Books and Documents

Islam and Human Rights (13 Jan 2015 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Freedom Of Expression About One’s Thoughts About The Prophet Or Faith Of Islam – One Died Over14 Centuries Ago And The Other An Established Historical Reality – None Vulnerable To Word Of Man



By Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam

Jan. 13, 2015

(Muhammad Yunus, co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009)

The Qur’an declares the Prophet Muhammad was sent as a mercy to mankind (21:107).

But a great Muslims scholar who has considerable following put the word ‘sword’ in the interpretation and declared: ‘God sent the Prophet (with as sword) as a mercy to mankind.’

Is this not blasphemous?

Can mercy and sword go together? Obviously, not!

Did the Prophet use sword or force to convert pagans into faith? The answer is no. The Qur’anic glimpses of the Prophetic mission completely rule out this notion.

The ‘sword’ obviously comes out of somebody’s mind. If a Muslim scholar can put a sword in the Prophet’s hand, a non-Muslim with an artistic mind can put an AK-47 in his hand. But that will throw the whole Muslims world into a frenzy of violence for blasphemy against their Prophet.

How can a sword be accepted as fitting and admirable for the Prophet and an AK-47, which is simply a modern version of a “sword” insulting?

 After all the Paris terrorists used AK-47 and fired them with the slogan of Islam, “Allah u Akbar” giving an impression to the world that they acted in the cause of Islam, the religion of Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

Leaving aside the above arbitrary example, there are many Ahadith (Prophetic traditions) that project the Prophet as a cruel and sadist person and are thus highly malicious and blasphemous.  Some examples from the most authentic of Sunni compilations (that of Imam al-Bukhari) are quoted below:

The Prophet ordered amputation of hands and feet, branding of eye with heated nails and dumping on in rocky train without any water to die from bleeding to punish some men from Ukul tribe who had committed theft, murder and apostasy (Vol.1, Acc. 234, Vol.2, Acc. 577, Vol.4, Acc. 261-A, Vol.5, Acc. 505, 507, Vol.8, Acc.796.).

He did not even allow cauterizing of their amputated hands and feet until they died (Vol.8, Acc. 794, 797).

He ordered the amputation of some men of ‘Uraina who fought against (Allah and His Messenger) and did not cauterise the wounds until they (bled and) died (Vol.8, Acc.795).

He ordered to kill anyone (Muslim) who left Islam (Acc. 260/ Vol.1). He burnt and cut-down the palm trees of Bani al-Nadir (Acc. 365, 366/ Vol.5).

The Qur’an projects the Prophet as a Noble Messenger (81:19) and a person of sublime character (68:4); but there are Ahadith, even in the al-Bukhari compilation that stand blasphemous as they project the Prophet as a sexually obsessed person:

The Prophet embedded all of his nine to eleven wives in round during the day and night (Acc.268, 270, 282/Vol.1, Acc. 34/Vol.3, Acc.6, 142/Vol.7). He shared bath from a single pot with his youngest wife Aisha (Acc. 272, 298/Vol.1), and fondled his wives when they were in menses by getting them to wear the Izar (dress worn below the waist) (Acc. 298, 299, 300/Vol.1).

The irony is the Ulema of Islam regard the Ahadith (narratives), however insulting to the Prophet, as some kind of indirect revelation and therefore do not muster the courage to say a word against their compilers, narrators or initial reporters. They fail to understand that all such accounts that show the Prophet as a legendary character, let alone a great warrior, a sadist or sexually obsessed are merely fictions of people’s imagination – verbalization of the imageries that rose in the minds of his admirers or detractors.  They still study them and keep them alive as part of Islam’s Secondary sources, but if someone who is not a Muslim allows his artistic mind to fabricate something about the Prophet in written or art form or as a cartoon, the hell breaks loose upon the Muslim world.

This double standard must stop once and for all. The Danish carton controversy created mayhem across the Muslim world and resulted in violent demonstrations and riots in some Muslim countries with a death toll of some 200 people – practically all Muslims. And the other day we have this tragic massacre at Charlie Hebdo.

May the soul of those killed rest in peace! The terrorists who killed them did so, not so much out of rage as they declared than to terrorize the French people. But thanks to the massive protest in France and the Western world, this must be taken as a eye opener for the Ulama and politicians of Islam particularly those who regard blasphemy as a criminal offence.

One can of course argue that if freedom of speech and expression is not restricted within limits, a corrupt school teacher can expose a child to a pornographic material, a fanatic religious zealot can act like the priest of Cordova, an artist can follow the example of Dante Alghieri, and the word ‘hate speech’ will have to be removed from modern vocabulary. If there can be a hate speech, why can there be a “hate art” or a “hate cartoon”? The sole object of freedom of expression is to allow the oppressed and victimized to speak against injustice and of course to allow people to disagree with anybody on any matter. But if it is given a carte blanche to say or write or draw anything, it may be exempting this noble ideology from any moral bondage. That is for the world leaders to decide and sort out.

The leaders of the world must admit that there is something that is inherently good and something inherently evil. If one abuses a person, he feels offended and may restrain himself or instinctively return the abuse. If you abuse or insult a religious icon, the devout followers of that religion may feel offended and either ignore or return the abuse – which, however, a Muslim must do without any recourse to violence.

So the bottom line is, the people should feel free to express their thoughts and mental imageries about the Prophet in any form they wish, but they should be kind and courteous enough to care for the sentiments of the others. But if a floodgate of caricatures and malicious reports is opened in the wake of this tragic massacre by a lone criminal who has acted against the commandments of the Qur’an, the Muslims must look into their own Secondary sources and accept the fact that human imagination is fired by legends, fables, and all that is grotesque and bizarre, and the Qur’an commands them to return evil with good and to ignore those who malign the Messengers of God.

“Those who patiently seek the Countenance of their Lord, keep up prayer and spend out of what We have provided them, secretly or publicly and repel evil with good – such will attain the eternal life” (13:22).

“Repel evil with that which is good. Indeed We are aware of what they are working (in their minds)” (23:96).

“Goodness and evil are not equal. Therefore repel the latter with that which is good, and then the one between whom and you is hatred, will indeed become your friend (41:34). None can attain this except those who show perseverance; and none can attain this except the very fortunate” (41:34).

“Thus we made for every messenger an enemy - Satans from among men and jinn, some of them inspiring others with seductive talk (in order to) deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased, they would not have done it. Therefore, leave them and what they forge” (6:112)

“Thus we made for every messenger an enemy among the criminals - but enough is your Lord (O Muhammad,) as a Guide and Helper” (25:31)

Therefore, under any circumstance they must act in a matured way and if they feel that an evil has been done to them do them, they must reply with good or simply ignore it.  The Muslim states that have blasphemy laws in place must also repeal this law on grounds tabled in an earlier article on the subject referenced below:

Related Article:

 Blasphemy Law has NO Qur’anic Basis

It is an affront to the Qur’an’s cardinal principle of justice, trivializes and demonizes Islam, confounds the Muslim community and needs to be revoked.  


Muslims Must Confront Islamist Terror Ideologically: An Islamic Reformation Required


Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-human-rights/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/freedom-of-expression-about-one’s-thoughts-about-the-prophet-or-faith-of-islam-–-one-died-over14-centuries-ago-and-the-other-an-established-historical-reality-–-none-vulnerable-to-word-of-man/d/100993



  • Dear Gholam Rasool Dehlvi Sahab,

    Painful as I am to read the interpretation by Mowlana Mowdudi, I am immensely more sad to see modern educated people claiming to be well versed in Islamic sciences, quoting like minded scholars to prove something contrary to the Qur'anic evidence, recorded in full light of history.  

    Anyway thanks for your supporting and scholarly comments.

    By muhammad yunus - 1/17/2015 9:30:37 PM


    By JAGGA.JASOOS - 1/17/2015 1:55:52 AM

  • Here is an easy to understand illustration:

    By Mubashir - 1/16/2015 8:19:23 AM

  • The Quran clearly tells us why permission to fight back (with limits) was granted to Muslims.  When they were being attacked with the intent of finsihing them off.

    By Mubashir - 1/16/2015 8:13:58 AM

  • @Mohammad Yunus Saheb,

    “When every method of persuasion had failed, the Prophet took to the sword." Nauzu Billah Min Zalik (I seek refuge from Allah from this utterance).

    Only a crazed lunatic scholar can write such incendiary remarks on the Prophet of peace and spirituality, not of war and violence. Every insightful Muslim must feel deeply pained and distressed to see this gross distortion of the Prophet’s message and mission in the writings of political Islam ideologues.  

    Dear Mohammad Yunus Saheb, I can feel the pain behind your words: 

    “how one of the most learned and revered scholars of Islam showed the Prophet wielding sword during the entire Medinite period like a political leader taking to arms after failing to achieve his goals by peaceful means in the Meccan period”.

    Undoubtedly, Maulana Maududi Sahab's thoughts on how the Prophet spread Islam are completely misguiding. More shockingly, his politicized interpretation of Islamic doctrines and practices reached an extent that he viewed every belief and act of Islam with a political outlook. In his bid to propagate Islam as a political ideology of wanton jihadism, rather than a faith of peace and spirituality, he issued completely baseless and incendiary pronouncements on theological issues. He even challenged the collective consensus of Muslims on the Islamic prayers, which they offer to seek pleasure of and closeness to God, declaring them “means and tools to prepare for Jihad”. He writes in a hard-hitting style:

    “Salaat (Namaz) is a training exercise for Jihaad. Zakaat (charity) is a military fund for jihaad. Fasting is to train like soldiers who have to stay without food at times for long periods during the Jihad. Hajj is a huge conference in nature for plotting larger scale military operations. Thus, Salaah, Fasting, Zakaat, and Hajj are in reality meant for this very preparation and training” (Fundamental of Islaam – Page: 250).

    By Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi - 1/16/2015 7:11:18 AM

  • HA HA HA HA HA HA aaaaaHHHHAAAA.........
    WO ANDHRA HI BHALA THA KE QADAM RAH PAR THE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    ROSHNI LAI HA MANZIL SE BAHUT DOOR ENHEIN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    By AMRISH.PURI - 1/16/2015 5:21:28 AM

  • amrish puri! un sab buddhon ko  jo khurafat bakte hain lagatar 10 10 mile dorao tab aqal thikane ainge.

    By PARAN - 1/16/2015 5:14:09 AM

  • Khalid Suhail,

    What I can vouch for, is that both Javed Ghamidi and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan believe, that for Muslims who followed the Prophet, there is no authority or sanction from the Quran or the ahadith for anything other than peaceful Dawah for the spread of Islam.

    A ruler will take such action as is necessary in self defense but no other person has any authority to take the law into his  own hands or wage war. 

    I have no knowledge about the third scholar quoted by KS but there are certainly several scholars who subscribe to the 19th/20th century notions of Political Islam expounded/espoused by Maududi and others. Maududi had to find fault with the Khulafa -e- Rashidin, and all scholars and the Caliphs who ruled the Islamic State and Mughal emperors to make his point which makes it obvious how much out of tune his theory is with Islam and its history.

    By observer - 1/16/2015 4:59:23 AM

  • HA HA HA HA HA......
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA........

    By amrish puri - 1/16/2015 4:56:03 AM

  • Jagga Jaoos Sahab,

    Why don't you read the comment closely. Is it not clear that the interpretation that the Prophet who sent as a mercy to mankind came with a sword in his hand has been advocated by no one but Mowlana moududi Sahab. This is what he said as I quoted from an Islamic website:

    "When every method of persuasion had failed, the Prophet took to the sword."

    Please read my last response to you slowly - for I have quoted more than a score of verses from the Qur'an. If you are a Muslim, go back to the Qur'an to check that I have quoted correctly. But if you are not a Muslim, you are wasting your time - no - you are wasting my time because you are not reading my comment and compelling me to make more comments. Or are you trying to lock me into an assymetric argument, I saying one thing, and you saying different. If that were the case, there is no point to extend the debate any further.
    By muhammad yunus - 1/16/2015 4:38:10 AM

  • Dear Khaled Suhail Sahab,
    Kindly read my letter to Jagga Jasoos Sahab that also replies your concluding question to me. 
    I certainly do not match you in scholarship, I have just said what the Qur'an says about how the Prophet went about preaching Islam. Sword was certainly used to defend and not to coerce others into Islam for you cannot defend an attacking army with bare hands.
    Yes I have not covered the issue of jizya - the verse (9:29) having been revealed in the last (22nd) year of the revelation; but that will require me to post yet another lengthy article to demonstrate its purely historical and normative character for the era. But that again will be useless for you will quote another four or five great scholars of Islam to refute whatever I write on the back of the Qur'an.  Thanks!
    By muhammad yunus - 1/16/2015 4:26:22 AM

  • 1.  so do you belive in maududi's following statement,"When every method of persuasion had failed, the Prophet took to the sword."" i think no, as you advocated in some other place, then why you should rely upon such nonsense.
    2.  do these trrroist outfits represent main-stream isalam and thair actions are authentic before you.
    and the last thing you did not answerd, even, in such a lenghthy comment, who is  "great Muslims scholar"????????

    By JAGGA.JASOOS - 1/16/2015 4:16:28 AM

  • Jagga Jasoos Sahab,

    Since only few people comment, it is my duty to respond in good spirit and some detail. I have a few points: 
    i. The following extract from a purely Islamic websiteexplains Moulana Moududi Sahab's thoughts on how the Prophet spread Islam as follows: 

    "The Messenger of Allah invited the Arabs to accept Islam for 13 years. He used every possible means of persuasion, gave them incontrovertible arguments and proofs, showed them miracles and put before them his life as an example of piety and morality. In short, he used every possible means of communication, but his people refused to accept Islam.

    When every method of persuasion had failed, the Prophet took to the sword."

    Ref: http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/abul-ala-maududi.htm

    2. Now let us see how the Qur'an repeatedly forbade the Prophet from coercing anybody in the cause of religion until the last two years of the his mission when he was permitted to use force mainly in the face of treaty violations by the Meccans: 

    Meccan Period:

    “If your Lord so willed, everyone on earth would have believed, all together. Will you then compel people until they become believers” (10:99)?

     “We know best what they say; but you (O Muhammad,) are not to force them. So remind with the Qur'an those who fear My warning” (50:45).

    “So remind (them, O Muhammad) – for you are one who reminds (88:21); and have no power over them” (88:22).

    Medinite period first half: 622-627)
    : General commands against coercing anyone even those who refused to support him or defied his orders in the battle field:

    As the Prophet was leading his combat-ready followers to the plain of Uhud where a powerful Meccan army awaited him for an encounter, the revelation commanded Muhammad to urge the believers to fight without compelling anyone (4:84).

    On way to the battleground of Uhud, a faction of Muslims (the hypocrites) withdrew saying, if they knew how to fight, they would have followed the Prophet (3:167). They were not forced or threatened against defecting.

    As the Muslims made some initial gains at Uhud (3:153), some of them ran off, paying attention to no one and ignoring the Prophet calling them from behind meanwhile battle (3:153). But the Prophet was mild to these dissenters (3:159), and the revelation commanded the Prophet to consult with them rather than coerce them or punish them (3:160).

    In course of the siege of Trench a faction of his followers sought the Prophet’s permission saying that their homes were exposed, though they were not exposed and they only wanted to flee (33:13). The Prophet did not force them to stay back at that very critical moment in his mission.

    Medinite period (third quarter, 627-630).

    About a year after the Trench war, the Prophet undertook an unarmed journey to his native land, Mecca for pilgrimage. A faction of his followers declined to take part in this mission (48:11). They thought the Prophet and those in his company would never be able to return to their families (48:12). The only action taken against them was to bar them from taking part in any future expedition (48:11, 48:15). No pressure was put on them to join the risky mission.

    The following year (629) saw signing of a Peace Treaty with the Jews of Khyber. The Prophet had laid a siege on their settlement following news that they were conspiring with the Meccans to launch a second attack by a confederation of armies. Since the Trench war would have virtually annihilated the fledgling Muslim community, the Prophet had to take this measure to avert another coordinated attack on Medina.

    The year 630 saw a peaceful integration of Mecca. As the Qur’an records: God withheld the hands of the Meccans from the Muslims and the hands of the Muslims from the Meccans (48:24).

    Now you must know that the Qur’an was memorized at the time of the Prophet, so whatever is recorded in it about the contemporary events must be true as it was witnessed by the memorizers. The Qur’an that you read today is a true copy of, among other things, what the early huffaz saw with their own eyes and memorized.  And what they saw is recorded above in glimpses and does not show the Prophet storming about Meccan and Medina , sword in hand, forcing people to convert to Islam for at least the first 20 years of his mission.

    Now the critic will say, what about the Surah Tauba. Does it not abrogate all that was revealed in the preceding 20 years as some Islam haters - Muslims otherwise may do.

    The answer is simple: read the first 15 verses in their thematic order as follows and you will know the political context of the exhortation to kill (that is fight) the pagans:

    "Whenever they (the hostile Arabs) came upon the Muslims, they defied the peace treaty (of Hudaibiyyah, 628 C.E.) and disregarded even blood ties [9:10], pleasing the Muslims with their mouths, but nurturing hatred in their hearts [9:8]. The revelation authorizes the Muslims to kill these archetypes of defiance (kufr) who broke their oaths (treaty obligations) after pledging them, and defamed their religion [9:12] and who had done all they could to drive the Messenger away (from Mecca) and were the first to attack [9:13]. It assures them that God will help them against their enemies, bring disgrace upon them and soothe the bosoms of those who believe [9:14]. [Finally, on the day of the Great hajj (631),] the revelation gives an ultimatum of four months to the hostile pagans who were repeatedly breaking their treaty obligations (9:1-3). It commands the Muslims to kill them wherever they come upon them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place (take all possible measures as advisable in warfare) after the expiry of the treaty period [9:5] unless they repented, kept up prayer and gave the Zakat [9:5, 9:11]. However, the pagans who were honoring their treaty of peace and not helping anyone against the Muslims were to be given time until the treaty term expired [9:4]. At the same time, those pagans who sought protection were to be given protection, until they heard the word of God and then to be delivered to a place of security (i.e. their tribal homelands) (so that they were not harmed by any other victimized Muslim) [9:6].

    So Jasoos Sahab!
    Does it not pain you to see how one the most learned and revered scholars of Islam showed the Prophet wielding sword during the entire Medinite period like a political leader taking to arms after failing to achieve his goals by peaceful means in the Meccan period.  

    3. You know it very well that 90-95% or more mainstream Muslims do not believe that the Prophet spread Islam by sword – but don’t you watch TV. What the ISIS and BOKO haram are doing to form an Islamic state??. They are beheading non-Muslims if they refuse to convert to Islam and claiming that they are simply following the example of the Prophet.They are dominating the media and giving a wrong signal to the whole world. And you have radical intellectuals of Islam whose knowledge is based on the hadith and the Sira and who readily endorse Islam's criticism for motive they best know. So the world sees  Islam through Moulana Nowdudi's eys and the beheadings, kidnapping and brutalities of the terror outfits who do not forget to say the Shahada before their acts of terror. How sad indeed! 

    Let us not live in a state of denial and let us not say that the sword that appears side by side with Shahadah at the flag of Saudi Arabia is a symbol of peace. The politicians and rulers of Islam have tried to turn the Prophet into a warlord to achieve their political / imperial goals.
    By muhammad yunus - 1/16/2015 3:59:04 AM

  • Muhammad Yunus Saheb says,

    “But a great Muslims scholar who has considerable following put the word ‘sword’ in the interpretation and declared: ‘God sent the Prophet (with as sword) as a mercy to mankind….Can mercy and sword go together? Obviously, not! Did the Prophet use sword or force to convert pagans into faith? The answer is no. The Qur’anic glimpses of the Prophetic mission completely rule out this notion.”

    Here are some quotes from prominent moderate scholars of today who vehemently preach that Islam is a religion of peace.

    The great moderate Islamic scholar of Dr Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi says,

    “There are certain directives of the Qur'an pertaining to war which were specific only to the Prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the Prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the Dhimmis of the Muslims.”

    Al Azhar University Scholar, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti says,

    "The theory that our religion is a peaceful and loving religion is a wrong theory...The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger...It is meaningless to talk about the holy war as only defensive, otherwise, what did the prophet mean when he said, "from now on even if they don’t invade you, you must invade them.”

    Another great scholar, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, considered to be a prominent sufi moderate Muslim who is leading a peaceful Islamic mission (DAWAH), writes in his book, “Islam – Creater of The Modern Age”,

    “Efforts on the part of the (pervious) prophets over a period of thousands of years had proved that any struggle which was confined to intellectual or missionary field was not sufficient to extricate man from the grip of this superstition (polytheism = shirk).

    This was the state of affairs when the final prophet, Muhammad (PAH)  came to the word in the sixth century A.D.

    It was God’s decree that he be a da’i (missionary) as well as ma’hi ( (eradicator). He was entrusted by God with the mission of not only proclaiming to the world that superstitious beliefs were based on falsehood, but also of resorting to military action, if the need arose, to eliminate that system for all time.

    This same mission of leading men from darkness to light had been entrusted to all the prophets in turn. The sense, however, in which the Prophet of Islam was distinct from the others was that, in his case, God had decreed-since no Prophet was to come after him-that he should not just communicate the divine message to humanity and leave it at that, but that he should also take practical steps to change the entire existing state of affairs.

    This point has been made in the Hadith in different ways. One Hadith in particular is quite direct in its wording: “I am the eradicator through whom God will obliterate unbelief.” Thus the Prophet was not just a da’I (missionary) but also a mahi (eradicator).  He was the caller to the faith, but he had also to compel people to answer his call. The Qur’an clearly states that besides human beings, God’s angels would also help him in accomplishing his mission.

          The prerequisites for putting this plan into action were all provided by God. Moreover, God also guaranteed that any shortcoming in worldly resources (weapons) would be amply compensated for by special help from the angels.”

    (Quran 8:12 “Remember, thy lord inspired the angels (with the message), “I m with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of unbelievers: Smite ye ( o angels) above their necks and smite all their finger- tips off them. – emphasis mine) – Usuf Ali.

    Will Muhammad Yunus Saheb tell us what weapon the angels, the prophet and his followers used to kill the unbelievers? Was it not sword?

    Please mind, it not Hadith which Yunus sb can deny, it is the Quran!
    By Khalid Suhail - 1/16/2015 3:54:41 AM

  • HA HA HA HA, jagga sahab, kya app ko nhin maloom ke unke dil me nifaaq paida ho gaya hai.HA HA HA HA HA HA......

    By AMRISH PURI - 1/16/2015 12:54:09 AM

Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.