• Day of Judgment, Angels, Divine Books: Remain because they are mentioned in the Quran.

---

2. Worship Practices: Drastically Changed

• Five Daily Prayers (Salah):

  • The Quran commands prayer but does not specify the number of prayers, their times, or the exact method (standing, bowing, prostration).

  • Without Hadith, Muslims would not know how to perform wudu (ablution), the recitations, or the direction of prayer (Qibla) beyond vague instructions.

• Fasting in Ramadan (Sawm):

  • The Quran commands fasting in Ramadan (Quran 2:183), but the detailed rules (start time, end time, exemptions) are from Hadith.

  • Without Hadith, the rules of suhoor (pre-dawn meal) and iftar (breaking fast) would be unclear.

• Zakat (Almsgiving):

  • The Quran commands giving zakat but does not specify the rate (2.5% on wealth) or the categories of eligible recipients in detail.

• Hajj (Pilgrimage):

  • The Quran commands Hajj (Quran 22:27) but provides almost no details on the rituals (Tawaf, Sa’i, Arafat, Mina, stoning the pillars), all of which are based on Hadith.

---

3. Legal System: Almost Entirely Eliminated

• Criminal Law (Hudud):

  • Punishments for theft (amputation of the hand), adultery (stoning), and apostasy (death) are derived from Hadith, not the Quran.

  • Without Hadith, Islamic criminal law would lack these penalties.

• Marriage and Divorce:

  • Polygamy (limit of four wives) is in the Quran (Quran 4:3), but the rules of marriage contracts, witnesses, dowry (Mahr), and divorce procedures (Talaq, Iddah) are all from Hadith.

• Inheritance:

  • Quran provides basic inheritance shares (Quran 4:11-12), but Hadith provides the method of calculation and exceptions.

• Business Transactions:

  • Prohibitions of Riba (usury), Gharar (excessive uncertainty), and other commercial rules are clarified in Hadith.

---

4. Dietary Laws: Major Changes

• Halal Slaughter (Dhabiha):

  • The Quran only prohibits dead animals, blood, pork, and food dedicated to other than Allah (Quran 5:3).

  • The method of halal slaughter, the requirement of pronouncing Allah’s name, and other dietary rules are from Hadith.

• Intoxicants:

  • The Quran forbids intoxicants (Khamr), but Hadith clarifies that this applies to all forms of alcohol, not just wine.

---

5. Social and Ethical Conduct: Transformed

• Hijab (Veiling):

  • The Quran mentions modesty (Quran 24:31, 33:59) but does not specify the exact form of veiling for women (face covering, headscarf). This is clarified in Hadith.

• Gender Roles:

  • The Hadiths provide the basis for concepts such as "the man as the head of the family," women’s testimony worth half of men’s, and men’s authority over women.

• Mourning Practices:

  • The rules for mourning periods, funeral prayers (Janazah), and burial procedures are entirely from Hadith.

---

6. Islamic Theology and Spirituality: Drastically Changed

• Concept of Shirk (Associating partners with Allah):

  • The Quran condemns Shirk, but Hadith specifies practices that are considered Shirk (visiting graves, invoking saints).

• Dua (Supplication):

  • While the Quran encourages prayer, the format, recommended duas, and occasions (before sleep, before travel) are from Hadith.

• Exorcism (Ruqyah):

  • Without Hadith, the method of exorcism, specific verses for healing, and practices to avoid evil eye (Ayn) would disappear.

---

7. Historical Knowledge of Muhammad: Almost Erased

• Biography of Muhammad (Seerah):

  • Most of what is known about Muhammad's life, his character, his battles, and his interactions with companions is from Hadith and the Sira literature (Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari).

  • Without Hadith, Muhammad would be a mostly unknown figure except for a few brief references in the Quran (as a messenger, a good example).

• Details of his family (Khadijah, Aisha, Fatima, Ali) would be lost.

• His sermons (Khutbahs), letters, and treaties (like Hudaybiyyah) would not exist.

---

8. Sects and Schools of Thought: Drastically Affected

• Sunni-Shia Split:

  • The Hadiths are the primary source for the Sunni-Shia split because they provide the basis for the story of Ghadir Khumm (Shia) and the role of the Rashidun Caliphs (Sunni).

• Madhabs (Legal Schools):

  • The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools are all based heavily on Hadith interpretations.

  • Without Hadith, these schools would lose their legal authority.

---

Conclusion: A Quran-Only Islam Would Be Radically Different

• Without Hadith, Islam would become a minimalist faith focused only on monotheism (Tawhid), prayer (in an undefined form), and basic moral principles.

• Most rituals, legal systems, social norms, and historical knowledge would be lost.

• It would resemble a Deist or minimalist faith, with personal spirituality but without the detailed rituals and laws of traditional Islam.

Divine Preservation

Agreement Between Torah and Quran

Introduction

This document provides a strictly evidence-based analysis of the concept of divine preservation in both the Torah (Judaism) and the Quran (Islam). It demonstrates that both scriptures agree on the principle that God's word cannot be changed or corrupted, and it exposes the logical contradiction in the Islamic claim that the Torah and Gospel were corrupted.

1. The Torah’s Claim of Divine Preservation

• Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it..."

• Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever."

• Psalm 119:89: "Your word, Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens."

• Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the Lord are pure words... You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever."

2. The Quran’s Claim of Divine Preservation

• Quran 6:115: "And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His words."

• Quran 10:64: "There will be no change in the words of Allah."

• Quran 15:9: "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder (Quran), and indeed, We will be its guardian."

• Quran 18:27: "Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words."

3. Quranic Confirmation of the Torah

• Quran 3:3-4: "He has revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what came before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel."

• Quran 5:44: "Indeed, We revealed the Torah, in which was guidance and light."

• Quran 10:94: "So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you."

4. Logical Analysis: Divine Preservation Cannot Contradict

• Premise 1: God’s word cannot be changed (Torah: Isaiah 40:8; Quran: 6:115, 18:27).

• Premise 2: The Torah is God’s word (Quran 3:3, 5:44).

• Premise 3: The Quran confirms the Torah as "guidance and light" (Quran 5:44).

• Conclusion: The Torah is preserved and uncorrupted.

5. The Contradiction in the Islamic Claim of Corruption

• If the Torah is preserved (as both the Torah and Quran claim), then the Islamic belief that it was corrupted is false.

• Any Quranic teachings that contradict the Torah (like denying the crucifixion of Jesus) are in conflict with a preserved divine revelation.

• The Islamic claim of "textual corruption" directly contradicts the Quran’s own logic.

6. Conclusion

The Torah and the Quran both claim divine preservation of God’s word. The Quran confirms the Torah as "guidance and light," which means it acknowledges its authenticity. The Islamic claim that the Torah was corrupted directly contradicts both the Torah’s and the Quran’s teaching. This exposes a fundamental logical problem in the claim of Islam being a continuation of Abraham’s faith.

Lying (Taqiyya) in Islamic Doctrine

An Evidence-Based Analysis

Taqiyya (تقية) is a concept in Islamic jurisprudence that permits lying or concealing one’s beliefs under specific circumstances. This doctrine is most commonly associated with Shia Islam, but it has also been recognized by some Sunni scholars in certain situations.

---

1. Quranic Basis for Taqiyya:

• Quran 3:28:
  "Let not the believers take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever [does that] has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence..."

  • This verse allows Muslims to show outward friendliness or allegiance to non-Muslims if they fear harm.

• Quran 16:106:
  "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith..."

  • This verse explicitly permits a Muslim to deny their faith under compulsion (to save their life) as long as their inner belief remains unchanged.

---

2. Hadith Basis:

• Sahih Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 369):

  • Ammar ibn Yasir, one of Muhammad's companions, was tortured by the Meccans and forced to curse Muhammad.

  • When he returned to Muhammad in tears, the Prophet told him:
    "If they do it again, you may do the same."

• Sunan Abu Dawood (Hadith 4873):

  • Muhammad said: "War is deceit."

  • This establishes the permissibility of deception in warfare.

---

3. Definition and Application of Taqiyya:

• Taqiyya (Shia Islam): Primarily a doctrine of the Shia sect, developed due to historical persecution by Sunni rulers.

  • It allows Shia Muslims to hide their beliefs to avoid persecution or death.

  • Recognized in the Ja'fari school of jurisprudence (main Shia school).

• Tawriya (Sunni Islam): A related concept of using ambiguous language or misleading statements without directly lying.

  • For example, if asked directly if one is a Muslim, a Sunni in danger may say, "I follow the truth," which is technically correct without revealing their faith.

• General Permissibility (Sunni Islam): While not officially called "Taqiyya," Sunni scholars allow lying in three cases (Hadith in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah):

  1. In war.

  2. To reconcile between two people.

  3. Between husband and wife (to maintain harmony).

---

4. Historical Development of Taqiyya:

• Shia Islam:

  • Developed during periods of severe persecution by Sunni caliphates, such as the Umayyads and Abbasids.

  • Shia Muslims were forced to hide their beliefs to survive, making Taqiyya a practical necessity.

• Sunni Islam:

  • Although less emphasized, the concept is also recognized in specific situations (war, danger, reconciliation).

---

5. Logical Justification for Taqiyya:

• Self-Preservation: A person is not obligated to openly profess their faith if it would lead to torture, death, or severe harm.

• Warfare and Strategy: Deception is seen as a legitimate tool in war, just as in standard military tactics.

• Diplomatic Flexibility: Allows Muslims to navigate hostile environments without risking their lives.

---

6. Misunderstandings About Taqiyya:

• Not a License for General Lying:

  • Taqiyya is permitted only under specific circumstances (danger, persecution, warfare).

  • It is not a general permission for deceit in all matters.

• Not Limited to Shia Islam:

  • Although primarily a Shia doctrine, it is also recognized in Sunni jurisprudence under different names (Tawriya, deception in war).

---

7. Controversies Surrounding Taqiyya:

• Critics argue that Taqiyya can be used to justify dishonesty in interfaith dialogue, diplomacy, or religious debate.

• Islamic scholars counter that Taqiyya is a defensive measure, not a strategy for general deception.

• Contradictions arise when the concept is expanded beyond its original context, leading to accusations of dishonesty.

Critical Analysis

"Islam According to Itself: The Story Begins"

This text presents Islam’s self-understanding, but when analyzed critically, several significant logical and historical issues become apparent:

---

1. Islam’s Self-Understanding: A Continuation, Not a Beginning

Claim:

• Islam presents itself as the original religion revealed by God, not a new faith.

• All true prophets were essentially "Muslims" (submitters to Allah).

• Muhammad is the final prophet, the culmination of all previous revelations.

Logical Problems:

• Circular Reasoning: Islam claims to be the original faith by redefining the term "Muslim" to mean anyone who submits to God. But this is a redefinition, not a historical fact.

• Retrospective Labeling: Figures like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus are described as "Muslims" despite belonging to religious traditions that predate Islam by centuries. This is a form of historical revisionism.

• Contradiction with Historical Records:

  • Abraham: Historically associated with Judaism, not Islam.

  • Moses: The Torah (Jewish scripture) directly contradicts Islamic teachings.

  • Jesus: The New Testament presents Jesus as the Son of God, which directly contradicts the Quran’s view (Quran 4:171).

---

2. The Concept of Universal Prophethood

Claim:

• God sent approximately 124,000 prophets to all nations throughout history, each preaching the same message of monotheism.

• These include biblical figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.

Problems:

• Lack of Evidence: The Quran provides no historical evidence for the claim of 124,000 prophets, and this number is not supported by any historical or archaeological record.

• Contradiction with Biblical Accounts:

  • The Torah does not recognize Muhammad or any prophet resembling him.

  • The New Testament identifies Jesus as the final messenger of the covenant (Hebrews 1:1-2), which contradicts the Islamic view of Muhammad as the final prophet.

• Contradiction with Quranic Preservation: If all prophets taught the same message of Islam, why were their teachings supposedly corrupted, while the Quran is preserved? This suggests a failure in divine protection.

---

3. The Role of Scriptures

Claim:

• God revealed scriptures to specific prophets:

  • Suhuf (Scrolls) to Abraham.

  • Tawrah (Torah) to Moses.

  • Zabur (Psalms) to David.

  • Injil (Gospel) to Jesus.

  • Quran to Muhammad, which is final and uncorrupted.

Problems:

• No Evidence for Suhuf: There is no historical or archaeological evidence for the "Scrolls of Abraham".

• Contradictory Messages:

  • The Torah (Jewish scripture) is fundamentally different in doctrine and law from the Quran.

  • The Gospel (Injil), as recorded in the New Testament, teaches the crucifixion of Jesus and his divine sonship, which the Quran denies (Quran 4:157, 5:116).

• The Problem of Corruption: The Quran claims to confirm the Torah and Gospel (Quran 5:44, 5:46), but also claims they were corrupted.

  • If they were corrupted, how can the Quran confirm them?

  • If they were preserved, then the Quran’s contradictions cannot be explained.

---

4. The Claim that All Prophets Were Muslims

Claim:

• All true prophets (including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus) were Muslims because they submitted to Allah.

Problems:

• Misleading Use of the Term "Muslim": Historically, the term "Muslim" is a label specific to the followers of Muhammad, beginning in the 7th century.

• Retrospective Reinterpretation: By labeling all prophets as "Muslims," Islam reinterprets their beliefs and teachings to align with Islamic doctrine, ignoring their historical and religious context.

• Direct Quranic Contradiction:

  • Abraham: The Torah (Genesis 17:1-8) presents him as the patriarch of the Jewish covenant, not an Islamic prophet.

  • Jesus: The New Testament (John 14:6) identifies him as the way, the truth, and the life, directly opposing the Quranic claim (Quran 5:116).

---

5. Muhammad as the Final Messenger

Claim:

• Muhammad is the last and final prophet, completing a long line of messengers.

• His message is universal, for all humanity.

Problems:

• Contradiction with the Bible:

  • The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18:18) is often claimed by Muslims as a prophecy of Muhammad, but it specifies a prophet from the "brethren of Israel" (not the Ishmaelites).

  • The New Testament (John 14:16) is also claimed as a prophecy, but the text refers to the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad.

• Historical Revisionism: By claiming Muhammad is the final prophet, Islam invalidates the core teachings of Judaism (Moses as lawgiver) and Christianity (Jesus as divine savior).

• Theological Inconsistency: If Muhammad’s message is universal, why were previous revelations (Torah, Gospel) limited to specific peoples?

  • If all prophets preached Islam, then why do their scriptures contain radically different teachings?

---

6. The Problem of Divine Preservation and Corruption

Claim:

• All previous scriptures (Torah, Gospel) were corrupted, but the Quran is perfectly preserved.

Problems:

• Contradicts Quran’s Own Words: The Quran confirms the Torah and Gospel as "guidance and light" (Quran 5:44-46), while also claiming they were corrupted.

• Logically Inconsistent: If God’s word cannot be changed (Quran 6:115, 18:27), then the Torah and Gospel cannot be corrupted.

• Historical Reality: The text of the Torah and New Testament is well-preserved, with thousands of ancient manuscripts confirming their integrity.

---

7. Conclusion: Islam’s Narrative is a Retrospective Claim

• Islam’s claim of being the "original, unchanging religion" is a retrospective redefinition that reinterprets the beliefs and teachings of previous religions.

• By claiming all prophets were Muslims, Islam effectively replaces their historical and theological contexts with a single Islamic narrative.

• The claim that the Torah and Gospel were corrupted contradicts the Quran’s own principle of divine preservation.

• Islam is not a "continuation" of Abrahamic faiths, but a replacement of them, presenting itself as the final and correct version while rejecting the actual teachings of Judaism and Christianity.