Was the Quran really tampered with
However, there were disputes over the Quran that a group of Muslims (belonging to the Banu Quraysh) attacked and besieged Uthman’s house. One of the charges of that mob was the tampering with the Quran and they killed him with swords.
There are many controversies on this, that next tampering took place in the time of Hajjaj bin Yusuf. Despite all these reforms, one thing missing in the original content of the Quran is that there are direct messages in the rest of the chapters except Surah Al–Fatihah (this is a prayer which cannot be recited from the original content because God will not ask for blessings by himself). It is difficult to interpret whom it is being offered to and what is the context of it, hence the scope of the bracket was made in it and so there was a difference in the interpretation of the verses at many places.
This means that the group of Deobandis forbids Mazar parasti (worshipping graves of great men) with these verses, and the group of Barelvis justifies Mazar parasti, Shaksiyat Parasti (worshipping great man – Rasool) with the same verses. Except this, a bracket was also used to add the newly available knowledge and science.
Did Islam spread by the sword
There is often an accusation against Muslims that Islam spread by the sword. This is a universal reality but does not fit in the context of India. Obviously in India, like other places, the rule was achieved by the sword only.
There were three main reasons for the spread of Islam in India. The most prominent was exploitation from the upper cast masses, then the influence of Sufism (liberal Islam) and third was greed for concessions, facilities, positions, power and domination during the rule of the Muslim kings or the Mughals. In the context of India, it is wrong to say that it spread by sword.
But elsewhere it is a global reality. It was only after the Prophet’s immigration to Medina that these battles started aiming to convert people into Islam, and after Rasool’s death, Hazrat Abu Bakr also launched a campaign in Arabia for the elimination of religions other than Islam. In which self-proclaimed Prophets like ‘Musaylimah’ and many minor religions were abolished. Later, with increasing strength it expanded from Arabia to Indus.
While the Arab region was Islamized during Prophet’s life, Rashidun Caliphate (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali), which remained from 632 to 661, established its rule in the surrounding areas outside Arabia and after them, Umayyad Dynasty, established in the period of Muawiyah from 661, extended this Islamic empire from North Africa, Spain to the Indus, to about 38-39 countries with fourteen hereditary rulers till 750.
They were followed by the Abbasi dynasty, which started from 750 lasted until 1257. Also from 921 to 1171, there was Fatimid rule in many countries from Arabia, Egypt to Malta, Italy and after that came the Osmania Empire (Ottoman), which began in 1299, established rule in about 48 countries of Europe, Asia and Africa till 1923 and ended in the colonial period.
In the midst of all this, millions of Jews, Christians and people of other religions were killed and millions of people became Muslims, then the strong notion of the sword might have spread because of this.
Had both Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Ayesha been fighting right?
However, if we talk about Islam then you will find a terrible contradiction here. Under normal circumstances, if there is a war in which the corpses are piled up, then you will stand in favour of either of the two sides and will justify only one but the Muslims have stood in favour of both. That is, it is believed that both these people were right and fighting for truth even after the massacre.
At the time of Hazrat Uthman’s assassination, Ali‘s sons were also posted for his protection so an accusation came to him that the murderers were among his people whom Hazrat Ali tried to save instead of punishing after becoming the Caliph. On this basis, Hazrat Ayesha fought with him in 656, Jang-e-Jamal (Battle of Camels), in which an estimated thirteen thousand people from Hazrat Ayesha’s side and five thousand people from Ali’s side died. Ther were mother-in-law and son-in-law and all the deceased were Muslims. But according to Muslims both were right. An Ummul-Muslimeen and an Islamic Caliph.
Then again on this issue Muawiyah fought Jang-e-Siffin (Syria) with Hazrat Ali in 657 in which 65000 (unconfirmed) people were killed and injured. Here too Muslims do not consider any of them wrong and Muawiyah became Caliph after Ali. In these cases, the Shias still have only one stand to believe everybody wrong except Ali.
History of early Islam is full of violence
It is an irony that there are two beliefs about Rasool’s death. One that he was poisoned, due to which he died slowly and second, that he was caught by a mysterious fever (they write chronic illness). Then there was an attack on the house of his daughter Hazrat Fatimah, whose accusation is also on Rasool’s close companions, where Hazrat Fatimah was so injured that she had miscarriage and soon died. According to a belief, her last wish was with regard to those companions of Rasool so that they do not come to her exequy.
Since the first Caliph Abu Bakr, was older, he died soon of natural death, but in the later Caliphs, Hazrat Umar was slaughtered, Hazrat Uthman was slaughtered, Hazrat Ali was slaughtered and that too in mosque, while reciting namaz. Among the grandchildren, Hassan was poisoned and killed, Hussain was killed with family in battle of Karbala. They were all the special people of God but God did not help anyone out.
After Karbala, Yazid’s army invaded Mecca and Medina. Thousands of people were slaughtered, many sahaba were killed, literature was burnt, women were raped, Kaaba was damaged, the Nabi’s mosque was converted into camel stables but God did not come for rescue. But for such incidents, they will ingeminate a dialogue that it was a trial of God. Interestingly, despite all this, there was no rebellion against the Umayyad dynasty, Umayyad was not rejected from Islam and even today the entire period of Umayyad is called Islamic rule.
Even today, if anyone makes a cartoon of Muhammad Sahab, the followers start bloodshed, but in the past the house of the same prophet’s daughter was attacked, his son-in-law was murdered, Muawiyah broke the agreement with Hassan, grandchildren were murdered, but nobody dared to react. Stories were made to justify those incidents with great innocence and Yazid was declared culprit.
Despite this, see the acceptance of Yazid that today Muslims even hate the name of Yazid, there was nothing like that at that time because, in the same Umayyad Sultanate, Yazid II (720-724) and Yazid III (744) were also became kings and accepted.
Can the hadiths be the true history of Islam
Now imagine that in the midst of all these situations, for two and a half hundred years (from the seventh century to the ninth century), how the hearsay about the past (which were later written in the hadiths), would remain intact?
When these things were compiled in the ninth century, there were nearly six lakh stories floating around in public legends. Most of which were created for some benefit or selfishness, of which more than 90% were rejected but what is the guarantee for the rest that they are non-tampered and absolutely accurate?
However, as a hadith collection, Sahih Bukhari (7225), Sahih Muslim (4000), Tirmidhi (3891), Abu Dawood (4800), Ibn Mazah (4000), An Nasai (5662) are valid texts. And interestingly, the wife who had been with Rasool for about twenty-four years has very lesser and Ayesha, who had been with him for a few years, has the highest number of hadiths.
Crusade is the jihad of Christians
Although Muslims are more notorious for bloodshed, Christians have not committed lesser slaughter. Even if the violence that broke out in Europe before the origin of Islam is ignored, Christians have laid the corpses of their loved ones and strangers in the crusade wars in the name of religion.
Just as there was a movement in India in the name of Ram Janmabhoomi liberation, in the fourth century they fought to get the church built by the mother of Constantine at the tomb of Jesus from the Muslims which had been in the possession of Rashidun Caliphate since 636. Apart from this, one reason for crusade (holy war) was to establish the dominion of the pope who was more powerful than the emperors there.
The first crusade happened in 1096 in which millions of people took part, but they were divided into two groups. One group of a mob of extremist people who were killed mostly by Turks due to their own ineptness. The second group was of the armies of skilled feudal lords who captured Jerusalem in 1099 and laid the corpses of Muslims and Jews.
In 1144 the Ottoman ruler of Mosul, Imadud-Din Zengi, re-captured the Edessa County of the same region and sought assistance from the Pope. Saint Bernard announced the crusade. King of France, Louis Seventh and Germany’s Conrad III set out for war with an army of three lakhs. Despite losing thousands of soldiers on both sides for the next three years, they failed.
While Saladin, who emerged in the Ottoman Empire, invaded and captured Jerusalem in 1187 against which again a crusade was called for and the kings of England, Germany and France took part, and even this war that lasted thousands of years was not successful.