Allah Does NOT Repent
Some Christian critics are claiming Allah repents in the Quran. This is blatantly false and dishonest on their part. This claim to my attention when a Christian critic made this claim and claimed Surah 2:37 proves it, this is utter nonsense.
The context and the translations prove these Christian “critics” to be incorrect. The context of the verse is Adam asking Allah for forgiveness and Allah forgives him. Before proving Allah does not repent in Surah 2:37, by listing various English translations of the Verse, we shall quickly look at the context
The Context Shows the Christian Critics to be Wrong
Surah 2:36 tells us of Adam’s sin:
36. Then the Shaitân (Satan) made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), and got them out from that in which they were. We said: "Get you down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment for a time."
The next Verse (2:37) tells us of Allah accepting Adam’s repentance.
37. Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
To add further context to this we can even mention the prayer (Words) which Adam used to beseech (beg for) forgiveness from Allah. The prayer Adam used is in Surah 7:23.
Thus it is clear ADAM is seeking REPENTENCE from God (Allah) and Allah ACCEPTS the REPENTENCE.
The Christian critic throws aside all sense of logic in making their bizarre claim. It is Adam who has sinned, he (Adam) is repenting; Allah is ACCEPTING the repentance, why cannot these unscholarly Christian critics see this?
It seems as though it is a case of rank dishonesty on the part of the Christian critics, especially when viewing the English translations as no translation is claiming Allah is repenting!
The Translations Disagree with these Christian Critics
View the translations below to realise the Christian claim is a lie.
Let us begin our translation-based refutation by highlighting Mohammad Asad’s translation of the Quran, this translation of the Quran is widely considered to be the best English translation available
فَتَلَقَّى آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (2:37)
Transliteration: Fatalaqqa adamu min rabbihi kalimatin fataba AAalayhi innahu huwa alttawwabu alrraheemu
ASAD: Thereupon Adam received words [of guidance] from his Sustainer, and He accepted his repentance: for, verily, He alone is the-Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace. (2:37)
Here we realise Allah FORGIVES Adam; it does NOT say Allah repented! The Christian missionaries making such claims have either lost their ability to comprehend and read or are simply being dishonest.
Other Translations Show the Christian Critics to be Incorrect
To be even thorough a number of other English translations of the Quran are presented, these translations all prove the Christian missionaries to be incorrect, and thus proving to us that Allah does NOT repent.
As you can see (below) all these translations (Quran 2:37) point out the fact that Allah ACCEPTED the repentance of Adam; none of the translations claim Allah was repenting:
YUSUFALI: Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful
Hilali/Khan: Then Adam received from his Lord Words . And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
The “other” translations have been divided into two groups, the first group (above) contains translations by Muslims, and the second group consists of translations from non-Muslims. NO group of translators claim Allah repents.
Non-Muslim (Christian) Translations (of Quran 2:37) Prove Allah is NOT repenting in the Quran
To add further proof of the dishonesty of these Christian critics making the bizarre claim of Allah repenting in Surah 2:37 we can refer to translations by non-Muslims too, which show the Christian critics to be wrong. Amongst the non-Muslim translations we have a Christian MISSIONARY (Rodwell) who proves the Christians claiming “Allah repents in the Quran” to be incorrect.
Rodwell: And words of prayer learned Adam from his Lord: and God turned to him; for He loveth to turn, the Merciful.
As we can clearly see, Rodwell is not claiming Allah repented. Rodwell is agreeing with all the other translations by pointing out Allah accepts Adam’s repentance.
We also have AJ Arberry who is endorsed by the Christian missionary Dr Robert Morey. Arberry does not claim Allah is repenting. Arberry reflects what every other translator reflects, that is, Allah FORGIVING Adam.
AJ Arberry: Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.
Sale and Palmer do not claim Allah is repenting thus they also disagree with the Christian critic’s claim. Both, Sale and Palmer reflect Allah’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance.
George Sale: And Adam learned words of prayer from his Lord, and God turned unto him, for He is easy to be reconciled and merciful.
E.H Palmer: And Adam caught certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him, for He is the compassionate one easily turned
It is quite clear the Christian critics are simply being dishonest. To take the refutation of their fallacious claim one step further we can refer to Tafsir literature
Tafsir also Proves the Christian Critics to be Lying
Tafsir literature reflects what early Muslims believed about Verses from the Quran, we can clearly note the Tafsir literature does not claim Allah repents, in fact the Tafsir literature simply reiterates that Allah ACCEPTS the repentance of Adam and forgives him.
Tafsir Jalalayn Confirms Allah is simply accepting Adam’s repentance.
Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, with which He inspired him (a variant reading [of Ādamu] has accusative Ādama and nominative kalimātu), meaning they [the words] came to him, and these were [those of] the verse Lord, we have wronged ourselves [Q. 7:23], with which he supplicated, and He relented to him, that is, He accepted his repentance; truly He is the Relenting, to His servants, the Merciful, to them.
It is clear through the context, translations and Tafsir literature that Allah did NOT repent. The evidence shows Allah accepting the repentance of Adam.
The Christian critics are spreading falsehood and should be rebuked (corrected) by sincere Christians.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Allegation of Bestiality against Islam is Discussed
Bestiality is not allowed in Islam but some people who are looking to demonise and degrade Muslims (and Islam) erroneously claim it is allowed in Islam.
“Bestiality” in this article refers to “Sexual relations between a human and an animal” 
Of course, those who have studied religion will find it inconceivable that any religion would allow this practice as religions are forces for conservatism. As a keen student of religion I would disbelieve any religion would allow a sexually depraved practice such as bestiality.
Sadly, Islam is a religion which is being targeted by mud slingers, a worrying side show is that amongst these mud slingers are serious evangelical Christians (see appendix 1)
In an effort to be thorough and treat the claim seriously we shall go through this hateful claim and show it to be false. The quickest way to show a claim to be false is to call in the experts. Let us simply ask an expert on Islam whether sex with animals is allowed or not.
Expert: Sheikh Ibn Hajar Haytami (1503-1566)
The expert we shall refer to is Ibn Hajar Haytami; he was a classical Muslim scholar who was an expert in Sacred Law (Islamic Law) and a well renowned authority.
In his list of enormities (sins) he listed bestiality (w52.1, 338-43) as a sin, thus clearly showing sex with animals is not allowed in Islam and is deemed as sinful 
That is unequivocally telling us those making this malicious claim against Islam are completely incorrect.
Hadith Literature Denounces Sex with Animals
In fact the experienced apologist, Bassam Zawadi, has already discussed this allegation and brought forward a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (p) which teaches us the prohibition (not allowing) sex with animals:
…Cursed is he who goes in unto (has sex with in other words in Arabic) an animal. Cursed is he who does what the people of Lot did (sodomy; the people of Sodom and Gomorah). (See appendix 1for the full Hadith which is presented by Bassam Zawadi, Sahih Al-Jami'a, page or number 5891)
Thus we see a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) warning against sex with animals and pointing it out to be a sin, thus not allowed in Islam (see appendix 1)
Here we have the classical expert on Islamic Law who teaches us sex with animals is a sin and we have a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) teaching us the same thing.
This is overwhelming evidence to show the mud-slingers to be wrong.
To be even more thorough we shall offer the reader a chance to browse through (and analyze) the prominent supporting arguments used by those who claim Islam allows sex with animals (bestiality)
The Accusers Use Anecdotal Stories of Muslims and Falsely Impute this on Islam
You will read/hear the accuser point to stories of Muslim men committing this lewd act in Muslim countries. This will be their basis for claiming Islam allows sex with animals. This type of reasoning by the accusers (mud-slingers) is long on rhetoric but extremely lacking in rational reasoning.
Well, I could give you anecdotal stories of Muslims drinking, eating pork and gambling; would this mean Islam allows such acts?
Of course not, there are many “bad” Muslims who do not practice the religion of Islam in a full capacity and these “bad” Muslims contravene (break) many Islamic rules which a sincere Muslim is meant to observe.
To highlight the fallacious nature of the reasoning on the part of the accuser we can use the examples of Christian sex scandals amongst Christian spiritual leaders or the widespread availability of pornography in “Christian” countries.
Does this mean pornography and extramarital sex is allowed in Christianity? No, certainly not. Thus it would be silly and desperate to claim Islam allows bestiality just because you heard a story of a Muslim committing the depraved act of bestiality.
The fact remains, Islam as a religion disallows this practice.
The Critics Spin Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Literature
As Muslims have to pray (perform Salah) five times a day whilst being in a state of purification there is a plethora of Fiqh (jurisprudence) literature on what mode of purification (i.e. bath or ablution) is required after a whole range of different occurrences. The critic tries to capitalise on this in order to support his/her malicious claim
You may see critics present literature of Fiqh which explains what a man must do in order to purify himself for prayer after committing the act of bestiality and append such material with lurid and sensational claims such as “ISLAMIC LAWS ON HOW TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS”. Of course, this is downright dishonest
As Fiqh is a science which covers all areas of life (and a whole load of possibilities) you will come across some Fiqh literature explaining what a person must do in order to purify himself after sex with an animal.
It is obvious to the reader that the Fiqh literature is not approving the act of bestiality but just giving rulings on purification after certain events.
To highlight a couple of examples we could look at Reliance of the Traveller (A Shafi Fiqh manual); in its purification section (e7.4) we learn a person must perform ablution if he/she touches the private parts of oneself or somebody else’s private parts. 
Of course, the Fiqh manual is not saying it is allowed for Muslims to touch other people’s privates but merely gives us rulings on purification if such an instance occurred.
Perhaps these rulings were initiated by questions from people who were tasked with the job of circumcising, doctors or mothers nursing young children.
From the same section we also note ablution is required (for prayer) if one touches the private parts of a deceased person . Again, this does not mean we (as Muslims) are allowed to touch dead people’s privates.
It simply refers to purification IF such an event happened. You can imagine this ruling may have been initiated by questions from people who were tasked with washing and enshrouding bodies of the deceased.
The same applies for Fiqh literature (on purification) concerning those who commit the sin of bestiality. The Fiqh literature is not endorsing the act but simply giving us the mode of purification if somebody did commit this depraved act. (see appendix 1)
You can imagine purification rulings in Fiqh literature related to the sin of bestiality came about because somebody was caught doing such a deed (or rumours of such deeds were abound at the time of the jurist) and people asked regarding the purification route the one who committed the act must take in order to perform Salah (prayer)
So spinning Fiqh literature related to purification is deceptive, especially so if the one spinning the literature knows that the classical scholars considered bestiality to be a sin (i.e. not allowed in Islam)
Beware of the Forgeries, Spin and Other Malpractice
The critics bring forward a Shia leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, and claim he allowed this practice. His “quotes” are clouded with doubt.
However, this Shia leader did not approve of sex with animals. He was simply giving his opinion related to purification with regards to the crime of bestiality and has become the victim of the spin we have already discussed.
In any case when he spoke of such an act (hypothetically) he appended the words “Allah protect him from it” thus indicating he did not approve of such an action.
“If a man – Allah protect him from it! – fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary” 
As for many quotes attributed to him, on the internet, there is a huge deal of suspicion surrounding the translations and whether they are forgeries or not. An alleged fourth edition of his Tahrir al Wasilah is being denied to ever exist.
For the record, in the interest of fairness, this man (Khomeini) did not appear to approve of bestiality so it would be unfair to accuse him of allowing such an act.
As a side note: any quotations of Khomeini used as a polemic against Islam should just be shrugged off as most Muslims (roughly 90%) do not view him with any authority whatsoever. This seems to be a common ploy used by insincere types against Islam; they use quotations from people who are unaccepted or on the fringe, all the while being contradicted by accepted authorities.
Bogus Argument: There is No Set Punishment in Islam for Bestiality
The other “supporting” material the accuser will use is the claim that Islam does not have a defined punishment for those who have sex with animals. This is an argument which is built on misconception and thrives on fertile imaginations.
It is spin based on a misconception; “The major myth of many people is that judges in Islamic nations have fixed punishments for all crimes. In reality the judges have much greater flexibility than judges under common law.” 
Just because a fixed punishment for this sin is not set it does not mean it is allowed in Islam or that it goes unpunished. In fact, it has been clearly shown the act is not allowed in Islam, thus the judge will decide on the punishment for somebody proven to have committed the degrading act of bestiality.
A Typical Claim Examined
For good measure I have appended a rebuttal, by Bassam Zawadi, to a Christian who was making the argument that Islam allows sex with animals. This Christian’s (Sam Shamoun) work was characterized by the spin of Fiqh which we have touched on in this article and bizarrely enough this Christian was so desperate to see his claim stick he even resorted to making up his OWN translation of a Quranic verse. How debauched can one get! (see appendix 1)
Overall Effects of this Claim
The lack of believability factor in this argument against Islam only serves to counteract the work of the mud-slingers and thus their other claims are further doubted; as in the case of the boy who cried “wolf”.
Article put together by Yahya Snow
 Free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bestiality
 Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994
 The Little Green Book at the Prophet of Doom, (doubts concerning authenticity of translations).
Bassam Zawadi refutes the “bestiality” argument by a Christian evangelist:
Interesting reading about Sweden and zoophiles: