Issuu on Google+


MAAMAR METMATI TARIK RAMADAN A XXI Century's Impostor

Translation from the French : Hichem Karoui


Book assessed in this volume: Title: Can we live with Islam? Author: Tariq Ramadan. Publisher: Favre.


DEFINITION OF THE WORD IMPOSTOR: A person who abuses the confidence, the gullibility of others by promises, lies, with the aim to benefit. A person who seeks to impress, using false appearances, and a facade of virtue. (Charlatan, liar, fraud, hypocrite).

Islam teaches us honesty, sincerity, integrity, righteousness, and countless other qualities. It forbids us lies, perfidy, hypocrisy, duplicity, deceit, and many other defects, which although they are intrinsic to Man, must be fought, though. I will never allow myself therefore to talk deceptively about anyone, and as far as possible, I will endeavor to conceal the defects of my brothers, as I would like them to conceal mine. So, it is in full respect of the law and morality of Islam, that I authorized myself to give to this booklet the above mentioned title. Indeed, the word impostor is, as we will see, perfectly justified. It must be clearly understood that with Mr. Ramadan, we are not in the presence of someone who makes mistakes, while thinking that he knows, or who is using a (long term) strategy in favor of Islam, or someone who commits only small breaches of the Islam law and morals; quite the other way round. We are going to see that we are dealing with someone who acts in full knowledge and in a way perfectly premeditated and calculated, not in order to give Islam some grandeur, but only in the most strictly personal interest of Tariq Ramadan. As soon as an obstacle rises in his way, whether it is related to the Koran, to the Prophet or to any other source, he does not hesitate to sway it away in his peculiar manner, i.e. disavowing it. I think I may say that the media, who hounded him since the story of that famous list of Jewish personalities, depicting him as a smart and vicious Islamist, are completely "wrong". For, after searching through all his books, video and audio cassettes, Caroline Fourest 1 could find but very little evidence showing that Mr. Ramadan is a fundamentalist Islamist, dressed up as alter globalist! Conversely, we found that he was a liar, which anyhow, does not make of him an Islamist. One must not forget that Mr. Ramadan is supposed to address a 1

Author of the book “ Frère Tariq”, Ed. Grasset; Paris.


Muslim audience… Hence, he needs naturally to talk to them about Islam! Nonetheless, we know that everything or almost, opposes Islam to any other universal constitution, on the moral, penal, civil, and commercial levels, as well as in many other areas. How can he, in this case, hold a discourse one hundred percent Republican? That is just impossible! He is consequently forced to release some words, which will be quickly perceived by non - Muslims, especially journalists, as pertaining to an Islamist, and this is what emerges from the investigation of Caroline Fourest2. What is the conclusion? It is as follows: through hundreds of videotapes, audio and more than a dozen books authored by Mr. Tariq Ramadan, the investigation conducted by Caroline Fourest, has cast light on a relatively small number of lies, inconsistencies, and his pseudo-sympathy for Islamism, noticeably because he had prefaced the book of Yahiya Michot, who had approved - via ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa, - the assassination of Tibehirine monks. So, one does not have to be a mathematician in order to conclude that no less than ninety nine per cent of his discourse is republican, thereby opposed to Islam or to Islamism. Oddly enough is the fact that his audience has perceived nothing, as he was supposed to deliver, not a Republican message, but an Islamic one! Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that one cannot be front and back at once, one cannot be in favor of both: divine law and French law! Unless one interprets the Koran half drunk, or half crazy!

In the present book, I reverse things, bringing the evidence of the ninety nine percent lies on Islam, performed by Tariq Ramadan. I have conducted my inquiry, well before the latter became the subject of much criticism, although it was not on behalf of the Republic but of Islam. The qualifier impostor is perfectly justified, since this person does not hesitate, as will see, and in accordance with the definition of the Robert (dictionary) to: abuse the confidence, and the gullibility of others by promises, and lies, with the aim to benefit. A person who seeks to impress, using false appearances, and a facade of virtue for the sake of his own interest, the more mercantile, I would add. I emphasize that the twelve refutations I am bringing in this volume are only a very small sample, as Mr. Ramadan seems to have authored more 2

The magazine : « L’Express » ; issue : 2781.


than a dozen books. Thus, the constant and important number of his lies, his total contempt for divine and prophetic truth, his denigration against anyone when he is confronted with the choice of acknowledging or lying, his disavowal as regards all men, included and in the first place the Prophet, who could obstruct his march to international recognition, his abuse of the confidence and the credulity of some people, just for his own glory, make of him without the slightest doubt possible an impostor.

No! Mr. Ramadan is not an Islamist! Because an Islamist does not lie to his people, he does not mislead them. An Islamist does not disavow God and His messenger. An Islamist does not disparage others (as he did in respect of Imam Khomeini3 and Osama bin Laden4, among others), particularly Muslims, just for the sake of appearing “clean”. I still have to emphasize that we are not talking about a little weakness of Mr. Tariq Ramadan, but, it is quite the opposite, about a perfectly premeditated and studied offense, lasting and persisting in time and space, with a thorough knowledge of the facts. We are therefore very far from the individual who sins by weakness or by mistake. With Mr. Tariq Ramadan, it is a true profession that consists in saying "A" while making others believe that actually he said "B"! This is what he performs day in day out, month after month, year after year! 3

As we will see, in the query number 7 in this book, Mr. Tariq Ramadan accuses Imam Khomeini to use Islam for the purpose of recovery, albeit it is quite the opposite. Because, obviously, he is the one using Islam not for recovery, but to get into the limelight. By the way, even if Khomeini was mistaken when he issued his fatwa condemning Rushdie to death, how could Tariq Ramadan know whether Khomeini had issued the fatwa insincerely or only for the purpose of recovery? Suddenly, Mr. Ramadan, where did you put your intelligence and your "honesty" when you accused that old man, Khomeini? How could you assert something that only God knows? To know whether Khomeini was sincere or not, did you read his heart? The fact is that you have condemned him with the same haste than the French government, when it condemned an act presented as anti-Semitic without even waiting for the police investigation. In both cases, the goal of the hurriedness is to make a good outward show, in defiance – as usual - of justice, whether divine or even human. 4 In his book entitled “Jihad, violence, war and peace in Islam”, he does not hesitate to accuse Osama bin Laden of betraying Islam (this is not about the attacks of September 11), whereas insofar as it concerns the subject then evoked, he was the one who betrayed Islam. However, as one died and the other is the most wanted man on the planet, the polemic has still beautiful days forthcoming…


I am convinced that Mr. Ramadan suggests to his followers intrigued by some of his remarks, that he speaks and acts in such a way only in order to circumvent the "obstacle". Thus, he would lie, he would not say the whole truth, and he would eat with all the sauces, only in order to enter the “sheepfold”. Now, I doubt very much that we can go to God while holding Satan’s hand! I do not think I heard or read that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has lied to his disciples and the rest of the world, in order to escape the anger of the idolaters, although we know that Mecca, the city where the Prophet lived, was home to no less than three hundred and sixty idols and ten times more idolaters. The Prophet did not lie, though, to anyone. He said loudly and clearly, there is no god but Allah! Bilal (God be pleased with him) who was cruelly tortured, never stopped saying Ahad! Ahad! (One! One!). So I very much doubt that your pseudo strategy consisting in lying to all Muslims in the world and mixing false true with true false, finds its source in Islam! By the way, and I am asking to be rectified if I am mistaken, never since the creation of the earth, a Prophet has lied to his followers in order to appear "soft" and “ light” in the eyes of unbelievers, ever! So, why Mr. Ramadan allows himself to lie? He is certainly not a prophet. He appears nevertheless as a missionary bearer of the Islamic truth. Then why should there be an exception for him? Maybe should we ask Mr. Ramadan whether he has not obtained a license from our Creator to bypass all the rights! I think now that those among his loyal followers, who will still trust him after reading this book, will act thus knowingly. I do not expect, of course, to see the publisher: “Editions Tawhid” or the people in charge of the website: "Oumma.com" rejecting him. Because the former is his official publisher, so to speak, when it is not possible to be published ... sniff… sniff! By Albin Michel. And the latter "Oumma.com" - has boycotted my publications because I authored this book, even before it was published. That makes me think that "Oumma.com" and Tariq Ramadan are not different entities but the same. In my view, there is no shadow of a doubt that if Mr. Tariq Ramadan was brought before an Islamic court, his case is so thick that the verdict is already known! Or else, it would be an injustice; then I will console myself pending the judgment of the Almighty. His crime is one of the most serious under Islamic law, the crime of getting lost.


“Lo! Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear to mankind in the Scripture: such are accursed of Allah and accursed of those who have the power to curse.� (Koran, Sura 2 verse 159).

Pontoise, October 23, 2004.


To my father,


1- YOU SAY IN PAGE 66 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation): “Please remember these truths too often forgotten. This helps to challenge a truncated vision of Islam, pretending that it spread out only thanks to the sword and the blade, in sum by coercion. We must identify in this story, a certain number of objective factors that have allowed such a fast expansion, and that is what you just did. To claim that everything was done by violence, war, colonization is a deadly counter-truth that does not stand up to analysis: because we cannot in a hundred years do what has be done, while solely using the sword to impose an order by coercion. There was a Religious interest, it is obvious; yet also political, economic, social and even cultural sometimes. War situations have existed, it is no less certain, but they were not, by far, the key to this success and acceptance of Islam by whole blocks of foreign populations. This alternative vision allows us to moderate broadly the idea claiming that wars and conquests are a natural feature of Islam.” REFUTATION: Unable to do as some hoaxers did5, when they simply denied that Islam has well spread by the sword, you try (here, we acknowledge your superiority in the field of hoaxing) to minimize, or more exactly - to quote your own words, - to moderate broadly this historical truth. By this moderation, you acknowledge (probably against your will, since your speeches are always keen on satisfying the non-Muslim notables) that the Islamic conquests, which once had led the soldiers of Abd alRahman ibn Abdullah up to Poitiers, have not been achieved by the sole use of the sword, and that there was, quoting you: “a religious interest, it is obvious; yet also political, economic, social and even cultural sometimes.” Indeed, there had to be likely, even surely, a certain number of persons, men and women, who were enchanted and seduced by this Indeed, despite historical evidence, many pseudo “Muslim” theologians have stated that: “Islam has never spread out thanks to the sword”, conversely to Mr. Tariq Ramadan, who quickly understood that he risked to be ridiculous if he held the same discourse. For this reason, as he was not able to deny it bluntly, he minimized the truth. Some even claimed that the conquests had had no other purpose but getting rich. By such remarks, they slander a whole army of mujahidin, and this only in order to make people believe that Islam is not the religion of wars and warriors. Ultimately, their goal is just to impress favorably their beloved friends, the infidels. 5


new religion that was spreading faster than a racehorse. That was because - to resume once more your words – of “a religious interest, it is obvious; yet also political, economic, social and even cultural sometimes.” However, speaking of moderation, I think, much more, I assert that the word is extremely inappropriate. Which, I understand very well indeed, since just like me, you know perfectly that the word moderation is here absolutely out of place. Nevertheless, you used it only because, unable to deny a historical truth, you chose to minimize it. A historical truth that you could not bear, especially when it may prevent your access to some recognition: the non-Muslim’s. Indeed, I do not see how one could listen, applaud and make place to an "intellectual" who adheres to a religion that has caused such bloodshed!6 When I say “listen, applaud and make place”, I am not referring to the Muslim audience, whose majority is “acquired” to your discourse. Unlike those (non-Muslims) who have unmasked you in the famous case of the Jewish personalities’ list, the Muslims, although the matter concerns their religion, have never found the slightest contradiction, the slightest lie in your discourse; and God knows, as we shall see, that there are a huge number of them! One must recognize it: you have succeeded to fooling them so well… that they see you as a savant! That is to say how much you have been good at deceiving them! I cannot help it, it is hilarious! Conclusion: It is not because a number of people have been enchanted and seduced by Islam, as I said, coming to their doors on horseback, the sword brandished, that one can speak of moderation! As a final point, here are some excerpts from the book of the great historian Tabari7, which demonstrate clearly that the moderation you pretend exists nowhere but in your mouth! By the way, I allow myself to remind you that you are no more than your followers, exempted from the Koranic and prophetic requirements commanding us to bring the message of Islam to non-Muslims8. Let me 6

A drop of water in the ocean, though, if one were to compare it to the rest of the conflicts that have struck humanity. 7 Born in 224/839 in Amoul, Tabaristan. World-renowned historian and commentator of the Koran. 8 As we shall see, Islamic proselytizing (army), has not been set, as Mr. Ramadan and many others pretend, by brigands or innovators, but by the prophet himself. His successors have only respected the law. This proselytizing does not occur in the same way propagated by the Fans of khoorooj (Jehovah's Witnesses, Islamized version), that is: I live, sleep, eat, work with the unbelievers, and when I have nothing to do, I take my small rucksack, and go


be quite clear: when I say to bring the message, it does not mean spending the time at performing pretty speeches and writing beautiful books, a good number of which contradict Islam! Or more exactly, contradict the fundamental truths of Islam. But we talk of this subject later on… Here are presently a few examples of battles, which run completely in the opposition of the direction shown in the assertions of Mr. Ramadan. According to him, not only Islam did not spread out solely thanks to the saber and sword, but it is even “impossible to make warfare for proselytizing purposes; the Koranic text is clear: No compulsion in religion. If this has been the case in history, it was by far not the rule. Anyway, those practices were in opposition to the Islamic teachings”. (Issue No. 6):

* Conquest of Hîra: Khalid said: “O Iyas, chose one of these options: accept our religion, or pay a tribute. If not, get ready for war.” * Conquest of Oballa: Khalid sent a letter to Hormuz, saying: “I am coming, I, the General of the Vicar of God. Embrace Islam or pay the toll. If not, get ready for war.” * The Battle of Madsar: “The Persian army began to flee, pursued by the Muslims, until nightfall. The next day, it has been found that thirty thousand Persian had perished.” * The Battle of Waladja: “Khalid gave the order to attack and the fight started. The Persians began to flee, pursued by Muslims who made a in search of the lost people. For my part, I wonder who is more lost, "the faithful" unfaithful, or the unfaithful unfaithful! This way of Islamic proselytizing has been purely and simply invented by a certain Mohamed Elias, early in the 20th century. It is so much easier and especially least dangerous! Those people call other people to Islam while they themselves do not respect the essential message of Islam. It is actually about calling people to a purely formal Islam, an Islam of the end of time. The prophet had predicted: “Islam will disappear to make way to a pure formality.” Les signes de la fin des temps; éditions Alif.


Massacre”. * The Battle of Lîs: Khalid said: “I will kill so many enemies that their blood will flow along with the river, because they had shown contempt for Muslims.” * Capitulation of Hîra: “Khalid accorded them peace, on the condition that they pay the tribute”.

* Conquest of Anbar: “Now, believe in God and His Prophet, or consent to pay the toll. If not, get ready for war.” * Battle of 'Ayn at Tamr: “Khalid made of all of them slaves. He seized all their properties, and beheaded all those he had taken in custody”. * Conquest of Doumat al jandal: “Khalid stormed the fortress, killing all the men, and took in custody the women and the children.” * The Battles of Hacid, Khanafis, and Mudhayya'h: “The next day, Khalid stormed the fortress, killing all the men he found out there, and capturing women and children.” * The Battle of Firadh: “The Muslims made a great carnage, and those who were not slain, perished in the waves.” * The Invasion of Syria: “The Muslims shattered them into pieces and continued the massacre, since sunrise until sunset: one hundred and twenty thousand enemies died.” * Muthanna campaign against the Persians:


“The Muslims killed large numbers of them”. * The conquest of Damascus: “The massacre went on all the night long, until daybreak”. *The conquest of Fi’hl, Baisan and Tabariyya: The Muslims hunted them down and cut them into pieces. In the morning, not a single man remained of those eighty thousand fighters”. *The Battle of Namariq: “A deadly battle took place and God gave victory to the Muslims”. * The Battle of Kaskar: “The Persians fled.” *The conquest of Emesse: “The Romans capitulated and paid the tribute.” * The conquest of Kinnesrin: “Khalid refused to grant them the conditions provided by the Islamic law. He said: If you had asked for peace before fighting, I would have granted it for you. He slew the garrison and seized the booty.” * The conquest of Caesarea: “Eighty thousand Romans were killed. The victory was to the Muslims.” * The Battle of Qadisiya: “ That night is also called the night of the uproar, because of the noise produced by the clash of combatants who in the melee were shouting.” No'mân companion of the Prophet said: “we were a people living on the wrong path. Then God, in His mercy, sent us a Prophet who was from our stock, from the noblest part of our country. And this Prophet led us from the darkness of paganism to the light of true religion. Now he is


dead; but before dying, he recommended us to wage war against all those who are not of our religion on earth: they must embrace it, or agree to pay the toll, or resort to weapons to fight us. We came therefore to make you this statement. If you believe in our religion, we will leave you your kingdom. If you do not want to believe, you will have to pay the toll. And if you do not want any of these two options, then get ready for war.” 9

When we read these excerpts, we observe that the other parties had no other choice, but to pay the toll or to fight the Muslim troops. There is no trace of seduction, whatsoever, related to Muslim soldiers. However, if you refer to such or such person, then you must surely be right. Yet, speaking of moderation… is somehow like saying that the occupation of Palestine by Israel, should be broadly moderated by the sympathy of other Palestinians, while everyone knows that the number of Palestinians favorable to the Israeli occupation is extremely low, or so to speak, inexistent! You know Mr. Ramadan, there are truths that we can neither deny, nor hide. It is one thing to be in favor of some heresies, and it is quite another to try to conceal a “world” war, claiming that it is a war of seduction and friendship between peoples!

9

Tabari : "The first four Caliphs”, page 143.


2-YOU SAY ON PAGE 74 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

There was a need first to manage the succession of the prophet: for some people, Ali, who is both the son-in-law and the cousin of the prophet, should naturally succeed him, because of the blood bonds as well as of his value. For the Sunnis, the succession should submit to the choice of the community and honor the most competent person, notwithstanding blood bonds.

REFUTATION: You say: “for some people”, and you are thus certainly referring to the Shiites, Ali should have naturally succeeded to the Prophet “because of the blood bonds as well as of his value”, while for the Sunnis, the succession, as you put it, “should submit to the choice of the community and honor the most competent person, notwithstanding blood bonds. All this is completely wrong! Indeed, in opposition to what you say, Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) has not been elected according to those two allegedly Sunni criteria, namely: “The choice of community”, and the fact that he was: “The most competent person”. Definitely, to say that Abu Bakr has been elected according to the will of the majority of Muslims is at least inaccurate, if not completely untrue. And to say that he was elected because he was the most competent person, is an obvious lie. It is unbelievable that one can make such counter-historical statements. Anybody who has read, if only one time the history of early Islam, will quickly realize that what you say is misleading. I will now demonstrate the soundness of my position. I will not do that through hypothetical stories, but the other way round, through perfectly reliable paragraphs of history, extracted from reference books for all Sunni Muslims in the world, starting with the Sahih of Bukhari.


Let us start with analyzing the conditions of the election of Abu Bakr. Has he been, as you pointed out, chosen by the vast majority of Muslims? I will, first, mention one point that has, I believe, the utmost importance, namely: what electoral mode related to political matters Islam advocates? Thus, in your opinion Mr. Ramadan, since Abu Bakr was elected by a majority of Muslims (though this is not the case), this choice can only be good and fair and must therefore be approved. So, we Muslims, have to imitate the west, the unbelieving world, as it is usually the case! The fact to say, or more exactly, to put forward this "argument", i.e.: “he was chosen by the vast majority of Muslims”, this choice therefore could only be fair, is in my view, inadmissible (i.e. argument). Until proven otherwise, neither God nor His prophet, had ordered to appoint a leader through a Majority vote. Consequently, I would like to know on which ground you have found your approval of the issue. Why should we Muslims, adopt this electoral mode? For my part, I reject this model of election, which not only has no theological foundation, but moreover, it sounds in opposition to some Koranic and prophetic truths. By the way, this approach consisting in electing a leader according to the will of the majority is a practice imported from pagan societies, and unfortunately widely spread on Islamic territories in the present times, as it is the case for many other silly traditions. We know what the result of this so-called democratic practice is! Unlike Islam, which through the divine words teaches us the following: “If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.”10 It is therefore perfectly legitimate to question the validity of the approach consisting in electing a man, according to the will of the majority. I have to emphasize that neither Omar nor Othman and Ali ( may God be satisfied with them all) have been elected by a Majority vote. Why then should we adopt this electoral mode and trust that only Abu Bakr was thus appointed? Here is another example: “Sahl said: a man has just passed by the envoy of God, and the latter asked his companions about what they thought of him. They said: “he deserves to get married to the woman he wishes for bride, to succeed when he intercedes on behalf of somebody, and to be listened to when he speaks.” The prophet kept silent. Then another fellow Muslim passed by, and again the prophet asked his companions what they 10

Koran Sura : 6, verse : 116.


thought of that man. They said: “He does not deserve to get married to the woman he wishes for bride, neither does he deserve to succeed if he intercedes on behalf of somebody, nor to be listened to if he speaks.” “This poor man”, said the envoy of God, “is better than a multitude of others”11. I think this paragraph illustrates very well what a man opinion is worth! Now, let us see whether Abu Bakr was as you say, chosen by the vast majority of Muslims. We will thereafter discuss the issue of competence. To be sure, the "election" of Abu Bakr was stained by major irregularities. Let us enumerate some of them: Abu Bakr, contrarily to what you say, was not chosen by the majority of Muslims. Indeed, the death of the Prophet has barely been announced that a number of Muslims, and among them Omar and Abu Bakr (may God be satisfied with them), gathered in the saqifa of Bani Sa'ida. Why the rush? I do not know, but when the question was put to him, Abu Bakr allegedly replied that he “was afraid of a looming sedition”. It was to avoid it that he rushed in company of Omar to the saqifa. For my part, I trust this version of the story, which opposes that of the Shiites, who saw in it only a theatrical staging aiming at ousting Ali (God be pleased with him). I feel sorry because the designation of Abu Bakr as the successor of the Prophet was so hurriedly achieved, without the presence of some notables, especially: Ali, Talhat, Zobeir and Ubayd Allah (may Allah be satisfied with them) among others. The latter, for those unaware, were considered as some of the closest companions of the Prophet. Indeed, they had gathered in the house of Fatima (may God be pleased with her), daughter of the Prophet, as a sign of strong protest. Omar said: “When the Prophet has delivered his soul to God, the Ansar gathered on the veranda of Bani Sa'ida. Then I said to Abu Bakr: come with me, and we went to the veranda of Bani Sa'ida.”12 “After the death of the Prophet and even before he was buried, the Ansar notables congregated in the Great Hall of Bani Sa'ida, around Sa'd ibn Ubada. Meanwhile Ali, Zobeir ibn al-Awwam and Talhat ibn Ubayd Allah gathered in the house of Fatima, daughter of the Prophet and wife of Ali.”13 “Omar came to the door of the house of Fatima, wherein Ali, Talhat, Zobeir and other muhajireen, have been gathering. And he 11

Bukhari: Volume 3, page 553. Bukhari : Volume 2, page 144. 13 "The life of the prophet" according to ibn Hisham. 12


said: ‘By God, if you do not get out and swear allegiance, I will set fire to this house’. Thereupon, some of them came out holding their swords. A clash occurred.”14 Thus, the first "election" (because there were two, as we will see) of Abu Bakr in the saqifa, was organized in an overwhelming confusion. It should be noted that there were growing turmoil and bewilderment. The name of Ali was even mentioned. Everything had then to be done quickly, to avoid a chaos that would degenerate into battle. “The Ansar shouted: ‘We want to appoint Ali, the cousin of the Prophet and his son-in-law, for he is his closest relative. He is the first among the Qurayshites and Hisham descendants.’ Omar, fearing that the dispute extended and grew bloody, said to Abu Bakr: ‘hold out your hand and receive our allegiance’.”15 As to the second "election", it took place within the mosque, still in the absence of some notables. “The next morning, Omar accompanied Abu Bakr to the mosque, and he said to him: ‘there are still many people who have not sworn allegiance. We need to have them all perform this act ‘. The people gathered in the mosque. Abu Bakr sat on the pulpit , while Omar was standing below it.”16 Ultimately, what conclusion can we draw from these events? In opposition to Mr. Ramadan’s assertions, there had never been an appointment in the literal sense of the term. Abu Bakr has never been appointed by the whole community as some, with at their head Mr. Ramadan, want us to believe. The first "election" took place, as we saw, inside the hall where only a handful of Muslims were attending, and as I said, number of notables were absent. In addition, the urgency whereby Abu Bakr was sworn did not help fixing the turn the events will take. Next day, Abu Bakr received the allegiance of other Muslims who were absent on the first day of the "election". The latter were of course faced with a de facto situation, as we may depict it. Now, we can enumerate some points, which make sure that the appointment of Abu Bakr was, as I said, stained with major irregularities. 14

Tabari, Volume 2, page 233. Tabari, Volume 3, page 220. 16 Tabari, Volume 3, page 221. 15


Ibn Abbas said: “When the suffering of the Prophet became serious, he exclaimed: ‘ Bring me some material to put in writing what will preserve you from the error after me!’. ‘The pain dominates the Prophet’ said Omar; ‘we have the book of God. It is everything we need.’ People were not agreeing, and the noise of their discussion grew so loud that the Prophet shouted: ‘ go out. Leave me alone. You should not be disputing in my presence.’ Ibn Abbas came out saying: ‘this is bad, as bad as possible, to hinder the Prophet from writing when he wishes to’”.17 “According to Said bin Jubair, Ibn Abbas said: ‘On Thursday, ah! That Thursday among all others!’ And he began to cry so hard that his tears soaked the soil pebbles. ‘It is on Thursday, he said, that the suffering of the Prophet became more serious’, so he said:’ bring me pen and ink, so that I put in writing what in the future will preserve you from error’. An argument followed these words, albeit a dispute in the presence of the Prophet was unbecoming. Some persons said that the Messenger of God was overtaken by fever, but he said: ‘Leave me alone. I have now a better occupation than the one to which you are inviting me at the moment of death’”. 18 These historical extracts show us that even before the Prophet passed away, the problem of his succession has been evoked. Unfortunately, some have refused to obey the Prophet and made sure that nothing would be written down concerning his succession. That was in my eyes, the subject of the discussion. Thus, what can we think of the legitimacy and regularity of this anarchical election, which took place after the death of the Prophet in the vestibule? To disobey the Prophet by refusing to give him what he had urged to bring, is a grave and painful act; nobody will contest this. Especially when one knows that the Prophet was living his last hours. It is fair to recall this story: Ibn Abu Molaika said: “The two best Muslims, Abu Bakr and Omar, have risked a lot when they raised their voices excessively in the presence of the Prophet. That was when the deputation of Bani Tamim arrived. One of them (Omar) saw El-Aqra as leader , while the second (Abu Bakr) named another person, whose name the narrator has forgotten. ‘It is only to upset me that you speak thus, said Abu Bakr , addressing Omar. And as they both raised their voices in the discussion about this subject, God revealed His verse: 17 18

Bukhari : Volume 1 page 56. Bukhari Volume 2 page 366.


{O you who believe, do not raise your voice…} Since this revelation, Omar used to keep silent before the envoy of God, speaking only when the latter asks him for something”19. Yet, it is not really the case, as one is led to believing, since he re-offended and even more seriously, when the Prophet was agonizing. On that day, he said: “No! We have the book of God. It is all we need!” The Prophet was thus so annoyed that he urged them to leave him alone.

It must be noted consequently, that despite the warning sent by God to Omar, the latter did not hesitate to put it again and even more seriously! As far as we can state from the reading of different versions, whether they originate in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, which report that it was well Omar who first said: “No! We have the book of God, it is all we need!” That have caused a division among the people present in the room. Some agreed with Omar, and others unable to understand how one could thus disobey the Prophet when he was sick and dying, were indignant at this behavior. Which is perfectly understandable. Upset, the prophet said: "go out". That was what happened , whereas nobody was unaware of these verses: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and render not your actions vain.” “ O ye who believe! Be not forward in the presence of Allah and His messenger, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.” “O ye who believe! Lift not up your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor shout when speaking to him as ye shout one to another, lest your works be rendered vain while ye perceive not. “ “Lo! They who subdue their voices in the presence of the messenger of Allah, those are they whose hearts Allah hath proven unto righteousness. Theirs will be forgiveness and immense reward. “ Where is the respect for these verses? Thus, there is every reason to believe that the Prophet, knowing that he was dying, sought to appoint someone as his successor; but ostensibly he had been hindered from making pointless the election of any person assumingly opposed to his choice. Under these conditions, what is the legitimacy of the "election" that followed this event, or any other election to be held later?

19

Bukhari: Volume 3, page 450.


What is the legitimacy of those elections where all candidates are not present, since we know that Ali and many others were missing? Besides, we learn the following: “Give me your hand,” he said, “ so that I swear you allegiance and thus, people will say that the uncle of the Messenger of God made an oath to the cousin of the Messenger of God”. Ali replied: “What if another man aspires to this function? And then, I do not want to hide the allegiance I receive”.20 We may state that Ali refused to take an oath from his uncle Abbas (may God be pleased with him) , for the unique reason that he did not wish to be elected in secret. Unlike Omar and Abu Bakr! “Omar, fearing that the dispute grows long-lasting and bloody, said to Abu Bakr: hold out your hand and receive my oath”. 21 And it seems that the latter had accepted more or less quickly the request of Omar! What legitimacy can we acknowledge to elections whereby one of the candidates compels a number of others , who were absent, to recognize him as the new and legitimate guide? How can we say then that Abu Bakr was appointed in all honor and legality, whereas Omar himself recognized that: “The election of Abu Bakr was a mistake; but God preserved us of its consequences”.22 So when you say, Mr. Ramadan, Abu Bakr was appointed by the majority of Muslims, this statement is completely false! Besides, you "forget" mentioning under what conditions Abu Bakr was elected! It is also fair to recall that after the death of the Prophet, Ali and his wife Fatima, were tormented. Indeed, it must be remembered that Ali has not been consulted about the appointment of a successor to the Prophet, which suggests that there was a wish to exclude him. He had been like his wife, a victim of various psychological threats as well as physical. This can probably explain why his wife never addressed a word neither to Abu Bakr nor to Omar until her death. “Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, hurt, avoided since that time Abu Bakr and will never cease to avoid him until she passed away, six months after t the envoy of God died”.23 This also explains why, Fatima refused to receive Aisha (may God be satisfied with her), when the latter intended to visit her a little time 20

Dr. Moussa al-Mussawi: Les chiites et la réforme. Ennour, p. 15. Tabari : page 220. 22 Balazuri "Ansab Charef" ; page 584. 23 Bukhari : Volume 2, page 381. 21


before she passed away. It also explains why Ali buried her lonely in the middle of the night, as it explains so many other things… “Fatima died six months after the Prophet; her husband Ali, buried her overnight, without informing Abu Bakr of the event. He performed alone the funerary prayer.”24 “The paramount consideration that he enjoyed, Ali owed it to Fatima. When she passed away, the faithful were less deferential to him. So, he sought to make peace with Abu Bakr , proposing to swear allegiance, which he had refrained from doing for six months (as long as Fatima was living after her father’s death). He asked Abu Bakr, therefore, to come to his place without bringing anyone with him, for he was apprehensive of the presence of Omar. “ No, by God, said Omar. You will not enter alone that house”. “ What are you thinking they will do to me, which makes you so afraid?”, replied Abu Bakr; “By God, I will go to their place”.25 Suddenly and amazingly, the very day after the death of the Prophet, the man who was his closest companion has become regarded as a vulgar brigand . A “brigand” to whose house one should not go alone. A house considered by the Prophet as his own. A house where he probably spent the most beautiful moments of his life! Ali, considered by the Prophet in his own terms, like Aaron in respect of Moses,26 was treated as an enemy of whom one must beware! What happened? What did they do of more than two decades of loyal services to Islam, of bravery on the battlefield, and of all the sayings of the Prophet concerning Ali? “Abu Bakr sent Omar to the house of Fatima, in order to compel Ali into submission and make him swear allegiance. Omar came to the house of Fatima with in his hand a wick of fire. He met Fatima on the doorstep. She said: “O son of Khattab, did you come to set fire to my house?” He replied: “ yes, I did.” 27 There are many other examples, so disturbing, to say the least! Notwithstanding the fact that nobody ignored the love the prophet had for his daughter and his son-in-law.

24

Bukhari : Volume 3, page 169. Bukhari : Volume 3 page 169. Tabari Volume 2 page 236. 26 The Hadith is reported in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Sahih Tirmizi, Sunan Ibn Maja, Tarikh Tabari , Musannaf Ibn Abi Chiba, and probably many others. 27 Balazuri: p. 586. 25


“I leave what will forbid you to deviate from the right path after me, if you care: the Book of God and my descendants, the people of my family. Both will never be parted until they join me over the pool.” “It is as if I was questioned and I replied: I leave with you the two weights (Thiqlayn). One is bigger than the other: the Book of God and my offspring, my family. See to them succeeding me. They will never be separated until they join me over the pool.” “Certainly God is my Lord and I am the lord of all the believers. Anyone who trusts me as his lord, will trust Ali as his lord too. God, support those who support him, and be the enemy of his enemies.” “My daughter is a part of myself. She is pained by anything that pains me, and she suffers anything I suffer”28. “You are to me like Aaron was to Moses (peace upon them), except that there is no prophet after me.”29 “Me, and you (probably Fatima) and the little one sleeping (i.e. Hussein) and al-Hassan, will be gathered on the day of resurrection in the same place.” “Whoever hurts me in hurting my family hurts God.” “Me and Fatima, and al-Hassan, and al Hussein and those who love us, will meet on the day of resurrection, and eat and drink until He separates his servants.” “He who hates or resents us will be ousted from the pool on the day of resurrection with whips of fire.” “There are three things, which if only one of them is committed, then the perpetrator has nothing to do with me anymore: hating Ali, hurting my family, and saying that faith is just empty words.” Abu Bakr himself said he had heard the Prophet saying: “venerate Muhammad through the members of his family.”30

28

Bukhari: Volume 3, page 600. The Hadith is reported in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Sahih Tirmizi, Sunan Ibn Maja, Tarikh Tabari , Musannaf Ibn Abi Chiba, and probably many others. 30 Bukhari: Volume 2, page 612. 29


Ultimately, one wonders: where is the respect for these prophetic sayings, when we know how Omar treated the family of the Prophet after he died? Now, let us address the issue of competence, which supposedly allowed Abu Bakr, Omar and Othman (may God be satisfied with them) to gain power before Ali.

About competence Thus, according to the words of Mr. Ramadan and surely many others, if Abu Bakr and nobody else has succeeded the Prophet, it was because of, inter alia, his theological superiority. It is therefore reasonable to think that Omar succeeded to Abu Bakr as Ali did to Othman, for the same reasons! In order to cast light on this question, I propose to go to the sources of information, precisely to avoid getting the data from such or such socalled learned. Instead, we will be using the books considered unanimously as references for all Muslims (Sunnis), on the top of which Sahih Bukhari.

ABU BAKR: There is no information available. Hence, I wonder on what truths, if any, Mr. Ramadan relied to state that Abu Bakr outdid Ali in theological matters?

OMAR: “Later, when Omar was fatally stabbed, Sohaib entered weeping and crying: Ah, brother ! ah, friend! O Sohaib, is it for me that you cry Asked Omar,- whereas the apostle of God said: the dead will be partly punished because of the grieving laments of his family? When Omar passed away, I reported these words to Aisha. She said: “May God have mercy on Omar. By Allah, the apostle of God has not taught that God punishes the believer because of the mourning of his family crying for his death ; he simply said that God would increase the punishment of the unbeliever for the laments of his family after his


loss. She added that one would simply consider these words of the Koran: {no soul will have to bear the burden of another}.”31 We can state, thanks to this story, that Omar was completely wrong, which of course, may happen to any human. Let’s go on. Omar ibn al-Khattab said: “ I heard Hisham ibn Hakim ibn Hizam reciting the Sura El-Furqân the way we never do. Now, it was the messenger of God himself who taught me how to recite it. I was about to rush immediately on Hisham, but I let him finish his recitation, and then rolling him up in his own coat, I dragged him along before the messenger of God and said to the latter: “I just heard this man recite the Koran otherwise than the way you taught me . –Let him go, said the Prophet.” Then addressing Hisham, he asked him to recite, which he did. “That is the way this Sura was revealed,” said the Prophet. And then he turned and asked me to recite, which I did. “That is well the way this Sura was revealed,” he said. The Koran was revealed on seven ways- it is up to you to choose one for you to recite.”32 Here again, we realize how much Omar was wrong. He did not hesitate to roll up a man in his own coat, and to drag him along before the messenger of God, without the latter had been faulty in any way! “Abu Hurayra said: when the envoy of God was dead, Abu Bakr was in charge, whereas a number of Arabs had reneged on their faith, Omar said to Abu Bakr : how are you going to fight those guys while the apostle of God said: [I received orders to fight people until they testify that there is no deities other than God. For whoever thus testifies, makes his life and his properties for me inviolable, except when it concerns the law. In any other case, he has no account to give to anybody, but God]? By God! Abu Bakr said, I want to fight anyone who has freed himself from the prayer and the tithe, as the tithe is compulsory for property. By God! Omar said, it is indeed God who inspired Abu Bakr, because I recognize that he is right”33. And again, one can observe that Omar had it all wrong. To be sure, we learn that after the death of the Prophet, a number of Arabs abjured their faith, (this event was exploited by the Shiites who claimed that those rebels have refused to pay the zakat because they did not recognize Abu Bakr as Caliph); those Arab wanted to continue performing the prayer while refusing to pay the zakat. The Bedouins asked Omar to convince 31

Bukhari: Volume 1, page 416. Story reported by the Sahih Bukhari; page 126. 33 Bukhari: Volume 1, pages 45 & 454. 32


Abu Bakr of accepting the proposal of those strange Muslims, which he did. But Abu Bakr turned down the offer. Omar strongly protested : “But how dare you fight Muslims while the Prophet said, [I received orders to fight people until they testify that there is no deities other than God. For whoever thus testifies, makes his life and his properties for me inviolable, except when it concerns the law. In any other case, he has no account to give to anybody, but God?]34 Abu Bakr gave him the afore-mentioned answer. As a point of fact, Abu Bakr was right, since the prophetic saying, which Omar used to argue was amputated, and subsequently inaccurate. The genuine prophetic saying is the following: “I have been charged of fighting people until they testify that there are no deities other than Allah, until they perform the prayer, and pay the Zakat. If they do, their lives and their property will be preserved. With regard to their intentions and inside thoughts, it is to God that they are accountable.”35 This saying of the Prophet is also supported by the following verses: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”36

“However, all the Arab tribes sent deputies to Abu Bakr, asking him to waive the tithe. Abu Bakr refused and did not give much care to the envoys. The latter went to meet Omar and told him: speak to Abu-Bakr, ask him to suspend for two years or one year, the perception of tithing. When all the tribes come back to your religion, and when the men claiming to be prophets disappear, then we may require the tithe again. Omar spoke in this way to Abu-Bakr, who did not reply. So, Omar said: Do it, because the Prophet said: [I received orders to fight people until they testify that there is no deities other than God. For whoever thus testifies, makes his life and his properties for me inviolable, except when it concerns the law. In any other case, he has no account to give to anybody, but God.] Abu Bakr retorted: The Prophet said: [Their lives and their property are inviolable for me, except when it concerns the law] and tithing is part of the law; if they do not pay it, their lives and their properties are no longer inviolable. Then Abu Bakr added: By God, if they conceal from me only one toggle of camel among all what they used to give to the Prophet, I will wage war on them!” The story is reported by Bukhari: Volume 1, page 454 ; & Tabari. 35 Story reported in both Sahih: Bukhari and Muslim. 36 Koran, Sura : 9, verse : 5. 34


“But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.” 37 It is well specified that any person embracing Islam will be regarded as Muslim, only after having repented, and after performing prayer, and finally after paying Zakat. It is only after the fulfillment of these three conditions that the person’s life and property will be considered sacred, as that of a Muslim. Omar was therefore mistaken once again. Indeed, he recognized it himself, since he says: “I understood that Abu Bakr was right.”38 This, of course, can happen to anyone, even to the next Caliph. However, had Abu Bakr followed the advice of Omar, I dare not even imagine the damage that such a mistake might have caused ! Nonetheless, given these serious mistakes, to say the least, I do not see very well how Omar overdid Ali in religious sciences! Consequently, I do not see on which ground he preceded Ali to power! All the same, we know that oddly enough, Omar, unlike Abu Bakr, was appointed directly by his predecessor then dying. We may wonder on which criteria Abu Bakr appointed Omar?

OTHMAN: “Merwan ibn al Hakam said: I had the opportunity to see Othman and Ali. Othman forbade the successive performance of pilgrimage and the pious visit and their simultaneous accomplishment. Seeing this, Ali made the telbiya for the pilgrimage and the pious visit, and said: I am not like those who on the say of a single person, leave aside the rule established by the Prophet.” 39 “Abdullah ibn Omar said: I performed the prayer with the Prophet in Mina, in two rak’as. I accomplished it the same way with Abu Bakr and Othman. At the beginning of his caliphate, the latter completed his prayer”.40 According to Said ibn-al-Mosayyab, when they were in Osfan, Ali and Othman were disagreeing about the successive completion of the pilgrimage and the pious visit. “ What? Said Ali. Do you want to prohibit what the envoy of God ordered to do? So, seeing this, Ali

37

Koran, Sura : 9, verse : 11. Bukhari, Volume: 1, page 474. 39 Bukhari : Volume 1, page 508. 40 Bukhari : Volume 1, page 356. 38


made both the telbiya for the pilgrimage and the pious visit simultaneously”.41 Everyone knows that the decline of the Islamic State began with the Caliphate of Othman. The latter not only committed, as we have seen a number of innovations, but also major political and economical mistakes42. However, it is not necessary that I set here the list of those sometimes deliberate mistakes, which led as I said to the decline of Islam. Moreover, everybody knows that Othman lost his life because of his tribal and much disastrous policy. For it has, among other things, helped establishing the Bani Umayya (Umayyad) in power, with in the first rank, Mu’awiya son of Abu Sofian. This has resulted in a counterpower as regards that of Medina, therefore that of the prophet. For those who do not know, the first man who put an end to the Islamic state was Mu’awiya. The list of his crimes would take too long to detailing here.43 That is why subsequently, I have strong doubts about the assertions of Mr. Ramadan and many others, claiming that Abu Bakr and, according to the same scheme, Omar and Othman, were elected only and solely because of their skills and competences. Allow me to doubt strongly that assertion! You should know that all the texts cited here are not extracted from Shiite sources but Sunni, which are of course countering this assertion. For the same reason, I urge strongly my brothers and sisters to read or reread their references. Moreover, not contented with ill-treating Ali and his family, and of ousting him, they pushed the villainy to the point of seeking the appointment of Omar’s son to the highest post, indeed thus spoiling Ali! As a matter of fact, it happened that during the negotiations following the "ceasefire" between Ali and Mu’awiya, both parties resorted to an arbiter , as the following quotation illustrates it: 41

Bukhari: Volume 1, page 510. Taha Hussein: "The big test". 43 Indeed, Mu’awiya , who is wrongly considered as a companion of the prophet, has committed many heinous crimes. He was particularly the instigator behind the murder of Hassan, the grand-son of the prophet, by his wife. We will talk later on of this subject, God willing. The text that follows gives a glimpse of this character. “Your cousin, Mu’awiya ordered us to swallow others’ properties unfairly, and to kill each other. Yet, God says: {O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities}(Koran, Sura :4, verse: 29). My father then put his hands on his forehead, slowly nodded, then told me: Obey him when he obeys God and disobey him when he disobeys God. Have you heard this from the prophet? I asked. Yes, he answered, my ears heard and my heart preserved it.” The story is narrated by: Ahmed, Tirmizi & Ibn Maja. 42


“Who are you proposing then? Asked ‘Amru. - Abdullah son of Omar. As for ‘Amru, he proposed his own son.”44 Well! Since we were at it, why not? This is what happened despite the ignorance of the son of Omar, and in total contradiction with the will of Omar, who had strictly forbidden giving power to a man like Abdullah, his son. Indeed, Omar said it was completely excluded to appoint a man to the highest charge if he was unable even to repudiate his wife. “According to Nafi’, the son of Omar used to kill all the snakes, until the day when Abu Lobaba told him that the Prophet had forbidden killing the grass snakes. Then, he stopped killing them”.45 “Sai'd ibn Jobair said: the son of Omar used to coat his body with oil. As I reminded Ibrahim of ibn Omar’s perfumes prohibition, he retorted : do not follow his advice, because al Aswad reported these words of Aisha: “it seems to me that I can still see the perfume glittering on the side of the head of the envoy of God, when he was in a state of ihram.” 46

How do you want the new state to prosper, if you dismiss the learned and the first companions of the Prophet, and instead put in charge, men who do not know even the rites of the pilgrimage? Thus, in conclusion, we state that Abu Bakr, conversely to the assertions of Mr. Ramadan, has never been elected by the majority of Muslims. Besides, we saw clearly to what extent anarchy was prevailing during that "election". We can also state that the voice of the Prophet, then suffering and dying, was stifled. We can likewise find that nobody was ahead of Ali, as regards theological matters. I would say, quite the contrary. Then, Mr. Ramadan, you should stop your hotchpotch.

In conclusion I would like to report these stories: Omar said: “I swear to God that your companion (Ali) had priority over people after the Envoy of God, but we were afraid for two reasons: his youthful age and his love for the Bani Abd al Muttalib.”47 “I was with Omar during a trip to Syria. One day he isolated himself and 44

Tabari. Bukhari : Tome 3, page 88. 46 Bukhari : Volume 1, page 499. 47 Dr Moussa el Moussawi: "The Shiites and reform." Page 16. 45


got away somewhat on a camel. I followed him. He told me: O ibn Abbas! I complain to you for the behavior of your cousin. I asked him to come with me, but he refused. He is certainly still angry with me. Do you know the reasons for his attitude?” - “O Emir of the believers, you know them very well”. - “I think he is still unhappy because he has not been chosen as caliph.” - “It is precisely for that reason. He claims that the Prophet wanted him to take over.” -“ O ibn Abbas! What is the will of the Prophet, when it is not the will of God? The Prophet wanted something and God wanted something else.”48

Thus, Omar explicitly recognized that according to the will of the Prophet, Ali had to take over after the death of the Messenger of God. How can we then pretend that Abu Bakr or anybody else was better deserving than Ali to be the Prophet’s successor? On behalf of which law? So, when you say, Mr. Ramadan: “For the Sunnis, the succession should submit to the choice of the community and honor the most competent person, notwithstanding blood bonds”, we find this completely wrong, since there was neither (massive) choice of the community, nor superior competences. Conversely, as we have seen, there was a number of irregularities and not among the less serious! As for me, I have to say that I do not identify to the Shiism, duodécimain or whatsoever. Yet, I have to admit that it is the Shiites who have raised a legitimate question about the succession, the specific rank of the Prophet’s family, as well as other subjects perfectly pertinent, however, non-existent in the Sunnism. And even if this sounds mostly strange, a large number of prophetic sayings concerning these issues have been reported by sources said Sunnis, like Bukhari and Muslim, for instance. One might believe therefore that most Sunni scholars have decided not to exploit them. As to the Sunnism, which is also divided into dozens of sects, I feel close to it, albeit there is the Sunnism of the fundamental belief, which I adhere to, and that of some "scholars" to which I do not. To raise for example the question of the succession, yet mentioned in Bukhari, Muslim, or Balazuri books, would result in getting labeled by other "Sunnis" , as a Shiite, although I am only repeating what is written in "their" own books! In fact, the contemporary Sunni refers more to 48

Dr Moussa el Moussawi: "The Shiites and reform." Page 42.


certain "scholars" than to the books that inspired them. So, it would be much better for them to read those books. Furthermore, instead of reading reference books, they read (when they do) books written by such or such alleged savant, without much worrying about the veracity of the content. Yet, when you know, - and this is not a criticism (May God preserve me from inadvertently harming any person, especially a companion of the Prophet)- the mistakes some companions of the Prophet and not among the less prominent, have made, I think it is perfectly normal to ask a few questions about the writings of our 21st century’s scholars! I believe it is perfectly fair to challenge a person’s knowledge, even if that person is a companion of the Prophet, although we have no right to raise doubts about the religious integrity. This endeavor is in complete opposition to what happens today, as knowledge and integrity, may be questioned. Islam came to liberate man and open his eyes; therefore, we must think and act, not follow like cattle. I refuse to carry up any attribute fuelling division. To say I am a Muslim, is enough. This includes respect for the Koran and the Sunna. We must fight against any division. “And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate.”49

3- YOU SAY ON PAGE 92 OF YOUR BOOK (quotation):

In Islam, when a woman or a man has consciously pronounced the testimony of faith, “I testify that there is no other God but God, and I testify that Muhammad is His Envoy”, his (her) quality of Muslim is recognized and no human being can allow himself the right or the power to check the sincerity of this act of faith in his heart.

REFUTATION:

49

Koran: Sura 3, verse 103.


You say: “In Islam, when a woman or a man has consciously pronounced the testimony of faith, “I testify that there is no other God but God, and I testify that Muhammad is His Envoy”, his (her) quality of Muslim is recognized”. This is completely wrong! Indeed, this simple sentence is not enough to get the Muslim status. As a proof, take note of this saying of the Prophet: “I have been charged of fighting people until they testify that there are no deities other than Allah, until they perform the prayer, and pay the Zakat. If they do, their lives and their property will be preserved. With regard to their intentions and inside thoughts, it is to God that they report.”50 This sentence of the Prophet is supported by these verses: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poordue, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”51 “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.”52 This shows very well that it is not enough to pronounce as you say, the Shahada (testimony of faith) in order to be regarded as a Muslim. One must also perform the prayer and pay the Zakat. It is only after fulfilling these three obligations (testimony of faith, prayer and payment of zakat) that the blood and the property of the Muslim will be considered sacred. It was the Prophet who said, I repeat: “I have been charged of fighting people until they testify that there are no deities other than Allah, until they perform the prayer, and pay the Zakat. If they do, their lives and their property will be preserved. With regard to their intentions and inside thoughts, it is to God that they are accountable.”53 So, in accordance with the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet, authenticated as we saw by the Koran, it is only after having completed the three conditions that one is entitled to the status of Muslim, not as you say, Mr. Ramadan, after delivering the testimony of faith. Besides, we have to know that after the death of the messenger of Allah, 50

Hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Koran: Sura 9, verse 5. 52 Koran: Sura 9, verse 11. 53 Hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. 51


a number of Muslim tribes refused to pay the Zakat, while accepting nevertheless to carry out the prayer without the tithe. Let us see what the position of Abu Bakr, successor to the Prophet about this subject, was: “All the Arab tribes sent deputies to Abu-Bakr, asking him to waive the tithe. Abu Bakr refused and did not pay any attention to the envoys. The latter went to meet Omar and told him: Talk to Abu Bakr, so that he suspends for two or one year, the perception of the tithe; and when all these tribes return to your religion, and that the men pretending to prophecy disappear, then you may require tithing. Omar spoke in this way to Abu Bakr, who did not reply. So Omar said: Do it, because the Prophet said: "I was ordered to fight people, until they pronounce the words: There are no God besides Allah, and when they attest it, their lives and property will become sacred to me, and they have no accounts to give but to God. " Abu-Bakr replied: The Prophet said: "Their lives and their property are sacred to me, except as regards Law ", and the tithe is part of the law. If they do not pay it, their lives and their property are no longer sacred. Then Abu Bakr added: "By God, if they hold back from me only a knee of a camel from what they used to give to the Prophet, I will fight them”.54 Abu-Hurayra said: “When the messenger of God was dead, Abu-Bakr was in charge and a number of Arabs have then reneged on their faith. Omar said to Abu-Bakr: "How will you fight those people, whereas the messenger of God said: “I have been instructed to fight people until they testify that there are no other deities but God. Anyone who pronounces this formula, will make his life and fortune inviolable in my eyes, except when he is responsible under the law. Beyond that, he is accountable only to God”? - By Allah! Exclaimed Abu-Bakr, I want to fight anyone easing himself from the prayer and the tithe, because tithe is compulsory for goods. By God! Were it but a goat that they would refuse to give up among the royalties they used to pay to the messenger of God, I will fight them because of that refusal. - By Allah! Omar said, God has certainly inspired AbuBakr, because I recognize he is right.” 55 This example was cited in the chapter about the mistakes of Omar (Question 2). To be sure, Mr. Ramadan, you do reiterate the same mistake committed by Omar. The only difference is that the latter, as we have seen, acknowledged he was wrong, whereas you, despite the books that teach us the truth, you make exactly the same "mistake"! This is stupid! 54 55

Story Narrated by Tabari. Story reported in the Sahih Bukhari.


All this demonstrates very well, once again, that you are wrong Mr. Ramadan when you assert, that one becomes Muslim only when one makes the testimony of faith, or even because one accomplishes the prayer. If one of them is missing, our status falls down: Performing prayer without paying zakat, or paying zakat without performing prayer. Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with him) as we have seen, decided in accordance with the law, to combat those Bedouins that, after making the testimony of faith, continued to perform the prayer, but were unwilling to pay the tithe. They wanted to be exempted from paying the zakat during one or two years. What happen then to people who do not pray and do not pay zakat? Ultimately, you are completely “mistaken” when you assert: “In Islam, when a woman or a man has consciously pronounced the testimony of faith, “I testify that there is no other God but God, and I testify that Muhammad is His Envoy”, his (her) quality of Muslim is recognized”. In order to corroborate my argument, should I have to remind you of the prophetic words: “Between a man and the unbelief, there is just the abandonment of prayer”; “The pact that binds us to God is the prayer. Whoever stops its practice becomes an unbeliever…” 56 ? How could you say then: “In Islam, when a woman or a man has consciously pronounced the attestation of faith, “I testify that there is no other God but God, and I testify that Muhammad is His Envoy”, his (her) quality of Muslim is recognized”? Despite that, as the previous Hadith of the Prophet shows it explicitly, a person that does not pray is considered as an unbeliever! As the reader can observe, I wrote that Mr. Ramadan is “completely mistaken” adding quotation marks. As a matter of fact, I do not believe for one moment that he committed a mistake . Quite the contrary, it is included in his pseudo-strategy to show Islam not as it is, but as he wants it to be. Thus, he would not have to give any explanation concerning the constraint imposed by Islam, i.e. the obligation to pray and to pay zakat. To reveal these preconditions to conversion, might present Islam as a religion of coercion and create a number of problems, such as, to begin 56

Mohammed Assaouaf: "The teaching of prayer." Dar Soulami Ahmed.


with: “and if a person refuses to pray and to pay zakat, what will happen to him (her)?” The answer was given by Abu Bark to Omar (may God be satisfied with them) during the events described by Muslim historians as "the great apostasy."

4-YOU SAY ON THE PAGES 94 & 95 OF YOUR BOOK (quotation):

He does not pay the zakat, but we can think of another tax for social solidarity purposes; the Koran, and the practice of the Prophet, refer to another tax called jizyah that was clumsily translated as "capitation". It has a different quality than the zakat and corresponds to the financial contributions of the minorities, in return for their protection by the State. J.N.57 - A sort of military tax for those who did not serve in the army? T. A. -Yes, exactly. The members of a religious minority are not required, in a society dominated by Islam, to enlist in the military to defend it. A military tax is requested in return for their protection; We know this system in Europe. Several governments have applied and understood it this way, since they levied only adult men, not women, not elderly and not children. In two cases, a man was exempted from payment: either he enlisted, and thus the tax was no longer necessary; or the State was unable to protect its subjects and did not charge this tax. REFUTATION: Once again, you keep on lying, and, once again, your words have ostensibly no other purpose than to satisfy non-Muslims and particularly the notables among them. You say: “He does not pay the zakat, but we can think of another tax 57

The book was co-authored, JN are the initials of Jacques Neirynck. The latter raises questions, to which Mr. Ramadan (TR) answers.


for social solidarity aims; the Koran, and the practice of the Prophet, refer to another tax called jizyah[…]in return for their protection by the State.” According to you, Jews and Christians are required to pay a tax only as a contribution to the social solidarity and in order to obtain the protection of the State as they do not enlist for military service! Your remarks are completely fictional. Indeed, the tax so-called capitation is mentioned explicitly in the Sura n° 9, as the verse twenty-nine, states: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, among those who have received the Book, until they pay the tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” What conclusion can we draw from this verse perfectly explicit? As a first step, Muslims are requested to fight “those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”, i.e. humanity. Then the Lord said: “among those who have received the Book, until they pay the tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” We learn that the communities that received a book, that is Jewish and Christian, called in the Koran the people of the book, may be spared a war without having to convert to Islam. They are nevertheless asked to pay. The explanation of this preferential treatment is related to the holy scriptures those communities hold. However, as everyone now knows, Those are unfortunately distorted records of the same scriptures . Let us read this paragraph extracted from the book of the historian Tabari: No'mân, the companion of the Prophet said: “we were people living on the wrong path. Then God was merciful as he sent us a Prophet who was from our race, and from the noblest part of our country. And this Prophet led us from the darkness of paganism to the light of the true religion. Now he is dead; but when dying he recommended us to wage war against all those who, on this earth, are not of our religion: they must either adopt it , or agree to pay tribute, and if not, they will have to resort to arms in order to resist us. We came therefore to make you this statement. If you believe in our religion, we will leave you your


Kingdom. If you do not want to believe, then pay the tribute. And if you accept neither one nor the other, ready yourself for war”.58

The armies of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and prayer be upon him) once launched across the world to spread Islam, have, as we have seen previously, actually just carried out a divine order transmitted by the Prophet: “I have been charged of fighting people until they testify that there are no deities other than Allah, until they perform the prayer, and pay the Zakat. If they do, their lives and their property will be preserved. With regard to their intentions and inside thoughts, it is to God that they are accountable.”59 Thus, as a deduction, it is not as you say a tax payable "For purposes of social solidarity" or to "obtain the protection of the State ". In reality, it is a tax imposed on Jews and Christians who refuse to become followers of Islam and are therefore forced to pay it, or to face a war. Hence, we are far from your talk that made of this jizyah, a tax similar to some taxes existing in Europe. To come back to the concerned verse: “among those who have received the Book, until they pay the tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”60 Subjection is well mentioned. Now, I can hardly see how we may obtain a civic collaboration gesture while inducing a person into subjection (i.e., humiliation)! For my part, I think that notwithstanding the preferential treatment reserved to the people of the book, since Islam allows them to keep their religion, they must however be subjected and recognize the hegemony of Islam. This could be achieved not just in paying the tribute, but also in feeling subdued (being humiliated). So when you say: “We know this system in Europe. Several governments have applied and understood it this way, since they levied only adult men, not women, not elderly and not children”, you are just dodging. The system that you mention, which once existed in Europe, has nothing to do with the tribute mentioned in the Koran. This tax as we saw, was required while humiliating the donor, which has therefore absolutely nothing to do with, to borrow your words, the “social solidarity purposes”.

58

Tabari: "Les quatre premiers califes"; Editions Sindbad, page 143. Hadith reported in the Sahih of Bukhari & of Muslim. 60 Sura: 9, verse 29 59


Moreover, requiring a tax under the threat of “your purse or your life”, and while humiliating the person –which is worse-, clearly tends to prove that we are much closer to extortion than to a social contribution. I allow myself to remind you again61 of the concerned verse: “among those who have received the Book, until they pay the tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”62 Conclusion: Once again "brother" Tariq made use of his art of dodging. If indeed, he is telling the truth when he asserts that this tax is paid to get the protection of the State, this truth likely would not shock the prominent people among the unbelievers, while he hastens to add that Europe has also used this practice. What he wants to imply is that if Europe has used the same practice, this should be then a modern and civilized practice. What he does not say is that this same tax is imposed as we have seen, not only by the sword, but in addition with a humiliation inflicted to the donor. Conversely, such a talk, might offend the prominent people among the unbelievers and would thus jeopardize his own interests. Hence, the partial explanation – to say the least - he gave as an answer.

5- YOU SAY ON THE PAGES 171- 172 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation): “Your questions affect different areas, we must study them one by one. The first concerns the individual who changes religion. It is often said that Islam forbids it, and there are references to the opinion of some scholars who have a strict and literal analysis of a Hadith in which the Prophet says: Whoever changes his religion, must be killed. This kind of reading exists, and there is no way to deny that some religious authorities stuck and / or are still sticking to the first and literal sense. Other scholars over the centuries have proposed a different interpretation of this Hadith, while performing the work of contextualization necessary to understanding it. What is it about then? In their commentary on this text, they return to the 61

I apologize to my reader for all those repetitions, but I believe they are necessary for a proper understanding of the book. 62 Sura: 9, verse 29


situation of conflict in which the Muslim community was living in Medina. Some individuals used to convert to Islam, insert themselves inside the community of believers, gather information and finally renege on their religion, as they transmit the information they had collected to the enemies of Muslims. The issue was actually about hypocrites who, through the religion, practiced war treason. Their attitude jeopardized the survival of the community, and it is in this context that the death sentence took its meaning for the traitors in war-time. It should be noted, moreover, that the Prophet was surrounded of notorious hypocrites, who were constantly disrupting the balance of the nascent Muslim community.”

REFUTATION:

Thus, in your opinion, two categories of scholars are concerned with the issue of apostasy. There are, on the one hand, as you put it, those: “ who have a strict and literal analysis of a Hadith in which the Prophet says: Whoever changes his religion, must be killed. This kind of reading exists, and there is no way to deny that some religious authorities stuck and / or are still sticking to the first and literal sense.” And there is the second category of scholars, who, to resume your own words, say: “Other scholars over the centuries have proposed a different interpretation of this Hadith, while performing the work of contextualization necessary to understanding it.” And you add the following commentary: “What is it about then? In their commentary on this text, they return to the situation of conflict in which the Muslim community was living in Medina. Some individuals used to convert to Islam, insert themselves inside the community of believers, gather information and finally renege on their religion, as they transmit the information they had collected to the enemies of Muslims. The issue was actually about hypocrites who, through the religion, practiced war treason. Their attitude jeopardized the survival of the community, and it is in this context that the death sentence took its meaning for the traitors in war-time. It should be noted, moreover, that the Prophet was surrounded of notorious hypocrites, who were constantly disrupting the balance of the nascent Muslim community.” For my part, I have strong doubts about the second category of scholars who see the rule chastising apostasy, as a contextual punishment linked to the subject of treason. Indeed, as we shall see, the comment previously cited, which is


supposed to explain why the apostasy punishment is contextual, is purely imaginary. And once again, since it is not easy to deny an Islamic truth, we observe an attempt at evoking it along with a number of stories purely fantastic , which would expectedly abrogate, or at least, mitigate that truth. Let us go now for the scientific argument. I will prove that the law concerning the apostate has nothing contextual and that the story reported by Mr. Ramadan, is pure fiction. According to him, the rule has been set up by the Prophet only because: “Some individuals used to convert to Islam, insert themselves inside the community of believers, gather information and finally renege on their religion, as they transmit the information they had collected to the enemies of Muslims. The issue was actually about hypocrites who, through the religion, practiced war treason. Their attitude jeopardized the survival of the community, and it is in this context that the death sentence took its meaning for the traitors in war-time.” With Mr. Ramadan anyway, we are very often, more in fiction than in theology! Let us first read these stories: “All the Arab tribes sent deputies to Abu-Bakr, asking him to waive the tithe. Abu Bakr refused and did not pay any attention to the envoys. The latter went to meet Omar and told him: Talk to Abu Bakr, so that he suspends for two or one year, the perception of the tithe; and when all these tribes return to your religion, and that the men pretending to prophecy disappear, then you may require tithing. Omar spoke in this way to Abu Bakr, who did not reply. So Omar said: Do it, because the Prophet said: "I was ordered to fight people, until they pronounce the words: There are no God besides Allah, and when they attest it, their lives and property will become sacred to me, and they have no accounts to give but to God. " Abu-Bakr replied: The Prophet said: "Their lives and their property are sacred to me, except as regards Law ", and the tithe is part of the law. If they do not pay it, their lives and their property are no longer sacred. Then Abu Bakr added: "By God, if they hold back from me only a knee of a camel on what they used to give to the Prophet, I will fight them”. 63 “Abu Hurayra said: when the Envoy of God was dead, Abu Bakr was in charge, whereas a number of Arabs had reneged on their faith, Omar said to Abu Bakr : how are you going to fight those guys while the apostle of God said: [I received orders to fight people until they testify 63

Story Narrated by Tabari.


that there is no deities other than God. For whoever thus testifies, makes his life and his properties for me inviolable, except when it concerns the law. In any other case, he has no account to give to anybody, but God]? By God! Abu Bakr said, I want to fight anyone who has freed himself from the prayer and the tithe, as the tithe is compulsory for property. By God! Omar said, it is indeed God who inspired Abu Bakr, because I recognize that he is right”64. What conclusion can we draw from these two stories? We note first that these events took place long after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (upon him peace and blessings) , during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, his first successor. We cannot therefore speak of espionage affecting the security of the new state. Moreover, we learn that a number of people after the death of the Prophet, have decided to deny a part of the religion, as they refused to pay the tithe, while accepting to carry on the prayer. Here is my question: if the law allows killing a person who, while performing prayer, refuses to pay the tithe, so what would happen to the person who gives up prayer and – worse - abandons the religion? It is obvious that, if death punishment is required against any person who, while performing prayer, refuses to pay Zakat, the same would befall anyone who, after accepting Islam abjures it. There is not a shadow of a doubt that death would be the punition. I am pursuing. “Khalid arrived at dawn, entered the city right away, and massacred the enemies. When the day rose, there were so many dead inside the fortress and outside it, that blood was flowing like a river. There were in the fortress two men from Bani Namir. The first was Labid, son of Jerir, and the second Abdul Uzza, son of Abu Ruhm. They had been in Medina where they had made a faith testimony as Muslims, at the hands of Abu Bakr. He gave them letters acknowledging their quality of Muslims, enabling them to produce these documents wherever they faced Muslims. Thus, they would not be troubled. Now, these two men happened to be in the fortress taken by Khalid. They showed the letters of Abu Bakr they had with them, saying they were Muslims. But, because of the darkness, nobody could read the documents. To all the Muslims they met, they shouted they were believers. When it was reported to Khalid that a man in the fortress was causing a noisy demonstration and that the man had a companion (claiming the same thing), he said: “Beat them; if they are Muslims, why were they living among the incredulous?” Both men were killed. The son of the killed came to 64

Bukhari: Volume 1, pages 45 & 454.


Medina and lodged a complaint against Khalid, saying to Abu Bakr: "He killed my father, who had made his testimony of faith at your hands and who had your written attestation. Omar ibn al-Khattab, allowed the free course for these accusations against Khalid, he said: "was it not enough that he killed Malik, son of Nowaïra, who was Muslim? There he did it again, killing two other Muslims! Abu Bakr replied: "why were they living among the incredulous? It was their fault! ".”65 Khalid ibn al-Walid (may God be pleased with him) pronounced the death sentence against two men who happened to be in the place during the attack of the Islamic army against the pagans, although both have claimed loudly their innocence and have consistently maintained that they were Muslims. That was not enough convincing for Khalid, who decided they must die. The sentence was confirmed by Abu Bakr. Here is my second question: if death sentence was required for these two men "only" because they were among idolatrous, what would befall then the man who abandons his religion? I am pursuing. “After his return to Medina, Abu Bakr constituted several units of troops, and distributed supplies and launched them under eleven commanders against the various Arab tribes. He ordered them to attack the insurgents, and to bring them back to Islam, and if they refused, they must kill them or capture them as slaves.” 66 Where are the spies about whom you are talking? “ Oyaina was told: enemy of God, you have embraced Islam and you abjured! Oyaina replied: I have never been a believer. When the two prisoners were brought in presence of Abu Bakr, the latter told them the faith testimony formula. Abu Bakr forgave them, and both went back to their tribes as Muslims.”67 “When Khalid subdued Tolaiha, and the Bedouin insurgents were reintegrated into the bosom of Islam, a part of the Hawazin, the Bani Solaim and the Bani Amir remained in state of revolt. They were isolated people, which formed neither a gathering, nor an army that Khalid might attack. Staying in his camp with his army, he sent squads chasing all those who have been reported as defecting, while threatening with death whoever would not accept Islam. None of them was willingly challenging the death 65

Tabari : « Les quatre premiers califes ; Editions Sindbad. Tabari : vol.3, p.242. 67 Tabari : p.249. 66


sentence. All those who were brought before him, either embraced the Islamic faith, or declared they have never abjured and they were still following Muhammad’s religion.” 68 “Abu Bakr replied: send to each tribe of Bani Tamim two or three men, who will have to arrive at the time of prayer and observe the different districts. If, in the tribe, they do not hear the call to prayer, you will know that the people of this tribe are apostates, and you will kill them”.69 I still cannot see any spy! So, when you say Mr. Ramadan, the punishment for apostasy is contextual, since the death sentence, according to you and to your "scholars", was established by the Prophet only because (I quote): “Some individuals used to convert to Islam, insert themselves inside the community of believers, gather information and finally renege on their religion, as they transmit the information they had collected to the enemies of Muslims. The issue was actually about hypocrites who, through the religion, practiced war treason. Their attitude jeopardized the survival of the community, and it is in this context that the death sentence took its meaning for the traitors in war-time”, this is , as we proved it, completely false. So please, stop your silly stories, which have all the same purpose: to satisfy the non-Muslim notables! I can already hear you saying: “ it is not me, but the scholars who say this”. And I will reply that the simple fact of reporting that text, which anyway I ignore where you found it, tends manifestly to accrediting this phony thesis, to say the least. And since you claim you are a theologian, a writer, and a world renown lecturer, how could you ignore what I have just put under your nose? So, before spreading comments that are obviously completely false, check them out! As to me, I am firmly convinced that you knew it, but you opted for lying and finding scapegoats. Otherwise, in this case, a certain category of scholars, to make them bear these silly statements! As you recognized it, while mentioning the category of scholars who are in favor of the death sentence for the apostate, “this kind of reading exists and there is no way to deny ...” Which implies that had you been able, you might have denied! But you have not been able to deny. So, as you did with the 68 69

Tabari : p.250. Tabari : p.271.


first problem, when unable to deny the truth about the conquests, you tried to moderate it, now you “contextualize”, while protecting your back with a curtain of extraterrestrial scholars! It is not to philosophy or religion that you have a calling , but to politics. Maybe religion is nothing but a springboard! For me, you are like a grocer that nothing can hinder from selling his junk. While some die, or suffer in prison for their religion, you spend your time bartering it for a microphone, an article… Your thirst for notoriety lost you! For we must know that Mr. Ramadan is not willing to bear certain truths of a religion which he claims to be an adept, though, especially when these truths are detrimental to his image of "civilized", "intelligent", "cultivated" gentleman: in sum, to the ideal man able to represent the Muslim community or at least what remains of it, in France, and -why not?- in the world too! So, sometimes he lies, and sometimes he cheats, and sometimes he invents scholars (exactly as I will prove it at the issue n°8), in order to make them bear his inanities, whenever the wind turns against him. But this works only with ignorant people. You will know now, that in the community, we are not all out of our minds!

6-YOU SAY ON PAGE 176 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

I cannot unfortunately make an exhaustive analysis of each of these points presently, but we will remember that Jihad is here clearly a resistance. It is forbidden to Muslims to go to war for reasons related to acquiring wealth, territories or power; it is impossible as well to wage war for proselytizing purposes, the Koranic text is clear: No compulsion in religion. If this has been the case in history, it was definitely not the rule; anyway, these practices were in contradiction with Islamic teachings.

RESPONSE:

You are incredible Mr. Ramadan! On page 7 of the same book, you mention as we have read, the expansion of Islam, and then you said : “If this has been the case in history, it was definitely not the rule; anyway,


these practices were in contradiction with Islamic teachings.” You say: “If this has been the case in history..” Why this "if"? You are not so sure that there were conquests! How is this possible, since on page 12, you talk about them? In short! With you Mr. Ramadan, it is not the inconsistencies that are missing! Besides, as you put it: “it is impossible as well to wage war for proselytizing purposes, the Koranic text is clear: No compulsion in religion. If this has been the case in history, it was definitely not the rule; anyway, these practices were in contradiction with Islamic teachings.” So, either you did not wonder about all those conquests leading the soldiers of Islam up to Poitiers, which is very doubtful in respect of your theological training, or you consider, to borrow your own terms that “anyway, these practices were in contradiction with Islamic teachings.” Thus, according to you, the Muslim troops spreading across the world, whether under the authority of the four first caliphs (632-661) or under the Umayyad (661-750) or still under the authority of the Abbasids (after 750), acted, as you put it: “in contradiction with Islamic teachings”. But how far are you ready to go Mr. Ramadan in order to please the nonMuslim notables, and to which extent? However, it is not very astonishing, since as we have seen and as we can still see, you have already disavowed God and His Prophet repeatedly. Then why not add to them the four first Caliphs and at least several hundred thousands of mujahideen (fighters for faith)? For, as you said: “it is impossible as well to wage war for proselytizing purposes, the Koranic text is clear: No compulsion in religion. If this has been the case in history, it was definitely not the rule; anyway, these practices were in contradiction with Islamic teachings.” Yet, actually, you are lying and unrestrainedly libeling, because the first four Caliphs and the rest of the mujahideen, acted undoubtedly in conformity with the law of Islam. You, who claim to be a scholar, did you not read Bukhari, and Muslim, and Tabari and many others? Did you not see the following written: No'mân companion of the Prophet said: “we were a people living on the wrong path. Then God, in His mercy, sent us a Prophet who was from our stock, from the noblest part of our country. And this Prophet led us from the darkness of paganism to the light of true religion. Now he is dead; but before dying, he recommended us to wage war


against all those who are not of our religion on earth: they must embrace it, or agree to pay the toll, if they do not want to resort to weapons to fight us. We came therefore to make you this statement. If you believe in our religion, we will leave you your kingdom. If you do not want to believe, you will have to pay the toll. And if you do not want any of these two options, then get ready for war.” 70 “I have been instructed to fight people until they testify that there are no other deities but God. Anyone who pronounces this formula, will make his life and fortune inviolable in my eyes, except when he is responsible under the law. Beyond that, he is accountable only to God.”71 This prophetic saying is perfectly clear, and it is by the way on its ground partially, that the four first successors have relied and launched their army for the conquest of the world72. This Hadith is also supported by these verses from the Koran: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”73 “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.”74 At the simple reading of these texts, we know that the Muslims have definitely been ordered to fight the human kind until people embrace Islam, or alternatively, pay the jizyah. If not, it is as the companion of the Prophet No’man put it: “But if you do not want any of the two options, then get ready for war”. 75

* Conquest of Hîra: Khalid said: “ O Iyas, chose one of these options: accept our religion, or pay a tribute, if not, get ready for war.” * Conquest of Oballa: 70

Tabari : "The first four Caliphs" , page 143. Hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. 72 Except for Ali, who was obliged to give all attention to the hypocrites and the heretics instead of fighting the unbelievers. 73 Koran : Sura 9, verse 5. 74 Koran : Sura 9, verse 11. 75 Tabari, « Les quatre premiers califes », Editions Sindbad, p.143. 71


Khalid sent a letter to Hormuz, saying: “I am coming, I, the General of the Vicar of God. Embrace Islam or pay the toll, if not , get ready for war.” * The Battle of Madsar: “The Persian army began to flee, pursued by the Muslims, until nightfall. The next day, it has been found that thirty thousand Persian had perished.” * The Battle of Waladja: “Khalid gave the order to attack and the fight started. The Persians began to flee, pursued by Muslims who made a Massacre”. * The Battle of Lîs: Khalid said: “I will kill so many enemies that their blood will flow along with the river, because they had shown contempt for Muslims.” * Capitulation of Hîra: “Khalid accorded them peace, on the condition that they pay the tribute”.

* Conquest of Anbar: “Now, believe in God and His Prophet, or consent to pay the toll, if not, get ready for war.” * Battle of ‘Ayn at Tamr: “Khalid made of all of them slaves. He seized all their properties, and beheaded all those he had taken in custody”. * Conquest of Doumat al jandal: “Khalid stormed the fortress, killing all the men, and took in custody the women and the children.” * The Battles of Hacid, Khanafis, and Mudhayya’h:


“The next day, Khalid stormed the fortress, killing all the men he found out there, and capturing women and children.” * The Battle of Firadh: “The Muslims made a great carnage, and those who were not slain, perished in the waves.” * The Invasion of Syria: “The Muslims shattered them into pieces and continued the massacre, since sunrise until sunset: one hundred and twenty thousand enemies died.” * Muthanna campaign against the Persians: “The Muslims killed large numbers of them”. * The conquest of Damascus: “The massacre went on all the night long, until daybreak”. *The conquest of Fi’hl, Baisan and Tabariyya: The Muslims hunted them down and cut them into pieces. In the morning, not a single man remained of those eighty thousand fighters”. *The Battle of Namariq: “A deadly battle took place and God gave victory to the Muslims”. * The Battle of Kaskar: “The Persians fled.” *The conquest of Emesse: “The Romans capitulated and paid the tribute.” * The conquest of Kinnesrin: “Khalid refused to grant them the conditions provided by the Islamic law. He said: If you had asked for peace before fighting, I would have granted it for you. He slew the garrison and seized the booty.”


* The conquest of Caesarea: “Eighty thousand Romans were killed. The victory was to the Muslims.” * The Battle of Qadisiya: “ That night is also called the night of the uproar, because of the noise produced by the clash of combatants who in the melee were shouting.” The Prophet said: “After me, you will conquer Syria and Persia: Islam will spread until the land of the Turks, and westward, until Nubia”. 76 How could you say then that it is : “impossible to make warfare for proselytizing purposes; the Koranic text is clear: No compulsion in religion. If this has been the case in history, it was by far not the rule. Anyway, those practices were in opposition with the Islamic teachings”?

7-YOU SAY ON PAGE 173 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation): “We come now to your second question concerning Rushdie. He does not consider himself as a Muslim anymore, and that is his right. The problem appears thereafter in the way he spoke about the Prophet of Islam, and about many other elements estimated worthy of an infinite respect by Muslims. What should we say about that? Since the beginning, I opposed the fatwa of the Iranian government and made my position very clear. The Iranian government's decision, taken a few months after the publication of the book, is political. It was obviously an attempt to retrieve the bonus of a mobilization that had taken place in Pakistan, and in Bradford in Great - Britain, or elsewhere. It sounded that the Iranian government would thus be able to mobilize Muslim peoples, reacting with ultra -sensibility. But nothing, from the viewpoint of Islam, can justify a call for a hurried execution, with a reward offer, disrespectfully of the law; never, by no means Islamic teachings can be applied in this way.”

76

Tabari, « Les quatre premiers califes », p.21.


REFUTATION: Everyone remembers that regrettable Rushdie affair and the angry demonstrations following it across the globe. Everyone remembers also that there was not a single supposedly Muslim leader who made a strong reaction (as required) against the book of Rushdie, except the Imam Khomeini with whom you find a fault. You say: “nothing, from the viewpoint of Islam, can justify a call for a hurried execution, with a reward offer, disrespectfully of the law. Never, by no means, Islamic teachings can be applied in this way.”You lie Mr. Ramadan! Once again you lie! And while lying, you do not hesitate to slander Imam Khomeini! In fact, nothing can stop you! In order to pave the way, which will lead you not to the chair, but to the stool, successfully, you do not hesitate to lying, smirching, slandering, misleading people, disavowing God and His Messenger, indeed in a way extremely insidious. But how far will you go Mr. Ramadan for a semblance of notoriety? Let us focus now on the theological argumentation. We will be able to observe all together and once again, that Mr. Ramadan is not an ignorant, but a liar. For, by no means was he unknowing the truth about most subjects mentioned here, whence precisely his ability to dodge. You say: “nothing, from the viewpoint of Islam, can justify a call for a hurried execution, with a reward offer, disrespectfully of the law. Never, by no means, Islamic teachings can be applied in this way.” Let us take a look at these segments, extracted from the book of Tabari, whose credibility nobody has ever questioned, nor that will happen soon. “It was in the same month of the first rabi’ that the Prophet sent someone to kill Ka’b, son of Ashraf, whose invective caused him much suffering. (He was saying for example): ‘weep, so that people could think that Muhammad is dead, and that his religion ceased to exist.’ These words were reported to the Prophet. One day, as he was with his companions and that they talked about Ka’b son of Ashraf, the Prophet complained of him and said: ‘which one will give his life to God and kill this man?’ […] Ka’b’s hair was long, falling onto his neck. It was perfumed with musk and amber. Every now and then, Silkan grabbed his head, and drawing it to him to inhale the perfumes, he said: ‘What delicious smell!’When they arrived to the middle of the orchard, Silkan seized strongly Ka’b’s hair, and said: ‘hit!’ Mohammad son of Maslama, gripped him also, and Harith son of Aous, came to their aid, and all three held him in the same position. The other men took their swords and killed him.


Ka’b’s wife was screaming on the top of the terrace, and she was killed too.” “The prophet was very happy. He acknowledged God’s blessing and thanked them”.77 This Ka’b has offended the Prophet with some verbal abuse, like: ‘weep, so that people could think that Muhammad is dead, and that his religion ceased to exist.’ It seems to me that such a talk cannot actually be regarded as real insults. Nevertheless, he had also said other things about which we know nothing. That cost him his life, as we saw. Thereupon, what would be the fate of Rushdie, who insulted the Prophet and his wives and made many other disagreeable remarks, to say the least? I think that anybody can answer this question. The insults against the Prophet wounded deeply all faithful Muslims, all of them, except one perhaps… you! I would not be surprised at all, though, (since in your eyes nothing can justify that sentence) to see you chatting with that bastard of Rushdie, and smiling to him in the most casual ambiance! As I have not been surprised to see Dalil Boubekeur, the great rector of the museum, - the Mosque of Paris,- giving the accolade to the Dalai Lama, supreme leader of the idolaters, of course, inside the great "Mosque" of Paris! Or as it is the case with Mohamed Béchari78 , who at times embraces the hand of MVI79, and occasionally the head of Abassi Madani! Before closing this paragraph, let me tell you I am really wondering about your fortune! Indeed, I wonder whether you are not more harmful to Islam than Rushdie! For the Rushdie case is merely limited to insults. It is coarse, but it does not trick anybody. As for you, it is all the same a lot more serious: you lie and mislead dozens, perhaps hundreds of gullible novice people, seeking the Holy Word of God! I believe very sincerely that your case is immensely more serious than that of Rushdie. If I had to make a comparison, I would say: he is a cold and you a cancer! Other examples: “Sallam, nicknamed Abu Rafi, was the leader of the Jews of Khyber. He was a man of considerable wealth, wielding easily the words. He had been a friend of Ka’b son of Ashraf, and used also to 77

Tabari : pp.7,81,112. Vice-president of the French Council of Muslim Cult (CFCM) and president of the National Federation of France’s Muslims (FNMF). 79 The King of Morocco. 78


satirize the prophet. Then the men of Khazraj met and said: ‘we too must kill one of the most prominent Jews, to please the Prophet’. And they resolved to slay Abu Rafi , the head of Khyber Jews, who were the most numerous. They talked of their plan to the Prophet, who approved it. Before leaving, they came to find the Prophet, who thanked them, and said: ‘go, but do not kill women or children.’ Abu Rafi had his apartment in the middle of the fort, elevated above the ground. They had to go upstairs over five steps. The residents of the fort had remained with him until midnight, then they parted and went to bed. So, Abdullah took the keys, opened the doors, and his companions entered. They unsheathed their swords and climbed the stairs up to the apartment of Abu Rafi, who was sleeping with his wife. The door was open. They entered, and as Abdullah son of Onais directed his sword against Abu Rafi, the woman jumped out of the bed, and seemed ready to scream. Abdullah son of Atik, lifted his sword to hit her, but remembering that the Prophet had recommended not to kill women, he said: ‘If you scream, I will hit you’. The woman stood quiet. The Prophet was very happy for that outcome.”80 The only difference between the fatwa of Khomeini and the "order" of the Prophet, is that Khomeini offered a reward, whereas the "commandos" of the Prophet did it voluntarily, for no money, only to please Allah! So when you say: “since the beginning I opposed the fatwa of the Iranian government and made my position very clear. The Iranian government's decision, taken a few months after the publication of the book, is political. It is obviously an attempt to retrieve…”, it is not the Iranian government that tries retrieval, but undoubtedly you! And when you say: “But nothing, from the viewpoint of Islam, can justify a call for a hurried execution, with a reward offer, disrespectfully of the law; never, by no means Islamic teachings can be applied in this way…” We notice that it is rather your own words, which are literally opposed to Islam, not those of Imam Khomeini.

8-YOU SAY ON PAGE 152 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

Regarding the ban on homosexuality: This behavior reveals a 80

Tabari : pp.13,14,15, 16.


disturbance, a dysfunction, an imbalance. The issue is not about developing a discourse of rejection, and condemnation of “those patients” who live in our vicinity. Some Muslims, learned or less learned, speak in this way, and I do not join them on this point. REFUTATION:

Thus, Mr. Ramadan, you do not join Muslims, learned or not, speaking in that way, and you do not associate yourself to their discourse! That is it! For you, homosexuality is due to a “dysfunction, an imbalance. The issue is not about developing a discourse of rejection.” " Yet, you know very well Mr. Ramadan, that those scholars who have, in your opinion, a discourse of rejection to which you do not associate yourself, do simply repeat what God and His messenger have said! Indeed, if we read the Koran and some sayings of the Prophet, we learn the following: “So when Our commandment came to pass We overthrew (that township) and rained upon it stones of clay, one after another.”81 “And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?”82 “For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.”83 The Prophet said: “Kill those who engage in the act of Lot people.”84 The Prophet said: “What I fear most for you is that you commit the act of the people of Lot. Then, the Prophet damned thrice whoever commits that act, saying: may God damn anyone who commits the sin of the people of Lot, may God damn anyone who commits the sin of the people of Lot, may God damn anyone who commits the sin of the people of Lot.” 85 “Ibn Abbas said: we will take them to the highest place of the district and we will push them to fall; and when they are down there, we will throw stones over them , as God did with the people of Lot.”86 81

Koran : Sura 11, verse 82. Koran : Sura 7, verse 80. 83 Koran : Sura 7, verse 81. 84 Hadith reported by : Abu Dawood, Tirmizi, Ibn Maja. 85 Hadith reported by : ibn Maja, Tirmizi, al Hakim. 86 « Les grands péchés », p.77. 82


The Prophet said: “Four kinds of persons will be, morning and evening, subjected to the wrath of God.” He was asked: “who are they? O Messenger of God!” He said : “the men who try to look like women, the women who try to look like men, anyone copulating with an animal, and the man who has sex with another man.” 87 The Prophet said: “God does not look at a man who had a sexual relationship with another man”88. So, it is not learned or not learned people as you say, who hold a rejection discourse against homosexuals, but God and His messenger! Thereupon, when you say: “The issue is not about developing a discourse of rejection, and condemnation of “those patients” who live in our vicinity. Some Muslims, learned or not, speak in this way, and I do not join them on this point…”, you do not actually just disavow the learned and the less learned, but rather God and His messenger, in the same way that you rejected so many people and so many truths. It is quite obvious that you could not merely say that you do not join the discourse of God and His messenger on this point, which unashamedly and without feeling the least trouble, you describe as a discourse of rejection. Once more, you used then your best talent, which is your art of dodging, to make the learned and the less learned bear that discourse of rejection; just as you did it indeed on the fifth issue ,concerning the judgment of apostasy. That is how you allow yourself to be totally disagreeing, without however falling into heresy. As a point of fact, a learned or a less learned may be mistaken, or have a thought or a religious practice that might be disavowed, while God and His Messenger are incontestable. You could not, indeed, disavow them and remain credible, at least in the eyes of Muslims. That is a poor stratagem, which works only with ignorant people. The Envoy of God said: “If you find two persons committing the act of the people of Lot, kill both of them.”(Ibn Khathir added :) “As to the anal intercourse with women, it is called the little sodomy, and it is prohibited by all the learned people.”89 So, when you say that “some learned speak in this way”, and that you “do not join them on this point”, it is not only some learned who speak that way, but all of them, except perhaps only one: you! That is it: you must be the only "learned” who does not speak in the same way.

87

Hadith reported by : Tabarani and Bayhaqi. Hadith reported by : Tirmizi, ibn Habban, and Nisâ’i. 89 Ibn Kathir, p.477. 88


Moreover, Ibn Khathir emphasized that all the learned people prohibit sodomy with the women, so what would be the issue if it is about sodomy between men? Obviously, you are alone to hold an opposite position. Then, when you say : “some Muslims, learned or less learned, speak in this way , and I do not join them on this point”, undoubtedly , you lie, as you usually do! Unless you refer to some “learned” like Dalil Boubekeur or Bertrand Delanoë, for example! If I may make you a suggestion, why not join the gay pride demonstration? 9-YOU SAY ON PAGE 121 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

The text of the Koran is clear from this point of view: polygamy is permitted in Islam, up to four wives, but it is associated with no less explicit conditions. It is permission: however, there is virtually unanimity between Muslim scholars to emphasize that the thrust of Islamic teaching tends to monogamy.

REFUTATION:

You say: “there is virtually unanimity between Muslim scholars to emphasize that the thrust of Islamic teaching tends to monogamy.” What you say here is a perfect nonsense. Indeed, how can one pretend that “the thrust of Islamic teaching tends to monogamy,” whereas the Prophet in person and other prophets before him, were all polygamous? How can one say such stupidities whereas the vast majority of the companions of the Prophet were all polygamous? If “the thrust of Islamic teaching tends to monogamy,” as you put it Mr. Ramadan, whereas the Prophet and his companions were polygamous, it would mean that the latter were acting against the Islamic teaching since, as you say, it tends to monogamy! Thus, in your opinion, Islamic teaching tends to monogamy, but the founder and his disciples were, as an overwhelming majority, polygamous! The fact that you behave as if all Muslims are ignorant, is not that important, since you are neither the first nor the last to do that. But if you make another step in this direction, to discredit the Prophet, and his companions as well as a number of scholars, as you did on several occasions, and one more time over here, this is just unacceptable.


If those scholars are like you, then I will understand why they prohibit polygamy! As far as I am concerned, and I do not think I am alone, my scholar is called Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him). And when a truth, or a practice, or a law is established by God or by his Messenger, nobody can make me deviate from its due respect. The role of the scholars is to explain Islam, not to oppose it.

10- YOU SAY ON PAGE 122 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

The central question remains education. Many Muslim women are under pressure from a surrounding culture and are not aware of the rights their religion gave them. They do not know, for example, that the first wife may stipulate in her contract of marriage that she does not accept her husband to marry another woman. If he is still willing to marry her, the husband will have no other choice but to obey this requirement. REFUTATION: We have often heard of this famous right empowering the Muslim woman to prevent her husband’s polygamy. I have undertaken a number of investigations to find a track of this notorious law, in vain! When I say that I have undertaken a number of searches and found nothing, I do not mean I have investigated through the books of some allegedly contemporary scholars, like yourself, or your colleague Malika Dif, for after reading these books, one is well provided for all what concerns the rights of Muslim women.90 But I actually mean I found nothing in history books. Indeed, books like those of the historian Tabari, or of the most reliable Hadith narrators, such as Bukhari, Muslim and many others, do not tell us anything about that amazing right! I think it is not necessary to be a theologian in order to know that if a right exists, it can only come from the Koran or the Prophet, as the divine right is contained in the Koran and the prophetic law mainly collected – for the most essential and reliable - in the works of Bukhari and Muslim. However, when we read these books(i.e. the Koran, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim,) not only we find nothing hinting to the right you evoked, but as odd as it may sound, a simple reading would persuade us that this right is opposed to the law! Indeed, when we read, for example, the book of Malika Dif : “Being a Muslim woman today”, we can only notice that we are witnessing the emergence of “Muslim” feminists. 90


Thus, in your opinion, Muslim women “do not know, for example, that the first wife may stipulate in her contract of marriage that she does not accept her husband to marry another woman. If he is still willing to marry her, the husband will have no other choice but to obey this requirement.”

So, I have a number of questions to put: 1) How come, if this right exists, necessarily since the time of the Prophet, that no woman ever used it? Can we believe that the majority of women was during several centuries favorable to polygamy? Can we reasonably assume that those women were not jealous at all and welcoming polygamy? Can we reasonably assume that none of them has used her "Right" to prohibit her husband or future husband’s polygamy? Is it reasonable to assume that not a single woman has used that "right"? 2) How come, if that right exists, that we do not find any sign hinting to it in reference books? 3) How come, if that right exists, that we find no old document of earlier times mentioning it, whereas we find many manuscripts, garments of the Prophet, clothes of his companions, and letters, including those exchanged between Ali and Mu’awiya, but no contract of marriage stipulating that right? Can we believe it is legitimate for a Muslim woman to prohibit what Allah made legitimate to her husband? How can we consider a Muslim who abandons a right conferred to him by the Creator, for another imposed by a creature, let alone a woman? It seems to me that the number of questions put here tends to prove that this right was purely and simply invented by the supporters of a Europeanized “Islam”, which you are the banner-carrier. Almost everybody knows the following story: Ali son of Abu Talib wanted to take another wife while he was married to Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet. Let us listen to the reaction of the Prophet: “The (folk of ) Bani Hisham ibn al Mughira have asked for my permission to marry one of their daughters to Ali, and I will not consent to that. (The woman whom Ali wanted to marry was the daughter of one of the most ferocious enemies of Islam, Abu Jahl. The Prophet was mostly apprehensive for the faith of his daughter). Ali will have to divorce my daughter in order to marry theirs. My daughter


is just a part of myself, if she suffers, I suffer too. The daughter of the messenger of God will never live as a second wife along with the daughter of the enemy of God.” Then he added: “Pay attention! Do not believe I am prohibiting what Allah has permitted you!” This last sentence does not appear, by the way, in the book of Malika Dif 91, since the latter took this same text to argue that women had the right to prohibit their husbands’ polygamy. Had she added this last sentence of the Prophet, it might have thwarted her purpose! Anyway, in the transcription of the text, she does not even mention the reason that made the Prophet refuse Ali’s project of marriage to that woman. She did not say that the Prophet had a very good reason, as I noticed previously! Thus, we learn Ali wanted to take a second wife but the Prophet did not approve, and sitting on his chair, he explained the reason of his refusal, while insisting that he was not prohibiting what God has authorized. I wonder: If it is allowed to women, as says Mr. Ramadan and many others, to prohibit their husbands’ polygamy, why Fatima did not simply tell Ali that she refused him marrying another woman? Given that Ali was very respectful of the divine and prophetic laws, he would have immediately acquiesced and the case would have been settled! So, why Fatima did not do it? Why the intervention of her father was necessary for that, to the point of making of the issue a “State” affair? By the way, the Prophet has said it himself: “I do not forbid you what God has authorized, but I refuse to see the daughter of the enemy of God living under the same roof than the daughter of the Envoy of God.” He justified therefore his refusal by a valid and personal argument. Why the Prophet evoked a personal argument whereas he “could” evoke the law? Why all these complications while it was easier for Fatima to say merely: 'no' to Ali? Why the Prophet did not just say that his daughter refused that her husband takes another wife and no need to give details about their privacy? I leave to everybody the choice as to the answers. I think that the Prophet summarizes very well my point of view, when he says: “Pay attention! Do not believe I am prohibiting what Allah has permitted you.” I believe that no man or woman has the right to prohibit what Allah has authorized; this would mean that one is opposed to the word of God. But on behalf of what power may we prohibit what God has permitted? This strongly resembles a form of polytheism! I think that prohibiting polygamy lead to encourage adultery and fornication; this is anyway what happens in the so-called Christian societies. I think that the pattern set by the Prophet should be continuously followed, particularly 91

« Etre musulmane aujourd’hui » ; Editions Tawhid.


in what concerns the conjugal life, and we may say the same about countless other prophets and virtuous companions. The warning is clear, though: “O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?”(Sura 66, verse 1). It is sad and unfortunate to see that many alleged Muslims and particularly those who live in the western societies, do not hesitate to disfigure Islam, only in order to appear "modern" in the eyes of nonMuslims. Even worse : in order to be assimilated to non - Muslims.

11- YOU SAY ON THE PAGES 85 - 86 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

Everything depends on the context in which we find ourselves. At the time of the Prophet and those who have succeeded him, an institution has been gradually settled at the state level, which will then be known as Bayt-al-mal, literally, “finances home”. It collected and distributed the zakat . This sort of management was still valid under the Ottoman Empire, and funds-raising was either centralized, or locally performed. Today, zakat collection, at the state level, does not exist anymore in many countries. It has become organized and managed by local associations or mosques. In this case, it belongs to Muslims, according to their consciences and after studying their environment, to seek and find the best ways to pay the amount of their zakat. If there is an association which you trust for that mission, it is possible to give it the money. Such associations already exist in the Muslim world, as well as in Europe or the USA. Some prefer to give from hand to hand, which is also possible, since it is an act related to one’s conscience. Remains the fact that one must ensure the trustfulness of the people and the environment to which one gives money. For since it the right of the poor, of which they should not be deprived, out of naivety or neglect, we must not act flippantly and unconsciously.

REFUTATION: You talk now about the zakat and you say: “Some prefer to give from


hand to hand, which is also possible, since it is an act related to one’s conscience”. This is entirely false! Indeed, the zakat is not as asserts Mr. Ramadan, an act of conscience, and it cannot consequently be given from hand to hand. The zakat, which is levied on the property of the person, is, you know, an obligation related to a duty in respect of the community. It could not definitely be given to a person, or a group of people, or a mosque, or an organization, or an association ...etc. It is important to know that during his lifetime, the Prophet used to send collectors to different Muslim tribes, in order to collect the zakat. Once it is collected, it was conveyed to the Prophet who deposited it himself in the Bayt el-mal, which can be translated exactly as Finances home, or public treasury. Now, if giving it from hand to hand was allowed, as Mr. Ramadan says, or to a mosque, or to an association, or else, why in this case, the Prophet used to send his men for raising it? Why did he not allow the tribes to give zakat from hand to hand, or hither and thither? That was for the simple and good reason that it must be paid to the state. For that Zakat was not only a “right of the poor” as Mr. Ramadan put it, but it was also funding all the needs of the government, such as, for example, buying horses and weapons for the Jihad. Let us take note of the following text, we will draw the conclusions thereafter: “All the Arab tribes sent deputies to Abu-Bakr, asking him to waive the tithe. Abu Bakr refused and did not pay any attention to the envoys. The latter went to meet Omar and told him: Talk to Abu Bakr, so that he suspends for two or one year, the perception of the tithe; and when all these tribes return to your religion, and that the men pretending to prophecy disappear, then you may require tithing. Omar spoke in this way to Abu Bakr, who did not reply. So Omar said: Do it, because the Prophet said: "I was ordered to fight people, until they pronounce the words: There are no God besides Allah, and when they attest it, their lives and property will become sacred to me, and they have no accounts to give but to God. " Abu-Bakr replied: The Prophet said: "Their lives and their property are sacred for me, except as regards Law ", and the tithe is part of the law. If they did not pay it, their lives and their property are no longer sacred. Then Abu Bakr added: "By God, if they hold back from me only a knee of a camel on what they used to give to the Prophet, I will fight them”. 92 We note that following the death of the Prophet, a number of Muslim tribes refused to pay the zakat. The reaction of Abu Bakr despite the 92

Story Narrated by Tabari.


intervention of Omar, was unyielding: either they pay the zakat, or they will be fought! And here is my question: If it was legitimate, as stated Mr. Ramadan, to give zakat from hand to hand, then why Abu Bakr was willing to wage war against those who refused to pay it, although it would be much easier for him to say for instance: “They don’t want to pay? Well. It is not my problem! Let them give it to whomever they want. It is their problem!”? If Abu Bakr forced the insurgents to pay zakat, not to whomever they want, but only and uniquely to the State agents, it was for the simple reason that the payment of Zakat had been established by the Prophet in that way. Actually, it was not possible to ignore the law. Can you see the French citizens, for example, pay their taxes to their neighbors, or to the church, or to an association, etc.?The zakat must be obligatory paid to the State, or in the absence of state, as is the case today, to those working for its recovery, and not to those who practice the religion on the still smoking ruins of Islam! Once again, Mr. Ramadan did not say the truth, the whole truth, and that was not purposeless! If he says that the zakat must be paid to the State, his audience might look to the right, and to the left, wondering: “but where is the Islamic State?” This situation would compel him to give more answers. Now, it is already enough hard like that, so…! One cannot put up with innovations, but fight them.

12- YOU SAY ON PAGE 232 OF YOUR BOOK (Quotation):

Today things have changed. The notion of Dar al-harb is obsolete and does not at all express a situation of insecurity for Muslims. In my book “To be a European Muslim”, I explain how we are often more secure in the West than in the predominantly Muslim countries.

REFUTATION:

Indeed, things have changed and unfortunately not in favor of Islam! When you say that “the notion of Dar al-harb is obsolete and does not at all express a situation of insecurity for Muslims”, it seems to me


that

you

are

eluding

the

subject!

Indeed, the concept of Dar al-harb (literally: house of war) has never hinted to a welcoming place for the Muslims, if not, it would be anything but the house of war! We cannot therefore evoke, as you said, a situation of insecurity for Muslims! Dar al-Harb refers as you know, to all places where Muslims should not live but rather stand armed, i.e. any place not governed by Islamic laws, if it is not subjected to the Tax called capitation, jizyah. It is consequently, totally false to say that “the notion of Dar al-harb is obsolete and does not at all express a situation of insecurity for Muslims,” on the pretext that today, Muslims are more secure in France for example, than in Saudi Arabia, in Tunisia or Morocco! All countries previously mentioned are considered too, as spaces for conversion, not at the level of the population but at that of the State. So when you say: “Today things have changed. The notion of Dar al-harb is obsolete and does not at all express a situation of insecurity for Muslims”, you “forget” simply to say that it is not because today Muslims are living among infidels where they find some security and a certain comfort, that this place has become a space of peace! (Dar al-Salam). As we saw earlier, it is forbidden to a Muslim to live among nonMuslims and particularly to abide by non-Islamic laws; and if he does, this is considered as a crime of apostasy. I do not ignore that tens of millions of Muslims live among the unbelievers; it is subsequently necessary to relativize this fact, because of the existence of a number of constraints. But anyway, whoever indulges pleasingly in such a situation should be regarded as an apostate. “Khalid arrived at dawn, entered the city right away, and massacred the enemies. When the day rose, there were so many dead inside the fortress and outside it, that blood was flowing like a river. There were in the fortress two men from Bani Namir. The first was Labid, son of Jerir, and the second Abdul Uzza, son of Abu Ruhm. They had been in Medina where they had made a faith testimony as Muslims, at the hands of Abu Bakr. He gave them letters acknowledging their quality of Muslims, enabling them to produce these documents wherever they faced Muslims. Thus, they would not be troubled. Now, these two men happened to be in the fortress taken by Khalid. They showed the letters of Abu Bakr they had with them, saying they were Muslims. But, because of the darkness, nobody could read the documents. To all the Muslims they


met, they shouted they were believers. When it was reported to Khalid that a man in the fortress was causing a noisy demonstration and that the man had a companion (claiming the same thing), he said: “Beat them; if they are Muslims, why were they living among the incredulous?” Both men were killed. The son of the killed came to Medina and lodged a complaint against Khalid, saying to Abu Bakr: "He killed my father, who had made his testimony of faith at your hands and who had your written attestation. Omar ibn al-Khattab, allowed the free course for these accusations against Khalid, he said: "was it not enough that he killed Malik, son of Nowaïra, who was Muslim? There he did it again, killing two other Muslims! Abu Bakr replied: "why were they living among the incredulous? It was their fault! ".”93 And as Sayyid Qotb has so finely put it: “A society whose legislation is not based on divine law is not Muslim, notwithstanding the claims of individual Muslims, and even though they pray, fast and accomplish the pilgrimage.”94 “But whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.”95 According to Dr. Youssouf al- Qardawi, who has nothing of an extremist: “by granting to an individual or a group of persons the power to legislate and then by submitting completely to their laws, which dictate the legal and the illegal, and organize people's lives indicating them the way they must take, in opposition to the will of Allah, we become guilty of great polytheism”96.

Conclusion What conclusion can we draw from this document? We have been able to see, first, in a crystal clear way, how Mr. Ramadan was lying… Worse: what an impostor he could be! As a point of fact, one may lie for varied reasons and for diverse interests, although with Mr. Ramadan, the situation grows entangled into a perfect fake. He does not hesitate to lie to the people of his own community, to deviate his “brothers” and “sisters” from the truth, to disfigure Islam, to disavow God and His messenger, to reject the actions of his successors, to slander millions of mujahedeen, uniquely for the sake of being recognized by non-Muslim notabilities. 93

Tabari : « Les quatre premiers califes ; Editions Sindbad. Gilles Kepel : « Le prophète et le pharaon » ; Editions le Seuil. 95 Sura 16, verse 106. 96 Dr. Youssouf al Qardawi, “Le véritable monothéisme”, p.57. Al Bouraq. 94


Is it possible to believe that all the answers I have brought up in the present volume, were unknown to Mr. Ramadan? No, of course. How could we explain, otherwise, the art and the manner he used while endeavoring to elude them? How could we think a single moment that an Islam expert, like Mr. Ramadan, might ignore so many basic truths? It would be as if we say that a lawyer does not know what a public prosecutor is! How can we explain that it is always the thorny issues that are disfigured, and never others? May we think that all this is pure coincidence? No! I assume we may all agree that a person who claims to be supporting stoning, death sentence for the apostate, polygamy, holy jihad, warfare to spread Islam, eye for eye and tooth for tooth, etc., will never have a position among “civilized” people, which, by the way, I understand perfectly. The only option left would be then to make some compromises. It is what Mr. Ramadan did. He sold off his religion, and did not stop lying to everybody.97 His strategy seemed going to fructify, until the day he committed the mistake of writing down that list of prominent Jews: a blunder that cost him all the credit he capitalized with non-Muslim notables. A capital of trust he had patiently acquired. His purpose was certainly to draw attention, for he felt his name was being somewhat forgotten at a crucial time: when the CFCM98 was being instituted. Thereupon, the non-Muslim notables disavowed him just as he had disavowed the divine and prophetic truth. Honestly, I wonder to whom Mr. Ramadan has not lied yet? We Muslims, have more than other people, reasons to complain of Mr. Ramadan. For, if he lied to non-Muslims, he caused them no damage, though, far from it! Whereas to his community, he hammered hard blows causing confusion, and even worse: unfaithfulness. He did not hesitate to advocate varied heresies that a number of people in our community endorsed, which caused – and is still causing – a lot of conflicts. Presently, Mr. Ramadan is the past, because I think that those who will still consider him worth of listening to, after reading this volume, would become like him. Nobody would be sorry for them, if they link their fate to his! Nevertheless, his lies will still cause bewilderment and lose people. I am hoping that this volume will be the antidote against his lies transmitted in audio and video-tapes, not to forget his books. How, when people die every day for their religion, when they endure torture and prison, leaving behind them wives and children, widows and orphans, could one be so mean? Unconcerned by the pain screams of the tortured, uncaring for the tears of the widow, insensible to the worries of the woman whose husband is far away, unmoved by the cry of the orphan, unaffected by the solitude of the 97 98

He is not alone, by the way. Actually, there is a team particularly talented. Conseil français du culte musulman ( : French Council of Islamic Cult).


prisoner, untouched by the sobs of the old woman for her son, indifferent, indifferent, indifferent to everything, but to one’s own despicable interest. Where is your heart? Where is the man, where is compassion, where is love? I see nothing but vanity! You respect nothing anymore, neither martyr blood, nor women and children sufferance. Only one thing is important to you: what they will say of you in the press and on the TV. You look at the fighters of Islam as you look at monsters. You are the monster, breaching the word of God and His Prophet because of your craze for a second class notoriety. You are the monster, walking along the walls, while your brothers and sisters are dying. You are the monster, not hesitating to stride over the corpses of the martyrs in order to get into the limelight along with the idolatrous notabilities. You are the monster, putting your fingers in your ears not to hear the pain screams of your brothers and sisters. You are the monster, not hesitating to misrepresent Islam to meet your interest. You are the monster, seeking nothing else but notoriety. Do you know who you remind me of, Mr. Ramadan? You make me think of several Rap singers, most of them originate in modest income immigrant families, parked in H.L.M. quarters, truly revolted against social injustice and racism. Nobody cares about their future, or their welfare, or their problems. They made of their misery and of the injustice they are victims, their living. But once they are notorious and celebrated, they forget where they come from. They forget those who are still suffering out there, in the quarters’ hallways. They forget their fight. They forget who they are. Money and fame make them lose their mind. That is exactly your case. Maybe were you honest in the beginning, I don’t know. What I presently know, upon evidence, is that you betrayed your cause, you betrayed your brothers and sisters, and like some Rappers you forgot! The only difference is that those rappers just betrayed their related, whereas you betrayed the Creator, His Messenger, and his messages! So, instead of dedicating your book to the French political class, and to Nicolas and Cécilia Sarkozy, who do not give a damn about it and about your religion, you had better dedicated it to the twelve years old girl killed with an Israeli bullet, to the eight years old boy killed with an American bullet, to the three years old baby killed under an English bombing, and to so many other victims of the unfaithful imperialism! But perhaps is that not your ambition. Certainly, it is not, since your book projects the image of an invertebrate Islam, bowing like a meek servitor at the orders of the white master. An image able to make even the good old negro slave flush ashamed, although no chain impedes his


freedom anymore, if not the chain of fear and meekness. Now, I leave you with these divine and prophetic words: “Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.”99 “And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turneth from them.”100 “And every nation purposed to seize their messenger and argued falsely, (thinking) thereby to refute the Truth. Then I seized them, and how (awful) was My punishment.”101 “Who took their religion for a sport and pastime, and whom the life of the world beguiled. So this day We have forgotten them even as they forgot the meeting of this their Day and as they used to deny Our tokens.”102 “Whoever seeks to deceive us is not one of us.”103 “Any leader who misleads his subjects will rot in hell.”104 “Treason will be punished by hell.”105 About the suggestions of the learned to the rulers, making them prohibit what is legal and legalize what is prohibited, and advising them in legal matters accordingly to their whims: “When your learned seek knowledge in order to make a living and earn money, and when you make of the Koran a trade.” 106 “I am worried for my community, apprehensive of the Imams who will mislead it.”107

99

Koran : Sura 5, verse 80. Koran : Sura 32, verse 22. 101 Koran : Sura 40, verse 5. 102 Koran : Sura 7, verse 51. 103 Hadith reported by Muslim. 104 Hadith reported by Tabarani. 105 Hadith reported by Bukhari, Vol.2, p.32. 106 Hadith reported by Dailimi. 107 Hadith reported in Sunan ibn Dawood and Sunan ibn Maja. 100



A XXI Century's Impostor