[vibrant music] >> So, today what we want to talk about is pretty much everything else. Everything that we haven't talked about about Islam that's of interest we want to get that covered. There are a lot of apologetic issues that we'll be talking about today. There'll be a lot of
current events type issues. By the end of today, I reserved a block of time towards the end where anything that you
have to ask is fair game, so make sure to be writing
down your questions. The more relevant ones
you can ask immediately, to ones that just kind of pop
in your hear sporadically, hold those to the end and at that time we'll start answering them. Probably the single most, foremost issue in the
minds of many believers is the issue of violence in Islam. How do we reconcile the fact that Muslims call their faith the religion of peace with the violence that we see inherent in a lot of the actions of
Muslims around the world. The people who flew planes
into the Twin Towers in 2001. It wasn't incidental
that they were Muslim. They did that in the name of Islam. That makes a big difference. The people who even today
are bombing in city squares, taking innocent lives. They're shouting the words
[speaking foreign language] before doing that and that
is a Muslim rallying call meaning Allah is great. How do we reconcile this? How do people have the conscience to
do that kind of thing? Plus, how can we understand
what Islam really teaches and what about all the peaceful Muslims if Islam really is a violent religion than how do we explain
all the peaceful Muslims? How do we explain all
these contradictions? Before we start talking I do
want to give a couple caveats. It's important that we
filter this discussion through this lens. First and foremost, what Muhammed taught does
not necessarily correlate with what Muslims practice. Just because we can conclude
Islam teaches certain things that does not mean Muslims practice that. There are different degrees of practice. There are different
understandings of practice. Some modern interpreters of the word Islam would say that Islam covers
the breadth of all practice of those who self identify as Muslim. That's not how identify Islam. I identify Islam as that religious system with which Muhammed left Arabia. So, when I say the words Islam I'm talking about what Muhammed left. Some people, for example one of my professors at Duke would say that Islam has the
ability to constantly shift according to context, and so it's different
today than it was then. I don't think that's a
good way to look at it then something has lost a lot of its basis and that's a very post modern approach. I think Islam is what
Muhammed left us with. That said, it doesn't
mean Muslims practice that or all Muslims practice that or that they all understand it the way Muhammed intended them to understand it. The sheer fact remains that the vast majority of
Muslims in the United States, and probably around the world, just want to live peacefully. They just want to live their lives. They want to have a good life. They want to have opportunity
for their children. They want to make a decent living and live comfortably. And many of them just
want to worship in peace. So, we ought to color
the rest of this session with that basic information. Now moving forward, we have to remember the
doctrine of abrogation. We had talked about this yesterday. We briefly mentioned it the day before. But this is the idea that in Islam certain Quranic revelations
replaced earlier ones. Sunni Muslims all agree with
this concept of abrogation. Again, they had three
systems of abrogation. We talked about it yesterday. And this is the verse again, "Whatever communication we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah
has power over all things?" Now let's take a look at the Islamic timeline again. Muhammed starts his revelations in 610 and then he has a flight to Madina at 622. In between that time, Muslims were not engaged
in any kind of battle, they were not fighting. As we said, somewhere between about 40 and 100 Muslims were in existence at that time. Muhammed had only
converted about that many and there were no battles. There were no wars. These did not start until 622 when the first raid happens
against Meccan caravans. Remember it was at the first year towards the end of the Hijra. After that we start seeing battles. So, we're going form a more peaceful to a more violent form of Islam. The battles become more and more offensive as we see and the first
battle, the Battle of Badr, even though it was the result of a raid, it took place close to Madina. It was the Meccans who came
out defending their caravans and met the Muslims there. When we see the conquest
of Mecca happening, in 630 AD, that is an entirely offensive campaign. Muhammed is going to Mecca
and he's overtaking it. The Meccans haven't left the city. They aren't marching against him. Nothing of the sort. It's entirely offensive. There are many offensive
campaigns occurring at this time. So, we see a general
trend from no violence to somewhat defensive to offensive. And by the end of Islam, by the end of its revelation here, Muhammed has given
Chapter Nine in the Quran. We'll talk about that shortly. So, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, has divided up stages of Islamic
dominance a few years ago. When he did this it caused quite a stir, but it's not something original to him. It's something we have seen even earlier. He said, so this is on his authority, that there are multiple
stages in the Islamic Empire. The first is when Muslims are outnumbered, they are to live peacefully. The Quran at this point
is a parallel here. In Surah 109, we see a
very peaceful message. "Say, oh ye unbelievers, "I do not serve that which you serve, "nor do you serve Him whom I serve. "Nor am I going to serve
that which you serve, "nor are you going to
serve Him whom I serve. "You shall have your religion
and I shall have my religion." In other words, let's live peacefully. Why can't we all just get along? That's Chapter 109 of the Quran. Rather peaceful, and it's one that Muslims
regularly point to to show how peaceful Islam is. If you want to have another verse that Muslims point to to show
the peaceful nature of Islam, it's Chapter Two, verse 256. This verse says [speaking
in foreign language], "There's no compulsion in religion." There's no compulsion in religion. Chapter Two, verse 256. You also have Chapter Five, verse 32, which is often used by Muslims. Although we can talk about that later. Those two I don't think
are actually as peaceful as Muslims will often say they are but those are the three
that are commonly used to defend the peaceful nature of Islam. However, there's a second stage. When Muslims are strong
enough to fight defensively, they're encouraged to, and the Quran gave explicit
permission for this. Chapter 22, verses 39
through 40 of the Quran say "Permission to fight is given "to those upon whom war is made, "because they are oppressed, "and most surely Allah is
well able to assist them. "Those who have been
expelled from their homes "without a just cause "except that they say
'Our Lord is Allah.'" So who is being talked about here? These are the people who have been forced to leave Mecca. They are now in Madina, or where have you. They are now allowed to fight defensively. They are being oppressed. And really there's
nothing wrong with that, if we think about it from
a purely civil perspective. If you're being sent out of your home, then sure, why not defend? Then comes stage three, when Muslims are in the majority. This chapter of the Quran, Chapter Nine of the Quran, is the one that you constantly hear cited when people are talking
about the violence in Islam. Chapter Nine, verse five
is the verse that says "Enslave the infidels
wherever you find them. "Lay siege to them. "And take them captive." That's Chapter Nine, verse five. That's talking about idolators. This verse, Chapter Nine, verse 29, is not talking about idolators, it's talking about Jews and Christians. And it says, "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 the truth." So, fight those who
don't believe in Allah, who don't believe in Islam, and who don't listen to
the commands of Muhammed. "From among the People of the Book," and who are the People of the Book? Jews and Christians. So fight those from
the Jews and Christians who don't believe in Allah, who don't follow Muhammed, "Until they pay the
[speaking foreign word] "with willing submission, "and feel themselves subdued." You will recall we talked about [speaking foreign word] briefly, people who had to pay in order to live under the protection of Muslims. The money that they paid was
they [speaking foreign word]. In here, it's made very clear
that they're supposed to pay that [speaking foreign word]
with willing submission. Some translations say with humiliation, and we have some
commentary to that effect. When the non-Muslims
were paying some Muslims, they were made to bow down and as they were handing the money over they'd be smacked on
the back of their necks to show them who was in charge. So this isn't really a
civil agreement here, this is quite often a sign of superiority. Paying the [speaking
foreign word] is a sign that you are inferior. Now, one of the most famous
commentators in Islam, Ibn Kathir, he has made specific
reference to this verse in his commentary. Ibn Kathir is a very well
known commentator, by the way, amongst Sunnis, and a commentary is called a
tafsir, T-A-F-S-I-R, tafsir. This is from his tafsir. The honorable [speaking foreign word] 9:29 is called the Verse of the Sword. "This honorable [speaking
foreign word] was revealed "with the order to fight
the People of the Book "after the pagans were defeated. "The people entered Allah's
religion in large numbers "and the Arabian Peninsula was secured "under the Muslims control. "Allah commanded his
messenger to fight the people "of the scriptures, Jews and Christians, "on the ninth year of Hijra, "and he prepared his
army to fight the Romans "and call the people to jihad, "announcing his intent and destination." What is happening here? According to Ibn Kathir, and we can see this in another
of his works, by the way. I mentioned it yesterday, [speaking in foreign language], the [speaking foreign
word] of the Prophet, the battles of the Prophet. Definitely read that book to
get a good context of this, but you can find this in lots of [speaking
foreign word] literature. What's happening here
is that Muhammed is now in control of Mecca, he's fought off the polytheists, they're gone, they've been
expelled or they've been killed, and now you have Muhammed
saying let us fight the Romans. The Romans were considered Christians. The Romans had not attacked the Muslims. They had not come close to attacking, they had not threatened, nothing. Here, Ibn Kathir is making it clear that Allah has now
extended the call of Islam to these Jews and Christians, and so they have to be fought
if they don't accept Islam. And if they don't accept
Islam and they are fought, they either fight til they are killed or until they're subjugated. It's a very interesting
battle that happens here. It's actually a battle
that doesn't happen. It's called the Battle
of Tabook, T-A-B-O-O-K. Muhammed rallies his troops at this time, his people. They don't want to fight
anymore, they're done fighting, and he's telling them
that they have to fight. It's their obligation to listen to him and to come into battle. Many of them try to get out of it and Muhammed receives
revelation from Allah condemning those people who
try to get out of this fight. He says to them that the
fighting is obligatory upon them, and the reason why they
don't want to fight is because they have to
march really far up North, to fight people who
have never fought them. But Muhammed rallies the
troops and does that. If you read 9:29 in context, again this is commentary on 9:29. If you read 9:29 in context, you will see exactly
why this is happening, and [speaking in foreign
language] makes it pretty clear, as well. The people were worried that
the pagans had been gone, there was no more commerce
coming into Mecca. Remember, polytheism supported
the commerce in Mecca, so the pagans were gone, they were worried about their money. Muhammed says don't worry about the money, God will take care of you. Essentially that's what 9:28 is about. And then 9:29 comes along. Fight the Jews and Christians
until they pay you money. It's not an accident. It's contextually related. We can find this from the [speaking foreign
word] literature again. By the way, the reason that is given in the next verse, 9:30, is "The Jews say Ezra is the son of God "and the Christians say
Jesus is the son of God. "Allah's curse is on them." So the reason that's
given in order for you to be able to fight them until they pay the [speaking foreign word] is that these people believe God has sons. Interesting, fight them
because of their beliefs. That's what Chapter Nine
of the Quran teaches. Ibn Kathir continues, he says "Therefore all people of the world "should be called to Islam. "If any one of them refuses to do so "or refuses to pay the
[speaking foreign word], "they should be fought
til they are killed." Now Ibn Kathir is often
said by Western Muslims to have been somewhat extremist. He was violent, he's some extremist, he's fundamentalist, whatever
epithet they want to use. Problem is, he does
the best job explaining what Muhammed said. His explanations are the most coherent. On the flip side, people like Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden, they really highly tout the
teachings of Ibn Kathir. They believe that Ibn
Kathir had it on the money, and so when those Muslims do what they do, they're doing it on the basis
of established commentary. They're not being that radical. They're following people who have been recognized
commentators for a long time. Now Ibn Kathir's social
context was very interesting. We don't really have time to go into it, but he was at a point where he thought that the reigning government
was being strong enough. They weren't being Muslim enough, and he was rallying people
against the government in which he lived. So there's a whole
context that goes behind what Ibn Kathir says. All the same, it seems he does
the best job of presenting what Islam originally taught. Yes sir. >> Man: What era did write in? >> I believe he was
13th century, I believe. I could be wrong about that. >> Man: From a Muslim's point of view, can you be a really faithful Muslim without following this path? In other words, can you really be a... Do you understand what I'm saying? Is this a natural-- >> Again we have to remember, so the question was, David where are you? [audience laughing] So the question was, [laughing] can you be, from a Muslim's point of view, can you be a faithful Muslim
by not following this path? We have to remember that
Islam is not monolithic. You've got Muslims who
see all kinds of things, so there's a lot of Muslims who say not only can you be faithful
by not following this path, but in order to be faithful
you must not follow that path. Then you have Muslims on
the entirely other side of the spectrum, who say this is the only true Islam, and you have to follow this
path otherwise you're weak in your application of Islam. And that's the Taliban. That's Al Qaida. Portions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some Wahabbi Muslims. I'll take a quick break here and address that a little bit further. As we have seen, there were four schools of Sunni thought. We remember that these came
through lines of authority, that early on certain
Imams came and established these schools of thought. Then the people would
kind of choose a school and it would follow down
that line of authority. Those schools have begun to dissipate. People are kind of shopping
around if they want to, or they're not listening
to any of the schools, they're doing their own thing. Why is that, and why now? I have a theory. It's speculative, but I
think it fits the data. People have now access
to what Muhammed said, what he taught, they have access to the commentary. They can easily look things up themselves. They don't have to have gone to a madrasa in order to have learned all this stuff. They don't have to spend years and years and years in school. Now they can go and just look it up and they can see what Muhammed said. They can look up the hadith. They can see for themselves, and because they are doing that, they're no longer following
schools of thought, they're going straight to the sources. Well, what happens when they do that? They revert back to an
early form of Islam, not these built up edifices of Islam, early forms of Islam. Well, what are the early
forms of Islam called? Well there's a form of
Islam called Salafi Islam, S-A-L-A-F-I, Salafi. The Salafi form of Islam, basically it takes a hadith, in the hadith Muhammed says that the Salaf will be
closest to me in truth, or the Salaf will be closest to Islam. Who are the Salaf? The Salaf are the first
three generations of Muslims. So when people try to emulate early Islam, they end up looking like Salafis. Well who are the Salafis? These are the guys who
started Wahabbi Islam. These are the guys who are
all the fundamentalists. So it turns out that when
people try to follow Muhammed, they end up looking more fundamentalist. They end up looking more violent. When you follow these edifices of Islam, when you follow this idea that Islam can be contextually modified to fit a context, to fit a society, then you have more
peaceful versions of Islam. >> Man: So you would
say there is a direct, in Islam, over time to
this more violent form? >> Away from the more violence. >> Man: Away from it. >> Away from the more violence. So it started off as you see. Ibn Kathir is going back
to the earliest sources. He's talking about what Muhammed said. He's doing a good job of reigning in all of the things Muhammed has said. The earliest form of Islam seems to be-- when I say earliest form of Islam I mean after Muhammed died. So I mean, earlier on, during Muhammed's life
it was more peaceful, but after Muhammed died, that form of Islam is what I'm considering the complete form of Islam. That is what I would call
the earliest form of Islam for thereon. And people are drifting back to that. >> Man: Is it a large-scale drift? I mean, I don't see that. >> It's happening sporadically
all over the place. It's very interesting. I mean, it's happening in Saudi Arabia. It's happening in Egypt. It's happening in England. It's happening in India and Pakistan. Parts of Indonesia. These places which were
originally strongholds of various schools, you're seeing pockets of
Salafi Islams begin to grow, and it's growing fast. And I think it's because of
access to the primary sources. Yes sir. >> Man: So, what you're saying is, is that to go back to
the original sources, the first three generations, they immediately get more fundamentalist, or appear to get more
fundamentalist not less, but as they continue on that path, you're saying that they also
realize it can be adjusted so then they become more peaceful. >> No, I'm saying people are kind of picking one or the other. >> Man: Got it. >> They're either sticking with
more fundamentalist approach because they're trying to get
back to Muhammed's sources, or they're just sticking
with what they've been taught and they end up looking
a lot more peaceful. We're gonna see some of
these sources right now. So here's Sahih Bukhari, you remember the most trustworthy
source for Sunni Muslims. "Muhammed says, I have been
ordered to fight the people, "until they say [speaking
in foreign language], "and whoever says [speaking
in foreign language], "Allah will save his
property and life from me." Remember [speaking in foreign
language] is the shahada, it's the rallying call for Muslims. The entire statement is
[speaking in foreign language], so that was the first pillar of Islam. That was what makes you a
Muslim when you recite that. Muhammed is saying I have
been ordered to fight people until they proclaim they are Muslim, and only then will Allah save their life and their property from me. This is found in Sahih Bukhari. In order to deny this, Muslims will try to deny this hadith, but you can't really because it's Bukhari. If you're gonna deny this
you have to ask the question, what are your standards
for accepting anything. Because guess what, something very similar
is found in Sahih Muslim. Number 30. "I have been commanded to fight
against the people so long "as they do not declare
[speaking in foreign language]." So as you can see, it's permeating the most
trustworthy of Muslim sources. Is it hard to understand why those Muslims who are trying to get back
to what Muhammed taught could become violent? No, it's not hard to see that at all. The Quran also has similar sentiments. >> Man: Can you go back one
slide for just one second? Yes, it's Sahih Bukhari
6924 and Sahih Muslim 30, and again you're gonna be
getting copies of the slides in your email, as long as you registered with the class. Chapter Three, verse 28 of the Quran, "Let not the believers take
disbelievers for their friends "in preference to believers. "Whoso does that has no
connection with Allah "unless it be," and this is the important part, "unless it be that you but
guard yourselves against them. "Taking, as it were, security. "Allah bids you beware of Himself. "Unto Allah is the journeying." Whoa, so this is saying
don't become friends with non-Muslims, unless you want to kind of
protect yourself from them. There's a dichotomy
that gets built up here. That you're allowed to
have these friendships for ulterior motives, which is for your own safekeeping, it's not supposed to be a real friendship. This is what the Quran teaches. Again, do Muslims in the
West actually do this? Not most of them. They will have friends with non-believers. They are more than
willing to have friends. I had a friend, once I became a believer, a Christian, he told me he couldn't
be my friend anymore because I was a non-believer
and he pointed to this verse. So he said I'll keep talking with you, but don't think I'm your friend. He was pretty hardcore. [laughs] He had been my friend
since I was a little kid. So, some Muslims do take this quite seriously, but he was one of those
Muslims who grew his beard, shaved his mustache, wore his pants a bit high. He was trying to follow Muhammed to a T, and they will end up
doing things like this. Other Muslims who are just
trying to live their lives, just trying to get along, they won't live like this. But this is in the Quran. Ibn Kathir says about this verse, "In this case, such believers
are allowed to show friendship "to disbelievers outwardly,
but never inwardly." In other words, put on
a face of friendship, but in your heart, don't. For instance, Al Bukhari
recorded that Abu Al Darda said, "We smile in the face of some people, "although our hearts curse them." Al Bukhari said that Al Hassan said, "The [speaking foreign word]
or the [speaking foreign word] "is allowed until the
Day of Resurrection." What is [speaking foreign word]? What is [speaking foreign word]? This is an Islamic concept of deception. You're allowed to deceive,
according to this principle, in various circumstances. Do all Muslims believe in it? No. I'm throwing qualifiers in here because sometimes people
misinterpret what I'm saying. Just because it's there doesn't
mean all Muslims believe it. But it is there, it's in the commentary and it
comes from a Quranic source, Chapter Three. Here's more of what the Quran says. "Be not weary and faint-hearted, "crying for peace when
you should be uppermost." In other words, Muslims, why
are you trying to be peaceful? You're supposed to conquer. Don't be weary and faint-hearted, asking for peace when
you should be uppermost. Ibn Kathir says about that verse, "If the disbelievers are
considered more powerful "and numerous than Muslims, "then the Imam may decide to hold a treaty "if he judges that entails
a benefit for the Muslims." In other words, a treaty can only be considered if the Muslims might lose a battle. According to Ibn Kathir. Now do Muslims follow Ibn Kathir? No, he's just one commentator, but his commentary seems to
be an appropriate commentary on what the Quran is saying. Sahih Bukhari 2785, "A man came to Allah's Messenger and said, "'Guide me to such a
deed as equals jihad.' "Muhammed replied, 'I do
not find such a deed.'" This is from the Book of
Jihad in Sahih Bukhari. If you're interested in these issues, go read that book. This is, it was required
reading for the class, so any of you in the class
you ought to have read it. But this is Sahih Bukhari on jihad. So most Muslims, again most Sunni Muslims consider Bukhari to be good as gold. So if you find it in Bukhari on jihad, it's a strong source as far
as Muslims are concerned. Yes sir. >> Man: When Islam comes
in and takes over an area, back then, they're basically instituting
a government, commerce, and religion. Is there any way to look at it, from your perspective, and to say, look, primary motivator was... or was it truly an
integrated all in thing? >> I'm not sure I caught your question. >> Man: When you look at
government, commerce, and religion and what they bring in, which one motivated them the most? >> Okay, so out of government,
commerce, and religion, which one motivated Muslims the most? >> Man: Yeah, for their conquests. >> For their conquests. I'm not sure we can distinguish. This wasn't a division. The religion was seen as a state, and commerce was seen as
a necessary by-product. I'm not sure we can distinguish that. If I were to have to, I would say that it was probably, in the initial phases
from what the sources say, it looks like it was religion. It was mandatory upon Muslims
to expand their territory because Allah had commanded them to do so. So it wasn't a matter of,
hey we want that land. It was a matter, this
was commanded by Allah. But again, I would rather not
try to draw that distinction, I don't think it's an
appropriate one for the context. So if you go to the section
on jihad in Sahih Bukhari, you'll read a lot of these. Here's another one. "The Prophet said a single
endeavor of fighting "in Allah's cause in the
afternoon or in the forenoon, "is better than all the
world and whatever is in it." So a single endeavor, or a single engagement in jihad. Here's another one, 2795. "The Prophet said nobody who
dies and finds good from Allah "in the Hereafter would wish
to come back to this world." So after you go to heaven, you'll never want to come back, even if you were given the whole world and whatever is in it, "Except the martyr, "who on seeing the
superiority of martyrdom, "would like to come back to this world "and get killed again." So dying in jihad is so excellent, that it's the only reason you would want to come back to this world from heaven, so you could die in jihad again. All right, if that wasn't clear enough, Muhammed says it more clearly here. "By Him in whose hand my soul is, "I would love to be
martyred in Allah's cause, "and then come back to
life and then get martyred, "and then come back to
life and then get martyred, "and then come back to life
and then get martyred." The idea is martyrdom
is even better, almost, than what you'll be feeling in heaven. Now I want to take a moment to step aside. The word here that's being used is jihad, and the word jihad is
used throughout the Quran. What does jihad mean? Jihad means struggle, it means a strife. So when you are reading the Quran, sometimes the word jihad is used in part, entirely apart from a violent context. It's, you know, you ought to struggle in order to do what Allah asks you to do. Forms of jihad that have been elaborated include giving money to the wayfarer or going out of your way
to help rebuild a mosque. To take care of a mosque,
to be a caretaker. These are considered forms of jihad. You're struggling, you're
sacrificing of yourself for the sake of Allah. But Muhammed makes it
abundantly clear in the hadith, and we do have reference in
the Quran to violent jihad. So the term jihad, you'll often hear in
Western Islamic responses, it'll say no, no, no, jihad isn't meant to be violent. It's just means a struggle
for the cause of Allah. That's true, but Muhammed's emphasized form
of jihad was a violent one, especially if we take
the hadith into account. So what you've just seen is
one category of violence, which is violence to unbelievers. Fighting in jihad, struggling in order to
win people to Islam, but there's also violence
towards other groups of people. In Sahih Bukhari you have a
list of 10 hadith in a row that talk about violence to apostates. Sahih Bukhari 6921 says that female apostates should be killed. Sahih Bukhari 6922 says anyone who leaves Islam must be killed. 6923 Muhammed himself orders
apostates to be killed. 6930 is another example where Muhammed... Muslims who kill apostates have a reward on the Day of Resurrection. So, I'm not sure if I mentioned it or not, on the first day when I
was sharing my testimony, but right before I became a believer, Mike Licona called me up and he said "Nabeel do you understand
what you're doing?" and I said, "Yeah, I think I do." And he says, "Didn't you
hear about the family "in New Jersey recently who
were all stabbed to death "because they accepted
Christ and left Islam? "Do you realize what
you might be giving up?" So, that actually happens. It happens even in the West. People who leave Islam
are often killed for it. Does it doesn't happen often in the West? No, not often. But does it happen? Yeah. And does it happen in
other parts of the world? You better believe it. It happens a lot. Why? Because it's found in hadith. The attempts to divorce
violence from Islam fails, because it is so intricately woven at the innermost level, that to pull violence
out would be to pull out the foundations of Islam. Yeah. >> Man: I'm sorry, this
is my first day here. >> Yeah. >> Man: You mention the hadith. Can you explain to me what they are? >> Yeah, the hadith. So his question was, what are the hadith? That was the same repeat
question from yesterday. I remember you asking. The hadith are the traditional
sayings of Muhammed. So a few hundred years after Muhammed, you have people compiling
his sayings in writing. Before that they were handed down orally and they had proliferated, they had been many that were fabricated. A few hundred years later, people sat down and tried to
sift out the most authentic of the hadith. That's what Muslims
refer to today as true, trustworthy sayings of Muhammed. >> Man: That's not
necessarily in the Quran? >> These are not in the Quran. >> Man: So Bukhari is
a commentary on hadith? >> Bukhari is a collection of hadith. It is the most trustworthy
collection of hadith. >> Man: So hadith means
the sayings of Muhammed. >> Yep. Ma'am. >> Woman: The definition
of martyrdom in Islam seems to be different
than what we think is Christian martyrdom. Can you address that? >> The definition of martyrdom
in Islam is basically if you are engaged in
something for Allah's cause and you die, that's martyrdom. So if you are fighting because
Allah commanded you to, and then you die, you were martyred. If you were doing anything
because Allah commanded you to and in the process of that you die, you were martyred. In the Christian faith its a little less focused on
what you're doing at the time and more so on the reason
why you were killed. It's a minor distinction. But very perceptive of you, there is a slight difference there. Okay. So violence towards apostates. You will see every school
of Islamic thought. Every major school. All four major schools of Sunni thought, all three major schools of Shia thought, say that apostates ought to be killed, in some circumstance or another. Now a lot of Muslims will say, so I asked my friend, [laughing] it's funny, I asked my friend who was like, "I can't be your friend anymore." I was like, "Oh, okay, so
we're gonna be that honest. "Do you think I ought to be killed, "for leaving Islam?" And he said, "Let me get
back to you on that." [audience laughing] He comes back and he says,
"No, I don't think you should." Then I said, "Why is that?" and he says, "Because you
are not in an Islamic state. "If you were in an Islamic state, "what you'd be doing is
committing high treason. "So you ought to be killed for it "just like people are killed
for treason during wartime "in Western nations. "But since you are not
in an Islamic state, "you are just changing your beliefs, "you are not bound to accept this belief, "so you can't be killed for it." Just so you know, I asked another friend
that question at ISNA 2009, and he said, "Yeah, if it
were up to me I'd kill you." So, even here in the West, you've got people who would say these kinds of things. [laughs] It's funny. Well, it's cool because you get to... You get to appeal to that. You get to say, can you listen to what you're saying? Isn't there something inside
you that rejects this? Isn't there something inside
that says you ought to love, and that you ought to have compassion? In fact, that's what the
Christian faith teaches and you can share the Gospel
through that kind of a thing. Whether or not they will accept it, and they almost certainly won't, at the time, accept it. It will leave an impact. I have another friend who, is the first person I debated, so if you go, oh, I should have brought my debates. The first debate I ever had was on the deity of Jesus Christ. It was in 2006, August 5th. I debated a man by the
name of Farhan Qureshi, no relation to me. He was at the time an
imam in Northern Virginia. He was also a friend from way back when. Over time, my friend David and I
debated him multiple times, we talked with him. He's a good guy. He's just got this heart of compassion. He does work in psychology. He tries to help people therapeutically. He's just got a big heart for people. Over time, he looked at this, the Law of Apostasy, and he said that he could not believe that God would allow people to be killed for changing their faith, and now he has renounced
his faith in Islam. So you can see him debate Muslims now. He's not a Christian, he's kind of a deist right now, he doesn't know what he believes. But this was enough for him to leave, this combined with other things. But it was the violence in
Islam was just too much for him. You can watch the debates. When we start out he is hard-core imam. When we start out you can
see that in our debates. Farhan Qureshi, it's online. Yes, sir. >> Man: What was the name again? >> Farhan, is name is Farhan. F-A-R-H-A-N. And his last name's spelt the
same way mine is, Qureshi. Be in prayer for him. Be in prayer for him. >> Man: Are there any major sects of Islam that completely reject this
type of teaching as a whole? >> Major sect? Well, the sect of Islam that I came from is called Ahmediyya, and it was reformed in the 19th century. It was highly reformed, and the reformer said that jihad of the sword, that era has ended and now it
ought to be jihad of the pen. So he said no more fighting, period. At all. So the sect of Islam that
I came from is pacifist. It does allow fighting
to defend your nation, no matter what the nation is, so that's why my could
father join the US Navy and not have a problem when
we went to war with Iraq. He didn't want to go fight in Iraq, but he still stayed in
the Navy at the time. So you do have pacifist sects, but other Muslims take a
look at that sect and say that reformer was whacko, we don't consider you Muslim. So not just for the pacifism, for his claims too. He was kind of a Joseph Smith character. But you do have certain
sects that are pacifist. And then you have this kind
of movement in the West, which tries to paint Islam
as the religion of peace through and through, and they will deny any of this. They will say that the abrogation
happened the other way, that the peaceful stuff
abrogated the violent stuff. Chronologically, that
just simply does not work. I didn't get to tell you this, but Surah Nine, the Surah that a lot of this
information is coming from, was the last major surah to be revealed. Apart from this there were
little tiny revelations, but Surah Nine was the last
major revelation in Islam. >> Man: Can you spell that
last part, before nine? >> Surah? >> Man: Yeah, no no, is it nine? >> Surah Nine, yeah. Now that it's numbered,
it's number nine, yeah. It's called Surah al Tawbah. So, think about this for a moment. This is essentially the
marching orders for Muslims. This is what they were left with, as far as the Quran is concerned. All these verses on violence. By the way, Chapter Nine, verse 111 is another one that portrays the violence. It says that Allah has bought
Muslims and their property for this that they might
slay in Allah's way and be slain. So Allah made you Muslim so
that you can kill and be killed. Essentially. That's a rough translation. That's Chapter Nine, verse 111. So we've looked at violence
towards unbelievers, we've looked at violence
towards apostates, we also saw violence towards critics. Remember yesterday we
talked about Abu Afak who was lamenting the death of two men at the hands of Muhammed. He basically criticized
Islam just by saying you should have followed Tubba, and he was killed. And then Asma Bin Marwan
criticized Islam as well, by saying how are you going
around killing people, and then she got killed. So we have seen violence
towards critics already. Here's another one. "A blind man had a slave mother "who used to abuse the
Prophet and disparage him." What's a slave mother? That means it was one of his wives, or one of his handmaidens
whom he impregnated and she became the mother of his children. "So a blind man had a slave mother "who used to abuse the
Prophet and disparage him. "He forbade her, but she did not stop. "He rebuked her, but she
did not give up her habit. "One night she began to slander
the Prophet and abuse him, "so he took a dagger, "placed it on her belly, "pressed it and killed her. "A child who came between her legs," so it was probably one of her kids who saw what was happening, "a child who came between her legs "was smeared with the
blood that was there. "When the morning came the
Prophet was informed about it, "thereupon the Prophet said, "'Be witness, no retaliation
is payable for her blood.'" This is found in Sunan Abu Dawud. Remember, the third most
trustworthy source for hadith for Sunni Muslims. The next one was very similar. "A Jewess used to abuse the
Prophet and disparage him. "A man strangled her," so this is a different case, "a man strangled her til she died. "The apostle of Allah
declared that no recompense "was payable for her blood." So it looks like, if you criticize Muhammed, you can be killed without
negative consequence. We also see violence
towards women in Islam. It's not as bad, they're not being killed for minutiae, but it's still pretty bad. This is the verse that is used to talk about the controversial
treatment of women in Islam. Chapter Four, verse 34. By the way Chapter Four is
called the Chapter on Women, Surah al Nisaa. "Men are the maintainers of women, "because Allah has made
some of them to excel others "and because they spend
out of their property." In other words, men are superior to women and they take care of
them with their money. So they're made to be
the maintainers of women. "The good women are therefore obedient, "guarding the unseen as
Allah has guarded it." In other words, women guard their chastity as Allah has kind of
guarded the unseen realm, so do women. The good women. "And as to those on whose
part you fear desertion," the word here, we'll get to that in a moment. "And those on whom you fear desertion, "admonish them and leave them
alone in their sleeping places "and beat them. "And if they obey you, do
not seek a way against them, "surely Allah is high and great." so this is in the Quran. If you fear [speaking foreign word], if you fear disobedience, if you fear desertion from these women, then you are commanded to do these things. Admonish them, leave them alone in their sleeping places, or leave them alone, banish them to their beds
is how Yusuf Ali puts it, and beat them. There are a lot of things
to talk about here. When I took a course on Sharia at Duke we spent a whole day on this one verse. The issue here for
desertion, disobedience. What is it? What does that encapsulate? The same word is used later of husband's being
disobedient to their wives. So what exactly does
that mean, disobedience? It's hard to say. But in this verse, the context looks like if you think that they're not being chaste. The context makes it look like if you think they're not being chaste. Now it doesn't require
that you have evidence. It just says if you fear that they are not being chaste, then you can beat them. If you delve into Muslim commentary, Muslim understanding of what's allowed as far as beating your wives, you will find all kinds
of things on YouTube. There are video guides on how
to beat your wife on YouTube. And they're attempting to be nice. They're saying don't hit her face, don't use a stick wider than this. Some people will take it even further, they'll say it should just
be a symbolic tapping, which is not borne out
by the literature at all. We can see that here. In Sahih Muslim number 2127, this is the hadith that... I brought this up with a
Muslim scholar at ISNA. He said, in the middle of a presentation, I was a believer at this time, I was just at ISNA to see
what they were teaching, and he said Muhammed never beat his wives. Even if the Quran says it's
allowed Muhammed never did it and we're supposed to
follow Muhammed's example. And so he kind of got
around the injunction that you can beat your wife by saying Muhammed didn't
do it and he's our example. So even though you're
allowed to, you shouldn't. I went up to him afterwards and I said, "Sahih Muslim 2127 shows Muhammed "hitting Aisha in the
chest, causing her pain. "Is that not Muhammed hitting his wife?" and his response was, "I'm not familiar with this hadith." I don't think he was lying. I just think that he hadn't seen it. His teachers hadn't shown it to him. This hadith is very interesting. Aisha is worried about
what Muhammed is doing in the middle of the night. She, I think what she thinks, although it's not explicitly said, I think what she thinks
is he is leaving her to go spend time with
another one of his wives. So, she thinks he's cheating on her with another one of his wives. So he goes out and she follows him. He thinks she's asleep. He goes out of the room. She follows him. Muhammed starts walking
faster and faster-- no, Muhammed goes to a certain place, Aisha sees him and realizes
he's not cheating on her, he's just standing out there. And then she sees him turn
around and start walking back, and she doesn't want him to see her, so she starts walking back. Muhammed starts going faster
and she starts going faster. Now Muhammed's running and she's running, so basically Muhammed's chasing her. She gets back in the room, pretends to be in bed and asleep. Muhammed comes in and he says, "Oh Aisha, why are you
breathing so heavy?" and she gives him an excuse and
he punches her in the chest. I have brought this up with
Muslims who did know about it, and he said, they say "Nabeel
this is a holy punch." [audience laughing] I'm like, okay. Can you explain that to me? They say, basically
what Muhammed is doing, is he's casting out demons from Aisha. Okay. [audience laughing] Well done. Well played. But that is the best
explanation that I've seen, that this was a holy punch, but it's still, most Muslims admit that it happened, and so it's not feasible to say Muhammed never hit his wives. We have seen that in the hadith. Yeah. >> Man: Was Aisha the
six-year-old girl that he married, or was that another one? >> Yeah, that was the six-year-old. So she didn't come into his
house until she was nine, so this is probably when she's 10, 11, 12. We don't know exactly when this is, but she's a young girl at this time. >> Man: Okay, [mumbled speech]. >> Yeah, yeah. Well what's worse is Bukhari 6845, Abu Bakr struck Aisha violently. So Abu Bakr is Aisha's father, and here it says he struck her violently. There are multiple hadith to that effect. Aisha and one of the other wives, I think it might have been Hafsa, they were-- it was Hafsa. They wanted more money from Muhammed. They were complaining that Muhammed wasn't
giving them enough money, and their fathers came
in and punched them. I think it was in the face. Abu Bakr was Aisha's father and I believe Omar is Hafsa's father. So wives of Muhammed being punched, right there in front of Muhammed, and Muhammed doesn't stop them. Now there is a hadith, by the way, which says the best among you is the one who treats his wife well. That hadith is there
and we should use that to balance these out. But at the same time, these are there. So we should get a good view. Abu Dawud 2142, "A man will not be asked as
to why he beat his wife." In other words, if you beat your wife, no one can question you. It's kind of up to you. And we see this played out in Ibn Majah. Ibn Majah is considered another one of the [speaking in foreign language], the top six books that
Sunni Muslims refer to. "One night Omar arranged a feast. "When it was midnight he got up and went towards his wife to beat her." A little non-sequitur there. I ate a ton of food,
I'm going to beat you. Okay. [audience laughing] "I separated them both. "When he went to bed he said to me, "preserve for me a thing that I have heard "from Allah's Messenger." In other words, listen to me, this is what Muhammed said. "A man will not be taken to
task for beating his wife." In other words, he said Muhammed told me you can't stop me from beating my wife. Who do you think you are? Because of these kinds of sentiments, because of these kinds of actions, Aisha is recorded as having said, "I have not seen any women suffering "as much as the believing women." In other words, Aisha says I haven't seen women suffer as much as Muslim women. And then she's pointing
to a woman and she says, "Look, her skin is
greener than her clothes." In other words she had
been bruised so bad, that her skin is greener
than her clothes are. And she's talking about another woman. This was a woman who, by the way, had come to Muhammed and
had asked for respite. She had said my husband beats me, and Muhammed's initial response was, you're not allowed to beat your wives, and then Allah gives
this revelation, 4:34, you're allowed to beat your wives. And then he says to her, I'm sorry, I wanted to
weigh in favor of you, but Allah has overruled me. I will hold my snide remarks. So violence towards women, quite prevalent in the early sources. We found it in Bukhari, we found it in Muslim, we found it in Dawud, and of course we see
it in the Quran, 4:34. We also see violence towards sinners. This is kind of the way you handle things. Chapter Five, verse 38, "As for the man who steals
and the woman who steals, "cut off their hands as a punishment "for what they have earned. "An exemplary punishment from Allah, "and Allah is mighty and wise." You can go on websites today, not YouTube, YouTube doesn't show violent images, but you can go on various
other websites today and watch women and men
getting their hands cut off because they stole things. You can compare that to
Ephesians where Paul says, "Those of you who have been stealing, "steal no more but rather work, "so that what you produce
can be given to others." Stark comparison between these two faiths. The penalty for homosexuality. Sunan Abu Dawud, 4447, "Ibn Abbas reported the
apostle of Allah as saying "if you find anyone doing
as Lot's people did, "kill the one who does it, "and the one to whom it is done." 4448 says, "Ibn Abbas said if a
man who is not married "is seized committing sodomy, "he will be stoned to death." And this isn't too
different from what we see in the Old Testament. The difference here though,
from a Christian perspective, is that this is for all time. Whereas what was done as
law for the Israelites was for those people to establish
the superiority of Yahweh in the eyes of the world around them, and then that was to
be fulfilled in Christ, when Grace would reign. So that's important thing
to remember as well. A lot of these things are somewhat similar to what you find in the Old Testament, but there is that sharp distinction between the Old Testament and the Quran, as far as Christians are concerned, because the Old Testament
isn't what we're left with. We're left with the Gospels, we're left with Christ's grace. Here's a penalty for
fornication, Quran 24. "As for the fornicatress
and the fornicator, "flog each of them, "giving a hundred stripes "and let no pity for them detain you "in the matter of obedience to Allah. If you believe in Allah and the Last Day, "then let a party of believers
witness this chastisement." Not only are you commanded to beat them, but if you are found pitying them, overlook your pity and
continue beating them. You can see these videos again, online, of people being beaten. Flogged horrifically and
they're crying out for mercy, and you have to ask
yourself why is this person who is beating them able
to continue doing so? Don't they have any shred
of compassion in them? It's because, ayat like
this make sure that that compassion is not given room. The penalty for adultery, Chapter ah, Sahih Bukhari 6829, "Omar said lo I confirm that the penalty "of [speaking foreign word], or stoning, "be inflicted on him who commits
illegal sexual intercourse "if he is already married "and the crime is proved by witnesses, "or pregnancy, "or confessions." Stoning to death. There are interesting
implications for this. If a married woman in a Muslim
nation says she was raped, the Quran demands that there
be four witnesses to a rape. So four witnesses have to see it in order for it to be a
legitimate accusation. If she is unable to
provide four witnesses, after having said she was raped, they will say you cannot prove the rape, but you have confessed adultery, and so you will be executed. And that happens even today. >> Man: Do those witnesses
have to be [mumbled speaking]? >> The witnesses should be men, but I think they'll take
them if they're women, too. The ratio of women
witnesses to male witnesses is two to one, but I haven't seen that strictly applied in the case of rape. The problem is if a woman is raped, then she often does not report it. And then if she gets
pregnant because of it, then they will, either she has to play it
off as her husband's child, or she'll be killed
after the child is born. This is really difficult for women. That's why, as believers,
we ought to be fighting for the rights of the
oppressed around the world, regardless of their faith, because there is not many
people fighting for them. Even if they are Muslim women, we ought to be taking a stand and fighting for their
rights in these nations, and making sure that these
kinds of atrocities stop. That would be the love of
Christ played out in a real way. So here's our summary so far. It seems that the
solution for many problems in Islam is violence. The solution for an unbeliever, violence. The solution for apostasy, violence. The solution for criticism, violence. The solution for
displeasing women, violence. The solution for sinners is violence. Violence basically permeates
the reaction of people who are deviated from the path. This is what... Where I would say true Islam, the Islam that Muhammed
left with his people, as best as we can tell from the Quran and from the sources. So, is Islam a religion of peace? When you get a bumper
sticker question like that, [audience laughing] you have to ask for clarification. What do you mean by that? If the person responds, can Islam be practiced peacefully? Well, of course, Islam can
be practiced peacefully by ignoring the violent components. Sure you can. But if you're asking, does the religion that
Muhammed left the world endorse violence? The answer is definitely
yes on many levels. Therefore Islam is not
a religion of peace, if that's what you define as Islam, and that is what I define as Islam. Now what is our response
supposed to be to all this? I find, by the way my ministry,
Creed 2:6 Ministries, is not focused on Islam. It's focused on the Gospel. It's focused on explaining the death, deity, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, what that means for us as believers. What it means for Muslims as well, as we share the faith with them. What does all this
information mean for us, then? How are we supposed to respond? As far as we are concerned,
as believers in Christ, we have no fear. We have no reason to fear suffering, to fear death, to fear oppression. In fact, if we do not suffer, it's quite possible that
we're not expressing our faith the way it ought to be expressed. How do we know this? Second Timothy 3:12, "Everyone who lives a
guided life in Christ Jesus "will suffer, or will be persecuted." It's all throughout the Gospel. First Peter Five says that "You should count it as an honor "if you're suffering for Christ." Matthew Five tells us, that we're supposed to be
able to hand over things to our enemy. People who are persecuting us, we're supposed to be
able to pray for them. We're supposed to give
them something to drink. We're supposed to love them. What good is it if we just
love our brothers and sisters? Even pagans do that. We're supposed to love our enemies. This is the Christian message. Why, how does that work? Because Christ has already
overcome this world. We're not fighting for this world, we're fighting for the next world. So in this life, if Muslims take over, let's just say. I don't believe in these
vast conspiracy theories, but let's just say it were
true and they took over and we were all oppressed. So what?! The Christian faith grew
the most under oppression, and it continues to do that. The truest Christians are the ones who have to face persecution every day, and who have to fight for their faith. So when we go out into this world, and when we look at potential violence, we're not supposed to try
to preserve our own safety, our own comfort, our own standards. That's not supposed to be our reaction. If that is, I challenge you to take
your heart before the Lord. Our reaction is supposed to be let us help these people
out of this mindset. Let us help them away from this violence. Let us help the women
who are caught in this. Let us help all the people
who are oppressed by this, even if that involves our
suffering to the point of death. That is supposed to be our response. So fear is not an appropriate
Christian response to this, and that's my point. A lot of people say, "Nabeel, what you're
doing is fear-mongering." Not at all. We are supposed to know what Islam is, we are supposed to know
what we're up against. We're supposed to be informed, but fear is outside the realm
of the Christian response. Responsibility to share the Gospel. That is what's going to change this. It's the only thing that's
going to change this, is spreading the Gospel
through the Islamic world. That's supposed to be our response. [vibrant music] >> Narrator: Biola
University offers a variety of Biblically centered degree programs, ranging from business to ministry, to the arts and sciences. Visit Biola.edu to find out how Biola can make a difference in your life.
