Today, many non-Muslims regard Islam as a religion that promotes violence, terrorism and war. Unfortunately, they rely in their view of Islam on the general media, which is not always accurate in reporting the news. Many media outlets, such as TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, are influenced by their investors or owners who have certain agendas and who want to promote certain values and points of view. Other media outlets are simply after the "big story", in order to make more money and more profits. Others are simply "followers", who only gather news from other sources, re-package it and try to sell it again purely as a business.

In all these cases, the news reporting is not accurate, but is driven by ulterior motives or simply by profits. Only very few media organizations are committed to providing accurate and true information, regardless of financial gain. Therefore, people today should be very careful in what they take from the media.

Before blindly accepting what the TV, radio or newspaper is reporting, one should think critically about what is being reported. Is this being reported accurately, or is it being exaggerated or even completely fabricated? Who are these people reporting the news, and do they have vested interests to report the story in a certain way, or are they completely objective and fair? Critical thinking is very important in all aspects of life, especially when it comes to accepting the media reports about important and controversial issues.

Islam is in fact a religion that promotes peace and understanding among people of all faiths, and it strongly prohibits all forms of violence and aggression against all people regardless of their faith or race.



Islam Prohibits Violence and Aggression, and stands for Peace and Justice.

Islam clearly prohibits all kinds and forms of aggression and violence against anyone, except in self-defense. Islam is a practical religion, meant to be implemented in every aspect of our life. Therefore, it realizes the fact that a person who commits aggression and violence against others will not cease these actions unless they are deterred by similar actions taken against them.

Islam also places very high importance on justice, and allows for aggressors and unjust people be punished accordingly, unless they repent before they are brought to justice. At the same time, Islam encourages people to forgive those who have wronged them whenever possible.

Evidence of these ideals can be found in the Holy Qur'an, which is the word of God revealed to the messenger of God, Mohammad peace be upon him. It can also be found in the Hadeeth, the sayings of Mohammad peace be upon him, and in his teachings to Muslims. A few examples of this are shown below from the Holy Qur'an:

  • "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, and do not transgress; for Allah loveth not transgressors." (Surah 2, Verse 190).

  • "But if they cease (fighting you), Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 2, Verse 192).

  • "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things)." (Surah 8, Verse 61).

  • "The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves." (Surah 2, Verse 194).

  • " ... and let not the hatred of some people in (once) shutting you out of the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgression (and hostility on your part). Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment." (Surah 5, Verse 2).

  • "Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" (Surah 41, Verse 34).

  • "O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." (Surah 4, Verse 135).

  • "God advocates justice, charity, and regarding the relatives. And He forbids evil, vice, and transgression. He enlightens you, that you may take heed." (Surah 16, Verse 90).

  • "And if ye do punish them, punish them no worse than they punished you: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient." (Surah 16, Verse 126).

The first three verses above instruct Muslims to fight those who fight them, and not to commit aggression first, as God does not like transgressors. They also instruct Muslims to stop fighting those who wish to cease fighting them, and to accept peace with the enemy who becomes inclined towards peace.

The fourth verse mentioned above instructs Muslims that if someone transgresses against them, they should respond to them likewise, and it reminds Muslims to fear God and to restrain themselves to this limit.

The fifth verse reminds Muslims not to let hatred of some people for past reasons to lead them to transgress against those people or be hostile towards them. It also instructs us to help each other in good and righteous actions, and not to cooperate in aggression and sin, and it reminds them finally of the strict punishment of God to encourage them to abide by these principles.

The sixth verse reminds us that goodness and evil are never equal, and that we should repel evil with good actions. This means that when someone is unjust to us or commits evil against us, we are encouraged to respond with kind and good actions, so that the hatred between us and that person will evaporate and will become an intimate friendship!

The seventh verse mentioned reminds us to stand up for justice, even if it is against ourselves or our family, and even if it is against those who are rich or powerful, because justice applies to everyone. It also reminds us that God knows everything we do, and so if we act unjustly even in our hearts, God knows what we did and we will be accountable for that.

The eighth verse informs us that God enjoins us to follow justice, and that God forbids us from committing evil, vice and transgression.

The ninth and final verse reminds Muslims that if they are punished, that they may only respond with the same punishment and not to go over this limit. However, they are reminded that forgiveness and patience is the best course of action.

These are the wonderful ideals of Islam:

  • To pursue peace with everyone including past enemies, except when they fight the Muslims and refuse peace, then Muslims are allowed to fight in self-defense.

  • To ensure that we always apply justice and never transgress against others even if they are our enemies.

  • To repel evil actions with good actions, in order to replace hatred with an intimate friendship.

  • To respond to punishment with the same punishment, but that forgiveness and patience is even better than retaliation.

Islamic Principle: Living Peacefully with All Nations and Peoples.

The verse mentioned below informs us that we were created and made into various nations and tribes so that we may get to know each other, and not so that we may despise and hate each other. Then we are reminded of the the fact that the best of us in God's eyes are those who are most righteous.

  • "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full Knowledge and is well-acquainted (with all things)." (Surah 49, Verse 13).

This wonderful principle of Islam makes it clear that there is no single people, race, or nation that is better than others. God created us all equal. In God's eyes, the best of us are the most righteous and most kind.

God created mankind as different races and nations although He could have created us all with as one nation, with one language and one religion. However, as stated in the verse mentioned above, God created these different nations and tribes so that we get to know other each other, and not to hate each other because we are different. This tells us that we should celebrate our differences and not hate each other based on them. Islam also teaches us to realize that no single race or people have supremacy over others, and that we are judged solely based on our actions.

This verse also teaches us that we should live peacefully with other nations and tribes and we should respect each other and our differences. We should learn to live together and to get to know each other, and to engage in dialogue amongst all nations and treat every human being as being equal.

Islamic Principle: There is no Compulsion in Religion

The verse from the Qur'an which states this principle of no compulsion in religion is the following:

  • "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Surah 2, Verse 256).

The holy Qur'an reminds us that there must not be compulsion in religion. It states that the truth stands out clear from error, and that those who reject error and believe in God are the saved ones.

This means that Muslims are not allowed to force people to convert to Islam. Muslims should only seek to make the truth clear to others, and talk to them about Islam, then let them decide for themselves. In fact, most people who study Islam without having made a decision to hate it first come to love its message and convert to Islam after learning about it's values and principles.

Another verse that also states this principle is the following:

  • "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge." (Surah 9, Verse 6).

This wonderful verse instructs Muslims to grant asylum to non-believers, and make them safe, and allow them to hear the word of Allah. Then they are to be escorted to whatever place they will be safe and secure in. This is because these non-believers simply have no knowledge of Islam, and no knowledge of the word of Allah.

What a wonderful religion Islam is! How can this be compared with the way that Christians spread their religion? They spread it by genocide, mass murder, kidnapping of children and wiping out of entire nations and civilizations! Ask the natives of the Americas, Australia and Africa about it!

When are Muslims Permitted to Fight a War?

As stated earlier, Islam is a very practical religion. It is not just about fake ideals that do not work. It is a religion that is meant to be implemented 100% in all actions of the Muslims life, and it is meant to promote peace and justice in the world.

Therefore, Islam does allow Muslims to go to war, as mentioned earlier, in certain circumstances. This includes self-defence, and to remove aggression and injustice that has befallen people and to save them from their oppressors. The verses that tell Muslims to fight those who fight them were mentioned earlier. Below is the verse in the holy Qur'an that allows Muslims to fight against injustice.

  • "Permission [to fight] is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and God is certainly able to support them [with victory].
    They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, "Our Lord is God." If it were not for God's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques - where the name of God is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, God supports those who support Him. God is Powerful, Almighty." (Surah 22, Verses 39-40).

This verse gives permission to those Muslims who fall under oppressive, unjust rule, and those Muslims who are being persecuted to fight to remove this oppression.

Does Islam Permit Killing Civilians?

Even in times of war, the Muslim must respect his adversaries� humanity. Brutal and barbaric atrocities are prohibited in Islam. Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. Therefore, Islam does not permit the mutilation of the bodies of the dead enemy soldiers.

Also, Islam prohibits the targeting and killing of all civilians, especially women, children, the elderly, and religious clergy. Enemies, even at time of war, must be treated justly. Prisoners of war have basic human rights, as stated in the Shariah (Islamic Law), and must be provided and cared for and not humiliated in any way.

The following verses touch on some of these issues:

  • "O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands: If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 8, Verse 70).

  • And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, (Saying), We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks." (Surah 76, Verses 8-9).

In addition, the following were the instructions of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) to Muslims who are forced to fight a war:

  • "Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, "Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies."

There are many more sayings and teachings of Prophet Mohammad that instruct Muslims on these issues.

In addition to all this, Islam prohibits oppression, revenge or injustice to the people of the enemy in case of victory against them. Nor must there be control over the sources of the wealth of the nation or people, or even establishment of colonial regimes. Justice and freedom must be established. Tolerance towards cultures and peoples is to be respected at all times.

Conclusion:

This is the Islamic point of view on war, peace and justice. We hope that after reading this article, people will have a clear understanding that Islam promotes peace and justice, and stands against aggression and violence.

It is very sad that some people who want to give a wrong impression of Islam, simply select a few words from the Qur'an and distort them and put them in the wrong context, all in order to prove that Islam supports violence. They ignore all the verses we have mentioned in this article.

Therefore, we hope that people will be more careful about what they may hear or read on TV, radio, newspapers, magazines or on the internet. Make sure that you do not blindly believe anything that is being said. Try to get both sides of the story, by listening to all points of view on any issue before coming to a conclusion.

And finally, we greet everyone with the greeting of Islam:
Assalamu Alaikum (Peace be upon you!).


Narrated Abu Huraira (Radi-Allahu 'anhu):

One day while Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) was sitting
with the people, a man came to him walking and said, "O Allah's Apostle.
What is Belief?" The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Belief
is to believe in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the
meeting with Him, and to believe in the Resurrection." The man asked, "O
Allah's Apostle What is Islam?" The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam)
replied, "Islam is to worship Allah and not worship anything besides Him,
to offer prayers perfectly, to pay the (compulsory) charity i.e. Zakat and
to fast the month of Ramadan." The man again asked, "O Allah's Apostle What
is Ihsan (i.e. perfection or Benevolence)?" The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi
Wa Sallam) said, "Ihsan is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you
do not achieve this state of devotion, then (take it for granted that)
Allah sees you."

The man further asked, "O Allah's Apostle When will the Hour be
established?" The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) replied, "The one
who is asked about it does not know more than the questioner does, but I
will describe to you its portents. When the lady slave gives birth to her
mistress, that will be of its portents; when the bare-footed naked people
become the chiefs of the people, that will be of its portents. The Hour is
one of five things which nobody knows except Allah. Verily, the knowledge
of the Hour is with Allah (alone). He sends down the rain, and knows that
which is in the wombs." (31.34) Then the man left. The Prophet (Sallallahu
'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Call him back to me." They went to call him back
but could not see him. The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said,
"That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion."

Answers to Alleged Contradictions in the Qur'an

A Christian missionary web-site contains a list of what are claimed to be internal contradictions in the Qur’an. The list contains forty-nine numbered items authored by Jochen Katz. Readers may access this list at www.answering-islam.org. Here is a reply to each item of Katz’s list. We will see that not a single item on the list is a genuine contradiction in the Qur’an. On some items Katz simply misunderstood the Qur’an. Sometimes he has taken verses out of context to support that misunderstanding. Often he simply did not exercise the thought necessary to distinguish between a real contradiction and a resolvable difference.

In preparation for this response I have benefitted from reading the responses offered by Ishak Mermerci, Misha’al Al-Kadhi, Randy Desmond, and Khalid.


Mr. Katz's purpose

Katz’s purpose in listing these claimed contradictions is to get Muslims to stop claiming that the Qur’an is superior to the Bible. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz wrote:

"There are a number of questions in regard to the Bible for which I do not know a fully satisfactory answer. And I will admit that I don’t know, should you ask me one of these. But I hate the pretence of having answers if there are none. And I hate the often pridefully displayed and claimed superiority of the Qur’an over the Bible. If these contradictions pages help Muslims to become more humble and realistic and especially stop claiming the corruption of the Bible because they have found a few difficult passages, then the goal of this page has been reached."



Mr. Katz’s failure

I think that Katz will, however, be disappointed. The contradiction list he provides does not contain a single real contradiction among the 49 claims. On the other hand, the list of 101 Bible contradictions that appear in my book could not be satisfactorily answered by Christian missionaries. Four missionaries have attempted, and their attempt is published on Katz’s web-site answering-islam.org. The reply by Smith and others actually admits that some of the contradictions I pointed at really do exist in today’s Bibles. They maintain, however, that the original copies of the Bible did not contain contradictions. Such contradictions entered the Bible, they say, due to the long process of transmission of the Bible. Over the centuries copies were made from copies which were again made from further copies. Today we do not have the original texts, they admit, and the texts we do have actually contain contradictions which were not in the originals. Never mind how they know what the non-existent originals used to contain. Consider their admission that the present texts of the Bible, all of them, contain some contradictions.

A Hostile Approach to the Qur’an

For Katz to be successful, he has to get Muslims to admit that the Qur’an likewise contains contradictions. But he himself admits that the contradictions he arrives at were reached only if one takes a hostile approach to the Qur’an. He writes: ". . . I will make the strongest possible case for something being contradictory and wrong . . . ." Moreover, he says that even when he discovers that an item on his list is not a real contradiction he will keep it on the list. He writes: ". . . I will not remove even those contradictions that I find answered to my personal satisfaction." Why? For two reasons. One, so that readers can decide for themselves what is and is not a real contradiction. Two, so that Muslims and Christians can both find a ready reference to the claimed contradictions and possible responses.

It should be clear, however, that in order to find the responses and evaluations on Katz’s pages requires painstaking effort. At first glance all one encounters is the glaring list of 49 numbered claims. The format in which the materials is displayed ensures that only the most serious of students will painstakingly pore over the full range of responses and evaluations. Hence the average browser will be left with the impression that Katz believes in the reality of those contradictions. For this reason I would advise Katz to remove the items which he finds answered to his satisfaction."

No Hostility to the Bible

This brings me to now explain some of the key differences between Katz’s approach and mine. First, my list of 101 contradictions in the Bible is not motivated by hostility to the Bible. I believe that the Bible is a very good book. I am aware that many people have been positively motivated by the Bible. Many people have become better persons by reading the Bible. The world has become a better place because of that book. My wish often is that more people in the western world should have followed their Bibles. Then we would have less drunkenness, adultery, gambling and a number of vices which Islam and Muslims stand firmly against.

Reverence for God

My motivation springs from two things. First, my reverence for God. Both Muslims and Christians revere God enough to want to defend his dignity. We recognize that it is not right for anyone to claim something about God which is below his dignity. Since we both believe that God is not the author of contradictions, it would be an insult to his dignity to claim that he authored a book wherein there are contradictions. I genuinely believe that the Bible contains contradictions and errors. Bible footnotes and commentaries generally admit that such contradictions and errors exist in the text of the Bible. For these reasons I am persuaded that it is my duty along with Christians to defend the honour of God. To do this we need to advise everyone that it is not appropriate to claim that God wrote the entire Bible. To do so would be to attribute the errors and contradictions to God. Since many people would deny that such contradictions exist, the best way to convince them was to show them where such contradictions do exist. Some people would usually dare me to show them one such contradiction, just one, and yet when I show them they are still not moved from their position. Just one little contradiction is not usually enough for the faithful. But how about 101? My purpose has been served, I think. The four missionaries who attempted a reply to my list of 101 Bible contradictions do admit that some of the contradictions are genuine.

Moral Obligation to Warn Others

The second source of my motivation springs from my moral obligation to save my fellow human beings from the Fire of Hell. If they are following a book which contains much good and also some human teachings which can lead a person into that fire it becomes my moral duty to warn them that the book contains human elements. One way of doing this effectively is to show actual content which could not come from God. Contradictions are foremost among such things. The method works. Smith and others admitted that some of the contradictions are due to the human copyists who way back in history made mistakes when they copied the texts.

A Correct Methodology

Motivation is not the only difference between Katz’s approach and mine. A second difference is in the methodology. The approach of Katz has been to pore over the Qur’an translations and the translators’ notes and other commentaries to find any mention of a possible difficulty in understanding the text. Then he adds this to the list even if the difficulty is already worked out and a satisfactory solution is mentioned in the source.

Seriously Studying the Bible

On the other hand, my approach has been to seriously study the Bible. I have then listed only those contradictions which I find personally convincing or for which Bible commentaries admit that they have no satisfactory answer. I have not included any item for which the commentators have offered a convincing explanation. This explains why Smith and others despite their painstaking work could not come up with solid answers. Even where they attempt to deny that a contradiction exists, they usually draw two or three answers from different commentators and lump them all together to make a single answer. But often the answers are mutually exclusive. It cannot be both ways. Smith and others only show their inability to decide on a solution when they offer such mutually contradictory answers in an attempt to clear up the contradictions.

Such indecision is a sure sign of lack of personal conviction. Where Katz noticed that Muslims in dealing with Claim #4 offer different explanations for the apparent difficulty, he remarked:

"The existence of contradictory explanations is always the result of confusion and the sign that no theory is really fitting the data. If one explanation would really make full sense, then all others would have been abandoned long ago."

Katz said this in reference to Muslims when for a single problem different explanations are found in different sources. What would Katz think of the fact that Smith and others lump different explanations in the same answer and then pretend that they have an answer? Differences among Muslim commentators may be attributed to the fact that various writers have different perspectives. What accounts for the differences found within the combined answers of Smith and the rest of his team?

Judgement Against Falsehood

The third main difference between Katz’s approach and mine lies in my refusal to claim a Bible contradiction which I am not sure of, and my willingness to forthright withdraw any claim which I discover to be false. I have already cited Katz’s explanation of his reasons why he might list a contradiction which he himself is not convinced is a contradiction, and why he would maintain an item on the contradiction list even after his discovery that such an item is not a real contradiction. I must now explain my reason why I had to adopt an approach different from Katz’s. I am fully convinced that I will have to answer on the Day of Judgement for every word I utter whether it be by speech or in writing. I cannot promote something I do not believe in. Only where I believe a contradiction exists in the Bible can I continue to circulate my booklet containing that item. If not for my conviction that what I write is true, I cannot continue to write, or to circulate my booklet. As it is now, my booklet is about to be reprinted because, having read the response from Smith and others, I am sure that the contradictions are real. I am more sure than I have ever been. Smith and others, I must admit, have been more studious than me, checking out many sources of possible answers for the contradictions. Their failure to answer any of them to my satisfaction, and their admission that some of them are real, gives me the assurance that my work is based on solid ground.

Moreover, if ever I receive a satisfactory answer to any of the claimed contradictions I would have a moral obligation to inform the public of the falsity of my previous claim. To satisfy my obligation I would have to circulate an apology as widely as my original work was circulated. All of this I am prepared to do if only someone would respond with satisfactory answers.

How to Answer Claims

Having explained the difference between Katz’s approach and mine, I must now turn to Katz’s specific claims and show where he is further mistaken. But first, a word about the method of my answer.

Katz’s list has each proposed problem explained in brief. My answers will also be brief in the main section. Behind each of Katz’s summary of the problem is a more detailed explanation. That explanation, however, is accessible only after a click of the mouse. I will insha Allah answer those under the headings "More Objections Answered." On the web such sections will also be accessible with a click of the mouse.

This method will have the advantage of demolishing the main points quickly and effectively in a short list of answers. All of Katz’s main points are in the summary, and as such it would be a needless distraction to deal with the subsidiary issues in the main list of answers. The subsidiary points will then be dealt with equally effectively in the subsidiary sections.

Two Approaches

To answer Katz we do not initially need to get into detailed explanations of Quranic verses and Islamic practices. Katz represents his list as a list of contradictions. To demolish that list, it is sufficient to show that the items do not establish contradictions. This we can do in two ways.

First, we can question the criticism itself. If we can show that Katz’s claim is not based on a proper foundation, then his claim stands dismissed; and a further defense of the Qur’an becomes unnecessary. Often we will see that Katz makes the following types of mistakes:

(a) he misunderstands the Qur’an

(b) for the Quranic passages in question he relies on a faulty translation which supports the misunderstanding or

(c) he takes the passages out of their context to support such a misunderstanding.

If we can demonstrate any of this, then Katz’s criticisms fall flat, and the Qur’an stands tall.

Moreover, we will demand of Katz that the Qur’anic statements which he claims to be mutually contradictory must satisfy a basic condition. The statements have to be such that they cannot be said to be true of the same thing at the same time. We will see that often what Katz presents are statements which appear to be different but not contradictory. But unless our basic condition here can be met, we shall have to remind Katz that a difference is not a contradiction unless it is a contradiction. If one passage claims A and another claims B they are no doubt different. But for them to be contradictory, it has to be shown that A and B cannot be true of the same thing at the same time. This Katz will have to show. Since Katz is proposing a contradiction, we shall demand of him to prove not only that a difference exists, but a contradictory difference. If he fails to show this, then his claim falls flat and the Qur’an stands tall.

The Positive Explanation

The second way in which we can answer the claimed contradictions is to show that a reasonable understanding of the text in question proves them harmonious. If we can show that a reasonable reading does not lead to a contradiction, then we will have demolished Katz’s claim. As long as such an explanation is reasonable, one can no longer claim that the passages are contradictory.

An Illustration

To illustrate these two approaches in constructing a response, consider Katz’s claimed contradiction #20. He cites one verse to show that the losers on the Day of Judgement will receive the record of their deeds behind their backs. Then he cites another verse to show that such losers will receive their records in their left hands. Our first approach is to question Katz’s claim. It is up to Katz to show not only that the verses say two different things. He also has to show that the verses say two contradictory things. We notice that he has shown the difference, but he has not shown a contradiction. To show a contradiction, he has to explain why it is unreasonable for both verses to be true. Katz has to argue that it is impossible for a person to receive something behind his back if he also gets it in his left hand. Until Katz says this he has not laid a real claim to a contradiction, and the claim he makes us pointless. We do not need to say more.

The second way of approaching the same problem is to offer a reasonable explanation showing how both verses can be right at the same time. In this example we can argue that it is quite reasonable that a person can receive his record behind his back and in his left hand. He can obviously do this by simply putting his left hand behind his back and waiting for the angels to place his record therein. This explanation makes further sense when you realize that a loser in this case is doubly disgraced. He is disgraced getting his record in his left hand, and he is further disgraced by not having at least the honour of advancing face forward.

Notice that anyone of the two approaches would be sufficient for the purpose of demolishing the claimed contradiction. Yet we will often look at the matter both ways so that a variety of approaches may be available for the serious student.

Bible Comparisions

Moreover, we shall under separate heads include comparisons with the Bible where appropriate. Where Katz objects to a Qur’anic statement or principle and we find something similar in the Bible in which Katz believes, then we ought to bring this to the attention of Katz and other readers. For example, whereas Katz objects that the Quran prescribes for daughters half the share for a son, the Bible allows no share for the daughters if sons exist. In the Bible a daughter inherits only if there are no sons. If sons exist they take all (Numbers 27:8-11). If there are no sons then the daughters will inherit, but they are required to marry within their father’s tribe (Numbers 36:6, 11).

So, since Katz calls the Qur’an unjust for what it awards daughters (half what their brothers get) we should be interested to know what he will call the Bible for what it awards daughters (nothing).

Nor does the Bible prescribe anything for the mom or wife. Following the Bible’s prescriptions, if a man dies we would pass over his wife and mother and give his property to his brothers or to his fathers’ brothers.

On the other hand, the Quran specifies shares of inheritance for the wife and mother. What does Katz think of that?




Now we move on to consider and demolish Katz’s claims one by one.

PRIMARY CLAIM #1: Inheritance shares totaling more than 100%
Katz claims that there is a contradiction in the matter of inheritance. He says that the shares allotted to individual heirs in a particular case would add up to more than 100% of the available estate. If a man dies leaving behind three daughters, his parents, and his wife the allotments total one and one-eighth. Surah 4, verses 4:11-12 shows that in this case the three daughters together will receive 2/3, the parents together will receive 1/3, and the wife will receive 1/8. Hence a numerical discrepancy.

REPLY: Adding two unknowns
Katz misunderstood what he read in the Qur’an. The verses he refers to do not say what the parents will receive in this case. Nor does it say what the wife will receive in this case. To arrive at his understanding, Katz insists that he must take the Qur’anic statements in the most literal sense. Yet the text even when taken in a literal manner does not support his misunderstanding. The Qur’an does not literally prescribe what the parents will receive in the case which Katz proposes. It is true that the Qur’an literally prescribes that the parents will share 1/3 when a man dies leaving one child (4:11). But the case which Katz proposes is different. Katz’s case involves three daughters, and the literal Qur’anic prescription involves only one child. Hence Katz’ proposed numerical discrepancy is built on his confusing one case for another.

If we were to follow the Qur’anic prescriptions literally, in Katz’s case the wife’s share is also not specified. The Quran literally prescribes a 1/8 share for the wife if the husband leaves only one child. But Katz’s case involves three daughters. And the number three happens to be more than the number one.

Katz thinks that the stated shares in this case would be 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/8, whereas in fact since two of these shares are not actually stated in the Quran, the shares are 2/3 + ? + ? = ? Since the Qur’an does not make a statement on this specific case, it is impossible for the Qur’an to be wrong. The details of this case is left to the comprehensive nature of the Islamic Shariah which does not depend on the Qur’an alone.

A note about the Islamic Law
My answer here does not enter into the details of the Islamic rules governing inheritance for that is not what the objection is about. Katz explains that his objection is only that if the Qur’anic statements about inheritance are taken literally then they yield numerical discrepancies. All we had to do here was to show that his objections are baseless. Even if we take the Qur’anic statements literally we find that the numerical discrepancies that Katz speaks of are not in the Qur’an but only in Katz’s mind.

The source of Katz's confusion
Katz’s confusion apparently springs from his reliance here on the translation of the Qur’an by Arthur Arberry. But Arberry in his translation of these passages mistakenly renders walad as "children" whereas walad is singular: "a child"(4:11, 12).

CLAIM #1b: The man with no direct heirs
Katz claims that there is a further discrepancy in this matter in the case of a man who leaves a mother, a wife, and two sisters. If the allotted shares are added up the total exceeds the total estate. In this case the mother gets 1/3 (4:11) the wife gets 1/4 ( 4:12) and the two sisters together receive 2/3 (4:176). These shares altogether total 15/12, more than the available estate.

REPLY: Dead mother gets no share
Katz is again mistaken. To arrive at the said allotted shares Katz refers to the shares allotted in Surah 4, Ayah 176 of the Qur’an. But that ayah refers to a man who leaves neither parent nor child. At the time of his death his mother already lays in her own grave and as such can lay no claim to a share of inheritance.

Katz’s misunderstanding is again due to Arberry’s translation. In the Qur’an in 4:176 the case described is that of a man who is called in Arabic "kalalah" which is correctly translated by Yusuf Ali as one who leaves "no descendants or ascendants."

More Objections Answered

Wasting Words
Many of Katz’s subsidiary objections fault the Qur’an for not providing a complete list of all possible cases and every detail. Then, after wasting many words on this, he concludes: "But since these cases are just not stated, let us not speculate about it and only look at the cases for which we are explicitly given instructions . . . ." What then was the point of raising such an issue?

Islamic Law Not Based on the Qur’an Alone
Katz objects that in many cases the Qur’an does not allot the entire estate to designated recipients. He thinks that the Qur’an ought to have given more detailed instructions. But here he misses a key point about the Qur’an. The book was sent along with its interpreter, the prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He came to teach us the details of what the Qur’an lays out in general principles. After much discussion of his need for details in the Qur’an, however, Katz concludes: "Anyway, as long as the shares add up to less than one, things can be settled still ‘relatively easily.’" Again, why the wasted discussion?

The Question is not About Islamic Law
His persistent question in a number of cases is, "Who gets the rest?" The text itself and the Shariah on the whole has ways of dealing with this. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz himself admits: "I want to repeat again. Experts on Islamic law are just as intelligent as everybody else and they have found ways to distribute inheritance to the heirs in generally accepted ways."

The Rulings of Muslim Scholars
Often Katz objects that the Muslim scholars rule differently than what the Qur’an prescribes. This is a different objection that proving a contradiction or numerical discrepancy in the Qur’an itself. This matter he should take up with the said Muslim scholars themselves. Then such scholars will either have to correct themselves or teach Katz the details of Qur’anic interpretation. To deal with this is not my expertise. Nor is it required here.

Keeping to a Consistent Frame of Reference
Katz failed to remain consistent on his basic frame of reference. On the one hand he thinks of the prophet Muhammad as an intelligent man who wrote the Qur’an; on the other hand he cannot assume a basic level of intelligence for the prophet. Katz writes:

"Even if one would not put standards of perfection on these rules as is fitting for a revelation from God but only think it to be from Muhammad, it is strange that this successful business man, in charge of whole caravans for a number of years, was not able to correctly add up a few fractions."

Contrary to Katz’s ambivalence between attributing intelligence and ignorance to the prophet, it is established practice that as we read a work we assume for the author a reasonable degree of intelligence consistent with our knowledge of the author’s biography. Since we know from history that the prophet was a successful business man in charge of whole caravans for a number of years we have to assume that he had more than a child’s intelligence.

Yet in order to attribute error to the Qur’an, Katz pretends that its author has not even a child’s intelligence. On this basis Katz objects to 4:11 which prescribes that a daughter will get half of the entire estate available for inheritance. Since the same verse also prescribes that a son gets twice the share of a daughter, Katz thinks that in the case of one son and one daughter the shares of inheritance would be 50% for the daughter and 100% for the son thus totaling 150% of the available estate. Then he wonders how the parents and spouse will inherit when more than the whole is already allotted. He does not here allow for the author of he Quran to know that if a daughter gets half of the whole thing only the other half will remain for a son. Yet every child knows that if they have to share a cake and one person gets half the other person cannot get twice as much from the same cake. If Katz is to assume that the prophet is the author of the Qur’an and Katz admits at least a basic level of intelligence for him, how does Katz imagine such an idiotic explanation for the Qur’an? Does Katz want to have his cake and eat it? Here Katz’s method has gone beyond even his admitted intention to approach the Quran with hostility.

"Daughters Only" Implies "No Sons"
Actually, again, there is no problem in the scripture itself, only in Katz’s approach. The passage (4:11) first mentions the general principle that a son gets twice what the daughter gets. Then it goes on to prescribe in cases when only daughters remain. Only when there is no son, and only one daughter, does the verse prescribe half the estate for the daughter. So Katz’s goings on about the double share for the son is mistaken. In this case there exists by definition a total number of zero sons and one daughter, and no other children.

The fact that this is a case of no son can be immediately seen from the Quranic text. Speaking of the children, the Qur’an moves over to a use of the feminine plural pronoun "kunna" which by definition cannot include males. Arberry’s translation again did not sufficiently emphasize this reference to females alone. Yet the translation is not alone to blame here. The problem rests with Katz. On the one hand he calls the prophet a successful businessman and the author of the Qur’an. Surely such a man would know that if you put half of the camels on one side the other side cannot have twice the number. Or, that if he already paid for half his merchandise he should not again pay for the remainder twice what he paid for the first half. Such a man would know that if he gave half his wealth to his daughter he cannot also give twice as much to his son.

The Author Must Have Some Intelligence
Katz ought to here align himself with the world in this matter. When we read a work we assume for the author a level of competence consistent with his biography. Those who believe that the Qur’an came from Muhammad and know anything about his biography cannot justifiably take the words of he book in the most silly meaning possible. Even a person like Katz who decided to use the approach of a hostile critic must have his limits.

It is due to his own such misunderstandings that Katz in his response to Al-Kadhi repugnantly states that "the author of the Qur’an shows incompetence at a very basic level." On the other hand, both Katz and I have to recognize our own incompetence. I cannot claim competence in fully understanding either the Bible or the Qur’an, and I am willing to be corrected if I overstep my competence in dealing with both books. Similarly, if Katz does not know the Arabic language, and if he is dependent only on English translations he should judge whether or not he is competent to be a justifiable hostile critic of the book. Hostile critic yes -- but justifiable?

Katz’s Excessive Diligence in the Wrong Direction
Credit goes to Katz for his excessive diligence in searching for errors in the Qur’an. The allotment of inheritance shares involves a very detailed system. It itself is an area of specialization within Islamic studies. To sort through all the prescriptions in the Qur’anic text and decide individual cases based on the general Qur’anic principles takes much careful study. To invent hypothetical cases which would result in the apparent numerical discrepancies as Katz has done requires tremendous zeal. Yet Katz did not stop at that. He generally uses Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an to analyze the difficulties he deals with. But in the matter of inheritance he turned to Arthur Arberry’s translation. Why? Katz explains: "because Yusuf Ali was even more difficult to follow." Yet my review of the two translations convinced me that whereas the inheritance law is itself complex, the two translations were roughly similar in their level of persistence needed to comprehend the subject.

Why Arberry’s Translation?
The key difference between the translations, however, was that whereas the discrepancies Katz sought could be pressed on with the help of Arberry’s translation, this often was not true for Yusuf Ali’s translation. Though not itself perfect, Yusuf Ali’s translation is in the relevant verses closer to the original Arabic. Katz may have turned to Arberry’s translation not only because he found it easier to follow, but because he also found it easier to use in support of claimed contradictions. What Katz needed to do was to channel his diligence in the search not for error but for truth. He should have compared the translations to make sure that the one translation on which he relies should not itself prove erroneous on this issue. This way he would have avoided skewering his results in the erroneous direction he took. But, then again, perhaps here again Katz did not put a reasonable limit on his diligence for locating internal Qur’anic errors.

Comparing Translations
Normally in Biblical studies it is demanded that studies be based on the texts in the original languages. Students who have no access to the original languages are advised to compare translations so as to ensure that a particular mistaken slant of one translation does not affect the general understanding. Moreover, a particular emphasis may be captured well in one translation but not in another.

If Katz had used this principle in studying the Qur’an he would have suspected that some of the discrepancies he points to are found in Arberry’s translation but not in Yusuf Ali’s. Then he might have sought clarification from the original text to find out the source of the apparent discrepancy. But Katz’s excessive diligence was apparently not in the direction of establishing truth.

Even a Hostile Critic Needs Limits
We do not expect Katz to take an overly friendly approach to the Qur’anic text. Yet he ought not to take such a hostile approach either. Surely there is a happy medium between these extremes. How about an unbiased reading of the Qur’an? Apparently Katz abandoned Yusuf Ali’s translation precisely because in this case Arberry’s translation was more useful to the extreme hostile approach.

Katz Knew the Solution
In fact, Katz was aware that Yusuf Ali’s translation and notes if followed would remove one of the problems cited above. We have already shown how Katz in one case due to his misunderstanding counted a share for an already dead mother. His misunderstanding depended on Arberry’s translation which did not make sufficiently clear that the prescription in 4:176 dealt with a person who left neither a parent nor a child. While Katz was busy establishing that the total share including the mother’s share would exceed the available inheritance, he showed no awareness of the possibility that the mother is no longer around. Only later, when Katz was dealing with a different problem, did he show that he had this knowledge. He wrote that 4:176 deals with the situation when "there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children according to Muslim understanding – see Yusuf Ali’s translation and footnote)." If Katz knew of this understanding why did he not suggests that if the Muslim understanding is based on the Arabic reading then the claimed discrepancy disappears?

CLAIM: Brothers can inherit if only no direct heirs remain
Katz thinks that "according 4:12 and 4:176 the siblings of the person who died only then share in the inheritance if there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children . . . ). Thus he concluded that a brother cannot inherit if a mother is alive. But he finds this conclusion to contradict 4:11 which seems to allot a brother a share along with the mother.

REPLY: Searching for the word "only"
Here Katz misunderstands both 4:12 and 4:176. Neither of these verses state that a sibling can inherit "only" if there are no parents or children. Hence Katz’s contention is without basis. This time his contention is not even based on Arberry’s translation.








More Objections Answered

A Christian missionary web-site has a list of what are claimed to be internal contradictions in the Qur’an. The list contains forty-nine numbered items authored by Jochen Katz. Readers may access this list at www.answering-islam.org. Here we continue a systematic reply to each item of Katz’s list.
CLAIM: Sibling share suddenly doubled

Katz claims that 4:12 contradicts 4:176. According to 4:12 when there is no direct heir a brother or a sister would receive 1/6 each; thus 1/3 altogether. But "4:176 says in the same situation that ‘they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves’ [double of what 4:12 says]."
REPLY: Read Carefully

Contrary to what Katz claims, there is a key difference in the two situations. The pronoun "they" in 4:176 refers to two sisters whereas 4:12 refers to a brother and a sister. Since a brother and a sister is not the same thing, a brother plus a sister is not the same as two sisters.

The Arabic text clearly says, "in kanataa ithnatayn" which literally means "if they are two--females." Hence Yusuf Ali renders it: "if there are two sisters." Even Arberry’s translation renders the passage: "if there be two sisters they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves (4:176)." So the translation also made the matter clear. But in order to press home his claim of contradiction, Katz wrenched a phrase out of its context hence giving it a different meaning. He skipped the conditional "if there be two sisters" and quoted only "they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves." Then Katz went on to argue as though the pronoun "they" refers to a brother and a sister. A quick review of the text, however, reveals that Katz’s point is based on a misrepresentation of the Qur’an.
Lest You go Astray

I am struck by Allah’s mention in the same verse: "Allah makes clear to you, lest you go astray." I wonder now, by Katz’s muddying the verse how many internet browsers may have gone astray. I pray that my humble effort here may become the means by which Allah may guide many.

To be sure, 4:176 then goes on to prescribe for the case of more than two siblings including brothers and sisters. But then the verse does not prescribe the specific shares to be allotted them except to reiterate a general principle that the males get twice what their sisters receive. Since the specific shares are not allotted they cannot be said to be different from the allotted shares elsewhere. Either way you look at it, Katz is very wrong.
The Commentators

Katz goes on to report the commentary of Razi to show how Razi got around the perceived problem with the assumption that the two verses speak of two different sets of brothers and sisters. Whereas 4:12 refers to a brother or a sister from the mother, 4:176 refers to full siblings or siblings from the same father. If Razi is right, then of course there is no problem. Katz thinks that Muslim commentators simply invented this explanation to get around the problem.

But even if Razi is wrong, there is still no problem. My clarification above does not depend on any commentary. I have just simply shown that if we took the verse literally as Katz wants to do then it speaks of two different things. Whether we take the verse literally or we take Razi’s commentary as correct, either way Katz is wrong.
CLAIM: One year’s maintenance not same as 1/8

Katz claims a contradiction between 4:11 and 2:240. A man leaves an eight of his estate to his widow if he also leaves a child. But 2:240 prescribes "one year’s maintenance for her." And this, except for some remarkable coincidence, will always be different from a 1/8 share.
REPLY: Why should they be the same?

Katz failed to distinguish between the inheritance shares and a bequest. In 2:240 the maintenance for one year is prescribed as a bequest (Arabic: wasiyyah). On the other hand 4:11 prescribes the 1/8 share to be given only after debts and bequests (wasiyyah) are settled. Even Arberry’s translation on which Katz depends says that men leave to their widows "an eight after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt (4:11)."
Selective Recall

It is sad to notice again that the problem is not Katz’s lack of knowledge of the terms. Elsewhere he acknowledged "the rule that at most 1/3 can be given as a bequest to a person which is usually not an heir." Then he even goes on to provide links to sites which deal with Islamic inheritance law. So the problem is not that Katz does not know. The problem is that while he is concentrating on establishing one contradiction at a time he forgets anything he knows that could possible demolish the very claimed contradiction.
CLAIM: See Yusuf Ali’s footnote

Katz claims that since many commentators recognized that they cannot in practice make a year’s maintenance for a widow equal to a 1/8 share of inheritance, they saw here a contradiction between 2:240 and 4:12. To support this claim, he writes: "According to Yusuf Ali’s footnote on 2:240, many commentators for this reason consider 2:240 abrogated by 4:12."
REPLY: It does not say what you say

The support for that claim is based on a false allegation. I have checked more than one editions of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the opinion which Katz attributes to Yusuf Ali. And I could not find it. Katz’s claim is that according to Yusuf Ali many commentators deemed the two verses to be mutually contradictory, and that "for this reason" they consider 2:240 to be abrogated by 4:12. On the contrary, Yusuf Ali’s footnote on 2:240 reads:

"Opinions differ whether the provision ( of a year’s maintenance, with residence) for a widow is abrogated by the share which the widow gets (one eighth or one-fourth) as an heir (Q. iv. 12). I do not think it is. The bequest (where made) takes effect as a charge on the property, but the widow can leave the house before the year is out, and presumably the maintenance then ceases."

That is the full extent of Yusuf Ali’s note #273 on 2:240 (American Trust Publications, 1977). Notice that the quoted words from Yusuf Ali do not imply anything about contradiction, only about abrogation. Yusuf Ali does not say that the commentators recognized here a contradiction and that "for this reason" they consider 2:240 to be abrogated. Here Katz’s enthusiasm overshadowed his caution, and he attributed to Yusuf Ali an opinion which Yusuf Ali did not hold.

Katz harbours the idea that abrogation means contradiction. But abrogation is not the same as contradiction. The difference is explained under the next head.
CLAIM

Katz claims that 4:7 contradicts 4:11. In 4:7 daughters are given an equal share with their brothers whereas in 4:11 they are given only half what their brothers get. This is clear from the parallel construction in 4:7 which says "to the men a share . . . and to the women a share."
REPLY

It seems that Katz is willing to go to desperate lengths to keep making more claims. Why does he think that 4:7 awards an equal share to daughters? He thinks "the parallel construction makes that obvious." On the contrary, the only thing it makes obvious is that sons and daughters each get a share. Where does it say that the shares are equal?

On the other hand, it is reasonable to see that both statements are correct. One says that the son and daughter will each get a share. Another says that the share which the son gets will be double what the daughter gets. Putting the two statements together, we have this final instruction: Both the son and the daughter will have a share, the son’s share being twice that of the daughter. Where is the contradiction?
CLAIM

Katz supports his finding of a contradiction here by referring to Muslim commentators. He noted that all commentators recognized 4:7 to be abrogated by 4:11. This pair of verses is listed as pair #20 in the book Itqan. According to Katz, then, 4:7 was recognized by all commentators as an abrogated verse. This to him means that its content is contradicted by another verse, in this case 4:11. Hence he can claim the following: "That this was a contradiction was recognized by all commentators . . . ."
REPLY

But surely here Katz misunderstands what an abrogation is in the view of Muslim commentators. Many used the term abrogation in the sense of specification. Hence if one verse gave a general instruction and a later verse gave a more specific instruction the latter is called an abrogating verse and the former is called an abrogated verse. However, this does not mean that the commentators recognized here a contradiction as Katz alleges. It only means that they recognized the later verse as being more specific where the former was more general. We have already seen that this is the case with the verses being discussed. Whereas the former verse 4:7 said in general that the son and daughter both inherit, the latter verse 4:11 specified that the share of the male would be twice that of the female. There is hence no contradiction between the two verses.

Moreover, even if commentators think that there is a contradiction that does not help Katz. His method was, as he stated, to ignore the commentators and take the Qur’anic statements in their most literal sense. If he cannot show a contradiction using this method, it is pointless to appeal to the commentators in desperation.

Furthermore, all commentators are not agreed that this is a case of abrogation. According to Shah Waliullah of Delhi, there are only five pairs of abrogated and abrogating verses, and this pair is not one of the five (Ahmad Von Denver, Uloom al-Qur’an, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1994; p. 108). So what does that prove? The crux of the matter here is not what the commentators said but what the verses actually say. Since the verses themselves do not contradict each other, Katz’s claim is ruined.
CLAIM

Katz complains that the Qur’an often does not provide for the estate to be exhaustively distributed. When the allotted shares are added they amount to less than 100%. His persistent question, therefore, is "Who gets the rest?" Since the Qur’an claims to be a complete guidance, it should provide instructions on such details.
REPLY

The Bible is a much larger book than the Qur’an. Yet it contains less on inheritance than the Qur’an. And it too claims to be a complete guidance. How does Katz regard this?

The Qur’an is said to be about 4/5 the length of the New Testament. The Old Testament is much longer than the New Testament. And the Bible is made up of both testaments. Why is it that a book of such size include so little on a subject that Katz considers so important?
CLAIM

Katz feels that the allowance in Islamic Law for a person to bequeath up to 1/3 of his property "can lead to gross injustices." One can theoretically bequeath away his property thus leaving his elderly parents with no support. He further complains that the limit of 1/3 is not prescribed in the Qur’an.
REPLY

Katz would be on better ground here if he took into consideration the entire Qur’an. The Qur’an does in fact prescribe that charity is first to one’s parents, then to one’s near relatives, then to others. If anyone disinherits his parents he would be going against this important directive.

Moreover, Katz should be able to demonstrate that the Bible is better at ensuring justice. On the contrary, the Bible in the Gospel of Luke shows that when a matter of injustice involving inheritance was brought to Jesus, on whom be peace, he refused to settle the matter (Luke 12:13). Muslims of course believe that Jesus stood for justice. Muslims would question any detail of the gospels which contradict this noble portrait of Jesus. But how does Katz feel about this gospel report?
CLAIM

Katz devoted an entire page complaining about how it is "very unjust" to allot a man twice the share of his sister as Islamic law does. His complaining may lead a reader to expect that his Bible teaches differently.
REPLY

On the contrary, according to the Bible if there are sons they should take everything and the daughters should get nothing. Only if there are no sons can the daughters inherit (Numbers 27:8-11). However, such a daughter is required to marry into a family of her father’s tribe (Numbers 36:6, 11).

Katz complains of injustice because the Qur’an gives the woman only half of what her brother gets. How does he react to the Biblical prescription that the woman gets nothing if she has a brother?

Moreover, the Qur’an prescribes for a woman to inherit as a daughter, as a mother, as a sister, and as a wife. The Bible offers no such prescription. Rather, the Bible allots the entire inheritance to male relatives where such exist, leaving nothing for wife or mother. So why do Bible believers complain about the Qur’an?
CLAIM

In his reply to Randy Desmond, Katz comments on an interpretation of a hadith which directs us to give the allotted shares as designated and then to give the undistributed remainder to the nearest male relative. Katz stretches this to mean possibly a male cousin of an uncle. Then he concludes that if he dies leaving a daughter as his only child his daughter would get half the estate and such a remote male relative would get the other half. Then comes his expression of incredulity:

". . . this remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As much as my daughter? That is what the hadith would suggest."

Aside from his misunderstanding of the said hadith and of Islamic inheritance law, Katz should be advised that if he follows the Bible on this matter his daughter may get nothing and the male relative would take all if the daughter marries outside her father’s tribe. Katz may think this law no longer applies today, but that does not help his position. Since Katz believes that this prescription came from God in the first place, and Katz thinks it incredible, then by implication he thinks that God’s prescription in the Bible is incredible.

Based on his misunderstanding of the hadith and of Islamic law, Katz is able to remark:

"According to my taste, this is not justified. [Neither do I know of any country’s civil or religious law where things are dealt with that way.] But then, maybe I am not the one to define what is justice."

Neither is it done that way in Islamic law. On the other hand, has Katz read his Bible lately? According to the Bible, if a man has no kids his property goes to his brothers, or to his father’s brothers (Numbers 27:8-11). How does Katz feel about this? Wife and mother are not mentioned in the list of inheritors. According to this list we should pass over a man’s wife and mother and give his entire property to his father’s brother. Perhaps Katz will explain to us how this fits his taste of what is justified.
Anything Left Unanswered?

I have in the foregoing discussion answered every significant point raised by Katz regarding the matter of inheritance. If there is anything left unanswered I would like to know. Then I can get to work on it right away.



My dear sisters, Alhamdulillaah you have worn Hijaab and covered your hair, we ask Allah to guide you always and support you. However we just wanted to remind you sister that proper covering cannot be achieved by wearing tight or transparent clothes.

Does hijaab only mean covering ones hair?

NO.....!!!!!!



The Prophet (PBUH) said:
"There will be in the last days of my ummah, women who are dressed and undressed. Curse them: they are accursed." (At-Tabarani)

A sister who does not truly know the superiority of Hijaab will always remain envious of disbelieving women. Why? Because they observe these misguided disbelievers attempting to look beautiful for all to see. Hence, the Muslim woman then compares herself to that woman which causes her to feel ashamed of her own Hijaab.

Therefore, what follows is a reminder for my sisters in Islam. It is a reminder of the true status of these so-called beautiful women. It is a reminder of the excellence of the women who wear Hijaab. It is a reminder for my sisters who Allah have guided them and are wearing hijaab, but they are still wearing tight clothes.



EXCELLENT QUALITIES OF THOSE WHO WEAR HIJAAB
It is well known that the Muslim woman is a creature of modesty. Allaah loves for our Muslim women to be shielded by their Hijaab. It is their outer protection from the decadence of this life. Allaah's Messenger (PBUH) said , said: "Allaah is modest and covering. He loves modesty and privacy." [Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa'i Al-Bayhaqi, Ahmad].

Thus, as modesty is a quality that is loved by Allaah, our sisters must take comfort in knowing that they are modest and that they are not like those women who show themselves off to the world. Such women will not be shielded from Allaah's Wrath. Allaah's Messenger (PBUH) said: "Any woman who takes off her clothes in other than her husband's home, has broken Allaah's shield upon her." [Abu Daawood and At-Tirmithi)

Therefore, we see that the Hijaab of the Muslim woman is indeed part of modesty. Modesty accompanies Eemaan (faith). That is why Allaah's Messenger (PBUH) said: "Modesty is part of Eemaan and Eemaan is in Paradise." [At-Tirmithi].

Also: "Modesty and Eemaan are companions, when one goes away the other one goes away." [Al-Haakim and others]

The Muslim women must know that the disbelieving women who beautify themselves for the world to see possess no modesty, thus, they are void of any Eemaan. Instead of looking to the latest fashion models for guidance, you must look to the wives of the Prophet (PBUH).

Look at the regard for modesty that our mother, 'Aa'ishah possessed even in the presence of the deceased; she said: "I used to enter the room where the Messenger of Allaah and my father (Abu Bakr) were later buried in without having my garment on me, saying it is only my husband and my father. But when 'Umar bin al-Khattaab was later buried in (the same place), I did not enter the room except that I had my garment on being shy from 'Umar."

It can be quite difficult for the Muslim woman to go out wearing Hijaab in a society that mocks and torments her. Indeed, she may feel strange and out of place. However, if she knows the status of those who are mocked by the disbelievers, then she would continue to wear her Hijaab with dignity.

Allaah Says in His Book (what means): "Verily! The criminals used to laugh at those who believed. And whenever they passed them, used to wink at one another. And when they returned to their own people, they would return jesting. When they saw them, they said: 'These have indeed gone astray!' But they (disbelievers, sinners) had not been sent as watchers over them (the believers). But on this Day those who believe will laugh at the disbelievers. On (high) thrones, looking (at all things). Are not the disbelievers paid (fully) for what they used to do?" [Quran 83:29-36]

Allaah's Words should serve as a support for you my dear sister. Also, take comfort in being a stranger among these lewd and sinful women. Allaah's Messenger (PBUH) said: "Islam began as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, so good news is for the strangers." [Muslim]

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPOSED WOMEN

Instead of practicing the Hijaab (covering), the disbelieving women expose themselves, making a dazzling display of themselves for others. Such a display is an attribute of ignorance. Allaah Says in His Book (what means): "And stay in your houses and do not display yourselves as you used to during the times of ignorance." [Quran 33:33]

Allaah's Messenger (PBUH) said: "The best of your women is the affectionate, the fertile, the comforting, the agreeable -- if they fear Allaah. The most evil of your women are those who expose and display themselves, and those who strut (to show off) and they are the hypocrites. Those who enter al-Jannah (the Paradise) are like the red beaked crow." [Al-Bayhaqi]. The simile of the red-beaked crow is to show that those who enter Paradise will be as rare as this kind crow is rare.

We see from the above Aayah and Hadeeth that displaying oneself is indeed unlawful. Further, it is a quality of the most evil of women! Therefore, do not be envious of the disbelieving women. They only have this life to enjoy, while the believing women will have Paradise. There is nothing in your Hijaab to be ashamed of, as it is the garment of the righteous and pious female worshippers of Allaah.

In order to truly show you how evil those women who expose themselves are, let us ponder over the following statement of Allaah's Messenger (PBUH): "Of the people of Hell there are two whom I have never seen, the one possessing whips like the tail of an ox and they flog people with them. The second one, women who would be naked in spite of their being dressed, who are seduced (to wrong paths) and seduce others. Their hair is high like the humps of the camel. These women would not enter Paradise, nor will they smell its fragrance, although its fragrance can be sensed from such and such a distance." [Muslim]

These women who expose themselves are common among us today. These are women that even the Prophet did not see! Look around you and you will see those women who are clothed but naked! Look at the hairstyles of the women who expose themselves -- are they not high like the camel's hump?

Perhaps we are the first generation since the time of Aadam to witness such women. If one ponders over photos taken thirty to fifty years ago, one will see that the disbelieving women did not expose themselves in the manner that their offspring do today! These women are among the people of the Fire! Thus, how can you envy them? How can you be dressed like them?

Such lewd women will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise; so our women must avoid their path.

Another lesson from the above hadeeth is that it confirms that what the Prophet , came with is indeed the truth! This is a prophecy that has come to pass in front of our very eyes. Hence, will we continue to envy these evil women, or should we be grateful to our Lord for the Hijaab, which brings modesty, which leads to Paradise?

To sum up, the Muslim woman should abandon all of the ways of the exposed women, and adopt the ways of those who are modest through their love and practice of the proper Islamic Hijaab.

Anas (RA) reported:

Maalik ibn Anas said to his wife Um Sulaym – who was the mother of Anas – “This man – meaning the Prophet (PBUH) is forbidding alcohol.” So he left Madinah and went to Shaam (Syria), where he died. (i.e., he fled from Madinah when the Prophet (PBUH) came there, because he did not like the ban on alcohol, and he died as a kaafir in Syria). Then Abu Talhah came and proposed marriage to Um Sulaym, and spoke to her about it. She said, “O Abu Talhah, a man like you would not be turned down, but you are a non-believer, and I am a Muslim woman. It is not right for me to marry you.” He said, “This is the chance of a lifetime!” She said, “What chance?” He said, “The yellow and white (i.e., he was tempting her with a mahr or dowry of gold and silver).” She said, “I do not want any yellow or white. I want you to become Muslim. If you become Muslim, that will be my mahr, and I will not ask you for anything else.” He asked, “Who could help me with that (i.e., to become Muslim)?” She said, “The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) will help you.” So Abu Talhah went to look for the Prophet (PBUH), who was sitting with his Companions. When he (PBUH) saw him, he said, “Abu Talhah is coming to you with the light of Islam shining on his forehead.” (This was one of the miracles of the Prophet (PBUH): he knew that Abu Talhah would become a Muslim even before he spoke). Abu Talhah told the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about what Um Sulaym had said, and he married her on that basis. Thaabit (i.e., Thaabit al-Banaani, one of the people who narrated the story from Anas) said: “We have never heard of any mahr greater than this, she accepted his Islam as her dowry.”

So he married her, and she was a woman with nice eyes, rather small. She was with him until she bore him a son, who Abu Talhah loved very much. The child became very ill, and Abu Talhah was very upset and distressed by the child’s sickness. Abu Talhah used to get up to pray the morning prayer, he would go to the Prophet (PBUH) and pray with him, and would stay with him for almost half the day. Then [Abu Talhah] would come to take a nap and eat, and when he had prayed Zuhr he would get ready and leave, and would not come back until the time of the ‘Isha’ prayer. One evening, Abu Talhah went out to see the Prophet (PBUH) (according to another report: to go to the mosque), and the child died (during his absence). Um Sulaym said, “No one is to tell Abu Talhah about his child’s death until I have told him.” She covered the child up as if he were sleeping, and left him in a corner of the house. Abu Talhah came back from visiting the Messenger of Allaah (PBUH), and brought some people from the mosque with him. He asked, “How is my son?” She said, “O Abu Talhah, from the time he fell sick, he has never been as calm as he is now, and I hope that he is resting.” (She spoke vaguely so as not to upset him; this was not a lie. She was referring to the calmness of death and the child finding relief from the pain of his sickness, but her husband took it to mean that the child’s condition had improved). She brought the meal and they all ate dinner, then the people left. Then he went to bed and lay down, and she got up and put on perfume and adorned herself, making herself more beautiful than she ever had before. (This was a sign of her patience and great faith in the will and decree of Allah. She was seeking reward from Allah and concealing her feelings, hoping that she would become pregnant that night to make up for the loss of her child). Then she came and lay down in the bed with him, and when he smelt the perfume, he did as men usually do with their wives (this is the narrator’s polite and circumspect manner of referring to what happened between them). At the end of the night, she said, “O Abu Talhah, do you think that if some people lent something to some others, then they asked for it back, do they have the right not to give it back?” He said, “No.” She said, “Allah, may He be glorified, lent your son to you, and now He has taken him back, so seek reward with Him and have patience.” He became angry and said, “You left me until I did what I did (i.e., had intercourse), then you tell me that my son has died!” Then he said, “Innaa Lillaahi wa innaa ilayhi raaji’oon (Truly, to Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return) and he praised Allah. In the morning, he did ghusl (full ablution) then he went to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and prayed with him, and told him what had happened. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “May Allah bless you for last night.” She conceived a child (thus the Prophet’s (PBUH) prayer for them was answered).

Um Sulaym used to travel with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), leaving Madinah when he left, and returning when he returned. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “When she gives birth, bring the child to me.” He was on a journey, and Um Sulaym was with him. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) came back from travelling, he would never enter Madinah at night (so as not to disturb the people, and so that wives would have time to get ready to greet their husbands). They reached the outskirts of Madinah, and her labor pains started. Abu Talhah stayed with her, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) went on. Abu Talhah said, “O Allah, you know that I like to set out with your Messenger when he sets out, and come back with him when he comes back. I have been detained as you see.” Um Sulaym said, “O Abu Talhah, I do not feel the pains as much (this was one of her “miracles”; her labour pains ceased because she had asked Allah to enable her to catch up with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). So they set off, and after they had reached Madinah, her labour pains started again, and she gave birth to a boy. She told her son Anas, “O Anas, I will not give him anything to eat until you take him in the morning to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH),” and she sent some dates with him. (Because she wanted the first thing to enter the child’s mouth to be food from the Prophet (PBUH); this was a sign of her great faith, because the woman’s natural instinct is to hasten to feed the baby as soon as he is born). The child cried all night long, and I [Anas, the narrator of this story] stayed up all night taking care of him. In the morning, I took him to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), who was wearing his burdah (a kind of cloak) and marking the camels and sheep that had been given to him (the animals had been given in charity and he was marking them so that they would not get lost or mixed with other flocks or herds). When he saw him, he said to Anas, “Has the daughter of Milhaan [i.e., Um Sulaym] given birth?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “I will be with you in a minute.” He put down the tool in his hand (with which he had been marking the animals) and took the child, then he (PBUH) said, “Do you have something for him?” They said, “Yes, dates.” The Prophet (PBUH) took some of the dates and chewed them, mixing them with his saliva (and the saliva of the Prophet (PBUH) was blessed by Allah). Then he opened the child’s mouth and gave him some of the dates, wiping them inside his mouth. The infant began to smack his lips, sucking some of the sweetness of the dates and the saliva of the Prophet (PBUH). Thus the first thing that entered that child’s stomach was mixed with the saliva of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He said, “See how much the Ansaar (the Muslims who were living in Madenah when the Prophet migrated there) love dates!” I [Anas] said, “O Messenger of Allah, name him.” He wiped his face and named him ‘Abd-Allaah. There was no young man among the Ansaar who was better than him, and when he grew up he had a lot of sons, and was martyred in Persia (he died as a martyr when the Muslims conquered Persia; all of this happened as a result of the Prophet’s blessed du’aa’).

(The story was reported by Imaam al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Ahmad and al-Tayaalisi; this version was reported by al-Tayaalisi and others. Al-‘Allaamah al-Albaani collected all its isnaads in his book Ahkaam al-Janaa’iz, p. 20).

This is one story of one Muslim woman among the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH).There are many other stories which show the effect Islam had on the hearts of Muslim women and how the religion of Allah bore fruits of righteous deeds and good lives. Peace be upon those who follow true guidance.

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews

Do you like this blog?

About this blog

Popular Posts

Powered By Blogger

Ipsum Tempor

Sit amet

Ultricies Eget

Followers

Copyright 2009 - ...

Blogspot Theme designed by: Ray Creations, Ray Hosting.