## I am just a Muslim – Debunking ‘I am non-Arab Muslim’ Part 3

Written by Abd al Muhsin al Hindy

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

5. Quran and Muhammad were sent for Arabs onlyThe Mullahs would shout on top of their voice that Quran and Muhammad are the final book and final messenger of Allah respectively sent for whole mankind. However just have a look at these verses

1. Had We sent this as a Qur’an [in the language] other than Arabic, they would have said: “Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! [a Book] not in Arabic and [a Messenger] an Arab?”…
[41:44]

2. We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand. [43:3]

3. …Say: “I am commanded to worship Allah, and not to join partners with Him. Unto Him do I call, and unto Him is my return.” Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. …[13:36, 37]

4. [It is] a Qur’an in
Arabic, without any crookedness [therein]: in order that they may guard against Evil. [39:28]

5. A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur’an in Arabic, for people who understand;- [41:3]

6. If [We had] not sent thee to the Quraish/people of Mecca,- in case a calamity should seize them for [the deeds] that their hands have sent forth, they might say: “Our Lord! why didst Thou not sent us a messenger? We should then have followed Thy Signs and been amongst those who believe!” [28:47]

7. Had We revealed it to any of the non-Arabs, And had he recited it to them, they would not have believed in it. [26:198, 199]

Agniveer and his misinterpretation of Islāmic texts! What would a sincere seeker of truth need to acknowledge the falsity of his claims? Anyways, this section will show how people void of ethics and professionalism are harming the field of comparative religion and inter-faith dialogue for their personal and cultist gains.Let’s do it verse by verse, the first verse quoted is,

And if We had sent this as a Qur’ān in a foreign language (other than Arabic), they would have said: “Why are not its Verses explained in detail (in our language)?
What! (A Book)
not in Arabic and (the Messenger)
an Arab?”

– [Sūrah al-Fussilat (41):44]

It’s typical of Islāmophobes, to misuse Islamic texts as their miniscule understading(due to ignorance and arrogance) of these text don’t take them anywhere, hence they are every ready to misues texts,so is done here.The above verse is refuting the polytheist of Makkah about their claims and this is very well put by the author of Tafhīm al-Qur’ān :

This is the kind of the stubbornness that the Holy Prophet was confronting. The disbelievers said, “Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace) is an Arab. Arabic is his mother tongue. How can one believe that the Arabic Qur’an that he presents has not been forged by himself but has been revealed to him by God? The Qur’an could be believed to be the Revelation of God if he had started speaking fluently in a foreign language unknown to him, like Persian, Latin, or Greek.This argument of theirs has been refuted by Allah, saying, “Now when the Qur’an has been sent down in their own tongue so that they may understand it, they raise the objection: Why has it been sent down to an Arab in Arabic? But if it had been sent down in a foreign tongue, these very people would have said, How strange! An Arab Messenger has been sent to the Arabs, but the Revelations being sent to him are in a tongue which is neither understood by him nor by his people.

This verse is refuting the polytheists of Makkah on their arrogance and stubborness which is similar to that of Agniveer, when they stated, that they would’ve believed in the Qur’ān had it been in foreign language but the Qur’an is in Arabic, which could be easily be forged. Here’s this is their arrogance, despite knowing the prophet Muḥammad was illiterate and it was impossible for him to forge it they stubbornly put this excuse out, and hence here the Qur’ān refutes them stating that had this Qur’ān been in foreign language the polytheists would again put another excuse stating how can an Arab bring an non-Arabic revealation , proposing that it surely has an external source (i.e. foreigners) and not divine hence the Qur’ān was sent in Arabic so that the Arabs won’t have any excuse.It’s quite ridiculous to think that this verse is implying that the Qur’ān is just for Arabs.Where as this verse is refuting and demolishing the excuses of polytheists.The next verse quoted by Agniveer is,

“Verily, We have made it a Qur’ān in Arabic that you may be able to understand (its meanings and its admonitions).”

– [Sūrah az-Zukhruf (43):3]

What’s the problem with this verse it is crystal clear! This verse simply states that the noble Qur’ān has been sent into an Arabic Qur’ān so that people may understand. Had Allāh Azz wa Jall sent Qur’ān in an language which humans don’t understand, the revelation had been useless.Now coming to the question that this verse implies that Qur’ān is just for Arabs as only they can understand Arabic.Such and speculation is void, as no one is born with an Arabic tongue even an Arab has to learn Arabic, inorder to understand and speak Arabic.Hence the message of this verse is very clear that it (Qur’ān) was sent in Arabic so that people could of understanding and insight could understand it’s meanings and admonitions.We’ll later in the article write more on this issue.And the next verse really exposes the unscholarly behaviour and ignorance of Islām of Agniveer.The next verse stated (by Agniveer), simply refutes his claim of Qur’ān being just for Arabs.I wonder how is he using this verse to prove that prophet Muḥammad and the noble Qur’ān was just sent for Arabs!

Those to whom We have given the Book (such as ‘Abdullāh bin Salām and other Jews who embraced Islām), rejoice at what has been revealed to you (i.e. the Qur’ân), but there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans) those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]): “I am commanded only to worship Allāh (Alone) and not to join partners with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return.”And thus have We sent it (the Qur’ān) down to be a judgement of authority in Arabic. Were you (O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]) to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which has come to you, then you will not have any Walī (protector) or Wāq (defender) against Allāh.

– [Sūrah ar-Ra’d (13):36]

The verse quoted above clearly implies that the Qur’ān has been sent for everyone, for instance here in the above verse it’s stated that the Qur’ān has been revelead for Jews and pagans! Now are Jews and Arabs the same race? Well this should clearly show the ignorance and deception of Agniveer.Agniveer’s own citations and quotes are enough to refute him as seen in this case.The next verse quoted is,

An Arabic Qur’ān, without any crookedness (therein) in order that they may avoid all evil which Allāh has ordered them to avoid, fear Him and keep their duty to Him.

– [Sūrah az-Zumar (39):28]

The verse simply states that the Qur’ān is pre-eternal without any crookedness, or evil.Moreover, the same chapter goes on further to state, that the Qu’rān is revealed for entire creation, which again debunks the speculations of Agniveer.

Verily, We have sent down to you
(O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
the Book
(this Qur’ān)
for mankind in truth. So, whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only to his
(own)
loss. And you
(O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
are not a Wakīl
(trustee or disposer of affairs, or guardian)
over them.

– [Sūrah az-Zumar (39):41]

Another verse taken out of context and quoted, nothing but out of context quoting! What a pity. The next verse quoted by Agniveer is,

A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail – a Qur’ān in Arabic for a people who know.”

– [Sūrah al-Fussilat (41):3]

The above verse simply states that the noble Qur’ān is explained in detail for people who understanding.And the author of Tafhīm al-Qur’ān rightly comments,

Fourthly, that this is an Arabic Qur’an, which implies this: “If this Qur’an had been sent down in some other language, the Arabs would have presented the excuse that they were ignorant of the language in which God had sent His Book. But this is their own language…. Fifthly, that this Book is for those who possess knowledge. That is, only the people of understanding can draw any benefit from this Book. For the ignorant it is as useless as a precious diamond for the one who cannot distinguish it from a mere stone.

Hence, here again the noble Qur’ān is refuting in specific the polytheists of Makkah on their excuse and pretext for not following the truth.Secondly the verse is stating that this Qur’ān can be understood by people of understanding and not ignorants as they due to their Ignorance and arrogance blind-fold themselves.Nowhere does the verse say that it Qur’ān is only for Arabs? Instead it quite aptly states that anyone from the people of understanding can understand it.Thirdly its states that it (Qur’ān) is book explained in detail for people who know the truth and desire it.Nowhere does the verse say that the noble Qur’ān is just for Arabs and is not for non-Arabs.The next verse quoted by Agniveer is,

And if
(We had) not (sent you to the people of Makkah)in case a
calamity should seize them for
(the deeds)
that their hands have sent
forth, they would have said:
“Our Lord! Why did You not send us a Messenger? We would then have followed Your Ayāt
(Verses of the Qur’ân)
and would have been among the believers.”

– [Sūrah al-Qasas (28):47]

The above verse is again quoted out of context, because in the same chapter verse 45 (Agniveer quoted 47), is the verse which confirms that prophet Muḥammad is sent to the entire makind, this  verses’ last part makes it explicit as ,stated by al-Imām ibn Kathir in his exegesis on 28:45, that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire creation:

(But it is We Who kept sending.) means, but We revealed that to you and sent you to mankind as a Messenger.’

Hence, the verse is quoted out of context to suit the speculation of Agniveer, whereas contextually the verse itself is clear and just a verse above this verse is a verse(verse 45) which proves that prophet Muḥammad was sent for entire mankind.The next and the last verse quoted by Agniveer is ,

“And if We had revealed it (this Qur’ān) to any of the non-Arabs, And he had recited it to them, they would not have believed in it.”

– [Sūrah ash-Shu’arā (26):198-199]

Again the same old trick! The verse is taken out of context, the verse gets clear and explicit when we look at the preceding verse of the same chapter i.e. verse 197. Here’s the verse which evidently refutes the speculations of Agniveer,

Is it not a sign to them that the learned scholars (like ‘Abdullāh bin Salām [radhi-yAllāhu ‘anhu] who embraced Islām) of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?”

– [Sūrah ash-Shu’arā (26):197]

This verse is talking about the description of Prophet Muḥammad in Torah and other scriptures wherein his advent and global mission has been related to Children of Israel and other nations.Now we can clearly see that prophet Muḥammad wasn’t sent just for Arabs had he been sent just for Arabs why would the Torah, Zabur and other scriptures contain his name and why would this verse refer to great jewish scholar- ‘Abdullāh bin Salām, conversions to Islām if Islām was just for Arabs? Simply put, the speculation of Agniveer is nothing but cheap trickery and is out of context quotation so as to gain the credulity of his cultist blind-followers.Further Agniveer referring to the verses (198-199) writes “I also realized that Prophet did not want Quran to be followed by non-Arabs in first place. Had that not been so, why would he have asserted that non-Arabs could not have believed in Arabic Quran even if it were revealed to them? (Refer Verse 7 above).”

Well, we’ve proven that early converts to Islam were non-Arabs, and had prophet Muhammad not want non-Arabs to follow Qur’ān he would have stopped them, but the case is just the opposite, entire creation was asked to follow the final revelation.As for the argument that “Had that not been so, why would he have asserted that non-Arabs could not have believed in Arabic Quran” again an simpleton question, why would have the non-Arabs believed in it? The verse is clear that non-Arabs would have excuse , that they did not understand Arabic and that this (Qur’ān) could have been a foreigners handiwork so as to gain some political advantage somehow , non-Arabs wouldn’t have believed in the Qur’ān not because the Qur’ān was only for Arabs but because they would have the excuse of it being in Arabic and that the Arabs have themselves have believed and the non-Arabs have learnt and mastered Arabic and can learn (those who’ve not believed), there remains no excuse. Hence this verse simply is stating that the non-Arabs would have an excuse due to their stubborness of not learning a the Arabic language, so it was revelead in Arabic and reasons why it was revelead in Arabic will be stated later in the article.

This was just a very short review of the verses provided by Agniveer, it could go lengthier but that would deviate the article from the topic, hence we’ve been precise.

Now coming to some ignorant claims and statements of Agniveer, where he tries to prove his concoctions but utterly fails at it, he writes that “Quran was not supposed to be for non-Arabs in first place. However being large-hearted non-Arab Muslims interpreted these verses to imply ‘entire humanity’ despite obvious contradictions”, all the so-called contradictions weren’t so , but were verses that were tried to be misinterpreted (by Agniveer but poor guy failed drastically) and all of them were quoted out of context as proven.

We think we’ve sufficiently debunked the speculations surrounding the verse quoted by Agniveer, nonetheless we’ll like to show our reader that all the verses quoted by Agniveer are totally taken out of context as the noble Qur’ān in numerous places aptly states that the noble Qu’rān is for entire creation, here we’ll reproduce those verses which will make the issue crystal clear.

“The month of Ramadan in which was revealed
the Qurān, a guidance for mankind
and clear proofs for the guidance and the Criterion …”

– [Sūrah al-Baqarah(2): 185]

“O mankind! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger (Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
with the truth from your Lord. So believe in him, it is better for you. But if you disbelieve, then certainly to Allāh belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. And Allāh is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

– [Sūrah an-Nisā (4):170]

O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof (Prophet Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
from your Lord; and We sent down to you a manifest light (this Qur’ān).”

– [Sūrah an-Nisā (4):174]

Say (O Muhammad [sal-All’āhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]):O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allāh – to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth…”

– [Sūrah al-A’rāf (7):158]

Say
(O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]):
“O mankind! I am
(sent)
to you only as a plain warner.”

– [Sūrah al-Hajj (22):49]

Verily, this (the Qur’ān)
is no less than a Reminder to (all)
the ‘Ālamīn (mankind and jinn)

– [Sūrah at-Takweer (81):27]

O mankind! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger
[sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
with the truth from your Lord. So believe in him, it is better for you. But if you disbelieve, then certainly to Allāh belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. And Allāh is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.

– [Sūrah al-Hajj (4):170]

“And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in this Qur’ān, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything.”

– [Sūrah al-Kahf (18):54]

O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Lord
(i.e. the Qur’ān, enjoining all that is good and forbidding all that is evil), and a healing for that (disease of ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy and differences)
which is in your breasts, – a guidance and a mercy
(explaining lawful and unlawful things) for the believers.

– [Sūrah Yūnus (10):57]

Verily, We have sent down to you
(O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
the Book
(this Qur’ān)
for mankind in truth. So, whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only to his
(own)
loss. And you
(O Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam])
are not a Wakīl
(trustee or disposer of affairs, or guardian)
over them.

– [Sūrah az-Zumar (39):41]

These are but few verses which unequivocally state that the noble Qur’ān is for entire creation and not just for a specific race.In fact there are plenty of verses where Allāh Azz wa Jall has commanded mankind to follow the Truth and shun the falsehood, which again prove that the noble Qur’ān is for entire creation.Here few from those verses.

It (this Qur’ān) is only a Reminder for all the ‘Ālamīn (mankind and jinn).

– [Sūrah Sād (38):87]

But it is nothing else than a Reminder to all the ‘Ālamīn (mankind and jinn).

– [Sūrah An-Nūn (68):52]

Blessed is He Who sent down the Criterion (of right and wrong, i.e. this Qur’ān) to His slave (Muhammad [sal-Allāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam]) that he may be a warner to the ‘Ālamīn (mankind and jinn).

– [Sūrah al-Furqān (25):1]

O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allāh), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqūn (the pious. See V.2:2).

– [Sūrah al-Baqarah (2):21]

But when He delivers them, behold! They rebel (disobey Allāh) in the earth wrongfully. O mankind! Your rebellion (disobedience to Allāh) is only against your own selves, – a brief enjoyment of this worldly life, then (in the end) to Us is your return, and We shall inform you of that which you used to do.                                  – [Sūrah Yūnus (10):23]

O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwā (Eve)], and from them both He created many men and women; and fear Allâh through Whom you demand (your mutual rights), and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allāh is Ever an All-Watcher over you.

– [Sūrah al-an-Nisā (4):1]

All these verses clearly and evidently refute the speculations of Agnveer, there are plenty such verses which state that the noble Qur’ān is for entire creation,but for the sake of brevity we’ve provided on few.Agniveer stupendously states “And that is why Arabs are convinced that despite their loyalty up to death, non-Arabs cannot understand Quran! Quran is for the Arabs by the Arab prophet.”

What an ignorant and illiterate statement! Which linguist claims that non-Arabs cannot understand Arabic! The fact is that non-Arab can easily understand Arabic what they need is study, which is required to learn any language even mother-tongue.In fact one of the most famous Arabic scholar Sībawayh (Abū Bishr Amr ibn Uthmān ibn Qanbar Al-Bishrī) was and non-Arab! There are thousands of non-Arabs who’ve no parallels and are unrivaled when it comes to Arabic language.Great Islāmic scholars like al-Bukhārī, Abī Dawūd as-Sijistāni, Abū Eesā al-Tirmidhī,Ibn Mājah and An-Nasāī, were non-Arabs. Nope, there are even more, Abī Hanifāh, Al-Awzā’ī, Al-Albānī, Ash-Shinqitee…etc It would take volumes to enlist just their names.Another noteworthy point is that Agniveer writes:”Non-Arab Muslims can only read the translations- the man made stuff.”

What an Arrogantly ignorant statement, did our readers know that one of tthe best and the oldest Tafsīr or exegesis of noble Qur’ān was written by a non-Arab named al –Imām ibn Jarir at-Tabari? And in fact most of the translations of the noble Qu’rān into English and other languages have been done by non-Arabs like Abd’Allāh Yusuf Ali, Hilalī/Khān, Pickthall, Sahīh Int., and Muḥammad Asad….etc. In which world is Agniveer living in? Arabs and non-Arabs both are pioneers when it comes to Islāmic knowledge both are equal which is evident factually.

Crux of the matter:

All the fuss about Qur’ān being in Arabic, so-called foreign language, stems from the statement of Mūlshankar who wrote:

37. Why did He reveal the Veda in Sanskrit instead of a language of some particular country?

A.~ Had He revealed the Veda in the language of some particular country, He would have been partial to that country, because it would have been easier for the people of that country to learn and teach the Veda than for the foreigners, therefore, it is that He did it in Sanskrit that belongs to no country, and is the mother of all other languages. Just as He has ordained the material creation such as the earth, etc., which is also the source of all the useful arts, for the equal good of all, so should the language of the Divine revelation be accessible to all countries and nations with the same amount of labour.Hence the revelation of the Veda in Sanskrit does not make God.

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch 7, pg.238, Tr. Chiranjiva]

According to Mūlshankar, if God reveals His book in a language of a specific people he becomes partial, towards them as according to him that make it easier for the people of that country to understand the book.Well, let’s apply the same logic of Mūlshankar on his theory of revelation he states:

36. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?

A.-“In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira, respectively.” SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3.

Q. Why should He have revealed the Vedas to those four men alone and not to others as well? That imputes favouritism to God.

A.- Among all men those four alone were purest in heart, therefore, God revealed the true knowledge to them only.

– [Satyarth Prakāsh, Ch 7, pg.238, Tr. Chiranjiva]

As per protestant Hindūism, their god Ishwar revealed vedas in Sanskrit so as to be impartial and these vedas were revelead to four rishis who had the purest of hearts.We’ve earlier in the article proven the fact that there was a huge gap (time period) between the inception of humanity and revelation of vedas. (See the sub-section “Vedas weren’t revealed at inception of humanity”).

As per Mūlshankar Sanskrit is the Mother of all languages, but how is it possible? Let’s us explain the issue, during the gap (time period), when humans were doing deeds of various kinds, inorder to do various kinds of deeds, action there is a necessity of an language, for example how can a person live without a language, where in he knows not the name of anything that exists around him, how would he indulge in actions? Hence this proves that if humans existed so did a language exist, so this proves that Sanskrit isn’t the mother of all languages nor the oldest of all languages,as Sanskrit was unknown to humans until the revealation of vedas and infact even the rishis were ignorant of Sanskrit it was Ishwar who taught them Sanskrit.As stated by Mūlshankar:

38. The Vedas were revealed in the Sanskrit language. Those Rishis were ignorant of that language. How did they then understand the Vedas?

A.- They were made known to them by God, and whenever great Sages, who were yogis, imbued with piety, and with the desire to understand the meanings of certain mantras and whose minds possessed the power of perfect concentration, entered the superior condition, called Samaadhi, in contemplation of Deity. He made known unto them the meanings of the desired mantras. When the Vedas were thus revealed to many Rishis, they made expositions with historical illustrations of the Vedic mantras and embodied them in books called the Brahmanas which literally means an exposition of the Veda.

Thus it’s proven that Sanskrit isn’t the mother-of-all languages nor the oldest of all languages, either one or many languages existed amongst humans during the gap between inception of humanity and revelation of vedas, which enabled them to indulge in various kinds of deed and action which became the basis for Ishwar to select four humans amongst the thousands of humans so as to reveal the vedas.

Another important point is that this also proves that the gap (time period) between inception of humanity and revelation of vedas was very substantial as just developing a language requires centuries, atleast when there exists no language and work has to be started from scratch.Thus the conclusion is that Sanskrit isn’t the mother of all languages nor is the oldest language.

Now coming to the contentions of Mūlshankar he writes that if a divine book is revelead in a language specific to a country God becomes partial.And Agniveer states that “If Quran was meant for non-Arabs, it would have been sent in vernacular languages and not in a language that hardly anyone understands in non-Arab world.”

Applying the logic of Mūlshankar and Agniveer, on their own creed would mean that vedas should be rejected.Due to the following reasons:

1) Did not Ishwar become partial by teaching Sanskrit only to 4 ṛishis and not to others? As, what does a language has to do with pure hearts? Ishwar could have taught every human Sanskrit and then tested them, then revealed the vedas to four people with purest hearts. This proves that Ishwar was partial as, a language has nothing to do with pure hearts for instance, is learning Sanskrit prohibited for a terrorist? Or a terrorist by nature is unable to learn Sanskrit as; he does not have a pure heart. Teaching Sanskrit to the four ṛishis only, proves the impartiality of Ishwar.

2) Vedas were revealed in Sanskrit language unknown to humans, and was taught only to 4 ṛishis which makes Sanskrit their language not the language of common humans, hence as per the logic of Agniveer “If vedas were meant for every human (and not just the 4 rishis), it should have been sent in an language which thousands of humans had developed and spoke during the gap (time-period) not in an alien language which none of the humans understood except that the four rishis who were taught by Ishwar”

Hence as per the logic of Mūlshankar and Agniveer –

a)   Ishwar is partial for having taught Sanskrit only to the four rishis.

b)   Vedas are only for the four ṛishis, as other humans did not know Sanskrit language.

Agniveer also wrote Were we fools to reject our own texts and heroes and embrace a foreign revelation which we don’t even understand…”

Which own texts, Agniveer? Weren’t vedas revealed in a language unknown to humans except four ṛishis? So how come this alien language has been accepted by protestant Hindūs (including Agniveer), its more foreign (alien) than any “foreign language” like English…etc isn’t it? Again, no one except four rishis understood Sanskrit, initially even they were ignorant but were later taught by Ishwar, so how did protestant Hindūs embrace such an alien language which they did not understand? In fact, even today more thatn 95% of Hindus don’t understand Sanskrit so should they leave vedas and Hindūism?

Few other issues which Agniveer is having hard time fathoming is that the noble Qur’an is in Arabic and that those who knew Arabic (Arabs and non-Arabs) were the first to understand it, through this he alludes that Qur’an is for Arabs only! Well, the Qur’an is in Arabic and Arabs and all those who knew Arabic had the duty to convey the message to the world for instance the companions of Prophet Muhammad those were non-Arabs but were masters of Arabic, for instance Bilāl ibn Rabah, Salim bin Ma’qil, Shu’ayb ar-Rumi, Salmān al-Fārsi, Abd’Allāh ibn Salām, Ṣāliḥ ibn Ady (Shuqran), Abu Kabasha Salim ad-Dawsi, Abu Musra Ansa.

So the logic,  which Agniveer is applying to Islām, let’s apply that to his own creed ,Sanskrit was taught only to the four ṛishis, so does that mean its only for them, and they shouldn’t preach it? So why did Hindus accept what was preached by the ṛishis? Just like Agniveer is adamantly rejecting the Qur’an because it’s in Arabic and was preached by those who knew Arabic (Arabs and non-Arabs). Why doesn’t he reject the Sanskrit and Vedas as they have nothing to do with him, they were just for the four ṛishis (Using Agniveers Logic).

Islāmic wisdom:

Let us state the Islāmic wisdom, behind the languages, revelation et al. Islām explicity states that humanity is one single family,

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female
and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed
, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you.”

– [Sūrah al-Hujurāt (49):13]

Every human is a relative of other, and there is no superiority over other except through righteousness and God-consciousness.God created humans with different skin colour …etc so that they may recognize each other, had He created everyone alike this would lead to confusion. But humans took that difference and started differing and soon broke the single family into ‘races’. It’s to be noted that according to Islam Adam was taught one language which every human spoke but later new languages were derived from this one language, as humans multiplied.Hence according to Islām this one language is the source of every language, whether this one language is amongst the languages present today, is a question with answers not known (as of now).

As al-Imām ibn Hazm wrote:

“…and it is confirmed that what is known of (language) is first known from the Creator, since (language) is something which, in its very nature, can only be known by way of being taught, and therefore requires that its first (human) teacher was taught directly by Allah. Then he in turn taught the members of his own kind what his Lord had taught him… “

– [Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām]

Thus, according to Islām every language is equal as the source is one , though every language may have its merits and demerits but they are equal for Muslims as they originate from one source, and Muslims do not hate a language or disown a language just because its so-called “foreign language”. We believe every language amongst humans today is for every human and does not belong to specific people as, the source is one.And here’s what Imām ibn Hazm says,

At the same time, we do not deny that people brought about a variety of languages after there had been a single language that they used to have in common by way of divine instruction, and by which they had been able to know the natures, modalities, and definitions of things. We have no way of knowing what the original language was that Adam (peace be upon him) spoke. All that we can say for certain is that it must have been the most comprehensive of all languages, the clearest in expression, the least ambiguous, the most concise, and the most extensive in vocabulary to comprehend the names of all things, whether substances or accidents.                                   – [Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām]

And here’s what Imām ibn Hazm says about those who claim the superiority of one language over the other,

There are those who assume their language is better than others. This means nothing, since superiority comes about in certain well-known ways: either by deeds or by special distinction. A language has no deeds and there is no scriptural text conferring the distinction of superiority to one language over another.”      – [Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām]

And futher the Imām ibn Hazm goes on to state the view of Galen, the Greek ‘anatomist’ and refuted it,

Galen was very much mistaken when he said: “Greek is the superior language, because all other languages sound like either the barking of dogs or the croaking of frogs.”  This is blatant ignorance, since when anyone hears a language other than his own, a language he does not understand, it invariably sounds to him the way that Galen describes it

– [Ihkām fī Usūl al-Ahkām]

Hence, it’s only the prejudiced and ignorants who believe their language to be superior to others as, when the source is one, so are the languages equal.Every language has its merit and demerit , and the prerogative of sending the final revelation rests with Allāh Azz wa Jall alone, who is All-Wise.

In order to unite humanity into one single family Allāh Azz wa Jall revelead the final revelation in one language which humans would follow so that they may leave the man-made bar of ‘race’, and again become the one Single family as were created.

Now a question arises why was Qur’ān sent in Arabic?

There are several points, which we understand as reasons why it was revealed in Arabic, which will be reproduced here, as stated earlier the language of revelation does not matter, as almost in every language there were revelation (to a messenger or prophet) so as to guide the people of the specific tribe/nation.Hence for Muslims it does not matter which language the divine book was revealed.There are several reasons (as we understand) why the final revealation was in Arabic.For instance,

1) Arabs had mastered their language unlike other nations who couldn’t achieve such mastery ,  for instance Indians couldn’t master Sanskrit and prakrit was the language used for almost every purpose, except for few, and in fact we’ve also proven that Hindus and the later ṛishis were “destitute of power” of understanding vedas which were in Sanskrit, due to due to “diminution in their power of memory” and “influence of the times” hence they had to write books like Nighantu so as to keep alive their language and holy books alive.Moreover today Sanskrit is a dead-language, though there are efforts for revival and we hope that it is revived, as language is not the property of certain people but was given by One true almighty God, to Adam and from this language these various languages were derived.

2) Secondly, Arabia is such a geographical location where East meets west, what geographical location could be better! This is the best location where entire humanity can come together as a single family and worship the one true almighty God.Today we can see this in the Makkah, where people from every corner of the world come pray as a single family.

There are many reasons some are known and some aren’t, people might also like to visit these links which provide some more information:

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

6. Caliphate sealed for Arabs only, Non Arabs can only be loyal servants to Arab mastersI will not comment about Islam of Prophet Muhammad. But the Islam of today is nothing more than a political agenda for racial superiority of Arabs. That is why, as per Islam, the ruler of Muslim Ummah – the Caliph should be a Quraish (Arabic tribe which Muhammad belonged to). Any Non Quraish can never dream of becoming Caliph because Quraish are born rulers and Non Arabs are born slaves.

Sahih Bukhari 8.82.817:…After a pause he (Abu Bakr) said, ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. …Sahih Bukhari 4.56.704:…Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.’ “

Sahih Bukhari 4.56.705:Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said, “Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, even if only two of them remained.

Thus, howsomuch loyal a Muslim I become, howsomuch Zakaat I pay, howsomuch Deen I follow, howsomuch strong my leadership skills be, I cannot become Caliph of Muslims.A Yazeed who killed Prophet’s kins can become Caliph, his children can become Caliph, but not an Indian or Pakistani or Bangladeshi or Indonesian or African or European Muslim. We will just remain ‘Mawalis’. Our job is to blindly follow what our Arab rulers say – because only they are the blessed ones to have received Allah’s last message in their own language – and work for propagation of Islam so that an Arab can tomorrow become a Caliph.

Agniveer starts with stating “I will not comment about Islam of Prophet Muhammad.”  Well, is there anything called “Islām” other than which the noble prophet Muḥammad was sent with? We think this is where most people fall into the pit. Then he goes on to say “But the Islam of today is nothing more than a political agenda for racial superiority of Arabs.”, which evidently isn’t true but delusions of Agniveer.Then starts his song of non-Arab and Arab ‘schism’, which fortunately is mere myth propounded by Islāmophobes, and then states from a long ḥadīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī, so as to support his allegations and conjectures.Here’s a excerpt from the ḥadīth,

So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, ‘O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have  attributed to yourselves,
but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah’s hand who was sitting amongst us.

– [Sahīh al-Bukhārī, vol.8, Bk. 82, no.817]

From the above ḥadīth Agniveer, deduced that it states that “Non Quraish can never dream of becoming Caliph because Quraish are born rulers and Non Arabs are born slaves” Again we see the deception, if we assume that only Quraysh are allowed to be the Caliph(Khalifah) so how come is this an Arab non-Arab issue? There are thousands of non-Quraysh Arab tribes! Hence it’s simply explicit that this ḥadīth has nothing to do with racism, superiority or anything which may make some one unequal.So what does the ḥadīth really mean? Why does Abī Bakr (radiAllāh Anh) say that Quraysh are best of Arabs and Caliphate (Khilafah) just for Quraysh?

Well inorder to understand this ḥadīth we’ll have to look at some historical facts and other aḥādīth which will make the issue clear, in the above ḥadīth there are two parties claiming caliphate first is Ansar and second are the Quraysh.During prophets time these two groups were one of the most respected groups in Arabia and had political influence.After the death of prophet there occurred a dispute amongst both the parties so as to who will have the Caliphate.

It’s to be noted that both the parties were equal when it came to services rendered to Islam, and both of them considered their claim to Caliphate on the basis on their services and not on the basis of tribe or descent as this is very clear from the speech of leader of Ansar, that is Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubadah (radiAllāh Anh)  which was delivered in the meeting of the Ansar in the Saqifah of Bani Sa’idah:

O party of the Ansar: “Your excellence with regards to your services to the religion of Islam is not the share of any other tribe in the whole of Arabia. The Prophet (sws) of God stayed among his folks more than a decade. He continued calling them to worship the Most Merciful and pleaded them to abandon their idols. None believed in his message except for a few. These few however did not have the power to protect the Messenger of God nor were they able to propagate his religion. They could not even defend themselves. This state of affairs remained until God intended to grant you excellence. He granted you respect and specifically chose you for his bounty. He bestowed upon you the ability to believe in Him and in His Messenger… Now the Messenger of God has departed for the next world while he was pleased with you. This is why you deserve the right to succeed him more than any other group. Hold this (khilafah) firmly.” Then all those present among the Ansar said: “What you have opined and expressed is right.”

– [Ibn Qutaybah, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1 (Cairo: Sharikatu Maktabati wa Matba’ati Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi wa Awladihi, 1969), 5.]

Hence it is clear that the basis for claiming caliphate wasn’t racial or tribal but was based on the actions and services and both the parties believe themselves to have done fair, in regards to the services and hence were claiming the Caliphate.But then why did Abī Bakr say that the caliphate is for Quraysh only? Well, it’s due to various reasons which we’ll state.

1) Quraysh were held high, and were respected throughout the lands.

2) People were accustomed to the rule of Quraysh since pre-Islamic times, due to the very authoritative and caring nature of Quraysh for their people.

3) After the death of Prophet Muḥammad, many tribes started revolting, inorder take political control, hence inorder to unite Muslims someone with great political influence was needed, which inturn would help in suppressing these revolts.

4) Quraysh were more knowledgeable in Islām then other Muslims at that point of time as they had spent more time with Prophet.They were teachers of the deen and taught deen so they were more respected amongst Muslims.

These are 4 basic reasons why Abī Bakr stated that Caliphate was only for Quraysh and these facts were well-know and were also acknowledged by the noble prophet.

It has been narrarted on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among the people being subservient to the disbelievers among them.

– [Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Bk. 20, no.4473]

And, so was it acknowledged by the leader of Ansar, Sā‘d. While arguing against the claim of the Ansar regarding the khilafah, Abī Bakr said to Sā‘d Ibn Mu’adh:

Sa’d, you well know…. The righteous Arabs follow the righteous among the Quraysh and the evil among the Arabs follow the evil among the Quraysh. Sa’d replied: “You are right.”

Hence in order to unite Muslims, who in entirety respected Quraysh for their services rendered to Islām, Prophet Muḥammad and Abī Bakr, stated that Quraysh should have the Caliphate so that people may unite against the revolting forces.And the goal was achieved by installing Abī Bakr as the Caliph.Had not the Quraysh taken control, of the Caliphate there would have been years spent in wars, due to revolts from other tribes.Thus here the statement that the Caliphate is for Quraysh clearly states , that during that time Quraysh were the only ,  people with enough political influence to handle matters fairly, hence the statement is to be taken in context and not out of it as done by various people.Hence we think this should explain the reason behind the statements of Abī Bakr and others when they meant Caliphate is just for Quraysh.

Now coming to some useless nonsensical statements, of Agniveer wherein states that “Non Quraish can never dream of becoming Caliph because Quraish are born rulers and Non Arabs are born slaves.”

Doesn’t this statement look like a vehicle without wheels? All those who were of the opinion that only Quraysh are to be Caliphs usually could not understand the aḥādīth relating to Quraysh, just like Agniveer. But is it true that Quraysh are born rulers and non-Arabs are slaves? Well, this question has been dealt a lot many times earlier in the article nonetheless we’ll nail the issue of Quraysh and non-Arabs here. Abī Ubaidah (radiAllāh Anh) a very noble Quraysh was commissioned to be the Governor of Syria and the commander General of the largest Muslim Army during the time of second Caliph Umar ibn Khattab, and here’s what he said:

O People, I am a Muslim from the Quraish, Anyone among you, whether white or black, who outweighs me in piety, and then he shall be my master.

– [Abdul Basit Ahmad, ‘Abu ‘Ubaidah bin AI-Jarrah – The Nation’s Trustworthy Man’, pg. 43, Ed. Aqeel Walker, M. Ayub Sapra, Darussalam]

This is what he said, he was a Muslim before being Quraysh and anyone be he black or white, Arab or non-Arab can become his master if he outhweighs him in piety and righteousness.This statement is enough to destroy the myth of Agniveer that Quraysh or Arabs are rulers where as non-Arabs are mere slaves.Now directly coming to the allegation of whether a non-Quraysh can become a Caliph or not? I pity the hate-monger Islāmophobe Agniveer, for he himself produces a proof against his own claim, inconsistency!

Agniveer has himself provided the proof that even non-Arabs can be Caliphs, where? Well in the later parts of his article, here’s the excerpt from his article as exact as he (rendered the ḥadīth) wrote: [Note: We’ll debunk the speculation of Agniveer with regards to this ḥadīth and show his unethical behaviour in the later part of our article.]

Bukhari: V9B89N256 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave…”

Well, what does Agniveer think this ḥadīth is talking about? He very well tried to make this ḥadīth racist in his article which we’ll refute and expose soon. But he totally missed the command of prophet Muḥammad which is the essence and message of the ḥadīth.The ḥadīth simply states that anyone can be a ruler/Caliph be he from any part of the world any strata of the society.This ḥadīth itself is enough to debunk the speculations of Agniveer, nonetheless here’s what Shaykh Muhammad Manzur Nu’manī :

This Hadith does not need any explanation. The words indicate that the Prophet sal-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam spoke them during his last days. The Companions Prophet sal-Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam surmised from the subject-matter of his sermon and the out-of-ordinary style of delivery that he had a premonition that he would depart from this world not long thereafter. Therefore, one of them requested him to leave them some instructions to follow after him. So, he gave them the instructions. The first thing he said was that they should observe taqwa (a God-fearing attitude) and not disobey Allah. Next, they should obey the Khalifah and Ameer even if they belonged to a lower strata of society.

– [Ma’arif ul Ḥadīth, Kitābul A’tisam bil Kitāb was Sunnah, vol 4, Part 8, pg.216]

It’s clear that anyone belonging from any strata, despite their colour, race ethinicity can become a Caliph and not just Quraysh.What more, evidence would our person need?Nonetheless, let’s reproduce here what the second Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab stated with regards to Caliphate,

‘If my appointed time [of death] reached me and Abu ‘Ubaydah were living, I would appoint him as caliph.And if my appointed time reaches me and Abu ‘Ubaydah is dead I would appoint Mu’adh ibn Jabal as caliph

– [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Fath al-Bari, 13:119]

And he also stated as to whom he would have appointed Caliph,

“If Salim, the client of Abu Hudhayfah, were alive, I would appoint him”

– [Bukhārī, At-Ta’rikh, II, 108]

The two statements of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab are enough to debunk the allegation that only Quraysh can be the Caliph, as we read that Umar desired three people to become Caliph and the most interesting names among the 3 are Mu’adh ibn Jabal and Salim bin Ma’qil.We think our readers might have got the point by now, as we’ve stated a lot about one of the two persons in the preceding parts of the article.

Mu’adh ibn Jabal was an Ansār, not a Quraysh.

Salim ibn Ma’qil was a Mawālī, who was Persian.

This explicitly shows how anyone can become a Caliph; with the necessary qualities.Moreover a Shaykh Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī states the view of Imām Abī Hanifah,

“Yes, in Mawahib al-Rahman [it is mentioned] that it [i.e. Qurayshi lineage] is not a condition according to our Imam (i.e. Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him)).”

– [Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī, al-Fayd al-Bari, 4:498]

So, was the view of other scholars, for instance according this was also stated by Abī Bakr al-Baqillani al-Ashari.Conclusively it’s only due to the misinterpretation of few ḥadīth that people conclude that only Quraysh can be the Caliph whereas anyone with the essential qualities can become Caliph.So Prophet Muhammad said “Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, even if only two of them remained.Meaning there will and will be twelve Quraysh Caliph who’ll be righteously guided, even if only two Quraysh remain.Thus the speculations of Agniveer are debunked by his own words, as he himself provides proof , that anyone can become a Caliph be he from the lower strata , higher strata a white, black, red, yellow any people from any race.

Agniveer also states, 2 more ḥadīth (i.e. 4.56.704, 705) in order to support his speculation without knowing the fact that the aḥādīth are talking but about prophesies of Prophet Muhammad, that there will be twelve righteous Caliph in total from the Quraysh, and we atleast know the four Caliphs who were Quraysh and were righteously guided (first four).Here are other aḥādīth which help clear fog,

Narrated Jabir bin Samura:

I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, “All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish.”

Hence the aḥādīth quoted by poor Agniveer are prophesies of number of Caliph’s who’ll be righteous, hence these are prophecies of those twelve Qurayshi Caliphs who’ll ruler Muslims.And interestingly, the speculations of Agniveer are opposed to historical facts, had Agniveer tried to read some authentic history books (apart from the fiction books of Hindu-Fascits), he would have known that there were famous non-Quraysh, non-Arab Caliphs, and the last Caliphate was that of Ottaman who were non-Arab Turks.And in factuality the last Caliph was Abdul Mejid II” a Turk.Hence the speculations of Agniveer that only Quraysh can be Caliphs is void of truth and also of historical facts.

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

7. Only seventy thousand seats available for Muslims in heaven, will those be filled by masters or slaves?

Non-Arabs cannot even find consolation in hope that eventually after Judgment Day, Allah will grant them 72 virgins in Heaven forever for dying as Muslims, as claimed by Mullahs. Because even the seats of Heaven have been already booked by these Arabs as per Sahih (True) Hadiths.

Sahih Bukhari 8.76.550:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “From my followers there will enter Paradise a crowd, seventy thousand in number, whose faces will glitter as the moon does when it is full…”

So the quota was long over for non-Arabs

What an ignorant claim! This is one of the most hilarious parts of the article by Agniveer.Here Agniveer claims that “the seats of Heaven have been already booked by these Arabs as per Sahih (True) Hadiths” and in order to prove his claim he brings out a ḥadīth, from Sahīh al-Bukhārī and here’s the complete ḥadīth:

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “From my followers
there will enter Paradise a crowd, seventy thousand in number, whose faces will glitter as the moon does when it is full.” On hearing that, ‘Ukasha bin Mihsan Al−Asdi got up, lifting his covering sheet, and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Invoke Allah that He may make me one of them.” The Prophet said, “O Allah, make him one of them.” Another man from the Ansar got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them. “The Prophet said (to him), “‘Ukasha has preceded you.”

– [Sahīh al-Bukhārī, vol. 8, Bk. 76, no.550]

Did anyone realize the deception or should we say ignorance of Agniveer? In the ḥadīth prophet Muḥammad said “From my followers…”! Does not this ring any bells? Well, the ḥadīth is so clear, that even an eight grader will not find any difficulty in fathoming it.Simply, put the ḥadīth states that from amongst Muslim Ummah there will be seventy thousand, who will enter paradise whose face will be glittering as Moon does on fullmoon day.And will enter paradise without being questioned die

And where in the entire ḥadīth do we find the word “Arab” we are wondering from where did Agniveer speculate that the ḥadīth has something to do with Arabs?

Poor Agniveer, out of his ignorance, claims that only seventy thousand people will be in heaven when the ḥadīth is explicit that “From my followers
there will enter Paradise a crowd, seventy thousand in number, whose faces will glitter as the moon does when it is full.” We think every person , would understand the ḥadīth , especially when it says “From my followers there will enter Paradise a crowd” it should be clear nonetheless let’s explain the ḥadīth to our readers, and here’s what Shaykh Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Munnajid:

What the hadeeth means is that there is a group of this ummah who will enter Paradise without being brought to account, not that the number of inhabitants of Paradise from this ummah is seventy thousand. The seventy thousand referred to in this hadeeth are of a high status in this ummah because of some special qualities that they have, as mentioned in the hadeeth: “They are the ones who do not seek ruqya, do not believe in bad omens and do not use branding; they put their trust in their Lord…”

The reason why they will enter Paradise without being brought to account and without being punished is stated clearly in another report narrated by al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) from Ibn ‘Abbaas, who said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘I was shown the nations. One Prophet passed by with a group, another passed by with a small band, another with ten followers, another with five, and another on his own (with no followers). I looked and saw a huge multitude, and I said, “O Jibreel, are these my ummah?” He said “No, but look at the horizon.” So I looked and saw a huge multitude. He said, “These are your ummah, and these are seventy thousand at their head who will not be brought to account or punished.” I said, “How come?” He said, “They do not use branding, or seek ruqya, or believe in bad omens; they put their trust in their Lord.”‘ ‘Ukhaashah ibn Mihsan stood up and said, ‘Pray to Allaah to make me one of them!’ He [the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)] said, ‘O Allaah, make him one of them.’ Then another man stood up and said, ‘Pray to Allaah to make me one of them.’ He said, ‘ ‘Ukaashah has beaten you to it.'” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 6059).

They are described further in another hadeeth, narrated by Sahl ibn Sa’d (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Seventy thousand or seven hundred thousand [one of the narrators was not sure] of my ummah will enter Paradise, and the first of them will not enter until the last of them do so. And their faces will be like the moon on the night when it is full.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari).

Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: ‘A group of my ummah seventy thousand strong will enter Paradise, with their faces shining like the moon.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari).

Muslim also reported about them in his Saheeh from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah: “… then the believers will be saved and the first group to be saved will have faces like the moon when it is full, [they will be] seventy thousand, who will not be brought to account. Then will come those who shine like the stars in the sky…”

The ḥadīth simply refers to the first group of people entering paradise, whose faces will be glittering like Moon as they did some very good deeds and did not believe in superstitions like bad omens nor did they use branding (cauterization) thinking it to be something to be with supernatural power nor did they use illegal incantations to ward of evil…etc but put their trust in God and treated themselves will legal ways.

We are still, trying to understand, which ‘interpretive” method did Agniveer utilized in arriving to the conclusion that only seventy thousand Muslims will enter paradise and that too only Arabs! When the ḥadīth nowhere talks of Arabs, or any other race, nor does state that only seventy thousands shall enter paradise.Well, we think he is using the classical “interpretational skills” and “logic” taught to protestant Hindūs by fanatic “pandits” at Gurukuls and Aasharams.We think the ḥadīth is pretty clear and explicit and to a great deal exposes the illiteracy of Agniveer & Co. in Islām and its sciences.

Satyagni / Agniveer the hate-monger wrote:

8. Allah hates Blacks

I am not very fair but also not that dark. Perhaps you can call me brown. I don’t know what my status is. But for ‘blacks’, this Arabic supremacy is even more humiliating. There are countless references in Hadiths and Quran that Allah dislikes Black. He would thus ensure that before entry to Heaven, everyone would be made ‘white’. And all who enter Hell would be made dark.

No text in the world is more hateful of ‘blacks’ and glorifies ‘Arabs’ then Islamic religious texts.For example:

·        Tabari IX:69 “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us.

·         Tabari II:11 “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.
(Thus Blacks cannot be either prophets, apostles or kings in Islamic Ummah. They instead got black color so that they could be slaves! Can anything be more insulting to blacks?)

·         Ishaq:243 “I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks… “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you, his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.”

·         Ishaq:144 “A rock was put on a slave’s chest.

·         Bukhari: V9B89N256 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.’ Just look at the derogatory remarks for a ‘black’!

·         Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 89) “Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity.

·         Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 31, p. 380) So Islam not only allows for Muslim to capture slaves in wars, yet the sons and daughters of these slaves are also legal properties of the captor Muslim!

·         Ibn Hashim: “Prophet’s Biography” (Al-Road Al-Anf’) (Part 4, p. 177) This question was delivered to Mufti Ibn Timiyya. “A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an owned slave?” Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 31, p. 376 – 377) Ibn Timiyya replied: “Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the status of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed his status among themselves if he was from the Arabs – whether he must be enslaved or not, because when A’isha (Mohammed’s wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Mohammed told A’isha, Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.’

·         For more references, visit http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/127866
and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2067472/posts

This part of the article is one of the most, unethical.Here too, just like in other parts Agniveer , goes on with his lies and deception , and here he quotes several unauthentic sources, which is quite typical of him.This part of the article should be interesting one for those interested in ascertaining the sincerity and credibility of Agniveer/satyagni. Firstly , let’s see the sources used by satyagni, all the above quotes are taken from a comment by someone who’s ‘unknown’ seemingly another Islāmophobe , really sad to see that the standard of agniveer/satyagni has degraded to using someone’s comments as source for criticizing Islām without even checking whether the quotes are accurate or not. Agniveer/satyagni are a black spot on the field of comparative religion, it’s very pitiful to see quacks like satyagni/agniveer claiming themselves to be people of comparative religion and interfaith-dialogue. We’ll later on expose the credibility and status of the link from which agniveer/satyagni has selectively picked up the above quotes.

Secondly, four sources have been used by Agniveer (meaning the poster of the comment), while citing these quotations:

1)     Sahih al-Bukhāri,

2)     Ṭabari (name of book quoted is not stated),

3)     Sirat al-Rasul of Muḥammad ibn Ishāq,

4)     “Ibn Timiyya” Shaykh al-Islām al-Imām ibn Taymiyyah (name of book quoted is not stated).

It’s to be noted that just the name of Imām al-Ṭabari is stated with some Roman letters like “II:69”, mostly probably its “Tarikh al-Ṭabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk” as the quotes are historical in nature and this is the infamous book by him on history usually used by Islāmophobes, without any idea about the nature of the book.Next, is the “Ibn Timiyya”, well there’s no Islāmic Scholar named so ,most probably they are talking  of  “Shaykh al-Islām al-Imām ibn Taymiyyah” but here too name of the book is missing.Thus lets start analyzing linearly.Agniveer’s first two quotes are from Tarikh al-Ṭabari as it’s the only historical book written by the author, hence this should be it.So is this book authentic with regards to its contents?Well the author himself will be in a better condition to state the truth, al-Ṭabari writes in his introduction to his book :

“Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.”

– [Abu Jafar Muḥammad bin Jarir al- Ṭabari, Tarikh al-Ṭabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Volume I, p. 550, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), 1997]

Thus, we see al-Ṭabari sincerely admitting that he just recorded those accounts and incidents in the manner he received them, and he is not to be held liable if any objectionable accounts should arise, in simple terms al-abari has simply and explicitly denied accountability by avoiding the task of historical criticism and verification.Hence al-Ṭabari himself admits that fact that his book isn’t a reliable as he has related everything that was narrated to him without indulging in any historical criticism or textual.Thus these spurious accounts are not to be attributed to him or Islām.Moreover the quote provided by Agniveer is probably Israeliyyat narration, those which are narrated by Jews which according the science of ḥadīth are unauthentic, and al-Ṭabari is known for narrating from Jews, nay not only Jews but from Christians and Zoroastrians, so as to compile “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a variety of segments of the society,without going into the authenticity of the accounts.And here’s what Ibn kathir wrote about it :

“In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound informationmerely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.

-[Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208]

Moreover the belief of Ham being the father of black Africans et al, is nowhere to be found in Islām but is found in Judeo-Christian scriptures –

“The Christian justification of slavery hinged on racial categories, in which the Biblical reference to the curse of Noah was invoked to explain why Africans were slaves. According to legend, the curse on the ”sons of Ham”
explained the color of the skin of Africans, and the curse meant that black people were degraded and their punishment a ”natural” slavery.

Slavery, however, was not associated specifically with Africans or blacks.”

– [John Hartwell Moore, Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, vol. 3, pg. 62, Thomson-Gale]

Thus the above stated quote isn’t Islāmic but a Jewish narration recorded by al-Ṭabari which has no acceptance in Islām whatsoever. And after copying the comments of an ‘unknown’ Islāmophobe Agniveer puts his comments into braces which are quite interesting Thus Blacks cannot be either prophets, apostles or kings in Islamic Ummah. They instead got black color so that they could be slaves! Can anything be more insulting to blacks?)”

We think we’ve already exposed the inconsistency of Agniveer earlier with regards to who can be King …etc of the Ummah.Here Agniveer interestingly states that black people are slaves because they are black, basing his hapless comment on the inauthentic source of al-Tabari, he is alluding to the existence of “racial slavery” in Islām, so is it true? Are blacks’ slaves in Islām? Or was slavery practiced in Islāmic society as a racial institution? Well, here’s the answer is, (below word in square bracket is our)

“Islam has no racial ideology based on color and …it [slavery] was not exclusively associated with Africans or any other particular population... Outside of a few towns in southern Arabia, slavery in the Middle East was not a primary means of organizing menial labor; as a consequence, the association of class and race or ethnicity and race is not well developed and has no significant implication or social and political organization in the region.”

– [Ed. Richard C. Martin, Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, pg. 233, Thomson-Gale]

“By the seventh century, when Islam began expanding beyond Arabia, the presence of numerous black slaves in Egypt and the Mideast by no means suggested that bondage was becoming a racial institution. And for Muhammad and his early Arab followers, some of whom referred to themselves as ‘black’, all human beings were potential converts and brethren; skin color could not signify either a sinful or a pious soul.”     – [Edited by Martin Bulmer and
John Solomos, Racism,
pg.65, Oxford Univ. Press]

Thus, the comment of Agniveer is another cheap lie, which is so typical of him.Hence the so-called “insults” on black weren’t by Muslims but were created by Agniveer to fool his blind-followers in believing Islam to be racists.Moreover, rightly said in the encyclopedia of Islām and Muslim world, Islām has no racial ideology based on colour, but how will the blind-followers of protestant Hinduism realize this when they are blinded by the darkness of Vedas and the teachings of their cult-leader.And Agniveer also comments that ‘blacks’ cannot be “Apostles” or Prophets, which is another example of illiteracy of Agniveer with regards to Islām.The noble Qur’ān’s one entire chapter is named after a black slave. The 31’st chapter of the noble Qur’ān is named after Luqmān the wise, black slave of Nubian or Ethipian origin.And here’s what noble Qur’ān says about Luqmān:

And indeed We bestowed upon Luqmān Al-Hikmah (wisdom and religious understanding saying 🙂 “Give thanks to Allâh.” And whoever gives thanks, he gives thanks for (the good of) his own self. And whoever is unthankful, then verily, Allāh is All-Rich (Free of all needs), Worthy of all praise.

– [Surah al-Luqmān (31):12]

And it is also narrated in Ma’arif al-Qurān (little differently) that,

Al-Awzai said, ” ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Harmalah told me; A black man came to Said bin Al-Musayyib to ask him a question, and Said bin Al-Musayyib said to him: “Do not be upset because you are black, for among the best of people were three who were black: Bilal, Mahja the freed slave of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, and Luqman the Wise, who was a black Nubian with thick lips.”

The next quotation provided by Agniveer is taken from the infamous ‘Sirat al-Rasul’ of Muḥammad ibn Ishāq, its so saddening to see how Islāmophobes use fabricated and inauthentic sources to malign Islām , thinking that they would some how fool some people without realizing that this will only expose their dirty intentions and illiteracy in the field of comparative religion.Well, ‘Sirat al-Rasul’ of Muḥammad ibn Ishāq is infamously known for its fabricated nature and here we’ll produce few , statements of scholars on the book and its author so as to expose Agniveer.Let’s start with showing how Agniveer uses fabricated sources to forward and support his speculations.Here’s what the bitter critic of Islām , the orientalist Michael Cook wrote :

False ascription was rife among the 8th century scholars and that in any case Ibn Ishaq and contemporaries were drawing on oral traditions.

In fact, even the infamous hate-monger Islāmophobe Robert Spence admits in his book: The Truth about Muhammad ‘ that,

“However, Ibn Ishaq’s life of Muhammad is so unashamedly hagiographical that its accuracy is questionable.”

Yet in the 400 footnotes of Robert’s book, 120 of them are referenced to Ibn Ishaq! So typical of Islāmophoes isn’t it! That’s why their criticism isn’t valued in the field of Comparative religion.

Moreover, many Islāmic scholars stated that Ibn Ishāq was unreliable, and that his narrations could only be accepted under various strict conditions which determined the authenticity of the narration:

“Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam who refuted Ibn   Ishaq’s reliability in Hadith narrations. Imam Malik, for instance, called Ibn Ishaq a liar
and Yahya Ibn Saeed al-Ansari, as well as, al-Amash refuted one of Ibn Ishaq’s narrations by saying that he lied. As a general statement, Yahya Ibn Saeed graded Ibn Ishaq as being weak in Hadith narration. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a Hadith. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Maeen (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadith…Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadith s from unknown narrators…

4. Adh-Dhahabi listed some of the reasons why Ibn Ishaq was considered weak regarding Hadith narration, as follows:

A) Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal stated that Ibn Ishaq was a Mudallis [Ibn Ishaq often started his narrations by saying, Those whom I trust narrated to me, or Some men from this city told me, etc. He also would collect Hadith s from unreliable narrators and hide the name of his teacher by saying, So and So said, meaning the teacher of his teacher, who may be trustworthy, so that the Hadith narration is not rejected if the name of his own teacher is specified. However, whenever Ibn Ishaq said, So and so said to me, he would not lie.] , and in another occasion, he said that Ibn Ishaq’s Tadlees (v. for Mudallis) was substantial.
Imam Ahmad also said that Ibn Ishaq did not care from whom he collected Hadith.

B) Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Ishaq reported false Hadith s from unknown narrators.

C) Adh-Dhahabi concluded by saying that among the worst errors made by Ibn Ishaq is that he used to record narrations he collected from anyone, and thus, did not have Wara` [31] in this regard, may Allah forgive him.

5. How Ibn Ishaq’s narration should be treated is summarized in this statement from Imam Ibn Numair, If he narrates a Hadith from teachers he directly heard from and who are known to be truthful, then his Hadith is from the grade Hasan because he is truthful. Yet, Imam Ahmad stated that if Ibn Ishaq is the only narrator of that Hadith, then his narration is discounted. And the key words to look for here, for Ibn Ishaq’s narration not to be dismissed outright, are, If Ibn Ishaq says, So and so narrated to me’, then he did hear that narration.’ Otherwise, if he says, So and so said’, then the narration is rejected.’ Meaning, Ibn Ishaq would not lie; if he states that he heard the Hadith from his teacher, then his assertion is accepted.

– [Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub, The Prophet of Mercy, Chapter 2, page 10]

“Imam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaq’s to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-Nisa’I and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith.”

–[Jones, J.M.B. Ibn Ishak. Vol. IV, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Ch. Pellat, and J. SchachtV.L.M.B. Lewis. London: Luzac & Co., 1971: pages 810-811]

Despite the book being, full of fabrication we’ll for the sake of our readers have critical look at the two narrations provided you Agniveer.Here’s what Agniveer has provided us with:

I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks… “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you, his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.

Did anyone notice anything? Nonetheless here’s the full narration,

From B. Dubay’s b. Zayd b. Malik b. ‘Auf b. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf: Bijad b. ‘Uthman b. Amir. From B. Laudhan b. ‘Ame b. ‘Auf: Nabtal b. al-Harith. I have heard that it was of him that the apostle said,
‘Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!’
He was a sturdy black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks
. He use
d to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocrites.

– [Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004. Page 243]

Did our readers see the deception? Agniveer has combined two narrations in last quote of his we cited, so as to fool people. Above we’ve quoted one narration above for the sake of argument, ASSUMING it to be authentic.Notice the words of Prophet are in single quotes (apostrophes), in red colour underlined by us! Also, notice that there is no sign of racism in the words of Prophet he did not use any word racist in nature, nor did allude to the skin colour of Nabtal! “He used to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocritesThis is the reason why prophet Muhammad called Nabtal Satan, because  he was a double-faced hypocrite who used to convey important secret information to the enemies.We are yet to find any racism in here, where is it?

The second Ḥadith combined with the first one by Agniveer, is quoted below, so as to show the unauthenticity of the narration:

A man of B. al-‘Ajlān told me that he was told that Gabriel came to the apostle and said , ‘There comes to sit with you a black man with long flowing hair, ruddy cheeks, and inflamed eyes like two copper pots.His heart is more gross than a donkey’s ; he carries your words to the hypocrites, so beware of him.’ This, so they say, was the description of Nabtal. – [Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004. Page 243]

The narration is “al-Mu’allaq” meaning hanging, suspended – unauthentic, where’s the chain of narrators! Some man from Bani al-Ajlān told this man who then said it to Ibn Ishāq! Ibn Ishāq has ommited all the narrators and has not even given the name of the narrator, unknown narrators! Such a narration is totally rejected and unauthentic.So this is the source of Agniveer! Secondly, for the sake of argument, let us analyse the narration, despite it being unauthentic, is it racist? No, as we can see angel Gabriel as per this narration even affirmed that Nabtal was a hypocrite, hence the reason to object against Nabtal and not his skin colour or looks.And thirdly, compare what the real words recorded by Ibn Ishāq are and the words given by Agniveer, editing and adapting it so as to make it racist, while being unaware that the narration is unauthentic, seemingly that’s why he took pains to make the unauthentic narration look “racist” deeming to be something authentic.

Agniveer’s Version:

‘If a black man comes to you, his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’

Real Version of Ibn Ishāq:

There comes to sit with you a black man with long flowing hair, ruddy cheeks, and inflamed eyes like two copper pots.His heart is more gross than a donkey’s ; he carries your words to the hypocrites, so beware of him.’

Did, our readers see the deception and unethical behaviour of Agniveer (well he could have checked the narration before simply copying and pasting them) in quoting Islāmic texts! We all can see the how he abridged and cut the narration and changed words like “There comes to sit with you” to “If a black man comes”! We can see the vile unethicalness , not only this he cut short the narration and placed words of the narrations so as to look racial , unaware of the fact that that it won’t help him as the narration is unauthentic, all the pains taken are in vain! Next Agniveer quotes, anothing phrase from a narration, trying to insinuate that Muslims tortured their slaves, he states:

Agniveer’s Version:

Ishaq:144 “A rock was put on a slave’s chest.

Version from Agniveer’s Source (the two links provided by him):

Ishaq:144 “A rock was put on a slave’s chest. When Abu Bakr complained, they said, ‘You are the one who corrupted him, so save him from his plight.’ I will do so,’ said Bakr. ‘I have a black slave, tougher and stronger than Bilal, who is a heathen. I will exchange him. The transaction was carried out.”

Original Version of Ibn Ishaq:

The Polytheist persecute the Muslims of Lower classes

Then the Quraysh showed their enimity to all those who followed the apostle; every clan which contained the Muslims attacked them, imprisoning them, and beating them, allowing them no food or drink, and exposing then to the burning heat of Mecca, so as to seduce them from their religion. Some gave way under pressure of persecution, and others resisted them, being protected by God.

Bilāl, who was afterwards freed by Abū Bakr but at that time belonged to one of B.Jumah, beinf slave born, was a faithful Muslim, pure of heart.His father was Ribaḥ and his mother was Ḥamāma.Umayya b. Khalaf b.Wahb b. Ḥudhāfa b. Jumaḥ used to bring him out at the hottest part of the day and throw him on his back in the open valley and have a
great rock put on his chest; then he would say to him, ‘You will stay here till you die or deny Muḥammad and worship al-Lāt and al-‘Uzza.’He used to say while he was enduring this, ‘One, one!’

Hishām b. ‘Urqa told me on the authority of his father: Waraqa b. Naufal was passing him while he was being thus tortured and saying, ‘One, one’ and he said, ‘One, one, by God, Bilāl.’ Then he went to Umayya and those of B. Jumaḥ who had thus maltreated him, and said, ‘I swear by God that if you kill him in this way I will make his tomb a shrine.’One day Abū Bakr passed by while they were thus ill-treating him, for his house was among this clan. He said to Umayya, ‘Have you no fear of God that you treat this poor fellow like this? How long is it to go on?’ He replied, ‘You are the one who corrupted him, so save him from his plight that you see.’ ‘I will do so’ said Abū Bakr; ‘I have got a black slave, tougher and stronger than he, who is a heathen. I will exchange him for Bilāl.’ The transaction was carried out, and Abū Bakr took him and freed him.

– [Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004. pg. 143-144]

We would request our readers to compare the original words of Ibn Ishāq with that provided by Agniveer and our readers will realize how this Islāmophobe unethically indulges into distortion, and still claims to be following truth! His name was Bilāl, the famous companion of Prophet was a slave of polytheist pagan Arab, and he was tortured by his owner Umayya bin Khalaf! What an unethical behaviour from the Islāmophobes! Distorting Islāmic texts so as to make them look, racist and inhumane! Agniveer wittingly has given just a sentence so as to indicate that Muslims tortured their slaves by putting rocks on their chest where as the source from Agniveer took this also distorts the text by cutting it short and making it look like racist whereas , we can clearly read that the one who was tortured was a devout Muslim who was being tortured by the pagans of Makkah so that he may leave the truth and worship false gods.,in the hottest part of the day under the sun in a valley but putting a great rock his chest so that his back may burn with the heat of the sand.And when Abū Bakr saw this he exchanged Bilāl with another slave and set Bilāl free.In fact, Abū Bakr freed numerous slave and that too women , old and weak slave hence his father stated:

Abū Quḥāfa said to his son Abū Bakr, ‘My son, I see that you are freeing weak slaves. If you want to do what you are doing, why don’t you free powerful men who could defend you and protect you?’ He said, ‘I am only trying to do what I am attempting for God’s sake’,

– [Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah – Oxford University Press, 2004. pg.144]

This is the piety of Muslims and egalitarian nature of Islām! And nothing about this narration is racist; in fact here we can see how Muslims tried to free poor lower class Muslims from the pagans who tortured them.And Agniveer with all his deception is trying to prove that Muslims tortured slaves! Agniveer, very deceptively has tried to malign Islām, why does not Agniveer relate those very few authentic narrations found in Ibn Ishāq’a book, for instance this is found is various other authentic book as well as in the book of Ibn Ishāq.The people of Makkah among whom the Islāmic faith emerged with the advent of prophet Muḥammad, rejected it vehemently for many years as they were opposed to its egalitarian teaching. They used to argue with the Prophet saying,

“How can you claim that our women and slaves and serfs are of the same standing as ours”

– [Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, pg. 199f, Oxford University Press, 1955]

This is the reason why pagan Arabs did not convert to Islām and even today we can see this for instance see Agniveer and his cult who boldly state that unequality of humans!Thus, it’s concluded that Agniveer’s quotes are fabricated and unauthentic which only prove his insincereity and casts doubt on his creduility.Then agniveer quotes Sahīh al-Bukhārī where again her tries to make a simple ḥadīth, racist.Here again the ḥadīth is tried quoted in an manner so as to , look like racist , here’s the ḥadīth provided by Agniveer (with his comments in Italics):

Bukhari: V9B89N256 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.’ Just look at the derogatory remarks for a ‘black’!

And here’s the original translated version from Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Apostle said,
You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian
(black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

The word in “black” in the brackets aren’t found in the original Arabic text , but are added by the translator, and utillising this opportunity Islāmophobes like to play upon cheap tricks which they think will go unnoticed.See the Original Arabic text online here.Also here’s the original Arabic text with different translation:

– [ Tr. Dr.Ahmad Zidan and Mrs. Dina Zidan, ‘Mukhtasar Sahīh al-Bukhārī’, part 2, The Book of Judgement, pg. 1177, Islamic Inc. ,Cairo]

“Thus Blacks cannot be either prophets, apostles or kings in Islamic Ummah”

And here he himself provides the ḥadīth, which explicity states that you’ve to obey and listen to a “black African slave” as per his rendering of the ḥadīth!

Bukhari: V9B89N256 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.’

So, one may question then why did he comment above that “blacks” cannot be kings! What was that? A Lie! Hence conclusively nor is the ḥadīth racist nor is it derorgatory but plainly states that anyone with essential qualities can become the ruler though he may come from the lower strata of the society, still he is to be respected, listened and obeyed.Moreover here’s what another non-Muslim has to say about the status of slaves in Islām and whether slaves could become Kings, rulers…etc:

Annemarie Schimmel writes:

The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks).”

– [Annemarie Schimmel, ‘Islam: An Introduction’, p. 67]

The lies of Agniveer are exposed, we need not say anything more.Further Agniveer has put some statements alleging them to be of Shaykh al-Islām al-Imām ibn Taymiyyah, but has avoided mentioning the name of the book. This polymath to whom the words are alleged, has written approximately 500 hundreds books that too on various topics (unlike al-Tabari who has very few books which aided us in finding out the correct book Agniveer was talking of) but in this case it’s impossible for us to read all those books inorder to find out which Agniveer is referring to , hence we would demand a proper reference to the book and other details so that we can analyse and refute the statements (if they belong to him and are even in little conformity with Qur’ān and Sunnah), also its to be remembered that a scholar’s statement are not accepted in Islām until and unless they conform to the noble Qur’ān and the Sunnah.Thus it’s a waste of time to quote the statement of Islāmic scholars if their statements have no proof from the Qur’ān and Sunnah.