Aquran yg dihafal saat ini TIDAK SAMA PERSIS dengan yg dihafal zaman Nabi Muhammad

Para muslim sekarang telah dibodohi dengan istilah PENGHAFAL quran pd jaman nabi ….

Mereka menganggap, SEMUA PENGHAFAL quran sama semua hafalannya SEPERTI muslim SEKARANG HAFAL al quran (kitab quran) …,

BAIK DARI SEGI ISI, Jumlah Ayat DAN URUTANNYA ….
Padahal tidak seperti itu pada kenyataannya ….

Dari berbagai hadist TIDAK ADA SATU MANUSIA PUN (bahkan termasuk Nabi Muhammad), yang HAFAL SELURUH quran … !!!

Mereka cuma INGAT SEBAGIAN quran SAHAJA, Ada yang INGAT BANYAK SURAT,
tapi sebagian besar CUMA INGAT SEDIKIT ayat ….

Yang MEMBUAT CELAKA dan MENYESATKAN adalah ISTILAH "HAFAL" quran itu SENDIRI … Karena pd Kenyataannya: Walau – misal si A, hanya INGAT SEBAGIAN SURA SAHAJA,
DIA SUDAH DIJULUKI "PENGHAFAL" quran … !!!

Ini yg fatal …. !!! Tidak PEDULI SEDIKIT ATAU BANYAK ayat quran YANG DIA INGAT,
DIA SUDAH DIANGGAP PENGHAFAL quran …

Sementara yang BENAR2X HAFAL SELURUH quran – saat sebelum disusun sebagai kitab atau mushaf, JUSTRU TIDAK ADA SATU ORANGPUN (bahkan nabi) …..

Maka tidak aneh, JIKA PROSES PENULISAN wahyu menjadi kitab quran pd zaman Usman,
MENGALAMI BANYAK KENDALA ….

Seperti, Harus ada 2 orang saksi ….HAL ITU MENJADI LUMRAH DAN MERUPAKAN KONSEKUENSI LOGIS, DARI TIDAK ADANYA SATU ORANGPUN YANG HAFAL Seluruh quran …. !!!

Akhirnya beberapa surat harus tereliminir dari menjadi bagian ayat2x di kitab quran karena:
1. KALAH VOTING – Saksinya kurang dari 2 orang
2. YANG HAFAL Ayat2x Tertentu SUDAH PADA MATI ….

Beberapa BUKTI HADIST tentang hilangnya bagian-bagian Al Quran

Memang tidak mungkin untuk memberikan detail dari semua kalimat, ayat-ayat, dan frase yang diduga hilang pada saat Al Qur’an dikumpulkan. Beberapa contoh yang mencolok adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Bab ke tiga puluh tiga Al-Qur’an, al-Ahzab, dikatakan telah berisi 200 atau hampir 300 ayat, yang semuanya kecuali 73 dikatakan telah hilang. Klaim dari 200 ayat ini dikaitkan dengan Ummu ‘l-Mukminin, Aisyah. “Telah diriwayatkan oleh Abu ‘Ubaid dalam al-Fada’il dan oleh Ibn al-Anbari dan Ibn Mardawayh dari Aisyah bahwa dia berkata,”Surat al-Ahzab yang dibacakan di hari-hari nabi masih hidup memiliki dua ratus ayat, tetapi ketika ‘Utsman menulis Al-Qur’an, ia tidak dapat menemukan lebih dari apa yang ada saat ini. ” [15] Sekarang hanya ada 73 ayat dalam surah ini.
Hudzaifah dikatakan mengklaim bahwa 70 ayat dari bab ini telah hilang. [16] Tetapi Ubay bin Ka’b mengatakan bahwa surat tersebut sama dengan, atau bahkan lebih besar dari bab kedua al-Baqarah. [17] Juga, ‘Ikrimah (seorang tabi’i, murid para sahabat) telah dilaporkan mengatakan hal yang sama [18] Sekarang bab al-Baqarah berisi 286 ayat. Ini berarti ada 213 atau bahkan lebih ayat yang hilang, termasuk ayat rajam.

 2. Bab kesembilan, at-Taubah: dikatakan bahwa dua pertiga atau tiga perempat dari surah ini telah hilang. Laporan ini dikaitkan dengan Hudzaifah al-Yamani. [19] Imam Malik bin Anas telah ditanya mengapa tidak ada “Bismillah” dalam surah ini. Dia berkata, “itu hilang dengan bagian-bagian sebelumnya, karena dikonfirmasi bahwa surat itu sama panjang dengan surat al-Baqarah.” [20]
Tetapi hanya ada 129 ayat dalam surat ini.

3. Kemudian datang surat al-Hafd dan al-Khal ‘yang direkam oleh sahabat terkenal seperti Ubay bin Ka’b dan Abu Musa al-Asy’ari [21] dan yang khalifah Umar bin Al-Khattab biasa lafalkan dalam qunut nya. [22]
Ke dua surat ini memiliki kalimat absurd. Beberapa kesalahan tata bahasa di dalamnya jelas menunjukkan bahwa orang-orang yang membuatnya tidak tahu bahasa Arab dengan baik. Dan ini kalimat-kalimat yang salah dikaitkan dengan sahabat Arab seperti Umar, Ubay bin Ka’b dan Abu Musa al-Asy’ari!
Siapa pun tertarik untuk melihat kesalahan dan absurditas surat-surat ini, disarankan untuk melihat buklet berbahasa arab dengan judul Nazaratun Musta’jilah fi mas’alati Tahrifi ‘l-Qur’an atau lebih baik lagi, Syaikh Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi yang Ala’u’ r fi Tafsiri-Rahman ‘l-Qur’an (vol.1 [Beirut], hlm 23-24).

4. Sebuah surat sama dengan bab ke sembilan, al-Bara’ah: Abu Musa al-Asy’ari, seorang sahabat Nabi, dilaporkan mengatakan, ‘Kami biasa membacakan surat yang panjang dan tingkat kesulitannya sama dengan al-Bara’ah, tetapi saya lupa, dan sekarang hanya ingat ayat ini:
(Jika anak Adam memiliki dua lembah penuh kekayaan ia masih akan mengingini yang ketiga;. Dan tidak ada yang dapat mengisi perut manusia kecuali debu) [23]

5. Namun surat lain: Sahabat nabi yang sama dilaporkan mengatakan, “Kami biasa membacakan surat yang kita disamakan dengan salah satu musabbihat; [24] tapi saya telah lupa, namun saya ingat ini ‘ayat’ dari dari surat itu:
(Hai orang yang beriman, Mengapa kamu mengatakan apa yang kamu tidak lakukan? Itu akan dicatat sebagai bukti yang merugikan kamu dan kemudian kamu akan ditanyai tentang hal itu pada hari kebangkitan.) [25]

6. Hilangnya banyak bagian Al Qur’an: Ada banyak hadits dalam buku-buku Sunni yang menunjukkan bahwa Al Qur’an jauh lebih banyak dari apa yang sekarang ada di tangan Muslim. “At-Tabarani meriwayatkan dengan rantai perawi yang dapat dipercaya dari ‘Umar bin al-Khaththab bahwa ia berkata,” Al-Qur’an memiliki satu juta dan 27.000 huruf …” [26] Tetapi total huruf dalam Al-Qur’an secara keseluruhan tidak lebih dari 267.053 seperti yang dicatat pada akhir banyak edisi Alquran. Dengan kata lain, tiga-perempat bagian dari Alquran itu telah hilang!

Dan pendamping ‘Abdullah bin’ Umar dilaporkan mengatakan, “Tidak satupun dari kalian yang boleh mengatakan, ‘saya sudah mendapatkan seluruh Al Qur’an.” Dan apa yang akan membuat kamu tahu Al Quran yang lengkap? Jelas banyak bagian Al Qur’an hilang. Oleh karena itu katakanlah, ‘Aku punya apa yang tersisa dari itu. ” [27]
Sayangnya ‘hadits’ tentang penghapusan besar atau kecil yang dikaitkan dengan tokoh-tokoh Islam terkenal, seperti Ummu ‘l-Mukminin’ Aisyah, Ummu ‘l-Mukminin Hafshah, Ummu’ l-Mukminin Ummu Salimah , ‘Umar bin al-Khaththab,’ Abdullah bin ‘Abbas,’ Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Abdu’r-Rahman bin ‘Auf,’ Abdullah bin ‘Umar, Zaid bin Arqam, Jabir bin’ Abdullah, Buraydah, Maslamah bin Makhlad , Abu Waqid al-Laythi, dan bibi dari Abu Amamah bin Sahl, di samping tabi’in (murid para sahabat) ‘Ikrimah dan Imam Malik bin Anas. Hadits-hadits ini ditemukan di semua buku terkenal hadits Sunni, termasuk sebagai-Sihahas-Sittah (enam kitab hadits yang benar): Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Shahih at-Tirmidzi, Sunan an-Nasa ‘i, Sunan al-Baihaqi, Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Muwatta’ Imam Malik, Ta’rikh al-Bukhari, Fathu ‘l-Ba’ri (Syarh Shahih al-Bukhari) Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani , Kanzu ‘l-‘Ummal Mulla’ Ali al-Muttaqi, Tafsir ad-Durru’l-Manthur dan al-Itqan As-Suyuthi, ‘l-Ushul Jami’u, al-Imam Muhadarat ar-Raghib al- Isfihani, Jami ‘u’ l-Jawami, Hilyatu ‘l-Awliya’ dari Hafiz Abu Nu’aym dan al-Mustadrak ‘alas-Sahihayn Imam al-Hakim an-Nishapuri. [28]

Juga ‘hadits’ yang dikaitkan dengan Imam ‘Ahlu l-bayt, dan mereka juga ditemukan dalam buku Hadits Syiah. Singkatnya buku Sunni dan Syiah hadits mengandung banyak hadits tentang hilangnya banyak bagian Al Quran. Tetapi ada perbedaan mendasar antara sikap masing-masing dua sekte ‘terhadap hadits tersebut.

[15] As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 5, hlm 179-180; As-Suyuti, Itqan al-, vol. 2. h. 25.
[16] Al-Bukhari, at-Ta’rikh, seperti dikutip oleh as-Suyuti dalam buku-buku di atas.
[17 Az-Az-Zamakhsyari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf, vol. 2 (Kalkuta:. Lees 1856) hal 1117: Mulla Ali al-Muttaqi, Kanzu ‘l-Ummal.
[18] As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 5. h. 179.
[19] As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 3. h. 208: Al-Itqan, vol. 2. h. 26: al-Hakim an-Nishapuri, al-Mustadrak-Sahihan sayangnya, vol. 2 (Hyderabad:. Dairatul-Ma’arif 1340 AH), hal 331.
[20] As-Suyuti, Itqan al-, vol. 1, hal 65.
[21] As-Suyuti, Itqan al-, vol. 1, hal 65.
[22] Ibid, hlm 25-26.
[23] As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol 1 p 105: Ibn al-Atsir. Jami ‘u’ l-Ushul, vol 3 (Mesir: 1370 H) hal 8 hadits no. 904.
[24] Musabbihat: mereka Al Quran yang dimulai dengan kata-kata. yusabbihu atau sabbih.
[25] Jami ‘u’ l-ushul, vol. 3. h. 8
[26] As-Suyuti, Itqan al-, vol. 2. p 70.
[27] As-Suyuti, Itqan al-, vol 2. h. 25: As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol 1. h. 106.
[28] Untuk rincian, lihat Mir Hamid Husain al-Musawi al-Hindi, Istiqsa’u ‘l-Ifham, vol. 2 (Lucknow) bagian mengenai tahrif Al-Qur’an

Sejarah Penyusunan Alquran - Alquran Punya 7 Versi

Gambar disamping adalah Quran versi Asim dari Kufa lewat Hafs, yang merupakan acuan dari Quran cetak edisi Mesir. 

Bagaimana proses penyusunan Quran hingga terbentuk menjadi sebuah kitab seperti yang ada sekarang ini? Kebanyakan kaum Muslim meyakini bahwa Quran yang mereka lihat dan baca hari ini adalah persis seperti yang ada pada masa Muhammad lebih dari seribu empat ratus tahun silam. Bahkan muslim percaya banwa Quran merupakan salinan dari kitab yang ada disurga ( lahul mahfuz). Keyakinan semacam itu sesungguhnya lebih merupakan formulasi dan angan2 teologis (al-khayal al-dini) yang dibuat oleh para ulama sebagai bagian dari formalisasi doktrin2 Islam. Hakikat dan sejarah penulisan Quran sendiri sesungguhnya penuh dengan berbagai nuansa kebohongan, dan tidak sunyi dari perdebatan, pertentangan, intrik, dan rekayasa.

PARA PAKAR ISLAM PUN TIDAK BISA MEMBUKTIKAN APAKAH QURAN YANG ADA SEKARANG INI MASIH SAMA ISINYA DENGAN QURAN YANG ADA DIJAMAN MUHAMMAD.

Dulu kami pernah diceritakan tentang bagaimana Quran dibentuk. Dua keterangan yang paling terkenal adalah; sebelum dia mati, Muhammad menyusun Quran menjadi sebuah buku dan Kalifah berikutnya, Abu Bakar, menyusunnya dari orang2 yang telah menulis ayat2 Quran dan menghafalnya. Meskipun begitu, kami diajarkan bahwa Quran yang sekarang ini sama persis dengan yang diberikan pada Muhammad dulu oleh malaikat Jibril.

Untuk mengerti sejarah Islam kami kemudian mulai mempelajari sumber2 Islam yang bisa dipercaya, terutama yang Sahih yang disusun oleh Bukhari. Sewaktu sedang mempelajari sejarah penyusunan teks Quran, betapa kagetnya kami ketika mengetahui bahwa Quran yang kita miliki hari ini ternyata telah melalui beberapa tahapan evolusi sebelum mencapai versi standar sekarang ini. Misalnya, kami menemukan ada tujuh cara yang berbeda untuk melafalkan Quran. Seorang dapat melafalkan dan mengingat Quran secara berbeda dan itu tetap diterima sebagai wahyu Allah. Kutipan dari Hadis Sahih Bukhari:

Sahih Bukhari 41:601,

Dikisahkan oleh 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: Aku dengar Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam melafalkan Surat-al-Furqan dengan cara yang berbeda dengan caraku. Rasul Allah telah mengajarkan padaku (dengan cara yang berbeda). Lalu, aku hampir saja ingin bertengkar dengan dia (pada saat sembahyang) tapi aku tunggu sampai dia selesai, lalu aku ikat bajunya di sekeliling lehernya dan kuseret dan kubawanya menghadap Rasul Allah dan berkata, “Aku telah mendengar dia melafalkan Surat-al-Furqan dengan cara yang berbeda dengan yang kau ajarkan padaku.” Sang Rasul menyuruhku melepaskan dia dan meminta Hisham melafalkannya. Ketika dia melakukan itu, Rasul Allah berkata, “Itu (Surat-al-Furqan ) dilafalkan begitu.” Sang Rasul lalu meminta aku melafalkannya. Ketika aku melakukannya, dia berkata, “Itu dilafalkan begitu. Qur’an telah dinyatakan dalam tujuh cara yang berbeda, jadi lafalkan dengan cara yang mudah bagimu.”

Karena terdapat tujuh cara pelafalan Quran (qiraat) ini berarti kaum Muslim dapat mengingat Quran dalam tujuh cara yang berbeda, bukan hanya satu. Jika Muhammad telah mengijinkan tujuh cara untuk melafalkan Quran, maka tentunya juga ada tujuh versi Quran, dan bukan hanya satu!

Kami tidak pernah diajarkan bahwa ada tujuh buah Quran, tapi kami hanya diberitahu ada satu Quran saja. Apakah memang betul ada tujuh buah dan semuanya itu asli ? Ketika kami terus melanjutkan penelaahan, kami temukan Hadis Sahih lain yang memperkuat dan memperluas paham bahwa Quran mungkin dikisahkan dalam tujuh cara yang berbeda.

Sahih Bukhari 54:442

Rasulullah berkata; Jibril melafalkan Quran padaku dengan satu cara (dielek), aku kemudian menyuruhnya untuk melafalkan dengan cara yang berbeda, hingga ia melafalkan dengan tujuh macam cara.

Hadis serupa dapat dilihat pada Bukhari 61:513, 61:514, dan 3:640.

Sewaktu kami mempelajarinya lebih lanjut, Hadis Sahih menegaskan bahwa bukan Muhammad yang menyusun tulisan Quran menjadi satu koleksi, tapi ini untuk pertama kali dilakukan di bawah kekuasaan Kalifah Abu Bakar. Ternyata pada saat itulah qurra, yakni orang2 yang menghafalkan Quran, terbunuh di Perang Yamama. Khalifa Abu Bakar memerintahkan untuk dibuat kumpulan ayat2 Quran, dan ini juga atas desakan Umar (Kalifah kedua). Kumpulan ayat ini disimpan oleh Kalifah Abu Bakar, dan setelah dia mati, lalu disimpan oleh Kalifah Umar dan diserahkan pada anak perempuan Umar yang bernama Hafsa, yang juga janda Muhammad.

Sahih Bukhari 61:509

Dikisahkan oleh Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq memanggilku ketika orang2 Yamama telah dibunuh (sejumlah pengikut sang Nabi yang bertempur melawan Musailama). (Aku pergi kepadanya) dan menemukan 'Umar bin Al-Khattab duduk dengannya. Abu Bakar lalu berkata (padaku), “Umar telah datang padaku dan berkata: “Banyak yang Qurra Quran (orang2 yang hafal Quran di luar kepala) yang tewas di Perang Yamama dan aku takut akan lebih banyak lagi Qurra yang akan tewas di medan perang lain, sehingga sebagian besar Quran bisa hilang. Karena itu aku menganjurkan kau (Abu Bakr) memerintah agar ayat2 Quran dikumpulkan.”

Aku berkata pada ‘Umar, “Bagaimana kau dapat berbuat sesuatu yang Rasul Allah saja tidak lakukan?” ‘Umar berkata, “Demi Allah, ini adalah usaha yang baik.” ‘Umar terus saja membujukku untuk menerima usulnya sampai Allah membuka hatiku dan aku mulai menyadari kebenaran usul ini.”

Lalu Abu Bakar berkata (padaku). ‘Kamu adalah anak muda yang bijaksana dan kami tidak curiga apapun padamu, dan kau biasa menulis Ilham Illahi bagi Rasul Allah. Maka kau harus mencari (ayat2 terpisah-pisah) Qur’an dan mengumpulkannya jadi satu buku.” Demi Allah, jika mereka memerintahkanku untuk memindahkan satu dari gunung2, ini tidak akan sesukar perintah mengumpulkan ayat2 Quran. Lalu aku berkata pada Abu Bakar, “Bagaimana kau dapat berbuat sesuatu yang Rasul Allah saja tidak lakukan?” Abu Bakar menjawab, ““Demi Allah, ini adalah usaha yang baik.” Abu Bakar terus saja membujukku untuk menerima usulnya sampai Allah membuka hatiku seperti Dia telah membuka hati Abu Bakar dan Umar.

Lalu aku mulai mencari ayat2 Quran dan mengumpulkannya dari (yang ditulis di) tangkai2 palem, batu2 putih tipis dan juga orang2 yang mengingatnya dalam hati, sampai aku menemukan ayat akhir dari Surat At-Tauba (Pertobatan) dari Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, dan aku tidak menemukan ayat ini pada orang lain. Ayatnya berbunyi: ‘Sesungguhnya telah datang bagimu seorang Rasul (Muhammad) dari antara kalian sendiri. Dia sedih melihat engkau harus menerima kecelakaan atau kesusahan … (sampai akhir Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (9.128-129). Lalu naskah2 (salinan) lengkap Quran disimpan Abu Bakr sampai dia mati, lalu disimpan ‘Umar sampai akhir hidupnya, dan kemudian disimpan Hafsa, anak perempuan Umar.

Sewaktu kami mempelajari Hadis Sahih di atas dan Hadis yang lain yang sama pesannya, kami mendapatkan hal2 yang penting. Pertama, Umar khawatir jika Quran tidak ditulis, dan jika qurra banyak yang mati, maka sebagian besar Quran akan hilang.

Kedua, ini adalah tugas yang monumental (besar sekali) yang diberikan pada Zaid karena Muhammad sendiri tidak pernah melakukan hal ini, dan Zaid menjelaskan kekhawatirannya.

Ketiga, perlu banyak usaha untuk mengumpulkan ayat2 Quran karena beberapa ayat hanya diingat oleh satu orang dan tidak ada orang lain yang menegaskan atau membenarkannya. Ada beberapa Hadis Sahih lain yang juga mengatakan hal itu.

Kejujuran Zaid membuat kami waswas. Apakah betul ini adalah tugas yang sangat berat? Apakah memang dia orang yang tepat melaksanakan tugas itu? Kami mulai mencari dan menemukan bahwa Muhammad telah menganjurkan orang2 lain dan bukan Zaid untuk mengajar Quran pada muslim lain.

Sahih Bukhari 61:521

Dikisahkan oleh Masriq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mengingatkan 'Abdullah bin Masud dan berkata, "Aku akan mencintai orang itu selamanya, karena aku mendengar sang Nabi berkata, ‘Belajarlah Qur’an dari empat orang ini: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh dan Ubai bin Ka'b.’"

Kami sangat khawatir karena tidak seorangpun dari keempat orang yang direkomendasikan Muhammad untuk mengajar Quran diberi tugas untuk mengumpulkan atau menegaskan kebenaran Quran. Yang disuruh justru juru tulisnya Muhammad: Zaid bin Thabit. Dia juga khawatir bahwa tugas ini terlalu berat. Tapi baik Kalifah Abu Bakr maupun Umar pada saat itu tidak minta satu pun dari keempat orang di atas untuk memeriksa hasil penyusunan Quran buatan Zaid.

Kami lanjutkan penyelidikan dengan rasa agak bingung karena proses penyusunan ini ternyata melibatkan lebih banyak hal yang tidak pernah didengar sebelumnya. Sayangnya, kami mendapatkan bahwa sejarah penyusunan Quran tidak berhenti pada saat itu saja. Dengan makin bertambah dan menyebarnya masyarakat Muslim, jadi bertambah sukar pula untuk mempertahankan keutuhan isi Quran karena tidak ada satu patokan isi Quran yang sah, setiap guru agama punya salinan mereka sendiri. Ini mengakibatkan banyaknya ketidaksetujuan diantara masyarakat Muslim, dan karena itu, Kalifah Utsman diminta untuk berbuat sesuatu untuk menanggulangi hal ini.

Harap diingat bahwa pada saat itu, naskah Quran yang dikumpulkan Zaid tidak disebarkan ke mana2, dan masih disimpan oleh Hafsa. Juga perhatikan apa yang dilakukan Kalifah Utsman seperti yang diterangkan di Hadis Sahih Bukhari berikut.

Sahih Bukhari, 61:510:

Dikisahkan oleh Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman datang pada Utsman pada saat orang2 Sham dan Iraq sedang mengadakan perang untuk menaklukkan Arminya dan Adharbijan. Hudhaifa takut akan perbedaan pelafalan Qur’an yang dilakukan mereka (orang2 Sham dan Iraq), lalu dia berkata pada ‘Utsman, “O ketua orang yang beriman! Selamatkan negara ini sebelum mereka bertentangan tentang Buku ini (Qur’an) seperti yang dilakukan orang Yahudi dan Kristen sebelumnya.” Lalu ‘Utsman mengirim pesan pada Hafsa yang isinya, “Kirim pada kami naskah2 Qur’an sehingga kami bisa mengumpulkan bahan2 Qur’an dalam salinan yang sempuran dan mengembalikan naskah2 itu padamu.”

Hafsa lalu mengirimkannya pada ‘Utsman. ‘Utsman lalu memerintahkan Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As dan 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham untuk menulis ulang naskah2 itu menjadi salinan yang sempurna. ‘Utsman berkata pda tiga orang Quraish, “Andaikata kau tidak setuju dengan Zaid bin Thabit tentang isi apapun dalam Qur’an, maka tulislah Qur’an dalam dialek Quraish, agar Qur’an dinyatakan dalam bahasa asli mereka.”

Mereka melakukan itu, dan ketika mereka telah menulis banyak salinan, ‘Utsman mengembalikan naskah2 yang asli pada Hafsa. ‘Utsman mengirim satu salinan Qur’an ke setiap propinsi Muslim, dan memerintahkan semua tulisan2 Qur’an lain, baik yang ditulis di beberapa naskah atau seluruh buku, dibakar.

Said bin Thabit menambahkan, “Satu ayat dari Surat Ahzab hilang dariku ketika kita menyalin Qur’an dan aku biasa mendengar Rasul Allah menceritakannya. Maka kami mencarinya dan menemukannya pada Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (Ayat ini berbunyi): ‘Diantara orang2 yang beriman ada orang2 yang menepati apa yang telah mereka janjikan kepada Allah.’ (33.23)

Dari mempelajari kisah di atas dan juga Hadis Sahih lain yang pesannya serupa, kami perhatikan ada beberapa kumpulan Quran yang berbeda2 yang tersebar saat itu. Ini adalah bagian kumpulan Quran yang dibuat oleh keempat guru2 Quran yang direkomendasikan Muhammad seperti yang ditulis di Hadis terdahulu, yakni salah satunya Ubai bin Ka'b. Lagi2 kami merasa terganggu dengan hal2 berikut.

Pertama, ada banyak ketidaksetujuan diantara para Muslim tentang apa yang seharusnya ada dalam Quran. Karena itu, Kalifah Utsman memerintahkan naskah2 Quran yang disimpan Hafsa untuk disalin dan disebarkan dan ditunjuk sebagai salinan Quran yang sah.

Kedua, jika ada banyak ketidaksetujuan diantara ahli2 tulis yang menyalin Quran tentang bagaimana melafalkan suatu ayat, Utsman menyuruh mereka menulisnya dalam dialek Quraish. Kami kecewa ketika tahu bahwa Kalifah Utsman memerintahkan perubahan kata2 Quran ke dalam dialek Quraish. Apakah perubahan bagian dari tujuh versi Quran yang berbeda? Kami tidak menemukan penjelasan ini di Hadis Sahih. Yang terakhir, kami kaget sekali ketika Khalifa Utsman memerintahkan PEMBAKARAN Quran2 yang lain, tidak peduli apakah seluruhnya atau sebagian saja. Kami bertanya dalam hati: MENGAPA? Mestinya karena Quran2 lain yang beredar saat itu begitu berbeda dengan yang dimiliki Khalifa Utsman sehingga dia sampai2 mengeluarkan perintah yang begitu keras. Ingat saat Al-Yaman bertemu Utsman untuk memintanya menyelamatkan negara karena mereka berbeda pendapat tentang Quran. Sekarang Kalifah Utsman memerintahkan disebarkannya salinan yang dimiliki Hafsa, padahal versi ini belum pula disahkan oleh guru2 Quran terbaik untuk jadi patokan Quran yang sah.

Sewaktu kami menyelidiki apa kemungkinan perbedaannya yang ada, kami menemukan contoh kata Bismillah yang hilang pada awal Surah 9, ayat perajaman yang hilang dimakan KAMBING, dan lalu ayat ini dihapus, ditarik kembali, dibatalkan atau dilupakan. Kami telah membicarakan hal ini dalam penelitian kami tentang ayat2 yang dibatalkan (Ayat2 setan). Kami menjumpai bahwa meskipun perintah penghancuran diberikan, beberapa bagian dari versi Quran lain ternyata selamat, mungkin karena orang2 Muslim hafal akan variasi lain dari Quran.

Contohnya, dari terjemahan Quran oleh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, kami menemukan Qiraat (bacaan Quran) lain yang berbeda dengan Quran milik Ka’b yang direkomendasikan Muhammad sebagai satu dari empat guru terbaik untuk mengajar Quran. Dia menulis ada kata2 tambahan bagi Surah 33:6. Kami dulu diajari bahwa tidak ada satu titik pun yang diubah, dan inilah seluruh kalimat yang hilang yang ditandai dengan ** di bawah di catatan kaki 3674 dari Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

Nabi itu (hendaknya) lebih utama bagi orang-orang mukmin dari diri mereka sendiri, ** dan isteri-isterinya adalah ibu-ibu mereka. Dan orang-orang yang mempunyai hubungan darah satu sama lain lebih berhak (waris-mewarisi) di dalam Kitab Allah daripada orang-orang mukmim dan orang-orang Muhajirin, kecuali kalau kamu berbuat baik kepada saudara-saudaramu (seagama). Adalah yang demikian itu telah tertulis di dalam Kitab (Allah). (QS 33:6)

** Catatan kaki 3674 : … Di beberapa Qiraats, seperti yang dimiliki Ubai ibn Ka’b, muncul pula kata2 ini “dan dia adalah ayah bagi mereka”, yang mengartikan bahwa hubungan spiritualnya dan hubungannya denga kata2 “dan isteri-isterinya adalah ibu-ibu mereka”. …

As-Suyuti (wafat 1505), salah seorang pakar Quran yang paling dihormati mengutip Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab : "Janganlah ada diantara kalian yang mengatakan bahwa ia mendapatkan seluruh Quran, karena bagamana ia tahu bahwa itu memang keseluruhannya? Banyak dari Quran telah hilang. Oleh karena itu, kalian harus mengatakan ‘Saya mendapatkan sebagian Quran yang ada’" (As-Suyuti, Itqan, part 3, page 72).

Aisha, isteri tersayang nabi mengatakan, juga menurut sebuah tradisi yang diceritakan as-Suyuti, "Selama masa Nabi, saat dibacakan, Surah al-Ahzab berisi 200 ayat. Ketika Utsman mengedit Quran, hanya ayat2 sekarang ini (73) yang tertinggal."

As-Suyuti juga menceritakan ini tentang Uba ibn Ka’b, salah seorang sahabat Muhammad: Sahabat terkenal ini meminta salah seorang Muslim, "Berapa ayat yang ada dalam Surah al-Ahzab?" Katanya, "73 ayat." Ia (Uba) mengatakan padanya, "Dulunya jumlah ayatnya hampir sama dengan Surah ‘Al Baqarah’ (sekitar 286 ayat) dan termasuk ayat perajaman". Lelaki itu bertanya, "Apa ayat perajaman itu ?" Ia (Uba) mengatakan, "Jika lelaki tua atau wanita melakukan zinah, rajam mereka sampai mati."

Ibn Mas’ud, seorang sahabat dekat Nabi, misalnya, memiliki mushaf Quran yang tidak menyertakan surah al-Fatihah (surah pertama). Bahkan menurut Ibn Nadiem (w. 380 H), pengarang kitab al-Fihrist, mushaf Ibn Mas’ud tidak menyertakan surah 113 dan 114. Susunan surahnyapun berbeda dari Quran yang ada sekarang. Misalnya, surah keenam bukanlah surah al-An’am, tapi surah Yunus.

Ibn Mas’ud bukanlah seorang diri yang tidak menyertakan al-Fatihah sebagai bagian dari Quran. Sahabat lain yang menganggap surah “penting” itu bukan bagian dari Quran adalah Ali bin Abi Thalib yang juga tidak memasukkan surah 13, 34, 66, dan 96. Hal ini memancing perdebatan di kalangan para ulama apakah al-Fatihah merupakan bagian dari Quran atau ia hanya merupakan “kata pengantar” saja yang esensinya bukanlah bagian dari kitab suci.

Salah seorang ulama besar yang menganggap al-Fatihah bukan sebagai bagian dari Quran adalah Abu Bakr al-Asamm (w. 313 H). Dia dan ulama lainnya yang mendukung pandangan ini berargumen bahwa al-Fatihah hanyalah “ungkapan liturgis” untuk memulai bacaan Quran. Ini merupakan tradisi populer masyarakat Mediterania pada masa awal Islam. Sebuah hadis Nabi mendukung fakta ini: “siapa saja yang tidak memulai sesuatu dengan bacaan alhamdulillah [dalam hadis lain bismillah] maka pekerjaannya menjadi sia-sia.”

Seperti yang kita lihat sebelumnya, Utsman mencoba mengatasi situasi kacau ini dengan kanonisasi codex / mushaf Medinah, yang salinannya dikirim kesemua pusat2 metropolitan diiringi perintah untuk menghancurkan kesemua mushaf lain.

Mushaf Utsman ini dianggap sebagai standar teks konsonan, tapi yang kita temukan justru terdapat berbagai variasi teks konsonan yang masih hidup juga sampai abad Islam ke 4. Dari sinilah kemudian muncul beragam bacaan yang berbeda akibat absennya titik dan harakat (scripta defectiva). Misalnya bentuk present (mudhari’) dari kata a-l-m bisa dibaca yu’allimu, tu’allimu, atau nu’allimu atau juga menjadi na’lamu, ta’lamu atau bi’ilmi.

Masalah diperuncing dengan adanya perbedaan kosakata akibat pemahaman makna, dan bukan hanya persoalan absennya titik dan harakat. Misalnya, mushaf Ibn Mas’ud berulangkali menggunakan kata “arsyidna” ketimbang “ihdina” (keduanya berarti “tunjuki kami”) yang biasa didapati dalam mushaf Utsmani. Begitu juga, “man” sebagai ganti “alladhi” (keduanya berarti “siapa”). Daftar ini bisa diperpanjang dengan kata dan arti yang berbeda, seperti “al-talaq” menjadi “al-sarah” (Ibn Abbas), “fas’au” menjadi “famdhu” (Ibn Mas’ud), “linuhyiya” menjadi “linunsyira” (Talhah), dan sebagainya.

Untuk mengatasi versi2 bacaan yang semakin liar, pada tahun 322 H, Khalifah Abbasiyah lewat dua orang menterinya Ibn Isa dan Ibn Muqlah, memerintahkan Ibn Mujahid (w. 324 H) melakukan penertiban. Setelah membanding2kan semua mushaf yang ada di tangannya, Ibn Mujahid memilih tujuh varian bacaan dari para qurra ternama. Bahkan ketujuh mushaf versi Ibn Mujahid memberikan 14 kemungkinan karena masing2 dari ketujuh mushaf itu bisa dilacak kepada dua transmitter berbeda. yakni;

1. Nafi dari Medinah menurut Warsh dan Qalun

2. Ibn Kathir dari Mekah menurut al-Bazzi dan Qunbul

3. Ibn Amir dari Damascus menurut Hisham dan Ibn Dakwan

4. Abu Amr dari Basra menurut al-Duri dan al-Susi

5. Asim dari Kufa menurut Hafs dan Abu Bakr

6. Hamza dari Kufa menurut Khalaf dan Khallad

7. Al-Kisai dari Kufa menurut al Duri dan Abul Harith

Tindakannya ini berdasarkan hadis Nabi yang mengatakan bahwa “Quran diturunkan dalam tujuh huruf.” Tapi, sebagian ulama menolak pilihan Ibn Mujahid dan menganggapnya telah semena-mena mengesampingkan versi2 lain yang dianggap lebih sahih. Nuansa politik dan persaingan antara ulama pada saat itu memang sangat kental. Ini tercermin seperti dalam kasus Ibn Miqsam dan Ibn Shanabudh yang pandangan2nya dikesampingkan Ibn Mujahid karena adanya rivalitas di antara mereka, khususnya antara Ibn Mujahid dan Ibn Shanabudh.

Bagaimanapun, reaksi para ulama tersebut tidak banyak berpengaruh. Sejarah membuktikan pandangan Ibn Mujahid yang didukung penguasa itulah yang kini diterima oleh banyak orang. Pada akhirnya 3 versi bertahan, versinya Warsh (812) milik Nafi dari Medina, Hafs (805) milik Asim dari Kufa, dan al-Duri (860) milik Abu Amr dari Basra. Jaman sekarang, hanya 2 versi yang terus digunakan. Yaitu versi Asim dari Kufa lewat Hafs, yang diberikan ijin resmi dengan diadopsi sebagai Quran edisi Mesir tahun 1924; dan milik Nafi lewat Warsh, yang digunakan di bagian2 Afrika selain Mesir.

Pencetakan Quran di Mesir tahun 1924 adalah rekayasa yang luar biasa, karena upaya ini merupakan yang paling berhasil dalam sejarah kodifikasi dan pembakuan Quran sepanjang masa. Terbukti kemudian, Quran Edisi Mesir itu merupakan versi Quran yang paling banyak beredar dan digunakan oleh kaum Muslim. Keberhasilan penyebarluasan Quran Edisi Mesir tak terlepas dari unsur kekuasaan. Seperti juga pada masa2 sebelumnya, kodifikasi dan standarisasi Quran adalah karya institusi yang didukung oleh penguasa politik.

Apa yang telah dilakukan oleh pemerintah Saudi Arabia mencetak ratusan ribu kopi Quran sejak tahun 1970-an merupakan bagian dari proyek standarisasi kitab suci, yang bertujuan memusnahkan versi2 Quran yang lain. Kendati tidak seperti Utsman bin Affan yang secara terang2an memerintahkan membakar seluruh versi (mushaf) Quran yang bukan miliknya, tindakan penguasa Saudi membanjiri pasar Quran hanya dengan satu edisi, menutupi dan perlahan2 menyisihkan edisi lain yang diam2 masih beredar (khususnya di wilayah Maroko dan sekitarnya).

Akhirnya kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa Quran versi yang ada sekarang ini jauh dari kata suci dan murni. Bahkan jika dibandingkan dengan kitab samawi lain seperti Taurat dan Injil, kemurnian atau validitas Quran jauh dibawah kedua kitab tersebut.

Aisha pernah melaporkan bahwa bahwa ada satu lembaran yang berisi 2 ayat, termasuk ayat2 rajam, ditulis dalam lembaran yang disimpan dibawah tempat tidurnya. Sayang pada waktu pemakaman Rasulullah, seekor binatang memakannya hingga musnah. Disebutkan dalam bahasa Arab bahwa binatang tersebut adalah “dajin”, yang dapat berarti hewan seperti kambing, domba ataupun unggas.

Sumber :

• Ibrahim b. Ishaq al Harbis, Gharib al hadith menyebutkan “shal” yang berarti domba

• Zamakshari, al Kashaf, vol 3 p 518, footnote

• Sulaym b. Qays al Hilali, Kitab Sulaymn b. Qays, p 108

• Al Fadl b. Shadahn, al Idah, p 211

• Abd al Jalil al Qazwini, p 133

Peristiwa hilangnya ayat2 Quran akibat dimakan binatang sungguh menggelikan, menyedihkan dan memalukan, karena ucapan ALLAH DIKALAHKAN OLEH SEEKOR KAMBING.

Sesungguhnya Kami-lah yang menurunkan Al Qur'an, dan sesungguhnya Kami benar-benar memeliharanya. (QS 15:9)

MASIHKAH UMAT MUSLIM MENGATAKAN BAHWA KEMURNIAN QURAN SENANTIASA TERPELIHARA OLEH ALLAH? 

Menurut Alquran, TANAH YG DIKUASAI ISRAEL ADALAH MILIK ISRAEL BUKAN MILIK PALESTINA ...!

Sheikh Ahmad Adwan, who introduces himself as a Muslim scholar who lives in Jordan, said on his personal Facebook page that there is no such thing as “Palestine” in the Koran. Allah has assigned the Holy Land to the Children of Israel until the Day of Judgment (Koran, Sura 5 – “The Sura of the Table”, Verse 21), and “We made the Children of Israel the inheritors (of the land)” (Koran, Sura 26 – “The Sura of the Poets”, Verse 59).

"I say to those who distort their Lord’s book, the Koran: From where did you bring the name Palestine, you liars, you accursed, when Allah has already named it “The Holy Land” and bequeathed it to the Children of Israel until the Day of Judgment. There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in the Koran. Your demand for the Land of Israel is a falsehood and it constitutes an attack on the Koran, on the Jews and their land. Therefore you won’t succeed, and Allah will fail you and humiliate you, because Allah is the one who will protect them (i.e. the Jews).”

The sheikh added: “The Palestinians are the killers of children, the elderly and women. They attack the Jews and then they use those (children, the elderly and women) as human shields and hide behind them, without mercy for their children as if they weren’t their own children, in order to tell the public opinion that the Jews intended to kill them. This is exactly what I saw with my own two eyes in the 70’s, when they attacked the Jordanian army, which sheltered and protected them. Instead of thanking it (the Jordanian army), they brought their children forward to (face) the Jordanian army, in order to make the world believe that the army kills their children. This is their habit and custom, their viciousness, their having hearts of stones towards their children, and their lying to public opinion, in order to get its support.”

It is worth mentioning, that the above mentioned sheikh visited Israel and met Jewish religious scholars. The “Israel in Arabic” site conducted an interview with him, in which he said that the reason for his openness towards the Jewish people “comes from my acknowledgment of their sovereignty on their land and my belief in the Koran, which told us and emphasized this in many places, like His (Allah’s) saying ”Oh People (i.e the Children of Israel), enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned unto you” (Koran, Sura 5 – “The Sura of the Table”, Verse 21), and His saying “We made the Children of Israel the inheritors (of the land)” (Koran, Sura 26 – “The Sura of the Poets”, Verse 59) and many other verses.

He (Adwan) added: “(The Jews) are peaceful people who love peace, who are not hostile and are not aggressors, but if they are attacked, they defend themselves while causing as little damage to the attackers as possible. It is an honor for them that Allah has chosen them over the worlds – meaning over the people and the Jinns until the Day of Judgment. I made the reasons for Allah’s choice clear in my books and pamphlets. When Allah chose them, He didn’t do so out of politeness, and He wasn’t unjust other peoples, it is just that they (the Jews) deserved this.”

Tipuan dan Kebohongan yg biasa dimainkan Islam

Given Islam's violent history and the unfavorable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age.  Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith.

This is a document (which we hope to improve on and expand over time) that exposes some of these games and helps truth-seekers find their way through the maze of disingenuous (often blatantly false) claims about Islam and its history. 

“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

“Other religions kill, too.”

Muhammad preached 'no compulsion in religion' (Qur'an: 2:256)

The Crusades

“Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Qur'an Teaches that all Life is Sacred (Qur'an 5:32)

"Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The million dollar wager that "Holy War" isn't in the Qur'an.

"Verses of violence are taken out of context."

"Islam must be true, because it is the world’s fastest growing religion."

"The Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic."

“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

The Muslim Game:

Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion?  If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?

The Truth:

The same question can easily be turned around.  If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?  Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane full of passengers into an office building while screaming praises to Allah?  Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs?

Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let's just say that the reason why most Muslims don't kill is that regardless of what Islam may or may not teach it's wrong to kill over religious beliefs.

Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand.  Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so?  Of course not!  In fact, it is clearly mandated in both the Qur'an (5:38) and the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792).  As individuals, Muslims make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice.

However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn't say, it doesn't change what Islam says about itself.  As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone's opinion.   As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.

The Qur'an plainly teaches that it is not only proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement.  Muslims who don't believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Muhammad’s religion.  Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise.

In fact, few Muslims have ever read the Qur'an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Muhammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint.  The harsh rules that Muslim countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood.  In the West, many Muslims, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Islam is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary.

It is no coincidence, however, that the purists who take Islam too heart are far more likely to become terrorists than humanitarians.  Those most prone to abandoning themselves to Muhammad's message without moral preconception are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded.  They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.

“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.  Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber?  How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer?  Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems? 

The Truth:

Because they don’t. 

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that "science" was his religion).  At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus.  His motives are very well documented through interviews and research.  God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement.  They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter. 

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. 

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem.  There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S.  Eight people died.  This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.  If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police.  In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated.  He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy.  Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off. 

In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined.  No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year.  Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it.  Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.”
(Qur’an, Verse 2:256)

 The Muslim Game:

Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is.  The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…”

The Truth:

One trick of apologists is to quote from earlier verses in the Quran to portray Islam as peaceful without mentioning that they are superceded by later, more violent verses.

The Muslim who offers verse 2:256 may or may not know that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period.  It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca.  They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish.  It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.

But Muslims today pray toward Mecca.  The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first.  In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur'an 2:106, 16:101).

Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity.  This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold.  Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims.  Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah."  This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups.

Though most Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword.  As he is recorded in many places as saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."  (See Bukhari 2:24)

Muhammad put his words into practice.  When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by the Arabs for centuries.  By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own.  Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia.  Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like "no compulsion in religion?"

According to Muslim historians, Muhammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn't comply.  He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray.

Interestingly, even the same contemporary Muslims  who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion.  These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.” 

Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya.  Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death.  If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?

The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them.  To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie.  By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. 

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death.  As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death.  In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.   Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered.  (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad."

Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian.  They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.  Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims.  The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad.  In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam.  Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences.  Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority.  Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another.  This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders."  Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes.  Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war.  In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities.  In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel.  (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).  By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims.  Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after. 

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred.  This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will. 

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

"Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Muslim Game:

In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone.  By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention). 

The Truth:

By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.

Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders.  In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know. 

There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.

Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad.  Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.

“The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred”
(Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:

In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Muslim apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah - especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists:

"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"
(As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)

The Truth:

This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture.  But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears.  Remember all those ellipses?  There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

First, notice the gaping loophole.  Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.”  Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?”  If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would.  But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means - with varying standards.  Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify.  Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Muhammad and the Quran counts as "mischief".

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse.  It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Muslims after all.  It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews.  It isn’t an admonition against killing.  It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them.  “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

Any application to Muslims would have to apply only to Muslims - as in Muslim on Muslim murder within the brotherhood of believers.  In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain.   Historically, this verse has never been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that Allah places equal value on the lives of non-Muslims.  The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equality (2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Muslims (39:09).   Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they should never be slain for killing a non-believer. 

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence.  Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively.  Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service - and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

Muslim apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”.  It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”  

Although verse 5:32 recounts the law given to Jews, the verse that follows is clearly intended for Muslims.  Verse 5:33 provides the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Islam.  Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal offense into a capital crime.

So, the Quran's best example of moral instruction is a passage which actually mandates the torture and execution of those deemed a threat to Islamic hegemony...

With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year.

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others.  The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca.  His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods.  There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least).  This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids.  The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims.  Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11^th.  The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured.  They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina.  But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing.  Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina.  They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings.  To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191).  This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others.  There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged.  All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned.  None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense.  To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. 

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe.  They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent.  Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense.  They were about Jihad.

"The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.”

The Muslim Game:

In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.”  Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.

So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.”  Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).

The Truth:

In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Qur'an, such as the infamous Sura 9 (which includes the “Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text. 

So what’s the catch?

Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer.  You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war.  He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”

And what about “Jihad?”  Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours).  "Jihad" is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).

If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy.  It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat.  But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.”  Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer.

So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side.  (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).

My, what a hollow victory this is!  One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.

At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism.

“Verses of violence are taken out of context.”

The Muslim Game:

All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages).

The Truth:

Unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite.  This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages.  Neophytes are encouraged to seek the "counseling" of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them" interpret what they read.

It isn't the verses of violence that are rare; it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Muhammad's life and superseded by later ones).  Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in most cases.  There is nothing overall that limits the targeting of unbelievers to a specific place and time. 

One would think that a perfect book from a perfect god would be easy to understand, but in the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought.  Few Quran's are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original "revelation."

This is a problem when it comes to many of the verse that dictate violence.  Although they can often be mitigated with non-intuitive references to entirely separate passages, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework.  It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave the brutally sensitive topic of killing open to human interpretation.

With external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.”  They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as present-day orders.

But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Muslims are likely to engage.  Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there - such as in the case of the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur'an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers.  They ignore context when it proves inconvenient.  An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

"Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion"

The Muslim Game:

How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast?  Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?

The Truth:

In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief.  Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet.  Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour.  Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was?

Secondly, Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West.  Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of genuine accomplishment.  There are also a few women who "marry into Islam" each year, but this is usually just a nominal change in official designation.

Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers.  Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation.  In the West and other parts of the non-Muslim world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than Islam. 

This leads to our most important point, which is that decent Muslims should feel a sense of embarrassment rather than pride over the rules that they have to enforce in order to maintain Islam's status as the "fastest growing religion."  In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Muslims have in their own religion - and the banal immaturity of Islam compared with other faiths.

Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy.  Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him.  One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves on his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves on yours.  Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken.

Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can truly take pride? 

The rules that Muslims impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy.  Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (ie. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others.  Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death.

In the Muslim world, Christians who evangelize are imprisoned, assaulted, beaten, set on fire, shot, bludgeoned, and tortured by Islamists.  Missionaries are raped and killed.  Former Muslims who embrace Christianity as their religion of choice are thrown in jail along with their children, sexually assaulted, crippled, hanged, stoned, stabbed, dismembered, carved up, scalded, beheaded, brutalized, doused with acid, burned alive and publicly executed...

...and Muslims brag that their religion is growing faster!

Muslims who gloat over their “fast growing" religion are no different than the child from our example who deludes himself into thinking that he is smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless.

So the more pertinent question isn't which religion is growing faster, but which is growing faster where people are free to choose.  In this environment, Christianity wins easily.  Converts are even won in Muslim countries under draconian conditions that Muslim evangelists never have to face anywhere on the planet.  When was the last time a person was killed or tortured merely for embracing Islam?

Islam has been playing by its own rules since its inception.  It is unlikely that Muslims will soon develop enough maturity or confidence in their own religion to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success, and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field. 

As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has (by that standard, Christianity would be true).  But when a religion has to be supported by double standards, death threats and violence there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.

(Note: Our article does not take issue with the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because we necessarily believe it, but because others have done a better job of refuting it.  See Islam is not the Fastest Growing Religion in the World for an example.)

"The Qur'an Can Only be Understood in Arabic"

The Muslim Game:

The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic.  One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic.

The Truth:

Although Muslims often tell critics of Islam to "read the Qur'an," they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded.  An honest translation of Islam's holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion.  The fallback is to then claim that the Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic.

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent.  Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that one "must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy.  Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic.  While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable?  More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people?  Even the vast majority of Muslims and their imams do not speak Arabic.

Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism.  In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) perfectly corresponds with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an!

No other world religion claims that it can only be fully understood in one language.  Neither is the same level of effort required to massage primary messages into palatability.  While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways.  On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the "perfect book" can't be translated and that Allah's perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters.  Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same "necessary" chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims.  In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well - a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek).

At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist - the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are - ironically enough - accused of taking the Qur'an 'too literally'). 

It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more.  Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn - and susceptible to such horrible "misinterpretation" on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn't hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates.  Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics.  Neither do they qualify the claim that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Muslims) don't understand Islam since they can't read the Quran in Arabic.

Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock.  Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others.