In Response to Comments on our Previous Article about Hypocrites Never Attempting to Assassinate Muhammad 

Published in February 21, 2018

Translated by: Ahmed Fathy

Introduction:

1- Since 1977, we have been engaged into the mission of destroying the huge mountains of myths of the Muhammadans using our Quranic ponderings and our expertise in heritage and history of the Muhammadans. Our Quranist research methodology enables us to dig and uncover what has been less known, unknown, or unspoken-of within issues related to the Quran and to the historical, legislative/sharia, and faith-tenets heritage of the Muhammadans so that we may undeceive as many people as possible.  

2- It has all started when we were a student in the preparatory stage of Azharite education in the early 1960s in Cairo, Egypt; our mind kept posing several questions about the reasons of the backwardness and obscurantism of 'Muslims'. Of course, the answer to our question as a student has been clear in the Azharite curricula which we disliked very much. We have been an excellent student, though; as far as marks/grades are concerned, we have been the second student within the top-ten highest grades in Egypt within the last year of the preparatory stage of Azharite education and the fourth student within the top-ten highest grades in Egypt within the last year of the secondary stage of Azharite education. Actually, we have not been the first student within the top-ten list because of one thing: we were keen on writing the model answer in the exams as per what we learned from the silly Azharite curricula and then write our own personal view which was unfavorable and hostile towards the notions taught within such curricula; this is why teachers punished our person at the time by giving us grades/marks lower than the ones we deserve in exams of the fiqh, hadith, and interpretation subjects; this has made us the fourth (and not the first) student within the top-ten list within the last year of the secondary stage of Azharite education in the late 1960s.   

3- Carrying the same mindset that never stops posing many questions about everything, we enrolled in the History Department at Al-Azhar University, graduating with the highest honors and we were the first among the top-ten list of graduates; we were appointed as a teacher at the History Department then got promoted to be an assistant professor. To satisfy our curiosity and to find answers to our questions, we have chosen at first the topic of our MA thesis about the unity of the religious tenets in Egypt within the Pharaonic, Coptic, and Arab epochs, but this thesis proposal we have submitted has been rejected by the dean of the History Department; we had to change the thesis and chose the topic of the Umayyad period and the influence of its tribalism. The ideas we have gleaned and inferred from the research done on the rejected thesis proposal are found in our two books titled "The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest", found in English on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=96), which was published in Cairo in 1984, and "Egypt in the Holy Quran", found in English on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=97), which was published in Cairo in 1990. Within our choice of the PhD thesis, we insisted on the topic of the influence of Sufism on Egyptian aspects of life during the Mameluke Era. Since 1977, we have begun to criticize and question every notion within the Azharite quagmire of polytheism and we have faced the Sufi and Sunnite Wahabi polytheists who are still controlling and corrupting Al-Azhar University until now.      

4- As a researcher who specializes in history, at first, in the early 1980s, we have admired the Arab conquests that have changed the face of the earth and changed history forever within what appeared to be military and political miracles; we still retained at the time a measure of deification and sanctification of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs at the time; such stance would not vanish so easily or hastily overnight. In 1985, we assumed that Islam was wasted/lost because of the Abbasid caliphs, and we have written about this within our book titled "The Islamic World between the Era of the Four Pre-Umayyad Caliphs and the Abbasid Caliphs", which was one among five books that caused the people at the Vatican-like Al-Azhar to interrogate our person within an inquisition-like manner before we have tendered our resignation to the head of Al-Azhar University.   

5- The more we have pondered the Quran with its sharia legislations (especially the ones related to self-defense jihad fighting) and higher values like peace, justice, and freedom, the more we are sure about the fact that the Arab conquests are sins/crimes committed by the Arab polytheists (i.e., the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and Arabs who joined their forces) who rejected and disbelieved the Quran; thus, Islam (i.e., the Quran) was rejected en masse by most Arabs once Muhammad died; those to blame for such disbelief and aggression are the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and the Qorayish tribe leaders, besides the Arab men who joined such aggression and crimes of the Arab conquests. 

6- Hence, the Yathreb city-state of Muhammad, with its features mentioned exclusively in the Quran and applied by Muhammad as a leader for ten years, collapsed gradually once he died; the roots of such polytheism and rejection of the Quran are those spies/agents of Qorayish that pretended to be believers and immigrated to Yathreb, seizing the chance that Islam in terms of behavior means peace and religious freedom for all people. The schemes of Qorayish that can eliminate mountains (see the verse 14:46) has always been in the background of all aspects within the Yathreb city-state; some of those who were adamant in hypocrisy were agents/spies who pretended to convert to Islam, some hypocrites were explicit in expressing their animosity towards the Quran, and there were the aggressive Meccans who attacked Yathreb many times; in fact, among those Meccans were the Umayyads who fought against Islam for 20 years (10 years when Muhammad was in Mecca, and 10 years when Muhammad was in Yathreb) who ruled the Arabs indirectly behind the curtains during the era of the four pre-Umayyads caliphs, before the Umayyad caliphate/dynasty was established. Hence, it is hardly expected that the Umayyad faction of Qorayish would not sent its spies/agents to Yathreb city-state to watch Muhammad closely and inform the polytheistic Meccans about everything linked to the Yathreb city-state. 

7- Realizing such facts made us ponder deeply on all Quranic verses that mention the companions/contemporaries of Muhammad, who of course included disbelievers, hypocrites, and believers as well as desert-Arabs, immigrants (from Mecca and elsewhere), and supporters (i.e., the original Yathreb dwellers who supported Muhammad). Most Meccans at the time are described in the Quran as polytheists and disbelievers. The Quranic Chapter 9 was among the ones revealed shortly before the death of Muhammad; we find in it the depiction of the types of people in Mecca (Qorayish) and in Yathreb. The Quranic Chapter 9 begins with talking about the disbelievers of Qorayish who breached the peace treaty and committed acts of violence and aggression; we also read in the Quranic Chapter 9 about the aggressors among the People of the Book and about the Yathrebian explicit hypocrites. We read in 9:101 about those who were adamant in hypocrisy and they concealed their true feelings to deceive Muhammad and others; they never let a word drop or an act that would expose them, as they got nearer to Muhammad in Yathreb. God asserts that Muhammad never knew them by name; God tells us in 9:101 about their torment in this world and the next; i.e., they died as disbelievers and will enter into Hell. Those hypocrites were the agents/spies of Qorayish who led Arabs in Arabia within the crimes/sins of the Arab conquests later on.      

8- Our ponderings on the Quran shows that the Arab conquests were the worst crimes/sins that indicate that Arabs who participated in them rejected the Quran; this means that the four pre-Umayyad caliphs are sinful disbelievers and arch-enemies of Islam as they have distorted its name by using it as a banner to justify their crimes/sins of the Arab conquests and the Arab civil war later on. This is quite shocking to the Muhammadans; it was shocking to our person once we have reached this conclusion in the late 1980s; this logical conclusion answers many questions we have had since our adolescence. Of course, the Arab conquests and the Arab civil wars have resulted in the emergence of the Shiite and Sunnite earthly religions that have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam (i.e., the Quran), and thus, such dominant religions (along with Sufism) have led to the backwardness and obscurantism of Arabs and the Muhammadans who cannot – until now – apply or embrace peace, progress, justice, human rights, and democracy.       

9- Reaching this conclusion was not easy; it took us years of research and intellectual struggles as well as long days and nights of pondering the Quran deeply while seeking guidance from our Lord God to help us reach the Truth. The schemes of Qorayish, mentioned in the Quran and pondered by our person, our Quranist methodology of research,  and our meticulous studies of history of the Muhammadans (i.e. our specialization) have enabled us to reach this conclusion among many others; this resulted in our books and articles published on our website.    

10- Within our stance against the polytheistic four pre-Umayyad caliphs, we disagree with Shiites who hate the first three and deify the fourth one, their deity Ali. We are not against Ali and siding with his enemies and not the vice-versa; we reject both sides as vile, aggressive polytheists and arch-enemies of the Quran. the ignoramuses of Al-Azhar University prefer not to talk about Ali vs. Mu'aweiya conflict, as they deify men of both sides; in contrast, we as a historian and researcher have tackled this topic with neutrality and objectivity. We never resort to Shiite authoritative history books because they are filled with illogical, laughter-inducing exaggerations and lies to deify Ali and his wife and two sons; it is funny that Shiites annually wound themselves for the sake of the killed Al-Hussein who is dead and unaware of their deifying him. By the way, it is a shame that the Saudi thinker Al-Maliki  would fall into the traps of assuming that all historical accounts are necessarily 'true'.   

11- We depend only on authoritative Sunnite books of history like those written by Sunnite historians Ibn Saad and Al-Tabari and the Sunnite historian Al-Masoody who sympathized with the Shiites and Ali. Yet, the previous article of ours titled "Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and the Rest of the So-Called Companions Did Not Conspire to Assassinate Muhammad", found in English on this link (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=18031), is based on our Quranic ponderings only and not history per se.

12- The type of this previous article of ours is all about slaughtering 'holy' cows cherished and revered by polytheistic Muhammadans; this type of articles encourages useful, much-needed brainstorming; this is why we feel very happy for the comments written under this article (in Arabic) and we thank those who have written them; we quote these comments here and respond to each of them in the points below.

Firstly: detailed responses:

1- Mr. M. Ali Al-Faqeeh writes that this verse shows that hypocrites in Yathreb feared that the Quranic verses may expose them as their words and deeds were hidden and concealed very well: "The hypocrites worry lest a chapter may be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Go on mocking; God will bring out what you fear."" (9:64). God is the Omniscient Lord Who has told believers about those adamant in hypocrisy who will be tormented twice: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Yathreb too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will torment them twice; then they will be returned to a severe torment." (9:101).

2- Dr. Othman Ali writes that the mention of serenity/tranquility is to be compared and contrasted in these two verses: "If you do not help him, God has already helped him, when those who disbelieved expelled him, and he was the second of two in the cave. He said to his friend, "Do not worry, God is with us." And God made His tranquility/serenity descend upon him, and supported him with forces you did not see, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the Word of God is the Highest. God is Mighty and Wise." (9:40) & "God was pleased with the believers, when they pledged allegiance to you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, and sent down serenity/tranquility upon them, and rewarded them with an imminent conquest." (48:18). This means that serenity/tranquility is sent own by God ONLY upon true believers; this is not the case with the cave-companion (presumably Abou Bakr) in 9:40 and this means that he was NOT a believer. This is a very good remark, and we build on it within the following three points.   

2/1: The term (Sakina) in the Arabic tongue and in the Quranic tongue means serenity/tranquility within hearts of truthful believers who remember God all the time and feels comforted: "Those who believe, and whose hearts find comfort in the remembrance of God. Surely, it is in the remembrance of God that hearts find comfort."" (13:28).

2/2: Sakina descends only upon true believers and prophets; e.g., Muhammad and true believers with him: "It is He who sent down tranquility/serenity into the hearts of the believers, to add faith to their faith. To God belong the forces of the heavens and the earth. God is Knowing and Wise." (48:4).

2/3: Sakina descended on Muhammad and true believers when they faced military troops of aggressors: "God has given you victory in numerous regions; but on the day of Hunayn, your great number impressed you, but it availed you nothing; and the land, as spacious as it was, narrowed for you; and you turned your backs in retreat. Then God sent down His serenity/tranquility upon His messenger, and upon the believers; and He sent down troops you did not see; and He punished those who disbelieved. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers" (9:25-26); "Those who disbelieved filled their hearts with rage-the rage of the days of ignorance. But God sent His serenity/tranquility down upon His messenger, and upon the believers, and imposed on them the words of righteousness - of which they were most worthy and deserving. God is aware of everything." (48:26).

3- If the cave-companion (whether he was Abou Bakr or any other man) were a truthful believer, tranquility and serenity would have descended on him as he was sad and frightened and 9:101 would have been written in the dual form (not he singular one denoting Muhammad only) in Arabic to include both men. Of course, tranquility and serenity descend from God only to true believers. Hence the cave-companion was a mere companion who was in the same time and location with Muhammad and NOT a believer at all.

4- Mr. Ben Levante writes that the verse 9:101 includes desert-Arabs who never settled in Yathreb but in the desert regions near it, whereas the four pre-Umayyad caliphs were Meccans settling in Yathreb (i.e., dwellers of a city and then another city) and not desert Arabs; hence, 9:101 does not refer to them as adamant in hypocrisy, as the Qorayish Meccans were explicit in expressing animosity towards Muhammad and Islam. Our response: the Yathreb city-state dwellers were its original inhabitants (called in history books as the supporters) and those immigrants who settled there to flee persecution. The verse 9:101 describes those desert-Arab adamant in hypocrisy living near Yathreb but some other desert-Arabs were good believers; see 9:97-99. Both Yathreb dweller of both types and desert-Arabs joined the self-defense endeavors to defend Yathreb: "It is not for the inhabitants of Yathreb and the Desert-Arabs around them to stay behind the Messenger of God, nor to prefer themselves to him. That is because they never suffer any thirst, nor fatigue, nor hunger in the cause of God, nor do they take one step that enrages the disbelievers, nor do they gain anything from an enemy, but it is recorded to their credit as a righteous deed. God does not waste the reward of the righteous." (9:120). In contrast, explicit hypocrites inside Yathreb thought about rising arms and expelling Muhammad and the early believers but God has warned them here: "If the hypocrites, and those with sickness in their hearts, and the rumormongers in the City, do not desist, We will incite you against them; then they will not be your neighbors there except for a short while." (33:60); "They say, "If we return to the City, the more powerful therein will evict the weak." But power belongs to God, and His messenger, and the believers; but the hypocrites do not know." (63:8). About Bakr and the rest of immigrants coming from Mecca never returned to Mecca and remained (along with their progeny) in Yathreb even after the death of Muhammad; the Quran describes the Meccan Qorayish people as polytheists and disbelievers and NEVER as hypocrites or believers.    

5- Mr. Ben Levante writes that Muhammad was an Arab who mastered the tongue of his ancestors: Arabic; hence, he should have known that the 9:40 contains an indication of the fact that the cave-companion was an enemy, a traitor, or a spy. Our response: this is not true; Muhammad's sole mission was to convey the Quranic message and NOT to interpret or explain it within semantic levels of the Arabic words or by any other means. If Muhammad had his own 'interpretation' of the Quran, Islam would have had two sources and not the Only True Source: the Quran. Muhammad never readily answered any questions posed to him as he waited for the Quran to provide answers, as we have explained this in our book titled "The Quran: Sufficient as a Source of Islamic Legislation" found in English on this link: (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=92).

6- Mr. Ben Levante writes that the term (companion) does not necessarily refer to those with different faiths or to enemies among the polytheists. Our response: this correct as far as the Arabic tongue is concerned; yet, the term has different connotations in the Quran when we examine its occurrence in the entire Quranic text; it refers to the relation between Muhammad as a believer with the polytheistic disbelievers around him; the term is never used in the Quran to denote true believers during the lifetime of Muhammad. If the cave-companion were a truthful person with good faith aiming to protect Muhammad and risk his own life, God would have praised him, described him as truthful man, or at least made tranquility/serenity descend on him alongside with Muhammad. This is not the case I 9:40, of course. In contrast, poor believing immigrants to Yathreb are described as truthful: "To the poor immigrants who were driven out of their homes and their possessions, as they sought the favor of God and His approval, and came to the aid of God and His messenger. These are the truthful." (59:8). Hence, we conclude that the cave-companion was an agent or a spy of Qorayish and part of its scheming to watch Muhammad closely after expelling him out of Mecca; this scheme is described here: "When the disbelievers schemed against you, to imprison you, or kill you, or expel you. They schemed, and God schemed, but God is the Best of schemers." (8:30). Hence, tranquility and serenity did not descend on a spy and a traitor like the cave-companion Abou Bakr, who was a criminal as he started (upon commands of Qorayish) the devilish Arab conquests during Muharram , one of the sacred lunar months of pilgrimage.        

7- Mr. Ben Levante writes that the verse 9:40 mentions the reality of events as Meccan polytheists of Qorayish drove away Muhammad and not Abou Bakr, and the latter might not have been afraid and this is why serenity/tranquility was granted by God to Muhammad alone as he was afraid/sad as he left his homeland. Our response: Muhammad was never afraid in that situation; 9:40 does NOT refer to this at all; it is he who allayed the fears of the frightened cave-companion. Of course, it is normal that the verse 9:40 focuses mainly on Muhammad; yet, the cave-companion (whether he was Abou Bakr or someone else) is mentioned by using the term "companion" like the polytheists in their relations with Muhammad. In fact, 9:40 never mentions that this cave-companion was a truthful, intimate friend at all; friendship in the Quran refers only to those who share the same good or corrupt faith and good/bad deeds; this is why polytheists will say the following on the Last Day: "Oh, woe to me; I wish I never took so-and-so for a friend." And we read how the Paradise dwellers will be friends as per this verse: "Whoever obeys God and the Messenger - these are with those whom God has blessed-among the prophets, and the sincere, and the martyrs, and the upright. Excellent are those as friends." (4:69). Hence, the term companion means those contemporaries to one another in time and place and not truthful, intimate friends at all.

8- It is a laughter-inducing fact that the Sunnite polytheists describe Abou Bakr as (the truthful one) and Musaylimah, the leader of the rebels/renegades who fought Abou Bakr as they refused to submit to him as caliph, as (the liar); yet, the leader Musaylimah in comparison to the evil caliph Abou Bakr was like the weak Abbasid caliph Al-Mostaasim murdered by Hulago the leader of the Mongols; we mean to say that Musaylimah was weak like Al-Mostaasim and Abou Bakr the murderous ruler was like Hulago. 

Lastly:

 We would like to ask our nephew, Dr. Othman Ali, to write an article about the Quranic Chapter 48 while focusing on the dwellers and inhabitants of Yathreb and desert-Arabs around it and also on Meccan polytheists and their stances; this Quranic Chapter 48 has the mention of the term serenity/tranquility repeatedly.