Usama Dakdok on the Best Story in the Qur'an - Joseph Chapter 12

 The Qur'an claims that chapter 12 is the "best of the stories" (vs. 3). Is this true? Watch this series and find out how what the Qur'an and Allah do not know about Joseph.This is a series that ran in 2024 on Usama Dakdok's Channel on YouTube.

Allah Says NO to Many Islamic Prayers Every Day

Does Allah Negate Prayers Before They Begin?

My dear Muslim,

What do you think of a god, who never once teaches you how to pray in his scriptures? Yet, the method of praying to this god exists within its claimed god's laws. These laws are the only place you can find how to pray. It is here that this god reveals that many of his believers pray in vain. But there is a problem with this. Most of this god’s followers have not read his law and are not told they should read it!

I am a Christian, I met with an Imam in Ohio, who came out of the mosque after Jummah prayers and we began to talk. He had a friend with him listening. I said, “do you know that you Muslims never pray?”

The Imam said, “we just finished Friday prayers.”

“Allow me to explain,” I pleaded.

The Imam nodded.

“Prayer is between your heart. Your very soul and God. It is a deeply personal communication. You speak to Him. He listens and responds.” They nodded. “But, what you do according to your prophet Jesus, is vain and repetitious.”

The friend with the Imam said, “what we do is repetitious but not vain.”

I responded, “you insult your prophet Jesus.” The man walked away.

The Imam immediately tried to change the topic.

*                                                                             *                                                                                     *

Shariah teaches that there is an exact way to pray, exact words to say. There are exact things that must be done to prepare for prayer also. Wudu, the use of water to “cleanse” a person from impurities on his/her person, has to be done in an exact order and with certain thoughts. There is an allowance if there is no water, to use “clean dirt,” which is referred to as Tayumum. This method also is an exact process that must be followed, and if not done, invalidates/negates a person’s prayer.

If a man is touched by a female, or a dog after doing this process, he can wash himself with “good dirt” to purify himself. This method and statement, are a claim that all females are too dirty for their god to ever listen to their prayers. After all, how can they wash the woman off themselves?

As we delve deeper into the method of prayer, we learn Muslims must recite the first Surah, what they refer to as Al Fatiha. This being the first chapter in their Quran. Repeating this passage, and claiming that it is a prayer poses problems for this god that is supposed to receive their prayers. Muslims claim that the Quran is the word of Allah. If Al Fatiha is a prayer and is the word of Allah, it must be asked who is Allah praying to? It becomes more problematic when authors of Tasfirs insist that Al Fathiha is not part of the Quran. If  this is a prayer as Muslims insist then this must be the words of their prophet Muhammad aka Qutham. This belief actually removes Al Fatiha from beng part of the Quran!.  Shariah insists that Muslims must use passages in the Quran for prayer. This would invalidate all 5 prayers a day given by faithful Muslims.

This causes many problems to surface.

Invalidation of prayers in shariah, for praying and some part of your person touching filth is quite a statement. If prayer is between what is in your heart, and God, how can something outside your body effect it? (f4.0-f4.2)

People pray when they are scared, when they are hurting, and more. Yet, these 5 required prayers ignore these most important things. f4.6 invalidates prayers if pus coming from the body has a smell.

F4.7 allows you to pretend not to notice if an impurity is on your person. Just pretend you do not notice right? But, if god does see it, and knows you do … Toss that time set aside to pray as worthless.

F4.9  states you have to repeat your prayers, if you are praying in a place of impurity. In other words, the god of Islam does not care to listen to them because you were in a place he does not like. If we take shariah as Allah’s law, it can be understood that you cannot pray touching your wife or female children.

F4.11 tells the Muslim that their clothes can negate their prayers! If they are not clean enough Allah just says no to your prayers.

F4.14 tells Muslims that some places prayer should not be performed, but they are not forbidden, they are called offensive. This label offensive, calls into question many practices of Islam in respect to praying in streets. Which again calls into question the concept of praying where filth is as possibly negating a prayer.

F4.15 tells Muslims they cannot pray in clothing unlawfully taken. This is of interest, because it hints at something stolen, but property belonging to apostates (h1.2) is defined as Islamic communal property elsewhere in shariah. This law also states that you cannot pray on land unlawfully taken. Which means that if jihad won the land it is lawfully taken.

F5.1 says Allah negates the prayers of those who are not covering their nakedness. When you read this part you learn Allah is ok with topless women praying when they are alone.

F5.2 has Allah concerned about holes in your clothing more than listening to your prayers. With all these things you have to wonder if a homeless person could ever have Allah listen to his prayers.

F5.3 redefines what nakedness is, for being in public. A woman is now considered naked if she reveals anything but her face and hands.

When we get to f5.8 we learn that a poor man possessing no clothing is allowed to pray naked. Keep in mind that this is now talking about prayer not in private, but in public. This makes you wonder why a man alone must clothe his private areas, but a man in public may be naked when he prays. But even that prayer is negated if he refuses clothing that is offered to him.

Now that you are washed/cleaned with “good dirt” and clothed, we learn that Muslims who do not face Mecca while praying do not have their prayers answered (f6.1). This open a whole range of problems, such as what if you are lightly off in the direction you face? Worse, what if a qibla in a mosque has been wrong?

Dear Muslim,

Is this god not to small for you? Are your prayers of so little value, that they are judged invalid before you even begin?

Consider these words, then choose whether Allah is worthy of your worship. If you leave Islam, yes it is at the risk of your life. But is worshipping something not worthy of your time worth losing out on knowing the one God who loved you first?

School in the UK Standing Up to Civilization Jihad Should be Applauded!

EMILY JANE DAVIES  of The Daily Mail reported that UK Michaela Community School is facing legal action because one Muslim student out of the majority that attend has filed a complaint against a policy banning prayer rituals on the premises, as being discriminatory.

The student claims the decision 'banning prayer rituals' also breaches her right to freedom of religion.

Sarah Hannett KC, representing the student, told the court that the policy had the 'practical effect of only preventing Muslims from praying because their prayer by nature has a ritualised nature rather than being internal'. Ms. Hannett said it was 'a ban uniquely on Muslim prayer', stopping pupils praying 'at a time as required by Islam', under which it is part of the 'five pillars' of the faith. Hannet claims that it 'wouldn't prevent a Christian child sitting quietly in the corner of the playground from praying.' Nor anyone else from any other religion.

It should be noted that this school – has been rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted - has been described as having an ethos likened to private schools.

 

What The Daily Mail article does not tell you is that Shariah allows those who cannot leave work to join prayers. This means they can combine prayers. For this reason shariah states the policy is not only NOT discriminatory, it does not pose any effect on the students who do attend. The assumption here is that non-Muslims are ignorant of Islamic law. According to Reliance of the Traveller:

Hadiths also abound on this topic.

As this information is in the public domain it is somewhat dishonest on the part of The Daily Mail to present an unbiased presentation of facts. It easily explains why the majority of Muslim students have never complained. In ignoring this publicly available information, they not only avoid presenting shariah, they ignore the many Islamic leaders who have made YouTube videos on the topic. Below are just a few.

 This next video says students taking exams may combine prayers. He does not agree with work combining prayers, but recognizes that some places they can not pray so combining prayers is then acceptable.

The true purpose of the charge against the school, is to force them to accept Islamic law as supreme. The secondary purpose is to place Islamic leadership over the school.

Critical Thinking vs. Shariah: Can Allah Communicate the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

Please support my work by buying my books at https://paulsutliff.com.

The Knowledge of Good and Bad.

a1.1. There is no disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims that the source of legal rulings for all the acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah Most Glorious”.

Really? There's no disagreement among the scholars that the source of legal rulings is Allah? Wait a minute, how does Allah make legal rulings? We are told Islam claims Muhammad was the last prophet, and if that is true, how would anyone hear Allah’s rulings today?

 

a1.2. The question arises: is it possible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures, to know rulings, such that someone not reached by a prophet's invitation would be able, through his own, to know Allah’s rule concerning his actions? Or is this impossible?”

Think about this. Is it possible to know right from wrong apart from Allah's intervention? Is it possible for you to know right from wrong with some kind of divine intervention? Are there things that you just know are wrong and things that you just know are right? Did God have to divinely intervene so you can know those things? Are there some things that are just known to be wrong? For example, is it always wrong to torture babies for the sole pleasure of hearing them cry? If this is something you feel is true, then is Allah unknowing in his law, which would reduce his status from being god.

 

Since the Torah is affirmed as accurate in the Qur’an, the question should be addressed using Genesis 1:27. So let's take a look. What does Genesis 1:27 say?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female, created he them”.

Whoa, wait a minute! God created us. If God created us in his image—again, this is from the Torah, something the Qur’an says is accurate—at bare minimum, there should exist a concept of good versus evil, because God is wholly-good correct? Don't you think we should feel uncomfortable around that which is evil? Don't you think we should at least have that feeling of something is wrong? Yet, shariah has stated the opposite. Is this a take down of the claim Islam is an Abrahamic faith?

Back to the main topic. Does a child have these concepts of good and evil? Can they be trained against these concepts? Those are other things to think about. Shariah says, a prophet has to help, a messenger has to help, an angel has to help, so Allah can get his point across. This poses an additional question. Is it impossible for Allah to do this without that help? So, let's think about this: Since the God of the Torah is wholly-good, but if that's not true of Islam’s Allah (Arabic word for God), we have a break between a God that is wholly-good and a God that is not wholly-good.

If God is not wholly-good, this, at minimum, places the concept of a God, singular in existence, on the scale of belief in multiple gods. Sadly, to the unaware submitters to Islam, The Qur’an makes a claim of many gods unknowingly by referencing creators.

Surah 23:15     “… So blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.”

Surah 37:125-126             “Do you call on Baal and forsake the best of the creators, Allah your lord and the lord of your ancient fathers?"

Surah 56:59                       “Are you the ones who created it, or are we the creators?”

Still, according to Islam, there is only one god, but this is said, while their Qur’an credits more than their god as creators. The Arabic word for god is Allah. This proposes an additional problem. The submitters of Islam do not even have the name of their god! This God can't communicate without assistance, much less reveal it’s name. Remember Allah can't communicate without a prophet. Allah can't communicate without messengers. That's what it says here: It is impossible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures, to know rulings.

a1.2. It is impossible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures, to know rulings such that someone not reached by a prophet's invitation…

Has shariah just placed a limit on God? This appears to be a statement that Allah is not capable of hardwiring morality into mankind. Think about that. If Allah can't hardwire morality into mankind, what does that say?

The Christian and the Jewish person will tell you—the Judeo-Christian concept of God, has hardwired into all of mankind HIS concept of  morality. He's given the concepts of right and wrong. What man does with that is his/her own choice. Think about this. If Allah doesn't do this, it's possible he could never be recognized as God also. Think about that. Because if he doesn't hardwire people to know who he is, he can not be recognized as god.

This could be taken another way. What if this is a statement to throw away all that you have learned and known and believed up to this point to enable yourself to find an alternate moral compass that exists only within Islam’s scriptures, and it’s law - shariah.

Another important point on this is that shariah has now established that there exist alternative concepts of morality. Allah is claiming, only his concept is correct. Now, what does this exactly mean? If only Allah’s concept is correct, it’s possible his view can best described as a Nietzschean view of morality. If anyone is familiar with Nazis, their concept of reality comes from Nietzsche's Übermensch (Superman), where there exists superior beings (Supermen) that exist above the law. It doesn't matter what the common person's morality is, it matters what the Superman's morality is, because the Superman is above everybody else's morality. In this respect, no matter what everyone else’s morals tell them, if Allah’s morals overrule everyone else and proclaim allowance for slavery, child marriage, and killing your own children. It does not matter what everyone else thinks is right or wrong. It only matters that the Übermensch or in this respect, Islam’s Submitters aka Muslims believe is right and wrong.

How is this different from the Judeo-Christian belief? Those who believe in the God of the Torah and that of the New Testament believe that morality is universal. That is because God created man in His image it is literally impossible to judge any of mankind if this is not universal. By this one claim in shariah, Islam has claimed its superiority, but demonstrated inferiority.  

 

a1.3 The position of the Ash'aris, the followers of Abdul Hassan Ash'ari, is that the mind is unable to know the rule of Allah about the acts of those morally responsible except by means of his messengers and inspired books. …”

 Perhaps the best critical thinking question to be posed on this is: “Is a1.3 saying that you have to throw everything out in order to accept Islam?” If this is required is that a statement that Islam practices “brainwashing?”

a1.3 The position of the followers of Abdul Hassan Ash'ari is that the mind is unable to know the rule of Allah about the acts of those morally responsible except by means of his messenger and inspired books. For minds are in obvious disagreement about acts. Some minds find certain acts good, others find them bad. However, one person can be of two minds about one and the same action”.

This is called the law of non-contradiction. You can't hold two diametrically opposed opinions at the same time. It creates something called insanity. And this is one of the problems with Islam, because they have a concept of duality that basically teaches to do this, and this is extremely problematic. Let's think of this next part:

a1.3 (Continued) Caprice often wins out over the intellect, and considering something good or bad comes to be based on mere whim. So it cannot be said that an act which the mind deems good is therefore good in the eyes of Allah, its performance called for and its doer rewarded by Allah, or that whatever the mind feels it to be bad is thus bad in the eyes of Allah, its nonperformance called for and its doer punished by Allah”.

Here we enter the twilight zone. Sharia has now declared that Allah is incapable of communicating to his creation naturally. He's unable to communicate even the concept of morality. Nothing can be known without Allah and his prophet. Yes, throughout your brain, they have said it. Intellect, throw it out. Now you can accept Islam. If you're using your brain, you won't accept Islam. Is that what we're hearing here? It's got to make you think.

Nothing can be known without Allah's prophet. This is greatly problematic due to the fact that “the prophet” aka Muhammad committed many acts today, which would be considered crimes. Some of those actions are so horrible that they would receive charges of war crimes, genocide, violations of human rights, crimes against children, slavery, the selling of slaves, pedophilia, the bedding of his adopted son's wife. And these were all acts that were approved of by Allah. We would find these to be highly offensive today. Even in his culture, they found some of his actions extremely offensive.

But throw out your brain, and accept. Again, it says it here, “caprice often wins out over intellect.” But again, they're saying that you can't even use your brain. Thank you, Sharia.

Under Islam, the human mind is incapable of knowing good or evil apart from Allah’s messenger. The brain gets washed to the point where it can't be used. Allah doesn't come to earth to communicate. Allah doesn't talk to his people—if we even are his people. Even the Muslims get nothing from Allah. They might get a messenger. But wait a minute, if there are no more messengers, can there be any communication? Well, not unless they pick up a book called the Qur’an. See, it doesn't talk about preaching. It says a messenger. It says a prophet. But that means there's no salvation—if they have a concept of it—there's no spreading of Islam, there's no growth of Islam apart from their scriptures. This is what shariah states so far.

Slavery in Islam

 Usama Dakdok led a series on Islam and slavery that has grave importance. Kristie Johnson and myself were present to assist. Sadly, there are many who wish to hide these important facts in order to push their own personal agenda, which requires "obfuscation of facts." Obfuscation is a deliberate act of hiding something. This is purposeful jump over information, or misdirection away from that information.

Slavery in Islam is found throughout the Quran. Muhammad himself was both a slave owner and a slave trader. Yet, the lovers of Shariah, known as Muslims insist that Muhammad was a perfect man. 

Dissecting the Quran with Dr. Kuffarphobia

 One of the things Imams, Islamic scholars, and other leaders of Islam fear is that those who worship Allah, will read the Quran asking Critical Thinking questions. What happens when people actually try to obtain knowledge from the Quran? Is this possible or do people become more confused? Does the Quran have answers or confusion? Do people leave Islam if they actually read the Quran in their own language?

This series primarily uses The Generous Quran, a translation by Usama Dakdok, of The Straightway of Grace Ministry.

Surah 1-2:46	Surah 2:47-200	Surah 2:200-286
Surah 3:1-105	Surah 3:106-151	Surah 3:152-200
Surah 4:1-47	Surah 4:48-111	Surah 4:112-176
Surah 5:1-26	Surah 5:27-60	Surah 5:61-120
Surah 6:1-73	Surah 6:74-104	Surah 6:105-124
Surah 6:125-165	Surah 7:1-55	Surah 7:56-102
Surah 7:103-170	Surah 7:171-8:29	Surah 8:30-59
Surah 8:60-9:48	Surah 9:49-72	Surah 9:73-104
Surah 9:105-129	Surah 10:1-24	Surah 10:25-109
Surah 11:1-60	Surah 11:61-12:57	Surah 12:58-13:12

US House of Representatives Passes Islamophobia Bill

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota's 5th District proposed a bill that will require the United States of America to "COMBAT INTERNATIONAL ISLAMOPHOBIA." This bill passed the House without one Republican vote in favor  the vote was 219 to 212.  

Sadly, this legislation somehow passed without any definition of Islamophobia be given.  This bill shown below can be found on https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5665/text

H. R. 5665

---

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 15, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

---

AN ACT

To establish in the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Combating International Islamophobia Act”.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT ISLAMOPHOBIA.

Title I of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“SEC. 64. MONITORING AND COMBATING ISLAMOPHOBIA.

“(a) Office To Monitor And Combat Islamophobia.—

This bill that passed by a 100% Democratic Party vote establishes an office without a purpose since Islamophobia is not defined! The question remains then what definition will they use? Since this possible legislation was lauded by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, this June 2022. What is their actual definition of Islamophobia?

CAIR defines Islamophobia on their site as:

    Islamophobia is close-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.

    Islamophobic acts are directed at Islam or Muslims in general. Anti-Muslim                         discrimination is directed at a specific individual, institution or group of individuals.

    An Islamophobe is an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes        prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.

Interestingly CAIR goes and clarifies that they are not trying to implement Shariah in this respect by stating on the same site that:

    Questioning Islam or Muslims 

is not Islamophobia

    It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and                Muslims as Islamophobes. Equally, it is not Islamophobic to denounce crimes committed by      individual Muslims or those claiming Islam as a motivation for their actions.

    “A critical study of Islam or Muslims is not Islamphobic,” former CAIR Research Director             Mohamed Nimer wrote in 2007. “Likewise, a disapproving analysis of American history and      government is not anti-American… One can disagree with Islam or with what some                 Muslims do without having to be hateful.”

    “I would be careful to remind my Muslim friends not to characterize anyone who is opposed     to the Ground Zero center as a racist or bigot,” said a conservative political activist during         an interview for this report. “My argument is there [are a few Islamophobes] … but the vast      majority of Americans are people who’ve been misinformed, who don’t know the truth and      don’t know the real facts.”

If this type of definition is what would define Islamophobia, almost no one accept actors of violence against Islam would be declared "Islamophobic."  Usama Dakdok asked if there was a definition that would declare reading the Quran Islamophobic. I had to say yes.  I discovered this particular definition because CAIR on their own site declared that "A critical study of Islam or Muslims is not Islamophobic." CAIR has a history of stating one thing when they speak to those they know who are not Islamic, and the opposite to those who follow Islam. This caused me to do a simple websearch using the parameters, +"Council on American Islamic Relations" Islamophobia.

As a result I discovered Islamophobia.org which is sponsored by CAIR. On their Islamophobia 101  they have definition of Islam that could actually outlaw reading the Quran, and the Sunnah, 

Institutionalized Islamophobia: “Institutionalized Islamophobia is a   phenomenon meant to articulate contrived hate and fear of Muslims that is built into structures of the state and society for the pursuit of power and the justification of war and repression. Islamophobia is based on the social construction of Islam as violent, barbaric, uncivilized, and opposed to normative democratic values. ...

If this definition is accepted it would be considered Islamophobic to read the last things said of Muhammad in the Quran, the Hadiths, Islamic histories such as Al-Tabari's histories published by the State University on New York and the Sirats which are the biographies of Muhammad. Why? Because these documents declare Islam to be violent by themselves.

For example, Surah 9:29 states:

Engage in war with those who do not believe in Allah nor in the last day. Nor forbid what Allah and his messenger forbid, nor believe in the religion of the truth among those who have been given the book until they pay the jizya out of hand and they are subdued." Under CAIR's last definition the Quran would be declared Islamophobic.  

There are close to 200 verses proclaiming violence against non-Muslims in the Quran. The Hadiths, Sirats, and Islamic histories constantly portray Islam as violent. Migrants in Europe get arrested for sexually assaulting non-Muslim women and act confused as a defense to proclaim it is lawful in their country, should they also be proclaimed Islamophobic. 

Every Muslim is required when paying Zakat to donate 12.5% of their gift to Jihad. Should all Muslim following Shariah now be declared Islamophobic? According to the last definition, Muslims will suffer far more than Muslims.

But let's get back into the proposed law.

(b) Purpose Of Office.—Upon establishment, the Office shall assume primary responsibility for the following:

“(1) Monitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.

“(2) Coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that portion of the reports required by paragraph (9) of section 116(d) and subsection (k) of section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304) relating to an assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement.

“(3) Coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that portion of the report required by clause (viii) of section 102(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)(A)) relating to an assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement.

“(c) Consultations.—The Special Envoy shall consult with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special Envoy considers appropriate, to carry out this section.”

This legislation would require military application since the word combat is used. Only the US military is used in combat. Think about this. It would be free reign by the State Department to enforce ISLAM!

Worse still are the "consultations." Domestic entities that exist have been exposed as issuing reports on Islamophobia with proven false narratives as actual counted acts of Islamophobia, CAIR, Bridges, and SJP's work on this is continually being exposed. All of these stated organizations are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The federal courts received testimony and evidence as to their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in this in 2007. 

What makes this worse is the consultations with Multilateral organizations. This is required consultations with the UN, the Organization of Islamic States, and more. This would force the USA to enforce Shariah if the OIC declares Islamophobia as a resistance to shariah.

THIS IS DANGEROUS! It gives Islam special privileges that no other faith in the USA has at present.   

 

Zakat, Jihad and Ramadan

Most of the pillars copy previous beliefs and practices.  Zakat started with Muhammad taking 20% of the spoil (booty) after raiding a caravan. This amount had to set apart, including 20% of the slaves taken before the raiders/robbers could divide their “earnings.”

Today, Muslims give zakat is of what they owned for 1 year. While you may have earned $100,000 this year, if you spent all of that, not one penny would go to zakat.  (Reliance of the Traveller, h1.9-10). The actual percentage they pay is 2.5% of what has been owned. This is one reason Islam is not seen as a “generous” faith structure. It literally provides a way for a person to not give anything towards zakat by spending what they have. However, if the items purchased are clothes, cars, or anything physical, then they are required to make a 2.5% payment of the estimated value. This could be somewhat problematic if you consider home ownership. If your house is valued at $100,000 you must pay $2,500 a year zakat.

Now it must be asked, where they get this number of 2.5% since it is not found in the Quran, specifically. Yet, this requirement is stated in shariah, with no Quranic scripture as it’s basis. However, there are Hadiths that come up with 2.5% if you do the math. Note here that Zakat is also required of a physical property owned  such as livestock.

https://sunnah.com/ahmad:711

40 x .025 = 1

https://sunnah.com/urn/505910

$200 x .025 =$5

.1 x.025 = .025=2.5%

1 ÷40 = .025=2.5%

Muhammad required Zakat of people who had died.

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3649

Hadiths also show that Muhammad wanted more than 2.5% at times. For example he took as zakat 10% of all honey.

This hadith is graded as Hasan (weak), but…

Where does Zakat (Charity) go?

The Quran states in 9:60:

Surely alms are only to the poor and the needy and those who collect them and to those whose hearts are inclined and for the necks [ransom for slaves] and for debtors and for the sake of Allah and the son of the way, an ordinance from Allah. And Allah is knowing, wise.

This verse poses problems, starting with how does Allah receive his portion? In addition, it is important to understand that Muslim scholars differentiate between the poor and needy. Something no other culture does.

The next big problem is the passage “to those whose hearts are inclined.” This speaks to paying people to convert and become followers of Islam. What do we call paying people to become followers of Islam? Bribery! But in Islam, it is lawful to practice bribery to create new converts.

Muhammad had no problem taking from those who had received zakat in the form of charity. One example of this was a slave girl set free by Aisha, his wife who had been given some meat due to her impoverished condition. It was taken from her given to Muhmad and he considered it his “gift.” Yet, the stated purpose of charity (zakat) was to give to the poor.

1/8^th of Zakat MUST Finance Jihad

One of the big secrets about the second pillar of zakat is that it requires financing of jihad, the war against non-Muslims. This can be found in the English translation of Um Dat Al-Salik

H8.7 The Eight Categories of Recipients [of Zakat]

It is obligatory to distribute one’s Zakat among eight categories of recipients (O: meaning that Zakat goes to none beside them), one-eighth of the zakat to each share…

      One eighth is the equivalent of 12.5.% of all zakat donated by a person each year that must go to paying for people who wage jihad. Some Muslims will claim this is a lie. But it is recorded in Shariah for all to see.

H8.17 the seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning those engaged in Islamic military for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without renumeration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent;  of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses.

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by purchasing my books on Amazon.