THE END OF FAITH-Sam Harris

Share

In the name of Allāh,

 the Beneficent, the Merciful.

 Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.

 DEDICATED TO

 Allāh–the Glorious and the High,

 Lord of the worlds

 AND TO

 Mohammad–who brought the world

 to our feet and eternity to our arms.

 *

 

‘Religion poisons everything,’ such is the blissful mantra of the atheist. Religion is the only prop he can find to shore up his disbelief of God: he has no rational foundation. America and Russia’s “Cold War” was not over religion; India and China did not war over religion; the two World Wars were not over religion. It is man’s greed for dominance over man and his parasitic disposition –to live off the avails of others, and his wild drive of survival of the fittest that poisons everything. If man would follow Islam; man would find his Utopia.

 *

  

RESPONSE

 To

 Sam Harris

 THE END OF FAITH

 

(Paperback)

 (Published 2005, by W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York).

 

  In his praise for Sam Harris’s book, The End of Faith, Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University and author of America on Trial, states:

  “The End of Faith shows how the perfect tyranny of religious and secular totalitarianism demonizes imperfect democracies such as the United States and Israel.”

  

It is doubtful that a thinking person expects democracy to be perfect –no man-made system, whose ruling is limited to its knowledge of the day, and governed by the dictates of the majority, can ever be perfect. Neither can such a “democracy” be superior than or equal with the Divine designed democracy.

    However, the occupier, usurper, oppressor, aggressor, and exploiter can hardly claim shade from the sun of “perfection” under the umbrella of democratic imperfection.

    Only the foolish and the unthinking would give sanctuary to such a shrewd (and perhaps manipulative) cerebration.

 *

    

PREAMBLE

 The End Of Faith is vast on text and void on substance: it is just another baseless anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rambling. Which rambling is due perhaps either to ignorance of or lack of understanding of the sublime teachings of Islam. Many Muslims also suffer from this.

   Verses of the Qur’an are used out of context (a malignant sickness of the critics of Islam), and seemingly without knowledge as to the background to which they were revealed; that some verses of the Qur’an are allegorical; and that on certain topics –such as stoning, blasphemy, apostasy– the Prophet followed the Torah until he received Qur’anic revelation.

  To comment on every misstatement about Islam and Muslims (and those of a non-Islamic nature) is not only “tedious” but needless. Muslims (as anyone else) have all rights and the Highest Authority to take up arms against the aggressor, occupier, usurper, and exploiter.

   Sam Harris and those Muslims who agree with his “general disparagement of their religion” (Islam) need to consult not a “neurologist” but a Muslim knowledgeable in the Qur’an.

  Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with text, notes, and commentaries can be viewed online: www.muslim.org.

 

   Muslims are to know there is no charge against Allāh, the Prophet Mohammad, Islam, and the Qur’an that is not refutable; many against Muslims have also been refuted on CD and www.nogodbutallah.org

 *

   

   The End Of Faith (paperback) page numbers in brackets indicate the page(s) from which the quotes are taken.

 

CONTENTS

1. Link between Islam and terrorism; Qur’an mandates hatred

2. Whoever says Islam has nothing to do with terrorism

3. Qur’an and suicide

4. Islam–separation between State and Mosque

4A. Bernard Lewis and Islam

5. Islam–tolerance and religious diversity; martyrdom; dark-eyed virgins

6. Rioting in Nigeria over the 2002 Beauty Pageant

7. Arabia–teenage girls not allowed to leave burning building because they were not wearing head-cover; Allāh concerned about hemlines

8. Anti-Semitism in Christianity and Islam; Jews bunglers of God’s initial revelation

9. Muslim and Christian anti-Semitism; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

10. The Holocaust–a Jewish orchestration?

11. Islam and inquisitions  

12. Islam divides world into “House of Islam” and “House of War;” Jihad–an unambiguous call to world conquest; Mohammad his own Caesar

13. Muslim tolerance applies only to Jews and Christians; life for Jews under Islam one of ceaseless humiliation and regular pogroms; life for Christians under Islam has been scarcely better

14. Task of the Islamic state is to bring obedience to the Qur’an

15. Islam and apostates

16. Terrorism/violence in the Qur’an; Qur’an instructs Muslims to despise non-Muslims; Thomas Carlyle on the Qur’an

17. Sayyid Qutb and the Qur’an; Muslim worldview–intolerance against Jews

18. Qur’an and suicide

19. Muslims are the most sexually repressive people; Muslim paradise like an al fresco bordello; hur of the Qur’an

20. Qur’anic paradise implausible

21. Muslim support for Saddam Hussein during American attack on Iraq

22. Muslims and nuclear weapons

23. Western leaders who insist that their conflict is not with Islam are mistaken

24. Qur’an–offender of Muslim dignity; Afghanistan under the Taliban

25. Western liberals blame their governments for the excesses of Muslim terrorists; Israel and the suicidal derangement of the  Palestinians; Israelis frequently likened to the Nazis; Alan Dershowitz trying to buff Israel’s image

26. What if the Palestinian-Jewish situation was reversed? Mohammad’s flying to heaven on a winged horse

27. Islam’s liberalism illusory; without Islam Muslim grievances against the West almost non-existent

28. Prof. Noam Chomsky’s criticism of America’s bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals in Sudan in 1998

29. Torture and murder of innocents

30. Knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy; where ethics are concerned, intentions are everything

31. Islamic fundamentalism; Jainism

32. Zakaria and Islam

33. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of fanatics

34. Is Islam compatible with a civil society? peace between Islam and the West

35. Why fundamentalist Christians support Israel; President Ronald Reagan and the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ

36. People of faith often want to curtail the private freedom of others

37. There is surely an opposition between reason and faith

38. Biological truths are simply not commensurate with a designer God; if God created the world and all things in it, He created smallpox, plague, and filarias

39. Bertrand Russell and God; Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb

40. Christopher Hitchens: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

41. Religion and human solidarity; religion limits moral identity

42. Religious indifference

43. To torture the ticking-bomb terrorist

44. Torture in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

45. Gandhi and non-violence

46. Padmasambhava and Mohammad

47. Religion, truth, intellect, and politics

48. Islam and blasphemy

49. Christianity, Islam, Judaism–devoid of any real foundation for religious tolerance and religious diversity

50. The only angels we need invoke are; the only demons we must fear are

51. Muslims who agree with Harris’ general disparagement of Islam

52. Faith and reason

53. Muslim violence a product of politics and economics–where are the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? Islamic doctrines about martyrdom and jihad directly inspire Muslim terrorism; Muslim women mostly suffers the consequences of Islam

54. America fought in defense of Muslims

55. Likening Israelis to Nazis; Palestinians Nazi collaborators; Hajj Amin al-Husseini aspired to open his own death camp for the Jews; Yasser Arafat heroizing Hajj Amin al-Husseini

56. Albert Einstein on science and religion

57. American media censoring images of war

 *

 

1. “Most people in positions of leadership in our country will say that there is no direct link between the Muslim faith and “terrorism.” It is clear, however, that Muslims hate the West in the very terms of their faith and that the Koran mandates such hatred.” (and he quotes the Qur’an):

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. (Koran 9:73).”

 “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous. (Koran 9:123).”(pp. 31-32).

 

Response: Jihad, in 9:73, does not here mean “armed” approach. Muham-mad Ali explains: Jahada signifies he strove or exerted himself, and jihad is the using one’s utmost power in contending with an object of disapprobation (LL). It is in a secondary sense that the word signifies fighting, and it is repeatedly used in the Holy Qur’an in its primary significance. It is a fact that those who professed Islam were never fought against, even though their pro-fessions were insincere—as on this occasion and on the occasion of the battle of Uhud. “The correct rendering is that jihad signifies striving, or exerting oneself, and there is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword or by the tongue or by any other method” (Rz).

  The Prophet is commanded here to carry on a jihad against disbelievers as well as hypocrites. Hence the only significance that can be attached to these words is that he must continue to preach forcibly both to the disbelievers and the hypocrites.”

   Even if the jihad here is taken to mean armed struggle; it is only so because of the unbelievers and hypocrites first making war against the Prophet. There is hardly any person who has been unjustly violated that would not strive against his violator whose sole intention is to extirpate him.  

  

In 9:23, Muslims are urged to fight the unbelievers because “it was they who persecuted the Muslims. The object was to stop persecutions.” This is what America and Canada and others are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan as they say: fighting to put an end to evil. And the Iraqi’s and Talibans did not even “persecute” America and Canada or the others.

 (Muhammad Ali has explained Arabic terms and gives a background to which the verses were revealed. His preliminary notes are a Solomon’s mine of information. His translation of the Qur’an with text, notes, and commentaries can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).

 

    Jihad means to “strive” in the way of freedom, truth, and jus-tice; against low desires and evil temptations; to speak out or write against an injustice; to finance or take up arms against occupation, oppression, persecution, and exploitation. Jihad liberates us physically, morally, intellectually and spiritually:

 

   -physically–gives freedom of religion, movement and expression;

  -morally–impresses on us to be modest and moderate; and that the exacting of one’s rights is governed by the instituting of the rights of others;

  -intellectually–frees us from the degradation of worship of other humans and of nature and idols; makes man the equal of man, and the master of nature; and instills in us that the only existence greater than ourselves is Allāh, God;

  -spiritually–enjoins us to entomb our lower desires; and to robe ourselves in the garments of prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage and Divine Attributes that will give us success in this life and in the next. 

   

   Islam allows fighting only in self defense, as careful reading of the Qur’an shows.

 

   Muslims do not “hate the West.” Muslims hate the West’s hypocrisy, arrogance and injustice:

  –Hypocrisy–preaching democracy yet when Muslims were the gainers in the democratic machinery, as in Algeria and in Occupied Palestine, “democracy” was sub-verted.

 –Arrogance–dictating to Muslims what manner of defence systems it can have and cannot have.

 –Injustice–took Muslims/Palestinians lands and gave it to Jews. And for sixty years have been aiding in the slaughter of the occupied Palestinians.

  

   There is no law against blasphemy in Islam. Allāh says that Muslims will face “much abuse” from the People of the Book and the idolaters; but they must be “patient and keep your duty” (there is no order to kill)–(Qur’an 3:185). “And those who molest the Messenger of Allah, for them is a painful chastisement” –(9:61); those who “annoy” the Prophet are “cursed” and would receive “an abasing chastisement” –(33:57); “when you hear the Signs of God being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk”–(4:140. Also 6:68); “Revile not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance”–(6:109); there is no order to kill the deniers/mockers /revilers.

   Allāh says: “They do blaspheme who say: “God is Christ the son of Mary.” “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity…”–(Qur’an 5:75, 76). If there was a law against blasphemy in Islam, according to the above two verses there probably would have been no Christians in the dominion of the Prophet Mohammad during his reign; neither would there have been any Christians in the countries ruled by Muslims: they would either have had to revert to Islam, flee, or face imprisonment or death.

    There is a law of blasphemy in Judaism and Christianity–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23).

    If the Prophet Mohammad exercised any “law of blasphemy” it would have been in accordance with the Judeo-Christian teaching, and prior to the Qur’anic revelations.

  

2. “Anyone who says that the doctrines of Islam have “nothing to do with terrorism”–and the airways have been filled with apologists for Islam making this claim–is just playing a game with words.” (And he quotes the Qur’an):

  “The believers who stay at home –apart from those who suffer from a great impediment– are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons (are draft dodgers and non-military persons equal to those who fight in defense of their country?). God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has pro-mised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him …He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death shall be rewarded by God. …The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. (Koran 4:95-101).” (p. 33).

 

Response: Where is the “terrorism” in this verse? Fighting for Allāh means to fight against injustice.

    Regarding the last statement of the verse The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies. Surely you would consider those who persecuted you, tried to assassinate you, pursued you to another place to kill you, and warred against you your “inveterate ene-mies.” 

    Doesn’t America consider Al-Qaeda and the Talibans its “inveterate enemies”?

  

3. “Yes, the Koran seems to say something that can be construed as a prohibition against suicide–“Do not destroy yourselves” (4:29)–but it leaves many loop holes large enough to fly a 767 through:

  Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him….The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil, Fight then against the friends of Satan….Say: “Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The Hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil….” (Koran 4:74-78). (pp. 33-34).

 

Response: It is mind-boggling how one can construe the statement “exchange this life for the Hereafter” to mean to commit suicide. Were those men of WW II who were exhorted by their leaders to fight for their country or in defence of freedom –to “exchange” their life of civilian to that of soldier facing almost certain death–called to commit suicide?

    Doubtlessly, the Allied soldiers were/are viewed as fighting for “good” and the German soldiers as fighting for “evil.”

   The Allied soldiers, whether alive or dead, to this day are glorified for their sacrifices against the force of “evil” to preserve freedom. There is no difficulty if the soldiers of Allāh, whether alive or dead, are rewarded for their sacrifices against the force of “evil” to preserve freedom.

  “Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The Hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil….” Isn’t this life and all its glitter fleeting?

    The Qur’anic teaching on suicide does not “leaves many loop holes large enough to fly a 767 through.”

    It is man’s cerebration that has such “holes.”

  

4. “Islam does not distinguish between religious and civil authority;” and he notes: “As many commentators have observed there is no Koranic equivalent of the New Testament line “Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and render unto God those things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). As a result, there appears to be no Islamic basis for the separation of the powers of the church and state. This, needless to say is a problem. (Is it more of a problem to have one unit governing or two factions competing against the other –consider the matters of abortion, euthanasia, blood transfusion, polygamy, etc; that pits state against Church). (p. 34; and p. 241 note 15).  

  

Response: (As noted further on). If Islam had intended a separation between Masjid/Mosque and State, the Prophet would have instituted this. While knowledge may be grouped into two classes–spiritual and material–in Islam there is no secular knowledge: all knowledge is from Allah, God.

    Jesus may have said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s”–(Matt. 22:17). But it is a mistake to believe that Jesus was advocating a separation of Church and State. As the context shows (vv. 19-20), Jesus was exercising justice.

    It would have been interesting to note Jesus’ response if someone had said to him that since God is the Creator of all things, even the coin bearing Caesar’s head and the metal from which the coin was minted belong to God.

    It is hardly credible that if Jesus was ruler that he would have established a two-state system, and have another set of laws independent from that of God’s; rather than govern by the Ten Commandments as he was required by God to judge.

   (If Jesus was lording America, or anyplace else, for certain he would employ the Biblical laws: killing homosexuals–(Lev. 20:13); apostates–(Deut. 13:5-16; 17:2-5); witches–(Exodus 22:18); adulterers –(Lev. 20:10-12; Deut. 22:22; John 8:3-5); stubborn and rebellious sons–(Deut. 21:18-21; one who curses his mother or father–(Lev. 20:9); one who takes a wife and her mother–(Lev. 20:14); one who messes with an animal–(Lev. 20:15-16); the blasphemer –(Lev. 24:11-16, 23); brides without tokens of virginity–(Deut. 22:20-21); the engaged virgin who messes with another man–(Deut. 22:23-24); and he would have enslaved heathens–(Lev. 25:44-46).

And, given its history, if the Church was lording America, or any place else, it would have done the same.  (See ISLAM & THE POPE).

  

4A. “As Bernard Lewis observes, since the time of the Prophet, Islam has been “associated in the minds and memories of Muslims with the exercise of political and military power.”” (p. 34).

 

Response: As stated, Muslims do not have to secure lands for Allāh: the heavens and the earth already belong to Allāh. There is no militancy in Islam, there is no passivity either. The only militantcy in Islam is that of self-defence or in aid of others to end injustice. Islamic power is spread through missionizing –with the Qur’an not the sword– and whatever lands come under its domain through the people “reverting” to Islam is acquired through peace and justice.

    If Islam had counseled or if “Islam has been “associated in the minds and memories of Muslims with the exercise of political and military power,” Muslims would not have devoted all their effort to the pursuit of knowledge and science for the benefit of all men and opened these doors of learning to students irrespective of race and religion and for free; they would have directed a portion, and probably a significant portion, of their endeavors to the development of devices of destruction and subjugation.

    Allāh exhorting Muslims to have military preparedness–(Qur’an; 3:199; 8:60) is not for offense/aggression but for defence.

    Islam which teaches that the Prophet’s “duty is only to deliver the message;” “There is no compulsion in religion,” “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” “thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an,” “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful,” “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 3:20; 24:54; 2:256; 10:99-100; 50:45; 76:3; 16:125); could not be the religion that calls Muslims to “the exercise of political and military power.”

    Neither could this Islam be guilty of religious intolerance or subjugation of non-Muslims.

    In contrast, it is Christianity that has been "associated in the minds and memories of" Chrsitians "with the exercise of ploitical and military power" as Jesus taught: "He that is not with me is agasint me (though a person can be neutral);" "Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (though these enemies might not militate agasint him)-(Matthew 12:30; Luke 19:27). Perhaps these are the verses that inspired the murderous Crusades against Muslims and Jews and which tied the Vatican's tongue while Christian Europe was "holocausting" Jews.    

 

5. The metaphysics of Islam are particularly inauspicious where tolerance and religious diversity are concerned, for martyrdom is the only way that a Muslim can bypass the painful litigation that awaits us all on the Day of Judgment and proceed directly to paradise. Rather than spend centuries moldering in the earth in anticipation (the dead knows nothing and cannot anticipate, and also has no concept of time: it would be as if he slept only a moment or two; if all evidence of time was removed after you went to sleep, when you awake you will have no knowledge of how long you slept) of being resurrected and subsequently inter-rogated by wrathful angels, the martyr is immediately transported to Allāh’s Garden, where a flock of “dark-eyed” virgins awaits him.”(p. 34).  

 

Response: In the earthly domain, diplomatic and security personnel –due to their having certain qualifications – not only have access to areas forbidden to others (who would be subjected to vigorous examination/ investigation) but are also immune to (at least some) prosecution. There is no problem then if those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of truth and justice are rewarded “immediately” by Allāh.

    As to the “flock of “dark-eyed” virgins” awaiting the Muslim martyr (and wouldn’t these “virgins” enjoy the men?) this sure beats sitting around reading past-time stories and watching lions strip hay and swallow apples; or touring the universe for billions of years only to return to earth to become amoebas and plants and dogs and cats and pigs and worms etc, again –ad infinitum!

    Wonder how many would like to be with these Muslim men and “virgins” instead? Take a poll will you, please!

  

6. “The rioting in Nigeria over the 2002 Miss Pageant claimed over two hundred lives; innocent men and women were butchered with machetes or burned alive simply to keep that troubled place free of women in bikinis.” (Never mind the bikinis in Nigeria. Turkey and France have passed laws to keep Muslim women from wearing a piece of cloth on their heads. And Britain was tripping over its shadows to prevent Muslim women from veiling their faces –they are to dress as the English. This is hilarious! The British was in India for a hundred years, let Tony Blair tell how many English men wore dhoti and kurta and how many English women wore sari and lenghas and shalwar kameez. The British was also in the Middle East, let Blair tell how many wore the Arab jubbah and kefayyah. Isn’t this hypocritical?). (p. 46).

 

Response: This rioting in Nigeria was not because of the pageant or to keep the “place free of women in bikinis;” but because of the speculation by one paper that the Prophet Mohammad “would likely” have taken one of the beauty contestants as “his wife.” Though this is no justification to riot.

(Regardless of our “religious sensibilities” it is disgraceful that critics and revilers of Islam are threatened or harmed or killed: they are to be educated. Islam, the religion of reason, arguments, and examples does not seek to silence voices: Islam seeks to enhance mentality: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 16:125). ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars’–(Prophet Mohammad).

One who does not agree with the views of the other must take to the podium or take up the pen: this is the civilized and the intelligent approach. Only he who has no intelligent response in a matter would attack the messenger, physically or verbally–one who attacks physical-ly is a coward–violating (and even hiding) without being violated; and violating a person does not alter mentality, but in fact tends to lend support to his views–and one who attacks verbally is a jerk–calling a person “ugly” names or other vulgarities does not make him/her those names etc; but instead projects the caller as a fool.

 There is no charge against Allāh, the Prophet, the Qur’an and Islam that is not refutable. The “perfected” Divine system cannot be “insulted.” Nor is there anything in the “perfected” Divine system for which to apologize. It’s perfect!).

  

   As stated, this rioting in Nigeria was not because of the pageant or to keep the “place free of women in bikinis;” but because of the speculation by one paper that the Prophet Mohammad “would likely” have taken one of the beauty contestant as “his wife.”

    That She is of the same essence as man, is a garment unto man as he is a garment unto her and has the same rights on him as he has on her, that she has three degrees of excellence over man –having carried man for nine months, gave birth to him, and nursed him–and is the symbol of purity and the gateway to Paradise, is the most highly decorated crown Woman can have. Thus:

 

 Mohammad would not only have

 been capable enough to husband

 a World Beauty Contestant,

 he would have rendered to her

 the supreme and invaluable service

 of robing her a Muslim.

  

7. (In March 2002), “the religious police in Mecca prevented paramedics and firefighters from rescuing scores of teenage girls trapped in a burning building. Why? Because the girls were not wearing the traditional head covering that Koranic law requires. Fourteen girls died in the fire; fifty were injured. Should Mus-lims really be free to believe that the Creator of the universe is concerned about hemlines?” (p. 46).

 

Response It is not Islam that caused the deaths and injuries of these students: it was ignorance of Islam (or stupidity). Since to save his/her life a Muslim under compulsion can deny the existence of Allāh–(Qur’an 16:106); which is the worst of all sins, then in order to save his/her life in any other situation he/she can forego any other law of Islam. (This does not cover endangering the life of another to save your own life: one is required to give justice even if it be against one’s own self or relations–Qur’an 105, 135).  

    Even without this injunction of the Qur’an, reason would dictate that as life is the first and the most sacred gift and as the preservation of it merits the highest honor, all consequences are subjugated to the saving of it.

    Yes, Allāh is “concerned about hemlines” and other aspects of our life, for our social, moral, intellectual and spiritual excellence; but not at the senseless cost of our lives.

  Isn’t “democracy” also “concerned about hemlines” in its various shapes and also of other matters –if not why is one not allowed public nudity, prostitution, intoxicants, marijuana……..?

  It is without doubt that self-respecting parents maintain for themselves, and set dress codes–“hemlines”–for their children. Do you not set guidelines ("hemlines") for the dignified upbringing of youur children?

  

8. “Anti-Semitism is intrinsic to both Christianity and Islam; both traditions consider the Jews to be bunglers of God’s initial revelation…Whatever the context, the hatred of Jews remains a product of faith: Christian, Muslim, as well as Jewish.” (pp. 92-93). (This may be so in Christianity and Judaism but not in Islam).

 

Response: In His Qur’an Allāh recounts the history of the Jews.

   Allāh says that a community of Jews was turned into apes for their violating the Sabbath; and that the majority of Jews are faithless, treacherous, and transgressors–(Qur’an 7:166; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81). Allāh also says that He chose Jews above other nations (Qur’an 44:32; 45:16), made them excel the nations (2:122), and made them inheritors of land [not to be confused with modern Palestine] (7:137). So where is the problem, why is the part of the Qur’an exposing the iniquity of the Jews deemed as “Anti-Semitism.” Why is there no thunderous applause over the part that honored Jews?

    Truth is not “hatred!”

 Truth is not “anti-Semitic”

 Truth is not “anti-Israel!”

 Truth is not “anti-Jew!”

 Truth is not “anti-Zionism!”

 Truth is truth!

    If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” then the “holocaust” memorials are to be obliterated for being “anti-Nazism” and “hatred” against Hitler and Germans.

    If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” then our yearly serving of The Ten Commandments and the occasional dose of the “holocaust” movies (as well as the “holocaust” sob stories saturating the newsprint) are to be fed to the cats as being “anti-Arabism” and “anti-Nazism,” and “hatred” against Egyptians and Germans, respectively.

    If “truth” is “anti-Semitism” and “hatred” against Jews then the Bible–The Old Testament and the New–and the Qur’an would need to be outlawed.

  Regarding the charge of Muslim and Christian “anti-Semitism.” Ismail Zayid notes in his booklet Palestine–A Stolen Heritage (p. 21):

“Abhorrent as antisemitism is, the most ruthless exploitation of it has been made by Zionists to achieve their aims. An example that is revealed in an editorial article in Davar, the official newspaper of the governing Israeli Labour Party (Mapai). Editor Sharun wrote: “I shall not be ashamed to confess that if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select a score of efficient young men –intelligent, decent, devoted to our ideal and burning with desire to help redeem Jews– and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and, acting upon the brutal Zionism, plague these Jews with anti-semitic slogans, such as ‘Bloody Jew,’ ‘Jews go to Palestine,’ and similar ‘intimacies.’ I can vouch that the results, in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel from these countries, would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been, for decades, preaching to deaf ears.”

  Another effective method of exploitation of the world’s repugnance to antisemitism, is its utilisation by Israelis and Zionists, to silence any criticism to Israeli policies by well-informed writers and politicians who will inevitably find the offensive charge of antisemitism thrown at them. Many distinguished and honorable men like Arnold Toynbee and even Jews like Rabbi Elmer Berger have been called ‘antisemites’ by Zionists, but were able, with moral courage, to withstand this offensive charge by which many lesser mortals were cowed.”1 (More on this later).

   Those who make a charge of “anti-Semitism” must prove that they are descendants of Shem –one of the three sons of Noah– and also a descendant from one of the Twelve Tribes of Jacob/Israel.

   Those who make a charge of “hatred against Jews” must define who or what a Jew is. [A Muslim is one who professes that There is no God but Allāh; Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh].

   A mentality that expects its virtue to be extolled and its vice suppressed is a mentality that needs to develop dignity and maturity.

  

   On the matter of “Anti-Semitism.” Semites (more correctly Shemites) are the descendants of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons. Can those who claim to be Semites prove that they are descendants of Shem?

    From the very beginning there were “inter-breeding” in the Jewish tent. Abraham left Haran (which is in eastern Turkey) at the age of seventy-five–(Gen. 12:4. Haran could not be named after Abraham’s brother, Haran, Haran lived and died in Ur/Iraq–Gen. 11:28). At his age of one hundred, Isaac was born, in Gerar (in Canaan/Palestine)–(Gen. 20:2; 21:5). Isaac, the lineage through which Judaism emerged, took Rebecca, a Syrian, for wife–these Syrians, contrary to popular view, could not have been Semites; Shem’s descendants went east; and Canaan is west from where the Ark rested, even if we accept that it rested on Ararat rather than on Judi–(Qur’an 11:44). Also, if Abraham was the first Semites in Canaan, Rebecca, who must have been born around the same time as Isaac, would have to be non-Semite. Thus, the only mates available for wives for Isaac would be non-Semites. And their offspring would consist of non-Semite genes.

  

   Isaac, at the age of sixty, was given two sons, Esau and Jacob (who would have non-Semite genes, on account of their mother, Rebecca, a Syrian)–(Gen. 25:20, 26). Thus, in sixty years Abra-ham’s family circle increased by only three–his daughter-in-law and two grandsons, (not counting Ishmael who was in Paran/ Arabia). If Abraham was the only Semites in Canaan, unless tribes from Shem came to Canaan, there were no Semitic women for Jacob and Esau to take for wives, and Jacob and Esau’s off-spring’s would consist of non-Semitic genes. (While Lot came with Abraham to Sodom and Gomorrah. After the destruction of these two cities, Lot stayed back where he fathered, through his daughters, the Moabite and Ammonite tribes–Gen. 19:29-38. If the Moabites and Ammonites, who were Semites, had migrated north to where Abraham was, they would not be termed Canaan-ites or Syrians).

  

     Isaac sent Jacob to Haran (in Turkey), not to Shem’s Semitic tribes, to find a wife–(Gen. 28:1, 10; 29:1-4). As noted Shem’s lineage went east, towards Yemen. Jacob, through whom the Twelve Tribes of Israel were established, married Rachel and Leah, daughters of Laban, a Syrian, who was also his (Jacob’s) mother’s brother–(Gen. 28:5; 29:10-35). Like his mother, Rebecca, Jacob’s wives, clearly, were also non-Semites. These eight sons borne by Leah and Rachel–Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zabulon; and Joseph and Benjamin, respectively, were not of pure Isaaic/Jewish genes. This would make these eight, of the total twelve founders of the Tribes of Israel, to be of mixed genes. (Gen. 29:32-35; 30:17-20; 30:22-24; 35:16-18). But the matter does not end here.

  

   Jacobs’ wives, Rachel and Leah, gave their respective handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, to Jacob to raise children–(Gen. 30:1-9). These handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, were “slave-girls”. These “slave-girls” originally belonged to Rachel’s and Leah’s father, Laban, the Syrian–(Gen. 29:24, 29). It would seem obvious that these handmaids/”slave-girls” were also non-Semite. These handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, each bore Jacob two sons–Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher, respectively–(Gen. 30:3-13). And three of these sons born of these two hand-maids were also founders of tribes of Israel–Dan was not a founder of a tribe. Joseph’s son, Manasseh, was founder of a tribe, making up the total twelve tribes. There is differing view as to whether Joseph was a founder or his other son, Ephraim was.

 

   Thus we have Jacob’s eight sons from his Syrian wives, plus three of his sons from his wives’ handmaids and his grandson, Manasseh, making up the twelve founders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, all being of non-Jewish (non-Isaaic) genes. (And if these early Syrians were non-Semites, which would seem to be the case, these twelve sons would have non-Jewish genes in their mix.). And the twelve Tribes have not yet officially been design-ated as such; and this some two thousand years before Christ.

   

   Again, the Bible tells us that Simeon married a Canaanitish woman (who likely was non-Semite)–(Gen. 46:10), and that Joseph married the Egyptian, Asenath, daughter of Potiphar, and had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim–(Gen. 41:45, 50-52). Simeon, Joseph and Manasseh were all founders of tribes of Israel. If children are joined by their mothers only, children born to these wives would be out of the tent of “Children of Israel,” on account of Simeon’s wife being Canaanitish, Asenath being Egyptian, and Manasseh being of a non-Jewish mother. Even if Manasseh’s wife was Jewish, his children and future descendants would not be “pure” Jewish, he being, in the first place, of mixed birth. Even if children are joined by either parent, there would still be the case of the non-Jewish genes in their make-up. Which brings us to Judah, one of Jacob’s twelve sons, and the one from which Judaism and the term “Jew” emerged.

  

   Judah was married to a Canaanite woman, who bore him three sons, two of whom died; and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who also must have been Canaanite, bore Judah two sons–(Gen. 38:2; 11-30). Thus even Judah’s descendants are not of pure “Jewish” genes.

 

   Even if we take these twelve children of Jacob to be the base of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, regardless of the ethnicity of his wives and handmaids, there was still the possibility of the “purity” of these tribes being mixed with non-Jewish genes, through intermarriages among the tribes; on account of Simeon’s wife being Cannanitish, and Joseph’s being Egyptian, and Ma-nasseh having Egyptian genes in his make-up.

 

   Intermarriage between tribes did not seem to be taboo –we have Abraham having married his half-sister, Sarah–(Gen. 20:12); Amram, Moses’ father, having married his father’s sister –(Ex. 6:20); and Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, having taken the daughter of David’s son as wife–(2 Chr. 11:18). (We even have Esau, Isaac’s other son, marrying his uncle, Ishmael’s, daughter, Mahalath–(Gen. 28:9). With such intermarriages among the members of these tribes, and considering that the total members of the tribes were few–at the time of his journey to reunite with Joseph, Jacob had only about seventy members in his family circle, excluding his daughters-in-law–(Gen. 46:27)–it would not take much for the entire family of the first hundred years, to be completely of mixed genes. By the time Moses appeared on the scene–(14th–13th century B.C.)–the “purity” of the twelve tribes of Israel may already have been on its journey to extinction.

   

    History notes that around 930 B.C., the tribe of Ephraim, after successfully leading the ten northern tribes of Israel against the south, and reigning; the kingdom was conquered by the Assy-rians in 721 B. C., which led to the “eventual disappearance” of these ten tribes–the tribe of Ephraim and the nine others–(Ency. Brit. 15th Ed; Vol. III, Ephraim, tribe of, p. 919). Having lost their identity and dispersed among other peoples, it is possible that the “pure” Jewish genes, what was there of it, was further diluted through this intermixing.

 

   During their bondage, Pharaoh killed the Jewish sons and let their daughters live–(Exod. 1:15-22; Qur’an 2:49). It is probable that Jewish women were violated during their term of servitude, by their Egyptian “task-masters.” Even during and after their liberation from Pharaoh, diluting of the “pure” Jewish genes took place. The Bible tells us that Moses, a Levite, married non-Jewish women–a Midianite, Zipporah, who bore him two sons; and to an Ethiopian (Exodus 2:16, 21-22; 4:22; 18:2-4; and Numbers 12:1; respectively).  

  

   Even King David, who came from the house of Judah, may not have been of “pure” Jewish genes on account of his ancestors, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, all having had wives outside of the Abrahamic tent. David himself had sons from “concubines”–(1 Chr. 3: 9). The Bible tells us that David married Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, a Hittite; and she bore him (king) Solomon–(2 Samuel. 11:1-5; 27; 12:24). Though Bathsheba’s nationality is not given, it is reasonable to assume that she, like her husband, was also Hittite–an “Indo European” race. Thus Solomon also may not have been of “pure” Jewish genes. Adding to the already diluted pool of Jewish “pure” genes.

 

   Again, Solomon “loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;” “he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines”–(1 Kings 11:1-3); one of whom was Sheba, of Ethiopian heritage. We read of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, having eighteen wives and sixty concubines–twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters–(2 Chron. 11:21). Were all these wives and concubines Jewish; and of “pure” Jewish genes? Was it allowable that Jewish women be taken as concubines? Or were these concubines non-Jewish captives of war, (or women taken, as Solomon had taken)?

   

    Apart from their bondage by Pharaoh (for some three hundred years?), in which their sons were killed and daughters spared, it is also a fact that Jerusalem was destroyed twice–by the Babylonians and the Romans, respectively. It is doubtful that Jewish daughters were not violated during these times of bondage and captivity. Resulting once again in outside genes entering into the pool of already mixed Jewish genes.

 

   Then there were the Israelites, David’s two wives among them, that were taken and held captives by the Amalekites (whose origin is unknown) for at least three days, before they were freed by the Israelites–(1 Samuel 30:1-18). It is doubtful that in these three days these daughters of Israel were not violated by their captors, who were, most likely, non-Semites. Which violation may have resulted in some captives having issues. Which children may, in all likelihood, have intermarried with other members of the Israelite community. Plus, Jews being “scatter(ed) among the heathen, and disperse(d)” in the countries–(Ezekiel 22:15), which may have generated more inter-racial marriages. By the time Jesus appeared Jewish “pure” blood was already on its slide into extinction. If not already extinct.

 

   In short, with the founding Fathers’ marriages possibly to non-Jewish women, certain leaders’ marriages with non-Jewish women and their many concubines, the possible violation of Jewish women at certain times in their history and marriage to those with mixed genes, and their dispersal, it could hardly be denied that very few, if any, of the pure descendants of Jacob are in existence today. Perhaps it is because of this it is stated: “Citizens of the State of Israel are called Israelis, a term carrying no ethnological or religious connotations.”(Ency Brit. 15th Edn., Vol. V, p. 552).

 

   Which brings us to: Arthur Koestler in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe, theorized, convincingly so, that present day World Jewry may be the descendants of the Khazar –an eighth century Turkish tribe– that converted to Judaism. Though his attempt to follow the history of the Khazar Empire is based on insufficient available materials, Koestler has endeavored to show that anthropological evidence agrees with history in negating the accepted belief in a Jewish race of Biblical lineage; he also points out that the large majority of existing Jews is of “Eastern European” ancestry.

    If there is no Biblical Jew, i.e. no Semitic Jewish race, the term “anti-Semitism” would be meaningless.

 To make a charge of anti-Semitism,

 it must be proven that there are Semites.

 It must be shown that those who make the charge

 of anti-Semitism are descendants of the

 twelve tribes of the prophet Jacob.

 

As the horn of history unclogs, she may clearly sound the seemingly muffled truth that Biblically there is no Jew.

  

9. “Contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism is heavily indebted to its Christian counterpart. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian anti-Semitic forgery that is the source of most conspiracy theories relating to the Jews, is now considered an autho-ritative text in the Arab-speaking world.” (p. 93).  

 

Response: The Islamic Post, International Edition, January 2007; in its article Zionism, The Media, and World Control (pp. A3, 7) notes:

    (1) “Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control.–(Excerpted from the Protocols of the learned Elders of Zion”).

   (2) “Literature and journalism are two of the most educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor  of the journals.”–(Excerpted from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion).”

  (3) “Already now, we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the Goy (non-Jewish) communities, to such an extent that they all come near looking upon events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses.–(Excerpted from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion).”

  

And former so-called “Israeli” Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, said to Shimon Peres: “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that….I want to tell you something very clear; don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”  (Would be interesting to know the proud American public’s thoughts about the little Jewish tail prickling the great American eagle).

   

   Those who claim that there is a Jewish plot to control the world must provide their proof(s) or be exposed as liars. Such control may be effected in either or all of four forms:

    (1) physical control–as with a military presence;

    (2) mental control–as in regulating what is read, seen or taught: controlling thoughts through media outlets.

 (This is why, for the preservation of truth and justice, it is imperative that the media is not allowed to be monopolized or controlled by any one individual, group or company. Care should also be taken to ensure that information is not dependent upon reporters who might be biased.

In his book, Pirates And Emperors–Old and New International Terrorism in the Real World, Professor Noam Chomsky has given an insight into this method of control, and its effective use in the U.S., see chapter one: Thought Control: The Case of the Middle East).  

   (3) governmental control–as in dictating the policy of the government. As the government is made up of a number of members, this control can be effected by lobbying individuals, through benefit or friendship, to vote in a certain manner. This could have the effect of a policy acting against the interest of the host country–it would not be unusual for members of a government to act in favor of one’s own monetary or partisanship interest instead of his nation’s interest. Perhaps there are instances of leaders having looted the national treasury.  

    (4) economic control–as in owning businesses and corporations in a country. Having control of the economy can be used as a leverage to influence/threaten the government –mass unemployment caused by closing down of companies can be disastrous for a government/country. Also making large gifts/donations to a country can facilitate the donor having influence in the country. As well, loaning money to countries could allow the loaner to dictate policies of the country; enabling him to have control of the country.

  

   That there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world is a matter that should not be too difficult to resolve. An international team of impartial investigators can, going back to, say, the last hundred and fifty years to the present, scrutinize all the major conflicts throughout the world to see who instigated these conflicts and/or who stood to benefit from them and in what form; as well as investigate the various governments of the world to learn what influence Jews have in these governments, if any, and the nature of these influences. As well as investigate the news media, if they are biased or practice censorship of any party. This should be able to confirm or debunk the claim that there is a “Jewish conspiracy” to control the world.  

    This would also vindicate or verify whether The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is forgery or fact. 

    Is The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion a forgery? You decide.

 

   (Edward Said and Ismail Zayid have noted in their respective book The Question of Palestine and Palestine–A Stolen Heritage) statements by Jews expressing their intention on how to wrestle Palestine from the Palestinians, as well as their accomplishment in doing so. It is not incredible then that there should be a writing detailing Jewish intention to “subvert world events,” to use the words of Rabbi Dow Marmur, and/or control the minds of the people.

The Protocols is said to state as noted above: “Literature and journalism are two of the most educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the journals.”

   While at that time (1895-1905) there was no Jewish state and thus no “our [Jewish] government” to “become proprietor of the journals” does not mean that there may not then have been a Jewish influence in “Literature and journalism.” Edward Said has noted in his book above statements from writers (even one from a Bishop of Salisbury) denigrating Palestinians/Arabs and their ill-usage of the land of Palestine and that Palestine would be better served under Jews. Which writings may have been instrumented by Jews and which writings may have impressed upon minds in Europe and America, thus setting the stage for the dismembering of Palestine. (It is rather incredible that the vitriolic vituperative spewed on Palestinians in their own land predicated by Jewish demands for a homeland in Palestine would be a convenient coincidence).

 (Perhaps an impartial investigation can corroborate or debunk this hypothesis. Surely if slavers kept records of their slaves which would facilitate African-American Alex Hailey to trace his roots all the way back to Gambia, and if Hitler would keep records of those he sought to annihilate (?) then surely the archives of “civilized” Europe and America must have records of the minds/memoirs of their intellectuals).

 

   The Protocols is said to have been formulated between the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. If The Protocols is a forgery it would seem to be a rather clumsy one, for it states as noted above:  “Already now, we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the Goy (non-Jewish) communities, to such an extent that they all come near looking upon events of the world through the colored glasses of   those spectacles we are setting astride their noses.”

   

   The Protocols could not say that Jews have already possessed to some extent the minds of non-Jews and controlling their thoughts if it wasn’t so, and could have easily beendisproved.

 (Jews had such high influence since back then that the British government had to dangle the carrot of statehood in front of “Lord Rothschild, a British Jew and banker” in 1917 to keep Russia on Britain’s side in the war. See Ismail Zayid Palestine–A Stolen Heritage).

 

   If The Protocols is a “forgery” the forger(s) and whoever tried to palm it off as fact would have been the butt of the joke.

   Either I missed something or the forger(s) should have been shepherded off to Siberia. With those who rubber stamped it “authentic” close behind.  

  As noted above, former so-called “Israeli” Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, said to Shimon Peres: “…we, the Jewish people control America….”

   In his revealing book The Question of Palestine Edward Said notes, regarding the “insoluble-appearing problems” between Palestinians and Jews, that:

 

“A perfect opportunity for change was at hand when the Soviet Union and the United States issued their joint declaration on October 1, 1977. The notable thing about the declaration was that it spoke of Palestinian rights (and not merely interests) as something to be discussed in any final, peaceful settlement of the Middle Eastern problem. The chorus of abuse and hysteria greeting that declaration from organized Jewish opinion was dis-heartening. Not only was the domestic Jewish-American reaction abusive, it was proudly so, as Jewish leaders boasted of having inundated the White House with thousands of letters and phone calls. The intended lesson was that any perceived threat to Israel (and any perceived deviation from an expected U.S. government line of unconditional acceptance of everything done by Israel) would totally mobilize every Jew and every Israeli supporter against the administration. The meaning of such intimidation is to keep the Middle East as a domestic, and not merely a foreign policy, issue. The other meaning, however, is that it is easy to mobilize people on the basis of fear. (p. 50. Italics/emphasis/“red” color added).

(The Middle East cannot be a “domestic” policy when it was the international community that created this Middle East mess).   

   

   Some might cerebrate that this manipulating of the White House is a form of Jewish “control.”

   Given that the US is the most powerful nation on earth and can hold sway over other nations (at least over some and to some degree) –as was demonstrated in 1948, bringing “pressure” and “coercion and duress” on certain non-Muslim nations to effect the partition of Palestine; and considering that the US is more powerful now than in 1948– and given as Ariel Sharon –head of the Jewish state and of all people would know the machinations of the state– said that “the Jewish people control America” then one might be correct in saying that Jews indirectly (i.e. through the US) are controlling, or can control, the world (to these degrees).    

  However, if Sam Harris knew that if it was a fact that Jews were controlling or planning to control the world would he have stated it? (See RABBI MARMUR & FAROUK).

 

10. “The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible (but not fully impossible) to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.” (p. 93).

 

Response: Was the “Holocaust” a Jewish orchestration?

By their own pronouncements18 Jewish objective was/is to depopulate Palestine of the native Palestinians and populate it with alien Jews. (See PALESTINE).

  For a party to have a legitimate claim to establish a state of their own in a country it is necessary that they constitute a sizeable percentage of the population. In 1918 the Jewish population in Palestine was a paltry 56,000 or 8 percent.  

 Europe had a sizeable Jewish population scattered in various countries, the question is, how to get them to come to Palestine to effect the Jewish state “all at once” as Joseph Weitz stressed:

 

“The Zionist enterprise so far, in terms of preparing the ground and paving the way for the creation of the Hebrew State in the land of Israel (? the land of Israel? Sheer arrogance and audacity!), has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with “land-buying”–but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once.19(See endnote for full quote. The evil scheme of God’s “chosen people” will freeze your blood).

  

   In 1895 Theodor Herzl wrote of emptying Palestine of native Palestinians into neighboring Arab states.20 From 1918 to 1931 Jewish population increased from 56,00021 to almost 174,600 or 17% of the population; whereas Arabs (Muslims and Christians) in 1931 constituted 851,000 or 83% of the population.

 

   The Second World War was from 1939-1945. Palestine was Partitioned in 1948.

    In 1940 Joseph Weitz echoed Herzl’s scheme to transfer the native Palestinians out of Palestine because “only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all.”22 (Where will these “millions of our brothers” come from and how will they come so as to“solve” the Jewish question once and for all”?)

 

   From 1931 to 1946 Jewish numbers in Palestine increased a whopping nearly 500,000–to 31% of the population, leaving the Palestinians at 69%. This dramatic increase of Jews to Palestine was due to the effort of the Zionists who made every effort to settle illegal refugee Jews fleeing Nazi persecution in Palestine:

 

“The Zionists took every action to prevent the settlement  of the Jewish survivors of the Nazi horrors in America or elsewhere, and, capitalising on the world’s sympathy for the survivors, flooded Palestine with illegal immigrants"23                                                                                  

  During this period, refugee Jews were refused entry into many western countries, including the U.S. Canada, and Britain. The question is: did these countries refused sanctuary to Jews because of national policy or because of Zionists’ machination in these countries –that may have been eager to solve the West’s “Jewish problem” making it the “Arab “problem,” considering that it was the U.S. that was spearheading the rape of Palestine and demanding that Palestine take in 100,000 Jewish refugees  (why didn’t the 100x bigger-than-Palestine US take them in?)– who were desperate to have the refugee Jews settle in Palestine in order to swell Jewish numbers; thus intensifying demand for a Jewish home in Palestine?

   Was this flow of European Jews from “Nazi horrors” and the Zionists “capitalizing” on their plight a timely, convenient coin-cidence or carefully planned strategy?

 

   As stated, Europe had a sizeable Jewish population scattered in various countries, the question is, how to get these “millions of our brothers” to come to Palestine “all at once” to solve the Jewish question “once and for all”? The answer seemed to have been given by Sharun (see item #8 above for full quote) who is noted as stating that if he could he would

 

“select a score of efficient young men –intelligent, decent, devoted to our ideal and burning with desire to help redeem Jews– and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young men would be to disguise them-selves as non-Jews, and, acting upon the brutal Zionism, plague these Jews with anti-semitic slogans, such as ‘Bloody Jew,’ ‘Jews go to Palestine,’ and similar ‘inti-macies.’ I can vouch that the results, in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel from these countries, would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries who have been,  for decades, preaching to deaf ears.”” (Italics/emphasis “red” color added).

 

   Did someone (or ones) before Sharun had this very scheme in mind and acted upon it to produce the “holocaust” to bring the mass of Jews –the “millions of our brothers”– to Palestine “all at once” to solve the Jewish question “once and for all”?

    As stated, was this flow of European Jews and the Zionists “capitalizing” on their plight to strengthen demand for a home in Palestine a timely, convenient coincidence or planned strategy?

   The following is copied from the Internet page Jews against Zionism:

    “ANTI-SEMITISM BY POLITICAL ZIONISM

 Although Zionists and others dispute it, the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I. This aroused hatred of Jews in general among many non-Jews. While a prisoner in 1924 in the fortress of Lansberg on the River Lech, Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf.  When he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he was assisted by Goebbels, Roseberg and Streicher.  From them came the declarations, “The Jews of Germany caused the defeat of Germany in the 1914-1918 war; the Jews of Germany were responsible for the terrible conditions in Germany that followed the war; the Jews of Germany are foreigners and they wish to remain foreigners; they have no loyalty to the country of their birth; they are not human; they are filthy dogs; they have no right to intrude into Germany’s affairs; there are too many Jews in Germany.”

 (The material on this topic is lengthy and informative. Readers are urged to check out this site on the Internet. The article also notes):

 

“Read about the brutal Zionist role in the Holocaust.

 Read "The Jews of Iraq" by Naim Giladi, a first hand account of violence and intimidation of Iraqi Jews to leave their homeland.

The writings of Mr. Naim Giladi document in detail what the Zionists did in Baghdad in 1950 to provoke the departure of the Jews to the Zionist state. The Zionists do not care what effect their policies have on the Jewish communities of any country. When they accuse European nations of every sin under the sun, do the Zionists care that this will produce hostility towards Jews? No! Not a bit. On the contrary, as we have discussed, they thrive on such circumstances, clinging to the vain hope that these Jewish communities will rush for the “salvation” of the “safe haven” of the Zionist Paradise where Jews are in constant danger as the Zionist regime undertakes every form of cruel provocation against non-Jews.

    Horrifying Accusations of Violence and Intimidation
Read More

 In more recent times the Zionists have sought every opportunity to encourage Jews to leave their home countries. Anytime there is even the smallest event of hostility toward Jews on the heels of Zionist policy, or if there are signs of economic distress and dislocation, the Zionists magnify it a thousand times, seek to ruthlessly humiliate the nations involved, and agitate for Jews to go to the Zionist state, the so-called “natural home” of the Jewish People.  This has been the case in countries such as France, Argentina, Uruguay, the former Soviet Union and Egypt.

  Deuteronomy 32:43: Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People.”23A

 (This verse of Deut. 32:43 in the above quote refers to those nations of the many “ites” kingdoms that Joshua would later exterminate. Not to modern nations. As shown in this presentation (See JUDAISM, also PALESTINE, and RABBI MARMUR & FAROUK) the Judaic Law was Divinely decreed to end upon the advent of the Prophet Mohammad. Jews were/are required to follow the Prophet Mohammad. There is no eschatological Messiah for the Jewish people or a “return” to the Holy Land. Materials in this presentation have adequately shown that Jews salvation lies in them following the Prophet Mohammad/Islam).

   

   (Curiously enough, whenever anyone speaks against or questions the “holocaust” he is made to shut up; law has even been legislated to this effect. In fact not only law has been enacted to promote acceptance of the “holocaust” but as Professor Noam Chomsky note in his revealing book Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, about the treatment meted out to Arab prisoners: “These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” (Disgustingly sickening!) (p. 9. Italics/emphasis/color added).  

 

   Is “The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves”?

    Seemingly not. It does not seem to be an uncommon practice to perish some members for the greater and long term benefit for the larger community –weren’t Allied soldiers, the majority of them Canadians, of World War II used as sacrificial lambs at Dieppe to snare the German wolf at Normandy for the long term gain for the whole world?

  If the “holocaust” was Divine chastisement, then Jews brought this upon themselves by not keeping their covenant with God (which requires them to follow the Prophet Mohammad. And until and unless they do, more chastisement seems to be ahead–Deut. 18:18-19. Qur’an 7:167).

    If the “holocaust” is historical truth and fully documented deniers of it should not be hauled before the judge and thrown in jail; and the sky should not have been brought down on Iran for convening a conference on it:

 

When one is forced to believe and is subjected to Judiciary for denying a thing the truth of such a thing becomes highly suspect. If an event or doctrine is truth there is no necessity to legislate belief in it or to criminalize question or denial of it; proponents and opponents alike must provide proofs of their claim and let the public judge who is truthful and who is liar. To institute a law against denial of a thing is an abomination and an insult to the intellectuals and to all members of society –it may be equated with tyranny; and may be an avenue to other such legislation(s). Laws do not prevent people from being violated: laws can only bring violators to justice; laws do not sanctify or justify a claim: truth does. Forcing people to not speak out only serves to silence voices: it does not change mentality. Such a law may bring more harm than benefit –it may attract more opposition to the “truth” it professes to protect. It is a monumental disgrace that “civilized” society would allow such a law to be instituted. Such a law is repugnant to reason. And is to be repealed. Forthwith! Be it history or theology Truth stands by itself; Falsehood needs to be propped up!) 

    The despots must be having a “laugh-a-rama” at this “democratic” law: ‘and they call us tyrants. Hah!’

 

   Did Hitler kill “six million” Jews; was the “Holocaust” a German machination or a Jewish orchestration; was it German extermination or Jewish immigration (to bring Jews “en masse” to Palestine to effect statehood); was it a Jewish creation to gain world sympathy for the creation of their own home-land; or to shield the atrocities Jews were committing against Palestinians? In whatever strain it is questioned perhaps the certain way to put to rest whether the “Holocaust” is history or hoax fact or fiction is to have an impartial team made up of multinationals investtigate this matter. And providing them unfettered access to all related materials.

    It may be that those who accuse others of being “revisionist” would themselves turn out to be “forgist.”

                                                 

 (Significantly, though Jewish officials deny it, “Amnesty International” has “produced what it called “indisputable evidence”” that Jews used white phosphorous against the native Palestinians in its lopsided “war” of 2008/2009. White phosphorous is a “chemical agent” that ““keeps burning till it is consumed –complete destruction of the tissues down to the bone.””24 In this matter of burning, Germans can be said to be more humane with Jews than Jews are/were with Palestinians in that at least Germans are said to have burned Jewish corpses –after they were dead compared to Jews burning Palestinians/Arabs while they are alive).

     (In its publication on Thursday, February 23, 2006, The Toronto Star in its “Worth Repeating” column captioned “Neo-Nazis everywhere lose an icon,” commented on the imprisonment of David Irving, for his denial of the “holocaust.”

   Significantly, the Revised Edition (1983) of Menachem Begin’s book The Revolt denies the Deir Yassin massacre as “Arab….propaganda,”–even though this massacre was evidenced by the International Red Cross; noted by Britannica –probably the world’s most respected documenter of events– and admitted to by Begin himself, then leader of the Irgun terrorists who committed the massacre. Yet the denier(s) of this massacre was not (as far as is known) imprisoned for the denial of this barbaric incident; and branded a “denier, a racist” and anti-Arab. (It may be submitted that this matter was not pursued. The matter should now be pursued, even in absentia of the individual(s) involved; if only to test the equity of the law).

    That one is imprisoned for denying the “holocaust” is an act unworthy of the enlightened twentieth centuries. Man cannot disprove the existence of God, yet he is not incarcerated for his denying God. Why then should man suffer incarceration for denying earthly things–things lower than God? Jesus, who benefited many with his miracles, is not only disbelieved in but is labeled a prac-titioner of “magic” and a “bastard.” Yet his deniers and accusers are not subject to Judiciary.

    The above-mentioned column states that “the Holocaust laws were intended to prevent the legitimation of mass murder.” (What a maroon! Does this mean that it is permissible to commit murders of a lesser degree than “mass murder”?) If such a law is intended to prevent “mass murder” it has failed miserably in Rwanda and Bosnia and elsewhere.

    If one wants to commit “mass murder” of Jews or of any other, no law can prevent it. Laws can only bring perpetrators to justice.

 The article under discussion also stated that David Irving was “branded” an “anti-Semite.” Semites (more correctly Shemites) are the descendants of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons. Can those who claim to be Semites prove that they are descendants of Shem?

    Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe theorized, convincingly so, that the Khazar, an eighth century Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism, may be the ascendants of modern World Jewry. Though his attempt to follow the history of the Khazar Empire is based on insufficient available materials, Koestler has endeavored to show that anthropological evidence agrees with his-tory in negating the accepted belief in a current Jewish race of Biblical lineage; he also points out that the large majority of existing Jews is of “Eastern European” ancestry. If there is no Biblical Jew, i.e. no Semitic Jew-ish race, the term “anti-Semitism” would be meaningless.

 To make a charge of anti-Semitism,

 it must be proven that they are Semites.

  

Ridiculously (and reminiscent of Galileo and the Church), Pope Benedict XVI, to appease Jewish objection, “ordered” Bishop Richard Williamson to recant his “holocaust” belief: ““I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against –is hugely against– 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolph Hitler…I believe there were no gas chambers.””25 (Notably, the Bishop cites “historical evidence”). The Bishop is also reported as saying that “only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed during the war and that none had been gassed.”26

   Reason dictates that rather than try to shut the Bishop up, the civilized and intelligent and democratic approach would be to have the Bishop substantiate his views by producing his “historical evidence,” as well as those who claim that “6 million Jews” were gassed to substantiate their claim by producing their “historical evidence” and let the public decide who is truthful and who is liar.

    The future will show if the Bishop will keep on jihading for “truth” or buckle under bullying.

 Truth stands by itself;

 Falsehood needs to be propped up!

 

Regarding the Jewish objection to Bishop Richard Williamson statement. Jews not only object to statements that are displeasing to them but also object to the erect-ing of business establishment on the site where Jews were said to be killed. Though it is acceptable for them to demolish hundreds of Palestinians villages ““with their houses, garden-walls, and even cemeteries and tombstones, so that literally a stone does not remain standing, and visitors are passing and being told that ‘it was all desert;’”” and that “There is not one place built in this country (Palestine) that did not have a former Arab population.”26A

   And Jews objected to the US-Soviet Union’s declaration speaking about “Palestinian rights,” as Edward Said notes in his revealing work The Question of Palestine: “The chorus of abuse and hysteria greeting that declara-tion from organized Jewish opinion was disheartening. Not only was the domestic Jewish-American reaction abusive, it was proudly so, as Jewish leaders boasted of having inundated the White House with thousands of letters and phone calls.” (Isn’t this bullying? And grown people, and supposedly intelligent, behaving in such a manner? Disgraceful!). (p. 50. Emphasis added).

 Would these “objectionable” Jews refrain from their actions that others find objectionable –such as to stop stone-walling justice for the Palestinians and stop sending money to so-called “Israel” which perhaps help to occupy/usurp more Palestinian’s land and crucify them?

   How often are students urged to expose and/or stand up to the schoolyard bully? Honest and just people are to use the spine we’ve been given and stand up against bullying (and blackmail?) in all its form.

 Truth and justice are not to be butchered on the stones of politics and friendship.

  

   Significantly. In 2006 Iran sponsored a conference on the “holocaust.” Iran was, as expected, condemned.

  This flood of anti-Iran condemnation for sponsoring the conference is but a down-pouring of social and political claptrap. This conference is not about whether Jews were killed or not. That Jews and Gypsies were killed is with-out question. The question is, was “six million Jews” killed? Is the “holocaust” a reality or was it a concoction to hide the atrocities Jews were committing against Palestinians in their drive to depopulate Palestine of native Arabs and populate it with alien Jews; or was it a concoction to elicit sympathy for Jews to give them a home-land in Palestine; or was it a hoax by Europe/Christians to solve their Jewish homeless problem by making it the Palestinian/Arab problem? 

   That in calling this conference, Iran is trying to rewrite history is intellectual, political, and religious rubbish. In fact, in this matter of revising history, those who make such a claim may themselves be culprits in this matter of rewriting history. As noted above the Revised Edition of Begin’s book The Revolt denies that Jews massacred some 250-300 Arabs of Deir Yassin in 1948, to establish their state. Where is the sanctimonious outcry against these Revisers trying to rewrite the Deir Yassin history? Where are the vociferous proponents of truth and justice: hibernating in their hypocrisy?

  That Iran is here inciting hatred against Jews is “intellectual” and political twaddle. (How this is hatred against Jews is mind-boggling: seems that anything that goes against Jewish likeness is hatred). Panning through the mountain of uncertainty to find the gold nugget of truth could hardly be stamped as incitement to hate. In fact, opposition to this conference would seem to give the im-pression of a desperate drive to keep something hidden.

   Instead of being condemned, Iran is to be commended for bringing, against the weight of world opposition, this taboo of topic to the international investigating table –to determine if the “holocaust” is what it is claimed to be or if there is anything sinister underlying it (if Hitler is a scape-goat).

   

   The Toronto Star, Saturday, January 27, 2007 in its article UN condemns Holocaust denial as Iran objects, by Staff Reporter, Olivia Ward, notes that the “American-drafted resolution” was endorsed by the United Nations which ““condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust”” and encouraged the 192 mem-bers of the UN to ““reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end.””  

   If the holocaust is a “historical event” why the paranoia at Iran’s convening this conference? It would be a crystal-clear open and shut case, proving Iran to be in error. If the holocaust is a “historical event” why the   need for the “rodeo round-up” of the United Nations to “hog-tie” Iran?

   Iran, rightly, objected to the UN masquerade, stating, as noted in the article: “we truly disassociate ourselves from this entirely hypocritical political exercise.” The article also notes an Iranian representative as saying, “although his country opposed genocide, “the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people….as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians.”” Can anyone refute this? It is undeniable that the “holocaust” was/is used to elicit sympathy for Jews. Every time there is a Palestinian-Jewish flare up (and even without) we are deluged with “holocaust” stories (as if to convey that Jewish cruelties against Palestinians is justified or negated because of Jewish sufferings at the hands of the Nazis). In the past more than sixty years there must have been more “holocaust” stories than victims.

 

   The article also notes that the resolution was co-sponsored by Canada and more than a hundred other countries and “adopted by consensus.” The representatives of the governments of these countries may have (whether through conviction or coercion or partisanship or belief or benefit or hatred of Iran or other) “endorsed” this resolution. But whether their populations agree with their views is another matter. Considering that individuals (intellectuals?) from some thirty countries attended the Iranian conference–though at least one, a Canadian, was known to be grilled for his attendance; and even had his academic tenureship challenged. (Seems that where certain sector[s] of society or certain topic[s] is concerned “freedom” of conscience is rabidly restricted. Hallelujah! to partisan democracy!)

   In endeavoring to investigate the veracity of the holocaust Iran may stand “alone,” but Iran, for certain, does not stand “isolated,” nor stand in “shame.” Iran stands in dignity. Uncowed. And in truth. Iran’s convening the conference on the “holocaust” is not an insult to “thinking people.” The “real truth” is enforcing belief in, or enforcing against denial of, the “holocaust” is what has “insulted” “thinking people.”

    No one is to be forced to have belief in the “holocaust” or no one is to be forced to not deny it.

   One who is charged as being a “holocaust denier” can rightly make the counter-charge that his accuser(s) is a “holocaust imposer” (“holo-poser” for short) or “holo-caust flagger.” (“holo-flagger” for short).

   Truth stands by itself;

 Falsehood needs to be propped up!

 Why not a Law against denial of the Deir Yassin Massacre?

 Why not a Law against denial of  the “Virgin-birth” of Jesus?

 

Students, peasants, scholars and writers, worldwide, are to march together

for the abolition of this despicable law.

 Freedom of conscience, forever!

  

(Incidentally, it was reported that one UN agency wants to teach Palestinian children about the Jewish “holocaust” [wonder who or what led this UN agency to dream up this preposterous scheme, or why? Did this UN agency consider teaching Jewish children about Nakbah [darkness] –referring to Palestinians driven off their lands in 1948 to facilitate the Jewish statethe Palestinian holocaust; about how they came to have possession of the Palestinians’ homes, lands, and country –all the way back from Theodor Herzl to the present?]

 Hamas, rightly, balked at this UN agency’s obscene gesture. Whether the Jewish “holocaust” is fiction or fact, history or hoax, Palestinian children are not to be made to have sympathy for their Jewish occupier/usurper. Will this UN agency teach Jewish children to have sympathy for the Nazis –to accept/understand their motivation for the “holocaust”? [Which motivation seems to be unclear –that it was because Jews killed Jesus; Jews were controlling the German economy; Hit-ler hated Jews; Hitler believed Germans are the master race and all others are inferior; because a Jewish girl spurned Hitler; Hitler blamed Jews for Germany’s WW I defeat; Jews were Communists and subversives; Hitler believed Jews were scheming with the British to topple him. Take your pick. Maybe all. Maybe none. The Bible says that the Israelites/Jews exterminated their numerous “ites” enemies–[Josh. 6:21; 10:28-41; 12:1-24. So it is acceptable for Israelites/Jews to create the ancient “ites” holocausts and the modern Palestinian holocaust but not acceptable for Hitler to create the Jewish “holocaust”?] Perhaps there is no known reason why Hitler killed Jews because there is no human reason. There are Jews who believe the “holocaust” was Divine orchestration. And Allāh, God, says in His Qur’an that He would raise up those who would chastise Jews to the Resurrection [for their not keeping their covenant which requires them to follow the Prophet Mohammad]. Maybe the “holocaust” was one such Divine chastisement. Or, as reasonably submitted above, Hitler may very well have been a scape-goat.

 Until a thorough and independent investigation is carried out the “holocaust” should not be taught to anyone. Most of all Palestinians].  

 

This UN agency needs to concern itself with matters of importance and use donations for worthy causes –to have China remove alien Hans Chinese from the Uighur’s lands, Eastern Turkistan -UIGHURISTAN-, and end their occupation of it; to get Russia out of Chechnya and Dagestan; to ensure Kashmiri’s get to exercise the scandalously long overdue right to decide their future; to have Britain or France or Canada or America or anyone of the other nations who were gung-ho to give Jews fifty-six percent of Palestine give half of their country to the Gypsies for their national home-land; to look after the welfare of the displaced in Darfur, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sabra and Shatila; to feed the starving and those suffering the ravages of nature and war as those in Africa, Asia, Indonesia, Philippines, Ethiopia, Somalia, and elsewhere; to liberate child-laborers and educate them; to free child-warriors and educate them; to remedy the dispute between China and Tibet; to end Myanmar’s (Burma’s) ethnic-cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims; to secure safety of eastern Chadian women; to protect human rights activists in Chechnya; to secure justice for the Lubicon Cree in Alberta, Canada (and natives elsewhere); to champion Palestinians inalienable right to return to their country as guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention and to return Palestine to its rightful –moral, social, historical, and spiritual– Palestinian owners).        

          

11. “While Christianity has few living inquisitions today (and this is so because the Church holds no sway in the land today). Islam has many. …in our opposition to the worldview of Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and fourteenth century hordes are pouring into our world. Unfortunately, they are now armed with twenty-first-century weapons.” (And to know he writes that Islam is “Anti-Semitism”). (pp. 106-107).  

 

Response:  What utter rubbish! (Leaving aside the handful of Muslims who, erroneously, believe they have the right to bomb other nations into Islam). While Muslims are not justified to blame their intellectual stagnation on non-Muslims, trying to explain Muslim militancy without involving non-Muslims is like trying to remove a worm from a can-full without disturbing other worms.

   In the last two hundred years, no Muslim country have colonized or tried to colonize other nations or sought to exploit the wealth of other nations. No Muslim country have subverted the governments of non-Muslims or assassinated their leaders or tried to run their countries and/or control their resource(s), or deprived them of their homes, lands and country.

    Now, consider how many Muslims are/were victims of non-Muslims “travesties.” Briefly, Britain sliced Jordan out of Syria and carved Kuwait out of Iraq; France carved Lebanon out of Syria and placed it under Maronite Christian domination; the British held Egypt, Sudan, Aden, Iraq and Nigeria; the French, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan; and the Italians, Libya; British instigation and American machination carved the Zionist State out of Palestine; in 1956 the Zionist State in “collusion” with France and Britain attacked Egypt, so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal; Russia is still coloring Chechnya red; Bosnians are still trying to recover from Serbia’s onslaught and Iraq is yet to rise from the rubble of American bombardings (for oil and/or hegemony?).

   If “our world” had not stolen Palestine, to begin with, it is unlikely there would now be “hordes” of Muslims “armed with twenty-first-century weapons.”

    The West may be “at war with Islam;” but Islam is not “at war” with anyone. Islam is a defensive force not an aggressive one. (p. 109).

  

12. “The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War” (and who is it that made this designation? And the world, from the point of view of America and so-called “Israel,” is divided into the “House of those with us” and the “House of those against us”)…. The feature of Islam that is most troubling to non-Muslims, and which apologists for Islam do much to obfuscate, is the principle of jihad (jihad is troubling to non-Muslims because Islam is the only religion that has openly declared war against the oppressor, occupier, usurper, and exploiter; if these “apologists” should study Islam they will see there is nothing in Islam for which to apologize, and nothing in jihad to “obfuscate”; jihad is explained in item 1). We are misled if we believe that the phrase “in defense of Islam” suggests that all Muslim fighting must be done in “self-defense.” On the contrary, the duty of jihad is an unambiguous call to world conquest. As Ber-nard Lewis writes, “the presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule” (and whose presumption is this?). There is no denying that Muslims expect victory in this world, as well as in the next (and America and Canada and Britain, etc; expects to have “victory” against “terrorism” at home and abroad –in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and…Muslims fight for victory when the enemy forces himself upon us). As Malise Ruthven points out, “The Prophet had been his own Caesar….If imitatio Christi meant renouncing worldly ambition and seeking salvation by deeds of private virtue, imitatio Muhammad meant sooner or later taking up arms against those forces which seemed to threaten Islam from within or without” (Amen!!! Which “Caesar” is there who will not take up arms against those who threaten it “from within or without”? This is what America and Canada and the whole entourage have done/are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan–and Iraq and Afghanistan did not even “threaten” them whether “within or without”). (pp. 110-112. Italics/Emphasis added).

  

Response: Mohammad became “Caesar” because he was forced to become “Caesar.” If the enemies had not militated against Mohammad, Mohammad would have had no recourse to the sword. Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Divine Message; not enforce it–(Qur’an 2:256, 272; 3:20; 5:95, 102; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 13:40; 16:82; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 24:54; 29:18; 42:15; 46:35; 50:45; 64:12; 76:3; 109:1-6).

    As shown in this presentation, there is no militancy in Islam. (There is no passivity either: there are times to give the other “cheek” and times to take an “eye” in turn).

   Islam is not a “religion of conquest” but of world spiritual enlightenment: against the degradation of idolatry, the irration-ality of polytheism, and the inanity of man-worship –that the only being greater than man is Allāh, God, the only one worthy of worship.

   The Prophet’s sayings on jihad are simply to stress the taking up of arms, when need be, in defense of truth, freedom and jus-tice. It is doubtful that the commanders of the Allies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the Generals of World War II) lectured their troops on the futures of soya-beans and pork-bellies, rather than instruct them in lethal warfare. (The speeches imploring recruits and soldiers about the exigency to defeat the Third Reich must have been morbidly aggressive).

    And unlike Mohammad who was on his own soil, defensing; the Allies are thousands of miles away from their own land, offensing.

  The “armed” noble jihad is a Divine injunction to be exercised in the pursuit of truth, justice, and freedom when the situation necessitates, to the Resurrection; and the sacred martyrdom is a Divine gift for those who are slain in this endeavor of truth, justice and freedom, to the Resurrection. Muslims who demean or demonize or “obfuscate” these hallowed institutions are trape-zing over the Fire.

  

13. “…the Muslim conception of tolerance applies only to Jews and Christians–“People of the Book”–while the practices of Bud-dhists, Hindus, and other idolators are considered so spiritually depraved as to be quite beyond the pale”(and he refers to Qur’an 2:190, “Idolatry is worse than carnage”). (p. 114).

  

Response: But the word “Idolatry” is not the correct word in this context. Muhammad Ali translates. “Persecution is worse than slaughter,” explaining: “The word which I have rendered as persecution is fitnah, which originally means a burning with fire, and then affliction, distress and hardship, slaughter, misleading or caus-ing to err, and seduction from faith by any means (LL). An explanation of these words is met with in v. 217: “They ask thee about fighting in the sacred month. Say: Fighting in it is a grave offence. And hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him and the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it are still graver with Allāh, and persecution is graver than slaughter.” Fitnah is thus synonymous with hindering men from Allah’s way and the Sacred Mosque, and denying Allah and turning people out of the Sacred Mosque, and indicates the persecution of the Muslims. Ibn ‘Umar explained the word fitnah when he said: “And there were very few Muslims, so a man used to be persecuted on account of his religion: they either murdered him or subjected him to tortures until Islam became predominant, then there was no fitnah”, i.e., persecution (B. 65: ii, 30).

  Idolatry –bowing to objects fashioned by one’s own hands, things that can confer no benefit or effect any harm– is, indisputably, “spiritually depraved.”

   However, that Muslim “tolerance” extends even to Idolaters is cemented in the following Qur’anic expressions:

 

  “And revile not those whom they call

 upon besides Allāh”

 

 “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy

 protection, protect him till he hears the word

 of Allāh, then convey him to his place of

 safety. This is because they are a people

 who know not”

 

 “We have truly shown him (man) the way;

 he may be thankful or unthankful”

 

 “so whoever goes aright, goes aright only

 for the good of his own soul; and whoever

 errs, errs only against it”

 

 “Say: O disbelievers, I serve not that

 which you serve, Nor do you serve Him

 Whom I serve….For you your religion,

 and for me my religion.”

 (Qur’an 6:108; 9:6; 76:3; 10:108 & 17:15; 109:1-6)

  

   Allāh sent Mohammad as a mercy to all creatures: Mohammad could not abuse or turn away from anyone. And as noted, the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Qur’anic Message; no to enforce belief in it.  Thus, Islamic tolerance could not only apply “only to Jews and Christians,” Islamic tolerance “applies” to all.

 

   Harris also notes: “…life for Jews within the House of Islam has been characterized by ceaseless humiliation and regular pogroms.”(p. 114).

Response:   The yellow badge that Jews were forced to wear in Germany may have “originated in Baghdad,” but Palestinians have their badge of humiliation (and in their own country) made by Jews declaring them as “Class B’ citizens” on their ID cards. In fact Palestinians are not only labeled “Class B’ citizens” but are subjects of Jewish “pogrom(s)” and even in “modern history”:

 

“Not only did the Israelis refuse to allow the return of the (Palestinian) refugees to their homes, but they consummated the tragedy by seizing all their property in one of the greatest acts of plunder in modern history. The confiscation of Arab land was not confined to the holdings of the refugees but extended to the 200,000 Palestinians who remained in their homes in 1948, by a series of extraordinary laws and regulations of legalised robbery. These included “The Land Acquisition Law,” “The Abandoned Areas Ordinance, 1949,” “The Absentee Property Regulations, 1948” and others a. The injustices, to which the Arabs in Israel were subjected, went far beyond the expropriation of their farms and property, and included flagrant infringement upon their basic human rights and civil liberties. Derek Tozer, a British correspondent, writing in The American Mercury, stated: The official policy of the Government (of Israel) is unequivocal. Arabs, like Jews in Nazi Germany, are officially ‘Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards””b. William Zukerman, Editor of the Jewish Newsletter, said “a more flagrant case of discrimination is hard to find even in the annals of the chauvinistic twentieth century.c ””27 

      

 And Professor Noam Chomsky in his book Pirates & Emperors, International Terrorism in the Real World, notes as part of the “doctrine” of Zionism is that the Jewish state “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.” (p. 33. Italics/emphasis/color added).

 

   Sam Harris lists pogroms against Jews by Muslims, in several Muslim countries and a number of times. But no reason is given why these pogroms were carried out. Was it because of Muslim jealousy over Jewish prosperity; because of faith (and the teaching of Islam); or was it because Jews were inimical towards the State or towards Muslims?

  Regarding Jewish opposition to the Prophet Mohammad, M. H. Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad(p.207): “Their opposition and hostility were never open." (Perhaps this is true even today. Italics/emphasis added).

    Jewish mischief is not unknown, Professor Noam Chomsky in his Pirates And Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World notes from “Lebanon-based correspondent Jim Muir: 

““that the Israelis helped fuel and encourage the Christian-Druze conflict” in the Chouf region.”  And that ““Local eyewitnesses reported that Israeli soldiers frequently shot into the Palestinian camps from nearby Christian areas in an effort to incite the Palestinians against the Christians,” and residents in the Christian villages reported that Israeli patrols forced Christians and Muslims at gunpoint to punch one another among other forms of “bizarre humiliation.” The techniques finally worked. Israel’s Christian allies attacked Muslims near Sidon in a manner guaranteed to elicit a response from considerable more powerful forces, initiating a bloody cycle of violence that ultimately led to the flight of tens of thousands of Christians, many to the Israeli-dominated regions in the south, while tens of thousands of Shi’ites were driven north by Peres’s Iron Fist operations.” (pp. 46-47. Color added).

      

    It is odd that Muslims would carry out pogroms against Jews because of the teachings of Islam. If this was so how could pogroms be carried out more than once in these Muslim countries: they would not have been allowed in the first place; or after the first pogrom they would have been permanently barred, as they were barred from Jerusalem by the Christians.

    Muslims could not be said to be following Islam and to have carried out “pogroms” against Jews because of the teachings of Islam or even because of their “hatred” against Jews seeing that Islam clearly forbids us to let hatred of a people cause us to transgress and to act inequitably and to aid one another in sin and aggression–(Qur’an 5:2, 8).

    Perhaps these “pogroms” were carried out by Jews themselves to get their fellow Jews to flood Palestine (As noted above in item #10) so as to kick the indigenous Palestinians out and fill Palestine with Jews.

  

   Sam Harris also states, “Life for Christians under Islam has been scarcely more cheerful.” (p. 114).  (At least Christians had “life” under Islam; under Christianity [not to be confused with secularism] Muslims were expelled or given the sword).

   Regarding Christians in Muslim lands, T. W. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam has noted what may very well be a timeless observation:

“Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to distrust of their loyalty, excited by the intrigues and interference of Christian foreigners and the enemies of Islam, or to the bad feeling stirred up by the treacherous or brutal behaviour of the latter towards the Musalmans (Muslims).”(p. 77).

  

  On jizya: The only charge the Qur’an imposes on non-Muslims under a Muslim government is the jizyah; which Muhammad Ali explains:

“was a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects under the rule of Islam, so called because it was a tax for the protection of life and property which that rule guaranteed them. Muslim subjects were exempt from this tax in consideration of military service, which for them was compulsory. As a matter of fact, they too were made to pay for that protection, but in different form. They bore the hardships of a military life, they fought the country’s battles, they laid down their lives in defence of the country. Non-Muslims were exempt from all this, and in lieu of this they contributed their share in the shape of money. It is obvious which of the two alternatives is the easier. In countries where conscription is the law to-day, there would certainly be many who would be glad to buy their exemption from military service so cheaply, paying a small amount as tax. It must be remembered, furthermore, that the tax was not indiscriminately charged to every non-Muslim subject. Males under twenty and above fifty, all females, those suffering from some chronic disease, the blind and the poor were all exempt. As a matter of fact, the Muslims had also to pay a tax in addition under the name of zakaat, and this was much heavier than jizyah as it was levied at the rate of 2 1/2 percent, on all savings annually.” (The Early Caliphate, p. 41 f/n).

 

   It is a rather strange reasoning that one would convert to Islam to escape “heavy taxation” when Muslims are required to shoulder a heavier burden than non-Muslims. The Kharaj and Jizya are not “Discriminatory Taxes.” Jizya, as already noted, was paid by non-Muslims for military protection. Payment of “half a guinea or a dinar a year” is a cheap price than suffering the hardship of military life and for putting one’s life on the line for the welfare of the country. Muhammad Ali notes:

 “…jizyah, which was originally a tribute paid by a subject state, took the form of a poll-tax later on in the time of ‘Umar; and the word was also applied to the land-tax which was levied on Muslim owners of agricultural land. The jurists, however, made a distinction between the poll-tax and the land tax by giving the name of kharaj to the latter. Both together formed one of the two chief sources of the revenue of the Muslim state, the zakat paid by the Muslims being the other source.” (The Religion of Islam, p. 559).

  

   Thus, Muslims also had to pay not only kharaj but zakat as well, (and do military service). This disparity clearly shows that there is no basis for the claim that the kharaj and jizya are “Discriminatory Taxes.”

    All governments levy taxes to raise revenues. If Muslim rulers of later times discriminated against non-Muslim subjects then Islam is not to be blamed for this. Islam forbids discrimination. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Early Caliphate that when a Muslim government could no longer provide the protection for which jizya was taken, this amount was returned to the people. He gave the example of Abu ‘Ubaidah when he

  

“gave up his position at Hims and returned towards Damascus. On leaving Hims, however, he ordered that the whole amount of jizyah realised from the people of Hims should be returned to them. Jizyah, he said, was a tax in return for protection. When they could no longer give that protection, they had no right to keep the money. The whole amount was consequently withdrawn from the treasury and made over to the people….who were all either Christians or Jews. In vain will the critic ransack the dusty pages of history for another such brilliant spot, such scrupulous regard for the rights of citizenship in time of war. The treatment by Muslims of the inhabitants was such that, at their departure, Christians as well as Jews actually shed tears and prayed God to bring them back. Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])”” (p. 86).

   

  On the belief that the Kharaj and Jizya are “Discriminatory Taxes,” (as claimed by another writer) Muhammad Ali notes that during the reign of ‘Umar when the whole of Persia “came completely under the rule of Islam” that while “jizya was imposed in some parts, there were other adjacent parts where the people neither embraced Islam nor paid jizya. They only agreed to render military assistance in time of need.” “In affairs of state, non-Muslims were duly consulted.” ‘Umar also ordered “that old-age pensions must be granted to all the old people among non-Muslim subjects, who must also be exempt from jizya. Poor-houses for the weak and the disabled were open to Christians just as to Muslims.” (Ibid. pp. 101, 118).

    To say that jizya is a “discriminatory” tax is, in the words of Muhammad Ali, “to betray ignorance.”  

 (Those who are jaundiced against jizya and “dhimmitude” must turn their sights to the Biblical Fathers and the Defenders of the Faith–David and Joshua and the Christian conquerors of Jerusalem and Spain–whose vic-tims were shrouded in blood, expelled or forced to con-vert. Not to mention the 800-year Inquisitions–Medieval, Roman and Spanish; from 1000-1834. Praise be to Islam’s mercy and tolerance–to jizya and “dhimmitude”!

  

 Interestingly. whereas Muslims are raked over the coals for alleged “discrimination” against non-Muslims.  The Toronto Star, Friday, May 2, 2008. Irish clerics barred from praying at Wall, p. AA4, notes that Irish Christian leaders were “barred from praying” at the Western Wall at Jerusalem. Why? Because they “refused to remove the crosses” they wore. And the official explanation for requiring the clerics to remove their crosses? Because to display “symbols of other religions” would “offend the sensitivities of Jews.” (Italics/Emphasis added). Wonder what Bat Ye’or (and her sympathizers) would have said to this.

 That these Christian leaders were “barred from praying” at the Western Wall at Jerusalem is ironic; considering that it was Christian governments –primarily American and British– that put Jews in occupation of Palestine. (Notably, the Prophet Mohammad allowed the Christians of Najran, who were there to debate the Divinity of Jesus, to pray in his Mosque. See CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN). (Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia see ARABIA & NON-MUSLIMS)

 

14. Sam Harris quotes L. Binder: “it is the task of the Islamic state to bring about obedience to the revealed law.” (p. 115).

 

Response: And it is the task of the secular state “to bring about obedience to the” parliamentary law (or you end up “fined” or in the slammer or both). Where then is the difficulty in the Islamic state bringing about obedience to its Constitution–the “revealed law”: the Qur’an?

   Aren’t all members of an organized body required to conduct themselves in “obedience” to its laws?

  

15. “While the Koran merely describes the punishments that awaits the apostate in the next world (Koran 3:86-91), the hadith is emphatic about the justice that must be meted out in this one: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” No metaphor hides this directive, and it would seem that no process of liberal hermeneutics can brush it aside.”(p. 115).

 

  Response: In Islam there is no death for apostasy. Allāh says in His Qur’an: “And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever…” “How shall Allāh guide a people who disbelieved after their believing?”–(2:217; 3:85). “Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief”–(4:137); if apostates were to be killed there would be no “believing” then “disbelieving” then “believing again.”

   The Qur’an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years. Killing of apostates, if any, would have been prior to these Qur’anic injunctions. The Prophet governed according to the Qur’an not out of desire–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 53:3-4). Until revelation was given on a topic the Prophet judged according to the Torah; and the Judeo-Christian religion requires death for apostasy–(Deut. 13:5-16; 17:2-5). This is one of the laws that the Qur’an abrogates: the Qur’an 2:106; 16:101 speaking about abrogation refers to previous Scriptures (See Muhammad Ali com-mentaries on this topic; his translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org). (See also ISLAM-APOSTASY).

    

16. Sam Harris attempts to link non-existent violence in Islam to terrorism. In his ambition to do so he lines a track of verses six pages long (pp. 117-123), then states: “This is all desperately tedious, of course. But there is no substitute for confronting the text itself. I cannot judge the quality of the Arabic; perhaps it is sublime. But the book’s contents are not. On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist.” (p. 123. Italics/Emphasis added).

 

Response: In the human sphere, whichever country bows to the dictates of the hypocritical UN body –enforcing sanctions against Muslims and not against others– is blessed with megatons of carrots, whichever country stands up to its bullying is “cursed” with Vesuvian showers of fire and brimstone.

    Allāh Who has ordained mercy on Himself, created man out of mercy to have mercy on him, from Whom only good comes, Who taught man speech, gave him intelligence and bounties, Who implores us to seek His forgiveness, and Who forgives sins –there is no problem then in Allāh blessing the dutiful and “cursing” the ingrate: He has all rights and justification to do so.  

     Sam Harris cannot only not “judge the quality of the Arabic,” he seems to be ignorant of the background to which verses of the Qur’an were revealed.

    That “the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers,” and “it prepares the ground for religious conflict,” and is “a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence,” is sheer fantasy. Only one verse need to be entered to belie this myth: “Allāh forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allāh loves the doers of justice” –(Qur’an 60:8).

 

   Islam which stresses keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (Qur’an 16:91-92); to speak justly (6:153); to be righteous (2:277-278; 6:152-154); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to judge justly (4:58); because Allah loves those who judge in equity cannot be the religion of “violence” or hatred or injustice or intolerance.

 

     Islam which admonishes against dealing unjustly with men (2:279, 5:8); and not to rob them of their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190), not to help one another in sin and aggression (5:2), to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allah loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90) cannot be the religion of “violence” or hatred or injustice or intolerance.

 

     Islam which teaches not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 22:60; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90, 8:61); be-cause Allah loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75) cannot be the religion of “violence” or hatred or injustice or intolerance.

 

     Islam which teaches that all men are created equal (95:4), that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), that we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better –(23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allah loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135) cannot be the religion of “violence” or hatred or injustice or intolerance

  

   Islam which teaches that all religions are for Allāh (8:390; not to revile the gods of others (6:108); and to fight of behalf of non-Muslims (4:75; 22:40); Allāh has given to every nation acts of devotion, which they observe (22:67) cannot be the religion of “violence” or hatred or injustice or intolerance.

  

   Islam does not require Muslims to conquer lands for Allāh: the heavens and the earth already belong to Allāh. The Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an not enforce it: “thy duty is only to deliver the message,” “There is no compulsion in religion,” “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” “thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an,” “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful,” “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 3:20; 24:54; 2:256; 10:99-100; 50:45; 76:3; 16:125).

   There is no religious intolerance in Islam or subjugation of non-Muslims. The Prophet and the four Caliphs never forced Islam at the point of the sword on anyone.

 

   Killing of Unbelievers is applicable only during battle; and even then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and set them free–(Qur’an 47:4); and to make peace with the enemies when they desire peace–(Qur’an 8:61). The injunction to “slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find them,” refers only to those who fight against the Muslims–(2:190-191). About the hypocrites, Allāh instructs the Prophet to “never offer prayer for any one of them who dies”–(9:84). The Prophet could not have waited till the hypocrites die if Islam had decreed that they all be killed.

  That Muslims are to fight Unbelievers until they say none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh does not mean unbelievers must accept Allāh as God. All it means is that just as the unbelievers have the right to their belief, they must accept that Muslims have the right to practice their belief that ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh.’

   Muslims are permitted to fight to put an end to oppression and occupation/usurpation –(Qur’an 2:190-193; 4:75, 90-91; 8:39; 22: 39-41; 60:8-9).

    Critics of Islam would do well to understand the background to which verses of the Qur’an were revealed.

  

   Sam Harris notes: “As Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) wrote, “I must say, it is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite, endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement …insupportable stupidity, in short! Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran.” (p. 262, note 17).

 

  Response: And to know all of this “insupportable stupidity” inspired drunks and lascivious into sobriety and chastity; ruthless brigands into unity; propelled backward camel drivers into seats of knowledge and thrones of Caesars; brought light to “European” society; and progress to mankind.

    The Qur’an is not a story-book; it does not narrate events in sequence. Abul A’la Mawdudi explains:

 

“The different portions of the Qur’an were revealed according to the requirements of the various phases of the (Islamic) Movement. …The Prophet was entrusted with a special mission and had to appeal both to the emotions and to the intellect; he had to deal with people of different mentalities and cope with different situations and various kinds of experiences during the course of his mission. …He has also to train and reform his followers and to imbue them with spirit and courage, and to refute the arguments of opponents and to expose their moral weaknesses and so on. That is why the style of the discourses that Allah sent down to His Messenger had to be what suited the requirements of a Movement. It is, therefore wrong to seek the style of a formal book or that of college lectures in the discourses of the Qur’an.

    That also explains why the same things are repeated over and over again in the Qur’an. A mission and a movement naturally demand that only those things should be presented which are required at a particular stage and that nothing should be said about the require-ments of the next stage. That is why the same things are repeated over and over again as long as the movement remains in the same stage, no matter whether it remains there for months or for years. ….Moreover, it repeats at suitable places its basic creed and principles in order to keep the Movement strong at every stage. That is why those surahs which were revealed at a particular stage of the Movement generally deal with the same topics, though, of course, in different words and in various forms. Moreover, all the surahs of the Qur’an contain references to the basic creed, i.e., the Unity of Allah, His attributes, the Hereafter and accountability, punishment and reward, Prophethood, belief in the Book etc… They all teach piety, fortitude, endurance, faith and trust in Allah and the like, just because these virtues could not be neglected at any stage of the Movement. If any of these bases had been weakened at any stage even in the least, the Islamic Movement could not have made any progress in its true spirit.”28 

                      

    It is an accepted truth that repetition of words commits them to memory; and regimentation builds character, instills discipline and easy and automatic remembrance of duties. This is precisely the motive of the Qur’an for repeating its injunctions–for exhorting Muslims to daily prayers, giving alms, fasting and undertaking the pilgrimage to Mecca.

    One can see all branches of the security and defense systems –police, army, navy, and air force–of a nation practicing this “inveterate habit” of repeating verses.

    But for the Qur’an, Thomas Carlyle may yet be running around with flint tools and torches.

  

17. Sam Harris quotes “Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential thinkers in the Islamic world, and the father of modern Islamism among the Sunni, wrote, The Koran points to another contempt-ible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity.” This statement is really a miracle of concision. While it may seem nothing more than a casual flip against the Jews, it is actually a powerful distillation of the Muslim worldview. Stare at it for a moment or two, and the whole machinery of intolerance and suicidal grandiosity will begin to construct itself before your eyes.” (p. 123).

 

Response: What utter twaddle. For centuries Muslims and Jews lived in harmony –and lest we forget it was Salahuddin Ayyub (Saladin) that invited Jews to return to Jerusalem after they were barred by the Christians– until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head. If Palestinians’ heritage was not “stolen” there would not now be “the whole machinery of intolerance and suicidal grandiosity” against the Jewish occupiers/ usurpers of Palestine.

    And if it is fact that Jews have a “craven desire to live, no matter what price and regardless of quality, honor, and dignity,” where is the problem in stating it? Truth is not hatred!

   So Jews prefer life and Muslims prefer death, where’s the problem; wouldn’t one also kill to stay alive–isn’t this what ‘survival of the fittest’ (and the best armed) is all about? This is what America, Canada, and others are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan: killing to stay alive!

   Muslims preferring death in the cause of Allāh is not without parameters. This fight or preference of death is only to preserve truth, justice, and liberty, as careful reading of the Qur’an shows.

  However, this statement of Qur’an 2:94-96, when viewed in its context shows that it was made in response to Jewish claims that the Hereafter was specially for them to the exclusion of other peoples. The verse was only stating a fact, not promoting hatred of Jews. Here are the relevant verses:

  “Say: If the abode of the Hereafter with

 Allāh is specially for you to the exclusion

 of the people, then invoke death if you are truthful.”

 “And they will never invoke it  on account of

what their hands have  sent on before, and

Allāh knows the wrong-doers”

 “And thou wilt certainly find them the

 greediest of men for life, (greedier) even

 than those who set up gods (with God).

 One of them loves to be granted a life

 of a thousand years, and his being granted

 a long life will in no way remove him

 further off from the chastisement.

 And Allāh is Seer of what they do.”

 

   Where is the hatred? Where is the “miracle of concision”? Where is the “powerful distillation of the Muslim worldview”? “Stare at it for a moment or two”–nay, stare at it for a year or two, yet nay, stare at it for a lifetime–see when (if ever) “the whole machinery of intolerance and suicidal grandiosity will begin to construct itself before your eyes.”

 

   That the “educated” and the “middle-class” are the ones who mostly love to die in the way of Allāh is so because the preserving of truth, justice, and freedom even at the sacrifice of life is the highest ideal to which one can aspire, and is without borders of race or social status. These are the ideals –truth, justice, and freedom– that the Allies of World War II –among them men of education and affluence– sacrificed their lives to preserve.

    Clearly, God’s “chosen people” would have no qualms or hesitation to return to Him at any point in their lives; and would even prefer to be with Him than to “fight” for or to hang on to mortal items. Especially that which is not theirs.

    

18. Sam Harris wrote: “The Koran’s ambiguous prohibibition against suicide appear to be an utter non-issue.” (p. 123).

  

Response: There is no “ambiguity” in the Qur’an; only a lack of contemplation on its verse(s)–(Qur’an 4:82).

   Islam forbids “suicide.” This is confirmed by sayings of the Prophet: “Narrated Jundab the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said: “A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave* has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him”–(Bokhari Vol. 2, # 445. See also Vol. 7, # 670; Vol. 8, # 647).

*(We are not “slaves” of Allāh. Islam abolished slavery.  We are servants of Allāh. Whereas a slave is not at liberty to leave the service to his master, a servant can at any time leave the service to his master–man can at anytime disbelieve in Allāh: leave His service).

  All instances of fighting in the Qur’an –fight for the cause of God– is in the defense of truth, justice and freedom.

 

   Regarding “suicide bombers.” Unlike soldiers on the field of battle who have freedom of movement and even equity of arms, the occupied who are bereft of this freedom and armaments have the right to fight the occupier/usurper with whatever means available and by whatever methods. Man has no right to edict judgment against him; this judgment is for Allāh, God– “and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter (Qur’an 2:191; 217).

   What would you do should your Government forcibly squeezes you and your family into forty-four percent of your house and put a homeless family of fewer members than yours into the remaining fifty-six percent; and even give this homeless family title of ownership to this fifty-six percent of your property? And whereas members of your family do not have the right to come and live in your house, members of the homeless people born anywhere in the world has the right to live in your house–whereas a Jew born anywhere in the world has automatic citizenship to Palestine, a Palestinian born in Jaffa, his own country, is a refugee. This is the reality and injustice Palestinians face.

 No King or Queen or Prince or pauper or President or Prime Minister or politician or doctor or lawyer or writer or student or peasant would accept such an ignominious scheme and not challenge it in every way open to him and her. Yet Palestinians are forced to accept the fate that no one in the world would accept.

  

-The U.N. had no right to Partition Palestine –The U.N. is not the Sovereign owner of Palestine

-Britain had no right to promise Jews a homeland in Palestine –let Britain give Jews England or Scotland or Ireland or Wales (or Tristan da Cunha).

-America had no right to bring “coercion and duress,” and “pressure’ on nations to effect partition of Palestine –let America give Jews New Yoprk or California or Texas.

 -If France wants Jews to have a homeland let the French give Jews Paris or Marseilles or Nice.

 -If Canada wants Jews to have a homeland let Canadians give Jews Ontario or Quebec or Alberta.

 -If Germany wants to atone for the “Holocaust” let the Germans give Jews half of the Fatherland.

   Palestinians are not to suffer for Europe’s shame.

  

   Those who criticize and condemn the Palestinians must put their dignity where their mouths are: they must swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel the fearless and forbearing Palestinians are being force-fed for sixty-years now–they must give half of their property to the homeless and half of their country to the natives or ethnic sector for their State; they must suffer what the Palestinians have suffered and endure what the Palestinians are forced to endure and accept what the Palestinians are expected to accept..

 Jews wanting a home is no legitimacy

 to deprive the Palestinians of theirs.

 

   It is crass intellectual, political, and rabbinical putrefaction that Hamas does not have the right to fight for what is his; but that Jews have the right to kill for what is not theirs.

   Let’s see these “self-respecting”(?) intellectuals, politicians, and teachers of religion [and those who parrot them] accept this grotesque monstrosity for themselves that they are trying to foist onto the proud and intrepid Palestinians.

  Twistedly, like Saddam Hussein being blamed for the deaths of Iraqi children from US/UN sanctions, Jewish killing of Palestinian civilians is blamed on Hamas. Why then isn’t Hamas rocketing Jews blamed on these Jews themselves for being occupiers/usurpers, and the deaths of their children blamed on these Jewish fathers and mothers for setting their children as objects against liberation?).

    Jews have a right to be there. Not the state.

 

  (In this matter of Palestine there are writers –authors, magazines, and newspapers– who could not write truth/justice even if truth/justice was strapped to their fingers; either because of anti-Arab/anti-Muslim/anti-Islam bigotry, partisanship, patriotism, or toeing the political line. Whereas such writers may be considered “sad” and even “pathetic” the great tragedy is of those writers who could not write this truth/justice because of having traded their dignity for benefit: in the words of one brilliant poet (quoting from memory) “The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats” (or, in this instance, the hands are crimped by the gifts they take).

   For those familiar with Scripture: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous”–Exodus 23:8). And for “yo” judges and Rabbis and Reverends who aspire to having golf-time in Heaven instead of hard-time in Hell this is for you: “they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the wise”–Deut. 16:18-19). Amen!  

  As noted earlier. Lest we forget!It was the Muslim Salahhuddeen Ayyube (Saladin) the majestic conqueror of Jerusalem whose mercy brought Jews back to Jerusalem from where they were barred by the Christians. And this is how Jews repay Muslims’ love and benevolence–dispossess them of their homes, lands, and country, and slaughtering them for sixty years now. But this could hardly have been unexpected considering that (as noted in item # 9) they were treacherous to God–breaking their covenant with Him–and were arrogant/ ungrateful to their prophet–telling Moses to go and fight while they sit and wait; killed the prophets of God, and even tried to kill God’s “only begotten son,” Jesus); was treacherous towards the Prophet Mohammad; and tried to deceive Muslims; and as M. H. Haykal points out “their opposition and hostility were never open;” and in post-1948 Palestine they colluded with France and Britain and attacked Egypt so Britain could “occupy” Egypt’s Suez Canal; were the first air-plane hijackers in the Mid-East; and provoked the war in Lebanon. And “Ariel Sharon” “advised that the way to deal with demonstrators is to “cut off their testicles”” [wonder what Sharon had in mind to “cut off” from female demonstrators]. For a marathon-long list of Jewish atro-cities read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, if you can digest intellectual and “civilized” savagery. One instance of this sickening savagery against Arabs noted by the Professor:

 “These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” (p. 9).  

 And they expect to be viewed through “rose-colored glasses” and garlanded with flowery words. (Speak out against their atrocities and they are likely to become faster than Wyatt Earp on the “law-suit” draw).

 Truth is truth! Truth is not “anti-Semitism”!

 Truth is not “hatred”!

 (Notably, Muslims are profiled because of 911).

 

   Ironically–and this is no mockery, only an observation; though some might say it is poetic justice–whereas Ariel Sharon “advised” to “cut off their (demonstrators) testicles” he now has his brains “cut off”: lying senseless/comatose in hospital.

    Whether we call Him Ishwar, Eli, Yahweh, Allāh, Atnatu or Manitou, one by one the arrogant butchers of Palestine (and of the world) are returned to God to toast for their crimes. The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh, God, there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury/ no mistrial; no bribery; no one to “pressure” or bring “coercion and duress” on; and no godfather to shield behind his coat –in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind– you did the crime, or was involved in it, you toast the time. And considering that one Divine day is equal to a thousand human years, even if the maximum time spent in Hell is twelve months, in Divine terms that would be 365,000 human years. You’re well crisped!)

    

19. “…the most sexually repressive people found in the world today –people who are stirred to a killing rage by reruns of Bay-watch– are lured to martyrdom by a conception of paradise that resembles nothing so much as an al fresco bordello.” (And Harris notes from Christopher Luxenburg, “a scholar of ancient Semitic languages,” who “argued” that the Arabic hur of the Qur’an which is translated as “virgins,” means “white raisins.” (White raisins in paradise sure beats Jewish occupation and humiliation on earth). (p. 127).

 

Response: Sexually repressive people: Muslims have been engaged in noble jihad before “Baywatch! Way long before. It is rather strange that Muslims are “sexually repressive” considering that Muslims are allowed up to four wives.

   It would seem to be “sexually repressive” for one to hop from bosom to bosom trying to prove his manhood or to bolster his ego or to hide his inadequacy. Or maybe all of these.

 (As the ultimate sacrifice one can make towards a cause is the giving up of his life for that cause. Those who are martyred in the cause of Allah must be deemed to have demonstrated the ultimate in faith and action–righteousness. In His Qur’an 2:154 and 3:168 Allah informs us that the martyrs of Islam are not dead but that they are alive. The Prophet Mohammad also taught that Martyrs of Islam are in Paradise:

 “Narrated Anas: “Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and he was a young boy then. His mother came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) and said, “O Allāh’s Apostle! You know how dear Haritha is to me. If he is in Paradise, I shall remain patient, and hope for reward from Allāh, but if it is not so, then you shall see what I do?” He said, “May Allāh be merciful to you! Have you lost your senses? Do you think there is only one Paradise? There are many Paradises* and your son is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al-Firdaus”–(Bokhari Vol. 5, # 318).

 

 *Allāh tells us that Hell has seven gates–(Qur’an 15:44), meaning that there are seven classes of sinners or that sinners are grouped into seven categories. We are also told that there are varying degrees in being a Muslim, according to our deeds–(Qur’an 6:132). Perhaps these “many Paradises” spoken of by the Prophet are for the Believers according to their righteousness; which would seem to be reason why in the Hereafter there will be those who will continue to strive for the perfection of their “light” (perhaps to attain the highest Paradise of Al-Firdaus); speaking about the Believers Allāh says: “Their light will gleam before them and on their right hands–they will say: Our Lord, make perfect for us our light, and grant us protection; surely Thou art Possessor of power over all things”–Qur’an 66:8).    

   

   Paradise that resembles an al fresco bordello: Allāh did not leave the populating of the earth to chance, He instilled in us the desire for this companionship (if man came by accident, as atheism believes, chance would also have to fashion the abstract as well, and the unseen. And what are the odds of chance equipping the species with complimentary genitals and operating systems).  As sex in marriage is Divinely lawful on the earthly plain there is no difficulty if it should be allowed in the spiritual plain. Carnal pleasure in the conjugal bed is a form of worship of God–(Genesis 1:28. Qur’an 25:54; 16:72; 24: 32); but ignorant revile this blessed union as vulgar.

   

  That hur means “white raisins.” Hur means “pure.” The meaning of hur in the context refers to “pure; beautiful ones,” as Muhammad Ali has translated–M.A. has explained this term in detail (Qur’an 52:20), his translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org. (See also HURS).

  The hurs of Paradise are described as having big, beautiful, lustrous eyes–(Yusuf Ali). Of the possibly tens of thousands of raisins I have so far seen, I have yet to see at least one with beautiful big lustrous eyes.

    Allah says that dutiful men shall be joined with hur–(Qur’an 52:20). Can you envision men joined with “raisins”?

    Allah says that these hurs, untouched by man or jinn, are confined to pavilions–(Qur’an 55:72-74). Have you ever heard of “raisins” being “untouched” by man or jinn and “confined” to pavilions?

    These hurs are likened unto hidden pearls–(Qur’an 56:22). Have you ever heard of “raisins” likened unto hidden pearls, even though it might have been a “great delicacy in the ancient world”?

  And the Prophet Muhammad, who is the foremost authority in explaining the Qur’an, said of these hurs“Beautiful fair females”–that: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives….”–(Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 402). Wives not raisins. Have you ever heard of raisins being called “wives” even though it might have been a “great delicacy in the ancient world”?

  Even without the above presentation, a few moments head-work would dictate that it is amusing to entertain that Allāh would try to attract man –especially the educated and the affluent– to trade their lives in His cause or to eschew evil with promises of “raisins,” be they “white,” black, or crimson –literal or metaphorical.

    And to know, Islam is the one said to be without “reason.”

 (May be the reason why in these days there are no “white raisins” with “beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes,”is because those unique “white-raisins” plants eventually heard through the “grape-vines” about the fig tree cursed to death by Jesus and they all died from “shock and awe”).

    

20. Sam Harris notes some descriptions of Paradise then writes: “we should observe just how deeply implausible the Koranic paradise is. For a seventh-century prophet to say that paradise is a garden, complete with rivers of milk and honey is rather like a twenty-first-century prophets saying that it is a gleaming city where every soul drives a new Lexus (maybe it’s that too and a Harley-Davidson and a yacht). A moment’s reflection should reveal that such pronouncements suggest nothing at all about the afterlife and much indeed about the limits of the human imagination.” (pp. 127-128).

  

Response: And a few “moment’s reflection” on the Qur’an would reveal that some verses of the Qur’an are allegorical (Qur’an 3:7), and that descriptions of paradise are figurative expressions:“So no soul knows what refreshment of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did”–(Qur’an 32:17. Bokhari, Vol; 6, # 302, 303).

  Man can relate to things only in the physical life. To us the ultimate in possessions are gold and precious stones, wealth and carnal pleasure. So Allah relates to us in terms of what we understand. These descriptions of paradise are to let us know that we will receive in Paradise the ultimate in bliss. (See HEAVEN/ PARADISE).

    

21. “The widespread support for Saddam Hussein among Muslims, in response to the American attack upon Iraq, is as good a way of as any as calibrating the reflexivity of Muslim solidarity. Saddam Hussein was, as both a secularist and tyrant, widely despised in the Muslim world prior to the American invasion; and yet the reaction of most Muslims revealed that no matter what his crimes against the Iraqi people, against the Kuwaitis, and against the Iranians, the idea of an army of infidels occupying Baghdad simply could not be countenanced, no matter what humanitarian purpose it might serve. Saddam may have tortured and killed more Muslims than any person in living memory, but the Americans are the “enemies of God.”” (p. 128).  

  

Response: America did not invade Iraq to liberate Muslims. (The defense was advanced by another source that America was in Bosnia to free Muslims and points out that there is no oil in Bosnia. But did America stop the genocide in Bosnia because of felicity for Muslims or for not wanting anyone else [possibly Iran] to get involved against Serbia which might have caused an all-out war. There is no oil either in Tibet, Myanmar, and Rwanda; but America was/is not there). American-led sanctions and American military excursion have killed more innocent Iraqi’s than Saddam Hussein is said to have killed.

   American machination has “stolen” Palestine from Muslims and given it to Jews and for six decades has aided Jews to occupy and slaughter Muslims. America has subverted Muslim government(s) and strives to control Muslim oil.

    

22. “It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons…What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?” (pp. 128-129).

  

Response: Return Palestine to Muslims, stop subverting Muslim government(s) or trying to control them, and desist from controlling their oil and you won’t have to worry about war with Muslims’, “cold” or hot.

   It is not “the beliefs of Muslims” that “pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence,” it is man’s arrogance and injustice that “pose this “special problem.” If man would give to others the rights that he exacts for himself there would be no war between nations–cold or hot–and billions will not be blown battling “terrorism.”    

    It was no “dewy-eyed” “Islamist regime” that fricasseed conventional Hiroshima and Nagasaki while yet in pajamas and booties, and threatened to atomize Baghdad in its second act of aggression against non-nuke Iraq: it was the clear-eyed deacon of democracy, dishonesty, and hypocrisy that did!

   For the thousand or so years Islam was at the helm man did not need bunkers and bomb shelters and gas masks for protection.

   Contrastingly, in its mere three hundred years as lords of the world Western Powers have man scrambling for bunkers, bomb shelters and gas masks; and has stockpiled enough nuclear and biological arms to annihilate the world a million times over. And yet he is not satisfied: still trying to manufacture more.

   There will never be peace unless one gives to others the rights he exacts for himself. There will never be justice so long as there are those dedicated to living off the blood of others.

   Instead of bellyaching about hypothetical “dewy-eyed” “Islamists” Sam Harris needs to script and vociferate against the literal powers that be.

         

23. “Western leaders who insist that our conflict is not with Islam are mistaken; but, as I argue throughout this book, we have a problem with Christianity and Judaism as well.” (p. 131).

  

Response: These “Western leaders” are right. And they know from whence they speak. The West’s conflict is with Muslims not with Islam. The nucleus of which is the House of Palestine which was “stolen” by the “House of the West.” As shown in this presentation there is nothing in Islam to foster “conflict” or “hatred” or “injustice.” In fact, if man would follow Islam he will find his utopia!

    

24. “Can anyone point to a greater offender of Muslim dignity than Islamic law itself? (Yes! Jewish/U.S./U.N. theft of Palestine and their torturous six decades of sufferings, deaths, and destruction of the Palestinians. Islam does not offend it enhances). For a modern example of the kind of society that can be fashioned out of an exclusive reliance upon the tenets of Islam, simply recall what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban. (What was the world like before the advent of Islam?–Islam brought light to the world). Who are those improbable creatures scurrying about in shrouds and being regularly beaten for showing an exposed ankle? Those were the dignified (and illiterate) women of the House of Islam.” (Rubbish! They were of the House of Taliban. Islam extricated woman from the bog of degradation in which she was mired under Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity, and sat her aloft on the throne of dignity and honor. And how do you know these women under the Taliban were illiterate?–they were probably more literate than you).” (p. 131).

   

Response: The “tenets of Islam” propelled backward camel drivers into masters of knowledge and into thrones of Caesars.

    Islam has liberated Woman and given her rights that leave her nothing for which to strive.

   The Woman of Islam is not inferior. Woman is not of “lower birth” as Hinduism teaches –(Gita 9:32); or of servility as Judaism and Christianity teach–(Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11); or guilty of ‘transgression’ or defiler of man–(1 Tim. 2:14; Rev; 14:4); or wife just “to avoid fornication”–(1 Cor. 7: 2). (See CHRISTIANITY-WOMEN)

 

   Man and woman were created from the same medium–(Qur’an 4:1); both were deceived by the Devil –(2:36; 7:20-22); Allāh has established marriage between man and woman–(25:54; 16:72; 24:32. That marriage is a sacred contract in which all avenues of reconciliation are to be explored before dissolution; and that a divorce is the most shameful deed are proofs that there is no “easy” divorce in Islam); He created woman to be man’s mate, that he might find peace and comfort in her, and has put between them love and compassion–(7:189; 30:21. That woman is a source of peace and comfort condemns the act of marital rape, for any man who forces himself upon his wife, abuses her, causes her distress, or places her under duress, he can not find peace and comfort in her).

  Man and woman, created from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1) and instilled with the same laws –such as the five senses, and susceptibilities to hunger and diseases– one cannot be superior to the other; both have the same faculties and potentials. Whoever develops himself will be superior to the other. This verse shows that from the beginning man and woman are equal.

   Man is to give reverence to the womb that bore him–(Qur’an 4:1)–not to the loins that emitted him. Reverence to the womb is not discrimination, but honor. Allah has listed honor to parents, especially mothers, after worship of Him–(6:152; 17:23; 31:14). The Prophet Mohammad says Paradise lies at the feet of mothers –not the feet of fathers. And that after worship of Allāh, next in line for our service is our mother; and three times over before service to our father: thus women have three degrees of excellence over men. Such esteem is not discrimination.

     Men and women are garments to the other–(Qur’an 2:187)–to protect, beautify, comfort and conceal flaws; such consideration for the other is not oppression. Men and women are friends of the other–(9:71); friendship does not allow oppression. Women have rights similar to those against her–(2:228); people with mutual rights cannot oppress.

   Muslim woman can earn, inherit and own property–(Qur’an 4:32, 7, 177). Whereas woman has exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases–(4:4, 32), it is incumbent on man to maintain her–(4:34). As every group requires a head, husbands, being the maintainers, are given a degree of superiority over wives –(2:228); but this superiority is no licence to subjugate her: she has rights similar to those against her –(2:228). Woman has moral and spiritual equality with man–(3:194; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35; 40:40).

    No religion (or atheism) has done anything remotely close to that which Islam has done for Woman. (See ISLAM-WOMEN).

 

25. “…many Western liberals now blame their own governments for the excesses of Muslim terrorists. Many suspect that we have somehow heaped this evil upon our own heads (and they are right –it is Western nations that voted to give more than half of Palestine to Jews; yet they would not give any portion of the natives’ country back to them for a national homeland: not even a “farthing’s” worth). Berman observes, for instance, that much of the world now blames Israel for the suicidal derangement of the Palestinians. Rather than being an expression of mere anti-Semitism (though it is surely this as well) (much of the world is correct: who is it that is in occupation of Palestine; and for sixty years have subjected them to brutality and humiliation? The rest of the world that does not share this view should be in the situation of the Palestinians. It is not “derangement” to evict the occupier/usurper; it is heroism!); this view is the product of a quaint moral logic: people are just people, so the thinking goes, and they do not behave that badly unless they have some very good reasons (the Palestinians have all good reasons and justification to fight the obstacles against liberation). The excesses of Palestinian suicide bombers, therefore, must attest to the excesses of the Israeli occupation (and what kind of effort did the Allies direct against German occupation? “Ask yourself, what are the chances” that you would not do as the Palestinians if you were a “powerless minority”). Berman points pout that this sort of thinking has led the Israelis to be frequently likened to the Nazis in the European press. Needless to say, the comparison is grotesque (only where the concentration camp is concerned; though horrific refugee camps are not far behind). The truth is, as Dershowitz points out, that “no other nation in history faced with comparable challenges has ever adhered to a higher standard of human rights, been more sensitive to the safety of innocent civilians, tried harder to operate under the rule of law, or been willing to take more risks for peace.” (What a yarn! Provoking defenseless victims –men, women and children– so you can “attack and smash” them is anything but having “adhered to a higher standard of human rights, been more sensitive to the safety of innocent civilians, tried harder to operate under the rule of law, or been willing to take more risks for peace.” If this is Dershowitz’s defense in his “Case for Israel” he needs the help of Merlin: no man can defend this indefensible U.S.-U.N. gruesome rape of Palestine and her torturous six decades of painful hemorrhaging). (pp. 134-135)        

   

Response: In his book The Question Of Palestine, Edward Said noted an interview of May 10, 1978, between Al-Hamishmar and “General Gur, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army,” who recounted with unpretentious candor of the Army’s atrocities against civilians. General Gur ended by saying that in the thirty years, since their Independence War, “we have been fighting against the civilian [Arab] population which inhabited the villages and towns, and every time that we do it, the same question gets asked: should we or should we not strike at civilians?” Summed up, “official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse.” (pp. xi-xii; 224). And as Edward Said pointed out, “not a single U.S. newspaper” carried this interview.

  Regarding the Jewish “unilateral withdrawal” plan from the “Occupied Territories,” columnist Haroon Siddiqui quotes the Jewish State’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, as saying: “We would be completely separate from the majority of the Palestinian population and preserve a large and stable majority in Israel.29 And this declaration was made in 2006. (Italics/emphasis added).

 Professor Noam Chomsky in his book Pirates & Emperors–International Terrorism in the Real World, notes as part of the “doctrine” of Zionism is that the Jewish state “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.” (p. 33. Italics/emphasis added).

 (Professor Chomsky has given an insight into the usage of the term “terrorism”: “The terms “terrorism“ and “retaliation” also have a special sense in U.S. New-speak. “Terrorism refers to terrorist acts by various pirates, particularly Arabs. Terrorist acts by the emperor and his clients are termed “retaliation” or perhaps “legitimate pre-emptive strikes to avert terrorism” quite independently of the facts.”(p. 29). (Please read these books –Said’s and Chomsky’s).    

 

   Plus the daily tribulations the Palestinians face at their Jewish occupiers/usurpers. It could hardly be trumpeted then that the Jewish state “has ever adhered to a higher standard of human rights, been more sensitive to the safety of innocent civilians, tried harder to operate under the rule of law, or been willing to take more risks for peace.”

   

   The Toronto Star –Wednesday, April 30, 2008, A familiar song, but in a different land,” by Oakland Ross, p. AA2– reported that “RAM FM, an English-language” non-political affiliated radio station allowing Jews and Palestinians to voice their views in “Israel;” were raided by “Israeli police,” “arresting seven” employees –who were “held overnight and interrogated at length;” and brought in “leg-irons, shackles and hand-cuffs” before a judge– and “confiscating $70,000 worth of broadcasting equipment.” With the explanation that RAM FM had “installed an unlicensed secondary transmitter” which “interfered with commu-nications” at the airport.

    Employees arrested “held overnight and interrogated at length”? And brought hog-tied before a judge? And equipment confiscated? All because the boss installed an “unlicensed transmitter”? Whew! Wonder what would have happened if they were suspected “terrorists,” or worse, “terrorists”?

   This station was in operation for some “eighteen months.” Is this how long it took to determine that its transmitter was affecting airport communications or was “unlicensed”?  Accepting, for the sake of argument that the desert heat may make some officials and/or workers sleepy and they like to indulge in mighty long siestas. One would expect that the “civilized” and the “intelligent” not to mention the “democratic” response to such an infraction would first be to instruct the owner to correct the problem. Or, if the interference is dramatic enough, given that people’s lives are in the air (never mind the lives of Palestinians that are on the ground), one can understand booting the employees out and barricading the station. May be even slapping the boss with a fine. But to use Gestapo/jack-boot measures? Lest we forget now.

 

26. Regarding Palestinians resistance to Jewish occupation, if the situation was reversed, Sam Harris writes: “Ask yourself, what are the chances that the Palestinians would show the same restraint in killing Jews if the Jews were a powerless minority living under their occupation and disposed to acts of suicidal terrorism? (At least Sam Harris admits, even if unwittingly, that Jews are occupiers). It would be no more likely than Muhammad’s flying to heaven on a winged horse.” (p. 135)

  

Response: If this is an attempt to legitimize Jewish occupation of Palestine and/or justify their callous military attacks on the hapless and defenseless Palestinians, it is a pathetic one.

  First, no Court of Justice would deem as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” or “coercion and duress”–as was said to have been exerted by the U.S. on certain countries outside the Muslim world in order to effect the Partition of Palestine. (Wonder why Muslims have not challenged this theft of Palestine in the World Court).

   Second, a mugger has no “right” whatever to “retaliate” against his victim if his victim turns on him: the mugger being the transgressor to begin with. Likewise, the occupier/usurper, being the transgressor, has no “right” to “retaliate” against his victim–the occupied. “Retaliation” is the “right” of victims! And in this case, Jewish occupiers/usurpers of Palestine have NO “right” to “retaliate.” This “right” to “retaliate” is the Palestinians’!

  

    As to “Muhammad’s flying to heaven on a winged horse.” The Prophet Mohammad’s journey to heaven is known as the Isra –trip from the Sacred Masjid (the Ka’bah) in Makkah to the Remote/Farthest Masjid (Al-‘Aqsa, not to be confused with the Dome of the Rock) at Jerusalem– and the Mi’raj –trip to the heavens–(Qur’an 17:1; 53:1-18). Both the Isra and the Mi’raj are believed to have been undertaken on the same night. The Isra is believed to be the first stage in the Prophet’s Mi’raj (Ascension).

  If chance (atheism) can produce a universe of such immensity and beauty; gives forms of symmetry and precision; sight, hearing, speech; complimentary genitals; systems for eating, digesting, evacuating, procreating, suckling; to reproduce in womb and eggs; photosynthesis in plants; bees to make honey; porcupine with quills; skunk with spray; vipers with venom; spider with webs; bat with sonar; magnetism; electricity; oxygen and the several other gases; etc; (and, religiously, if God can take Enoch and Jesus, and Elijah in a “chariot of fire,” to heaven) then certainly Allāh the Omnipotent Creator can effect “Muhammad’s flying to heaven on a winged horse.”

(Notably, whereas some Muslims are of the view that this journey of the Prophet was physical –undertaken bodily– others hold it to be spiritual –a vision. Each party citing its own point of reference; though according to a lengthy narration in Bokhari Vol. 9, # 608, this journey seemed to have been a spiritual one, as it records that at the beginning, when the angels came to the Prophet he was “sleeping,” and the end records that after this journey “The Prophet then awoke”.

M. H. Haykal expressed in his book The Life Of Muhammad that much of the descriptions surrounding the Mi’raj are “the product of pure imagination.” (p.144). 

 Whether this journey of the Prophet was literal or visionary is irrelevant; what is of consequence is its significance. As Muhammad Ali explains, the Mi’raj “indicated his triumph in the world,” and his being carried to the Mosque at Jerusalem “signified that he would also inherit the blessings of the Israelite prophets,” which finds resonance in Jesus’ prophecy that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–Matthew 21: 43).

 

27. “The basis for liberalism in the doctrine of Islam seems meager to the point of being entirely illusory. (Which Qur’an have you been consulting). …With respect to Islam, the liberal tendency is to blame the West for raising the ire of the Muslim world, through centuries of self-serving conquest and meddling, while conservatives tend to blame other contingent features of Middle East, Arab, or Muslims history. The problem seems to have been located everywhere except at the core of the Muslim faith –but faith is precisely what differentiates every Muslim from every infidel (or differentiates every infidel from every Muslim; incidentally, “infidel” was a Christian term to differentiate non-Christians from Christians). Without faith, most Muslim grievances against the West would be impossible even to formulate, much less avenge.” (pp. 137-138).

  

Response: Was it faith that propelled the Allies of World War II against Germany; Britain against Argentina (over the Falklands Island); America to invade Granada and Iraq, and to be in Afghanistan?

   Muslim “grievances against the West” is not about faith, it is mostly about the arrogance and injustice of the West –the theft of Palestine being the nucleus.

   That “The basis for liberalism in the doctrine of Islam seems meager to the point of being entirely illusory.”

   It is this same “liberalism” –of prostitution, narcotics, pornography, and even of drunkenness, etc– within itself that the West is trying to extricate itself from. It is this same Western “liberalism” that has library-readership under scrutiny; people held with-out charge or trial; and people judged without the accused seeing the evidence against him or without him ever facing his accuser.

  Islamic “liberalism” gives us freedom of sobriety, chastity, and society –freedom from drunkenness; promiscuity; narcotics; pimping and prostitution; pornography; unwed mothers and fathers and abandoned children and even traumatized individuals (traumatized by not knowing the identity of their biological parents); AIDS; syphilis; gonorrhea; robbers; rapists; murderers; gambling; child pornography; and sexually-diseased children. (Maybe the list is longer. Marathon-long).

 

  Islamic “liberalism” gives us freedom of government–(Qur’an 4:58; 3:158; 5:38; 42: 38); freedom of belief–(Qur’an 2:256; 3: 20; 9:107-108; 10:99-100; 16:125; 24:54; 50: 45; 76:3; 109:1-6); freedom of movement, thought, and expression–(Qur’an 4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); freedom in pursuit of knowledge, acquisition of wealth and property–(Qur’an 2:274-275, 276-282; 20:114; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10); and the exercise of justice–(Qur’an 4:58, 105, 135; 7:29; 16:90; 57:25).

(And whereas Islam has one law for everyone–from King to peasant–the self-styled “democracy” has two laws, one for the elite –diplomatic immunity– and one for the proletariat. Then there is the obscene divorce law that penalizes the man to support his wife for the rest of her unmarried life; even though she may have a legion of bed-mates. There is no system –secular or religious– on the face of this earth that is superior to the system of Islam).

    

28. Regarding Noam Chomsky criticism of America’s bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals in Sudan in 1998, Harris in opposing Chomsky’s view, writes: “But let us now ask some very basic questions that Chomsky seems to have neglected to ask himself: What did the U.S government think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda. (“Al Qaeda” could use a similar argument that it was destroying the World Trade Centre because it is the financial heart of the U.S., to collapse its economy, for whatever reason they believe). Did the Clinton administration intend to bring about the deaths of thousands of Sudanese children? No. (“Al Qaeda also could claim it did not “intend” to kill thousands; would it have been accepted if “Al Qaeda” had parachuted the passengers out of the planes and destroyed the WTC before employees arrived?). Was our goal to kill as many Sudanese as we could? No. Were we trying to kill anyone at all? Not unless we thought members of Al Qaeda would be at the Al-Shifa facility in the middle of the night. (Couldn’t “Al Qaeda” use the same argument that it believed government/ military officials were working at the WTC?). Asking these questions about Osama bin Laden and the nineteen hijackers puts us in a different moral universe entirely.” (Really? So America, having all manner of armaments, has the right to fly thousands of miles away and bomb the facility of another country, whether it was making pills or plutonium, because it has the right to prevent others from having what it has? And we wonder why the world is so wobbly like “waltzing mice”. Though this is not to justify the bombing of the WTC).(pp. 139-141).

    

29. “As a culture, we have clearly outgrown our tolerance for the deliberate torture and murder of innocents.” (But we have not outgrown our “tolerance” to outsourcing them). (p. 144)

  

Response: What about the “torture and murder” of mere suspects?  Should a state that outsources “torture and murder of innocents” still be crowned with this honor of having “outgrown” its “tolerance for the deliberate torture and murder of innocents”?

    

30. “Chomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. (Why then condemn “suicide bombers” for causing deaths of Jewish children: their parents have “knowingly” placed them in this “jeopardy” by themselves being occupiers). The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. Makers of automobiles know this as well (why then are they sued for selling faulty products? They’re only “collateral” damage). So do makers of hockey sticks, baseball bats ….”  Where ethics are concerned, intentions are everything.” (Didn’t Hitler also have good intentions –producing a super race? Something people seem to be considering now –using DNA technology to customize babies. And using early pregnancy test to abort the “inferior” female). (pp. 146-147).

  

Response: Whereas a parent (and even a mature child) knows the risk involved and has a choice in buying any of these items, the child (and parents) of “collateral damage” has no choice in bombs falling on his or her head.  

  And if “Where ethics are concerned, intentions are everything,” why haunt honorable Hitler for holocausting Jews: (nail whatever qualifier you like to this cross of “intentions”), given that both Jews and Christians believe that Jews killed Jesus, the Christians’ son of God (and even God Himself, as Christians believe that Jesus is also God), what nobler “intentions” is there than to scourge the evil that killed the son of God (and even God Himself); thus, rather than crucify Hitler on the dubious cross of “anti-Semitism” he should be canonized with the halo of saint-hood.

 (Allāh revealed, and research has unearthed, that Jesus was not killed or crucified, and that son of God belief is a remnant of paganism–Qur’an 4:157-159; 9:30. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din has detailed the pagan inheritance of Christianity in his revealing book The Sources of Christianity).

   

31. Unlike a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Sam Harris, glorifying Jainism, wrote: “A rise of Jain fundamentalism would endanger no one. In fact, the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely. (Even more than atheism?) We would lose more of our crops to pests, perhaps (observant Jains generally will not kill anything, including insects), but we would not find ourselves surrounded by suicidal terrorists or by a civilization that widely condones their actions.” (p. 148).

   

   Response: Then we can all die from starvation!  After the pests have destroyed all the crops, and as Jainism would not have us kill the cattle (which might already be dead anyway from having no crops to feed on), instead of dying from service to Allāh (and service to all honest citizens, in pursuit of the ideals of truth, justice, and freedom) we will all die from stupidity. (Since we will die anyway. Better to die of starvation and reincarnate as a king or even attain moksa –liberation from the cycle of deaths and rebirths– than eat the cow and risk being reborn as a cockroach, only to be gobbled up by a chicken or be stomped on. Or worse, having to go through the reincarnation chain all over again –from “primitive microbes all the way up the ladder to “human beings and demi-gods.” Though, either way it would all be pointless: there’d be nothing to eat. Not even the insects!)  We do not need the bomb to annihilate us: stupidity is just as lethal

   

   Jainism will also watch the tiger maul the child and will not fire the gun nor throw him a “sword”–according to karma, in a past life the child was the tiger mauling the tiger who then was the child; he was now being mauled in repayment of his deeds in an equal and opposite reaction. Sam Harris should pray to Allāh that he is never in such a need and be surrounded by Jainism.

  The Muslim would do both for you: speed the bullet and swing the “blade.” (Yes. Even though your brothers and sisters are occupying/usurping Muslim Palestine –and even though you may be supporting this occupation/usurpation– while the world looks on in self-inflicted impotence sanctioning the horrors of it all as the Frankenstein it created runs amok over its helpless and defenseless victims).

    

32. “According to Zakaria, the key to Arab redemption is to modernize politically, economically, and socially–and this will force Islam to follow along the path to liberalism.” (p. 148).

  

Response: As already shown, Islam is “liberalism.” Islam does not have to conform to Muslims; Muslims have to conform to Islam. Had the “Arabs” (Muslims in general) not sectified/polarized themselves and were following Islam they (we) would yet be leaders of the world. The Qur’an gives success–(Qur’an 20:1-2). Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant. Islam is the religion of science and progress.

    

33. “We cannot wait for weapons of mass destruction to dribble out of the former Soviet Union –to pick only one horrible possibility– and into the hands of fanatics.” (But who are the “fanatics” –those who fight for their rights or those who deny these rights?) (p. 151).

 

Response: True. But aren’t those who believe they have the best system and do all they can to impose it onto others also “fanatics”?

   China may consider its system to be the best: its people have jobs and wealth (and poverty, as democracies), can worship secretly, and probably the best economy in the world today. Would China be deemed a ‘fanatic’ for trying to impose its system onto others?

    Doesn’t the U.S. consider itself above the rule of the World Court?

   And if the West believes it has the best system and takes the right to impose it on Muslims, doesn’t Muslims, knowing they have the best system, have the right to impose it upon the West? Why balk then at those Muslims who believe they have the right to impose Islam on other nations (though Islam does not give them this right: the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Message not to enforce belief in it)?

    

34. “Is Islam compatible with a civil society? (And what is a civil society–drunkenness and lewdness?) Is it possible to believe what you must believe to be a good Muslim, to have military and economic power, and to not pose an unconscionable threat to the civil societies of others? I believe that the answer to this question is no (Your belief is wrong. Islam is a “civil” society. Islam is a threat only to the occupier, usurper, oppressor, and exploiter). If a suitable peace (suitable to whom?) is ever to be achieved between Islam and the West, Islam must undergo a radical transformation (wrong! It is the West that needs to undergo a radical transformation –she must return Palestine to Muslims, stop running around the world like a “wild ass of a man*: stop assassinating, stop subverting governments and stop trying to control other nations and/or their resource[s]). ….Otherwise, we will be obliged to protect our interests in the world with force–continually.” (pp. 151-152).

  

Response: This is the pinnacle of arrogance –“our interests.” The fulcrum on which the “axis of evil” revolves. What about the “interests” of others?  The West can have “interests” in other peoples’ lands, but these people cannot have “interests” not even in their own lands.   

        *(Genesis 16:12, The Torah, The Jewish Publication Society Of America).

    

35. Sam Harris notes: “Fundamentalist Christians support Israel because they believe that the final consolidation of Jewish power in the Holy Land –specifically the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple– will usher in both the Second Coming of Christ and the final destruction of the Jews.” (Aren’t Jews here being made into a “patsy”: prodded to effecting their own annihilation for the benefit of Christians? Instead of accepting Islam, as they are required in their covenant with God, and “live” free of Divine chastisement to the Resurrection, and in peace with Divine favors in this world and the next). “At a 1971 dinner, (President) Reagan told California legislator James Mills that ‘everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.’” (Christians trying to prepare/hasten the time and season of God? This is amusing). (pp. 153; 266 note 1).

  

Response: Christians are expecting Jews to self-destruct so they can sit with Christ in judgment over others, and Jews are expecting a Messiah to come to liberate them. This ought to be interesting –which one will triumph. Bets anyone?

   What does it matter who will be in charge of the Holy Land at Jesus’ supposed return? Whether as God, son of God, or as prophet of God he is disposed to truth and justice. Are the prophets of Armageddon dedicated to truth and justice? How rightly Jesus says–about the Day of Judgment (when all people will be called with their respective leaders–Qur’an 17:71–to be witness as to his instructions to them, and they will be seeking their leaders intercession before Allāh); Jesus stated it eloquently and unambiguously: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity–(Matt. 7: 22-23). Which words of Jesus finds consonance in the Qur’an 5:116-117: “And when Allāh will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allāh? He will say: Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to (say)…I said to them nothing save as Thou didst command me: Serve Allāh, my Lord and your Lord–(see Mark 12:29); and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou dist cause me to die Thou wast the Watcher over them. And Thou art Witness of all things.”

(Christians are waiting the return of Jesus, but Jehovah’s Witnesses imply that Jesus already returned, though he was “invisible.”30

 Jews are awaiting their Messiah, but the Old Testament does not speak of an eschatological Messiah–coming of a king in the last days–to redeem the Israelites–see Ency, Britannica; 15th Edn; Vol; 11; Art; Judaism).

 God sending a Messiah to redeem Jews and their land would contradict His decree that power and prophethood would be taken from the Israelites, who are to follow Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); contradict His sending a prophet like Moses, whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18: 15-19); contradict His sending the Comforter who will give “all truth”–(John 14:15-16; 16:12-13); contradict His taking His kingdom from Jews and giving it to an-other people–(Matt. 21:43); contradict His decree that Jerusalem would cease to be the focus of Divine worship –(John 4:21; Isaiah 60:7; 65:15; Haggai 2:9; Malachi 1:11); contradict His sending “another” angel with the “everlasting gospel”–(Rev.14:6; as the everlasting gospel –the Qur’an–was yet to come the BIBLE IS RENDERED OBSOLETE); and also contradict His decree to chastise Jews to the Resurrection (unless they follow Islam).  (See JUDAISM).

   

   Regarding “Solomon’s Temple.” Allāh, the All-knowing God, tells us in His Qur’an 17:1 that He took the Prophet Mohammad to this shrine which He refers to as a Masjid/Mosque not “Temple.” This shrine of Solomon in Jerusalem was not present at the time of the Prophet Mohammad’s journey –Isra/Mi’raj. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 6c. BC, and again in 70 A.C. (After Christ) by the Romans. The Prophet Mohammad was taken to the site of this Masjid/Mosque.

  Since Islam was not yet established how could this shrine of Solomon be called Masjid/Mosque and not Temple or Synagogue? All prophets are/were Muslims; they are paternal brothers–(Bokhari Vol. 4 # 651-652). Solomon, though a Jew by nationality, was Muslim by faith. The shrines of prophets, though called by a name according to their languages/races are in fact Masjids/Mosques, the name of the shrine of Muslims. Thus, Jewish claim that a “Temple” of Solomon was on the Mount has no Divine foundation. There is no “Temple Mount” but Divinely and correctly “Masjid/Mosque Mount.”

 

  That the shrines built by Jinns for Solomon are noted as Synagogues–(Qur’an 34:13)–is so because this is the name by which Jewish shrines are known. That this ‘Masjid/Mosque on the Mount’ is the “personal” shrine of Solomon is evidenced by the fact that it is the only one recognized by Jews as “Temple of Solomon.”

    And, as Solomon was a Muslim and taught Islam (which does not have a “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; and as Jews believe they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others which is implying that God is unjust –choosing people on the basis of race, a factor in which we have no choice) Muslims, spiritually, are closer to Solomon than Jews are to Solomon. In fact, those who call themselves Jews may not even be descendants of the Biblical Fathers –Jacob and his twelve sons– but rather descendants of the eighth-century Khazar, a Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism. (See JUDAISM).

  This Masjid/Mosque of Solomon is referred to as the Remote/Farthest Mosque –though there may have been shrines farther than it– simply because it is a shrine built by a prophet, who was a Muslim, for a prophet–(2 Chron. 6:1-11) and hence a Masjid/ Mosque. (For more on this see AL-AQSA MOSQUE).

    

36. It is no accident that people of faith often want to curtail the private freedom of others.” (p. 159).

  

Response: In Islam, unless it affects society, what a person does in the privacy of his home is not a matter for the state. The Prophet is reported as saying that it is permissible to put out the eyes of someone who peeps into your house without your consent–(Muslim, # 5370).

   Conversely, government(s) (who are not of “faith”) “curtail the private freedom of” prostitutes (criminalizing prostitution: consensual sex between adults); marijuana smokers; watchers of kiddie-porn (invading their homes and seizing computers and/or other materials); smokers (banning cigarettes to under 18); customers of and keepers of “bawdy-houses” (adults in a private quarter); drinkers of alcohol (making it illegal for people under 18 to drink); teenagers to have sex (regulating under 18 who they can have sex with); monitor what people read and their phone conversations. Perhaps the critic can find more instances of such government(s’) curtailment of the “private freedom of others.”

    

37. “While there is surely an opposition between reason and faith ….From the perspective of faith, it is better to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors than to find creative ways to uncover new truths in the present.” (p. 165).

  

Response: That Islam does not require one to “to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors” is cemented in this verse:

    “And when it said to them,

 “Follow what Allāh has revealed,”

 they say: “Nay, we follow that wherein we

 found our fathers.

 What! Even though their fathers had

 no sense at all, nor did they

 follow the right way”

 (Qur’an 2: 170).

 

   There may an “opposition between reason and faith” in other religions but not in Islam: Islam teaches that reason is the door to Allāh, God. Through His Qur’an Allāh calls on man to reason, arguments and examples. (The materials on this topic is voluminous. Muhammad Ali has dealt at length with this subject in his comprehensive work The Religion of Islam. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org)

   Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals“And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, so they have no sense;” “They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not. They are as cattle; nay, they are more astray” “Surely, the vilest of beasts, in Allāh’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not;” “Or thinkest thou that most of them hear or understand? They are but as the cattle; nay, they are further astray from the path”–(Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22; 25:44). Seemingly, there is none lower than one who has the capacity of rea-son and does not use it.  

   Allāh instructs us to pray: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge–(Qur’an 20:114). One who follows blind faith has no need of knowledge.  And the noble Messenger of Allāh exhorts us to go even to China (meaning even far away) in order to acquire knowledge. And that: ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’  Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes:

 

“Islam made reason the judge in everything, whether in religion or in conviction and faith itself. God said: “And the case of those who disbelieve is like that of a person who hears the sound of a call but who does not distinguish any word or idea. To talk to them is like talking to the deaf, dumb, and blind. Those who disbelieve simply do not use their reason, and neither do they understand”–(Qur’an 2:171). Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abduh wrote: “This verse clearly asserts that taqlid (Imitation of the ancestors, conservatism.–Tr.) without reason or guidance is the prerogative of the disbelievers, that man is not a convinced Muslim unless he has reasoned out his religion, known it in person, and become personally convinced of its truth and validity. Whoever, therefore, has been brought up so as to acquiesce without reason and to act without knowledge and wisdom –even though he may be virtuous– is not a convinced Muslim. Religious conviction does not have for its purpose the subjugation of man to the good as if he were an animal. Rather, its purpose is that man may, by the use of reason and the pursuit of knowledge, rise to the level where he will do the good because he fully knows that it is in itself good and acceptable to God, and avoid the evil because he fully knows its undesirable consequence and harm.

 ….The Qur’an has called upon men to look into the universe and to discover its construction and structure. It commanded men to do so in the conviction that their investigation of the structure of the universe would lead them to the discovery of God as well as of His unicity –May He be adored!”

 “Indeed, the call to look into the universe to discover its laws and to arrive at the conviction that God is its creator is repeated a hundred times in the various Surahs of the Qur’an. All these Qur’anic invitations are directed to man’s rational faculties in the expectation that he will consider, search for and discover the truth, so that his religious conviction might be rational and truly supported by the facts. The Qur’an constantly warns its readers not to adopt uncritically and blindly the ideas and prin-ciples of the forefathers, but to have faith in man’s personal capacity to reach the truth.” (The Life of Muhammad, pp. 522, 523, 524).   

   

  If Islam had taught that “it is better to ape the behavior of one’s ancestors than to find creative ways to uncover new truths in the present” the Prophet would not have exhorted Muslims to seek knowledge; and Muslims would not have become masters of academic and science.

    

38. “Biological truths are simply not commensurate with a designer God, or even a good one. The perverse wonder of evolution is this: the very mechanisms that create the incredible beauty and diversity of the living world guarantee monstrosity and death. The child born without limbs, the sightless fly, the vanished species–these are nothing less than Mother Nature caught in the act of throwing her clay. No perfect God could maintain such incongruities (so if people with AIDS produce an “infected” child, and the women who took the fertility drug, thalidomide, and gave birth to limbless children, God is to be blamed for their defects?). It is worth remembering that if God created the world and all things in it, he created smallpox, plague, and filarias. (Allāh, God, also created antidotes for these diseases–Bokhari Vol; 7, # 582, 591, man has discovered some. The laws of God are in operation in nature –when two parts hydrogen unites with one part oxygen the result is water– and if elements that cause smallpox etc; should combine, is God to be blamed? Some of these diseases (like AIDS, syphilis, and gonorrhea) are caused by man violating the laws of nature, whether deliberately or not). Any person who inten-tionally loosed such horrors upon the earth would be ground to dust for his crimes.” (What about those who loosed the horrors of landmines, agent orange, nuclear bombings, and white phosphorous, etc; why are they not ground to dust for their crimes–instead, they are dressed in silken suits and sitting in palaces blowing fancy smokes and swallowing exotic juices, and plumed as Emperors).  …The deity who stalked the deserts of the Middle East millennia ago –and who seems to have abandoned them to bloodshed in his name ever since–  is no one to consult on questions of ethics. Indeed, to judge him on the basis of his works is a highly invidious undertaking.” (If you have two sons and instructed them to avoid crime and drugs, and if one or both of them engages in a life of crime and drugs would you be blamable?) (pp. 172-173).          

    

39. Sam Harris quotes Bertrand Russell, “Apart from logical cogency, there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb.” This is a devastating observation, and there is no retort to it.” (And whose “ethical valuations” are these?) (p. 173).

  

Response: Thus, according to atheism, as “The child born without limbs, the sightless fly, the vanished species –these are nothing less than Mother Nature caught in the act of throwing her clay;” then “Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb,” must also be “clay(s)” thrown off by “Mother Nature.”

   And since it is “Mother Nature caught in the act of throwing her clay” why blame Hitler and Stalin and others for their criminalities? In which event the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation is to close shop and make reparations to the Nazis (or their families) they hounded and prosecuted; and “Hitler and Stalin” should be canonized; and Spandau prison should be ornated into a shrine to Rudolph Hess.

 

   Allāh created man because He loved to be known, as the Prophet Mohammad taught. But Allāh did not leave us without purpose: He enjoined on us worship of Him; and the Prophet taught for us to love Allāh, and explained that ‘love of Allāh’ means to love His creatures–in other words service to the creatures of Allāh is ‘love’ of Allāh’ or ‘service to humanity is service to Allāh’. Further to His creation of man Allāh has given him knowledge and guidance between good and evil. Whether man heeds this guidance and puts that knowledge to good usage or evil is in his hands. While atheism let criminals who have escaped human judgment go unaccountable for their crimes, Islam hauls them before the Court of Allāh.

 (The magnificence of it is, in the Court of Allāh there is no diplomatic immunity, no legal technicality, no hung-jury/no mistrial; no one to buy off; and no godfather to shield behind his coat–in fact, the godfather would be hustling for a skirt for himself to hide behind–you did the crime, or was involved in it, you roast the time. And considering that one Divine day is equal to a thousand human years, even if the maximum time spent in Hell is twelve months, in Divine terms that would be 365,000 human years. Your buns are well toasted!)

 

   Regarding Sam Harris quoting Bertrand Russell: “there is to me something a little odd about the ethical valuations of those who think that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity, after preparing the ground by many millions of years of lifeless nebulae, would consider Himself adequately rewarded by the final emergence of Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb.”  What makes Bertrand Russell and you believe that “Hitler and Stalin and the H-bomb” are the “final emergence”?

    Revealingly, when Allāh told the angels that He would be putting a ruler in the earth the angels responded: “‘Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief in it and shed blood? And we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy Holiness.’ He said:I know what you know not’” –(Qur’an 2:30).

    

40. Sam Harris quotes Christopher Hitchens: “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (p. 176).

  

Response: Thus, atheism can be “dismissed without evidence.” Allāh has proved his existence through the Qur’an. Islam does not oppose evolution. As to the critic’s claim that the Qur’anic expressions are “putative:” it is the miracle of miracles that statements on science, and history –Pharaoh’s body saved, Roman victory over Persia, Alexander the Great, Jesus not killed/crucified– coming from the mouth of an unschooled desert dweller have proved true. (See QUR’AN-SCIENCE; QUR'AN-PROPHECIES; CREATION OR EVOLUTION).

    

41. “Rather than find real reasons for human solidarity, faith offers us a solidarity born of tribal and tribalizing fictions. … religion is one of the great limiters of moral identity, since most believers differentiate themselves, in moral terms, from those who do not share their faith.”

  

Response: Islam which reveals that all men are created equal (Qur’an 95:4), that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), all people were given prophets/mes-sengers 6:42; 10:47), all people given acts of worship (5:48; 22: 34, 67), not to revile the false gods of others (6:108), all religions are for Allāh (8:39), we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allāh, God, loves those who judge in equity, and because Allāh, God, is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135)–is for “human solidarity,” and is the enhancer of “moral identity.”

  Islam which stresses the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (Qur’an 16:91-92); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47)–is for “human solidarity,” and is the enhancer of “moral identity.”

  

   Islam which admonishes against dealing unjustly with men (Qur’an 2:279, 5:8); and not to rob them of their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), encourages the feeding of the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190); to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allah God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90)–is for “human solidarity,” and is the enhancer of “moral identity.”

 

  Islam which forbids against helping one another in sin, and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (Qur’an 5:2; 60:8-9); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make recon-ciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90, 8:61); because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75)–is for “human solidarity,” and is the enhancer of “moral identity.”

  

   Islam also teaches against wastefulness–(3:139; 6:142; 7:31; 32:7). And of the conservation and protection of the environ-ment:, the Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: “If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity”–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #41). The Prophet is also reported to have said: “If the Hour is about to take place while any one of you has a sapling in his hand, which he can cultivate before it takes place, let him cultivate it for he will be rewarded for it.”

 

   Muslims are urged to save water even if they have a river at their disposal. They are cautioned not to urinate in standing water, and, in times of war to avoid the cutting down of trees. Islam also issued guidelines for the protection of other beings. Allah God says in the Qur’an: “And there is no animal in the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but (they are) communities like yourselves…”–(Qur’an 6:38). And these creations, along with man, submit in prayer to Him–(Qur’an 24:41).  

    As all other beings form communities as man, it is only just that they are accorded the rights to existence and dignity similar to those given to humans. There are several sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, regarding this right and dignity of lower animals. Once, after a vision of the Hereafter, he is reported as saying: “I saw a woman and a cat was lacerating her with its claws. On enquiring, it was said that the woman had imprisoned the cat till it died of starvation and she neither fed it nor freed it so that it could feed itself”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 712). A man was granted forgiveness for giving water to a thirsty dog.

   The Prophet was asked if there was a reward in serving animals. To this the Prophet is reported to have replied, “(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being”)–(Bokhari Vol. 8 # 38). The Prophet also forbade the shooting of tied or confined animals; the cutting of the limbs or other parts of live animals; and the beating of animals on the face–(Bokhari Vol. 7 # 421; 424; 449).

   As the noble Messenger of Allah God says: “He who is not merciful to others, will not be treated mercifully” –(Bokhari Vol. 8 # 42).

    It cannot honestly be denied that the world today would benefit from a massive dose of Islamic values.

 

42. “Needless to say, the suffering of those who are destined for hell can never be as problematic as the suffering of the righteous If certain people cannot see the unique wisdom and sanctity of my religion, if their hearts are so beclouded by sin, what concern is it of mine if others mistreat them” (p.177).

 

Response: The “Islamic” response in item # 41 debunks such a view.

   Muslims are required to teach the Divine Message to mankind –not to enforce it or to be indifferent to their suffering– and, as angels pray for all mankind, to ask Allāh, God, to open the hearts of all people to Islam; to give justice to all irrespective of race, color or creed, and even against one’s self; and to fight on behalf of the oppressed.

    

43. On the “ticking-bomb” terrorist: “Imagine that a known terrorist has planted a large bomb in the heart of a nearby city. This man now sits in your custody. As to the bomb’s location, he will say nothing except that the site was chosen to produce the maximum loss of life. Given this state of affairs–in particular, given that there is till time to prevent an imminent atrocity–it seems there would be no harm in dusting off the strapado and exposing this unpleasant fellow to a suasion of bygone times.” (pp. 192-193).        

  

Response: If it is acceptable to inflict torture to save others. Then consider the scenario in which a mass-murderer went to his execution refusing (even under torture) to give to the families of his vic-tims the locations where he disposed of his victims. The parents and families of these victims, desiring to give their beloved sons and daughters a decent burial, would have the right to torture the murderer’s lawyer –if they believe the lawyer was given this information by his murderous client, and believe that because of lawyer-client confidentiality and him wanting to not tarnish his reputation and lose business, would not want to divulge this information– to obtain the locations of his victims.

   And if the murderer had gone to “confession” before his execution, the parents and families of these victims would the right to torture this priest–if they believe the priest was given this information by the murderer and that the priest would not want to divulge this information because of priest-sinner confidentiality–to obtain the locations of their beloved ones.

   The question that needs to be addressed is, why is this man “terrorist” and trying to kill innocents? If he is “terrorist” because of your injustice and is trying to kill innocents of yours because you are responsible for killing innocents of his how can torturing him be justified? (Though this does not justify him killing innocents).

  If he is “terrorist” because of your injustice, so it is acceptable to kill the innocents of his but when he tries to kill the innocents of yours in revenge you want to torture and/or kill him; let’s see the man (and woman) that would accept for himself and herself such a gruesome monstrosity.  

    

44. “Given the damage we were willing to cause to the bodies and minds of innocent children in Afghanistan and Iraq, our disavowal of torture in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seems perverse. If there is even one chance in a million that he will tell us something under torture that will lead to the further dismantling of Al Qaeda, it seems that we should use every means at our disposal to get him talking.” (p. 198).

  

Response: What makes you think Al Qaeda wouldn’t/haven’t change its plans?

   The question that needs to be answered is why did this man become a “terrorist”? Is he “terrorist” by choice or is he the product of the machinery that wants to torture him? If he is the product of the machinery that seeks to torture him how can torturing him be justified –this would be like the creator of Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein for what Frankenstein is.

   In his book Why Terrorism Works, (p. 148) Alan M. Dershowitz gives a similar argument for “torture;” he notes: “What moral principle could justify the death penalty for past individual murders and at the same time condemn nonlethal torture to prevent future mass murders?” Nonlethal torture is explained as “sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails.” (And to know, we were horrified at bamboo slivers “shoved under the fingernails” of prisoners). And if they should torture us as “suspected” spies?

   There is no comparison between these pictures Dershowitz that has painted. In the first, killing was committed. Punishment for unjustly taking the life of another is forfeiting of your own life–(Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12).

   Is it possible to tell one’s tolerance to “nonlethal” torture to ensure it will not result in death?–the torturer will become a murderer and subject to forfeiting his life. If the person is a suspect an innocent would have been tortured (and killed)–this may give birth to another “terrorist,” in revenge. If one is a convicted terrorist there is no certainty he has information about future terrorism –he would be unjustly “tortured.”

    If one is a convicted terrorist there is no certainty he has information about future terrorism –he would be unjustly “tortured.”

  

   If “torture” is justified to prevent future murders, then, if there is a clever lawyer who have murderers set free (some who may have committed “mass murders”) members of the victims (and society) would have the right to subject the lawyer to what is needed to obtain information on the guilty ones, and also that the lawyer does not defend “future” murderers; as well as to have this lawyer reveal how many murderers went free because of his defending them. (It is doubtful that victims and/or their families would care any about lawyer-client privilege; all they would care about is to get the criminals out of society. After all these criminals might be right now stalking them or their daughters or other members of their families. The victims and/or their families may even be ready to “shove” lethal non-sterilized needle or bamboo sliver under the fingernails of this lawyer in order to have him fess up).

    Injustice is the incubator of terrorism. It is not terrorism to fight the occupier, transgressor, and usurper. It is heroism!

   If man would extend to others the rights he exacts for himself billions will not be blown battling “terrorism.”

 

   (A word on capital punishment. While it is understandable that individuals who are convicted on circumstantial evidence should not be executed; there is no justification for not executing those clearly guilty of pre-meditated murder; the murder of children, the elderly, and those engaged in law enforcement.

 As for those who view capital punishment as barbaric. So, it is barbaric to take the life of people. But it is not barbarism to cut the necks of the dumb, innocent birds and animals to satisfy the mouth and belly.

 Should the murderer(s) facing life imprisonment desire another spree at crime, he only needs to be a “good” inmate till he is paroled. Then, he can again kill, and murder, and rob and be on the lam till he is again caught. Taxpayers –which may include victims and their families –will end up being hosed a second round to ensure his proper defense. Then end up being further squeezed to finance his feed, house, and clothing and maybe even gym, television and library facilities, which some of the taxpayers cannot afford for themselves and children. In short, victims are penalized to defend and maintain their villains. What “moral principle” or what basic intelligence would succumb to this monumental idiocy?)

    

45. “Gandhi was undoubtedly the twentieth century’s most influential pacifist. The success he enjoyed in forcing the British Empire to withdraw from the Indian subcontinent brought pacifism down from the ethers of religious precept and gave it new political relevance.” (Pity this pacifism didn’t work for King in the U.S. It is doubtful that South Africa would have gotten rid of the scourge of apartheid if she had stooped to pacifism instead of brandishing the blade. And, but for the Mao-Mao the British Union Jack might still be flying over Kenya). (p. 202).

 

Response: Much hoopla is heaped on Gandhi’s non-violence.

  With no disrespect to Gandhi, India achieved independence because Gandhi was dealing with a civilized nation, Britain. Dictators would make ‘stew’ of “non-violence.” V. M. Tarkunde points out in his book, Radical Humanism, (p.33): “India’s national independence was the result, not so much of Gandhi’s civil disobedience, as of the economic and political changes which occurred in the world and in Great Britain itself during the anti-fascist World War. The ineffectiveness of civil disobedience against a ruthless and unprincipled authoritarian rule was demon-strated during the Emergency which was enforced in India in 1975 by Indira Gandhi.”

    Same goes for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. After fifty years, and in the bulwark of democracy (or as 9/11 has shown it’s just ‘bul’) King’s “dream” is yet a “dream.”

    Non-violence will not avail against head-hunters. It will get smoked.

    

46. Padmasambhava, (8th. century) was an “Indian Buddhist mystic.” His teachings seem to include “Tantric ritual, worship and yoga.” (Ency Brit;). Sam Harris notes the following teaching about the “nature of consciousness” by Padmasambhava. He wrote (Brackets are his): “The following text was found with closed eyes, on the first attempt, from among scores of books. I invite the reader to find anything even remotely like this in the Bible or the Koran.

 

 [I]n the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,  

             Awareness at that moment in itself is quite ordinary.

 And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly   (without any discursive thoughts),

 Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;

             Only a naked manifest awareness is present.

 (This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.

 It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.

             It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.

 However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

 It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

 (On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

 This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

 This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

                     –-Padmasambhava.

    One could live an eon as a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew and never encounter any teachings like this about the nature of consciousness. The comparison with Islam is especially invidious, because Padmasambhava was virtually Muhammad’s contemporary.” (p. 216).

   

Response: Mohammad also meditated. Perhaps he also experienced this “nature of consciousness.” One thing for certain we do know, he gave us better than the “nature of consciousness.” In fact, Mohammad has given us what no man has given us: past, present, and future –as there is no other Divine Messenger to come after Mohammad!

   The Qur’an is a Book of social, moral, spiritual, and intellectual guidance, for the benefit of self, society and the world.

   Mohammad meditated and worked; he fought wars to end injustice; brought man from the degradation of idolatry and man-worship and the irrationality and futility of polytheism; enthro-ned woman; liberated the slaves; ennobled the orphans; reshapened the altars of drunkenness and profligacy into shrines of sobriety and chastity; transformed tribal cut-throats into a nation of peace, unity and love; brought knowledge that catapulted backward camel drivers into thrones of Caesars and pioneered the way for world enlightenment (perhaps even benefiting Padmasambhava).

    Mohammad’s teachings brought developments to History and Geography, Political Economy and Sociology, Medicine and Pharmacy, Chemistry and Botany, Hospitals, Astronomy, Mathematics, Fine Arts, Education, Science and Learning –in fact, all branches of science. (And perhaps even the typewriter so one can quickly churn out volumes criticizing him).

 

   “Never has a people been led more rapidly to civilization, such as it was, than were the Arabs through Islam.”

 “And to it was also indirectly due the marvellous development of all branches of science in the Moslem world.”31

   

   Mohammad, through the Qur’an, taught us the three stages of the development of the soul to its perfection –(Qur’an 12:53; 75:2; 89:27); and has guided us on the path to meet God–the ultimate bliss–(Qur’an 6:31; 10:45; 19:95; 33:44; 36:55-58). Allāh has created everything in the heavens and the earth for our use–(Qur’an 2:29; 22:65; 31:20; 45:12-13); will make Muslims rulers in the earth–(Qur’an 24:55); and the inheritors of Paradise –(Qur’an 23:8-11; 43:70;58:22; 78:31-36; 85:11)–thus Muslims have the best of both worlds

   Mohammad, through the Qur’an, liberates woman–(Qur’an 2:187; 4:19-22); exalts her–(4:1; 9:71-72); gives her equality in material, moral and spiritual matters–(4:32, 7-10, 176-177; 3: 195; 33: 35; 4:124; 16:97; 43:70); honors her–(4:1); makes her a garment to man as he is hers–(2:187); gives her mutual rights–(2:228); makes her a protector of man as he is hers–(9:71); and establishes her as a source of bliss–(7:189; 30:21).

   Mohammad, through the Qur’an, made service to parents next to service to God–(Qur’an 17:23; 31:14). (Islam honors woman-hood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise).

 

   Mohammad, through the Qur’an, taught to deal justly (Qur’an 2:279, 5:8); not to rob men of their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self, parents, kins, or whether he be poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8); encourages feeding the needy and the poor, free the captives, help those in debt, care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or make mischief (26:183); not to trans-gress, or aid in sin and aggression (2:190; 5:2); to restrain anger and forgive (3:133); to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42: 40); instead of retaliation to reconcile, be patient and forgive (42:39-43; 24: 22; 3:133); to return evil with that which is better (23:96); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution (2:193); to make peace when the enemy desires (4:90; 8:61); freedom of religion–(2:256; 9:107-108; 10:99-100; 18:29; 24:54; 42:15; 50:45; 64:12; 109:1-6); freedom of movement, thought, and expression–(4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10); to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(4:58); to govern by consultation/counsel–(3:158; 5:38; 42:38); that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (95:4, 49:13); are to be judged by deeds (6: 133); the noblest are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7).

   What other teachings more can there be to effectuate eternal life; and to effectuate peace and justice and tenderness and benevolence in the domestic and in the world?  

   “One could live an eon (nay, one could live many eons) as a” Buddhist or atheist “and never encounter any teachings like” Mohammad’s in Buddhism or in atheism or in Padmasambhavaism or in Harrisism.

 

   Glory, praise, and thanks be to Allāh

 for sending us Mohammad.

 Honors unto Mohammad

 for bringing the world to our feet

 and eternity to our arms.

   

47. “A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous.” (p. 221).

  

Response: As shown in this presentation Islam has belied such a claim. Islam is for intellectual advancement and sound government.

   Islam is democracy, socialism, and dictatorship, all delicately balanced together. Islam is:

democracy: in that it allows one freedom of religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 9:107-108); freedom of movement, thought, and expression [though freedom of expression even in modern advanced societies would seem to have its limit when it advocates anarchy, and when it proves slanderous]–(4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10); to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(4:58); to govern by consultation/counsel –(3:158; 5:38; 42:38).

 (It is to be noted that Islamic democracy is unlike secular democracy. In secular democracy there are opposition parties, the laws are man-made; and laws usually are determined by the will of the majority–e.g. capital punishment; abortion. In Islam, since the laws are Divine injunctions, and are not based on the will of the majority, there is no need for an opposition. In the cases where secondary laws are required, owing to the progress of society, the legislation of such laws are not governed by the dictates of the majority, but are based on the principles of the Qur’an, and are formulated through consultation. Thus, under Islamic democracy there is no marginalization of any sector of society: one cannot prove his judgment/belief superior to the teaching of the Qur’an).

  

socialism: in that it is the duty of the State to utilize its income from the people (their Zakat/compulsory charity)–(Qur’an 9:60) to generate wealth for the welfare of its population and to care for the poor as well as the orphans.

 

dictatorship: whereas in secular dictatorship all power is held by a single person or a small party. In Islam, leadership is chosen by the people and the people are governed, not by the dictates of the leadership, but by the Qur’an and Sunnah.

 

   Islam is dictatorship in that the Leader (Caliph) rules for life, so long as he does so within the framework of Islam. No one (except crooks, maybe) would want to replace a just ruler.

   As Shari’ah is based on the Qur’an in which there is no injustice, the opinions of jurists in Shari’ah that discriminate are to be removed.

                                                  

48. Blasphemy. (p.224)

Response: There is no Qur’anic order to kill blasphemers. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an that: “when you hear the Signs of God being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk”–(4:140. Also 6:68). And, “Revile not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance”–(6:109). Clearly, there is no order to kill the deniers/ mockers/revilers of Allah.

  Allāh says: “They do blaspheme who say: “God is Christ the son of Mary.” “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity…”–(Qur’an 5:75, 76). If there was a law against blasphemy in Islam, according to these two verses there probably would have been no Christians in the dominion of the Prophet Mohammad during his reign; neither would there have been any Christians in the countries ruled by Muslims: they would either have had to revert to Islam, flee, or face imprisonment or death.

  Allāh says that Muslims will face “much abuse” from the People of the Book and the idolaters; but they must be “patient and keep your duty” (there is no order to kill)–(Qur’an 3:185).

   Allah says: “And those who molest the Messenger of Allah, for them is a painful chastisement” (this is a Madinan chapter revealed “in the ninth year” of the Hijrah, near the end of the Prophet’s mission. And there is no order to kill–(Qur’an 9:61). Even in the early Madinan chapter, there is no order to kill those who “annoy” the Prophet: they are “cursed” and would receive “an abasing chastisement”–(Qur’an 33:57). (There is a law of blasphemy in Judaism and Christianity, See ISLAM-BLASPHEMY).

    

49. “It is time we acknowledged that no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of our other faiths for religious tolerance and religious diversity.” (p. 225).

 

Response: Such an ignorant view of Islam has already been debunked in item # 41. Only one paragraph need be entered here to show that Islam is for “religious tolerance and religious diversity”:

    All men are created equal (Qur’an 95:4), we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), all people were given prophets/messengers 6:42; 10:47), all people given acts of worship (5:48; 22:34, 67), not to revile the false gods of others (6:108), all religions are for Allāh (8:39), we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allāh, God, loves those who judge in equity, and because Allāh, God, is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135).

 

   That “no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism.”

  Firstly, that which Jews and Christians believe –that Jews are God’s chosen people to the exclusion of other people; and that Jesus is Divine, inherited sin and vicarious atonement; respectively, are not teachings of the Bible. These doctrines have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason. These doctrines are assumed and propagated as Divine truths.

   Secondly, Judaism and Christianity may not share any “foundation” with Islam –as Jews do not believe in Jesus and Mohammad, and Christians do not believe in Mohammad– but Islam does share “foundation” in Divine “Judaism” and Divine “Christianity”:

 

 “He (Allāh) has made plain to you (Mohammad)

 the religion which He enjoined upon Noah

 and which We have revealed to thee,

 and which We enjoined on Abraham

 and Moses and Jesus –to establish religion

 and not to be divided therein”

 (Qur’an 42:13)

    

50. “The only angels we only need invoke are those of our better nature: reason, honesty, and love. The only demons we must fear are those that lurk inside every human mind: ignorance, hatred, greed, and faith, which is surely the devil’s masterpiece (If there is no God from whence the devil?). (p. 226).

 

Response: As shown, Islam is the “faith” that promotes “reason, honesty, and love;” and conducts the noble jihad against “ignorance, hatred, (and) greed.”

    

51. Harris notes that he also received correspondent “from Muslims who agree with my general disparagement of their religion.” (Afterword, p. 229).

  

Response: Such an agreement by Muslims is a sad reflection of their pathetic level of knowledge of our religion. Such Muslims would do well to invest some time in learning our religion than have their intellect blinded by dazzling literature (and speech).

    

52. Sam Harris: “…religious faith is the belief in historical and metaphysical propositions without sufficient evidence. When the evidence for a religious proposition is thin or nonexistent, or there is compelling evidence against it, people invoke faith …. Faith is simply the license they give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail. When rational inquiry supports the creed it is championed, when it poses a threat, it is derided; sometimes in the same sentence. Faith is the mortar that fills the cracks in the evidence and the gaps in the logic, and thus it is faith that keeps the whole terrible edifice of religious certainty still looming dan-gerously over our world.” (Please give examples of these inquiries that threaten religion/Islam. This may be true of other religions but not of Islam). (pp. 232-233).

 

Response: Blind Faith is no passport to paradise: Reason is the door to God.  The atheist can deny the existence of God; the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God. Throughout the Qur’an Allāh calls on man to belief through reason, arguments and examples.

   Belief in Allāh means: Allāh is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute; on Whom all depend; He begets not; nor is begotten; there is none like Him; He incarnates not; has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; needs no “satisfaction” to forgive sins; belief in all His Angels; Books; Prophets; Resurrection; Judgment; Heaven and Hell.

  Faith does not mean acceptance of Allah without proof of His existence. Allāh has proven His existence through the Qur’an. The Qur’an makes scientific pronouncements, prophecies and gives insights to the Doomsday. (See QURAN).

   Maurice Bucaille on the Prophet and Qur’an:

 

“How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merit, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at the time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncements on the subject?”

   “In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad’s day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements in the Qur’an which are connected with science could have been the work of man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur’an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms.” (The Bible, The Qur’an and Science, pp. 125, 251-252. Emphasis, “red” added).  

   

   Reason also dictates that creations could not have come by chance. It would be a subjugation of reason to entertain that chance could give forms of symmetry and precision; sight, hearing, speech; equip us with genitals; systems for eating, digesting, evacuating; procreating, suckling; reproduce in the womb and in eggs; instill the system of photosynthesis; equip bees to make honey; porcupine with quills, skunk with spray, vipers with venom; spider with webs, and bat with sonar. Etc…..

   While many religious beliefs “have been swept away by the new physics” findings, such as the “existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, organizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionist philosophy that we are all nothing but moving mounds of atoms.”32 “Everything we see in the sky, like everything on earth, happens in a rational orderly way.”33

   Twentieth-century man discovers what the Seventh century denizen of the desert, Mohammad, conveyed to us: all things are chained to the law; it is Allāh “Who creates, then makes complete, And Who measures, then guides”(Qur’an 87:2-3; 25:2; 54:49).

  

   In Islam,Creationism is not opposed to evolutionism. The Arabic Rabb (Lord) signifies the fostering of a thing in such a manner as to make it attain one condition after another until it reaches its goal of completion”–(M. Ali).

“The principle of evolution, it should not be forgotten, was taught to the world for the first time in Islam. The Qur’an began with a chief Divine Attribute –Rabb-ul-‘Alamin.…It also means the Originator of things and their Combiner to create new forms. It means the Law-giver, Who frames Laws under which He propounds the shapes which things must assume and the ratio and proportion in which various ingredients must combine with each other. He is the Regularizer, i.e., the Lord Who puts things on the way to perfection. He is the Arranger of the different stages through which they have to pass on their way to completion.”–(Ref. Qur’an 87:1-3).”34   (See QUR’AN).

    

53. In response to the claim that the “violence we see in the Muslim world is the product of politics and economics, not faith,” Sam Harris states: “The speciousness of this claim is best glimpsed by the bright light of bomb blasts. Where are the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. (Maybe like Jews they also prefer life to death; or perhaps unlike Muslims who have an “al fresco bordello” of virgins to look forward to, Christians don’t care much to watch the “lion" "eat straw like the ox.” Isaiah 11:6-7). Where for that matter are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?…They do not exist. (Tibet was not stolen from them and given to another people. Or maybe they do not have the know-how to make bombs; and maybe the arms dealers are more concerned with Chinese cheap labor than selling fire-works to Tibetans). What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.  ….The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific doctrines about martyrdom and jihad that now directly inspire Muslim terrorism. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging a theology that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world. Wherever these events occur, we will find Muslims tending to side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is the malignant solidarity that religion breeds. It is time that sane human beings stopped making apologies for it. And it is time for Muslims –especially Muslim women– to realize that nobody suffers the consequences of Islam more than they do.” (p. 233-234).

  

Response: That Muslim women “suffers the consequences of Islam,” is patent “claptrap and lip-talk” and ignorance of the teachings of Islam. There is no “consequences” in Islam for women to suffer. Islam has elevated Woman and given her rights that left her nothing for which to strive. (See WOMEN and JIHAD).

   As already shown, Islam allows fighting in the pursuit of truth, justice and freedom: against the occupier, usurper, oppressor, and exploiter. And the occupied has the right to fight with whatever means available and by whatever methods; man has no right to edict judgment against him; this judgment is for Allāh.

   Whereas Islam does not sanction killing of civilians in war, all those in the land of the occupied are “occupiers.” If they do not wish to be objects against liberation they must leave (some half a million Iraqi babies and children were killed because of sanctions against Saddam Hussein, and the responsibility for their deaths was placed at the feet of Saddam Hussein. Jews blitzkrieg of civilian Lebanon and Hezbollah was blamed for Hezbollah setting up in these areas).

  Jews have a right to be in Palestine. Not the state. Let America give the Jews Texas or California for their homeland. Or Britain, the instigator of the theft of Palestine, can give Jews England or Scotland or Ireland or Wales.

   

   As to the question, “Where are the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers” and the “Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?” The best people to answer this question are the Christians and the Buddhists.

   However, that there are no Christian suicide bombers seem obvious. Palestine is Muslim land; regardless of whether Muslim or Jew is in ownership, Palestine would still be non-Christian land, thus it is pointless for Christians to die for it. Or because being followers of the same Bible, Christians prefer Palestine to be of Jewish ownership–as Sam Harris himself notes (in item 35) “Fundamentalist Christians support Israel because they believe that the final consolidation of Jewish power in the Holy Land –specifically the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple– will usher in both the Second Coming of Christ and the final destruction of the Jews”– and thus would not militate against Jews. Or, since Christians expect their God/son of God, Jesus, to light down at Jerusalem, they want that Jerusalem be under the control of fellow followers of the Bible. Or maybe they are in no hurry to sit “with God” “at the right hand of God.” Or maybe they are hoping for the “Holy See” to bless them with another Crusade; so they can boot out both Muslims and Jews.

   It is not Islam’s “specific doctrines about martyrdom and jihad that now directly inspire Muslim terrorism,” it is “politics and economics” “that now directly inspire Muslim terrorism”:

   “Allāh forbids you not respecting those

 who fight you not for religion,

 nor drive you forth from your homes,

 that you show them kindness and deal

 with them justly.

 Surely Allāh loves the doers of justice.

 Allāh forbids you only respecting those

 who fight you for religion,

 and drive you forth from your homes

 and help (others) in your expulsion,

 that you make friends with them;

 and whoever makes friends with them,

 these are the wrongdoers.”

 (Qur’an 60:8-9).

   

   That it is “politics and economics” “that now directly inspire Muslim terrorism” is further evidenced by the following:

    To capitalize on Jewish influence in the Bolshevik party and keep Russia on Britain’s side in the war, Arthur Balfour, British foreign secretary, in November 1917, informed Lord Rothschild, a British Jew and banker, that: “His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”35

   But Britain reneged on her promise. The result was Jewish “terrorism” directed against the British. Eventually, the British gave up its mandate over Palestine.

  Shortly “after 1945” the American Government, under President Harry Truman, took the lead in the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Ismail Zayid notes:

“Sumner Welles affirmed: “By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world, that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to Partition.”” And “James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote: “The methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal.””36

  No Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” (This partition of Palestine is to be challenged in the World Court. Where are the legal brains dedicated to truth and justice?)

 

  Britain had no right to promise Muslim/Arab lands to Jews for a national homeland. America had no right to “pressure” non-Muslim countries to vote for the Partition Plan.

  The U.N. was not the sovereign owner of Palestine to apportion this land between Arab and non-Arab.*

 *(“Non-Arab” instead of Jews, is used to illustrate the mendacity of His Majesty’s Government: in the Balfour Declaration, Arabs are referred to as “non-Jewish.” Would the British people accept being referred to as the “non-Jewish” population, or as the “non-black” sector of Britain? To refer to Arabs in their own country and who were the majority as “non-Jewish” is blatant British arrogance).37

  

   In replanting the gardens of the world to suit their parasitic designs the Emperors sow the venomous seeds of hatred that grow into towering trees of conflict whose bitter fruits are tasted long after the sordid wretches are gone.                  

   Instead of lecturing Muslims to adulterate sublime Divine guidance (to facilitate uncontested occupation, oppression, usurpation, and exploitation) and demonize the noble jihad and martyrdom, Sam Harris must lecture the Emperor(s) to return Palestine to the Palestinians, stop running around in the world like a “wild-ass of a man,” stop subverting governments, and stop trying to control Muslim oil..

    There is no “problem with Islam;” there is “problem” with man. Pointedly, those who are dedicated to living off the backsides of others.

   

54. Sam Harris notes about America that “most of our conflicts of recent years have been fought in defense of Muslim populations: the first Gulf War was fought in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (Or was it for the flow of oil?), and was followed by a decade of our protection for the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Iraqi Shia in the south (or were they protected for possible use by the U.S. against Saddam Hussein when need be?); the intervention in Somalia was designed to relieve famine there; (so we war to prevent famine: right strategy, no people no food needed; what was the politics behind this war anyway?) and our intervention in the Balkans was for the purpose of defending Bosnians and Kosovars from marauding Christian Serbs (or was it because America feared the war spreading to other states?). Our original support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan belong in this category as well (or was it to de-claw the Soviet bear?).  As Berman says, “In all of recent history, no country on earth has fought so hard and consistently as the United States on behalf of Muslim populations.”” (p. 240, note # 10 for p. 30).

 

Response: Were these U.S. “protection” for Muslims or for American “interests”? How about America protecting the Muslims of Palestine, China– Eastern Turkistan (UIGHURISTAN), Chechnya, Kashmir? And people in Tibet, Rwanda, and Myanmar?

 

55. Sam Harris states: “The likening of the Israelis to the Nazis is especially egregious given that the Palestinians distinguished themselves as Nazi collaborators during the war years. (And America collaborated with Jews to kick Palestinians out of Palestine. Why didn’t America give Jews Texas or California for their homeland? Palestinians are not subjecting Jews to Nazi-like living. “Israelis” are like the Nazis–they occupy/usurp the Palestinians lands, slaughter them when they retaliate, forced them into horrific refugee camps –which may as well be likened to death camps– and subject them to nauseating humiliation and degradation and “en masse” death. In fact, Jewish treatment of Palestinians can be said to be more deplorable than Nazi treatment of Jews –considering that Jews should know better than to subject another people– and an innocent people at that who had nothing to do with Jewish suffering– to conditions that they claim was meted out to them). Their calculated attacks upon Jews in the 1930s and 1940s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of European Jews who would otherwise have been permitted to immigrate by the British (Why didn’t the British take Jews into England or Scotland or Ireland or Wales –the British did allow swarms of illegal refugee Jews into Palestine. Don’t blame Hajj Amin al-Husseini; blame the British. Jews were already scheming to wrestle Palestine from Muslims –since the eighteen hundreds, read Edward Said The Question of Palestine, but I suspect you already know this). This result did not appear to have been inadvertent. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinians….aspired to open his own death camp for the Jews in Palestine once the Germans had won the war (It may be argued that Jews opened their own death camps for Palestinians in their drive to eliminate Palestinian presence from Palestine)…As recently as 2002, Yasser Arafat, the head of the Palestinian Authority, referred to Husseini as a “hero.”” (And don’t Jews consider Menachem Begin, who butchered some 250 old men and women and children and newly born at Deir Yassin with knives and grenades, a “hero”? And also “heroized” Yithzak Shamir –by making him prime minister– and Baruch Goldstein who slaughtered some thirty Muslim worshippers in the Abraham Masjid in Hebron. It may be argued that al-Husseini only “aspired to open his own death camp for the Jews” but Jews actually opened their “death camp” for the Palestinians). (p. 264, note 35).

  

Response: By their own pronouncements and declarations Zionism came to Palestine with the sole motive of depopulating Palestine of its native Palestinians and populate it with alien Jews.  

    Zionism claims: “The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races,38 and that so-called “Israel” “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.”*

    Zionism expelled the Palestinians, massacred them to achieve statehood, forced them into squalid refugee camps, and slaugh-ters them to keep them in subjection. (And has now given us the Dec. 2008-Jan 2009 Hamas/Palestinian holocaust in Gaza).

    Clearly, Zionism is not only “racism,” Zionism is criminal. Every honest person is to be “anti-Zionism.”

   “Israelis” are like Nazis.

 

*(Prof. Noam Chomsky notes: “Zionism is thereby conceived as the doctrine that Israel must be accorded rights beyond those of any other state; it must maintain control of occupied territories, thus barring any meaningful form of self-determination for Palestinians; and it must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. It is perhaps of some interest that those who declare themselves “supporters of Israel” insist on the validity of the notorious UN resolution declaring Zionism to be racist.” (Pirates & Emperors –Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World, pp. 29-30. Italics/emphasis added).

  

56. Sam Harris notes Einstein as stating: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” (p. 271 note 44).

 

Response: As man can construct, control and send rockets to distant planets all on pre-set laws of operation and to execute certain functions, it is not impossible that there is a “power” that has created the universe and instituted laws for its governance.

  As noted elsewhere Islam and science are compatible.

  

57. “I suspect that if our media did not censor the more disturb-ing images of war, our moral sentiments would receive a correction on two fronts: first we would be more motivated by the horrors visited upon us by our enemies: seeing Daniel Pearl decapitated, for instance, would have surely provoked a level of national outrage that did not arise in the absence of such imagery. Second, if we did not conceal the horrible reality of collateral damage from ourselves, we would be far less likely to support the dropping of “dumb” bombs, or even “smart” ones. (Like bunker-buster bombs smashing the skulls of Iraqi babies, who are not your “enemies”?) While our newspapers and news-casts would be horrible to look at, I believe we would feel both greater urgency and greater restraint in our war on terrorism.” (pp. 286-287, note 36).

 

Response: Or maybe feel the greatest urgency to have “our government” scrap its obscene foreign policy (against Muslims).

   On Palestinian terrorism. The question that needs to be answered is why or how did Palestinians become “terrorists”? Are they “terrorists” by choice or are they the product of the machinery that vilifies them? If they are the product of the machinery that seeks to vilify them, how can vilifying them be justified? This would be like the creator of the bomb blaming the bomb for its destruction.

 *

   

As shown in this presentation and in others there is no violence or hatred or injustice in Islam. Even reason would dictate that Allāh the God Who is the Creator of all and is the Just would not sanction violence or hatred or injustice against one sector of his creation by another.

  Only the occupier, oppressor, usurper, those dedicated to falsehood, and those dedicated to living off the blood of others are terrified of Islam.

 

   As stated at the beginning, Sam Harris and those Muslims who agree with his “general disparagement of their religion” need to consult not a “neurologist” but a Muslim knowledgeable in the Qur’an. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with text, notes, and commentaries can be viewed online: www.muslim. org. 

    There is no charge against Allāh, the Prophet Mohammad, Islam, and the Qur’an that can survive hammering on the anvil of reason.

   

   Those who endeavor to speak or write must advocate truth and justice. Patriotism and friendship must not compromise truth and justice. Those who take up the pen must uphold the honor of writing. Whoever knowingly compromises truth and justice should crack his/her pen and throw it into the trash-box and go and sit in the park and feed the squirrels: he/she will have dignity in that.

   That truth and justice are without border: unless and until the masses become courageous to detonate this explosive truth and obliterate the wicked walls of partisanship, patriotism, and politics, truth and justice will remain subjugated under the jackboot of injustice.

 *

    

NOTES

1. I.Z. has taken Sharun’s statement from Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel, 1953, p. 207.

 

 18.  In his Book The Question of Palestine, pp. 99-100 Edwardnotes from the writing of Joseph Weitz:

 

          “…after the [Second World] war the question of the land of Israel and the question of the Jews would be raised beyond the framework of “development”; amongst ourselves. It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country. No “development” will bring us closer to our aim, to be an independent people in this small country. If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable. When the War is over and the English have won, and when the judges sit on the throne of Law, our people must bring their petitions and their claim before them; and the only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least Western Eretz Israel, without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on   this point! The Zionist enterprise so far, in terms of preparing the ground and paving the way for the creation of the Hebrew State in the land of Israel, has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with “land-buying”–but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe. And the transfer must be directed to Iraq, to Syria, and even to Transjordan. For that purpose we’ll find money, and a lot of money. And only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all. There is no other way out.”–[Emphasis added]”      

(If this did not freeze your blood you might want to check with your doctor you might have something else in your veins. Imagine yourself and wife/husband and children living simply and peacefully only to have such a black scheme to kick you out of your homes, lands, and country being hatched and realized).

  

Edward Said notes (on p. 14) from Moshe Dayan a so-called “Israeli” army general as stating:

 “We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here. In considerable areas of the country [the total area was about 6 percent] we bought the lands from the Arabs. Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal [Dayan’s own village] arose in the place of Mahalul, Gevat–in the place of Jibta, [Kibbutz] Sarid –in the place of Haneifs, and Kefar Yehoshua–in the place of Tell Shaman. There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population. [Ha-Aretz, April 4, 1969.” (Highlight added. No comment needed).

                

Edward Said also notes: “One outraged Israeli, Professor Israel Shahak, who reckons almost four hundred villages were thus eliminated, has said that these villages were “destroyed completely, with their houses, garden-walls, and even cemeteries and tombstones, so that literally a stone does not remain standing, and visitors are passing and being told that ‘it was all desert.’” (p. 14).

                               

 19. See note # 18.

 20. Theodor Herzl, Cited in Edward Said, The Question Of Palestine, p. 13.

      The quote reads (referring to the Palestinians):

 “We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. (Our own country? How did Palestine become your country? Arrogance at its peak).

 Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” (Like a thief?) (Brackets added).

 

21.  Statistics noted herein are from Ismail Zayid, Palestine A  Heritage, p. 29, and which are taken from official records.

22. See note # 1 for full quote.

23. Ismail Zayid, Palestine A Stolen Heritage, p. 10.

23A.

      Sources:

 Guardian Volume two Issue 7

Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum

The Jews of Batna, Aleria:  A Study of Identity and Colonialism by Elizabeth Friedman.

The Jewish Communities of Morocco and the AIU by M. Laskier, State University, Albany, N.Y.

The Impact of Western European Education on the Jewish Millet of Baghdad by Maurice Sawdayee.

Outcaste Jewish Life in Southern Iran by Laurence D.Gordon and Breach.

The Last ArabThe Communities of Jerba, Tunisia by Abraham Udovitch and Lucette Valensi.  Harwood Academic Publishers.

The GENOCIDE IN THE HOLY LAND (available for purchase on the site)

 Ben Gurion's Scandals by Naeim Giladi (available for purchase on the site)

24. Toronto Star, Friday, January 23, 2009. Oakland Ross, Gaza teenager’s horrific burns blamed on phosphorous shells, pp. AA 1,       3.

26. Toronto Star, Thursday February 5, 2009, Nicole Winfield, Bishop ordered to recant Holocaust denials, p. A 10.

26A.Edward Said. The Question of Palestine, p. 14. “Red” color added.

27. Ismail Zayid, Palestine A Stolen Heritage, p. 15.  a. Peretz, Don, Israel and the Palestine Arabs, Washington 1958, pp. 95-96, 152, 172;    b. American Mercury Magazine, August 1957; c. Jewish Newsletter, June 1959.

29. Toronto Star, Thursday, March 30, 2006, Art. Israeli unilateralism won’t produce peace, p. A21. Italics/emphasis added.

30. Mankind’s Search For God, p. 353. Jehovah’s Witnesses state:

 “In the investigation of God’s Word, those Bible students were keenly interested in the prophecies of the Christian Greek Scriptures related to “the end of the world” and to Christ’s “coming.” (Matthew 24:3, KJ [i.e. King James Version of the Bible] Christ was not Greek nor spoke Greek, wherefore then Christian Greek Scriptures?) By turning to the Greek text, they discovered that Christ’s “coming” was, in fact, a ‘pa.rou.si’a,’ or invisible presence. Therefore, Christ had given his disciples information about the evidence of his invisible presence in the time of the end, not a future visible coming.”

 (But Christ said: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’–(Matt. 16:28). Unless “Son of man” is some other than Jesus, these people would not be able to see Jesus if his “coming” would be “invisible”).

  

31. H. Hirschfeld, New Researches, pp. 5, 8, 9, respectively. Cited in Muhammad Ali, Intro. to his translation of the Qur’an, p. viii.

32. Paul Davies, God And The New Physics, p. 229.

33. James Trefil, The Dark Side Of The Universe, p. 8.

34.Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, pp. 25-26. 

35. Ency. Brit. 15th Edn, Vol 1, Balfour, Vol 17, p. 937e.

36. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, pp. 10, 11.

37. Ency. Brit. 15th Ed; Art. Syria and Palestine, History of, The  Balfour Declaration, Vol. 17; p. 957.

Arthur Balfour, the then British Foreign Secretary, addressed a letter to Lord Rothschild, promising the Jews a home-land in Palestine, though “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities.” (Italics/emphasis added).

38. Ibid; p. 33; (From a letter written by a student) “Published in “Haolam Haze,” an Israeli newspaper, (issue 1594) and quoted in “Israeli Imperial News,” October, 1968. Italics/emphasis added.

Share