JA- A  ALHAQ  WA  ZAHAQA  ALBATIL

These are the replies to the unjustified criticism and allegations of a clever Hindu Pandit using a fictitious name of Zulfiqar Khan, on the Holy Prophet (SAS) and Islam in his 20 superfluous articles under the title “SATYAMEVA JAYTE” on the internet. These replies are from Major Sardar Khan Orakzai, Hangu Road, Kohat, Pakistan.

Bibi Khadija’s (RAA) Marriage
1. In the first of his twenty articles, Pandit Zulfiqar Chand has criticized the Holy Prophet (SAS) for marrying a rich widow Hazrat Khadija for having a luxurious life without putting in hard work. Historical record shows that Khadija Bibi, being a trader, employed our Holy Prophet (SAS) when she heard of his honesty and exemplary character. It was again Khadija Bibi who suggested the marriage. Mr. Pandit himself admits that they lived 19 years of their matrimonial life very peacefully and faithfully. This goes to show that the marriage was based on mutual understanding and respect and not on any conceivable  foul-play from either side. The Prophet (SAS) being legal heir must have received the heritage of his wife but, it is in no way a sin or misdeed.
 

Polygamy and Islam
2. Mr. Pandit also accuses the Holy Prophet (SAS) of showing insatiable sexual appetite by saying that Mohammad (SAS) married  11  times in 14 years after the death of Bibi Khadija (RAA). In this respect I will submit that even most of the clergy in Islam do not know that it is the order of KORAN to marry widows in the society according to their physical and economical capabilities up to a limit of 4 at a time. This order of KORAN has twofold object. Firstly, to look after the welfare of the widows and their orphan children, and secondly, to keep the society clean of the sexual disorder and default. Verse No (4/3 An-Nisa) says that if you fear that you will not be able to do justice in the matters of the orphans, then solution to this problem is that you marry the widow mothers of the orphans of your choice to become your second, third,  and fourth wife (masna wa solasa wa roba).  And if you again fear that you will not be just to all of them, then stick to your first wife only. If you do not have a wife then you may marry a conventional slave girl in the society with the permission of her master (4/26).
The irony of fate is that most of the clergy in early Islam come from persian states. They had no proficiency over Arabic. They made translations of KORAN according to the wishes of the monachs of the second century Hijra. Their translations are not compatible with the text of KORAN. For example, in this very verse the translations denote 4 virgins instead of NISA which stands for widows. For virgin girls, there are other words like Banaat, Abkaar, Jariat, etc. Now it can be easily checked from the available record that with the exception of Bibi Ayesha (RAA), all the other wives of the Holy Prophet (SAS) were literally widows. As far as Saffiya and Maria Kobtia are concerned they were never married to the Holy Prophet. Their names have been included in the list of wives through a plot by the Jews and anti-Islamic conspirators in the second century Hijra. Pandit Zulfikar should honestly think for himself as to how far these sorts of marriages reflect on the sexual lust and appetite. In fact the Holy Prophet married widows under the KORANIC order cited above. Personally I am convinced that  the Holy Prophet (SAS) did not axcede or surpass the KORANIC order of keeping four wives at a time.

War Prisoners
3. I shall now prove that Muslims have never taken women as prisoners of war to make them them slaves and concubines, because Islam does not recognize slavery. The mention of slave personnel in KORAN as (ma malakat aimanokum) indicates that at the time of revelation of KORAN, conventional slavery was in full swing in the whole world, particularly in the Middle East. So some Muslims in Makka and Madina, like the non-Muslims, were also having (men and women) slaves. Of course the Muslim masters of slaves were ordered to set free those slaves in 7 Hijra after the conquest of Khyber of Jews, because then, non-believers could not touch these slaves after their freedom. Record shows that many a slave refused to be set free as they were so nicely treated and looked after by their muslim masters that they did not like to part with them. As far as prisoners of war are concerned, they have never been converted as concubines and slaves. This is so because KORAN does not permit it. KORAN says that prisoners should not at all be taken in the early battles with non-believers (verse 47/4). They may be taken as prisoners only when the war is about to end. And when you get victory over them and cease-fire is established, then set free these prisoners either under obligation or you can take from them ransom (fiddia) but they be set free at all costs (Fa imma bado mannum wa imma fida 47/4). In view of this holy verse which orders the Muslims to set free the prisoners it can be said without any hich that capture of Saffiya is a concoction only because the Jews of Khyber did never put in any fight. They surrendered on few conditions, which were accepted by the Muslims who were blockading Khyber for the last two months. One of the conditions was that the Jews will take their valuables and building materials alongwith them while vacating Khyber. And they did take away the building materials and the Muslims stood fast by the agreement and did not interfere at all. The question arises as to how the Jews could leave behind their wives, daughters and sisters etc.  It is strange that only the name of Safiya is recorded in the list of prisoners. So is the case of Maria Kobtia. The clergy of the second century misinterpreted all the verses containing the term “ma malakat ” to mean prisoners of war and eventually converted into concubines. In fact “ma malakat ”  is a term used for the conventional slaves (men and women), who were there in the society. This term has never been used in respect of war prisoners. The correct term for war prisoners is Asra.  The term “ma malakat” has been used in a few Makki verses as well. Point to be noted, here, is that Muslims did not fight any battle in Makka. So how could the question of prisoners of war possibly arise in Makka.
The Jurisprudence of Islam was formulated in the second century by persian clergy according to the wishes of the monarchs. Therefore it permits a Muslim to marry four virgins at a time. It further permits him to keep as many concubines as he pleases. It allows him to buy and sell slaves as a commodity. On top of this it allows the Muslims to convert the war prisoners into concubines and distribute them amongst the soldiers. It says that a wife can be divorced in a few minutes in the same sitting by uttering the word Talaq thrice. It will take me long to discuss and prove the above jurisprudence as wrong, Actually jurisprudence was not at all needed to clarify the law matters of KORAN. In short, I should say that whatever the Muslims practice these days with reference to matrimonial life is wrong and against the Holy Book. I am certain that Pundit Zulfiqar is prudent enough to differentiate between a correct and wrong interpretation of the holy verses. So Islam should not be blamed for these translatory distortions/additions by the clergy of the second century. So I hope Pandit Zulfiqar will drop his objections on Islam in respect of slavery, polygamy, Safiya and Maria Kobtia, and method of divorce as practiced by the Muslims.
 

4. In fact the holy KORAN lays down by-laws for divorce ( i.e. Talaq and Khulla ) in detail.  Actually KORAN does not encourage divorce rather it staggers the finalization of divorce leaving room for the couple to reconciliate in a period of about three months called Iddat two times before final separation between the couple. This means that a husband is allowed to take back a divorce notice two times if he feels and realizes his unfairness within the period of Iddat. It further means that the second divorce notice can not be served before the end of the first Iddat period or the renewal of the Nikah after first divorce which ever is earlier. In other words, divorce (or Talaq) can be taken back two times. Verse No.2/229 says “ attalaqo marrataan” its translation is, that this type of Talaq which can be taken back, can be given two times on different occasions. So you either retain your wives or get separated in a civilized manner. I think the matter is now very clear that the occasion for the second Tallaq may come in years. The clergy of today do not agree with the Koranic procedure of divorce. They insist that husband should either take back the divorce in the first month or should give the second and the third Tallaq in the following second and third month to finalize the divorce once for all, whereas  according to the Holy Koran three Tallaqs are not obligatory, because the woman gets free with even one Tallaq and iddat of three months to marry another man if she so desires, but the course also remains open to her and her previous husband to reconcile. This is also wrong that man can divorce his wife any time he likes, because KORAN says that if there is a rift between the couple that should be examined by two arbitrators each from the two families before recommending Tallaq or Khulla. There are different by-laws to administer Tallaq and Khulla.

5. Pandit Zulfiqar has supported his objections by quoting certain traditions (Riwayaat) which he calls all of them as Hadis(Hadith). As he himself has misinterpreted some Riwayaat and I, too, have some reservations about the traditions, therefore I shall confine myself to answering objections pertaining to the Holy verses only. Siri Zulfiqar actually complains why Islam has given superiority to men over women and why so much stress is laid on women, and not on men, to guard themselves against any lewdness. Why women are suspected. The answer to this question is that there is nothing like this. It is just an illusion of Mr. Zulfiqar who seems to be blackmailing the women folk.  If this is not the case then he must be knowing that woman is a very delicate and weak creature as compared to man, therefore, she requires extra ordinary care. If she is taught to be vigilant enough to take care of herself then no one from men could dare to glance at her. She is, in addition, protected by man in the shape of her husband, father, brothers and uncles etc. Islam has given her a very right place in the society for achieving the object of life on this earth. Man has been created only to fight in the path of Allah to glorify his name as the sole deity of the universe. Woman has been created to encourage man in his struggle, provide comfort to him, and to look after the household affairs. I personally think that the intelligent women are quite satisfied with their mission and status in this world. And those women who have some inferiority complex always speak of the womens’ rights most probably to become leaders. This amounts to blackmailing the women folk.

The Mis-understood Verses
6. Pandit Zulfiqar’s first objection is on verse No.2/223 which says that (your wives are just like tilths/fields for you to cultivate, so go to them any time you like to. Zulfiqar says that it is a dishonour for women to be called “tilth”. I ask Zulfiqar to tell me that is not it a fact? For the information of Zulfiqar and the honorable readers I will say that though the modern scientists of today have succeeded in evolving a test tube baby, yet they need a woman to keep the fertiled ovum in her womb for nourishment till delivery. With due apology Zulfiqar should know that his mother was also a tilth some time. This verse is actually for our education that a woman’s role in the birth of a child is that of a tilth only and nothing more. Lineage in a family is linked through males.
Another objection is on the verse 4/34. This verse has been completely misinterpreted by the Pandit. The correct translation of the verse is, “ men are the protectors or maintainers of the women because Allah has given preference to some over others in many aspects of life, and because men spend money on women to support and maintain them. So the righteous women or those who remain devoutly obedient and guard themselves sexually in the absence of their husbands, Allah, too, shall guard them. And if you fear disobedience to the extent of misdeed and disloyalty from your wives then admonish them, separate them from bedrooms, ignore them, and  as a last resort beat them moderately so that they are feared and start behaving.”  I, now. ask Zulfiqar Chand to point out to me any wrong and unjustified thing in the Holy verse. The verse very clearly indicates the good deeds of the believer women and wives as compared to the disobedient wives. The Hindu Pandit wants the Muslim husbands to leave their wives free to roam about in clubs, theaters, parks and gambling dens etc. Mr. Pandit must have realized by now how strict Islam is about the moral values in the Islamic society. As far as man’s superiority over woman is concerned that is only true in case of a husband and wife. A son is never superior to his mother.

Difference of Punishment
7. Pandit Zulfiqar has raised a false objection by saying that there is difference in punishment for men and women in the cases of sexual crimes and defaults. In fact there is no difference in the punishment, whatsoever. Mr.Pandit has quoted two verses to show difference in the punishment.
1) If any of your women are guilty of lewdness get four witnesses amongst you on them, and if they so testify their lewdness then confined those women to houses until death take them away or Allah ordain for them some other alternative (4/15).
2) If two men amongst you are guilty of lewdness (sodomy), punish them both . If they repent and amend their manners then leave them alone. Allah is oft-returning, most merciful (4/16).
 Though these verses are revealed side by side, yet these have nothing in common. They are about two types of sins. One of them can be committed by two parties (men and women) whereas the other is purely committed by two men only. Now the punishment for adultery is hundred lashes each of the party, but the women in verse No.4/15 are not lashed because the crime has been committed in a non-Muslim state where Muslims are living as a minority. The laws of that state do not recognize adultery as a crime at all. The laws do not permit the Muslim to punish any one by lashing him. The non-Muslim male offenders. if any, can not be apprehended or overpowered. In such a state of affairs the Muslim female offenders can only be blocked in houses. This point be borne in mind that four eyewitnesses can not be obtained in any case and crime. Therefore, circumstantial evidence shall suffice in such cases. For example, if a Muslim woman is seen in company of non-Muslim guy or entering a club, cinema hall or threater this shall prove her lewdness.
 As for as verse No.4/16 is concerned, it explains the action to be taken about two men indulging in lewdness on equal terms. They should be thrashed by their family elders. And if they repent and amend their manners then leave them alone and do not be sarcastic with them because Allah accept repentance and is merciful.

Socio-economic Order
8. At this juncture I would like to explain a point in Islamic socio-economic order and penal code which our clergy have failed to understand, because they inherited religious teachings from the early persian clergy. Since they had no proficiency over Arabic language, therefore, they have misinterpreted most of the KORANIC verses as I have pointed out earlier in discussing slavery, polygamy and the instructions pertaining to divorce. Here, I want to explain that Islam is a universal religion, therefore, it can be equally practiced in Muslim state and also by a Muslim minority in a non-Muslim state or society. KORAN has therefore, described two types of socio-economic orders for both of them. The punishment of confinement to houses is applicable on the women found guilty of lewdness in the non-Muslim state. Another example of practicing Islam in a non-Muslim state is distribution of heritage by means of a will, which is honoured almost everywhere. The Holy Koran says that if this was revealed by an authority other than Al-knowing Allah, then you would notice a lot many contradictions in it. The clergy of the second century, when asked about two apparently contradictory verses pertaining to socio-economic orders in a Muslim and non-Muslim countries, he had no answer to these questions except saying that one of the two contradictory verses is cancelled. The arabic word for cancel is “Mansookh”. The clergy could not even think that how Almighty Allah would reveal an order, which would loose its compatibility within twenty years and would need replacement by a new order. Tauba ! Tauba ! KORAN says that there can not be any change in the sayings of Allah, in the creation of Allah and in the habits (Sunnat) of Allah. The strangest of all things is that the clergy of today still consider quite a number of holy verses as cancelled. The wrong translations and interpretations of the Holy verses have provided people like Zulfiqar a chance to criticize Islam and the Holy Prophet of Islam (SAS).

Zainab’s Marriage
9. For the benefit of Muslim readers I shall now deal with the objection about a fabricated story of Zayed and Zainab’s marriage, divorce and nikkah with the Holy Prophet (SAS). This story is also a result of the wrong translation of verse No.37 from the Sura 33 (Al-Ahzab). The first thing I would say in this respect is that Zainab Bibi D/O Jahash was never married to Zayed Bin Haris.  Zayed had actually married on his own a woman in the year 7-8 Nabvi. He had a Five year old son by the name Usama when he migrated to Madina after about six months of migration of the Holy Prophet. So I ask when, where and why he was married to Zainab. It is normally said that Prophet’s idea was to get him married with the daughter of his aunt, so that equality in Islam is established. If this was the case then this should have been Zayed’s first marriage. Let me place the truth and facts before the respected readers and request them to examine the Holy verse to find out its correct interpretation.
 There was a good-hearted person who had an adopted son as well. The adopted son was married to a woman but the couple, some how or the other could not keep together. The adopted son divorced his wife. The Holy Prophet (SAS) got informed about the divorce. The Prophet(SAS) visited the house and told the good-hearted person to inform him (The Prophet) when the lady completes her Iddat (waiting period). On completion of Iddat the Prophet (SAS) went again to that house and got married the good-hearted person to that lady. Now the non-Muslims, hypocrites and Jews etc; in the area started teasing the good-hearted man by passing remarks that he had married the wife of his son. The good-hearted person got fed up with them and decided to divorce the wife. The Holy Prophet (SAS) got informed of the intentions of the good-hearted person. The Holy Prophet stopped him from divorcing his wife and that person obeyed the order of the Prophet (SAS).

 The Holy KORAN describes the happening as under :-
(Wa iz taqulo lillazi anamallaho alaihi wa anamta alaihi amsik alaika Zaujaka wattaqillah wa tukhfi fi nafsika mallaho mubdihe. Wa takhshannasa, wallaho ahaqqo un takhshaho, falamma qadha “Zaidun” minha watara zawwajnakaha lekai la yakuno alal momineena harajun fi azwaji adiya-i-him iza qadhau minhunna watara wa kana amrullahi mofoola.-33/37)

The correct translation should be :-
 “And when you (Prophet) were ordering the person whom Allah had graced, and you, too, had graced him hold your wife with you and fear Allah; and you are hiding in your mind something which Allah is going to manifest, and you fear the people whereas Allah is more worthy of being feared. So when your adopted son (Zaidun) had dissolved his marriage with that lady, I (with permission of Allah) had married you to that woman so that there should be no bar on believers in marrying the wives of their adopted sons when they finalize the breakage of their wedlock with them, and this was an order of Allah which was destined to be executed.”

The points worth noting in the translations made by the clergy are that Allah the almighty is telling the Holy Prophet(SAS) that apparently you were telling the graced person (Zayed) to retain his wife and fear Allah, whereas you were hiding in your mind that which Allah was about to manifest. And then telling him that you were fearing the people.
 These notions in the translation are demaging Islam as well as the heautiful character of the Holy Prophet (SAS). Beside this, a question arises as to what was the occasion when Allah (J.S) had to remind the Holy Prophet of his shortcomings and yet rewarding him with a marriage with Zainab Bibi. The third thing I may point out to is the word “Zayedun” in the text. This seems to be the name of the person who is said to be adopted as son by the Holy Prophet(SAS), but it is not a proper noun. In this shape, it is actually the first name in Arabic just like Tom is a first name in English.

Curse/Luaan
10. Another example of equal punishment and treatment is that of a husband alleging his wife of lewdness but can not produce four witnesses to testify his allegation. The procedure in such like cases is that the husband should himself testify four times his allegation and the fifth time he should say that the curse of Allah be on him if he is a lier. Similarly the wife should negate the allegations four times and the fifth time she should say that the curse of Allah be on her if her husband is truthful in his allegation. This will exempt the woman and the alleged man from punishment of lashes but the husband should then divorce her because she does not remain trustworthy in his eyes. This procedure is called Luaan in Islam. Here I once again remind Pundit Zulfiqar how serious view Islam takes of the default and disorder  about the sexual affairs in the society. So how can he say that one of the main reasons for forming this “insidious” religion Islam, was that sex was freely available to the male followers “in the name of Allah”. The Pundit must be knowing that Islam is the only religion which does not allow mixing up of men and women in any function. Because mixing of men and women is the sole reason for sexual disorder in a society. Zulfiqar is so prejudiced against Islam that he is connecting the old cruel Hindu custom of Satti with the Muslim invaders’ sexual hunger. The earliest invasion of India by Muslims is hardly one thousand years old, whereas Satti is at least three thousand years old custom. Zulfiqar should be ashamed of himself in uttering a white lie.  Pundit Zulfiqar very well knows that Islam even declares a woman illegal for marriage (Haraam) for a person who shared milk-sucking with her in infancy. Now he should show me any other religion which has framed its socio-economic order with so much deep logic and philosophy.

Aysha’s Marriage
11. Pundit Zulfiqaar has blamed the Holy Prophet by saying that he had married a girl of six year old. I admit that the story tellers in early Islam have said something like this but this is not a fact. The question arises as to how the figure of 6 has come into the record without any authentication. The fact in this matter is that the person who recorded the age of Bibi Aysha (RAA) as six years at the time of engagement is Hashaam, who lived seventy years of his age in Madina where he did not say anything about the age of Bibi Aysha. But when he went to Iraq he is reported to have said this. It can not be ascertained whether he said so or not because the person hearing from him any story could change the details on his own. I have at least three proofs that the age of Bibi Aysha at the time of marriage was twenty years. The first proof is that a historian Ibn-i-Ishaq while recording the names of the earliest believers places Bibi Aysha at number eighteen in the year 4-Nabvi. This means that Bibi Aysha(RAA) was at least ten years old and could understand the meaning of Islam and Imaan and this means that she was born about six years before the revelation of Koran and Islam. The second proof is that Bibi Aysha was engaged to one Jabeer bin Mat’am and when Abbu Bakar (RAA) intended to migrate to Ethopia he wanted to get his daughter married. But father of Jabeer for one reason or the other did not agree with him. It also means that in the year 7/8 Nabvi the age of Bibi Aysha(RAA) must be around 11/12, otherwise how could her father make a proposal for her marriage. The third proof is that a lady by the name of Khaula bint Hakeem, sister-in-law of the Holy Prophet(SAS), proposed to him to get married after the death of Bibi Khadija (RAA). She was asked as to whom she suggested. She named one widow Bibi Sauda(RAA) bint Za’ama and one virgin Bibi Aysha(RAA), the daughter of Abu Bakar. It was in the year 10 Nabvi when Hazrat Abu Bakar was approached in this connection. He replied that he would first settle the matter with the father of Jabeer. In any case the fact is that if Bibi Aysha had not been a grown up woman then neither Khaula Bibi would have proposed her name to the Holy Prohpet ( SAS) nor Hazrat Abu Bakar ( RAA) would have accepted the proposal conditionally with reference to Jabeer.

Destruction of Temples

12. Pundit Zulfiqar has blamed the muslims for their barbarous character and destroying the Hindu temples. I would say that he should not put the misdeeds of some invaders in the account of Islam. Rather I am in a position to blame the whole Hindu Community for destroying Babri Mosque at Ayudhia in India and for barbarism in this civilized era of third millennium. There was no trace of a Ram temple in the vicinity. Ram Chandar, a saint person, was sent by his father Raja Dasrat to the jungles of central India for fourteen years under the pressure of one of his wives Kakaee. He did not build any temple in Ayudhia. If at all he did build a temple, why Hindus did not claim the destruction of Babri Mosque during the British regime and during the premiership of Rajew Gandhi. Mr.Wajpai used the destruction of Babri Mosque as a weapon in his access to the chair of Prime Minister.

CONCLUSION
Pundit Zulfiqar’s all allegations on Islam could easily be recorded on one page only, whereas these have been spread over a hundred pages with repetition of almost every point about seven times. This reflects on the dirty mentality and prejudices of Pundit Zulfiqar and Hindu Community as a whole against Islam and the Muslims. Keeping  the objections and criticism of Pandit Zulfiqar on one side I shall ask him honestly to tell me as to how this, so called, insidious religion of Islam has succeeded in over-shadowing all the religions of the world in a very short time. I am sure that the Pundit cannot reply this question except by saying that Islam is the most clean, natural and methodical religion in the world. Therefore, I would advise Zulfiqar to make a repentance to almighty Allah and apologize the muslims for his being so unjust and abusive to them, and embrace Islam with a sincere heart, and serve Islam with true dedication by educating his Hindu brethren about the “ultimate truth”, the Holy Koran.

Mr. Zulfiqar has also made a ridiculous statement about the paradise by saying that there will be numerous Hoors in it for men. In reply to this I would only say that the verses pertaining to the words Hoor and Qasirat-ut-Tarf  in Koran have been completely misapprehended by the clergy of the second century Hijrah, which has created such-like confusions even among muslims. I shall place the truth before him in this respect having heard from him.

I should be looking forward for a reasonable and logical reply from Pundit Zulfiqar.

Major (Rtd) Sardar Khan Orakzai
Phone #92 (0922) 517110 E-mail Author: sko@cybercity-online.net