Islamic preachers often emphasize the perceived danger of atheism to the world, while pointing out that figures such as Stalin and Hitler were responsible for more deaths than Prophet Muhammad.
Our Response:
Were the killings committed by Stalin and Mao Zedong driven by the goal of spreading atheism? Absolutely not. Their actions were rooted in their pursuit of establishing and advancing their preferred economic systems (i.e. communism and socialism), which led even Christian Russians to support the communist party in Russia.
It is worth noting that Hitler, in contrast, identified himself as a Christian. He never killed any people for the spread of atheism.
It is essential to acknowledge that people were not targeted and killed specifically in the name of promoting or spreading atheism. In fact, if an atheist were to engage in such atrocities, the majority of us would unequivocally condemn them as criminals against humanity. We should approach these historical figures, including Stalin and Mao Zedong, with a critical lens and hold them accountable for their actions, rather than glorifying or praising them. It is through this approach that we uphold the values of justice and recognize the importance of condemning any form of violence, regardless of the perpetrator's beliefs or ideologies.
Moreover, it is important to clarify that comparing Prophet Muhammad to Stalin or Hitler is fundamentally flawed. Muslims consider Prophet Muhammad to be perfect and embodying the highest moral values. If he had ever committed an injustice against even a single person, it would undermine his claim as a prophet and challenge the foundation of Islam.
In contrast, individuals like Stalin or other atheists are not considered perfect, allowing for criticism and condemnation of their actions. We can openly criticize Stalin for his killings, as he does not possess a revered status like that attributed to Prophet Muhammad by Muslims.
Unfortunately, within the Muslim community, criticism and condemnation of killings attributed to Muhammad or sanctioned by Allah are largely absent. In fact, some even praise these killings. This has perpetuated a history of violence and jihad in the name of Allah, which only began to subside when Western countries exerted force to curb these actions.
Moreover:
- Regarding the extent of the destruction, it is essential to recognize that Muhammad's military capabilities were limited compared to Stalin and his advanced weaponry. However, the proportion of destruction attributed to Muhammad is often depicted as 100%.
- Muhammad either killed 100% of the men or made them slaves.
- And he turned 100% of women into slaves too, although they had no role in the wars. Those women were raped by their Muslim Jihadists, and they had to provide sex services to Muslim men for their entire life.
- Muhammad also didn't spare the small children, although they were fully innocent and had no role in wars. Muhammad turned 100% of small children into slaves too for the rest of their lives. And due to the evil of "Slavery By Birth" in Islam, even the later coming generations of those children were also automatically born as slaves.
- Additionally, Islam facilitated the looting of 100% of their wealth and properties.
Thus, the destruction of opponents at the hands of Muhammad was 100% in all aspects.
Today, some Muslims perceive Genghis Khan and the Mongols as symbols of fear and terror. However, they may be unaware that non-Muslims did not hold any less fear towards Muslim armies than they did towards the Mongols, while they were also as barbaric and oppressive as the Mongols were. Islam didn't leave any barbaric act of war, which the Mongols did, but the Muslim armies didn't do.
Please read what Muhammad did to Banu Qurayzah and Banu al-Mustaliq. That was 100% destruction. No more destruction is possible after that.
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote to me that it was (only) necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others (and took them as captives).
And here is how 100% of women were raped in a TEMPORARY sexual relationship, and when the master fulfilled his lust, then he sold her to the 2nd master, who raped her and then sold her to the 3rd master ... and thus, this cycle of exploitation of the unfortunate slave girls continued in Islam.
Abu Sa’id said We went out with the Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) on the expedition to Banu Al Mustaliq and took some Arab women captive and we desired the women for we were suffering from the absence of our wives and (at the same time) we (also) wanted ransom, so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave women, so that they don't get pregnant, so that they get good ransom moeny by selling them in the slave markets). But we asked ourselves “can we draw the penis when the Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) is among us before asking him about it? So we asked him about it. He said “ (Yes, you can do it, but) it does not matter if you do not do it, for very soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.”
Grade: Sahih (Albani)
It is important to note that India did not engage in the slave trade, as Ashoka The Great, a devout follower of Buddha, took significant measures to abolish all slave markets.
Likewise, the teachings of the Bible strictly prohibited the rape of captive or enslaved women in any form of temporary sexual relationship. Instead, it mandated that Jewish and Christian individuals had the responsibility to marry such women, ensuring their protection and preventing further sale or exploitation. (Click for more details here).
Moreover, not only women, but Jihadists also raped the pre-pubescent small girls too on the same night when they had mercilessly taken the lives of their fathers and brothers.
Narrated Buraydah:
I hated Ali as I had never hated anyone. ... The Prophet sent to us Ali, and among the female captives was a slave girl who was the finest of the female captives, and he apportioned the Khums (one-fifth of war booty given to the Prophet and his family). Ali divided the shares, and his head was dripping (after taking a ritual bath following sexual intercourse with the slave-girl). We said: "O Abu al-Hasan (i.e. Ali), what is this?!" Ali replied: "Did you not see the slave-girl who was among the female captives? I divided the shares and apportioned Khumus. Then she became part of the Khumus. Then she became part of the household of the Prophet, and then she became part of the house of Ali, and (thus) I had sexual intercourse with her." ...
Grading: Classed Sahih by al-Arna'ut
Istibra is a period of sexual abstinence required till the first menstrual period of the captive girl is over. This is to ensure no confusion on paternity. Since Ali raped that captive girl the same night without any Istibra, thus some people criticized this action of Ali.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani answered this criticism, and wrote (link):
وقد استشكل وقوع على على الجارية بغير استبراء وكذلك قسمته لنفسه فأما الأول فمحمول على أنها كانت بكرا غير بالغ ورأى أن مثلها لا يستبرأ كما صار إليه غيره من الصحابة
"It was problematic that Ali Had sexual intercourse with the slave-girl without observing Istibra, and also that he apportioned a share for himself.
As for the first issue, it is understood that she was a virgin and not pubescent. He recognized that someone like her need not observe Istibra, and it is in accordance with the practice of other Companions."
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari 8/67.
Please read more details about the evils of Islamic Slavery here.
And this Prophetic Sunnah (practice) of 100% destruction of non-Muslims continued among the Muslim followers of Muhammad for the next 1400 years. Millions of non-Muslims were killed, and millions of women and small children were made slaves. Millions of women and pre-pubescent girls were raped. And millions were sold in the Bazaars of slavery.
Muslim Objection: Stalin indeed put restrictions on the Church and executed many clergy members
Our Response:
The conflict between the Orthodox Church and Stalin was not primarily motivated by the promotion of atheism, but rather stemmed from the political engagements of the Orthodox Church. It actively opposed the communist revolution and supported anti-Soviet movements, particularly in support of White Russia. Consequently, when the political power of the Church waned by 1930 and the communist revolution was no longer threatened by it, then the Church also faced no more restrictions and clergy members were no more executed (link).
Since the influence of the Church has diminished today within modern secular states in Europe and it no longer plays a significant political role in state affairs, one would not witness a scenario where atheists would commit murder to promote their ideology or forcefully impose restrictions on the Church or any other religion.
Islam, on the other hand, operates differently. It stands against secular states and forcefully seeks to establish an Islamic system at the state level. Non-Muslims are relegated to second-class citizens, subjected to the payment of jizya (tax), and face discrimination and ridicule in an Islamic state. Non-Muslims are denied the right to propagate their own ideologies, and if a Muslim were to abandon Islam and adopt another belief system, he would be killed in the name of apostasy.
Hence, the truth remains that atheism does not advocate or endorse killing for the promotion or propagation of its beliefs. If any atheist were to commit such acts, they would not be defended, but rather condemned as criminals against humanity, just as we condemn Stalin and Mao for their crimes instead of praising them.
However, are Muslims prepared to label their Prophet, who is associated with violence and bloodshed, as a criminal against humanity? On the contrary, we have witnessed Muslims praising their Prophet despite the acts of violence and plunder associated with him.
How does a non-religious society function to overcome its mistakes?
A non-religious society addresses its negatives by recognizing human fallibility and the capacity for learning and growth. It acknowledges that mistakes can be made and wrong decisions taken, but also believes in the ability to learn from these errors and reform accordingly. Through the process of criticism, a non-religious society strives for self-improvement and the betterment of its community.
Freedom of expression and criticism are valued and supported in such a society, as they are essential for the process of reform. Even if mistakes are made, the commitment to self-improvement remains strong.
In this context, the atheism of Stalin holds no significance today. His crimes are unequivocally condemned, and opposition is expressed towards him and his policies. It is through this critical evaluation and rejection of negative actions that valuable human rights have been achieved in the non-religious Western world.
The question is why Muslim preachers do not highlight the positive aspects of non-religious Western Europe, such as the absence of wars in the region for the past 70 years. We made our countries so peaceful that millions of Muslims left their Islamic countries (with Sharia Laws) and came to our Western European countries. Not a single Islamic era during the last 1400 years ever brought such peace, as has been brought by non-religious freethinking in Western Europe.
Have Muslims ever condemned the massacres & rape & looting in the name of Jihad?
During the time when Stalin and Hitler were involved in mass killings, they were commonly referred to as terrorists and faced criticism and condemnation.
This criticism and condemnation serve as the starting point for reform. In simple terms, atheists and non-religious systems have the ability to initiate self-reform. This is evident in the fact that even Stalin and the Soviet Union eventually ceased persecuting religious individuals in the late 1930s.
However, it raises the question: Where are the Muslims who criticize and condemn the atrocities committed under Islamic Sharia, such as the killing of men, enslavement of innocent women and children, rape, and looting of their possessions? The absence of such voices is concerning.
In essence, Islam lacks the space for criticism and condemnation of the crimes committed under Islamic Sharia, making reforms within the system challenging.
It is crucial to be aware that whenever devout Muslims gain power and establish an Islamic Caliphate, it becomes obligatory for them to wage Jihad against non-Islamic states. Consequently, with the revival of Jihad, the practice of "Islamic Slavery" also resurfaces, where captive non-Muslim women and children are enslaved after wars.
This viewpoint aligns with the fatwa issued by Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan, openly stating that the institutions of Jihad and Slavery will automatically revive with the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_Al-Fawzan
In the tape he was quoted as saying, “Slavery is a part of Islam ... Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” As for the modernist interpretation that Islam totally abolished slavery, he dismissed its exponents saying, “They are ignorant, not scholars. ... Whoever says such things is an infidel.”
Hassan Radwan