The Bible said that??!!


Junior Member
Walaikum assalam brother Bluegazer

Although i agree with you, i still think it would've been best if you refuted Geert Wilders claims instead of getting critical of Christianity.

I think you have brought some excellent points to my attention. Especially the following

Bluegazer said:
Another way is to show him that he [i.e., the Christian] is using a double standard. By quoting -to the Christian- a Biblical verse such as "Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock. [Psalms 137:8-9], you will gain his attention and he will -for the first time- be willing to listen to your argument.

I agree with you here. I think a great way to make a Christian understand their errors about Islam is to find a parallel with the Quran and the Bible. This is so they understand their errors and eliminate it from their minds. The more knowledge we pour in, the more ignorance gets poured out.

My concern was the way you suggested approaching Christians. I know it's haram to ridicule other religions, but to my estimation it was also wrong to tarnish the image of other religions. When i say "tarnish the image" i mean trying to defile other religions by getting extremely critical of them. However, i agree with you, as long as its done in a manner that isn't deceitful, (which you already pointed out) then it appears to me that it's in accordance with islamic teachings. Remember, as muslims we're to be noble mannered and we're to achieve high values and ethics. So in anything we do, we must keep that in mind as well, even when we have to be stern with the non-muslims.

Another issue i would like to address is that this type of method may make it harder on muslims in the west, and may incite hatred among Christians. I think anyone who uses this type of method must take caution in other words. Also, if the debate is going nowhere, and you find yourself arguing with someone who's arrogant and has their mind made up already, then you should just humbly stop and move the debate forward with some other Christian or non-believer.

Shukrun for the 'heads up' Bluegazer. Have a blessed day.


Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum brother Jibran,

Thank you for your kind words.

I see that we almost agree on the major issues. However, there are still some points that I still disagree with.

1- You wrote the following in post #62:

i still think it would've been best if you refuted Geert Wilders claims instead of getting critical of Christianity.


My concern was the way you suggested approaching Christians. I know it's haram to ridicule other religions, but to my estimation it was also wrong to tarnish the image of other religions. When i say "tarnish the image" i mean trying to defile other religions by getting extremely critical of them. However, i agree with you, as long as its done in a manner that isn't deceitful, (which you already pointed out) then it appears to me that it's in accordance with islamic teachings. Remember, as muslims we're to be noble mannered and we're to achieve high values and ethics. So in anything we do, we must keep that in mind as well, even when we have to be stern with the non-muslims.

Dear brother Jibran, I wrote the following in post #61:

Dear brother, I have already shown you [in post #36 on this thread] that Allah the Almighty has condemned certain blasphemous beliefs of Judaism and Christianity in the Qur'an [for example, see 5:72-75, 3:181, and 5:64]. These blasphemous beliefs include the Trinity and attributing to God Almighty that which does not befit Him.

In other words, Allah the Almighty "attacked their religion". Allah the Almighty tarnished the image of the mainstream Christianity that is found today.

I don't believe that you'd suggest that we cut out these Qur'anic verses - which attack mainstream Jewish and Christian doctrines- before we give a translation of the meanings of the Qur'an to a Jew or Christian. Or would you?

The Trinity, as you're probably know- is the cornerstone of Christianity today. It is the basic doctrinal belief that is held by Catholics, Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestant Christians. The doctrine of the Trinity also includes the belief in the divinity of Jesus [peace be upon him] and that he should be worshiped. Another basic belief of Christians is that the Bible they have today contains the pure uncorrupted word of God Almighty.

All these three points of doctrine have been refuted by Allah the Almighty in the Qur'an. Therefore, when you believe that "getting critical of Christianity" is wrong; when you write that "getting extremely critical" with other religions is wrong, then I totally disagree.

I know that you already wrote, "i agree with you, as long as its done in a manner that isn't deceitful, (which you already pointed out) then it appears to me that it's in accordance with islamic teachings. Remember, as muslims we're to be noble mannered and we're to achieve high values and ethics. So in anything we do, we must keep that in mind as well, even when we have to be stern with the non-muslims."

Still, [and with all due respect] you were wrong in saying that we Muslims can't be critical of Christianity or extremely critical of other religions. We Muslims can be extremely critical of Christianity and other religions, and we must. Calling others to embrace Islam necessarily means that we point out to them what is wrong in their religions.

And I have already stated in my post #61 that:

What we Muslims must be careful about is that we do not lie, quote Biblical verses out of context, attack Biblical verses which contain Islamic commandments or use any other shady means in our propagation of Islam. We Muslims do not need to lie or use such deceitful tactics when we call others to Islam. And that, brother Jibran, is what makes us Muslims "different than them".

2- You wrote the following in post #62:

Another issue i would like to address is that this type of method may make it harder on muslims in the west, and may incite hatred among Christians. I think anyone who uses this type of method must take caution in other words.

There's no human method that has a 100% guarantee. What you said may be right in some cases. However, the method I suggested in this thread may also force many Christians and Jews to get acquainted with Biblical verses they have not known before, and admit [even within themselves] that calls for banning the Qur'an and attacking the Qur'an are really hypocritical when their own Bible is being used to swear in Presidents, Kings and other Heads of State and their own Bible is sworn on by witnesses in their Courts of Law. And this will -Allah willing- cause them to be more objective about matters concerning Islam and may lead many of them to stop hurling abuse at our brothers and sisters in Islam.

Having said that, I agree with you said that "anyone who uses this type of method must take caution in other words." There's a possibility that some Muslims might 'over do it' when using this method. So, we should always be cautious.


As to your statement that:

if the debate is going nowhere, and you find yourself arguing with someone who's arrogant and has their mind made up already, then you should just humbly stop and move the debate forward with some other Christian or non-believer.

I totally agree with you on this point.

May Allah bless your work and life, brother Jibran. The concern you have for Islam and Muslims is very evident in your posts.

Best regards,



Junior Member
Brother bluegazer Walaikumassalam. I highly respect your words and i have learned from you great knowledge.

However, i would like to point out that you misread my post. Before encountering your thread and chating with you, i believed it was wrong to tarnish the image of other religions, and get extremely critical of them. This is what i was trying to point out, which is why i put my words in past tense (hence,was). If it wasn't for your knowledge and Allah swa's will, i wouldn't have known this.

My concern was the way you suggested approaching Christians. I know it's haram to ridicule other religions, but to my estimation it was also wrong to tarnish the image of other religions.

I agree with everything you have said to me thus far. However, since this thread was based on Geert Wilders works, i still believe you should've made this thread to refute Geert Wilders claims instead of resorting to criticize Christianity. I think it would've been more helpful, and altogether a better idea. Maybe you can do both brother Bluegazer, by doing an edit on your page which includes both rebuttals to Geert Wilders lies, and the exposing of Christianity.

All-in-all brother Bluegazer, you're an excellent person and i believe people you encounter in the future will take notice to your quality.

Jazak Allah, knowledge is power.

- Jibran

Mohamed's wife7

New Member
Most catholics dont believe in old testament, they believe in new testament. They said the old one is just almost mythical, but the new one is more acceptable to them. So if anyone use the old, they wont care, they'll just shug it off and tell u thats from old testament, you cant believe that. Just info to let u know....:hijabi:


Junior Member
:salam2: sister Mohamed's wife7,

Thank you for the information. You're correct. I have met Catholics [online] who have explained away these violent Old Testament verses as "parables".

However, if you read my post #11, you could see what the Catholic commentary was on Josue [chapter 7, verses 19-26] in the Douay-Rheims version [under point 1 of the title "The Catholic versions"]. You could see -in that post- that this version was commented on by Bishop Richard Challoner, and this whole Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version received the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons (Archbishop of Baltimore) on September 1, 1899. This proves that at least some Catholics believe the events mentioned in the Old Testament were real historical facts, not some mythical conjectures.

You'll also find that I quoted the following Biblical verses in post #20:

Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.

Psalms 137:8-9 (New American Bible)

There seems to be a difference between the Vatican and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The Vatican website hosts the New American Bible [which is published by the USCCB]. The following is from the bottom of a page on the official Vatican website hosting the New American Bible:

Printed source

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000
November 11, 2002 Copyright (c) by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Source of the electronic transcription

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -


When one tries to open "Psalms" on the above website, it just doesn't open [i.e., the pointer does not turn into a finger pointing at the text of the word "Psalms".

But when you go to the New American Bible on the USCCB website, you'll find that it will open, and the following is the text [and commentary on] Psalms 137:8-9:

Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! 3 Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.

3 [9] Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock: the infants represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.



The following is what Jews and Christians [and certainly not Muslims] believe was an order of the prophet Moses [peace be upon him]. It was first mentioned on this thread by brother A_Kashmiri on post #37:

Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men.

Numbers 31:17

Old Testament first published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament first published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner
Imprimatur. +James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899


The following is the explanation of Numbres 31:17 by Bishop Challoner [with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Gibbons]. You'll find it by clicking on the above link. It is shaded in the colour yellow:

Of children... Women and children, ordinarily speaking, were not to be killed in war (Deuteronomy 20:14). But the great Lord of life and death was pleased to order it otherwise in the present case, in detestation of the wickedness of this people, who by the counsel of Balaam, had sent their women among the Israelites on purpose to draw them from God.




Striving for Paradise
:salam2: Bluegazer,
This is a great thread. I know some may have taken objections, but I didn't see anything wrong here.

If there is anything malicious against Christianity or Judaism, or misquotation then YES then I will have serious objections to it. But here we are only quoting verses from Bible. That's all !!!
So, I don't see any problem in posting quotations from Bible. I don't think any Christians or Jews will object to it either. After all we are only quoting from their religious book... aren't we?

Also when having discussions with Christians or Jews this gives you talking points when they attack your religion. I have to admit I didn't know many of these Bible verses. So thanks for doing it. This may also serve well as a Dawah material and may help many to convert to Islam. InshaAllah.

Here is one I found:
Deuteronomy 14
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.



Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum,

To all brothers and sisters in Islam who have encouraged me in this thread, you have my deep thanks. Please excuse me if I didn't mention each and every one of you by name, but I have been busy with an interesting debate with my dear brother Jibran. Also, I believe I have to get back to quoting certain Biblical verses [or re-quoting them from earlier submissions of brothers and sisters in Islam on this thread].

To brother Jibran,

Thank you for an interesting and engaging debate. I'm glad we agree and I apologize for misunderstanding your post #62.

You wrote the following in post #64:

I agree with everything you have said to me thus far. However, since this thread was based on Geert Wilders works, i still believe you should've made this thread to refute Geert Wilders claims instead of resorting to criticize Christianity. I think it would've been more helpful, and altogether a better idea. Maybe you can do both brother Bluegazer, by doing an edit on your page which includes both rebuttals to Geert Wilders lies, and the exposing of Christianity.

Geert Wilders' claims have been refuted by many. I know that was not done for his specific video attack against Islam, but I believe that many already have discussed the Qur'anic verses he has brought up and shown that his conclusions were wrong.

I wanted to bring something new to the way Muslims defend Islam. I'm not going to say that I'm the first to do this. I have seen some vidoes on YouTube that quote some of the Biblical verses mentioned in this thread. However, I don't believe that there was a concerted effort to bring all these Biblical verses together in one place so that any Muslim will easily find them and use them when faced with an attack on his or her religion.

There's also the fact the this thread is not only a refutation of the double standards used by Geert Wilders. It is also a refutation of the double standards used by those Westerners who think like him and are affected by his film. I hope this thread goes some way to convince them of the errors of their way.

As to your kind words:

If it wasn't for your knowledge and Allah swa's will, i wouldn't have known this.

I thank Allah the Merciful that he gave me the means and the opportunity to have this positive impact. I say that Allah's will and grace should be mentioned before my knowledge, and that my knowledge shouldn't be mentioned on the same degree as Allah's will and grace, but to a lesser degree. And after all, it is Allah who bestowed this knowledge upon me, so all thanks and praise are due to Allah the Almighty.

Thanks again brother Jibran for all your kind words, and may Allah bless you and your work in this world and in the Hereafter. Aameen.

Best regards,



Junior Member
TheHumbleWun posted some verses from chapter 31 of the book of Exodus in his post #22. I'll re-quote these verses again:

The LORD said to Moses, "You must also tell the Israelites: Take care to keep my sabbaths, for that is to be the token between you and me throughout the generations, to show that it is I, the LORD, who make you holy. Therefore, you must keep the sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death. If anyone does work on that day, he must be rooted out of his people. Six days there are for doing work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of complete rest, sacred to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant

Exodus 31:12-16 (New American Bible)

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Exodus 31:12-16 (King James Version)

Still, I sincerely hope Muslims do not use the above mentioned verses against Jews and Christians. That's because Allah the Almighty said that He has ordered Jews not to transgress on the Sabbath:

And ask them (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) about the town that was by the sea; when they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday): when their fish came to them openly on the Sabbath day, and did not come to them on the day they had no Sabbath. Thus We made a trial of them, for they used to rebel against Allâh’s Command (disobey Allâh)

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 7:163]

Does this mean that Allah has decreed a general punishment [to be implemented by the Jews themselves on each other] for breaking the Sabbath? And what was that punishment? Could it be that this punishment was death?

I personally don't know the answers. If someone knows more about this, please post your information [with references to the Qur'an and/or the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him-]. Until then, I would ask Muslims to please not use this argument, since it might be that Allah the Almighty did order the death of any Jew who worked on the Sabbath.


Junior Member

Just browsing thru and just wanted to say that I am so impressed by the humility and respect that I observed in just looking at a few posts. Mashallah it is sooooo refreshing to see that. May Allah reward you, and let none of us have even a mustard seed of pride in our hearts:) Ameen.


Junior Member
A_Kashmiri has mentioned [in post #37] some verses from chapter 31 of the book of Numbers. I'll quote them again. However, only the parts I coloured red and set in bold type [like so] are to be used against Jews and Christians. A Muslim should not use the parts I coloured blue and set in bold type [like so] against Jews and Christians, and I'll mention why later on in this post:

Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man.

Numbers 31:17-18 (New American Bible)

So Moses and the priest Eleazar did this, as the LORD had commanded Moses. This booty, what was left of the loot which the soldiers had taken, amounted to six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, sixty-one thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand girls who were still virgins.

Numbers 31:31-35 (New American Bible)

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)

And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, And threescore and one thousand asses, And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:31-35 (King James Version)

The reason the verses coloured blue and set in bold type [like so] could not be used against Jews and Christians is because slavery is allowed in Islam, and it is allowed to take women [whether virgins or not] and children as slaves. Therefore, how can we Muslims attack Jews and Christians for taking virgins of the defeated as slaves when this is also allowed in Islam?

However, the Biblical verses mentioned above could be used against those who attack Islam for taking women and children of the defeated as slaves, since Judaism and Christianity clearly allows it.

I found a fatwa [religious opinion] that deals with the issue of slavery in Islam. It is my sincere advice that every Muslim should read it fully and carefully. It was posted on the website supervised by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid. It's an answer to question no. 94840 [Islam and slavery]:


I often hear Christian missionaries criticizing Islam and accusing it because Islam permitted slavery, and saying that this is a transgression against man’s freedom and rights. How can we respond to these people?.


Praise be to Allaah.

Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam is something that annoys the wise person and makes him point the finger of accusation towards the ulterior motives that lie behind these questions.

That is because slavery is well established in Judaism and Christianity, where it has taken unjust forms. They have many books which discuss that in detail and condone it. Therefore it makes you wonder: how can these churchmen call people to Christianity when Christianity condones and legitimizes slavery?

In other words: how can they stir up an issue when they themselves are up to their necks in it?!

The issue of slavery is completely different when discussed from the angles of Christianity and Islam, and when compared with the situation that prevailed at the advent of Islam.

Hence we must discuss this topic in some detail with reference to what is said in Judaism, Christianity and contemporary culture on this matter, then we will speak of slavery in Islam.

Many lies have been fabricated about Islam on this topic, at a time when criminals with lengthy track records are safe and nobody points a finger at them.

Islam and slavery:

Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.

This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.

Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.

The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.

There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.

Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/387).

He also said:

If it is said: If the slave becomes Muslim then why keep him as a slave, when the reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger, so this reason no longer applies?

The answer is that the well known principle among the scholars and all wise people, which is that the previously established right cannot be erased by a right that is established later, and that what came first takes precedence, is obvious.

When the Muslims captured kuffaar, their right to possession was affirmed by the law of the Creator of all, Who is All Wise and All Knowing. So this right is confirmed and established. Then if the slave became Muslim after that, his right to escape slavery by embracing Islam was superseded by the mujaahid’s prior right to take possession of him before he became Muslim, and it would be unjust and unfair to annul the prior right because of a subsequent right, as is well known to all wise people.

Yes, it is good for the master to free the slave if he becomes Muslim. The Lawgiver enjoined and encouraged that, and opened many doors to it. Glory be to the Most Wise, the All Knowing. “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Knower” [al-An’aam 6:115].

“in truth” means in what He tells us, and “in justice” means in His rulings.

Undoubtedly this justice refers to owning slaves and other rulings of the Qur’aan.

How many people criticize something sound when their problem is their own misunderstanding. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/389).

Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners would inevitably be captured during any war, and the prevalent custom at that time was that prisoners had no protection or rights; they would either be killed or enslaved. But Islam brought two more options: unconditional release or ransom. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam)” [Muhammad 47:4]. During the battle of Badr the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransoms from the mushrik prisoners of war and let them go, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) let many of the prisoners go for free, releasing them with no ransom. During the conquest of Makkah it was said to the people of Makkah: “Go, for you are free.”

During the campaign of Banu’l-Mustaliq, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married a female prisoner from the defeated tribe so as to raise her status, as she was the daughter of one of their leaders, namely the Mother of the Believers Juwayriyah bint al-Haarith (may Allaah be pleased with her). Then the Muslims let all of these prisoners go.

Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.

Thus we may understand the limited ways that can lead to slavery. Islam did not abolish it altogether, because the kaafir prisoner who was opposed to truth and justice was a wrongdoer, or was a supporter of wrongdoing or was a tool in the execution or approval of wrongdoing. Letting him go free would give him the opportunity to spread wrongdoing and aggression against others and to oppose the truth and prevent it reaching people.

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.

Despite all that, Islam offers many opportunities to restore freedom to him and people like him.

The principle of dealing with slaves in Islam is a combination of justice, kindness and compassion.

One of the means of liberating slaves is allocating a portion of zakaah funds to freeing slaves; the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows and having intercourse during the day in Ramadaan, is to free a slave. In addition to that, Muslims are also encouraged in general terms to free slaves for the sake of Allaah.

This is a brief summary of some of the principles of dealing with slaves in a just and kind manner:

1 – Guaranteeing them food and clothing like that of their masters.

It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

2 – Preserving their dignity

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever accuses his slave when he is innocent of what he says will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection, unless he is as he said.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6858).

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

3 – Being fair towards slaves and treating them kindly

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants? Then he called the servants and they ate with them.

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

4 – There is nothing wrong with slaves having precedence over free men in some matters

- with regard to any religious or worldly matters in which he excels over him. For example, it is valid for a slave to lead the prayer. ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers had a slave who would lead her in prayer. Indeed the Muslims have been commanded to hear and obey even if a slave is appointed in charge of their affairs.

5 – A slave may buy himself from his master and be free.

If a person is enslaved for some reason but then it becomes apparent that he has given up his wrongdoing and forgotten his past, and he has become a man who shuns evil and seeks to do good, is it permissible to respond to his request to let him go free? Islam says yes, and there are some fuqaha’ who say that this is obligatory and some who say that it is mustahabb.

This is what is called a mukaatabah or contract of manumission between the slave and his master. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allaah which He has bestowed upon you”

[al-Noor 24:33]

This is how Islam treats slaves justly and kindly.

One of the results of these guidelines is that in many cases, the slave would become a friend of his master; in some cases the master would regard him as a son. Sa’d ibn Haashim al-Khaalidi said, describing a slave of his:

He is not a slave, rather he is a son whom [Allaah] has put under my care.

He has supported me with his good service; he is my hands and my arms.

Another result of the Muslims treating slaves in this manner is that the slaves became part of Muslim families as if they were also family members.

Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460): What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. End quote.

How did non-Muslims treat slaves?

Attitude of the Jews towards slaves:

According to the Jews, mankind is divided into two groups: the Israelites form one group and all of mankind is another group.

As for the Israelites, it is permissible to enslave some of them, according to specific teachings contained in the Old Testament.

As for people other than the Israelites, they are a low-class race according to the Jews, who may be enslaved via domination and subjugation, because they are people who are doomed to humiliation by the heavenly decree from eternity. It says in Exodus 21:2-6:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'

6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”

As for enslaving non-Hebrews, this is done by taking them captive or overpowering them, because they believe that their race is superior to others, and they try to find a justification for that slavery in their distorted Torah. So they say that Ham the son of Noah – who was the father of Canaan – angered his father, because Noah was drunk one day and became naked as he was sleeping in his tent, and Ham saw him like that. When Noah found out about that after he woke up, he got angry and he cursed his progeny who were descendents of Canaan, and he said – according to the Book of Genesis 9:25-26): “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’ He also said, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.’”

In the same chapter (v. 27) it says: “May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his [or their] slave”.

In the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it says:

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”

Attitude of the Christians towards slaves:

Christianity confirmed slavery as it had been affirmed beforehand by Judaism. There is no text in the Gospels that prohibits or denounces slavery. It is remarkable that the historian William Muir criticized our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for not immediately abolishing slavery, whilst overlooking the attitude of the Gospels concerning slavery, as there is no report from the Messiah, or from the Disciples, or from the churches concerning this issue.

Rather, in his Epistles, Paul advised that slaves should be loyal to their masters, as he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he enjoins slaves to obey their masters as they would obey the Messiah:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free”

(Ephesians 6:5-9).

In Grand Larousse encyclopédique, it says: It comes as no surprise that slavery has continued among Christians until today; the official representatives of the faith have affirmed its validity and accepted its legitimacy.

… to sum up: the Christian religion approved fully of slavery and still does so today. It is very difficult for anyone to prove that Christianity strove to abolish slavery.

The saints affirmed that nature makes some people slaves.

Churchmen did not prevent slavery or oppose it; rather they supported it, to such an extent that the philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas supported the philosophical view that agreed with the view of religious leaders, and he did not object to slavery, rather he praised it because – according to the view of Aristotle – it is one of the conditions in which some people are created naturally, and it does not contradict faith for a man to be content with the lowest position in life.

Haqaa’iq al-Islam by al-‘Aqqaad (p. 215).

In the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. George Yousuf it says: Christianity did not object to slavery for political or economic reasons, and it did not urge believers to oppose their generation’s views with regard to slavery, or even debate it, and it did not say anything against the rights of slave owners or motivate the slaves to seek independence; it did not discuss the harm or harshness of slavery and it did not enjoin the immediate release of slaves.

It did not change anything in the nature of the relationship between master and slave; on the contrary, it affirmed the rights and duties of both parties.

Contemporary Europe and slavery

It is the reader’s right, in this era of advancement and progress, to ask questions about the pioneers of this progress and the numbers of people who died because of the way in which they were hunted, and who died on their way to the coast where the ships of the English Company and others would wait, then the rest died due to changes in climate. Approximately 4% died as they were being loaded onto the ships, and 12 % during the journey, let alone those who died in the colonies.

The slave trade continued at the hands of English companies that obtained the right of monopoly with the permission of the British government, then gave free rein to British subjects to enslave people. Some experts estimate that the total number of people seized by the British during slavery and exiled to the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.

When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries. The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and bringing them to their lands to serve as fuel for their revival, where they burdened them with more work than they could bear. When America was discovered, the calamity increased and they became slaves in two continents instead of just one.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (2/779) on the topic of slavery: Hunting slaves in the villages that were surrounded by the jungle was done by lighting fires in the straw of which the corrals surrounding the villages were made, then when the villagers fled to open land, the British hunted them down with whatever means they had at their disposal.

During the period from 1661 to 1774, for every million Black Africans who reached the Americas, a further nine million died during the hunting, loading and transportation. In other words, only one tenth of those who were hunted survived and actually reached the Americas, where they found no rest or relief, rather they were subjected to hard labour and torture.

At that time, they had laws which any wise person would be ashamed of.

Among these evil laws were those which said that any slave who transgressed against his master was to be killed, and any slave who ran away was to have his hands and feet cut off, and he was to be branded with hot iron; if he ran away again, he was to be killed. How could he run away if his hands and feet had been cut off?!

It was forbidden for a black man to become educated, and the jobs of whites were forbidden to coloureds.

In America, if seven black people gathered together, that was regarded as a crime, and if a white man passed by them it was permissible for him to spit at them and give them twenty lashes.

Another law stated that the blacks had no soul and that they possessed no smartness, intelligence or willpower, and that life existed only in their arms.

To sum up, with regard to his duties and service to his master, the slave was regarded as sane, responsible and punishable if he fell short, but with regard to his rights, he had no soul and no being, and he was not more than a strong pair of arms!

Finally, after many centuries of enslavement and oppression, there came the protocol to abolish slavery and strive to put an end to it, in a resolution issued by the United Nations in 1953 CE.

Hence their consciences did not awaken until the last century, after they had built their civilization on the corpses of free men whom they had enslaved unlawfully. What fair-minded person can compare this with the teachings of Islam, which came fourteen hundred years ago? It seems that accusing Islam with regard to this topic is like the saying, “She accused me of her problem then walked away.”

And Allaah knows best.

See: Shubahaat Hawl al-Islam by Muhammad Qutub; Talbees Mardood fi Qadaaya Khateerah by Shaykh Dr. Saalih ibn Humayd, the Imam of the Haram in Makkah.


And to drive home my point that Judaism and Christianity allows for horrible treatment against slaves, please read the following:

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Exodus 21:20-21 (New American Bible)

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)


Junior Member
When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plundering you may take as your booty, and you may use this plunder of your enemies which the LORD, your God, has given you. "That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to the peoples of this land. But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD, your God, has commanded you,

Deuteronomy 20:10-17 (New American Bible)

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17 (King James Version)


Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum [Peace be unto you],

Brother Jibran wrote the following [among other things] in post #64 on this thread:

Maybe you can do both brother Bluegazer, by doing an edit on your page which includes both rebuttals to Geert Wilders lies, and the exposing of Christianity.

I have already commented on his suggestion in my post #68.

Recently, brother SubhanAllah [that's his nickname] started a thread called "Fitna The Movie: Comment, criticism and advice from". In his first post on that thread, he posted a religious opinion [fatwa] from the website supervised by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid. I thank him for this, and I'll also post this fatwa on this thread, since it contains a refutation of the 'evidence' presented by Geert Wilders in his film Fitna. It's an answer to question no. 111922 [The anti-Islam Dutch film – comment, criticism and advice]:


A Dutch film has recently been released that maligns Islam and Muslims, and describes them as terrorists. What is your advice to the Muslims concerning this matter?.


Praise be to Allaah.


The conflict between truth and falsehood is an ancient one. The troops of falsehood continue to confront the truth at all times and in all places. But Allaah caused them to be defeated by the strength of the truth and He hurls the truth against falsehood and destroys it, so it is bound to vanish.

Ever since Iblees was humiliated and refused to respond to the command of Allaah to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him), he began to plot against the truth and its followers. Iblees asked his Lord for a respite, not so that he could repent, but so that he could plot, and increase the number of his followers and bring them into the Fire of Allaah, where he will stand and address them, saying:

“ ‘Verily, Allaah promised you a promise of truth. And I too promised you, but I betrayed you. I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me. So blame me not, but blame yourselves. I cannot help you, nor can you help me. I deny your former act in associating me (Satan) as a partner with Allaah (by obeying me in the life of the world). Verily, there is a painful torment for the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)’”

[Ibraaheem 14:22].


Islam has faced many great plots, but Allaah has guaranteed to protect His religion, because He has made it the best of religions and the final religion.


Here we are dealing with a new incident, but it will not be the last, because of the devils among mankind and the jinn and their ultimately hopeless attempts to impugn this religion, this Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and this Holy Book.

This incident is what has been wrought by the sinful hands of a man called Geert Wilders, the leader of the “Freedom” Party, which is a right-wing, racist Dutch party. He wanted to slander this great religion in order to become well known and to make political gains, but Allaah foiled him and he will be foiled time and again, in sha Allaah. This hater made a short film of seventeen minutes about Islam and the Qur’aan, filled with lies and fabrications, and he called it “Fitnah”! If what he said was presented to an academic institution or university, he would deserve to be rebuked and scorned, because of his lack of objectivity, and because of his distortion of facts.

His film starts and ends with an offensive image of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that was drawn by the sinful, criminal hands of the Danish artist. At the beginning it shows a bomb in the turban of the so-called picture of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), where the fuse has just been lit. At the end of the film, the fuse has burnt down, then it explodes. Thus he wants to send the despicable message that Islam came to wreak havoc and destruction, and that remaining silent about it will lead to the demise of non-Muslim civilizations and nations.


We can divide our opinions about this evil film into a number of categories:

1. Verses which are quoted out of context and their meanings distorted.

For example:


The first verse to be quoted in his film is (interpretation of the meaning):

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy, and others besides…”

[al-Anfaal 8:60].

The quotation reaches this point but does not complete it. He wants to highlight the word “threaten” to indicate that Islam equals terrorism, which is how many haters and ignorant people want to label Islam.

We are not ashamed of what is in the Book of Allaah and we do not deny this verse, rather we worship Allaah by reciting it, and we ask Him to help us to act in accordance with it. But we reject his quoting this part of it on the basis of two things, to keep the discussion short:

Firstly, what he is denouncing Islam for is something that is done by all great and mighty nations. They produce lethal weapons, atomic bombs, planes, submarines and so on, to defend themselves and to threaten their enemies lest anyone attack them. This is what is meant in this verse. The kaafirs who occupy Muslim lands could not have dared to do so except when the Muslims ceased to implement this verse. The most recent example of that is Iraq, where they put pressure on the government to destroy their weapons and missiles, then when that had been done and confirmed, they invaded and occupied the land, and mistreated its people.

Secondly, understanding the context of the verse properly will prove wrong the label of terrorism that he wants to apply to Islam, as he and his gang understand it. The verse which comes directly after this one says (interpretation of the meaning):

“But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allaah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower”

[al-Anfaal 8:61].


The second verse that is heard in the film is (interpretation of the meaning):

“Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allaah is Ever Most Powerful, All‑Wise”

[al-Nisa’ 4:56].

The deception here is that this movie director quotes this verse to show viewers that Islam enjoins burning those who go against it until their skin is cooked, and this is something that Allaah has prescribed for them.

This may be refuted on two counts:

Firstly, what he does is a foolish deception, because in this verse Allaah is speaking of the punishment of the kaafirs on the Day of Resurrection, not in this world. It is followed by mention of the reward of the believers who affirm His Oneness (Tawheed):

“But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allaah — Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), abiding therein forever. Therein they shall have Azwaajun Mutahharatun (purified mates or wives), and We shall admit them to shades wide and ever deepening (Paradise)”

[al-Nisa’ 4:57].

Secondly, even the briefest pondering of this verse will show the lies, fabrications and misquotations of this director. In this verse, Allaah says “We shall change them for other skins”. Are the Muslims able to change the skins of those whose skins are burned in this world?!

2. Fabricated pictures, or pictures that do not show what he is trying to prove, or that show things which are denounced in Islam altogether

For example:


Pictures of a group of Raafidis – Shi’ah – wounding themselves and their children with sharp tools, causing their heads to bleed, in a disgusting scene. This is not part of our religion, rather it is done by some of those who call themselves Muslims out of ignorance and misguidance on their part.

The picture which shows swords being held aloft covered with blood is also an image of the Shi’ah on their special occasions, but the lying filmmaker wants to make people think that these are Muslims and that they have just finished a party where kaafirs’ heads were cut off.


Another ridiculous and clearly false image is the picture of Muslim women in niqaab waving placards on which it is written “God bless Hitler”!

We say: This is clearly a lie and a fabrication. In our religion we are forbidden to pray for the one who dies a kaafir. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allaah’s forgiveness for the Mushrikoon, even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief)”

[al-Tawbah 9:113].

How can women who wear niqaab and adhere to the rulings of Islam pray for blessing for Hitler?

3. Video clips, some of which contain facts which cannot be doubted and others contain distortion of facts and deceive viewers.

For example:


A fabricated meeting with a little girl. It is obvious that they have not presented her or fabricated her story very well, for two reasons:

Firstly, she is wearing hijab, and they are asking her about her religion. It is obvious that she is acting.

Secondly, the child who was acting was asked about her opinion of Jews and Christians and she said that they are monkeys and pigs.

This is not part of our religion; Islam does not say that the Jews and Christians are monkeys and pigs, rather it says that a group of Jews in the past tried to use tricks to circumvent the laws of their Lord, so Allaah punished them by turning them into monkeys. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected’”

[al-Baqarah 2:65]

“So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected’”

[al-A’raaf 7:166].


Showing video clips out of context, such as the clip of a khateeb (preacher) who brandishes a sword and threatens the kuffaar.

This Shaykh is well known. He was Iraqi and he waved the sword during his khutbah (sermon) to encourage the people to fight against the kuffaar who are occupying his country, and he was killed by the Raafidis – may they get from Allaah what they deserve. What does he expect the Muslims to do if their land is occupied? Give up their wealth and their honour, and wait to be killed, or approve and forgive the criminal occupier?! No, Islam is a religion of pride and dignity, and the Muslims refuse to be humiliated; they have no alternative but to fight the occupier. This is confirmed by every religion and law on earth. In fact the leader of the occupation himself said, “If my country were occupied I would fight the occupier.” If we assume that he would indeed fight and not run away, he is only speaking the truth, i.e., that the occupier is to be fought.

What is wrong with the Muslims fighting a jihad against those who occupy their land?


The main ideas of the film are all aimed at insulting Islam by mocking and making fun of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); by reviling the Qur’aan and calling it a “fascist” book, as it says in the film; and by warning of the danger of mosques. All of that the filmmaker tries to do in his short film by use of video clips, moving images and the accompanying music, but he fails miserably, because he uses lies, falsification and deceit, which will never be accepted by the viewer, even if he is a kaafir.

But Allaah has caused his plot to backfire, because the people in Holland are rushing to buy Islamic books and copies of the Qur’aan, to see what is in them, and they will see in them that which will show the falseness and fabrication of what this failed filmmaker has produced. This has indeed happened; three people from that country became Muslim after watching the film, and Dutch companies have threatened to take this filmmaker, who is also an MP, to court if Muslim countries boycott their products. Thus this MP will be humiliated and shamed, and the evil plot will not affect anyone but its authors.


Allaah has clearly supported His religion. Since the launch of the movie was announced, non-Muslim organizations, governments and individuals have denounced this filmmaking MP, and stated that Islam has nothing to do with violence and terrorism, and that Muslims themselves are victims of terrorism as well as others. Among those who have denounced and objected to the actions of this filmmaking MP is the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, who said strong words against it; the Secretary of the United Nations; the European Union; and a number of politicians, leaders and countries. Satellite channels, both public and private, have refused to show this film, and he could only find one web site that would publish it.

In Mufakkirat al-Islam (Saturday 22 Rabee’ al-Awwa; 1429 AH/29 March 2008), it says:

In Brussels, the European Parliament condemned this offensive film, and the President of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, attacked the Dutch MP Wilders, saying: The contents of the film seem designed to stir up the religious sensitivities of Muslims in the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide.

He added: On behalf of the European Parliament, I emphatically refuse to accept the film’s message that Islam is a violent religion – indicating that he fully endorsed the statement of the Dutch government which rejected the film “Fitnah”.

Similarly, the European Union issued a statement that it regarded the fifteen-minute-long film as hostile and offensive to Islam, and likely to spread hate. End quote.

As for the Muslims, they took action to denounce and condemn the film, and they issued statements and warnings against continuing to malign the symbols of our religion. Some countries threatened to cut ties with the Netherlands, and MPs in some countries demanded the expulsion of the Dutch ambassador and boycotts of Dutch products. Despite the weakness and disunity in which the Muslims are living, this was regarded as great support for Islam, as there are people among both the kuffaar and the Muslims who are defending our religion. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands himself sent a letter to the Shaykh of al-Azhar, stating that his government objected to the production and showing of this film, and that a case had been brought before the Dutch courts.

How would the situation be if the Muslims were truly united and they had the strength to instil respect and awe in the hearts of those haters and fabricators?


It seems to us that this lying MP wanted to achieve certain aims by making this film, including the following:

1. Personal gain, fame and victory at the polls.

2. Pleasing the Jews. That is obvious in his film, as in a number of clips he expresses sympathy for them. But they are occupiers and criminals. At the same time as he speaks of killing by Muslims, he forgets or pretends to forget two things:

(i) That the one who burned millions of Jews was a Christian, namely Hitler, who said in his book Mein Kampf that this was on the orders of God!

(ii) That the Jews killed and expelled a great number of Muslims, and they were not ashamed to call their latest battle against Gaza a “holocaust”.

3. Alerting the West to the high percentages of Muslims in their countries, and saying that large numbers of Muslims poses a danger to Europe.

4. Alerting Europe in general, and the Netherlands in particular, to the spread of mosques in their lands. This is clear from his showing pictures of mosques in the Netherlands, to warn of their presence.

5. Attempting to ban circulation of Qur’aans in Europe, and computing the Holy Qur’aan to Hitler’s book Mein Kampf! Hence he describes the Qur’aan as “fascist”, which is a word that is indicative of violence and harshness

Allaah has humiliated this filmmaking MP by means of this pathetic work that is filled with lies and fabrications. People will see the difference between lies and the truth when they read the Holy Qur’aan and what has been written about Islam and about him by the wise among their own people. This film will motivate them to read and find out, in sha Allaah, and perhaps it will be the cause of many being saved from misguidance.


The basic message of this film is to describe Islam as a terrorist and violent religion. But this is no more than a fabrication. Islam is the religion of mercy, justice and humanity. It is what saved the people of other religions from the injustice and wrongdoing of their rulers, as happened in Andalusia, Egypt and other countries in which people of other groups were badly mistreated, including the Jews.

Israel Wolfenson says:

The minor losses incurred by the Jews in the Hijaz are insignificant in comparison with the benefits that the Jews gained with the emergence of Islam. The Muslim conquerors saved thousands of Jews who were spread throughout the lands of the Roman Empire, and who were faced with all kinds of persecution.

Al-Yahood wa’l-Tahaaluf ma’a al-Aqwiya’ by Dr. Nu’maan ‘Abd al-Razzaaq al-Saamara’i, quoted in an article by Professor Khaalid Joodah, al-Faariq al-Insaani bayna Hadaarat al-Islam wa Thaqaafat al-Gharb.

Islam is not a religion which accepts humiliation, and jihad for the sake of Allaah is one of its main principles and one of the greatest of deeds in Islam. It is prescribed in order to protect the Muslims from their enemies, to convey the religion of Allaah, and to spread the word of Tawheed (divine Oneness) throughout the world. Islam does not say that people must be forced to enter it, because one of the conditions of Islam (being Muslim) is sincerity, and if there is no sincerity then one is a hypocrite among the ranks of Muslims, and Islam does not want this base characteristic among its followers. On the other hand, we find that priests and monks have played a part in forcing people to accept Christianity in Europe and elsewhere, and the numbers of people who were slain in pursuit of this aim is very great indeed; historians say that they are between 7 and 15 million!

Another obvious wrong is focusing on the mistakes of some Muslims who were denounced by Muslim scholars and leaders for killing innocent people and attributing that to Islam – as happens in some clips in the film about the bombs on the trains in London and Madrid and the like. All of that was denounced by Muslim scholars, even though these deeds were a reaction against wrongdoing and oppression. At the same time they ignore those who were slain in the First and Second World Wars in which tens of millions died – 14 million in WW1 and 55 million in WW2. Those wars were not between the Muslims and Christians, rather they were amongst themselves. They did not make any mention either of the people killed in Japan by the American Atomic bombs, or the “Red Indians” (Native Americans) killed by the Americans, or the Asian people also killed by the Americans, or those who were killed by colonialists and occupiers.

They ignore the destruction and terrorism wrought by the crusader attacks against Muslim lands; they ignore what America and its allies are doing today in Afghanistan and Iraq; what the Serbs did with the blessing of the priests in Bosnia; and much, much more. If there are things that history may forget about, it can never forget what the Inquisition did, especially in Spain.

Gustave le Bon says in his book Arab Civilization:

Ferdinand promised to give the Arabs freedom of religion and language, but in 1499 the persecution of the Arabs began, which lasted for centuries, and which did not end until the Arabs had been expelled from Spain. It started with forcing Arabs to be baptized, then the Inquisition ordered that many of those who had been baptised be burned on the grounds that they were not really Christians. This “purging by fire” continued slowly because it was not possible to burn millions of Arabs in one go.

The “pious” Cardinal of Toledo, who was the head of the Inquisition, advised cutting off the heads of all the Arabs who did not become Christian, men, women, old people and children. The Dominican monk Baleda did not think that this was sufficient, and advised that the Arabs who had become Christian should also be beheaded, as well as those who had remained Muslim. His reason for doing so was that it was impossible to know whether the faith of those Arabs who had become Christian was sincere, so it was preferable to kill all of the Arabs with the sword, so that God could judge between them in the afterlife, and send to Hell those whose Christianity was not sincere!
We can only admit that we cannot find such vicious conquerors who should be condemned for unlawful slaughter like that committed against the Muslims!

Hadaarat al-‘Arab (p. 270-272)

Anyone who thinks about it now will find that the terrorists are people of other religions, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs; he will find that the Muslims are the victims of this terror. When will the sleepers wake up?! When with the heedless become aware?

We said to this lying MP who is calling us to rip the terrorist pages out of the Holy Qur’aan – as he claims: Come and let us see what your Holy Bible says about terrorism:

If you are a Jew who believes in the Old Testament, then see what is attributed to the Lord, when He said to Moses in Deuteronomy 20:10, 16-17:

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace …

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.”

If you are a Christian and want something from the New Testament, then here are some texts from it.

In Matthew 10:34-36, it is narrated that Jesus (peace be upon him) said:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.”

For more information see al-Sayf bayna al-Qur’aan wa’l-Kitaab al-Muqaddas by Dr. Habeeb ‘Abd al-Malik.


What the Muslims should do now is:

1. Not cause problems in their own countries, such as demonstrations in which property is destroyed or blood is shed.

2. Refer the matter to scholars and wise men to deal with it, or something similar.

3. Strive to adhere to Islam in word and deed, which means taking part in spreading Islam and annoying the kaafirs who hate Islam and the Muslims.

4. Call people to Allaah with wisdom and knowledge, distribute translations of the meanings of the Qur’aan and easy-to-read Islamic books, and seek the help of trustworthy Islamic organizations and trustworthy scholars in doing so.

And Allaah is the Guide.

Islam Q&A




Happy 2BA Muslim

Citing the Bible When Calling People to Islam


Jazak Allahu khayran again Brother Bluegazer for this valuable thread!

The Qur'ân and Sunnah contain within them affective approaches to dialogue. They provide indisputable rational and empirical arguments that realize the needs of calling people to Islam, that, with Allah's help, will bring people to the truth. These sources provide us with what we need to engage the Jews and Christians in effective dialogue.

Among the effective approaches employed by the Qur'ân is that of criticizing the religious doctrines of the Jews and Christians, as well as those of the idolaters, by first presenting those beliefs with total clarity and frankness, and then showing how those beliefs are false. Examples of this are the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the pagan doctrine of intermediation by means of idols.

This critical approach opens the way for an Islamic worker to study the false doctrines of various religions, which necessarily entails reading their scriptures and traditions to establish exactly what those doctrines entail so that they can be critically discussed and cited in discussions when disputing with others in a good manner.

It is possibly this critical approach that is established by the Qur'ân that caused many of the early Qur'ânic commentators to relate the stories and traditions of the People of the Scripture in their commentaries. This is especially evident when those traditions agreed with what is found in the Qur'ân and Sunnah or discussed matters that do not conflict with Islamic beliefs.

This is something permitted by Islamic Law, for the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

“Convey from me even a single verse. You may relate from the Children of Israel without objection. Anyone who deliberately tells a lie against me will have prepared his seat in the Hellfire.” [ Sahīh al-Bukharī (3461)]

Narrating such matters does not come under the prohibition expressed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he said:

“Do not ask the People of the Scripture about anything, for they will never guide you and they have gone astray, lest you deny something that is true or believe something that is false.”

In another narration, it reads:

“If you do ask the people of the Scripture – as is inevitable – then consider what agrees with Allah's Book and accept it, and whatever contradicts Allah's book reject it.” [ al-Musannaf (6/112)]

On this basis, al-Muhallib says: “Asking them about matters confirmed by our religious teachings and matters pertaining to the nations of the past do not come under the prohibition.” [ Fath al-Bârî (13/334)]

Someone might be led to believe that looking into the books of the Jews and Christians and quoting from them in order to demonstrate the falsehood of their doctrines and to refute them is something prohibited on the basis of the following hadith:

`Umar brought to the Prophet (peace be upon him) a book that he had gotten from some of the People of the Scripture. `Umar read to him from it, which angered the Prophet (peace be upon him). He said: “I have brought to you what is clear and pure. Do not ask them about anything, lest they inform you of something true and you deny it or inform you of something false and you believe it. I swear by Him in whose hand is my soul, if Moses were alive today, he would do naught but follow me.” [ Musnad Ahmad (3/387)]

This hadith has a weak chain of transmission. Ibn Hajar says: “It contains Mujâlid b. Sa`îd who is a weak narrator.” [ Fath al-Bârî (13/334)] However, there are other chains of transmission for this hadith that might, taken together, bring it to the level of being acceptable ( hasan li-ghayrihi ).

In any event, this hadith must be understood to indicate that there is a restriction upon looking into the books of the Jews and Christians when there is no assurance that the person reading them is secure from being influenced by them. The reason for this is the other hadith that reads: “You may relate from the Children of Israel without objection.” This hadith indicates permissibility, that the restriction is lifted when the reason for that restriction is no longer present.

Ibn Hajar writes, while commenting on this hadîth:

It means: “There is no restriction upon you in relating from them.” This is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) had formerly denounced taking from them and looking into their books. Then he relaxed this restriction. It seems as if the prohibition had come before the Islamic rulings and religious principles had been firmly established, to prevent any possible confusion from taking place. Then, when the negative consequences ceased to be present, permission was given. This is because of the lessons to be gotten from listening to the stories of their times. [ Fath al-Bârî (6/498)]

On the basis of this permissibility, many scholars have cited a considerable number of passages from the Torah and the Gospel as evidence to demonstrate the falsehood of Jewish and Christian beliefs, to show how at times some of their doctrines resemble the beliefs of the pagans, and to show how their religion has deviated from the pure truth that had been brought by Moses (peace be upon him).

Notable among these scholars was Ibn Hazm, who, in his encyclopedia of religions and sects, follows up on a number of obvious contradictions and clear errors in the Torah, then writes:

Here we have concluded our presentation of what we have found in the Torah of the Jews that all Jewish sects as well as the Christians uphold without any disagreement among them; (texts) that contain obvious falsehoods in what they say about Allah Almighty, then about the angels, then about the Messengers (peace be upon them all). If there had been only one of the many categories that we have mentioned, it would have been sufficient for us to conclude that they were definitely corrupted and amended with falsehoods. How is it then, when there are fifty-seven such categories, some of which contain within them seven errors or contradictions?

He then goes on to say:

So what must we think when we find such a number of errors and contradictions in a book the size of their Torah, which is only 110 pages long, each page consisting of twenty-three lines of text written in a reasonably open hand so that a single line of text contains a little more than ten words? [ al-Fasl fî al-Milal wa al-Ahwâ' wa al-Nihal ]

We find that a similar approach has been taken by numerous other scholars, all of whom cited in their works passages from the books of the Jews and Christians for the purpose of comparison and criticism. Notable among these are Abû al-Barakât al-Anbârî, Abû `Ubaydah al-Khazrajî, `Alî b. Muhammad al-Bâjî, Najm al-Dîn al-Baghdâdî al-Tufî, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Rahmah Allah b. Khalîl al-Rahmân al-Hindî, and most recently, the popular Islamic worker Ahmad Deedat.




Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum brothers Jibran and danial,

Firstly, would either one of you please point out to me where I have stated that we ordinary Muslims [i.e., not officials of the State] could apply the "eye for an eye" commandment of Allah in regards to matters of bodily injuries inflicted by one person on another?

If you believe that by starting this thread, I have actually implemented the "eye for an eye" commandment by myself [meaning that I have responded to the attacks of Geert Wilders while a Muslim State and its official agencies should only do that], then I must totally disagree. This forum [TurnToIslam] and many websites and forums defending Islam on the internet are the result of efforts of private Muslim individuals responding to the vulgar attacks to Islam haters in the West.

Sometimes this comes in the form of educating others. And at other times [like this thread] it comes in the form of quoting Biblical verses in context to be used against Islam haters who curse Islam and Muslims and hurl abuse against us. Is that a crime? If it is, please inform the moderators and it's within their powers to delete this thread. But I have one special request to the moderators. If you decide to delete this thread [and I sincerely hope you don't], then please inform me on a post on this thread about your intention, so that I could copy all the references posted by others and myself so that I could [on my own] use them in the defense of Islam.

As to brother danial writing that "Lashing back at others before even trying to forgive them and/or educate them on the right stuff is just childish", my response is that "childish" is believing that all non Muslims who hate Islam don't have the proper education regarding our religion, and once they know all about Islam, every thing's going to be alright and there'll be no more attacks on Islam from them.

Do you actually believe that?

If you do, then I'll have to inform you that you're just wrong. There are people who may come to know that Islam is the truth and yet still stay as non Muslims. Some may even go as far as attacking Islam.

And where does the responsibility lie in learning the true teachings of a religion? We Muslims are trying to get the message of Islam out there in the West, and these efforts are often hindered by the biased media and by the wrong practices of some Muslims. Still, that does not mean the Geert Wilders shouldn't have approached Muslims and asked us about our religion. He should have, and this is not his first time in attacking Islam.

The following is from the Radio Netherlands website []. It was posted on August 8, 2007:


Notice the phrases:

Mr. Wilders' statement:

Leaving aside the fact he's quoting Qu'ranic texts out of context, what does Wilders have to say about the Bible? Do all the bloodbaths mentioned in the Bible have a place in the Netherlands' legal order? Do the names against non Jews [dogs and swine] have a place in the Netherlands' legal order? And if they don't, does he have the guts to call for a ban on the Bible? Does he have the guts to produce a film about these Biblical verses [mentioned in context]?

And how many times does Wilders have to attack Islam before we Muslims expose his hypocrisy? 1, 2, 3, 1000,.......... ?

Secondly, brother danial in his post #52 wrote the following:

I believe it's very clear that you [brother danial] stated that "an eye for and eye does not make the world a better place". These are your own words. You did not write " I believe that taking the law of 'an eye for an eye' into our own hands does not make the world a better place". You specifically wrote that the principle itself [i.e., an eye for an eye] does not make the world a better place.

If you don't want me to misunderstand, then please clarify your intentions.



that political official is definitely off his rocker, me being a chrisitian i have read almost all the bible and the quran and there is definitely less violent statments in the quran; but you dont see him banning the bible. i think some of the people there, arent just anti-religion but racist as well. even though as we know there are muslims that are white, some people think islam is a religion of minorities and if they ban islam maybe they''ll have less minorities coming to their country - i think thats what their ultimate plan is.


Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum [Peace be unto you],

Brother Jibran wrote the following [among other things] in post #64 on this thread:

I have already commented on his suggestion in my post #68.

Recently, brother SubhanAllah [that's his nickname] started a thread called "Fitna The Movie: Comment, criticism and advice from". In his first post on that thread, he posted a religious opinion [fatwa] from the website supervised by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid. I thank him for this, and I'll also post this fatwa on this thread, since it contains a refutation of the 'evidence' presented by Geert Wilders in his film Fitna. It's an answer to question no. 111922 [The anti-Islam Dutch film – comment, criticism and advice]:



:salam2:akhi blue as always great thread ,jazakallahkhair for the effort you put into this,brilliant!;)
am currently reading this book in the link below it is called what did Jesus(pbuh) really say ,you can also find it online for free download inshallah,it is a good read mashallah.

best regards

The Bible gives incorrect scientific description of the earth, such as it having corners, edges, and how it can never be moved.

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth
(Isiah 11:12, KJV)

And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
(Revelation 7:1)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
(Psalm 104:5)

that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
(Job 38:13)

Here Dr. Zakir Naik also shows this error in the Bible thats says the earth is flat** (see below)


** For some odd reason if the video does not work, click on the youtube link above it.


Junior Member
Assalamu Alaikum [Peace be unto you],

To brother Happy_2BA_Muslim, I thank you for your informative post #74. I have read it once quickly, and then again more carefully. And thank you for your kind words.


To Elizabeth [blackivy393], I thank you for being objective. You wrote the following in post #75:

that political official is definitely off his rocker, me being a chrisitian i have read almost all the bible and the quran and there is definitely less violent statments in the quran; but you dont see him banning the bible. i think some of the people there, arent just anti-religion but racist as well. even though as we know there are muslims that are white, some people think islam is a religion of minorities and if they ban islam maybe they''ll have less minorities coming to their country - i think thats what their ultimate plan is.

The sad part is that there are very few Christians who see Geert Wilders as "off his rocker." I really believe [and please correct me if I'm wrong] that the majority of Christians did not read the entire text of the Bible. And that's why they don't see any double standards when this Dutch member of Parliament quotes Qur'anic verses out of context, while there are Biblical verses which [even after reading them in context] just totally undermine his arguments against the Qur'an and Islam.

As you have stated, "you dont see him banning the bible." You don't see him banning the Bible. and you don't see him producing a film that goes through these Biblical verses that undermine his arguments against Islam. And he has been able to get away with it because most Christians are largely unaware of the existence of such Biblical verses.

When you wrote, "i think some of the people there, arent just anti-religion but racist as well", it means that you believe that Geert Wilders is anti-religious. Although you may be right, I have this feeling that it's not the case. He's a politician of the far right, and most of these are religious Christians who are against anti-religious tendencies of the left wing parties [such as Communists and Socialists].

Thank you again for being objective.


To brother jameel [justoneofmillion], thank you for your kind words and the information about the book "What did Jesus REALLY Say?". I may have some time in the future to read it.


To brother TheHumbleWun, thanks for your post #77.

Dr. Zakir Naik is just amazing masha'Allah [To all non Muslims, ma'sha'Allah is the Arabic pronunciation of the saying That's what Allah has willed]. It is said after a Muslim witnesses any gift in his fellow brother or sister in Islam]. I'm very impressed by his ability to come up with the chapter and verse numbers, from both the Qur'an and the Bible. I ask Allah to bless his gifts, to give him health and happiness in this life and in the Hereafter. Aameen.


Best regards



Junior Member
"When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponent, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts, you shall chop off her hand without pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New American Bible)

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (King James Version)

I'm not saying that a wife should intervene in a fight between her husband and another man by seizing the "private parts" of this other man. However, don't most Westerners find the supposed order to "chop off her hand without pity" harsh? In Islam [as far as I know] there's no such punishment for a wife.


Junior Member
The following Biblical verses were mentioned by myself in another post. Please click on the following link to read them there [with a comparison to Qur'anic verses]:

However, I thought it would be good to post them here as well to make it easy for anyone to find these Biblical verses:


More bitter than death I find the woman who is a hunter's trap, whose heart is a snare and whose hands are prison bonds. He who is pleasing to God will escape her, but the sinner will be entrapped by her. Behold, this have I found, says Qoheleth, adding one thing to another that I might discover the answer which my soul still seeks and has not found: One man out of a thousand have I come upon, but a woman among them all I have not found.

Ecclesiastes 7:26-28 (New American Bible)

And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.

Ecclesiastes 7:26-28 (King James Version)


A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (New American Bible)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 (King James Version)


Junior Member
women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (New American Bible)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (King James Version)