Counter Rebuttal to Ali Sina's Response to My Rebuttal to His Article 'Looting'

By 

Bassam Zawadi

 

You can access Ali Sina's response to my rebuttal to his original article.

 

Ali Sina:

Mr. Zawadi wrote:

When armies go at war, one side wins and the other loses obviously. The side that loses not only lose the battle but also lose their possessions. Their houses, armor, food, wealth etc. Now I am going to be showing what the Muslims did with the spoils of war. They did not loot it like how Ali Sina makes it to look like. The Muslims took it legally (because it was during time of war) and they used it legally. I am going to be presenting Islam's perspective and rules regarding this issue.

If Mr. Zawadi had not mentioned my name in his site, I would have thought that he must have been one of the jihadis who fought in the army of Umar and not someone living in the 21st century. In this day and age when two armies go to war the winner is not allowed to loot or take possession of the houses of the conquered.

In 1949 an International Convention was held in Geneva and protection was granted to the victims of war. This convention prohibits violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture and taking of hostages of the defeated party. It enjoined that the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. Those who violate these provisions are treated as war criminals and eventually are brought to justice. 

In accordance to this convention Muhammad was a war criminal. He took as hostage his prisoners of war and demanded ransom or threatened to kill them. He mutilated, tortured and murdered his prisoners of war. As a matter of fact "war" is a misnomer.

My Response:

Islam promotes nothing but kindness to prisoners of war. Read this article for the evidence. 

The link I just posted proves from the Quran and Hadith that prisoners of war should be treated well. If there is any incident of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which goes against the Quran, then it should be disregarded. Even Ali Sina agrees with me. He says later on in this article 

 

'Any Muslim knows, if a hadith is contrary to the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority and that haidth is false. ' (http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/looting51122p2.htm

 

Ali Sina:

Muhammad's "wars" were raids (qazwah). 

My Response:

Battle of Uhud was not a raid. Battle of the Trench was not a raid. Battle of Badr was not a raid. 

Ali Sina:

His victims were not forewarned. Often there was no hostility between them and Muslims and they were unsuspecting and not prepared for the attack. They were raided with no prior notice and as such they were killed as unarmed civilians and not as combatants in battlefields.

My Response:

The only incident that I can recall unless Ali Sina refreshes my memory where Muhammad attacked his enemies by surprise were the Banu Mustaliq. However, the only reason why the Prophet attacked them first was because the Banu Mustaliq were planning to do so. 

 

Taken from http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/04_abu_bakr.htm

The Banu Mustaliq, a branch of Banu Khuza'a occupied the territory of Qadid on the Red Sea shore between Jeddah and Rabigh. In 527 C.E. news was brought to Madina that the Banu Mustaliq in alliance with some other tribes were gathering to make a raid on Madina. The policy of the Holy Prophet was that the Muslims should not lose the initiative in such cases, and should take such tribes by surprise. Another aspect of the policy was that action against individual tribes should be taken before they could effect an alliance.

 

News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha'ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa'd bin 'Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet's in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]

This was also narrated by Aasim bin Amr bin Qutada and collected by Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani in Fathul Bari (496/7).

So obviously the Prophet is not going to wait around and let them attack first. Obviously the Prophet is going to attack them by surprise. It was a military strategy. What kind of commander would let the enemy know in advance that he is going to attack them? That would only prepare them for the fight and result in heavier casualties on the other side. 

Ali Sina:

Muslims might say the Geneva Convention was singed in the last century. How Muhammad can be found guilty of violating laws that did not exist at his time? The answer is that although these laws are newly written, they are based on ancient ethics. Dealing with the prisoners of war justly, has nothing to do with laws. This is a matter of conscience and fairness. Can we say Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan or even Hitler were innocent because when they were doing their massacres and atrocities, the Geneva Convention did not exist? The law is new, but the morality of that is as old as mankind. 

The question that we have to ask ourselves is whether what Muhammad did was ethically right? It certainly was not. Did Muhammad like to be treated they way he treated others? Of course not! When a group of Bedouins stole some of his "stolen camels" and killed the shepherd, Muhammad found them, cut their extremities and left them in the sun to die a painful slow death. If stealing was so bad that deserved such harsh and inhumane punishment, why he would engage in that activity? Why he would raid unarmed people, kill them and loot their belongings?

My Response:

Muslims believe in equality, which is a universal principle. 

Surah 16:126

And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.

The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those Bedouins was because the Prophet found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd. 

 

Saheeh Muslim

Book 016, Hadith Number 4137.

Chapter : Pertaining to the combatants and apostates.

Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds.

 

Ali Sina:

The Pagans were not as bad as Muslims. They were much more civilized and humane.

When Nadr ibn Harith, Muhammad's own cousin who in Mecca had derided him was captured in the battle of Badr, he besought Musab, the person who was carrying him handcuffed to Muhammad to intercede for him. Musab reminded him that he had denied faith and insulted the Prophet. "Ah" said Nadr, "had the Quraish made you a prisoner, they would never have put you to death!" "Even where it so", Musab scornfully replied, "I am not as you are; Islam has rent all bonds asunder". "Idrab anqihu" (strike off his neck) shouted Muhammad with blood in his eyes upon seeing Nadr and the poor man was beheaded at once. His corpse was thrown in the well along with other victims.  

Another prisoner in that battle was Oqba. When he was brought for execution, he ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives. "Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet," replied Muhammad. "And my little girl!" cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, "who will take care of her? " - "Hell-fire!" exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground and blood gushed from his slit gullet. Then Muhammad praised his Allah "I give thanks unto Allah that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby." [Waqidi, p108]

These are the traits of a narcissist psychopath. He could not forgive those who insulted him and had hurt his gigantic ego. He took immense pleasure, taking revenge of those who had humiliated him. 

My Response:

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2004/09/Article01.shtml 

In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims captured 70 prisoners of war, of whom only 3 were put to death: Uqba ibn Abi Ma'it, An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith and Tu`aymah ibn `Udday.

 

If the Prophet was a psychopath he would have ordered the execution of all the 70 prisoners. But he only ordered it for those 3. 

The Prophet did not only punish them because they insulted him. When the Prophet was in Mecca, the people insulted and abused him and when he conquered Mecca later on, he forgave them all. He had the power to kill them all but he didn't.  The reason for Nadr ibn Al Harith and Oqba is the same reason for the order of the killing of Kab bin Ashraf. Their insults and public dismay of the Prophet made people rise up and fight against the Prophet. So their words caused a lot of damage. 

To read more about Kab bin Ashraf you can visit... 

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/what-about-the-killing-of-kaab-bin-al-ashraf/

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_2.htm

 

Ali Sina:

The reason the non-Muslims lost was because they were inhibited by their humanness and unwilling to use brutal force against the Muslims to subdue them. They believed in freedom of belief and "multiculturalism". They had no clue how evil and demonic Islam is and because of this underestimation they lost. This is the very weakness of the non-Muslims today. If Muslims are not stopped with anything it takes, they will win and the non-Muslims will be slaughtered with the same brutality that Nadr and Oqba, or the more recent victims of Islam such as Daniel Pearls and Margaret Hasan  were slaughtered. 

It is foolish to believe you can overcome evil will kindness. It is foolish to believe that the followers of a ruthless man such as Muhammad will deal with you justly when they come to power. This mistake was committed by many Iranians who stayed in Iran after the Islamic revolution because they thought they have done nothing wrong to fear. They paid this error of judgment with their lives. Evil must be crushed with force. How much force?... As much as it takes! There is no price high enough to preserve our freedom and our lives. Kindness must be shown to those who denounce evil. But those who support it must be dealt with our wrath.

For the sake of argument, let us say that people in those days were savages. At least this is the lie that Muslims want us to believe. Is this a good excuse for Muhammad to raid, rape, loot, and massacre people with savagery? Did Muhammad come to guide people to the right path or was he a victim of the bad traditions of his people? Didn't he call the pagans ignorant? If so, why did he follow their ways? The man who taught his followers with how many stones they should wipe their rears after the call of nature did not know looting and stealing is evil and he should not set that kind of examples. Are we supposed to believe that he was a prophet? 

Muslims have very circular reasoning. They claim that Muhammad came to guide the ignorant people to the right path. But when we point out the evils committed by this man, they say he was a man of his time and did what others were doing. We are not talking about the way he dressed. This is raiding, raping, looting and killing innocent people we are talking about?

My Response:

Raping? Where did Ali Sina show evidence of rape? Where did he show evidence of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) doing anything wrong at all to innocent people?

Ali Sina:

Let us not words deceive us. The "right path" for Muslims has totally a different meaning. This term for them means following the mandates of Muhammad and acting like him. It is not the same right path and right deeds most of us are familiar with. In fact most Islamic "right paths" are very demonic - like killing the unbelievers and looting their properties. In Islam this is the right path because Muhammad did it and asked his followers to do it.  

Although the claim that pagans were worse than Muslims is a lie, it still does not justify Muhammad's crimes. This man claimed to be the prophet of God, "the best example to follow", an "honorable person" and "the best of creation". In a Hadith Qudsi he makes his Allah say to him: "Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe." Imagine the level of insanity! How could such a person with such outlandish claims act like the worst criminal? If anyone else does what Muhammad did, wouldn't you say that this person is a criminal? Then why a messenger of God, the person who thinks the universe is created for him, should act like a criminal? 

Let us delve into the sick mind of this psychopath narcissist and see what else he said about himself:

  • "The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul."

  • "First of all things, the Lord created was my mind."

  • "I am from Allah, and the believers are from me." source 

Yet this man, with such megalomaniac reveries of grandiosity, in real life acts like a criminal. Hey people! Where is your brain? How much you have to fool yourself and why? 

My Response:

I will not comment on what is written in green. That hadith is supposedly from a Hadith Qudsi. I do not know the reliability of the Hadith. But I doubt that it is true because it is known that the first thing that Allah created was the pen and not Muhammad's soul. Anyways that is irrelevant. Ali Sina fails to show that Muhammad is a criminal so far. 

Ali Sina:

Mr. Zawadi now starts quoting from other Islamic sites: 

Taken from http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsEnemies.html

5. No looting and destruction in the enemy's country

Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle."

Any Muslim knows, if a hadith is contrary to the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority and that haidth is false.  Muhammad made his own wealth through loot.

And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger,  8:41

"Allah and his Messenger"? What Allah wanted to do with those loots? 

My Response:

When it says that the war booty is for Allah and his Messenger, it simply means that it is for the cause of Islam. It does not mean that Allah is going to consume the war booty. 

Ali Sina:

What was the reason for raiding Khaibar? Were the people of Khaibar a threat to Muslims? 

My Response:

The Jews of Khaybar were responsible for the uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench (or ditch). They would go to Makkah and encourage them to wage war against the Muslims. Theses Jews would hide in their fortresses in Khaybar. So obviously they needed to be dealt with. So Muhammad invaded Khaybar. If the Prophet was able to individually punish these people he would have. But they would lock them selves up  so the Prophet had no choice. He even tried burning down their trees to scare them so that he would not resort to going inside the fortress to get them. But they left him no choice. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad was a man of mercy, but he was also a man of justice. Does Ali Sina expect Muhammad to forgive all those who fight him? If he did that, then everyone would try attacking Muhammad and would not worry about getting punished if they lost. So Muhammad needed to make an example out of anyone who dared to fight or harm him. This is self defense. This is a universal principle. 

Ali Sina:

In the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca but when he saw that waging a war with just 1500 men may make him lose, he signed a treaty that his followers felt was humiliating to them. 

My Response:

Not true, the Prophet promised his followers that they would make Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) not victory over Makkah.  Does that really show that their intention was to fight? I do not think so. Read any Islamic history book and it would tell you that their intention to go to Mecca was a peaceful one. 

Ali Sina:

To boost their sagging morale he directed them to Khaibar and they fell upon that town all of a sudden at dawn when people had gone out of their homes to the fields and after their works. He wrote:

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;
And much booty that they will capture
. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.  Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance.
48:18-20  

What the people of Khaibar had done to Muslims? Nothing! They were minding their own business. The reason Muhammad raided them, destroyed their town and looted them was because they were a prosperous people. Muhammad wanted to please his hungry marauding men with an easy victory and booty. They were hungry because Muhammad devastated their town by killing and expelling all the Jews who were artisans, farmers and tradesmen for whom the Arabs used to work. With Jews killed and expelled they entirely depended on raids for their sustenance. 

My Response:

They did nothing? I urge all to read Islamic history and see what the Jews of Khaybar did and why Muhammad invaded them. 

Ali Sina:

There is a sura called Anfal (spoils of war, booty). It starts by saying "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger" Of course God has no needs for the belongings of his wretched creatures. It is clear that the beneficiary of those loots was Muhammad alone. And this shameless criminal would make even God an accomplice of his crimes. Only a fool can still believe that this charlatan was a messenger of God. Forget about all the proofs I gave so far. Only this verse is enough to see this man was a liar.  The maker of this universe has no needs for the possessions of humans and if he wanted to destroy or humiliate them, assuming he is a sadist like Muhammad, he would not need a bunch of henchmen and gangsters to do his dirty work. 

What does "spoils of war" mean? Doesn't it mean looting?  

My Response:

When Ali Sina talks about looting, he is making it seem like the Muslims went around and invaded villages and people solely in order to gain their war booty. He is making it seem like the Muslims were pirates wandering around and pillaging innocent people and stealing their valuables. This is far from the truth. If the Muslims ever waged war or invaded anyone, it was due to self defense or if there was evidence that the other side would attack and the Muslims would attack first for military advantage. 

Ali Sina:

Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated.

This Muslim apologist wants us to believe that what Muhammad captured in his raids was just military equipment. That is a shameful lie. Muhammad  captured herds of camels, livestock, household property, cultivated lands and the houses of his victims. He even captured many as hostages or used them as slaves. 

My Response:

The quote does not only say that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) captured only equipment. Ali Sina needs to take a closer look. Maybe he wrote this article when he was sleepy. 

Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated.

No one is trying to hide anything. 

Ali Sina:

In the year eight of Hijra, after the Meccans surrendered, Muhammad decided to raid the big tribe of Hawazin who lived in the valley of Hunain . He captured their women and children and all their belongings after their men fled to the wilderness for their safety. Ibn Ishaq wrote:Then a deputation from Hawazin came to him in al-Ji'rana where he held 6,ooo women and children captive, and sheep and camels innumerable which had been captured from them.  

To soften his heart, this deputation, which comprised Shima, his foster sister, reminded him that he grew amongst them during the first 5 years of his life and how they took care of him and now he should not pay them back in this way. One of them said:

Have pity on us, apostle of Allah, generously, For you are the man from whom we hope and expect pity. Have pity on a people whom fate has frustrated, Their well-being shattered by time's misfortunes.  

Muhammad told them to accept Islam and gave them two choices:

'Which are dearest to you? Your sons and your wives or your cattle?' They replied, 'Do you give us the choice between our cattle and our honor? Nay, give us back our wives and our sons, for that it what we most desire.'

What a despicable beast! 

Muhammad left the Hawazin completely dispossessed and distributed the large booty among the wealthiest of Mecca to "sweeten Islam in their mouths."  

This apologist writes like a person who knows Islam quite well. So when he claims the booty was just the military equipment he is engaging in taqiyyah or the Islamic art of holy deception. He is simply lying for the sake of Allah.  He will meet Allah and his messenger in Hell. 

 

My Response:

Again, we have to see why the Prophet invaded the tribe of Hawazin. You also have to read that it was the Hawazin's fault for they were the ones that brought their women and children with them to the battlefield. Read this article.

Ali Sina:

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad

War

Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara.) Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca . In Medina , Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca . Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition; later Muslim apologists justified the raids by the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims 

 

 

"Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition?" What a lame excuse! I already discussed this moral relativistic cop-out. Even if raiding was an Arab "tradition", which is ludicrous, would this justify one who claims to be a prophet of God and the "best of the creation" to follow that evil tradition? This Muslim makes looting sound like a folk festival. "Tradition!?"... What an innovative way to describe a crime! If stealing was a "tradition", why Muhammad was so upset when others stole something from him? Why he prohibited his followers from stealing the booty? The booty (the stolen property of the non-Muslims) was okay, but stealing from that stolen loot warranted hellfire!? This was the  typical moral relativistic reasoning of Muhammad and consequently it is that of his benighted followers.

Wikipedia is controlled by cyber jihadis who gang up together to kill the truth. It is virtually impossible to write anything truthful in that encyclopedia on Islam. Friends of FFI are now in the process of creating an exclusive Wiki on Islam, where everyone would be free to edit but we will not allow bullishness and cyber terrorism of a bunch of jihadis.

 

My Response:

I have already explained that the Muslims never initiated war for no justifiable reasons.  

Ali Sina:

Secular scholars will add that this was a matter of survival for the Muslims as well. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find. 

Who are those "secular scholars"? Is he by any chance talking about the useful idiots such as Noam Chomsky, Karen Armstrong and John Esposito?  

What an excuse! Since Muslims did not own lands, they had to engage in ethnic cleansing of the Jews and confiscate their lands. Ah, what a logical and satisfactory response! How could I have missed this logic? 

What about the other places? Muhammad and his thugs raided many cities and villages that were not even close to Medina and had nothing to do with Muslims. Their only sin was that they were wealthy and Muslims needed their money.  

Should all those who do not have land and money raid those who have, kill them and loot them to survive?  Or is this "divine" teaching only for Muslims? As shocking as it may be, this is exactly how Muslims think and that is why they are in Europe and in the West. They think the West belongs to them. If they succeed in their dream, they will do with the non-Muslims what Muhammad and his gangsters did to the non-Muslims of their time. It would be foolish not to pay attention to what Muslims say. All you have to do is to listen to them. They want your countries and they are ready to kill you for that. If not you, your children will pay with their lives if you do not heed to what they say. Don't worry about your grandchildren because if Muslims are not stopped now, you may not have any.  

 My Response:

I think we have to remember the points that Ali Sina did not pay heed to. 

First, is that the Muslims were in a state of war with the Meccans. It was a war strategy in cutting off the resources to Mecca. It is like a country implementing economic sanctions on a country. 

Secondly, the Meccans confiscated the property and valuables and possessions of the Muslims who left Mecca due to their persecution. So in a way, the Muslims were getting back what is theirs. 

Ali Sina:

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/surah/english/viewSurah.asp?hSurahID=18

Topics and their Interconnection

This portion deals with the problems of the "Spoils of War". The Quran says that these are not the spoils of war but the "Bounties of Allah" and proves this by showing that the victory at Badr (and in all other battles, too,) was won by His succour and not by the efforts of the Muslims. It also declares (in v. 40) that the war aim of the Muslims should be to eliminate all unfavourable conditions for the establishment of Islam and not to gain spoils. Moreover, the spoils, being the bounties of God, belong to Allah and His Messenger and they alone are entitled to allocate them. Then after conditioning the Muslims to accept these things, the different shares have been allocated in v. 41. 1 - 41  

 

 

What did I tell you? All you have to do is to listen to Muslims. What Muslims steal from you is not spoils of war. It is the "Bounties of Allah". 

Why this Allah does not give his bounties to his servants through science, industry, technology and progress? Why this bounty should always come to them as stolen property from non-Muslims? This question does not even occur to Muslims. Why? It is because they have no conscience.  Those who have, do no longer call themselves by this shameful name.

 

Taken from http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/social_security_in_islam.htm

Department of Public Treasury

State revenue is the most important tool for providing social security to a nation. During the Caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased due to his wise and strict administrative policies. Zakah (religious obligation on a Muslim to pay 2½% from his/her wealth), 'ushr (religious tax on agricultural land), Sadaqah (spending for the pleasure of Allah), jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war) were credited to the treasury for the use of the Muslims at large. For example, after the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink.

The aim of the Islamic social security system is to fulfil every possible human need. These needs can broadly be classified into two categories: (1) Primary needs i.e., food, clothing, housing and necessary medical care, and (2) Secondary needs i.e., education, matrimony, old age benefits and social services etc.

Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab used Social Security

· To provide Food during serious drought or famines to the people according to the family size.

·  For the poor and disabled

· To provide education to the children

· To finance marriages of the unmarried poor or needy persons.

·  To grant old age benefits and in old age investment

·  To give loans for economic activity

·  For granting Interest-free loans

·  To pay off the debts of persons under obligation

·  As Social Insurance to pay blood money of convicts in involuntary homicide

·  To pay stipends to widows, married and unmarried women, young men and the immigrants.

 

This site says "During the Caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased due to his wise and strict administrative policies." 

How did it increase? Did Umar encourage agriculture, art, industry, commerce? Where this wealth came from? It was through looting of course. The writer is honest enough to say: "the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink." and acknowledges that this wealth came from jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war). 

 As long as looting continued Muslims prospered but as soon as they were defeated and their conquest stopped, so ebbed their so called "Golden Age".  

 

My Response:

Again, as I previously said. Muslims did not intentionally start wars to loot or gain booty of war or whatever. They never attacked anyone who did no harm to them. In my previous article I showed that the Muslims used the booty of war that they acquired for the benefits of the society and to help the poor and helpless. Ali Sina did not respond back to that. Because that shows that the Muslims did not start wars to get war booty out of greed and keep it for themselves to be rich. 

Ali Sina:

What security Muslims provide for non-Muslims? The same kind of security that the gangsters and Mafia used to provide for the businesses in Chicago during the 1930s. Jizya is extortion fee. Non-Muslims must work and maintain the Muslims or face death. See this hadith:

According to the saying of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart. He fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying Jizya (poll-tax) on them, deducting no fifth from it, nor taking it as booty.[ Sunan Abu Dawud 19.2955]

The Westerners should know that the welfare that the Muslims collect to them is the Jizya that you are supposed to pay. They are not grateful at all and they have no intention to find a work and stop collecting this Jizya which is rightfully theirs. However the amount is not enough. They must receive most of the money that you make. Their houses must be bigger and better than yours. As long as this is not so, they feel oppressed and will fight you to end this oppression.      

 My Response:

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016410&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

The jizya was not paid as a bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the army, protection for Crusading armies and tribal warfare. While most so-called journalists scream that the jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.

Also read this article on jizya.

Ali Sina:

Taken from http://islamic-world.net/economics/public_borrowing_in_history.htm

The sixth case is that of borrowing a substantial sum of money from a Muslim individual for financing a major battle. "Isma'il son of Ibrahim son of Abdullah, son of Abu Rabi'ah al-Makhzumi has reported to us from his father who reported about his grandfather that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to attack Hunayn he borrowed thirty or forty thousand from him. He repaid it when he came back. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him: 'May Allah bless you with prosperity in your family and your property. The proper recompense for lending is repayment and gratitude'. In another version of this tradition recorded by Nasa'i, the amount of the loan is a definite forty thousand. The same is true of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad. As regards the source of payment, both versions mention money that accrued to the Prophet (peace be upon him) subsequently. The battle of Hunayn took place in the eighth year after hijrah immediately after the conquest of Mekkah. These were comparatively better days for state finances. The accrual of money referred to in the tradition could have been from the spoils of war consequent to the victory at Hunayn. The above is clear case of borrowing for defense purposes. It is also evident that the sum paid back equaled the sum borrowed and no extra payment were involved. 

 

This site explains how Muhammad borrowed money to furnish his army and paid it back after looting his victims. It is basically a confirmation that Muhammad gained his wealth through looting. Why Mr. Zawadi uses this passage that confirms my claim that Muhammad was a looter, is not clear to me. Is he taking my side? I thought he wanted to refute me. 

 

Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Economics/article03.shtml

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) came to Medina , he encouraged the wealthier supporters to financially aid the poor Emigrants. Then, when war booty fell to the lot of the Muslims, he would divide the wealth according to economic condition - the poor segments of the Muslims would receive larger portions. Through such measures, he sought to reduce the gap between rich and poor. 

 

This is again another argument that confirms my claim. Muhammad looted innocent people and then distributed that loot among his followers. Isn't this what any gangster godfather would do.

My Response:

Ali Sina fails to show that the Prophet looted innocent people.

A gangster godfather would loot innocent people and keep the money for himself. Is that what the Prophet did? I do not think so, refer to this article for the evidence 

Ali Sina:

Now these are Mr. Zawadi's own words:

Conclusion

The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain. They used it to help the needy and the poor and to establish a system. They took it in the time of war. They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war. So they obviously they are going to take it. They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did. As a matter of fact, no army in the world will consume the spoils of war in such a generous and beautiful way as the Muslim armies have done. 

You can also read  http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=679   

 

 

Despite all these evidences that Mr. Zawadi himself has given that Muslims looted the wealth of non-Muslims and Muhammad distributed that loot among his followers, he still has the cheek to say "The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain."  

This kind of absurdity blows the mind of any rational person. But it does not blow mine. I know how the Muslim mind works. Muslims genuinely cannot see that their thinking is demonic. For years I heard these very absurdities and never once I thought they are evil. My conscience was numbed. Muslims' conscience is numbed. They are genuinely incapable of rational thought or human feelings. They have lost their humanity. There is nothing we can say that can bring them to their senses. Nothing can make them reason. It happened to me and it has happened to many others but it is extremely hard. Muslims are possessed as if by a demonic spirit which which has paralyzed their brains. You know what they will write after reading this? "My faith in Islam increased". This is how brainless these wretched souls have become.

Mr. Zawadi says: "They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war."  

No of course it was not intentional. The Muslims were blown to the towns of their victims by wind and accidentally their swords killed their men. Therefore the innocent Muslims had no choice but to clean the town and bring the wives and children of their victims as slaves. It was after all the "Bounties of Allah". How could they reject it?

 My Response:

Ali Sina is trying to be sarcastic. As I kept explaining, the Muslims never invaded anyone who did nothing wrong to them. Muslims either invaded those who were planning to attack them, attacked them already and associated and supported in any way possible those who attacked them.

Ali Sina:

"It was during the time of war". This is just the typical logical fallacy that Muslims love to engage in. Who started those wars?  First of all they weren't wars but raids. Muhammad raided caravans, villages and towns with no warning.  He ambushed them. Of course you can only loot when you attack and kill people. How else one can loot? Would people give you their money, if you don't raid them, and don't "cast terror into their hearts", as he bragged often? This means that by virtue of the fact that Muhammad raided people and killed unarmed civilians, he was entitled to rape their wives and daughters and steal their property. This logic escapes human rationality. But Muslims' brain does not work in quite the same way. They are followers of Satan. Woe to you if you don't take my warnings seriously. Woe to your children if you do not stop Muslims in their track in time. Every argument and counter argument that these Satan worshippers present depict the depravity of their mind and lays bare their demonic souls.  

Mr. Zawadi ends his argument: "They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did."  

Of course! Once you raided innocent people and kill them, why let their property go to waist? It is yours, take it. It is all "Bounties from Allah" in gratitude for being a good servant. Their wives and children?... They too are your slaves and sex slaves. They are all yours.  

Enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good.  8:69  

 

What we learned from this debate? We learned that Islam, far from being a religion is a gangster organization that sustains itself by looting. Muslims are incapable of producing anything. They must loot to survive. Muhammad built his empire by looting and by casting terror. Muslims did the same throughout the history. You are a fool if you think they have changed or they will change. As long as they call themselves Muslims and follow Muhammad they will do what he did. They are gangsters, they are looters, and they are terrorists. Don't believe me? Just listen to what they say.  

And don't think just because Muslims don't engage in these activities now they will not do it once they come to power. If they don't do it now it's because they fear the bigger powers. Once that fear is no more there, they revert to their original barbarity and follow the Quran and the sunna to the letter.

 

My Response:

I urge that everyone reads this debate again and slowly and please point out to me where Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) harmed innocent people or did anything wrong. If you disagree with the fact that Muhammad had wars, then remember why he started those wars (self defense). But if you are totally against war, then you are a pacifist and that is your own subjective opinion. I urge all to be objective and really show me what Muhammad has done wrong in order to deserve condemnation.

 

The debate continues here.

 

Return to Refuting Faithfreedom.org

Return to Homepage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HomeWhat's new?IslamChristianityRefutations LanguagesMultimediaE BooksLinksContact Me