In the Name of Allāh
The Beneficent, The Merciful.
Peace and blessings on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
Whereas the critics of Islam try to find fault with Islam;
the critics cannot prove, and can never prove, a religion superior to Islam. Because ISLAM IS SUPERIOR TO All OTHER RELIGIONS
A GOD WHO HATES
“Surely those who disbelieve
spend their wealth to hinder (people)
from the way of Allāh.
So they will go on spending it,
then it will be to them a regret,
then they will be overcome.
And those who disbelieve will be
gathered together to hell”
“They desire to put out the light of Allāh
with their mouths, but Allāh will perfect
His light, though the disbelievers
May be averse”
“He (Allāh) it is Who has sent His Messenger
(Mohammad) with the guidance and the religion
of Truth that He may make it prevail
over all religions. And Allāh is enough
for a witness.”
(Qur’an 48:28; 9:33; 61:9).
(Please note: When checking Qur’anic references please check a few verses before and after the ones cited, as the numbering system may vary by translators. I have used Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and an Index based on Yusuf Ali’s translation. Muhammad Ali has refuted charges against Islam. No Muslim home should be without a copy of his translation of the Qur’an, and no Muslim student’s computer should be without an electronic copy. His translation of the Qur’an with text, notes, and commentaries can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
And women have rights similar to
those against them in a just manner,
and men are a degree above them.
And Allāh is Mighty, Wise.
“The rights of women against their husbands are here stated to be similar to those which the husbands have against their wives. The statement must, no doubt, have caused a stir in a society which never recognized any rights for the woman. The change in this respect was really a revolutionizing one, for the Arabs hitherto regarded women as mere chattels. Women were now given a position equal in all respects to that of men, for they were declared to have rights similar to those which were exercised against them. This declaration brought about a revolution not only in Arabia but in the whole world, for the equality of the rights of women with those of men was never previously recognized by any nation or any reformer. The woman could no longer be discarded at the will of her “lord”, but she could either claim equality as a wife or demand a divorce.
The statement that “men are a degree above them” does not nullify the rights asserted in the previous passage. The words are added simply to show that superior authority to run the house must be given to either the husband or the wife, and it is given to the husband for reasons stated in 4:34 (which states: “Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allāh has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allāh has guarded”). Qama-l-rajulu ala-l-mar’ati means he maintained her and managed her affair, having charge of her affair; hence he is said to be her qawwam, i.e. maintainer (T). Similarly, qama bi-l-yatimi means he maintained the orphan (LL). Hence by the men being qawwamun is only meant that they are the maintainers of women with that which Allāh has made some to excel others. Obedience here signifies obedience to Allāh. This significance of the word is made clear by a comparison with 33:31, 33:35, and 66:5. Guarding the unseen is a euphemism for guarding the husband’s rights. The two qualifications of a good wife as given here are her piety or obedience to God and chastity. The meaning is that their guarding the husband’s rights is really a favour from Allāh as it is Allāh that guards them. Or the meaning may be, Allāh has guarded their rights”–(Muhammad Ali).
While Wafa Sultan, rightly, decries the reprehensible treatment by the Muslim males against the women-folks in her society. She puts the cruelty of these Muslims and their un-Islamic actions into the hands of Allāh.
Her book is a compendium of unsubstantiated raving and ranting and rambling against Allāh, the Prophet Mohammad, Islam and the Qur’an.
Critics use snippets from the Qur’an seemingly without knowledge as to their background to which they were revealed or that verses of the Qur’an are either of basic meaning or allegorical; isolated sayings of the Prophet Mohammad –isolated from teachings of the Qur’an– and without knowing that even in the Prophet’s lifetime sayings were forged in his name, or that certain sayings of the Prophet were made prior to Qur’anic revelation on the subject, in which event the Qur’an takes precedence; or that prior to Qur’anic revelation on certain subjects such as apostasy and blasphemy the Prophet followed the Torah/Bible.
The Prophet Mohammad taught according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 53:2-4); any saying of his that contradicts with the Qur’an is to be discarded.
In Nahjul Balagha, Sermon # 215, the Caliph, Hazrat ‘Ali, is noted as saying: “During the very lifetime of the Holy prophet (AS) many a false tradition was attributed to him. This continued till the Apostle of God got so vexed that he stood up and declared, ‘Whoever deliberately and purposely tells a lie against me or attributes lies to me shall make a place for himself in the Hell.”
Significantly, the Qur’an is not a story-book; it does not relate stories in all their details. The Qur’an is a book of guidance: for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment. Before undertaking a sequential commenting on those statements of Wafa Sultan’s book that are needful of comment, I enter two of her crowning-glory arguments.
On pages 51-52 of her book, Wafa Sultan writes: “In the Arabian Desert people did not feel secure for so much as a single day. Raiding was the only way to stay alive and force was the law that governed this means of survival. Consequently, strong tribes raided and plundered their weaker neighbors.” “It was in this environment charged with fear that Islam was born.It emerged as a natural response to the psychological need of the people of the Arabian Desert –that need which sought a greater power than that of the fear whose hostage they had become. And so they created an ogre inspired by their fear-ridden imagination, an ogre bigger than their fear, which had the power to enable them to confront everything that frightened them.”
Response: Isn’t this what is being done today –“strong” First world nations “raiding”/exploiting/“plundering” “weaker” Third world nations to preserve themselves?
Muslims “fear” Allah not because He is a tyrant or vengeful but because, in the context of the physical, “fear of God” means that man can cause harm only to the body (the soul being indestructible), whereas only God can destroy both the body and the soul.
In the context of the spiritual or worship of God, “fear of God” means to avoid sin/evil: to avoid going against the ordinances of God –much like the fear of disobeying parental instructions, and disappointing their trust and love.
Thus, “fear” of God is not a negative quality. “Fear” of God is of a positive value since it has the effect of keeping one away from sin/evil.
The child who avoids narcotics because of fear of parental discipline may have the benefit of better health, non-addiction, better use of money etc., whereas a brigand who has no fear of the law and violates its ordinances would not be immune from magistracy when apprehended.
People who devote themselves to Allah–Who ordains mercy on Himself, Who implores us never to despair of His mercy, and Who invites us to forgive us our faults–cannot be said to be the people ruled by “fear.”
Do you not “fear” violating the laws of America and their consequences? Where then is the problem that Muslim “fear” violating the laws of Allāh and their consequences?
If Islam/Allāh is an “ogre” created by the desert Arabs, then this “ogre” has produced the best and inimitable Scripture in creation; this “ogre” has given the world the best master-print for our social, moral, intellectual, and spiritual excellence; this “ogre” have made unerring prophecies that have already manifested and even in their own lifetime (Qur’an-prophecies); this “ogre” has made scientific pronouncements that are in keeping with modern science (Qur’an-science); this “ogre” has united ruthless, tribal cut-throats into one body and has catapulted this band of backward camel-herders into ‘thrones of Caesars.’ The learned author Maurice Bucaille on the Qur’an, in his The Bible The Qur’an and Science:
“More than a thousand years before our time, at a period when whimsical doctrines still prevailed, men had a knowledge of the Qur’an. The statements it contains express in simple terms truths of primordial importance which man has taken centuries to discover.” (p. 207).
“What initially strikes the reader confronted for the first time with a text of this kind is the sheer abundance of subjects discussed: the Creation, astronomy, the explanation of certain matters concerning the earth, and the animal and vegetable kingdoms, human reproduction. Whereas monumental errors are to be found in the Bible, I could not find a single error in the Qur’an. I had to stop and ask myself: if a man was the author of the Qur’an, how could he have written facts in the Seventh century A.D. that today are shown to be keeping with modern scientific knowledge?” (p. 120).
(In the Qur’an) “statements are to be found in it (as has been shown) that are connected with science: and yet it is unthinkable that a man of Muhammad’s time could have been the author of them. Modern scientific knowledge therefore allows us to understand certain verses of the Qur’an which, until now, it has been impossible to interpret.” (p. 251).
“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 a 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.” (pp. 251-252). (Emphasis/ color added).
Some “ogre”! Some Arabs! Every people should create an “ogre” as the Arabs. Even atheists! (See item #81 for Space-travels in the Qur’an).
And on pages 61-62 Wafa Sultan states: “All Koranic verses that describe paradise portray it as having rivers flowing below it. The desert was very sparing with its water, and death from thirst was one of the greatest dangers of the unknown. The promise of rivers sent a message of reassurance and repose to the Bedouin burdened by fears of death from thirst. (Imagine a landscape without the beauty of rivers/water; and paradise is he ultimate in beauty). The desert had few crops, produced little, and provided almost nothing in the way of food, while Islam promised its followers gardens of date palms, grapes, and other fruit… Paradise in Islam assumed the guise of existing need. It appeared in the form of rivers and fruit to provide reassurance for the Bedouin who feared death from hunger and thirst.” (This, from one of Time magazine’s “100 influential people in the World”? Then Allāh will have to help us billions of influence-less people in the world).
Response: Since the Arabs created the “ogre” and as the “ogre” revealed the Qur’an therefore the Arabs also wrote the Qur’an for their “ogre;” which means that it is the Arabs who have written these verses about paradise. Thus, the Arabs are deluding themselves about mythical rivers and fruit in a non-existent paradise. Which all means, Wafa Sultan is conveying that the Arabs are dumber than the dumbest and all who read her book (and view her tape) are bedazzled by glossy literature (and glitzy speech) to see below the surface of her words. Wit is not wisdom!
Moreover, the Qur’an notes that the statements of paradise are figurative expressions: “So no soul knows what refreshments of the eyes is hidden for them: a reward for what they did;” and the Prophet Mohammad explained this verse thusly: “Allāh says I have prepared for My righteous servants that which no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and which the heart of man cannot conceive”–(Qur’an 32:17; Bokhari Vol. 6, # 302). Which, according to Wafa Sultan, the Arabs are double-time dumb –having created a hope and not knowing what form or shape or color this hope has.
And since Allāh (the “ogre” and the “Arabs”) sent the Qur’an to the world what lure did He use for nations with more water and fruit than land? And now with all their wealth from oil and with desalination technology why are Arabs still afraid of death from hunger and thirst to hold on to this self-created “ogre” and mythical paradise? (Oh yes, nowadays Arabs do not know the “ogre” was a fiction of their forefather’s imagination. But now that you have enlightened them). And what about the millions of “smart” non-Bedouins who have water and fruit, what are they afraid of that drove them in multitudes to Islam? And are keeping them in Islam. As noted above, Islam is the Divinely revealed religion, and of science and progress.
Rather than labor over phantom evils in Islam and mythical faults of Mohammad it would serve Wafa Sultan better to direct her energy and “influence” to remedying the real maladies afflicting the society in which she lives.
That Allāh is A God Who Hates is mere lip-talk and clap trap! Only one Divine statement need be entered to obliterate Wafa Sultan’s claim that Allāh is A God Who Hates. Since Angels do only as they are commanded by Allāh, God–(66:6), and as Angels pray for the forgiveness of all mankind–(Qur’an 42:5); how then Allāh is “A God Who Hates”?
Allāh God Who creates most good, from Whom only good comes, Who has ordained mercy on Himself, Whose mercy encompasses all things; Who created us to have mercy on us; and Who invites us in loving compassionate terms to never despair of His mercy and calls us to forgive us our sins –which He tells us in His Qur’an– could not be “A God Who Hates.”
Since Allāh declares through the Qur’an that
-there is no compulsion in religion: every person is at liberty to follow his own inclinations-(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6);
-He has created man and woman and multiplied from them-(4:1); made us into different tribes and nations and of colors and languages that we may know one another-(5:48; 30:22; 49:13);
-we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133);
-He sent messengers to all nations-(10:47); Angels pray for the forgiveness of all mankind–(Qur’an 42:5); to protect the polytheist-(9:6);
-every people has rites and ceremonies-(22:67);
-charity is for the poor and needy, the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransoming of slaves, etc;-(2:177; 9:60); to give justice even if it be against ones’ own parents or self-(4:58, 135; 5:8);
-to believe in all prophets and revelations-(3:83; 4:163-164); not to revile other gods -(6:108);
-if Allah did not repel some people by others, monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and masjids would have been pulled down-(22:40);
–all religions are for Allah-(8:39); to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy-(4:90; 8:61-62)
how then is Allāh “A God Who Hates”?
It is without doubt that Wafa Sultan loves her children and provides adequately for them as best as she could; and gives them education and teaches them goodness. It is doubtful that if one of more children should misbehave that she would not first try to reason with the child; followed by disciplinary measures to end the child’s misbehavior. Would Wafa Sultan then views herself as a mother who hates?
In the Qur’an, Allāh’s mercy and compassion are cited “192 times” compared to his punishment which is mentioned “17 times.” Punishment to incorrigible offenders is the stern face of love.
And if Wafa Sultan should explain to her children the ways of evil and good, and enjoins on them to follow the path of goodness, and should any of her children indulged in evil instead would it be justified to hold Wafa Sultan accountable?
-stresses the fulfilling of covenants, 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 render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allāh, God, loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47)
-admonishes against dealing unjustly with men (2:279, 5:8); 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 Allāh God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90).
-forbids against helping one another in sin, and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); not to let hatred of a people incite us to transgress (5:2); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 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), because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75);
-the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135)
how then is Allāh “A God Who Hates”?
(1). WS (Wafa Sultan): “I have never in my life seen Muslims talk without disagreement…Their tendency to argumentativeness makes them defensive and their custom deems attack to be the best method of defense since it gives them the chance to shout and shriek. Shouting has become their hallmark and the main characteristic they use when they engage in conversation with someone whom they don’t agree with.” “I have often wondered how this shrieking and shouting began and have had to think back to the roots of Islam to understand it. (She notes the lonely nature of the desert and being lost in it, and concludes) at that moment, a scream is all you have to convince yourself that you are still alive. You scream in the hope that a passerby will hear” (Doesn’t a present-day non-“Islamic” person in a trapped or lost situation “scream in the hope that a passerby will hear”?) (pp. 4, 5).
Response: “Shouting” may be the “custom” and “hallmark and the main characteristic” of Muslims you have seen. It certainly is not the teaching of Islam. Allāh reveals: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 16:125); “And who is better in speech than one who calls to Allāh and does good, and says: I am surely of those who submit. And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with that which is best,* when lo! He between whom and thyself is enmity would be as if he were a warm friend”–(Qur’an 41:33-34; 13:22; 28:54); “And We certainly gave Luqman wisdom…And when Luqman said to his son while he admonished him: O my son…And pursue the right course in thy going about and lower thy voice. Surely the most hateful of voices is braying of asses”–(Qur’an 31:12-19). Show, if you can, any instance of the Prophet Mohammad “shouting” or “shrieking” at any one. *
(Muhammad Ali notes to Qur’an 13:22: “Evil is a thing which is by all means to be repelled, and hence good for evil is recommended only in cases when evil would be repelled by that good. Unconditionally requiting evil with good would abolish all safeguards; evildoers who received nothing but good for every evil they committed would most assuredly establish a condition of anarchy by their evil deeds. Elsewhere it is said he who forgives and amends (thereby) (42:40)”–which states: “And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allāh. Surely Allāh loves not the wrong-doers.” Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with notes, text and commentary can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
(2). WS. “After the 9/11 attack Americans asked themselves: “Why do they hate us?” My answer is: “Because Muslims hate their women?” People ask: “But why do they hate their women?” And I can only reply: “Because their God does.” (p. 7).
Response: Allah is a Just God. Reason alone would dictate that Allāh will not discriminate against woman because of her form and physiology –a form and physiology He gave her; a form and physiology of which she had no choice. (Good mothers do not discriminate against their sons because of their form and physiology). In fact, if form and physiology is the measure of superiority, Woman is superior to Man–she having carried man, gave birth to him and nursed him. Three degrees of excellence and superiority that Man have yet to acquire. Women even have a fourth degree of excellence over men: cloning! Whereas the male sperm can be dispensed with in duplicating the being, the female’s ovum–as yet–is necessary to develop the clone.
Allah says that He created man and woman from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1). Since man and woman are created from the same essence, and are instilled with the same laws –such as the five senses and susceptibilities to hunger and diseases– one cannot be superior to the other. This verse establishes that from the very beginning of creation man and woman are equal.
Allah says, give reverence to the womb that bore you (4:1). Give reverence to the womb that bore you –not to the loins that emitted you. Reverence to the womb is not discrimination against her, but honor. The Prophet Mohammad says that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers –not at the feet of fathers. The Prophet says that after worship of Allah, 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 against her.
Allah says that men and women are garments to the other (2:187). Garments protect and beautify and comfort us, and conceal our body’s imperfections. Since men and women are to protect and beautify and keep each others flaws private; one cannot oppress the other.
Allah says that men and women are friends of one another (9:71). Friends do not oppress one another; friends liberate one another.
Allah says that women have rights similar to those against her (2:228). People who have mutual rights cannot oppress.
Allah says that He has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her (7:189; 30:21). The man who abuses his wife causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love and compassion and comfort in her. It is not love and compassion and comfort to oppress.
That Allāh does not “hate” or discriminate against women is cemented in His statement : “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the charitable men and the charitable women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allāh much and women who remember—Allāh has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward”–(Qur’an 33:35).
Islam liberates and exalts Woman–(2:187; 4:19-22; 4:1; 9:71-72); gives her the right to earn, and to inherit and own property–(4:32, 7, 177); the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases–(4:4, 32); honors her–(4:1); and has given her equal rights with Man as the inheritors of Paradise–(43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35). Show, if you can, any instance of the Prophet Mohammad mistreating or abusing his wife.
(Critics usually cite the verses of the Qur’an that says woman’s inheritance, and testimony is half that of a man’s; to beat the wife, etc; these are dealt with in ISLAM-WOMEN). Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
Allāh created man and woman physically different. Seems Allāh also created man and woman mentally different.
The Toronto Star Thursday, December 12, 2013 (p. L6) notes in the article Men, Women are wired differently, from the Washington Post, reports that “Women’s and men’s brains are wired differently, in ways that seem to match the stereotypes.” The test conducted at the University of Pennsylvania “focused on two regions: the cortex, involved in thought, perception and language; and the cerebellum, which co-ordinates movement.” The findings were that while females were more connected to one side of the brain males were more connected to the opposite side. In males, these differences seem to “promote coordinated movement, which males can generally do faster in tests.” While in females it “might reflect a superior ability to process emotions and understand others’ intentions.”
Thus men also have “deficiency.” This “deficiency” in men and women are not to be viewed as discriminatory. Men and women were created differently and for their own purpose. The Prophet Mohammad pointing out this “deficiency” in women is not a “blaming” or derogatory expression. Something that is factual cannot be charged as being “blaming” or derogatory.or misogynistic. The Prophet (and Caliphs) would not utter words degrading to Woman seeing Allāh has conferred honor upon her, and for us to “Speak what is best”–(Qur’an 17:53). We are not even allowed to revile false gods–(Qur’an 6:108).
As to the question why do Muslims hate America? Muslims do not “hate” the American people; only the administration. Muslims hatred (more correctly, dislike) for America is rooted in the Palestinian/Jewish conflict.
Muslims “hate” America’s injustice, arrogance and hypocrisy against Muslims. (British instigation) and American machination –diplomatic thuggery at the U.N.– stole Palestine from Palestinians/Muslims and gave it to Jews, and instead of redressing this injustice she has, for six torturous decades, arrogantly supported this abomination against Palestinians/Muslims.
Hypocritically, when Muslims are the victors in their “democratic” elections –as in the case of Algeria and in Hamas’ victory in Palestine– they are spurned. UN Resolutions against Muslims are vigorously enforced whereas those against Jews are not. America has endeavored to control Muslim countries and their resources. What victim would not “hate” such an unjust, arrogant, and hypocritical establishment?
Whatever dislike Muslims have for America it is fully justified. However, America is not be “hated.” America is to be pitied. She seems to have not learned the invaluable lesson from the past: the abuse of power –be it military, economic or intellectual– is the certain ruin of a people.
(3). WS. “After seventeen years in America…I can still see the woman who greeted me at the airport …(she) said, “Welcome to America!” No one had ever welcomed me anywhere before.” “People in every society worship their own image. Is the kind woman who welcomed me to Los Angeles not the God she worships? (pp. 9-10).
Response: What if she was paid to welcome you; or was an atheist? And what about the American who hurls insults at the foreigner to go back to his/her country, and even insults the African-Americans? (Fortunately, for every one that “insults” there is a thousand that “welcomes”).
According to your rationale America then is a society of many Gods. And if a Muslim should greet you with the universal greeting of Islam –peace, and mercy and blessing of Allāh, God, be unto you: and which undoubtedly is the best of greetings, for when a person has peace, and mercy and blessing of Allāh he/she has it all and needs nothing more– will you seek to worship Allāh? Peace and mercy and blessings of Allāh be unto you!
(4). WS. “A Muslim woman does not usually have the right to choose anything about her life.” (p. 14).
Response: Since women have rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228); women have “the right to choose anything about her life.” Women have the right to choose their husbands–(Qur’an 2:232; 2:240), and, says the noble Messenger of Allāh, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 67, 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100); a virgin’s consent, because of bashfulness, is expressed by her silence–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100-101); and that “If a man gives his daughter in marriage in spite of her disagreement, such marriage is invalid”–it notes the dissolution of such a marriage by the Prophet on behalf of a “matron” who disliked the marriage her father had arranged–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 69; Vol. 9, # 78).
A woman may also propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7 #’s 48, 53, 54). There is a report of a woman proposing marriage to the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 505).
And as marriage is a contract–(Qur’an 4:21) either party may file for divorce: “And if they separate, Allah will render them both free from want”–(Qur’an 4:130). And, “if you fear that they cannot keep the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby”–(Qur’an 2:229). There is a report of Thabit ibn Qais wife’s seeking permission from the Prophet to divorce her husband; which permission was given on agreement that she return the wedding gift to her husband–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 197).
Muhammad Ali points out in his The Religion of Islam, (pp. 628-629) that “woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community”–joining “in congregational prayers”–(Bukhari 10:162, 164); joining “the soldiers in the field of battle, to perform a large number of duties, such as the carrying of provisions,” “taking care of the sick and the wounded,” “removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield,” “or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.” “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field,” “served the male guests at a feast,” and “carried on business,” “they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them.” “A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (Bukhari, 56:66, 67, 68; 56:62, 63, 65; F.B. III, p. 228; Bukhari, 67:108, 78; 11:40; 34:67, respectively). “A woman is also spoken of as acting as an Imam, while men followed her, though it was in her own house.” (Abu Dawud 2:58. The Religion of Islam, p.385).
The Prophet’s wife, ‘Aisha, was among the most knowledgeable of Muslims; it is doubtful that she would have committed an act that was prohibited by Islam. She led an army against the assassins of the Caliph ‘Uthman, as noted by Muhammad Ali in his The Early Caliphate.
Also, regarding ‘Aisha’s opposition to ‘Ali and leading this army, Muhammad Ali notes that if “she had any design on the Caliphate…” It could not be suggested that ‘Aisha “had any design” –i.e. any intention on being ruler– on the Caliphate if woman was excluded from being “head of state.” (p. 182). ‘Aisha leading this army against the assassins of the Caliph ‘Uthman highlights two other freedom that Islam confers upon woman (1) she can be commander of the armed forces (2) if she can ride a camel/horse, she can drive an automobile.
Perhaps the above positions held by women may be claimed to be exceptions, but it does highlight that all professions were open to the Woman of Islam.
The reason why some positions such as head of state, leader of the armed forces, imam and judge are not delegated to women can be explained. Unlike other subordinate positions, leadership is a full time responsibility to the community.
If Woman is exempt from these positions (at least in her child-bearing years), it is not because Allāh or Islam discriminates against her on account of her sex, it is only because of her nature. For it is Woman who experiences menstruation, which is a time of ceremonial impurity and perhaps of pain; pregnancy and its discomforts and restrictions –childbirth and post-natal care; and caring for the child– all of which would leave her absent for these vital services to society.
Perhaps it is for the above reasons also that Woman is not appointed the role of prophethood, though Allāh did give revelation to Moses’ mother–(Qur’an 20:38-39; 28:7).
(5). WS. “My brother was a member of the Syrian National Party…One of the items on the party agenda was the struggle for Arab unity and the creation of a single Arab nation irrespective of religious allegiance. The Islamists regarded this as a threat to Islam, which strives to create a single nation founded on religious adherence to comprise all Muslims, Arab and non-Arab. The unseen struggle between these two opposing camps caused supporters of the National Party to adopt a covertly hostile attitude toward religion in general and Islam in particular, freeing them from the constraints of Muslim teaching.” “He was well aware that Islam was the burial ground of any attempt to move the Arab-speaking countries forward toward progress.” (pp. 20-21).
Response. There is no separation of State and Masjid/Mosque in Islam! Isn’t Turkey being kept out of the European/Christian brotherhood because of its creed (or because it does not meet European standards)? “Islamic nation” does not mean that non-Muslims have no rights. Muslims live under Christian/secular laws, what then is the problem of Christian living under Islamic law (though Christians are not required to be governed by Islamic law)? Would your brother (and you) please detail these “Muslim teaching” (of the Qur’an and Tradition) that are “constraining?” Had your brother spent less time in the Syrian National Party and more time studying Islam he would have known that Islam took the Arabs from the “burial ground” of backwardness and catapulted them “forward toward progress,” so much so as to have them sitting in the ‘thrones of Caesars.
(6). WS. “In Aleppo I was the guest of a local Muslim family (Ahmad and Huda).” “Islamic teachings reigned supreme over everything that went on in the house.” “He (Ahmad) would pick a quarrel with her (Huda) on the slightest pretext, or for no reason at all.” “Often I would come out of my room and find myself confronting him as I defended her. When we argued he would quote from the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet in order to justify his behavior and assert his right to mistreat his wife,” (pp. 23-25).
Response: If “Islamic teachings reigned supreme,” there would be peace, love, respect, justice, equality, friendship; etc. (See item # 2). Have you ever investigated these verses of the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet that he quoted? Only one verse need be entered to debunk the claim that the Qur’an and the Prophet (who governed according to the Qur’an) gives man the right to “mistreat” his wife: “And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner”–(Qur’an 2:228). It is mind-boggling that the thousands (if not millions) of educated women in “free” non-Muslim societies would voluntary embrace a religion that gives its men the right to “mistreat” them. Awesome!
(7). WS. “The Baath Party was founded by a group of Syrians –Mainly Christians and Alawites (a Muslim sect)…Its original aim was the establishment of a secular Syrian state whose slogan was “religion for God and the homeland for everyone.” (But doesn’t the “homeland” –the heavens and the earth– also belong to God?) (pp. 40-41).
(8). WS. “In 1979…I witnessed the death of our ophthalmology lecturer, Dr, Yusef al-Yusef…The shots that rang out on all sides …mingled with the killer’s voice shouting from the loudspeaker: “Allahu akbar…Allahu akbar!” (Allāh is the greatest!) “Ever since that moment, Allāh has been equated with in my mind with the sound of a bullet and become a God who has no respect for human life.” (Incredible rationale from one of Time magazine’s “100 influential people in the world”).(p. 45).
Response: It is to be noted that whereas WS claimed she was present when her lecturer was killed. It is stated: “Sultan’s account of some aspects of her life is disputed by others. According to Abdussalam Mohamed, staff writer for the Southern California Muslim newspaper InFocus, an anonymous Syrian expatriate who met and got to know the Sultans when they first came to the United States told him (Mohamed), that the assassination of Yusef al Yusef took place off-campus, and at a time when Sultan wasn’t even around. InFocus says this was confirmed by Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Aleppo (Syria) and by another Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore.” (If the University kept records of students’ attendance it should not be difficult to determine if Wafa Sultan was present at the time of the shooting. If she was not, then one wonder how many of the stories in her book are embellishments and/or fabrications). Whereas Allāh is indeed great, and whereas Muslims are allowed to fight when war is waged on them and on behalf of the oppressed, can Wafa Sultan show in the Qur’an where Allāh instructs Muslims to kill non-combatants in His name?
(9). WS. “The inhabitants of the Arabian Desert bestowed on their new god ninety-nine attributes…His repugnant qualities are not to be found in other gods, while his good qualities were identical with those that preceding gods had displayed.” (p. 54).
Response: Allāh does not harm anyone. Allāh is “Harmer” –and I suspect this is an incorrect translation– in that whereas man can destroy the body only Allah, God can destroy the soul–(Compare Matt. 10:28 where Jesus says: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell).
“Avenger”: there is nothing that man can do to God so that God would need to seek revenge/vengeance on him. Allāh is “Avenger’ in that he will bring to justice those who had commit crimes against others.
These ninety-nine attributes of Allāh are only to inform us that Allāh alone has power over all things. Allāh’s mercy and forgiveness preponderates in His Qur’an. Love has a stern face also. Don’t your children know that you are both harsh and gentle to them –harsh when they transgress your limits and gentle when they are obedient? Does this mean that you love them any less or they you? And are they terrified of you? Don’t you know that America is both harsh and gentle towards you –harsh when you break the law and gentle when you abide by its limits? Does this mean that America loves you any less or you America? Do have nightmares about this dual quality of America? Does the fact that you are both harsh and gentle and that America is both stern and gentle “splits the child’s (or your) personality and makes him (or you) feel more lost and confused”? (p. 56)
(10). WS. “The main source of fear in the environment in which Islam emerged was the unknown. Since every new thing was by definition a variety of the unknown, Islam refused to approach anything new and withdrew into the familiar reality of its own world. Islam, in its teachings, mode of thinking, and way of life, is still captive in a prison whose doors have not opened for fourteen centuries.” (Which planet is this lady living on?). (p. 57).
Response: Islam is not based on “fear” of “the unknown,” but upon truth, peace, love, hope, and the mercy of Allah. The mercy, forgiveness and love of Allah are the preponderating factors in the Qur’an. Clearly, Muslims who believe in Allah–the God Who created man because He ‘loved to be known’ as the Prophet Mohammad taught, Who ordained mercy on Himself–(Qur’an 6:12, 54), Who invites His creatures to forgive them their sins–(Qur’an 14:10), and Who implores us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive our sins–(Qur’an 39:53); and in the Hereafter are promised Paradise–cannot be said to be based on “fear” of “the unknown.”
That “Islam refused to approach anything new and withdrew into the familiar reality of its own world. Islam, in its teachings, mode of thinking, and way of life, is still captive in a prison whose doors have not opened for fourteen centuries.” This has been effectively debunked as noted by the statements of Maurice Bucaille, at the beginning. However: The Prophet Mohammad declared through Divine Revelation: “Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth”–(Qur’an 31:20; 45:13). One could not make subservient “whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth” without knowledge. The Prophet Mohammad charged Muslims to ‘seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave,’ to go to China if need be–(Baihaqi) Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p. 361, #111 W); and that ‘the superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is like the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars’–(Abu Dawud Vol. 3, p.1034, # 3634).Muslims are enjoined to seek Allāh’s help in obtaining knowledge: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114). While knowledge may be grouped into two classes–spiritual and material–in Islam there is no such concept as “secular” knowledge: all knowledge is from Allah, God. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out that the “Qur’an announced as follows:
(a) The whole world was full of potentialities, (52:4; 2:22)
(b) Everything in the universe was for a purpose, (3:190; 14:33)
(c) They all were for our service, use and benefit, (15:19-20)
(d) Not a single thing in the whole universe, however insignificant it might be, had been created without its proper use; they have been created to minister to us; and that everything we need is already provided, (3:190; 14:33)
(e) No labour is wasted, (29:58) 7:170; 12:56; 18:30)
(g) Idleness should gain nothing, (94:7)
(h) Nothing in the universe is changeable in its nature, (30:30)
(i) The whole world is chained by the law. Everything in it follows certain laws, and we can turn everything in it to our advantage if we discover and use the said law. The laws of Nature are none other than the Will of the Most High, (3:82)
(j) The laws of Nature are unalterable, (17:77; 35:43)
(k) Knowledge and the discovery of new sciences will enable us to turn these things in Nature to our use, (2:31; 2:34; 96:5)
(l) Things in Nature stand in a complimentary relation to each other, (86:11-12)
(m) They combine with each other in a fixed proportion to create new things, (87:2-3)
(n) God’s blessings are open to all, (1:1)
(o) His ways are shown to him who seeks after them, (29:69)
(p) There are material treasures in the world for us to work upon. The word Rahman literally conveys this idea that they are open to all and ready to respond to our needs if properly approached, (1:1; 17:20; 67:3)
(q) Everything is already designed and comes to perfection under the principle of Evolution, (20:50)
(r) Man had not to create anything. Everything was already in existence. He had only to strive and use his limbs and he would have an ample reward, (53:39-40)
(s) Everything is for our good but its mishandling makes it evil, (4:79)
(t) Good or evil even in the least measure brings recompense, (7:8-9)
(u) No one will bear our burden, (17:15)
(v) The whole universe is in a measured order, and we have to observe it if we wish to invent other devices or things for our comfort, (15:21)
(w) There are limits and bounds for everything, their trespass entails loss.
(x) Human nature possesses the best of capabilities, but we need divine guidance for progress, (95:4)
(y) There are pitfalls in our ways, (95:5)
(z) True success only comes to him who exerts to excel others in his occupation of life, (79:1 to 5). (Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, pp. 15-19).
With such a guide before them, it was not surprising that early Muslims should have become keenly interested in scientific research. ….They were the founders of a new civilization. Nay, further, they began to rule Nature, and through it, conquered the world. For centuries they continued supreme, but the riches they thus accumulated, subsequently made them slothful and wrought their ruin. Abuse, excess and self–indulgence shook the structure of their power to its foundations, leaving them an easy prey to others.
The early Muslims, however, bequeathed a vast heritage to their Western successors in the form of that learning which the latter have since pursued under the name of modern science.”
“Algebra, Statics, Conic Sections and other branches of applied mathematics are amongst Muslim discoveries.” (pp. 20-21).
“Muslims were admittedly the founders of modern culture. …It is also an admitted historical fact that there was nothing in pre-Islamic culture to inspire them for scientific research. The Qur’an came to advocate the acquisition of knowledge for the first time. The Holy Prophet bade his followers to go to far off countries in search of it….In short, while St. Paul deprecated the law and called it a curse to humanity, the Qur’an respected it and made the observance of it our religion, as Islam literally means “Obedience to the Law.”…The formal Church had also to assert that sin was innate in human nature, since sin is a breach of the Law. The dictum that man is sinful by nature involves an assumption that he is incapable of observing the Law. It is a most despicable libel on our character to assert that we are criminal by nature. If sin is innate in our nature, it is an anomaly if legislation exists in Christian land. Parliament and all other legislative bodies are a mere infringement on our liberty….It was this principle, no doubt, that for centuries retarded all material progress in Christendom, which began to move forward only when the Church dogmas had lost their hold on the human mind.
Briefly, Law is the chief thing in the world and governs the world. The discovery of this principle and our observance of it brought us progress and success; but it was the Qur’an that first of all taught that obedience to the Law was the Religion from God. All the seven articles of faith in Islam pertained to the Law. They are as follows:-
(1) Allah -God, the Source of all Law.
(2) Angels -The first agents through whom the laws of Nature came to operation.
(3) Books -Revelations that came to man for the promulgation of the Law.
(4) The Messengers -Those through whom the Law was given.
(5) The Last Day -The day when we shall all be judged according to the Law.
(6) The Measures of Evil and Good –As already described, in other words, Law.
(7) The Coming Life -In which we shall be rewarded according to our observance of the Law.
In contradiction to the Church/Paul that the law is a “curse,” Allāh tells us that we came into this world with a nature to observe the Law:
“Then set your face upright for religion in the right state
–the nature made by Allah in which He has made man;
there is no altering of Allah’s creation:
that is the right religion, but most people do not know”
In his booklet Al-Qur’an The Miracle of Miracles, Ahmed Deedat has quoted from the writings of “Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui” (taken from the booklet “Cultivation of Science by the Muslims,” which was “published by the World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan”) it states:
(the Qur’an) “exhorts us to study the structure and function of the human organism, the structure, functions and distribution of animals, the form, structure, functions, classification and distribution of plants, and these are problems of BIOLOGY.
“It exhorts us to study the order of nature and the general properties of matter as affected by energy, which is the problem of modern PHYSICS.
“It exhorts us to study the properties of substances both elementary and compound and the laws of their combination and action one upon another which is the problem of modern CHEMISTRY.
“It exhorts to study the structure and mineral constitution of the globe, the different strata of which it is composed, the changes that takes place in its organic and inorganic matter, etc, etc; which are the problems of modern GEO-LOGY.
“It exhorts us to study the general description of the earth, its physical divisions into seas, rivers, mountains, plains, etc; and the minerals, plants and animals in each, and its political divisions which are the problems of modern GEOGRAPHY.
“It exhorts us to study the causes which bring about the alternation of day and night, the variation of the seasons, the movements of the planets and other celestial phenomena, which are the problems of modern ASTRONOMY.
“It exhorts us to study the movement of winds, the formation and evolution of clouds and the production of rain, and other similar phenomena, which are the problems of modern METEOROLOGY.””
“For centuries, Muslims were world leaders in the field of scientific learning,” notes Ahmed Deedat. (pp. 24, 25).
Sir Isaac Newton may have formulated the laws of motion in the 17th/18th century. But a thousand years before him Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, explained to Muslims that “nothing in the universe can come into motion of its own accord unless some outside agency imparts movements to it and when once moved nothing will come to rest unless some force outside this body puts a break to this motion. Similarly nothing in the universe will change its direction and speed of motion unless a foreign factor compels it.” (Nahjul Balagha, sermon # 191, p. 340)
Twentieth century scientists may have discovered DNA/Genetics. But in the 7th century, Hazrat Ali, answering queries about “the causes of differences in features, habits and disposition of people,” replied: “In the very origin of human body lies the causes of these differences or similarities in disposition and features.” (Ibid. sermon # 238, p. 413).
The lofty principles as enshrined in the Qur’an cannot be “inimical” to progress, be it social, moral, intellectual, or spiritual. Ahmed Deedat quotes Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqui who aptly points out:
“The intellectual upheaval created by Islam was a gigantic one. There is not a single department of learning which the Muslim scholars have left untouched and which they have not carved out a high position for themselves.
“In truth, Islam intends the Muslim community to be a community of intellectuals, and the cultivation of science and all other forms of learning is one of the primary aims of Islam. Had it not been for the Muslims, Europe would never have seen its way to the Renaissance and the modern scientific era would never have dawned. Those nations who have received their knowledge of science from Europe are in fact indirectly the disciples of the Islamic community of the past. Humanity owes to Islam a debt which it can never repay and gratitude which it can never forget.”
“Islam has laid it down as a religious duty that a Muslim should enquire into the reality of objects around him, so that his scientific enquiry may lead him to the knowledge of his Creator. Scientific enquiry in Islam is not an end but a means to the attainment of a higher end. And this is really the true end of humanity. ‘TO ALLAH WE BELONG AND TO ALLAH IS OUR RETURN’–(Holy Qur’an 2:156).” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, pp. 26-27).
It seems tragic that Twentieth century intellectual(s) cannot find in Islam answers to political and economic problems; whereas the backward denizens of Seventh century Arabia found precepts and ideas that molded them into a fortress of morality and nobility, unity and sovereignty.
(11). WS. “No relationship rooted in fear and mistrust can be sound or healthy, nor can it guarantee the rights of both parties.” (AMEN!) (p. 58).
Response: Contrast this Islam’s “guarantee (of) the rights of both parties” to any system today: men are created equal, the noblest being the righteous (Qur’an 4:1; 95:4; 49:13, 98:7); we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13); we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), not to rob men of their dues (26:183); to deal justly (2:279, 5:8); to give justice against self, parents, kins, poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8); not to act corruptly or make mischief in the earth (26:183); not to help in sin, nor incite transgression (5:2); to make peace when the enemy desires, and even in the face of deception by the enemy (4:90; 8:61). By your own pen Islam cannot be a religion that is “rooted in fear and mistrust.” It is the present-day nations that do not “guarantee the rights of both parties” that are the ones “rooted in fear and mistrust.”
(12). WS. “Raiding was a source of both fear and security. Each tribe was afraid of being raided and felt secure when it got the opportunity to raid someone else.” (And she notes the Prophet Mohammad’s “raiding” expeditions and Qur’an 8:41 where one fifth of the war booty is designated to Allāh and His Prophet). (p. 62).
Response: Incidentally, raiding was carried out by Moses and Joshua and the Israelites –killing at least “thirty-one kings” and sparing nothing that breathe, not even the ox and ass– and giving God all the booty: “But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall come into the treasury of the Lord”–(Joshua 12:1-24; 6:19; Deut. 3:6-7). Did you also wonder why the God of the Bible needs “booty”?
Isn’t “raiding” for “booty” being carried out today? World War I was over “booty” (materialism). The aggressions against Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Korea, and Vietnam are/were all about “booty” (self-preservation at the expense of others). Though it may have brought some benefit to the natives, the sanitized term may say Colonialism –in Africa, especially the Congo with its vast riches; the Middle-east; India; and the Americas– but the truth prefacing it screamed B-O-O-T-Y/L-O-O-T.
Regarding Mohammad’s “raiding” for “booty.” If “Raiding was a source of both fear and security,” how is it that Mohammad, upon his triumph at Makkah, left his captives on their thrones and with their economies? If initially Mohammad’s intention was to acquire booty by raiding the Makkan’s caravans along the trade route, Mohammad was fully justified. These were the very enemies who persecuted him, plotted against him, made attempt to assassinate him, drove him out of his home and confiscated his property, and were bent on annihilating him and his followers. Why should they not recoup from the Makkans what they had been forced to abandon? If you were to meet the person who forced you out of your home in a vulnerable position wouldn’t you confront him? Why then fault Mohammad for a legal act that you would commit? The occupier/usurper is not to be left untouched to devour the fruits of his victims in peace. Regarding Qur’an 8:41 about Allāh and Mohammad receiving one-fifth of the war booty, Muhammad Ali:
“LL explains ghanama as meaning he acquired a thing without difficulty. Hence the original meaning of the word ghanimah is simply acquisition or achievement, and the word is then applied to what is acquired in war after fighting with the enemy and vanquishing him, and is a technical term for such property.
Regarding the one-fifth spoken of here, the most generally accepted opinion is that it is to be divided again into five parts, the Prophet, the near of kin, the orphans, the poor, and the wayfarer being equal sharers. The near of kin included all individuals belonging to the tribes of Bani Håshim and Bani ‘Abe al-Mualib, to whom zakåt money was not allowed. The poor among them were thus paid from this source of income. As to the Prophet’s twenty-fifth, it appears that it was also used for the benefit of the Muslims. The words of one of his sayings are: wa-l-khumsu mardud-un fi-kum, i.e. the fifth (too) is given back to you. That the Prophet led a life of the utmost simplicity is admitted on all hands. The remaining four-fifths of the ghanimah were divided among those who took part in the battle, as they were not otherwise paid for their services, but there is no order to this effect in the Qur’ån itself. It may be further noted that this arrangement was simply an exigency. The war was forced on the Muslims all of a sudden when the State had not yet been formed in the proper sense of the word; there was no army at all, nor a treasury from which to pay it; and just as they were required to carry it on on the basis of voluntary gifts, so they were allowed a share in the war acquisitions. If the State pays its soldiers as it pays its civil servants, the war acquisitions would all go to the State treasury, just as income from zakåt or tribute went to the State treasury. It is nowhere laid down that the Muslim State shall not maintain a regular army.
The day of Discrimination referred to here is the battle of Badr. It is so called because prophecies of an encounter between the Muslims and their enemies and of the vanquishment of the enemy are met with in very early revelations. See also 3:13a.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an notes, text and commentary can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
If Mohammad sought “booty” because “Raiding was a source of both fear and security” it is rather strange that when he died his shield was in the possession of a Jewish pawnbroker –with his power he could quite easily have trashed the pawnbroker. Also Allāh says to give away wealth and to not transgress–(Qur’an 17:26; 51:19; 2:190; 5:2; 26:183). How then are Muslims to “raid” and acquire “booty” if they are to give away wealth to the needy and to not transgress?
It could hardly be for loot/booty that prompted ill-equipped and outnumbered men to pit themselves against formidable foes. To impel them to thrust themselves against a “wall of elephants” even after seeing others crushed by this enormous beast, as on the “field of Jasr;” to rush single-handedly “into the ranks of enemy, 60,000 strong, in the dark of the night,” as at the “battle of Qadisiyah;” to throw themselves and horses “into the deep and rapid stream of the Tigris” as at Mada’in; to dart alone into the unrelenting foe, as in the battle at Fihl. As Muhammad Ali rightly noted: “The reckless courage with which Muslims fought the foe in these wars, regardless of life and death, should convince any fair-minded man that sordid love of loot could not inspire such invincible bravery.” The “Prophet had breathed an invincible spirit into them.” (The Early Caliphate, pp. 105, 106, 104, 107).
It could hardly have been for “loot” that prompted Mu’adh to refuse a seat on “the magnificent carpet” offered to him by the Romans stating that he did not want to sit on a carpet that “has been prepared by robbing the poor.”* It could hardly have been for “loot” that ‘Umar attired himself in “coarse and patched clothes;” and to declare that ‘The Muslim’s dignity lay elsewhere than in his dress.’ It could hardly have been for “loot” that Salahuddin Ayyube (Saladin) allowed his wealthy Christians’ captives to leave with their wealth, on his conquest of Jerusalem. It could hardly have been for “loot” that Salahuddin Ayyube spent his wealth in the way of Allah, and died a pauper. *(M. Ali, The Early Caliphate, p. 111).
(13). WS. “Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and spend every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions.” (And to know this lady is put in charge of “influencing” others). (p. 66).
Response: (Even though Allāh admonishes us to have military preparedness, for defense not for offence–Qur’an 2:199; 8:60). In their fourteen hundred years of history how much armaments have Muslims invented/developed? In the last two hundred years, how many Muslim countries have colonized or tried to colonize other nations or sought to exploit the wealth of other nations? How many Muslim countries 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 Jewish State out of Palestine; in 1956 the Jewish State in “collusion” with France and Britain attacked Egypt, so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal, nationalized by President Nasser; 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 aggression (for oil and/or hegemony?); and the battle is raging for Afghanistan’s some three trillion dollars worth of newly found riches. So who is raiding whom? Whose lives and relationships and behavior and decisions are ruled by “The philosophy of raiding”?
(14). WS. “In Islam, a husband owns his wife just as he does the furnishings of his home.” (Wonder which Islam this lady studied). (p. 79).
Response: Marriage in Islam is a sacred contract–(Qur’an 4:21). And a contract guarantees both parties mutual rights–(Qur’an 2:228). And as shown in item # 2, women and men are garments to the other –to protect and beautify and comfort, and conceal our body’s imperfections; men and women are friends of one another; Allah has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her –the man who abuses his wife, causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love and compassion and comfort in her. It is not love and compassion and comfort to oppress; Islam liberates and exalts Woman; gives her the right to earn, and to inherit and own property and the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases; and has given her equal rights with Man as the inheritors of Paradise. The claim that “In Islam, a husband owns his wife just as he does the furnishings of his home” clearly betrays ignorance of Islam. (As every organization needs a head/leader, the husband, being the maintainer of the house, is given a degree of authority over the wife–Qur’an 4:34; 2:228; and this is only in home affairs. Though he has this authority, the wise husband would follow his wife’s judgment if it is superior to his). (As noted, marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman. In which each party has duties/responsibilities to the other. While the wife is to be kind and respectful to her in-laws [and vice-versa; and the husband is to be kind and respectful to his in-laws and vice-versa –and this is expected in all marriages] she is not to be abused or taken advantage of. The wife is not servant of these in-laws. Marriage is a contract between the wife and husband, not between the wife and her husband’s entourage).
(15). WS. “Al-Qasimi (“from Saudi Arabia”) denied the existence of God and attacked Islam, analyzing it in such as way as to make the most closed mind stop and really think.” (p. 82). With the materials submitted in this presentation, especially those on science, it is Al-Qasimi who should “stop and really think.”
(16). WS. “The Egyptian doctor Nawal el-Saadawi also played an important role in my intellectual reprogramming…After I had finished reading her book The Female Is The Source, I felt as if I had been revived from a drug-induced coma. In a society that believes the Prophet Muhammad’s dictum that a man’s prayer is nullified if a dog or a woman passes close beside him, it is not easy for a writer to say that the female is the source.” (p. 83).
Response: “The Female Is The Source” of what? (Taking Adam to mean the first man). It is significant to note that Allah says that Jesus/Adam was first created THEN He said “Be, and he was.” (In the natural process) Creation, in the form of the sperm, takes place in the man, and conception, which is the combining of the sperm with the ovum, takes place in the woman. So a person is first created before he is conceived. This creation of Adam/Jesus does not refer to the creation of the soul (of Adam/Jesus); because Allah says that the likeness between them is that he created them from “dust,” and the soul is not created from “dust.”
That “a man’s prayer is nullified if a dog or a woman passes close beside him.” This saying was not uttered by the Prophet. It was narrated by his wife, ‘Aisha, in comment against others. Here is the hadith (please note the word “They” in They said):
“Narrated ‘Aisha (Allāh be pleased with her): The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey, and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him.” Also “Narrated ‘Aisha (Allāh be pleased with her): The things which annulled the prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allāh I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him). So I would slip away by the side of his feet”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 490, 493).
Clearly, as the hadiths show this statement, which ‘Aisha was unaware of, was made by others, and after the death of the Prophet. Significantly “They” did not say that ‘the prophet said’ that prayer is annulled by…..’ Woman even touched the Prophet as he prayed let alone passing in front of him: “Narrated ‘Aisha (Allāh be pleased with her): It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys. No doubt I saw Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) praying while I used to lie between him and the Qibla and when he wanted to prostrate, he pushed my legs, and I withdrew them”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 498; and # 492 have the additional words, “In those days there were no lamps in the houses”). The Prophet even prayed with his granddaughter around his neck–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 495). And even prayed beside his wife Maimuna while she was menstruating: “Narrated Maimuna (Allāh be pleased with her: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) used to pray while I used to sleep beside him during my periods (menses) and in prostrations his garment used to touch me”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 497, 496).
Islam does not teach that a woman is dirty or unclean. The Prophet Mohammad taught that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers. Paradise could not lie at the feet of mothers if woman was dirty or unclean. Again, the Prophet once asked his wife, ‘Aisha, to bring him his prayer mat; to which ‘Aisha informed that she was having her menses; the Prophet answered that her menses was not in her hands–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1, # 261). The Prophet even cuddled his wives during their menstruation. ‘Aisha combed the Prophet’s hair while in menses, Bokhari Vol. 1, # 294; and while in her menses, the Prophet leaned on her lap and recited Qur’an–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 296; Vol. 9, # 639. See also Abu Dawud Vol. 1, # 258-273). A man can do anything with his menstruating wife except have sexual intercourse.
(17). WS. (Concluded an article with the words): ““Our Prophet Muhammad says: ‘Teach your children to pray at the age of seven and beat them if they don’t at the age of ten.’ To Hell with a Prophet who demands that a father beat his ten-year old son to make him pray to God!”” (p. 100. Also pp.162-163).
Response: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes,” “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying,” “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die”–(Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13). Or. “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” A Bishop is to be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with ALL GRAVITY”–(1 Tim. 3:4). Even God beats and scourges His sons into obedience and those who are not are “bastards”: “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT, whereof all are partakers, then are ye BASTARDS, and NOT SONS”–(Hebrews 12:6-8).
Whereas brutality is another matter. How would you deal with a child to whom talking and facing him into a corner and sending to bed without supper and curtailing his privileges have no effect? Perhaps there are those who can attest that they are better off for receiving a whack on the backside.
Waking a seven year-old at five in the morning for a ten minute prayer (and after which he may go back to bed) can hardly be viewed as a hardship for the child. Perhaps there are many thousands of non-Muslim children (as well as Muslims) who are roused from sleep at six, five-thirty, and maybe even five to be trudged off in “subzero temperatures” to daycare so their parent(s) can be at their jobs at seven. And some of these children who may be grumpy or sluggish or rebellious are probably dealt with harshly by their parent(s). It is doubtful that these children are scarred for life for the “discomfort” they suffer at this daily regimentation or that they end up as adults hating their parents employer and/or school. However, the Muslim father who sends his seven-year old son at five in the morning in “subzero temperatures” to make ablution with cold water –and why was the water not brought into the house the night before and even heated: does the father or mother not have brain to reason? and reasoning is one of the foremost aspects of Islam– then beats the child mercilessly for not washing properly has not benefited from his prayer. One of the benefits of prayer is to imbue mercy. And as the Prophet Mohammad taught: “He who is not merciful to others, will not be treated mercifully”–(Bokhari Vol. 8, # 26; 42). (When a child is being trained he/she can be allowed time off and/or be given the choice of making his own schedule of alternate days to pray until it becomes his/her daily practice. Also they might be exempt from the morning prayer during school-week. Regimentation helps to build discipline and character. The Prophet is noted as having said that Islam is a very easy religion and whoever makes it hard will not be able to keep it. So do not be extremists–(Bokhari Vol. 1, # 38). The religion that allows its adherents to deny God (which is the worst of sins) under compulsion has to be the world’s easiest religion” –(Qur’an 16:106).
Every organization has rules and or regimentation (as the military and perhaps other security agencies). Almost everyone is regimented: we prepare at a scheduled time, doing what are necessary, to go to work; return home, most likely prepare meals; etc. It should be explained to a child why it is necessary to pray and fast, and why to pray in Arabic. The five statutory prayers were enjoined by Allāh–(Qur’an 2:43, 110, 177; 6:72). Allāh does not need anything from us. These prayers are for our own moral and spiritual elevation: “Surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil; and certainly the remembrance of Allah is the greatest (force). And Allah knows what you do.” (Qur’an 29:45). “And enjoin prayer on thy people, and steadily adhere to it. We ask not of thee a sustenance. We provide for thee. And the (good) end is for guarding against evil”–(Qur’an 20:132). (See also Fasting-reasons & benefits and Arabic-Why to pray in?)
As God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, then as Jesus) can have Jeshurun’s children eaten by beasts and bitten by poisonous serpents for going after false gods”–(Deut. 32:15-25); can have mischievous children eaten by bears”–(2 Kings 2:22-24). and can have children beaten to bring them into obedience and as He Himself beats and scourges His sons into obedience and those who are not beaten are regarded as “bastards” (as noted above), why carp at Mohammad for training children to worship Allāh –the God Who is One and Only, the Eternal, Absolute, on Whom all depend; Who begets not; nor is begotten; the Incomparable; Who incarnates not; the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, and the Creator and Vanquisher of all, to Whom is our eventual return.
Clearly, by having this child worship only Allāh, Mohammad is saving him/her from Hell; which, as Jesus says, is an “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched”–(Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43); and that in this “furnace of fire” there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–(Matt. 23:14, 33; 13:42). And, admittedly, a few whacks on the bottom (for your own benefit) is better than an eternity of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” in this “everlasting” “furnace of fire” that “never shall be quenched.” A few whacks in the ephemeral is no price to pay for the joy in the Eternal Splendor of Paradise. (May be when this “beaten” child gets into Paradise he would offer a special gratitude to Allah and the Prophet and his parents for straightening him as a kid. Especially when he sees those in Hell wailing and gnashing teeth).
(18). WS. (“Mr. Wilson” was her son’s “head teacher.” Comparing Mr. Wilson’s kindness of walking her son home to retrieve his hearing aid, WS wrote): “I remembered having read in a Muslim book about Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab. The caliph hit his son over the head with his stick for no particular reason, and, when his wife Hafsa protested and asked him, “Why did you hit him?,” Omar replied, “I saw he was getting above himself and decided to cut him down to size.” I followed this story with an account of what happened to me that day and concluded the article with the words: “Long live America and down with the culture of injustice, oppression, and persecution! Long live Mr. Wilson, and everlasting death to Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab!” (pp. 101-102). (Mr. Wilson may have walked your son because of kindness or maybe because he wanted to get away from the classroom, for a stroll in the beautiful day. Or perhaps he wanted to see where you live. Or he came because his time was being paid for. A good way to know someone is to spend at least a week living with him/her, or investigate how he treats his own).
Response: There are three things wrong with this entry: (1) Hafsa was not the wife of ‘Umar; Hafsa was his daughter; (2) ‘Umar hit his son for “no particular reason” (3) then saying the boy “was getting above himself.” No one should be hit on the head for any reason. As shown in preceding pages, Islam fights “the culture of injustice, oppression, and persecution!”
(19). WS. (On being turned down by Syrian authorities in her application for passports for her children, without their father’s permission. As her husband was not available her husband’s brother, whom she had to “bribe,” was brought forward, and confirmed that his brother had appointed him legal guardian of his children: ““When we left the building I had the passports in my hand, but the anger grew inside me. A knowledgeable and respectable woman and a doctor, I was not considered fit to be the guardian of my own children, but a drunkard of no moral worth had the right, for one dollar, to become my guardian and the guardian of my children.” “I left for America spurred on by a single aim: To defend those whom Allāh had cut down in size until they were smaller than flies…I decided to bring “Allāh” to justice on criminal charges.” (Can anyone “defend” herself or himself against Allāh?) (pp. 108-109).
Response: It is not uncommon in a country that a child under a certain age requires both parents authorization in order to obtain a passport. You may know that you are “knowledgeable and respectable,” but how many outside of your circle may know this. Perhaps in trying to cross the American border you will be grilled. Memory seems to recall that even the late veteran American Senator, Edward Kennedy, was on a no-fly list.
As for your decision “to bring “Allāh” to justice on criminal charges.” Children of the age of discretion have the right to choose which parents they prefer to be with–(Abu Dawud Vol. 2, p. 617, # 2270). As preceding materials have shown, no one needs to be “defended” against Allāh.
(20). WS. (On a televised program she shouted at a “Muslim sheikh”: “Be quiet! It’s my turn!”): “Never in the history of Islam has a woman clearly and forcefully asked a Muslim man to be quiet because it was her turn to speak. Women in Islamic custom and tradition don’t have a turn. They have no time that is theirs alone. Women in Islam don’t even possess their own selves, or the right to make their own decisions.” (pp. 111-113). (This has already been debunked. As shown women have equal rights with men–Qur’an 2:228).
(21). WS. “Yes, I think of myself as a Muslim, whether or not I believe in Islam. I did not choose to be a Muslim, but it is not within my power to make myself anything else. Each one of us is whoever she is persuaded to be in her early years.” (Does any reader believe this crock?) (p. 114).
Response: (Whereas All People Are Muslims by compulsion). Perhaps as a minor you did not “choose to be a Muslim,” but it certainly is in your “power to make” yourself “anything” you want to be. (Especially now that you are in America). Allāh, God, has given you this right: “Surely We have created man from sperm mixed (with ovum), to try him, so We have made him hearing, seeing. We have truly shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful–(Qur’an 76:3). There is no compulsion in religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).
(22). WS. (About women in Muslim society): “Women in a society of this kind cannot themselves take revenge on men for having oppressed them, but they can vent their pent-up anger on other women.” “I get a lot of letters from Muslim women who curse me. I cannot explain this reaction of one woman to another by anything other than an expression of jealousy which devours them. When they read my essays, these women ask themselves, both consciously and unconsciously: “Why can Wafa Sultan exercise her freedom to express her opinions while I cannot? Why can Wafa Sultan live in a country that respects her as a woman while I cannot?” When they become frustrated by lack of an answer to their questions they attack and curse me.” (More egotistical self-aggrandizement. How can there be a “lack of an answer” to these women’s questions when, clearly, the answer is because they are “oppressed” as you stated”). (p. 122).
Response: Are all these Muslim women who write to you “oppressed.” And how do you know they “attack and curse” you because they are “oppressed” and “jealous” of you and not because of your bunkum against Islam? (Though Islam 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). Seems you are the one given to “jealousy.” Jealous because you cannot see the Glory, Greatness, Goodness, and Grandeur of Allāh/Islam that these women, despite being “oppressed” by their men-folk, are seeing. This “jealousy” of their spiritual vision perhaps “devours” you “both consciously and unconsciously” and you are “frustrated” that you are “blind” to the Light of Truth; just as you are “blind” to the evils of America: “People have asked me…“Why don’t you see America’s bad points?” Perhaps I am blind, but I can see no bad points in America. In order to understand my perspective, of course, you would have to be a woman who has lived in Syria or another Muslim country for thirty years!”(pp. 237-238). (So America can commit evil abroad [and even within] and you will be “blind” to it so long as you can dress, move, and talk freely? Talk about double-dealing: balking at one man’s transgression and digesting that of another! And to know, you are one of the “100 influential people in the world.” Armageddon has to be just a swing away).
(23). WS. (Commenting on the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Aisha): “Through the story of this “marriage,” Islam denies women the right to reach the stage of physical, intellectual, and emotional maturity at which they are fully ready to marry. It denies Muslim women to marry as a rational human being.” (p. 123).
Response: (Please see ‘Aisha) Briefly: The Prophet Mohammad was born into a custom that engaged in child marriages. As he could not change a practice of society until he received Divine revelation, the Prophet, by marrying ‘Aisha and delaying consummation of his marriage to her, was hoping to change society of pre-teen marriages by his action. This practice did end, as Muhammad Ali notes: “there is no case on record showing that the marriage of a minor through his or her guardian was allowed by the Prophet after details of the law were revealed to him at Madinah. His own marriage with ‘Aishah which took place when she was nine years of age, is sometimes looked upon as sanctioning the marriage of a minor through his guardian, but there are two points worth consideration in this matter. In the first place, ‘Aishah’s nikah at nine was tantamount only to an engagement, because the consummation of marriage was postponed for full five years, to allow her, no doubt, to attain majority. In the second place, ‘Aishah’s nikah was performed in Makkah long before the details of the Islamic law were revealed to the Prophet, and therefore her marriage at nine can be no argument for the marriage of a minor.” (The Religion of Islam, p. 601).
What is “the stage of physical, intellectual, and emotional maturity?” Perhaps some younger girls are more anatomically developed that older ones; and also more intellectually and emotionally advanced than older girls. Perhaps there are females who had sex for the first time in their twenties and were regretful; whereas there might be females who begun having sex at the age of twelve or younger and have no regrets. Muhammad Ali explains in his The Religion Of Islam: “No particular age has been specified for marriage in the Islamic law; in fact, with the difference of climatic conditions, there would be a difference as to the marriageable age in different countries. But the Qur’an does speak of an age which it identifies with the age of majority: “And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage (nikah). Then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property…”–(Qur’an 4:6). Thus it will be seen that the age of marriage and the age of maturity of intellect are identified with full age or the age of majority.” (p. 600). Notably, Canada has changed the age of sexual consent from the age of fourteen years to eighteen. Who is the state to dictate at what age a female can consent to having this pleasure and with whom? While, rightly, there are laws protecting children against sexual exploitation, isn’t this what you project yourself to be fighting against –control of the woman’s body? Or are you only interested in taking control of the woman’s body from Allāh and His Messenger –though Allāh and His Messenger do not control WOMEN: they have a free choice in choosing their husbands– and putting it into the hands of local authorities?
(24). WS. (On the Prophet’s marriage to Zainab), wife of his adopted son, Zaid): “One day the Prophet went to Zeid and Zeinab’s home. The door way was covered with a cow-hide curtain which the wind lifted, allowing him to see Zeinab unveiled in her in her room. He was moved with admiration for her. (As if Mohammad had never seen Zainab unveiled before). Zeinab invited Muhammad to come in, but he refused and retraced his steps, murmuring: “Praised be he who changes hearts.” When Zeid learned from his wife what had happened, he went to Muhammad and told him: “Perhaps Zeinab pleased you and I should leave her to you.” Muhammad told him: “Keep your wife.” When you think about it, what we have just witnessed is a son who is passing his wife along to his father as if he was asking a friend of his, “Do you like my shoes? Shall I take them off so that you can have them?” (For the sake of argument, how do you know Zaid did not discuss the matter with Zainab and it was Zainab’s choice to have Zaid make the proposal to the Prophet?)Since this “sanctified marriage took place, women in Islam have been put on and taken off like shoes for centuries.” (Put on and taken off as compared to which nation?) (pp. 124-125).
Response: There are variations to this story as there are critics. For a response to this critic’s crockery see Zainab Scandal.
That “Since this “sanctified marriage took place, women in Islam have been put on and taken off like shoes for centuries.” The Arabic word for marriage is “nikah which originally means ‘aqd or uniting”–uniting in faith, love, compassion and intimacy. Allah says that He creates mates for us from among ourselves–(Qur’an 30:21; 42:11); and that marriage is a mithaq, solemn covenant–(Qur’an 4:21). “Thus marriage is, according to the Qur’an, the union of two souls which are one in their essence”–(Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 584, 586). As marriage is a sacred contract between the man and woman, and as Allah has put love and compassion between them, that she is a source of peace and comfort, that they are garments to the other–to beautify, protect, conceal imperfections, and make comfortable– and that she has rights similar as the rights against her, it is nonsense to say that in Islam there is “a complete absence of the idea of association, partnership, or companionship between the married couple.” It is a betrayal of ignorance to assert that Islam allows women to be “put on and taken off like shoes;” and that Islam protects the rights of men only when Allah clearly states that marriage is a sacred contract –and a contract is an agreement that is mutually beneficial– “And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner–(Qur’an 2:228). Briefly. There is no “easy divorce” in Islam. Islam enjoins counseling. While divorce is “the most hated” thing, there is no ‘till death do us part’ in Islam. If a couple cannot live in harmony, it is better for them to part in peace than live in misery. The Prophet Mohammad is reported as having said that, “of all things which have been permitted divorce is the most hated by Allah”–Abu Dawud 13:3 (M Ali, comm. # 293). Doing a thing that is “most hated” is not undertaken lightly. (Please see Islam-women).
(25). WS. (She also dabbles in the Prophet’s marriage to Safiyyah, a Jewess of noble birth, taken as a captive of war): “She was taken prisoner in the course of the raid by one of Muhammad’s men named Sahm. Muhammad took Safia from him, gave him seven other female prisoners as compensation, and married Safia the same day he killed her husband, brother, and father. Once again, a woman is given no opportunity to make a decision regarding her marriage or, ultimately, her fate. Safia finds herself in Muhammad’s arms from one day to the next and does not have the right to accept or refuse what he decides to do with her.” (And how do you know this?)(p. 127)
Response: Let Wafa Sultan give her examples of Mohammad ordering “raid” on any tribe and taking their women.
Safiyyah was the “daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab of Banu al Nadir” and was honored as “the lady of Banu Qurayzah and Banu al Nadir,”1 Mohammad did not “raid” the Banu Nadir tribe. Mohammad did not kill her “husband, brother, and father.” Her father and brother were killed in war against Mohammad, and her husband was executed as per his own agreement with Mohammad.
Jews of Khaybar had proven themselves untrustworthy. While Muslims had the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah with others in the South, “But what about the north, where both Heraclius (of Rome) and Chosroes (of Persia) might attack Madinah in cooperation with the Jews of Khaybar who were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon Muhammad?” as M.H. Haykal explained, “It would be relatively easy for either emperor to remind the Jews of the fate of their co-religionists, the Banu Qurayzah, Banu al Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa, who had previously been expelled from their dwellings after blockade, fighting, and war, and to incite them to new ventures against Muhammad. For their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of Quraysh….it was not possible to reconcile them with a peace treaty like that of Hudaybiyah since the covenant of Madinah had been violated by them much to their own detriment. Were help to come to them from the side of Byzantium, their natural inclination to rise again against Muhammad could not be contained. Hence it was thought necessary to put a final end to their influence in the Arabian Peninsula, and to do so quickly without giving them the time to forge any new alliances with Ghatafan or any of the other tribe hostile to Muhammad.”2
The Jews fought strongly against the Muslims. After their defeat and surrender Jews of Khaybar –unlike the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu al Nadir who were forced to evacuate their lands altogether– “Muhammad accepted their plea and permitted them to stay on their land whose title now passed to him by right of conquest. The terms of their surrender provided that they would be given half their crops in compensation for their labor.”3
Safiyyah’s husband, Kinanah ibn al Rabi, was executed as per his own agreement with Mohammad. M. H. Haykal relates: “Kinanah al Rabi was known by the Muslims to have been the guardian of the wealth of Banu al Nadir. When the Prophet had asked Kinanah about his treasure, the latter solemnly declared that he did not know where it was hidden. Muhammad threatened him that in case the treasure was found hidden in his place he would be put to death. Kinanah agreed.” Later, Kinanah was seen in an “uninhabited house in the outskirts” where part of the treasure was discovered. He was executed as per his own words. 4
Being of noble birth and to be reduced as wife of an ordinary man would have been a most humiliating experience for Safiyyah. “The Prophet granted her her freedom and then married her.”5 By taking Safiyyah over to himself the Prophet, and King of Arabia, not only elevated her status by making her his wife but also rendered to her the supreme and invaluable service of robing her a Muslim. There could hardly be any doubt that Safiyyah was joyed to be “in Muhammad’s arms;” and welcomed it whole-heartedly. After all, the Hebraic law had sentenced her to a living hell: condemned her to a life of “sorrow,” and subjection to her husband; and sold her daughter into bondage–(Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7). Whereas Mohammad liberated her and gave her rights that left her nothing to strive for all the way to Jannah; and immortalized her as a “mother” of the Believers –honored now by some one-and-a-half billion Muslims. And counting, as Islam, in the face of all the vociferous clamoring against it, continues inexorably to its destiny as decreed by His Highest Majesty: “They desire to put out the light of Allāh with their mouths, but Allāh will perfect His light, though the disbelievers May be averse”–(Qur’an 61:8). “He (Allāh) it is Who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with the guidance and the religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions. And Allāh is enough for a witness”–(Qur’an 48:28; 9:33; 61:9). Talk about Safiyyah being the envy of women!
That Safiyyah “does not have the right to accept or refuse what he (Mohammad) decides to do with her.” This is hooey! Marriage and divorce and women’s rights have been dealt with in preceding pages. (See Islam-women). Safiyyah, without doubt, found comfort and joy in Mohammad. “Safiyyah remained loyal to Mohammad throughout his life. In his last illness, when the Prophet was surrounded by his wives, Safiyyah came forward and said: “O Prophet of God, I surely wish that that from which you suffer might be in me rather than in you.” Muhammad’s wives winked at one another and the Prophet observing their reaction, said: “Go on and wink at one another! By God, I know that Safiyyah is truthful and loyal!” Safiyyah, who survived Muhammad, lived until the time of the caliphate of Mu’awiyah. She was buried at al Baqi”6 in Madinah.
Regarding the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Aisha, Zainab, and Safiyyah Wafa Sultan questions: “Where are the Koranic verses or Prophetic traditions that can alleviate the ugliness of these attitudes?” And “How can we view” Mohammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha “other than as rape?” she states. (p. 127). As shown on this site, there are/were no “ugliness” in the Prophet’s marriages to ‘Aisha, Zainab, and Safiyyah. Thus there is/was no “ugliness” to alleviate; therefore no “Koranic verses or Prophetic traditions” on them are needed. However, verses extolling the lofty status Islam has bestowed on women are noted in item #2.
That Mohammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha can only be viewed as “rape.” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines rape as: “to seize and take away by force; an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force; the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception; unlawful carnal knowledge other than of a woman by a man; an outrageous violation.” Thus, a female of any age can be victim of “rape.” Can Wafa Sultan prove that Mohammad was guilty of any of these definitions? And that ‘Aisha did not welcome Mohammad’s company and that she considered his companion-ship “an outrageous violation?” If Wafa Sultan cannot prove these –and for certain she cannot– then she is guilty of libeling Mohammad!
The Bible not only shows that girls as young as seven have reached puberty, the Bible allows the taking of little virgin girls as Sex Slaves. And medical report shows that girls of seven years have reached puberty. And reports have been published showing that “nine-year” old engage in prostitution. (See ‘Aisha).
Mohammad was born into a society that engaged in child marriages. Thus it was not uncommon in Seventh century Arabia for nine-year old to be married and have children. One of Mohammad’s reasons for marrying ‘Aisha (in which he deferred “CONSUMMATION”) was to effect unity among warring tribes (as Solomon did).
If Wafa Sultan was living in Seventh century Arabia she may have had her wretched tongue cut off for slandering Moham-mad.
(25A). WS. (She plunges into Islam’s polygamy without the lifejacket of knowledge. She does not seem to know, or care to know, the background to which certain verses are revealed; so long as she can use it to suit her purpose: venting unfounded bitterness at her men-folk on Islam. Readers are urged to consult Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an when subjected to quotes made by critics. Muhammad Ali has explained Arabic words/terms and gives a background to verses. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org). Wafa Sultan:“Islam was born into an environment that sanctioned the capture and rape of women, holding them –not the men committing the crime– responsible.” “Muhammad legalized for himself and his men the rape of the women captured in the course of their raids in a verse that tumbled down from the top of the mountain and fell into Muhammad’s lap. The Koranic verse says: “Marry women who seem good to you: two, three or four of them. But if you fear you cannot maintain equality among them, marry only one” (4:3). Women who seem good to you? Men viewed marriage as nothing more than a response to their desires, without reference to the woman’s feelings regarding the marriage.” (pp. 129-130).
Response: “Good” does not necessarily mean features; but would also include compatibility, and Islam requires that couples engage in conversations to ascertain compatibility; even reason would dictate this as a divorce in Islam is a most shameful thing. Arguably, whether by features only or not, doesn’t men of today choose wives that look “good” to them? Women have rights to choose their husbands. Polygamy in Islam is an exception rather than the rule. It is only recommended as a remedial measure. It is a fact that females mature earlier than males and women live longer than men do; and the flames of war usually leave in its ashes many widows. While some women may be financially independent, they have feminine needs, which can be met either in the unceremonious cot of concubinage or in the honorable bed of wifehood.
The verse Wafa Sultan quoted was, as Muhammad Ali explained, revealed following the battle of Uhud, in which “70 men out of 700 Muslims had been slain.” To alleviate hardships on the widows and orphans Muslim men were allowed a limited polygamy. It is not morally healthy for men to have half a dozen paramours than to have women in the dignity of polygamous marriages. To prevent the moral decay of society, Islam allows a limited polygamy to alleviate the problem of female preponderancy. Islam allows polygamy even though Allāh, God knows that man is not capable of “impartiality.” This is so because the preservation of the moral standards of society is of higher importance than man’s inability to be impartial with his affections. (And it is morally and socially better that man live with this partiality in polygamous marriage than in profligacy). (See also Islam-concubinage).
(26). WS. (Regarding the polygamy noted above, she questions): “What have Muslim men and women got out of this complex “equitable” worldview that allows men to give free rein to their desires and turns women into a commodity to be bought in accordance with the requirements of those desires? Where is the concept of “family” or “children” in this dictionary that is so hard to read?” (It’s only hard to read for those who have eyes but cannot discern). (p. 130).
Response: Islam liberated man and woman from the irrationality of polytheism, the degradation of idolatry, and the humiliation of superstition. Islam took men and women from wine and wantonness and “loot” and darkness and backwardness and molded them into fortresses of unity and sanity and reason and sobriety and chastity and progress and catapulted them in seats of light and knowledge that saw them masters of all branches of science for nearly a thousand years. Islam saved woman from infanticide–(Qur’an 6:152; 17:31; 81:8-9); liberated her from Zihar–whereby her husband compared her to his mother’s backside and deserted her–(Qur’an 33:4); from Ila –in which a husband takes an oath to indefinitely suspend conjugal relations with his wife–(Qur’an 2:226); from being inherited by her late husband’s elder son or male relations–(Qur’an 4:19); and from being married to her late husband’s son–(Qur’an 4:22). And as already noted, Allāh has put love and compassion and mercy between man and woman; they are friends of one another; and they have mutual rights, etc.
As to “Where is the concept of “family” or “children” in this dictionary that is so hard to read?” Allāh tells us to keep family relationship–(Qur’an 4:1); children are to be cared for and to have good relations with parents–(Qur’an 2:233; 6:152; 31:14-15; 46:15); children have rights to inheritance–(Qur’an 4:11-12, 176). Muslims are also required to care for kins, the poor, and those who are killed in the service of Allāh–truth and justice–(Qur’an 24:22). And Allāh reveals: “And know that your wealth and your children are a trial”–(Qur’an 8:28; 64:15). Our wealth is a “trial” in how we accumulate and disburse it and our children are a “trial” in how we raise them.
(27). WS. “I read the story of the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to one of his wives and how he was on the point of going to bed with her when he discovered white marks on the skin of her abdomen and dismissed her.” (And she connected the Prophet’s action to) “my father’s abandonment of his ailing wife, who died alone after two years during which she never saw her children.” (p. 133).
Response: The Prophet may have “dismissed” this wife because of the ailment that caused these “white marks.” And when a wife (or husband) is “ailing” it is not the appropriate time to be intimate. It is love and compassion and mercy to consider the health of the “other.” The conjugal bed is a place of mutual joy, not for self-gratification. Your father may have abandoned his “ailing wife;” but the Prophet never abandoned or ill-treat any of his wives.
Regarding your “father’s abandonment of his ailing wife, who died alone after two years during which she never saw her children.” This is sad. Tragic! But it is not the dictate of Islam. As a divorce in Islam is expected to be an amicable affair–(Qur’an 2:229, 231) the mother and father are to be considerate to the other and both are to be given equal participation in the child’s life. This seems to be the requirement as expressed in Qur’an 2:233 which states in part: “…Neither shall a mother be made to suffer harm on account of her child, nor a father on account of his child.” Significantly, after worship of Allāh service to parents is next in line–(Qur’an 17:23; 31:14)–and our mother deserves our service three times over before service to our father –she having carried us, given birth, and nursed us–(Bokhari Vol. 8, # 2). But a child cannot serve his or her parents if he or she is alienated from either one. (For more on this please see Islam-child custody).
(28). WS. (She notes from the Qur’an): “One verse reads: “Your women are your fields, go, then, into your fields as you please” (2:223).” “For fourteen centuries Muslim women have been the dirt of Islam that Muslim men have trod on and “planted” in their role as the farmer.” (What a howl!) (pp. 133-134).
Response: It is obvious that Wafa Sultan (nor the commentator she notes) knows the background to which this verse was revealed. This injunction was given to dispel a Jewish superstition. Jews were of the belief that if a man has marital relations with his wife in the posterior position a child born from this union would be squint-eyed. Here is the hadith:
“Jews used to say: “If one has sexual
intercourse with his wife from the back,
then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.”
So this verse was revealed:–
‘Your wives are a tilth unto you;
so go to your tilth when or how you will.”
(Bokhari Vol. 6 # 51; Qur’an 2:223).
A field/tilth is something that produces. The field/tilth is carefully prepared and seeded and nurtured. (The way some farmers care for this “tilth” you would believe they were engaged in worship). The analogy of woman being a field/tilth is that like the field/tilth, she also is a producer (of the offspring). The injunction to go into them (wives) “when” you please could hardly be taken as giving men undue power over women, considering that women have equal rights with men; coupled to the fact that Allah has put love and compassion between men and women and that he might find comfort in her. It is not love and compassion for a husband to wield undue power over his wife in matters of intimacy (or elsewhere), nor would he truly find comfort in her in the exercise of such undue power. This permission to go into your tilth/field “when” you please indicates that (outside of her time of menstruation, pre and post-natal period and during their hours of fasting) there is no prohibited time for husband and wife to engage in marital relations.
Generally, men are superior to women physically only. Morally, spiritually and intellectually they are equals. Either can excel the other. The wise husband instead of feeling threatened by his wife’s superiority would endeavor to benefit from her qualities. Allāh Who gave woman her form and physiology–a form and physiology of which she had no choice–would not discriminate against her. It would be an injustice. And Allāh is not the least unjust to His servants.
The following incident is a timely example of the freedom women enjoyed even at the early point in Islam; Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate (and mark her tone at the magnificent Caliph, and his humble response): “Once when ‘Umar delivered a sermon against the practice of settling large sums as dower-money, it was a woman who stood up and objected saying: “O son of Khattab! How dare you deprive us when God says in the Qur’an that even a heap of gold may be settled on the wife as dower?” Far from resenting this, ‘Umar appreciated this courage of conviction and complimented the objector, saying: “The women of Madinah have more understanding than ‘Umar.”” (pp. 119-120). Further, ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls.” (Ibid. p. 120).
(29). WS. “The status of women in Muslim countries is a human catastrophe that the world has ignored for centuries and for which it is now paying a high price for ignoring. An oppressed and subjugated woman cannot give birth to an emotionally and mentally well-balanced man. The invisible Muslim woman has been and continues to be the hen who incubates the eggs of terrorism and provides them with the necessary warmth to hatch the terrorists.” (Can you please define “terrorism?” (p. 135).
Response: Women in Muslim countries may be “oppressed and
subjugated,” but this is not because of Islam. Pages in this presentation have debunked such a view. If “terrorism” and “terrorists” are the result of the Muslim women being “oppressed and subjugated” what are the factors involved in “free” women “incubating” and “hatching” the drunks and pimps and addicts and serial murderers and rapists, and other “dead weight” of western societies; not to mention the many wars that were fought and are still being fought; as well as the aggression and exploitation of other nations? It is “defective” cerebration to assert that “Islam views women as defective beings,” seeing that, in the least, men and women are created from the same substance –(Qur’an 4:1; 7:189; 30:21; 39:6), and in the best of make–(Qur’an 95:4; 23:12-14).
(30). WS. “Muhammad in a hadith told his followers: “Oh ye women, you are the majority of those who dwell in hell, for when you receive you express no thanks, when afflicted you show no patience, and when I keep aloof from you you complain.” (Perhaps a survey should be carried out on men to see how many can relate to this saying of the Prophet that “when you receive you express no thanks, when afflicted you show no patience, and when I keep aloof from you you complain.” (p. 138).
Response. It is doubtful that Mohammad “drummed” this statement “over and over again” into the women’s “head.” We will have to wait until Judgment Day to ascertain the truth (or falsity) of Muhammad’s statement that women are “the majority of those who dwell in hell.” If it should be said that men are warmongers, sexual predators, and deceptive –fabricating stories to suit their purposes– would one apply it to all men and label all men as being combative, wicked, and treacherous? If there is such a type of woman, why carp at Mohammad for expressing this truth. Truth is not hatred. However, that this saying of the Prophet is not to denigrate woman, as the critic projects, but to enlighten Muslims on how to deal with such a wife is evident from the admonition of the Prophet that a Muslim must not hate his wife; and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her –and to complain unjustly is a bad quality– then let him be pleased with another which is good. Such a saying refers only to those wives who are never satisfied or are difficult to please. (Some men also may be like this). That not all women are meant is evident by the wives of the Prophet; Mary, the mother of Jesus; Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh, even gave up her princely position and accepted the God preached by Moses; and, without doubt, there are Muslim as well as non-Muslim wives who are content with their provisions (and are ever open to adopting new methods instead of being rigid like a “curved bone”). Even in our time we have the courageous Rebiya Kadeer7 “once one of China’s richest entrepreneurs” and a “former member of China’s National Peoples Congress” who gave up her “privileged life in Xinjiang” to undertake noble jihad on behalf of the Uighur Chinese Muslims “persecuted” by China.
(31). WS. “Muhammad said in another hadith: “A woman must not feed anyone without her husband’s permission, unless the food is about to spoil. If she feeds anyone with his consent, her recompense is the same as his, but if she feeds anyone without his permission, he receives the recompense, while she will bear the responsibility for the sin.” What kind of woman is this brainwashed female who does not have the right to dispose of so much as a loaf of bread in her own home, and who, if she gives it to a destitute person with her husband’s permission, only then gets her recompense from his God? These teachings have not just helped to canonize women’s bondage, they have enshrined male arrogance.” (p. 138). (Isn’t the owner of a property the one with the sole right on how it is to be disposed? Whether institution or government, is not the finance utilized according to the dictates of the body that owns it, regardless of who is holding the treasury?)
Response: In Islam man is the maintainer of the family; and both man and woman have the sole right over their earnings–(Qur’an 4:32, 34). Thus, if the husband should dictate to the wife how his finance is to be used it is his right; and as woman has rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228) then, if she should happen to be the provider for the family or was to place an amount in the charge of her husband, she would have the right to dictate to him how it is to be utilized. This hadith highlights the right of the husband over his earnings. Islam requires that charity be given to the poor and the needy, to free slaves, those in debt, and the wayfarer, among others–(Qur’an 9:60).
Marriage is a sacred contract in which the obligations of both parties are declared. The wife who follows her husband’s instructions is keeping her duty to Allāh. The wife who does not utilize her husband’s wealth without his approval is not a “brainwashed female”: she is a prudent wife.
(32). WS. “Muhammad says in another hadith: “If a man summons his wife to his bed and she refuses, the angels will curse her until the morning.” Who is this God who asks his angels to devote their attention to cursing women who refuse to go to bed with their husbands?” (p. 139).
Response: Conjugal relations is a right that both spouses have on the other. If either spouse has no physical or emotional or medical (or other) reason to prevent him/her from this obligation why then should one refuse himself/herself to the other? All the hadith means is that it is a sin to deny your spouse his/her conjugal rights when there is no justification to do so.
(33). WS. (She notes a hadith of the Prophet): “A woman shall neither fast nor pray without her husband’s authorization.” (p. 139).
Response: This applies to voluntary fasting and prayers; as this might interfere with the husband’s marital needs. (And women have rights as those against her). As the wife is to be dutiful to Allāh and which duty requires her to be obedient to the husband, it would seem that in not fasting and praying she would yet receive the rewards as if she had.
(34). WS. (She quotes a hadith of the Prophet): “A man has the right to expect his wife, if his nose runs with blood, mucus or pus, to lick it up with her tongue.”(p. 139).
Response:Allāh tells us: “eat the lawful and good things from what is in the earth,” “eat of the good things that We have provided you with”–(Qur’an 2:168; 172); and “blood, mucus or pus” are not of the good things to “eat.” The Prophet and Caliphs would not utter words degrading to Woman seeing Allāh has conferred honor upon her, and for us to “Speak what is best”–(Qur’an 17:53). We are not even allowed to revile false gods–(Qur’an 6:108). As noted at the beginning, even in his life-time, sayings were forged in the Prophet’s name. Whatever contradicts the Qur’an is to be discarded. Whatever this hadith is worth, Islam forbids the use of “blood;” it is strange then that the Prophet would have some consume “blood”–(Qur’an 5:3).
(35). WS. (She quotes a hadith of the Prophet): “If I had ordered anyone to bow down to anyone [other than God] I would have ordered a woman to bow down before her husband because of his rights over her.” (p. 141).
Response: People “bow down” to monarchy (some of whom might be evil or hypocritical), they stand up in court for judges (which may be equated with bowing down), they stand for national anthem (of which Islam’s adhan; call to prayer, is the best), they “bow down” even to useless statues: and these do not give even a farthing to those who “bow down” to them. Whereas the Muslim husband who is mandated to provide all amenities to his wife (even though she may have a mountain load of wealth and more than he has) and for life (if they remained married), yet this husband is begrudged this “non-existent” honor from his wife for this life-long provision he has given to her? (While a wife also may work, she can, at any stage and for any reason, quit her job and decide to stay home. A husband cannot quit his job and intend for his wife to maintain him. The burden of support lies on the husband).
As stated above, marriage is a sacred contract in which the obligations of both parties are declared. The only superiority a man has over his wife is one degree, and that in home affairs only; by virtue of him being the maintainer of the family–(Qur’an 2:228; 4:34). This hadith may only be in reference to the important position of the husband. Significantly, in his Qur’an, Allāh has laid more stress on honor to mothers than to fathers; woman has three degrees of excellence over man –she having carried man for nine months, endured pain giving birth to him and nursed him–; she is the gateway to Paradise as the Prophet taught; she has mutual rights with man; has material, moral and spiritual equality with man; is friend and protector of man; is his garment as he is hers; and Allāh has put love and compassion between them and that she is a source of peace and comfort. One expects better service from an “influential” woman than carping at Mohammad.
(36). WS. “The woman in the Muslim country is forced to recognize that Western culture is the fruit of men and women working together equally”. (p. 147).
Response: While there is more progress when men and women are treated equally –and as shown, Islam treats them equally– it was only in the 1950’s that Canada recognized woman as a person. And Canada was already well-developed. And some fifty years ago American women were yet hollering for equality, and America was already a superpower. And less than five years ago Canada was cited by the U.N. for her shameful treatment of the native people. In contrast, (though this is not to sanction their treatment of women) Muslim nations such as Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, where women are still oppressed (or partially oppressed) are materially forging ahead.
The “teachings of Islam” have not “closed” the doors to success and progress. In Islam, employment for women is voluntary, as men are the maintainers of women–(Qur’an 4:34). While their primary function is the molding of the family, women are not barred from education and employment. This is clear from the Qur’anic injunctions that “for women is the benefit of what they earn”–(4:32); and for the Prophet (and Muslims, which women also are) to pray for knowledge–(20:114); and the Prophet’s saying to seek knowledge. The Prophet’s first wife, Lady Khadijah, was a businesswoman. When he was appointed Prophet, Mohammad did not prevent his wife from doing her business. And there is no injunction from Allāh in the Qur’an restricting woman from any profession.
While “the man excels the woman in constitution and physique, which is capable of bearing greater hardships and facing greater dangers than the physique of the woman,” as Mohammad Ali points out in his The Religion of Islam (pp. 627-628), woman can be employed in any field that is suitable to her. Women can also work alongside men, the only prohibition is that they do not engage in amorous and frivolous conversations with the male sex, as the injunction to the Prophet’s wives clearly show: “be not soft in speech, lest he, in whose heart is a disease, should feel tempted; and speak decent words”–(Qur’an 33:32).
The injunction to the Prophet’s wives to “stay in your houses and display not your beauty like the displaying of the ignorance of yore”–(Qur’an 33:33), does not mean that they are to be walled in. These wives of the Prophet, as full reading of these verses show, were “not like other women;” they are like the “mothers” of Muslims–(Qur’an 33:6). They were not to be frivolous and wandering about; they were role models for the women of Islam; as such they had to be virtuous, and deport themselves with dignity.
Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam: “A study of the Tradition literature shows that, notwithstanding her rightful position in the home, as the bringer up of children and manager of the household, woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community.” Women took part in “congregational prayers,” “join(ed) the soldiers in the field of battle”–“carrying of provisions, taking care of the sick and wounded, removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield, or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.” “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field, served the male guests at a feast and carried on business, they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them. A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (pp. 628-629). The noble Messenger of Allah is the foremost interpreter of the Qur’an; and he did not consign woman into solitary confinement.
(37). WS. “When we broach the subject of the head covering, which has kept the Muslim women hidden from the entire world and has erected an iron barrier between men and women who live in the same society, these women protest that covering their heads is a decision they themselves have taken and that the rest of the world has to respect it. It may be their decision, but it is certainly not their choice. It is fear which blinds women in Arab countries to these teachings.” (This has to be the ultimate in arrogance!) (p. 148).
Response: That it is these Arab women’s “decision” and not choice to wear the hijab, what concern is it of yours to ridicule them? They are not forcing you to imitate them! And what about Muslim women whose “choice” it is to wear the hijab (and jalaba) in western or pro-western countries such as Turkey and France (and Quebec, Canada), but are denied this “choice” and right; will you champion their right to their “choice”?
(38). WS. (She notes the hadith of the Prophet): “On the night the angel took me up into the heavens I passed by hell and saw women suffering all manner of tortures and wept at the sight, so great was their torment. I saw a woman hanging by her hair as her brain boiled, I saw a woman hanging by her breasts and I saw a woman with the head of a pig and the body of an ass. I saw a woman in the form of a dog with fire going through her mouth and emerging from her buttocks as angels beat her head with a stick of flame.” …How can a Muslim woman refuse to cover head when she believes that God will hang her up by her breasts, send fire into her mouth, and bring it through her backside? She can’t and she won’t be able to free herself from her head covering until she frees herself from her fear.” (Are the Hindu, Christian, Jewish, and Amish women who cover their heads also cover their heads because of “fear”? Significantly, why is a Nun’s habit viewed as an act of devotion and a Muslimah’s hijab as a symbol of oppression?) (p. 148).
Response: From where do you draw the conclusion that it is because of the Muslim woman not covering her head that she will suffer in Hell? And in what way does the Muslim woman covering her head oppress her? We have non-Muslim women wearing all manner of hats yet it does not affect their intellect. Then there are those who do not wear hats and who also wear hardly any clothes yet their intellect may be less than Muslim women who wear the hijab.
The Prophet also spoke about seeing men suffering in various forms in Hell. And men are not enjoined to cover their heads. So why then are they suffering in Hell? Moreover these are the men who are supposed to have invented the “ogre” to help them overcome their fear of the unknown and to subjugate women, remember?
Allah is neither a tyrant nor a vengeful God. The suffering in hell are from two causes (1) injustice to others, e.g. oppression, robbery, murder, aggression (2) injustice to self, e.g. disbelief in Allāh, God, joining partners with God, illicit relations even though of mutual consent, hypocrisy and evil plots. Hell, in Islam, is not a torture chamber of a vengeful God. Hell is a reformatory for the sinners to condition them for suitability into the higher plane of life. If earthly man in order to survive on distant planets must equip himself with specialized equipment, then similarly, man, to exist in the spiritual realm must possess certain spiritual qualities. If we refuse to, or neglect to purify our soul in this world, it becomes inevitable that we must undergo the process of purifying it in the Hereafter. This cleansing process is called Hell. The suffering we go through during this purifying process in Hell is not punishment from God. It is rather suffering resulting from the cleansing process–like the pain suffered from the injection to cure rabies or from undergoing chemotherapy. It is not the specialist who inflicts the pain. The specialist only applies the remedy. The suffering is the result of the healing process.
As sinners will not be in Hell till after the Judgment, perhaps, like the rewards of paradise in the Qur’an being figurative expressions, the descriptions of hell might also be figurative expressions. There are seven gates to Hell–(Qur’an 15:44) which seems to suggest that sinners are grouped into seven camps. And Hell is known by seven names, perhaps according to each group of sin, and thus to varying degrees of punishment. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din has given an explanation of these seven names of Hell (please see Hell. See also Muhammad Ali Qur’anic comm. to this verse).
(One source opines that since Jinns also are created from fire, Jinns might like being in Hell. Really? All creatures are flesh and blood, but it is doubtful that one fish likes to be swallowed by another or that one person likes to be trammeled by another (except maybe the masochist; and there is a point when even the masochist gets sore being beaten). Ignorance of the law is no excuse! How often have we heard that one? People knowing the punishment for breaking the law take care to avoid overstepping boundaries, or to avoid detection in overstepping. Allāh being graphic about the sufferings in Hell is a favor/ blessing to man. There is no speculating or wondering. Those who are brazen enough to transgress limits, fully cognizant of the severity of the treatment involved, have no justification in balking at Magistracy. It is only a reaction to one’s action! See Christians-Internet).
You can huff and puff and scuff and scoff all you want at Mohammad, Mohammad has substantiated his claim to Divine Messengership: the Qur’an –with its prophecies, scientific pronouncements, and inimitability– is his proof. And in the human sphere he has earned the coveted crown, and even from his rabid enemies, as being the Trustworthy/Truthful.
In response to your questions that “if covering one’s head is a personal decision on the part of Muslim women and the world has to respect this, the question arises: Does Islam respect the decision of women who do not cover their heads? Yes, it does! There is no compulsion in religion! However, Saudi Arabia is governed by Islamic law (somewhat) that has a dress code. If America had a dress code Muslim women desiring to be there would have to conform. In fact, France [and others in Europe] is restricting Muslims from their dress code. And“Why can Muslim women walk around the stores of Los Angeles wearing a burka, which covers them from head to toe, while Western women visiting Saudi Arabia have to wear a burka when they go out in public?” Because Saudi Arabia is governed by religious laws and America is not. Some men also –Muslims and Jews and even non-religious, such as military and security personnel, and both men and women in winter– move about in public, covered from head to toe. And these coverings do not affect their intelligence either. And what manner of garment is normal wear? Would you “walk around the stores of Los Angeles (or any place else outside the house) wearing” only a bikini? Do it! Incidentally, you complain/question about Muslim women appareling according to their choice in America; have you ever questioned: the British was in India for over a hundred years, how many Englishmen wore kurta and dhoti and how many English women wore sari and lengha and shalmar kameez? The British was in the Middle-east for decades, how many wore jubba and kefayah?
(39). WS. (She wrote two small boys “aged about six and eight” each with a live bird and plucking their feathers. When she tried to get them to stop): “The elder boy…said vehemently, “There’s nothing wrong with plucking a bird. What is wrong is that a woman like you should be walking around off the leash in mixed company without a head covering. Go and bury yourself at home!”” “The fact that this boy is utterly incapable of any sense of guilt about what he is doing to a small bird is another problem that should arouse our concern.” “Muhammad Atta did not become a terrorist overnight. (How do you know? He may have been an atheist to the last moment, or an atheist fed up with American injustice against Arabs, or a “mercenary” with some other as the beneficiary). He did not come out of nowhere, nor was he born under a gooseberry bush. When he was eight years old he may well have plucked a little bird’s feathers with no sense of guilt and his assumptions regarding a woman without a hijab were no more rational than the small boy’s snap judgment of me. He was born into a community whose ethics, teachings, and culture he internalized. In his very early years he must have read the Koranic verse that says: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides” (5:33). A boy who learns that God cuts off people’s hand’s and feet from opposite sides will not hesitate to pluck a live bird and will be capable, when he grows up, of hijacking a plane carrying “unbelievers” or attacking a tower full of those “unbelievers.” The boy will internalize his God and will one day himself become that God.” (There are about one-and-a-half billion Muslims in the world. Even if only a quarter have read, be it in Arabic or translation, this verse (5:33), how is then that this quarter have never plucked a live bird (carry out a survey if you like) or hijacked a plane or flown or attacked a “tower full” of “unbelievers?” And all Muslims want Jannah; and as soon as possible?) (pp. 149-151).
Response: Your effort to stop this cruelty to the birds is commendable. Significantly, the Prophet Mohammad was a mercy to not only humans but to all creatures. Hadith literature notes instances of his teaching against harm to animals. The verse of 5:33 also list imprisonment as punishment. Thus, punishment would depend upon the severity and/or extent of the mischief committed. If those small boys were sharp enough to relate the plucking of birds to Allāh ordering the dismemberment of criminals, surely it is expected that they were sharp enough to know that those birds did not “wage war against Allāh and His Messenger” that they should be plucked. And in fact, that they would be punished for their cruelty.
If a Muslim’s action is a reflection of the “community whose ethics, teachings, and culture he internalized,” and one of this teaching is Qur’an 5:33. Then, which Qur’anic verse did Charles Manson and Squeaky Fromme read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did Robert Speck and Son of Sam and Boston strangler and Ted Bundy and Timothy Mc Veigh and Una Bomber and Susan Smith (who “drowned” her two sons in a car) read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did Jekyll and Hyde and Hitler read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and Baruch Goldstein read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did the generals who savaged Bosnia read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did the Kremlin generals who razed Grozny’s 500,000 civilians read, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; which Qur’anic verse did the many Americans read who engage in mass murder and rape, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did the U.S. government read to commit aggression and to drop “shock and awe” bombs on civilians heads in Iraq, and to engage in diplomatic thuggery at the U.N. to steal Palestine and give it to Jews and for sixty years have been aiding in this rape of Palestine, and how many birds did they pluck as kids; what Qur’anic verse did the killers of British youngster Ray Bolger read, and how many birds did they pluck before smashing Bolger’s head? what Qur’anic verse did Clifford Olson who killed about a dozen children read, and how many birds did he pluck as kids. (The list is probably endless). According to Wafa Sultan’s logic each one of these men and women must have been “born into a community whose ethics, teachings, and culture he (and she) internalized.” Each boy and girl had “internalize his (and her) God” and became “that God.” (What are these events doing to the minds of children?)
What would America and the Allies do against those who wage war against them –those who make mischief in their countries? According to one television program, some forty attempts were made to assassinate Adolf Hitler (read it again and weep: forty!). Canada spent over a billion dollars just to keep protesters away from the June 2010 G20 summit leaders roost. America flew thousands of miles away to bomb Libya and Iraq on mere suspicion, and sanctions the assassination of it’s citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, all the way over in Yemen, (apparently there are others that are on America’s “hit list;” check the Internet); America is thousands of miles away in Afghanistan because she fears the Talibans would create “mischief” on her soil (?); America pursued Al-Qaeda because the latter created “mischief” in her land; America is spending millions if not billions on super jails and feeding inmates on taxpayers money (some of whom are probably the relatives of some of these victims of murder and rape, and let murderers live for years on death-row before executing them –this is sanity?) There are Americans who live in gated communities complete with missile launchers and all –criminals roam free whereas decent law-biding citizens suffer self-imposed imprisonment. Cut off the hands and feet and you will see how quickly the criminals/mischief-makers close shop and bolt! And on the personal plain. If it is better for a man to dismember his “offensive” limb to preserve the health of his other parts, how much more appropriate it is that the cancer of society be excised to maintain the moral health of society. What individual is there who would not amputate a limb of his body that is afflicted with cancer so as to prevent the cancer from infecting his or her entire body; what law-abiding citizens, men and women are there, toiling honestly and tiring for their livelihood would take kindly to thieves to come and plunder their belongings; how many such men and women are there who, after a day of toiling, would prefer to keep vigil at night against thieves, in sympathy for them, to spare their hands from being chopped off; what honest person is there who would not like to sleep with windows open on sweltering summer nights, without having to fear about thieves and robbers coming into their homes. It would seem to be “torture” to have victims and/or their family circles live with the mental torture of fear, dreading if or when the murderer, rapist, or thief might.
In contrast, Mohammad did not fly to another land to apprehend or kill or dismember mischief-makers. Mohammad was no occupier no usurper no exploiter no oppressor and no transgressor/aggressor. All Mohammad did was preach a message, leaving them to accept or reject it. A message freeing them (and us) from the irrationality of polytheism, the degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of superstition, and the canker of drunkenness and profligacy. A message that puts the world at our feet and eternity in their arms: “And He (Allāh) has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth” (and which mastery over the heavens and the earth can only be accomplished through knowledge) and, “For those who do good in this world is good. And certainly the abode of the Hereafter is better … Gardens of perpetuity which they enter, wherein flow rivers: they have therein what they please. Thus does Allāh reward those who keep their duty”–(Qur’an 45:13; 16: 30-31).
(40). WS. “A few weeks after the September terrorists attacks, an Islamic center in Los Angeles contributed a set of books entitled The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an to the Los Angeles United School District, however, after an urgent meeting between local Jewish and Muslim leaders, the books were withdrawn…because some of the teachings they contained offended members of other religious denominations.” (p. 151).
Response: Allāh recounting Jewish transgressions is not hate (Allāh also recounts His favors to Jews). Truth (and history) is not hate. Truth is truth! Those who are “offended” by truth would not be able to render justice. Those who want their virtue extolled and their vice suppressed need to cultivate dignity and maturity.
Would Jewish/Christian books/Bible be “withdrawn” “because some of the teachings they contained offended members of other religious denominations”” (or atheists?) The Bible sentenced woman to a living hell: condemned her to a life of “sorrow,” and subjection to her husband; and sells her daughter into bondage–(Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7); sanctions a man to marry his father’s daughter (incest?), and to impregnate his handmaid and abandon her–(Gen. 20:11-12; 16:1-6); daughters “drunking” their father and committing incest with him to have children–(Gen: 19:30-37); man mating with his many handmaids–(Gen. 30:1-13); a daughter-in-law deceiving her father-in-law and have sex with him for gifts–(Gen. 38:11-18); to burn the daughter who commits “whoredom”–(Gen 38:24; Lev. 21:9); God killed “all the firstborn in the land of Egypt”–(Exod. 12:29); God “is a man of war”–(Exod. 15:3); God orders that the “firstling of an ass” –a helpless and blameless animal who had no say in the order in which he/she was born– that is not redeemed with a lamb to “break his neck”–(Exod. 34:20); God also orders “All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem (and if not, what? break their necks?) and “the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me” (in sacrifice?)–(Exod. 34:20; 22:29); God sanctions slavery–(Lev. 25:44); God punishes children for their parents “whoredoms”–(Num. 14:33-34. Also Rev. 2:20-23); God answers prayers to have Jews “utterly destroy” peoples’ “cities”–(Num. 21:2-3. See also Deut. 3:6; 7:2; 20:17; Joshua 6:21; 10:28-43; 12:1-24; and several other places in the Bible); God delights in decapitation: “And the Lord said unto Moses. Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun”–(Num. 25:4); God requires young male prisoners and matron women to be killed and the young virgin girls become concubines: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves”–(Num. 31:17-18); to kill disbelievers–(Deut. 13:12-16); to cut off the hand of the wife who, trying to help her husband in a fight, grabs the “secrets” (genitals) of the other man–(Deut. 25:11-12); God smite people “with the emerods (hemorrhoids)…with madness, and blindness”–(Deut. 28:27-28. See also 1 Samuel 5:6, 9); God enjoins cannibalism: “and thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters”–(Deut. 28:53, 57. See 2 Kings 6:28-29: “So we boiled my son, and did eat him”); giving one’s concubine to be gang raped all night till morning, then killing and “divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces and sent her into all the coasts of Israel”–(Judges 19:22-29); God ordering to slay even the “infant and suckling”–(1 Samuel 15:2-3); God taking men’s wives and giving them in adultery: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold…I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun”–(2 Samuel 12:11); to take prisoners and “cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes”–(2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3); king David committing adultery with Uriah’s wife, then plots to have Uriah killed at the battlefront–(2 Samuel 11:2-5, 14-15); king David dancing “and uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself,” and promised to “be more vile”–(2 Samuel 6:14-22); God will “cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall…and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as man taketh away dung, till it be all gone,” and decreed that “dogs” eat the dead–(1 Kings 14:10-11); as Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” there will be unbridled polygamy and concubinage–(1 Kings 11:3); one servant was commissioned by his master: “hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”–(2 Kings 18:27; Isaiah 36:12); God smiting adults and children, with an “incurable disease”: “And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of they bowels, until thy bowels fall out” even to the point of death–(2 Chron. 21:14-19); righteous “shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked”–(Psalms 58:10); it is happiness to mutilate “little ones”: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones”–(Psalm 137:9); “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished”–(Isaiah 13:16); even the fetus is not spared: “Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword,” “and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children,” “Samaria…shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up”–Isaiah 13:15, 18; Hosea 13:16; perhaps these are the verses that inspired some so-called “Israeli’s” to draw the picture of a pregnant Arab woman with a bulls-eye on her belly with the caption one shot two kills! what a sick, depraved mind; and they howl about Hitler); God exhausting wind: “Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh”–(Isaiah 16:11); God telling a prophet to walk “naked and barefoot three years,” and for a king “to lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt”–(Isaiah 20:2-4); daughters committing “whoredoms” and had their “breasts pressed” and “bruised the teats of their virginity,” and “multiplied her whoredoms” and “doted upon their paramours, whose flesh (penis) is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue (discharge) is like the issue of horses”–(Ezek. 23:2-3, 19-20); God telling people to bake cakes “with dung that cometh out of man” and then substituting “cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith”–(Ezek. 4:12-15); God howls and walks naked: “I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owl,”–(Micah 1:8); (Whether literal or figurative God will expose nakedness and pelt feces): “I will discover thy skirts upon thy face (i.e. lift your skirts to your face), and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. And will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazingstock”–(Nahum 3:5-6); God “will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces”–(Malachi 2:2-3); to stone to death the blasphemer, the apostates the married damsel without the “token of virginity,” and the virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed,” and the adulteress–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23; Deut; 13:5-16; 17:2-5; Deut. 22:20-21; 22:23-24; John 8:3-5); to put the witch to death, one who curses his father or mother, the adulterer, homosexuals, and the man who commits bestiality–(Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:9; 10-12; Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:13; 15-16); torching both, a man who takes a “wife and her mother”–(Lev. 20:14); sends to earth a “sword” and “fire” and “division” instead of “peace”–(Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:49, 51); to slaughter enemies opposed to rule–(Luke 19:27); to condemn those who do not share your views as being “against you” (and a person can be neutral)–(Matt. 12:30. If these two statements of Jesus–Luke 19:27 and Matt. 12:30–were to be implemented some eighty percent of the world would be slain); loading dumb, innocent swine with devils causing them to drown, and the owners loss of property and finance–(Matt. 8:28-33. Wonder what the SPCA would say about this cruelty); to hate family circle: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”–(Luke 14:26); to view non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26); to speak in parables so non-Jews would not understand and be forgiven: Jesus explains to his disciples why he speaks in parables, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them”–(Mark 4:9-12); men and women to remain in their marriage regardless of how loveless and miserable or risk being guilty of “adultery;” and the divorced woman to wilt her (youthful and beautiful) self in single-hood or her new husband is charged with “adultery”–(Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18); servants to obey their masters “with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ;” and to “obey (them) in all things” “not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (wonder what the master will do if the servant is an atheist; and as servants are to obey their masters as “unto Christ,” and as only Christians honor Christ as God/son of God then Christians are to bondage their fellow Christians–Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22); man was notcreated for the woman but that woman was created for the man–(1 Cor. 11:9); woman is an object for sex: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let everyman have his own wife”–(1 Cor 7:1-2); woman is the transgressor: “And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression–(1 Tim. 2:14. Allah tells us that both Adam and Eve were deceived; and that they were forgiven–Qur’an 2:36-37; 7:20-22); man is the glory of God but woman is the glory of man –(1 Cor. 11:7-8); wives must submit to their husbands, and reverence their husbands as they reverence God “in every thing” –(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33); wives are to learn in silence and subjection, and to not “usurp authority over the man”–(1 Tim. 2:11-12); woman is the “defiler” of man–(Revelation 7:4-8; 14:3-4). Is this what you and Jews and Christians are clamoring to enthrone above the Qur’an/Islam? Would you teach this to your children; would you give your children (of any age) this to read? (What are these doing to the minds of children?). The Muslim official who withdrew the book/Qur’an from “the Los Angeles United School District” needs to upgrade/broaden his theological skills. He should take the book/Qur’an back now; with a print-out of the above!
(41). WS. (Regarding the same issue of the Islamic books being withdrawn, Wafa Sultan wrote that, at a public event, she asked one Muslim speaker): “Doctor, do you believe that the Islamic books we have will contribute to the creation of a peaceable and nonviolent generation?” The speaker was well aware of who I was and of my contributions; he, therefore, replied: “Absolutely not!” implying that Islamic books need to be altered or looked at more carefully.” (p. 153).
Response. These books were not identified. Therefore it’s hard to comment. But if the Qur’an was the subject, the answer to Wafa Sultan’s question would be: “Absolutely YES!”
-The Qur’an stresses the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (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 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);
-The Qur’an 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), 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), 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 God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90);
-The Qur’an which forbids against helping one another in sin, and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); to avoid letting hatred of a people incite transgression (5:2); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 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); because Allah God loves the doers of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75);
-The Qur’an which reveals 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), not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135).
It cannot honestly be denied that the world today would benefit from a massive dose of such sublime Qur’anic doctrines. The Qur’an will “contribute to the creation of a peaceable and nonviolent generation” and for all generations to the Resurrection! If man would follow the Qur’an he would have found his utopia!
(42). WS. “Islam has deprived its followers of the most basic form of freedom –the freedom to express oneself. And it has killed their desire to enjoy this freedom. In order to ensure its control over the individual, it has interfered in all aspects of his life, large and small, and has planned it out for him in every particular. It micromanages his every activity and regulates the most private moments of his life –to the point of commanding him to put his left foot before his right when he goes into the bath.” And she notes that “It’s an Islamic tradition that you enter a room with your right foot except for the bathroom, because it’s considered to be a “dirty place.”” (p. 155).
Response: The critics carp at Islam/Mohammad for even giving beautiful rules of conduct. This is another aspect of the superiority of Islam over other religions. As a complete way of life it gives guidance from birth to death. Even as to how we are to clean ourselves. Regardless of how well a bathroom is dressed up it is doubtful that people do not yet consider it a “dirty place.” Being a complete guidance, Islam teaches not only moral, social, intellectual, and spiritual excellence; it also teaches good manners and habits. Perhaps Wafa Sultan can explain why people taking oaths raise only their right hands; salute with their right hands; and clean or wash our private parts with our left hands. Even in modern societies people are grouped as rightist or right-wingers and leftist or left-wingers.
There is no absolute freedom! That “Islam has deprived its followers of the most basic form of freedom –the freedom to express oneself.” The tyrants lording Muslims may have done this; not Islam! While knowledge may be grouped into two classes–spiritual and material–in Islam there is no such concept as “secular” knowledge: all knowledge is from Allah, God. Muslims are enjoined to seek Allāh’s help in obtaining knowledge–(Qur’an 20:114). The Prophet Mohammad charged Muslims to ‘seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave,’ to go to China if need be–(Baihaqi) Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p. 361, #111 W); and that ‘the superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is like the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars’–(Abu Dawud Vol. 3, p.1034, # 3634). Muhammad Ali has noted that
“legislation was not placed in the hands of the king. First of all the Qur’an, then the Prophet’s precept or practice, then the will of the people, such was the machinery that framed the law; and the law, not the king, was the supreme authority. In subordinating kingship to the law of the land and the law of the land to the will of the people, Abu Bakr laid the foundations of a truly democratic government as also of liberty and equality in the truest sense of these words.”
But, as Muhammad Ali adds:
“To the misfortune of the community of Islam, however, this golden rule of government was abandoned after the reign of ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph. Kingship again became private property, as also did the public treasury. Democracy gave way to despotism, and thus began the disintegration and decay of the power of Islam.” (The Early Caliphate, p. 52)
“There was no restriction whatever on freedom of opinion or on the expression of that opinion. Governors were made accessible to the public to the extent that they were forbidden to have guards at their doors lest there should be the least hitch for the aggrieved to approach the highest authority at any time…The position of the Caliph himself, in this wonderful democracy, was no higher than that of a commoner. He was considered the servant of the people, not the king, and as such he was open to criticism…This unrestricted freedom, in itself the highest virtue, served in the hands of mischief-mongers as the most deadly weapon to undermine the power of Islam.” (Ibid; pp. 136-137).
Without doubt, “equality and freedom of opinion were the two most important rights that Islam conferred on every individual,” as noted by Muhammad Ali. (Ibid; p. 143).
(43). WS. “Muhammad, to impose his authority, sowed unease in the hearts of his followers by linking obedience to God with obedience to himself. Then he added a third party to this “holy duality” in the form of the ruler, through whom he could control the rest of his flock.” “In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: “Obey your emirs even if he flogs you and takes your property.” Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it in another hadith: “If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.” “When Saddam Hussein scorched the Kurds of Northern Iraq with chemicals and annihilated the Shia in the south, he committed no crime under Muslim religious law. According to the Sharia, he, as ruler, reflected at length before reaching the decision to burn and exterminate.” (This just shows how much you know about Islam; and you are projecting yourself as an authority!) (pp. 159-160).
Response: Mohammad did not “impose his authority” on anyone. People are free to enter or leave Islam. Anyone who joins an organization is expected to abide by its rules, and to obey the chain of command. Does America “impose his authority” on you? And do you not follow the chain of command in the American system –the Presidency, the various law enforcements etc?
Allāh’s, Mohammad’s, and the ruler’s command are to be in unison. Thus it does not matter how long the chain is. This command of Allāh and Mohammad is applicable only to just rulers: rulers who govern according to the precepts of Islam. There is no blind obedience to leaders in Islam. This is made clear by the venerable Caliph, Abu Bakr –the first Caliph of Islam– who stated in his inaugural speech (noted by M.H. Haykal in his The Life of Muhammad, p.511): “Obey me as long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God’s command or His Prophet’s, then no obedience is incumbent upon you.” (The question is: how would Muslims know when their leaders are in “disobedience” to Allāh and His Messenger if they have no knowledge?) One who rules in obedience to God cannot be “despotic.” The oppressor has no protection under the shade of Islam for “annihilating” his victims. (Muhammad Ali has dealt at length with this subject–Ijtihad–in his excellent work The Religion of Islam). Ijtihad, “the third source from which the laws of Islam are drawn,” has its origin in the Qur’an itself, and in the Tradition of the Prophet. Allah calls on man in several places of the Qur’an to reflect, to understand, to be sensible. “Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind”–(Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22); 25:44).” (The Religion Of Islam, p. 98)
“The exercise of judgment (ijtihad) is recognized in Tradition as the means by which a decision may be arrived at when there is no direction in the Qur’an or tradition. The following Tradition is regarded as the basis of Ijtihad in Islam: “On being appointed Governor of Yaman, Mu’adh was asked by the Prophet as to the rule by which he would abide. He replied, ‘By the law of the Qur’an.’ ‘But if you do not find direction therein,’ asked the Prophet. ‘Then I will act according to the practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet,’ was the reply. ‘But if you do not find any direction therein,’ he was again asked. ‘Then I will exercise my judgment (ajtahidu) and act on that,’ came the reply. The Prophet raised his hands and said: ‘Praise be to Allah who guides the messenger of His Apostle as he pleases,” (Abu Dawud, 23:11). This tradition shows not only that the Prophet approved of the exercise of judgment, but also that his Companions were well aware of the principle, and that reasoning or exercise of judgment by others was freely resorted to when necessary, even in the Prophet’s lifetime.” (Ibid. p. 99).
(During the rule of the Caliph ‘Umar) “When there was a difference of opinion, the decision of the majority was acted upon. Besides this council, there were great individual teachers, such as ‘Aishah, Ibn Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar and others whose opinion was highly revered. Decisions were given and laws made and promulgated subject only to the one condition that they were neither contrary to the Qur’an nor to the practice of the Prophet.” (Ibid. p. 100). The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said “The differences of my people are a mercy”–(J.S. p. 11).” (Ibid. p. 110. Sadly, Muslims have denigrated this blessing into a curse– polarizing ourselves into sects, engaged in internecine wars, etc). Muhammad Ali notes:
“The impression prevailing in the Muslim world at present that no one has the right, even in the light of the new circumstances which a thousand years of the world’s progress have brought about, to differ with the four Imams, is entirely a mistaken one. The right to differ with the highest of men below the Prophet is a Muslims’ birthright, and to take away that right is to stifle the very existence of Islam. …In fact, the closing of the door on the free exercise of judgment, and the tendency to stifle independence of thought which took hold of the Muslim world after the third century of Hijrah, was condemned by the Prophet himself who said: “The best of the generations is my generation, then the second and then the third; then will come a people in which there is no good”–(KU. VI, 2068)”
(The three generations referred to in the tradition) “refer to three centuries, the first century being the century of the Companions, since the last of them died at the end of the first century after the Prophet and the second and the third being those of the next two generations known as Tabi’in and taba’ Tabi’in. As a matter of fact, we find that while independence of thought was freely exercised in the first three centuries, and even Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, the immediate followers of Abu Hanifah, did not hesitate to differ with their great leader, rigidity became the rule thereafter with only rare exceptions. The time when independence of thought was not exercised is, therefore, denounced by the Prophet himself, as the time of a crooked company.” (Ibid. pp. 115-116).
Allah the High and the Gracious and His magnanimous Messenger enjoin the pursuit of knowledge and the application of reason. If Muslims are not illuminated by this brilliant flame from Allāh and His Messenger to explore the expanse of reason and progress, no other source can brighten the density of our minds.
Regarding the qualities of the leader, the Prophet is reported to have said: “We do not assign the authority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it”–(Bokhari, Vol. 9, # 263). The Prophet is reported to have told Abdur-Rahman bin Samura not to “seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better”–(Bokhari Vol. 9, # 260). And, “Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise”–(Ibid. Vol. 9 # 264). As the Prophet’s statements illustrate, the leader who lives according to the Qur’an would have to exercise justice, wisdom, and compassion. A despotic leader could not be a “pious leader.” Islam is of both faith and good deeds–(Qur’an 2:177; 4:135; 49:7, 13). Leaders who practice despotism and still consider themselves to be “pious” are deluding themselves. Leadership is to be given to those only who qualify for the position.
(44). WS. “No ruler anywhere in the world can oppress his people unless that population is educationally, culturally, mentally, and psychologically prepared to be oppressed.” (p. 161)
Response: What if the ruler has all the military machinery and the population has no armaments? Pharaoh oppressed the Hebrews/Jews for some three hundred years; until God liberated them through Moses. Are you saying that the Hebrews/Jews were “educationally, culturally, mentally, and psychologically prepared to be oppressed”? And in South Africa, but for world support, the non-whites might yet be “oppressed.”
(45). “In Islam children are property not a responsibility. Islam defines the relationship between child and parents and emphasizes the need for blind obedience to them.” (p. 161).
Response: Islam requires parents to educate children and teach them goodness. Islam even requires the caring of orphans; and to educate slave-girls: “The man shall have a double reward who has a slave-girl and he trains her in the best manner and he gives her the best education, then he sets her free and marries her”–(Bokhari Vol. 4 # 655; & 3:720). How much more concerned then would Islam be with one’s own children. There is no “blind obedience” in one following goodness. If following goodness is “blind obedience” then the entire world needs to be this “blind.”
(46). WS. “A Muslim prays five times a day, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse (actually the first chapter) of the Koran a number of times. This verse describes the Christians as “those who have gone astray” and Jews as “those who have incurred Your wrath.” We see from this that Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they repeat five times a day. (What about the Bible saying that Jews are “stiff-necked,” “rebellious,” “treacherous,” letting their carcasses rot in the wilderness for forty years; and pouring the blood of and from Cain all the way down to Barachias into their hands? Muslims also recite the parts of the Qur’an where God loved Jews, delivered them from Pharaoh, settled them in the Holy Land, gave favors to them etc. Why don’t you say that Muslims esteem Jews? (p. 168).
Response: Truth is not hatred! Truth is not “execration!” Truth is truth! Jews incurred the wrath of God because of their not fulfilling their covenant with Him; which covenant necessitates them accepting Mohammad/Islam. Christians are astray in that they deified Jesus and follow paganism–son of God belief is a remnant of paganism.
Christians read their Bible probably every day, and they teach that Jews killed Christ, and that non-Jews are “dogs” and “swine,” is this hatred of Jews and non-Jews? Jews read their Bibles probably everyday, and teach that the childless Sarah gave her husband, Abraham, her “bondwoman,” Hagar, to impregnate, then treated Hagar “harshly,” and that her son, Ishmael, is a “wild ass of a man,”* is this hatred of Arabs/ Muslims?–(Gen. 16:1-12) *(The Torah, pub; The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia).
If Allāh recounting of events and truths are “execration” of Jews then all the holocaust monuments and centers and movies and stories are “execrations” of Hitler and Germans; and The Ten Commandments movie is an “execration” of Egyptians. And all the holocaust memorials are to be obliterated for being an “execration” of Hitler, Nazism, and Germans. And The Ten Commandments and the occasional dose of the holocaust movies
and stories are to be fed to the cats as being an “execration” of Egyptians and Germans. And Christians would have to deep-six their annual Passion Play of Christ for being “execration” of Jews. If Allāh recounting of events and truths are “execration” of Christians then the Gospels would have to be incinerated for being “execrations” against non-Jews. If truth and history are “execrations” of Jews and Christians then the Bible –The Old Testament and the New– and the Qur’an are to be outlawed.
(47) WS. “Terrorism was born in the Arab world and spread from Saudi Arabia to other Muslim countries with the ideological and financial support of the Arabs. Islamic terrorism is led by Arabs, and those non-Arabs who aspire to leadership are Arab trained.” (p. 168)
Response: (You want to know about terrorism read Prof. Noam Chomsky’s Pirates & Emperors, International Terrorism in the Real World, Old and New). As shown there is no “terrorism” in Islam: Islam and ‘terrorism” is a contradiction! That “Terrorism was born in the Arab world” is pure unadulterated “influential” balderdash! “Terrorism” was born in the West. With the theft of Palestine! And by her quest to run Muslim countries and control their resources. Before 1948 there was no “Arab” “terrorism!” And until Palestine is returned to Muslims and the West gives up her pursuit of running Muslim countries and controlling their resources, Muslims, so long as Jannah sits in the lap of justice, will spare no dewdrop to extinguish this hell of injustice!
At the time of Partition of Palestine Jews were 34% of the population and owned less than 6% of the land. Yet the Plan allotted Jews 56% of the land including the valuable coast-land, 42% for a Palestinian state and 1% as an international sector. What would you do should your Government forcibly squeezes you and family into forty-four percent of your house and put a homeless family of fewer members into the remaining fifty-six percent; and give this homeless people title of ownership to this fifty-six percent of yourproperty? 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 one in the world –no King or Queen or Prince or pauper or President or Prime Minister or Immigration minister or Premier or MP or MPP or Senator or Lord or doctor or lawyer or Judge or Rabbi or Jew or teacher 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.
Jews wanting a home is no legitimacy to deprive the Palestinians of theirs. 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 Texas or California or New York (more Jews live in America anyway). If France wants Jews to have a homeland let the French give Jews Paris or Marseilles or Lyon. If Canada wants Jews to have a homeland let Canadians give Jews Ontario or Alberta or Quebec. If Germany wants to atone for the “Holocaust” let Germans give Jews half of the Fatherland.
Those who criticize and condemn the Palestinians must put their dignity where their mouths are: 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 enduring and accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept. Let’s see the Americans and the British and the French and the Canadians and the Germans swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel their governments have been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for six torturous decades now! Palestinians are not to suffer for Europe’s shame. Palestine is the social, moral, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims! It is not “terrorism” to liberate your lands; it is heroism!
The easiest, simplest, quickest, and cheapest way to end the Palestinian-Jewish conflict is for Jews to fulfill their covenant with Allāh, God, which requires them to follow Islam/ Mohammad. Being Muslims this would give them the legitimacy to having the State. They fulfilling their covenant will also end the Divine decree to have them chastised to the Resurrection–(Qur’an 7:167).
Time which steals our memories will soon seal soul’s mortal journey. 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 roast 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!
In the annals of modern history no people has suffered such injustice and humiliation and savagery and for so long as the Palestinians have suffered; and continues to suffer. As one speaker (on video) refusing to be cowed into silence, eloquently stated that if you have a heart you will cry for the Palestinians.
In the timeless and memorable words of Omar Khayyam: “You know how little while we have to stay, And, once departed, may return no more.”8 If there is any cause on which to immortalize our names, it is the cause of the Palestinians. Graduates and students and princes and peasants worldwide, rise up and march for the “Return of Palestine” to the Palestinians. ‘Forever Justice! Forever Palestine!’
Vive le Palestine libre!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Long live free Palestine!
(48). WS. “The Afghans are famous for their saying: “We are at peace only when we are at war.” This tendency to strife has penetrated deep into Afghan culture, perhaps because of the tribal nature of Afghan society. But they did not become a source of world Islamic terrorist activity until they came into disastrous contact with the Arab mujahideen, who brought with them a terrorist philosophy and Arab money. When I discussed this issue with Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble With Islam Today, who is of Muslim Indian descent, she did not like the idea and asked me in irritation, “So am I to understand from what you say that non-Arab Muslims are less Islamic than Arab Muslims?” I replied at once, “No, they are less damaged.” (Hogwash! And given Manji’s wit it is surprising she did not offer a comeback; unless she did and you did not mention it). (pp. 168-169).
Response: (Leaving aside the handful of Muslims who erroneously believe they have a God-given right to bomb others into Islam). Muslims are transgressed upon and when they exercise their God-given right to retaliate they are vilified and labeled “terrorist” and as having a “tendency to strife.” There is nothing “damaging” in Islam! It is your reasoning that is “damaged!” Allāh/Islam which needs nothing from man and is solicitous for the benefit of man cannot be “damaging” to man. It is woman’s (and man’s) reasoning that is “damaged.” There is no terrorism in Islam! Islam and terrorism are contradictions! Arabs “damage” did not devise the Sykes-Picot treachery; Arabs “damage” did not steal Palestine and perpetuate its rape for sixty years, and counting; Arabs “damage” did not attack Egypt to control the Suez; Arabs “damage” did not savaged Libya; Arabs “damage” did not erase half-a-million souls in Grozny; Arabs “damage” did not propel us into World War I and World War II; Arabs “damage” did not destroy Korea and Vietnam; Arabs “damage” did not fry Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Arabs “damage” did not invent Iraq’s phantom WMD; Arabs “damage” did not “provoke” the war in Lebanon; Arabs “damage” did not…..So who is the “damaged?” Who has the “tendency to strife?”
True, translations of the Qur’an do not convey the full meaning of some Arabic words and/or terms. But if translators “try to convey the meaning with greatest political correctness,” perhaps you (or with your “influence”) can produce a translation that is true as can be “without any “political correctness” (p. 166). Or perhaps you would like to consult Muhammad Ali’s translation and give your findings on it: if his also is of “political correctness;” his translation can be viewed/downloaded online: www.muslim.org. (Note to Muslims, Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with text, notes and commentary is priceless. MA has explained Arabic words/terms and has also given a background to their revelations. He has debunked critics who quote verses of the Qur’an to opine that Islam is evil. You can compare the critics quote with Muhammad Ali’s explanation).
(49). WS. “Muslim culture uses language in a way which focuses on negative expressions, and so helps to create people with negative attitudes. (It was no negative attitude that brought light to mankind!)This is immediately obvious to anyone who reads the Koran or the sayings of the Prophet with the eye of a linguistic researcher.” (You need new eyes or glasses!)“Let us take a chapter of the Koran, read it, and sift through its phrases.” (And she notes chapter 2 verses 1-286 of the Qur’an). “Moreover, the word kill and its derivatives appears at least twenty-five times in the course of this chapter, which is no more than fifty pages long.” (pp. 170-171).
Response: We are yet to hear of a general in battle instructing his soldiers on the futures of beans and pork-bellies rather than how to cut the enemy’s throat. This chapter of the Qur’an, as Muhammad Ali explains, “was revealed in Madinah, and belongs to the earliest Madinah revelations.” And this was the time when the Prophet and his followers were most vulnerable and plagued with annihilation by the enemies. What kind of instructions then would one expect in the battle arena? If “Muslim culture uses language in a way which focuses on negative expressions, and so helps to create people with negative attitudes,” the Prophet, and his followers, who were eagerly awaiting his signal on their triumph at Makkah, would not have told his wretched captives “No reproof be against you this day”: he would have cut all their miserable throats. Especially Hind, the horrid woman, who cut open the body of his (the Prophet’s) uncle, Hamzah, martyred at the Battle of Uhud, and “chewed the liver.”
Huston Smith notes in his World’s Religions (p. 157): “Allāh’s compassion and mercy are cited 192 times in the Koran as against 17 references to his wrath and vengeance.” (Though, as noted elsewhere, man cannot do anything to Allāh for Allāh to seek revenge/”vengeance.” Seems HS did not factor in the 113 times Allāh’s Mercy at the beginning of each chapter except the ninth). In the opening chapter of the Qur’an four chief attributes of Allāh are noted, Rabbul ‘A-lameen (Lord of the worlds –Rabb commonly taken as Lord means the “Fosterer of a thing in such a manner as to make it attain one condition after another until it reaches its goal of completion” –there’s evolution for you– perhaps this is why scholars are against the Qur’an being translated), Rahman (Beneficent), Rahim (Merciful) and Malik (Master), Muhammad Ali notes that “in the body of the Qur’an it is the name Ghafur (Forgiving) which occupies that place of importance, the first two, Rahman and Rahim, along with cognate verb forms, occurring some 560 times, and Ghafur, the next in point of frequency, occurring in its nun and verb forms about 230 times. Hence it will be seen that the Qur’an gives prominence to the attributes of love and mercy in God to an extent whereof the parallel is not to be met with in any other revealed book.” And that is no “negative expressions!” (The Religion of Islam, p. 158). Also whereas Allāh gives to evil only its like, He rewards good up to seven-hundredfold–(Qur’an 6:160; 2:261. Bokhari Vol. 1, # 40); He declares that He has ordained mercy on Himself–(Qur’an 6:12, 54); His mercy encompasses all things–(Qur’an 7:156); and He implores us in loving compassionate terms to forgive us all our sins: “Say, O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–Qur’an 39:53. Quite an “ogre” that drives “fear” into people). Allāh informsus we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better–(23:96), because Allāh God loves the just, and because Allāh is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135); for us to give justice against self, parents, kins, poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8); not to act corruptly or make mischief (26:183); not to help in sin, nor incite transgression (5:2); instead of retaliation reconcile, be patient and forgive (42:39-43; 24:22; 3:133); to return evil with better (23:96); for Allāh loves the doer of good and the dutiful (2:195; 3:75). This is no “negativity” either!
(50). WS. “The Koran, to put it mildly, is sadly lacking in positive terms that fall gently upon the ear. For example, in the following Koranic verse from the chapter mentioned above we read: “There is sickness in their hearts which God has increased; they shall be sternly punished for their lying” (2:10). A Muslim may object to my comments, saying: “But in this verse God is trying to demonstrate the importance of truthfulness as a virtue by emphasizing the punishment for lying.” My response is this: “Can God not use more positive language to demonstrate the importance of truthfulness?” (p.171).
Response: That those who lie will be “sternly punished” is “positive language! However, in this verse, Allāh, God, is not “trying to demonstrate the importance of truthfulness as a virtue by emphasizing the punishment for lying.” Allāh was expressing a truth. As the preceding verses (8-9) show, Allāh was referring to people who pretend to believe but in fact only “seek to deceive Allāh and those who believe,” that “in their hearts is a disease, so Allāh increased their disease, and for them is a painful chastisement because they lie.” Muhammad Ali explained, comparing Qur’an 71:6 where Noah says to Allāh, about his preaching to his people: ““But my call has only made them flee the more,” though the call was meant to bring them nearer to the truth, The disease here stands for the weakness of their hearts (AH) for they had not the courage to deny Islam openly, and this weakness only became the greater as the cause of Islam became more and more triumphant.” These verses (2:8-10) may very well be referring to Jews who had feigned acceptance of Islam then renouncing it in an effort to influence Muslims to apostatize: “And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe, in the first part of the day, and disbelieve in the latter part of it, perhaps they may turn back”–(Qur’an 3:71).
In his teachings –such as on “usury”– Mohammad spoke words that reflect the raw truth; so that people will receive the full impact of the forbidden action. He calls a drunk a drunk! he does not gloss over him/her by calling him/her a problem drinker or alcoholic. In some matters blunt talk is the most effective tool.
(50A). WS. “Some people accuse Hollywood of bringing more and more violence into our culture. Well, I don’t believe that the American film industry centered in Hollywood has ever, in the course of its entire history, succeeded in reproducing so much as a fraction of the violence embodied in the Muslim Arab heritage. There is a difference between the child who sees a violent film on television and the child who hears about from her teacher or sees that violence enacted all around her in every day life. All aspects of life in Muslim societies reflect the culture of violence and the negative influence of immersion in a language full of negative words and violent expressions.” (Yet the American children are more violent than these Arab children. And America is steeped in a “culture of violence” so much so that some of her citizens fortify themselves in gated-communities equipped with missile launchers). (p. 173).
Response: While there is no “culture of violence” in Islam. Just for the sake of argument. If Muslims fight because of the “culture of violence” in Islam why do non-Muslims fight? In a span of hardly a hundred years non-Muslims have spilled more blood than fourteen hundred years of Muslim’s “culture of violence.” Non-Muslims have arsenals of devastations that can obliterate the world a thousand times over; and have given us two World Wars –which alone killed 25 million– Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Korea; Vietnam; Bosnia, Chechnya; Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya; Egypt to control its Suez Canal; not to mention non-Muslim’s provoking the war in Lebanon; the Crusades; China versus India; Britain versus Argentina. Not to mention societal and domestic violence. Instead of trying to tar Immaculate Islam Wafa Sultan needs to be rehabilitating the non-Muslims.
(51). WS. “The Koran does not distinguish between the concept of “force” and “power.” It confuses the two in an odd manner, and God’s power manifests itself only as an ability to use force. What is the real difference between the two concepts? A person has power when he can do what he needs to be done in a peaceable manner appropriate to the circumstances. He will resort to force only when he is powerless. In other words, power represents peace, while force represents violence.” “The God of Islam uses force, but he has no power.” (What a maroon!) (pp. 174-175).
Response: So America is powerless for bombing Iraq, Libya, Al-Qaeda and the Talibans, and for invading Grenada; and Britain is powerless for booting Argentina from the Falklands Island; and the Allies of World War II are powerless for bludgeoning the Germans.
Allāh says He did not destroy a (wicked) population without first sending a warner to have them mend their ways–(Qur’an 17:15-16; 26:208; 28:59). And this is the reasonable approach of any just person, ruler or parent. After the warning, if the errant does not heed, force is used. As in the case of the U.N. first dialogue is initiated, followed by sanctions, and if need be, the final resort is force.
That “The God of Islam uses force, but he has no power,” Wafa Sultan continues: “Let’s think about this for a minute: Who is stronger, Mother Teresa or the ogre at the top of the mountain? Mother Teresa, of course, was the stronger of the two as she was able to accomplish her mission without resorting to force of any kind. (And what was Mother Teresa’s mission, subduing incorrigible offenders or begging for bread?) But who possesses a greater degree of force, the ogre or Mother Teresa? The ogre, naturally, possesses a greater degree of force for it uses its talons and fangs to devour people. (But how can this be when the “ogre” is a myth: a creation of the Arabs?) Let us examine the following verse from the Koran: “Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding” (8:65). (And this did come true at the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Ahzab/Allies–ch. 33). Thus, the “ogre,” this creation of the Arabs, is not only a myth but has real prophetic powers; these Arab creators must be more genius than Einstein). When does a God incite his followers to battle? He does that only when he is unable to spread his message by peaceful means.” (pp. 175-176).
Response: Allāh did not “incite his followers to spread his message;” He only gave permission to fight to put an end to the persecution of His followers–(Qur’an 2:190, 194, 217; 22:39). Allāh, through His Prophet Mohammad, did try to “spread his message by peaceful means.” But the idolatrous Arabs could not then see the irrationality of polytheism, the degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of superstition, and the malignancy of drunkenness, gambling, and profligacy so they put Mohammad under the blade of the assassin; persecution; exile; pursuit; and war. What sane woman and man would not fight back?
While Muslims are urged to fight because “persecution is worse than slaughter”–(Qur’an 2:191), any person with even a cursory knowledge of the Qur’an knows that there are parameters to this fight. For instance, fighting is allowed only “against those who fight against you;” on behalf of “the weak,” and to reclaim stolen property (such as lands)–(Qur’an 2:190; 4:75; 22:39; 2:191; 60:8-9); “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors”–(Qur’an 2:193); “And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah”–(Qur’an 8:39). These verses make it clear that fighting is only to be engaged in until there is no more persecution. When the enemies desisted from their persecution, Muslims were to stop fighting. As Muhammad Ali notes (to 8:39): “The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements–there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allāh.”
If Islam had counseled Muslims to kill all the Unbelievers and to make war so that Islam is accepted in every country throughout the world, the Prophet Mohammad would not have spared the Jews of Khaybar and returned the Torah to them. Neither would he have forgiven the Idolaters of Arabia upon his triumph at Makkah. If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, Prophet Mohammad, on reports that the Romans were preparing for battle, would not have returned from this expedition to Tabuk without wiping out the Romans who were unprepared for war. If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, there would not be millions of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. ‘Umar would not have spared the Christians upon his conquering of Jerusalem. Neither would Salahuddin Ayyube (Saladin) have spared the Christians of Jerusalem; nor would he have “invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders,” as noted by Ms. Karen Armstrong in her book Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths, p. 298).
To kill the Unbelievers is applicable only during the time of battle; and even then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and to set them free–(Qur’an 47:4); and more importantly, to make peace with the enemies when they desire peace: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it”–(Qur’an 8:61). In fact, Muslims are required to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy–(Qur’an 8:62). Thus, to “slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find them,” refers only to those who fight against the Muslims–(Qur’an 2:191). Even today we have nations flying thousands of miles to another country in pursuit of their enemies. And Mohammad was no occupier, no oppressor, no usurper, no exploiter; no transgressor; and those who were dedicated to annihilate him were on his own soil.
Regarding the hypocrites/disbelievers, Allāh, God, instructs the Prophet: (in the 9th year of the Hijrah, near the end of his mission) “never offer prayer for any one of them who dies” –(Qur’an 9:84). The Prophet could not have waited till they die if Islam had decreed that all unbelievers be killed.
That Muslims are urged to fight the Unbelievers until they say none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh does not mean that the Unbelievers must accept that Allāh is the only One that has to be worshipped. All it means is that just as how they (the unbelievers) have the right to their belief, they must also accept that the Muslims have the right to practice their belief that ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh.’
It would a most glaring contradiction for Allāh to instruct Muslims to kill all Unbelievers and yet tell us to not revile their gods–(Qur’an 6:108); that Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Qur’anic Message not enforce it–(3:20; 5:95, 102; 16:82; 24:54; 29:18; 46:35; 64:12); to invite people to Allāh through wisdom and best arguments–(16:125); and that there is no compulsion in religion–(2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6). “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful (or he may accept or reject). It is only ignorance or bigotry to claim that Islam forces religion at the point of the sword or to kill all Disbelievers. To propagate Islam with the sword or to kill all Disbelievers is no where mentioned in the Qur’an. For: “The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(18:29).
“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
(Qur’an 10:99. Also 6:150, 16:9).
(52). WS. “A good concept needs no defenders. The fact that it is necessary guarantees its success and durability. A poor concept cannot defend itself, and finishes up on the garbage heap of history because no one needs it.” (This is why religion trounces atheism: hardly anyone one needs it. As noted elsewhere, the Qur’an with its already manifested prophecies, already verified scientific pronouncements, and inimitability is not only proof of Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership but also a refutation of atheism). (p. 176).
Response: Islam “needs no defenders”: Islam appeals to reason. Islam is invincible, and self-propagating. How many Muslim missionaries do you see trudging around the globe, or how many have come knocking on your doors? Ahmed Deedat has pointed out that “over a hundred million Indonesians are Muslim, yet no conquering Muslim army ever landed on any of its over two thousand islands.” He also points out that in “Malaysia: The overwhelming number of its people in this country are Muslims yet no Muslim soldier had landed there either;” and that in “Africa: The majority of the people on the East coast of Africa as far down as Mozambique, as well as the bulk of the inhabitants on the West coast of the continent are Muslims, but history does not record any invading hoards of Muslims from anywhere. What sword? Where was the sword? The Muslim trader did the job. His good conduct and moral rectitude achieved the miracle of conversion.”* (The good conduct of the Muslim trader and Islam’s intrinsic allure of reason!) Preceding material shows that Islam brought light to the world. And the doctrines of Islam are based on reason. And so long as man governs himself by reason Islam will live! *(Ahmed Deedat, Muhummed the Greatest, p. 31). On the world-reforming power of the Qur’an I need only enter one quote, and that from a critic of Islam, Hurgronje, as noted by Ibn Warraq in his book Why I am Not a Muslim (p. 105):
“This book, once a world reforming power, now serves to be chanted by teachers and laymen according to definite rules. The rules are not difficult but not a thought is ever given to the meaning of the words; the Quran is chanted simply because its recital is believed to be a meritorious work…..The inspired code of the universal conquerors of thirteen centuries ago has grown to be no more than a mere text-book of sacred music, in the practice of which a valuable portion of the youth of well-educated Muslims is wasted.”
The Qur’an gives success: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(Qur’an 20:1-2). This resplendent throne of celestial excellence is ever available for Muslims to ascend: “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers”–(Qur’an 24:55). Muslims have Allāh, the Prophet and Qur’an–the invincible trio: Power, morality, spirituality. With Allāh, the Prophet and Qur’an we have the world at our feet and eternity in our arms:
“certainly the remembrance of Allāh
is the greatest (force)”
“And trust in Allāh.
And Allāh is enough as
having charge (of affairs)”
“Surely Allāh will not fail in (His) promise”
“Allāh is the Friend of the dutiful”
(Qur’an 29:45; 33:3; 13:31; 45:19).
Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant. Let us embark on our destiny.
(53). WS. “A simple analysis of the reality in which Muslims suffices to reveal the sterility of Islamic teachings. These teachings have failed to create steadfast, productive, and creative human beings.” (Never mind the history of Muslims. The above-quote by Hurgronje in item #52 above is enough to obliterate this junk). (p.177).
Response: Muslims are in stagnation not because of the teachings of Islam, but because of neglect of these teachings. Muslim’s progress lasted nearly a thousand years; and from which the current generations have benefited. The present progress is hardly two hundred years old. While Muslims suffer decline the Kingdom of Islam is eternal. When Muslims will return to the words of Allāh we will again sit in the ‘Throne of Caesars;’ as Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant! (Islam-Muslims’ destiny).
(54). WS. “From its earliest beginnings Islam has forcibly defended its teachings. It resorted to force because it needed power. It used its might to stamp out any ideas that did not fit into its program, and kept its people firmly locked up in prison. It rejected the principle of excellence and the laws of supply and demand. “The inhabitants of the Arabian Desert were so intimidated by their barren environment that they were incapable of any thought of improving or animating it. The fears that beset Muslims pursue them to this day.” (p. 179).
Response: What a yawn! If the Desert Arabs, who today constitutes about “20 percent of the Muslim World population,” were “intimidated by their barren environment” that holds them to Islam, why are the 80 percent non-Arab Muslims tied to Islam; what is holding these? As already shown this charge is baseless.
That “From its earliest beginnings Islam has forcibly defended its teachings. Give one example of the Prophet or the Caliphs forcing Islam at the point of the sword on anyone.
That Islam “resorted to force because it needed power.” This has already been debunked 5000 ways to sundown.
That Islam “used its might to stamp out any ideas that did not fit into its program, and kept its people firmly locked up in prison.” What are some of these allegedly brilliant ideas that Islam stamped out?
That Islam “rejected the principle of excellence and the laws of supply and demand. What principle of excellence, please be specific!
(55). WS. “The concept of work in Islam was confined to nomadic migration, raiding, booty, and the struggle for survival. Islam promised its followers rivers, fruit, wines, and milk, (what! no “virgins”?) but it did not encourage them to sink wells, grow fruit, or raise livestock. (p. 180).
Response: (Raiding and booty have already been dealt with). If Muslims did not have fruit and livestock what were they living on? As for sinking wells, they first needed implements. Islam gave them knowledge. Within a hundred years after the Prophet’s death Muslims, following the Qur’an, became masters of the world. The “promised” “rivers, fruit, wines, and milk” are baksheesh. They are yet to be enjoyed. And the promise of Allāh is true!
(56). WS. (She also meddles in Jihad). “The call to wage war on God’s behalf constituted the main part of these (Muslims) responsibilities, as the following Koranic verse makes clear: “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allāh; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them” (4:74). Muslims could not conceive of responsibility outside the concept of fighting. They still believe that jihad is the only way to guarantee their entry to paradise in the hereafter.” (Fighting in the cause of Allāh means to fight in the cause of truth and justice). (p. 181).
Response: Haven’t countries purchased the lives of their soldiers? To give one’s life in selfless sacrifice for the liberty of others is the highest ideal. Fighting “on God’s behalf” is fighting on “behalf”/cause of the oppressed and the persecuted –in truth and justice. Whether the war is justified or not, when a soldier is killed in the service of his country he is bestowed with honor and even awarded a medal of valor. When a Muslim is slain in the cause of Allāh he is rewarded with paradise. Where then is the problem?
That “Muslims could not conceive of responsibility outside the concept of fighting.” How then Allāh says he who does an atom’s weight of good and of evil will see it–(Qur’an 99:7-8); that righteousness includes giving “away wealth out of love for Him (God) to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free”–(Qur’an 2:177); that “(Zakat) charity is for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer it, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth), and (to free) the captives, and those in debt, and in the way of Allāh and for the wayfarer”–(Qur’an 9:60); and after the Friday (Jumu’a) prayer to “disperse abroad in the land and seek of Allāh’s grace”–(Qur’an 62:10)?
Briefly, Jihad means to “strive” or exert one’s self in the way of freedom, truth, and justice. To strive with the Qur’an against false worship is known as “Jihad kabiran”–the mighty striving–(Qur’an 25:52); perhaps because the worst form of bondage is bondage of the intellect. Islam strives to liberate man physically, morally, intellectually and spiritually.
(57). WS. “The Koran says: “Allāh has purchased of the faithful their lives and worldly goods and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, slay and be slain” (9:11). And so it is the Muslim’s objective in war either to kill his enemy or to be killed by him, and he considers himself to have won whichever turns out to be the case.” (p. 183). (This has been dealt with above). .
(58). WS. “Since the dawn of Islam Muslims have always divided the world into two –themselves and others– and they continue to do so today. (Arguably, this could be said of all religionists).They are reasonable, peaceable, and upstanding believers while everyone else is thoughtless, wicked, and heretical terrorist. They are the victims, and others are the killers. (Muslims are the victims. Non-Muslims have been treacherous against Muslims. Non-Muslims have invaded Muslims countries, overthrown their government(s), and tried to run their countries and control their resources. Non-Muslims have stolen Muslim lands and given it to another. Non-Muslims have even tampered with Muslim’s Scripture: see Christians-Internet). But although they have accused the entire world of conspiring to wipe them and their religion out, it is the Jews who have been their scapegoat from Islam’s earliest beginnings.” (pp. 184-185).
Response: Jews are no “scapegoat.” Jews proved themselves to be enemies of Islam from “Islam’s earliest beginnings.” As already noted, in the time of the Prophet Mohammad Jews feigned acceptance of Islam then renounced it to influence Muslims to apostatize, and proved themselves treacherous by violating their agreement with the Prophet and siding with the enemies in war against him; coveted Palestinians/Arabs lands, and schemed and intrigued to dispossess Palestinians; were the first air-plane hijackers in the Mid-East; “hijacked” a Syrian civilian jet to get “hostages;” colluded with Britain and France to attack Egypt so Britain could have control of the Suez; provoked the war in Lebanon; framed Libya resulting in America bombing Libya (isn’t this a war crime?); provoke the Arabs/Palestinians so they could “smash” them; their military policy is to attack Arabs/Palestinians “en masse;” and as already noted from M.H. Haykal, “Their opposition and hostility were never open”–perhaps this may be so even today. Investigation might be able to prove or disprove this. (For details please see Rabbi Marmur & Farouk Hosny). In fact Jews were so inimical to Mohammad/Islam that they question the existence of God in their opposition; M.H. Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad (p. 191): “Both Jews and unbelievers, however, reached such levels of deception that they denied either Torah or God in order to ask Muhammad, “If God created creation, who then created God?” Muhammad used to answer them with the Divine verses: “Say, ‘God is One, the Eternal. He was not born, nor did He give birth to anyone. None is like unto Him’”–(Qur’an 112:1-4). Jews even aroused “the old pride and hatred of the two tribes,” al Aws and Khazraj, against Mohammad. Jews, not only tried to “dissuade the Muslims from their religion;” “Jews even tried to trap Muhammad himself” (Ibid; pp. 191-193).
(59). WS. “We imbibed with our mother’s milk hatred for the Jews and for anyone who supported their cause. (If this cause is for the dispossession of Palestine then everyone should “hate” it; for no one in the world would accept for himself and herself what was done to the Palestinians: no one would accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept. Would you?) We justified this hatred by devising a conspiracy theory, and we called anyone who disagreed with us a Zionist agent.” (And what about Jews who are against Zionism?) (She notes from the Qur’an): “The Jews say: ‘Allāh’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained. May they be cursed for what they say. By no means. His hands are both outstretched” (5:64) (This is an improper translation, as will be shown shortly, as well as the entire verse and an explanation). Islam’s general attitude toward the Jews helped Muslims construct their conspiracy theory and use it as a weapon against anyone who tried to cast doubts upon the credibility and morality of Islamic teachings.” (pp. 188-189)
Response: Muhammad Ali translated this verse (5:64): “And the Jews say: The hand of Allåh is tied up. Their own hands are shackled and they are cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out. He disburses as He pleases. And that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief. And We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the day of Resurrection. Whenever they kindle a fire for war Allåh puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land. And Allåh loves not the mischief-makers.” And MA comments: “The Muslims as a community were mostly poor people who accepted the truth. Moreover, they had left their property at Makkah. The Madinah Muslims were an agricultural community and naturally not rich. The Jews on the other hand carried on business and their usurious transactions had made them very rich, hence they taunted the Muslims, saying that Allåh’s hand was fettered. Compare also 3:181 and see 3:181a. The words — both His hands are spread out — indicate that He will enrich the Muslims materially as well as spiritually. It is clear from this (Jews making mischief in the land, noted in the verse) that the Jews had a hand in the battles which the Quraish waged against Islåm; in fact they gave them promises of help from within if they attacked Madinah; perhaps they also financed these wars. The casting of enmity among them may relate to the enmity between the Jews and the Christians, because both are again and again referred to in this chapter.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed and perhaps downloaded online: muslimwww..org).
Muslims’ problem with Jews is both “fourteen centuries” old as well as their occupation of Palestine. As shown above, Jews were inimical to Muslims from “Islam’s earliest beginnings;” then came their dispossessing of the Palestinians.Whatever negative attitude Muslim’s have towards Jews, this attitude, as their history, both scriptural and secular, bears testimony, was fostered by Jews themselves. Though Allāh admonishes us to not let hatred of a people incite us to transgress against them or be unjust–(Qur’an 5:2, 8). There is none that “cast doubts upon the credibility and morality of Islamic teachings.”
Regarding the Zionist conspiracy. If this is referring to THE Protocols of the Elders of Zion whereby it is claimed that Jews are trying to control the world. Briefly (as noted on the site): 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.” And 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 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. 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. Emphasis added).
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, during the UN partitioning of Palestine, bringing “pressure” and “coercion and duress” on certain non-Muslim nations in order to acquire the required number of votes to wrestle Palestine from the Palestinians; and considering that the US is more powerful now than in 1948– and given as Ariel Sharon 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).
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may, after all, not be a “conspiracy theory” “constructed” by “Muslims.” Or “forgery.”
(60). WS. “Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity were the religions of the inhabitants of the pre-Muslim Arabian Peninsula. When Muhammad appeared with his message, he threatened all those who did not follow him. (Rubbish! Mohammad threatened no one. As shown, it was not Muhammad’s mission to enforce the Divine Message: only to teach it! When the rejecters resorted to war Muhammad had to defend himself and followers: a stand any sane person would undertake!) He divided people into two groups. The first group was made up of those who believed in Allāh and His Prophet, and who would live in safety and peace in what was known as the “House of Peace” or paradise. The second group was made up of those who did not believe and who would live in a state of perpetual conflict in the House of War or enemy non-Muslim territory.” (If this was so why then did Mohammad spare the conquered idolaters of Makkah on their thrones and with their economies?) “Islamic teaching made no mention of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism, even though these religions existed at the time and people practiced them. Muhammad, however, might never have heard of them. The more likely explanation is that they presented no threat to himself or his followers and, therefore, he displayed no aggression toward them.” (Mohammad did not make “aggression” against anyone. Paganism, Judaism and Christianity made “aggression” against Mohammad! And Judaism and Christianity have no scriptural grounds for rejecting Mohammad; they can reject Mohammad but they cannot refute his claim! No one can!) (pp. 191-192).
Response: That Mohammad “divided people into two groups. The first group was made up of those who believed in Allāh and His Prophet, and who would live in safety and peace in what was known as the “House of Peace” or paradise. The second group was made up of those who did not believe and who would live in a state of perpetual conflict in the House of War or enemy non-Muslim territory” is more “influential” rubbish! Mohammad was not sent to divide people into “Houses;” people were free to accept or reject. Those who reject and militate were the ones who divide people into “Houses” of war and peace.
Whereas Islam brought “all” truth suitable for all time, Islam does not deny that other people were given Divine truth as suited their time. Islam recognizes that there are righteous people in all religions; and it has to; considering that Allāh raised prophets/ messengers among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies. However, these followers of various religions who come to know of Islam and reject it –and as no religion can be shown to be superior than, or equal with, Islam– they will have to account for their rejection. As shown, the cardinal doctrines of Hinduism and Sikhism (karma and reincarnation) their Divine origin cannot be shown; Bahaism is crockery; the cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Trinity, Divinity of Jesus, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation no prophetic foundation no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason, and Judaism, God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others and eschatological Messiah are myths. Whoever rejects Mohammad/Islam is going to Hell–(cf. Qur’an 3:84-85; 9:113; 30:30; Muslim, Vol, 1; # 284).
(61). WS. “In order to maintain this state of enmity, Islam has fostered suspicion and mistrust among Muslims with regard to both Jews and Christians, by means of the Koranic verse that says: “You will please neither the Jews nor the Christians unless you follow their faith. Say: ‘The guidance of Allāh is the only guidance.’ And if after all the knowledge you have been given you yield to their desires, there shall be none to help or protect you from the wrath of Allāh” (2:120).” “No Muslim, on the basis of the verse quoted above, can have a trusting relationship with a Jew or Christian.” (Hogwash! Not yielding to falsehood does not mean you cannot be friends with a follower of falsehood. Who would want to leave the best of a product and accept a defective one anyway? Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix or accept that God would choose people because of their race –a factor in which he has no choice– and follow a religion that, spiritually, “has no future,” seeing that Jews are mandated to follow Mohammad/Islam; and their leaders know that Mohammad is the one prophesied in the Bible–Qur’an 2:146; 26:196-199; read M. Ali commentary on these verses: www.muslim.org) (p. 193).
Response: Truth is not “enmity”! Islam did not foster “enmity” against Jews and Christians. Allāh reveals a truth, a truth born from Jews and Christians attitudes towards Islam. Truth is not “suspicion” or “mistrust!” Who was it that undertook the Crusades to annihilate Muslims from the Holy land; and forced Muslims out of Spain? Who was it that denied God just so they could oppose Mohammad, and feigned conversion to Islam then revert in order to influence Muslims to apostatize? Who was it that is publishing “fake” copies of the Qur’an to mislead? See Christians-Internet.
That “Islam has fostered suspicion and mistrust among Muslims with regard to both Jews and Christians.” If Muslims have “suspicion and mistrust of Jews” it is well-founded; which “suspicion and mistrust” was “fostered” by Jews own heads and hearts and hands as noted in item #58. Regarding Muslims “suspicion and mistrust” of Christians I note the words of T. W. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam:
“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.” (This may very well be a timeless observation).
“…of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them.” (pp. 77, 80).
(62). WS. “My three children received their primary education in primary schools. None of them ever came home and told me their teachers had taught them that Muslims were terrorists and should be fought against. None of them learned that Christianity was the true religion and that anyone who did not profess it was heretic and an enemy. None of them learned in school that God hates Muslims.” (p. 199). (Allāh God does not hate anyone. Allāh speaks the truth: truth is not hatred!)
Response: Perhaps your children never heard that “Muslims were terrorists” is because their teachers were wise enough to know they cannot prove it and they would be challenged in court. Though their government has no qualms in rounding up Muslims, spying on them, and scrutinizing them.
That none of your children “learned that Christianity was the true religion and that anyone who did not profess it was heretic and an enemy,” may have been because they were in secular schools; they should go to some Churches to hear what is being preached (though I myself did not go, Muslim and Hindu who went volunteered it to me). Whoever teaches that Christianity –that Jesus is God; son of God one in a trinity vicarious atoner or that mankind inherited sin from Adam is a liar or an ignoramus. Christianity is lies, falsehood, and blasphemy. These doctrines are alien to Jesus Christ; and son of God is a figurative expression. Not only is Jesus only “called” son of God, the Bible is pregnant with sons and daughters of God. (See Christianity-a fake; Jehovah’s Witnesses).
On Jews: On page 91 in his book The Question of Palestine, Edward Said notes about Jewish writings for children: “Children’s literature is made up of valiant Jews who always end up by killing low, treacherous Arabs, with names like Mastoul (crazy), Bandura (tomato), or Bukra (tomorrow). As a writer for Ha’aretz said (September 20, 1974), childrens’ books “deal with our topic: the Arab who murders Jews out of pleasure, and the pure Jewish boy who defeats ‘the coward swine!’””
And Ismail Zayid notes in his Palestine-A Stolen Heritage, a letter from a concerned Jewish student: “KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes: “The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races.””9
And Hitler was pilloried (still is) for his view that Germans is the master race. If supremacy is based on race, residency, and knowledge; then Palestinians/Arabs are the “most superior of all races;” having resided in Palestine for six thousand years, is the best nation, as Allāh says in His Qur’an, and has given Muslims knowledge that brought light to the world –at a time when Jews and everyone else were running around with flint tools and torches.
This misshapen Jewish ‘supremacy’ may very well be said to be the nucleus of Apartheid –mental, physical and spiritual– and the arrogance to commit monumental atrocities against others.
If “Christianity” was lording America men would be able to marry their father’s daughter (commit incest?)–(Gen. 20:11-12; slavery will be revived–(Lev. 25:44); children will be punished for their parents “whoredoms”–(Num. 14:33-34. Also Rev. 2:20-23); disbelievers will be killed–(Deut. 13:12-16); the hand of the wife who tried to defend her husband in a certain way in a fight will lose her hand–(Deut. 25:11-12); cannibalism will be legal–(Deut. 28:53, 57; 2 Kings 6:28-29); it will be legal to give one’s concubine to be gang raped all night till morning, and then kill her–(Judges 19:22-29); it would be legal to slay even the “infant and suckling” in war–(1 Samuel 15:2-3); it would be legal to take men’s wives and give them in adultery–(2 Samuel 12:11); as Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” there will be unbridled polygamy and concubinage–(1 Kings 11:3); Christians would be allowed to wash their feet in the blood of the wicked–(Psalms 58:10); it would be happiness to mutilate “little ones” and ravish the wives of others–(Psalm 137:9; Isaiah 13:16); it would be legal to kill fetus during war–(Isaiah 13:15, 18; Hosea 13:16); Woman would be seen and not heard and her daughter bondaged–(Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7; Ephesians 5:22-23, 33); wives will have to learn in silence and subjection, and to not “usurp authority over the man”–(1 Tim. 2:11-12); daughters who commit “whoredom” will be burned–(Gen 38:24; Lev. 21:9); blasphemers, apostates, married damsel without the “token of virginity,” and the virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed,” stubborn and rebellious sons, and the adulteress would all be stoned to death–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23; Deut; 13:5-16; 17:2-5; Deut. 22:20-21; 22:23-24; 21:18-21; John 8:3-5); the witch, one who curses his father or mother, the adulterer, homosexuals, and the man who commits bestiality would be put to death–(Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:9; 10-12; Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:13; 15-16); a man who takes a “wife and her mother” both would be torched–(Lev. 20:14); (as only Christians honor Christ as God/son of God) Christians are to bondage their fellow Christians–Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22); Christians would agree with their adversaries which would include agreeing with injustice: perhaps this is what the Church and Christian Europe were doing when the Nazis were holocausting Jews–(Matt. 5:25); those who do not share the Christians’ views would be labeled as being “against” them and enemies opposed to rule would be slaughtered (the Crusades will now be rolling out of America to secure Jerusalem for Christ’s landing; we might even get an American “Hitler” to avenge the killing of the Christian’s God/son of God)–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27); men and women would have to remain in their marriage regardless of how loveless and miserable or risk being guilty of “adultery;” and the divorced woman would have to wilt her (youthful and beautiful) self in single-hood or her new husband will be charged with “adultery”–(Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18); woman would be reduced as an object for sex, good only “to avoid fornication–(1 Cor 7:1-2); viewed as inferior to man–(1 Cor. 11:7-9); as the transgressor –(1 Tim. 2:14); as “defiler” of man–(Revelation 7:4-8; 14:3-4. These verses of Rev; speaking about the 144,000, who will be JEWS, twelve thousand from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel –all non-Jews take note– and will be only MEN –women take note – the Bible says: “These are they which were NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; for they are VIRGINS.” The classic woman-hater. Allāh, God, created man and woman to fill the earth, and instilled in them passions to help accomplish this; and Christians view this Divine gift of man-woman union a sacrilege. (See Christianity-Women of); and as no one would be allowed to shovel treasures into earthly storehouses and would have to depend on God as he sends to the birds and thus no need for knowledge America will plummet like a lead-ball from the pinnacle of progress into the black-hole of backwardness–(Matt. 6:19, 25-26); and the Geneva convention on war would have to be re-written, for it would be legal to slay all the soldiers of war as well as slay all the male and matron women and take the virgin girls as sex slaves (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus commanded): “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses ….And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him, but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES….and of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000” –(Numbers 31:1-53). (See Christianity-Sex Slaves & Prepubescent Girls).
And as an atheist/Muslim you (Wafa Sultan) would be considered as being against Jesus and thus an enemy and as Jesus’ enemies are to be slain you would either have to high-tail it back to Syria (or maybe Iran) or kiss the useless and unGodly crucifix or have your head lopped off.
While America is run by those who identify themselves as Christians, Wafa Sultan and non-Christians are to go down on their hands and knees and forehead and thank Allāh that America (and nowhere else) is governed by “Christianity.” (Please note: this is the Christians’ Jesus. For the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an).
If “Judaism” was lording America, Americans would be subjected to all the teachings of the Old Testament (noted above). And as Jews believed they are God’s “chosen people to the exclusion of others,” and as a Jew is a descendant of Jacob/Israel –though present day Jews cannot prove this lineage, and may very well be descendants of the Khazar, an eighth century Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism, or of “Eastern European” ancestry: see Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe– and as Wafa Sultan, by no stretch of the genes would be able to make it into the “Jewish” mould, she would not only be likely to end up as a “heathen” slave woman and taken away with even her “buttocks uncovered,” but she can “dream” for an entire Swarga –the duration of a Hindu heaven which is more than three trillion years– her granddaughter will never be elected President of America.
If Islam/Mohammad (not to be confused with Muslims though Muslims are to reflect the teachings of Islam) was lording America (or any place)
–women and men would be observing a dress code (which probably all disciplined organizations have) –women, the Hijab/Head covering and jalaba and men, (the minimum) the area between, and including, the navel and the knees and half of the chest;
–women will be given all the rights due to her and leave her nothing for which to strive;
-there would be limited polygamy to alleviate female preponderancy;
-non-Muslims would be governed by the laws of their scripture (to an extent);
-there would be no Alcohol (one does not need intoxicants to have a good time; in fact intoxicants do not give a “good time”: the best of times are had in sobriety);
-there will be no Gambling; no pornography; no prostitution and thus no pimping;
-thieves (depending on the reason for theft and cost of item) will lose their hands (law-abiding citizens will be much safer and secure, and wouldn’t need to imprison themselves in gated communities) (see Islam-amputation/dismemberment).
-drug-lords and pushers and rapists and other “dead-weight” of society who strive to make mischief in the land and prey on the vulnerable of society run the risk of getting the maximum sentence of crucifixion;
-men will NOT be saddled with alimony payments for his ex-wife’s unmarried life;
-there will be one law for the commoner and the elite (there will be no diplomatic immunity);
-adulterers and fornicators will be publicly flogged (there is no death for adultery, apostasy and blasphemy, and no honor killing in Islam. See Islam-Shari’ah). For a woman’s testimony being half of a man’s, wife-beating, women’s movement restricted, woman’s inheritance half of a man’s see Islam-women).
Unlike the Christians’ Jesus who would have man in regress and dependency,
-Mohammad, through the Blessed Qur’an brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms, and gave us to drink of the fountain of knowledge and truth and wisdom and reason, of peace and love and hope and mercy and forgiveness, and he sent man soaring from the belly of ignorance and backwardness into the mouth of quest and progress.
-Mohammad liberated man from the irrationality of polytheism, the futility and degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of superstition, the phantasm of paganism –of Gods of the womb and dying Gods and sons of God–and took God from the bosom of nationalism and sat Him aloft on the Mount of Universalism; extols that everything in the heavens and the earth were created for our use and that the only presence greater than us is God and thus the only One worthy of worship; that one is better only by faith and deeds; to fulfill covenants and to keep oaths and not to be deceptive; to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich; not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief; not to be transgressors; not to help one another in sin and aggression; to restrain anger and forgive others; to fight on behalf of the oppressed; to be merciful and forgiving; to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression and to make peace when the enemy desires peace; to return evil with that which is better; gives freedom of conscience; rescues the orphan, ennobles the slave, extricated women from the grave of infanticide and unchained her from the shackles of marital chatteldom and enthrones her alongside man from the cradle to paradise; instills in man morality, sobriety, and chastity, and impels him to personal, social, intellectual, and spiritual excellence.
-Mohammad embraced all the prophets of all the nations and removed the cloak of “sinfulness” hurled upon them.
-Mohammad not only preached forgiveness but he forgave his most horrid enemies.
-Mohammad not only preached love of enemies and loved his enemies, but also made them beneficiaries in his kingdom.
-Mohammad not only preached the giving of charity and gave charity, but also bought slaves their freedom, and assigned a portion of the States’ funds for the poor.
-Mohammad “disabused our minds”: he made us too cultured to deliver our souls into the hands of gods born of the womb –helpless, defenseless gods; gods who themselves sought nourishment and protection– and he hung the millstone of responsibility for our actions snugly around our own necks –that there is no “scapegoat” on which to cruise on into heaven: every person must pave his own pathway into Paradise.
–Mohammad freed us from stone-worship, star-worship, sun-worship, spirit-worship, nature-worship, human-worship, and sat us high on the pinnacle of pure worship (that the only presence greater than ourselves is God; the worship) of the One True God –Who has no partner or parent, nor son or daughter; Who was not in the womb of a woman, Who was not born, nor ate, slept, drank, nor answered the calls of nature, nor died or was killed– the God Who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, the God Who is the Ultimate in Purity and Perfection and Who never dies–Allāh!
Only the occupier/usurper, the oppressor, the exploiter, the transgressor, those ignorant of Islam, those dedicated to falsehood and those dedicated to living off the blood of others are terrified of Islam.
(63). WS. “Muhammad and a group of his followers heard a far-off sound. The prophet’s followers asked him: “What’s that noise, O Prophet of God?” and he replied: “That’s the Jews suffering torment in their graves” (Sahih Bukhari, 1286). (p. 201).
Response: If this hadith is genuine and not a forgery, how do you know Mohammad was not speaking the truth? However, while perhaps a prophet might be able to hear happenings in the unseen world it is doubtful that ordinary humans can, including his companions. If so, then, all that would be needed to have people accept God was to take them to the cemetery for them to hear for themselves the sufferings in the grave.
Some Muslims believe that the dead, upon their burial, is subject to questioning in the grave. The Prophet is reported as speaking of punishment in the grave–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #’s 422, 454, 456, 460, 461; Vol. 8, #’s 376-381; 522). But there is no such teaching in the Qur’an (though the Qur’an 40:46 seems to teach that the soul is shown daily its ultimate destination). Grave in Islam does not mean the hole in the ground. Yusuf Ali notes that “the Grave” may be understood to be the period between physical death and immortal Life, whatever may be the mode of disposal of the dead body. This intermediate period is the Barzakh.” Muhammad Ali notes, “Barzakh is the intermediate state in which the soul lives after death till the Resurrection.” Thus, grave may said to be the ‘the state between physical death and the resurrection.’
Regarding the belief that the dead is questioned. According to the Qur’an it seems that man is subjected to two lives and two deaths–(Qur’an 2:28; 40:11). If the state before our coming into existence is one death and our physical death is our second death, and this life is our first life and the resurrection is our second life, then the belief that the dead, whether it be the soul in barzakh or the corpse in the ground (which would exempt those who are cremated, devoured, etc;) is brought to life, would seem to be at variance with the teaching of the Qur’an that there are two lives and two deaths, because this questioning in the grave would entail another life and another death, giving us a third life and a third death.
Even if it be taken that the departure from this life is our first death (as opposed to our non-existence before this life), and this life is our first life and the resurrection is our second life, then this would give us ‘one’ death and ‘two’ lives; which would be in contradiction of the Qur’an that we have two lives and two death’s (not to mention the additional life and death in the grave which would then make it “three” lives and “two” deaths). Either way, the belief that “Munker and Nakir” interrogate the dead, seems to be at variance with the teaching of the Qur’an.
(Unless before Islam there was no punishment in the grave, or if only Muslims are to be punished in the grave) Allāh, God, says that Pharaoh and his host are brought daily before the Fire–(Qur’an 40:46); Allāh, God, also tells us that Pharaoh’s body was saved from decay–(Qur’an 10:90-92; which body was discovered mummified); which means Pharaoh could not have been punished in the grave, since he was not put into a hole in the ground. This seems to show that punishment in the grave does not mean that the dead becomes alive again in the grave (hole in the ground), but seemingly, that this reference to grave and punishment in the grave are to barzakh, the grave of the souls, and torment of the sinning soul, respectively. Also, the Shah Jahan is entombed in a palace and not in a hole in the ground which would suggest that he is/was not punished in the “grave.”
(64). WS. In another hadith Muhammad says: “An impostor will come along and claim to be the messiah, and seventy thousand Jews will follow him, each girth with a sword. But the messiah will catch him, kill him, and defeat all the Jews. Each and every stone will say: ‘Oh servant of Allāh, Oh Muslim, here is a Jew, come and kill him.’” The only exception is the salt tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews, and if they hide behind it, it will not reveal their presence. Today there are Muslims who like to spread the rumor that Jews in Israel know the truth of this hadith and have begun to plant salt trees to hide behind.” (The only way to know if it is rumor or truth is to investigate). (p. 201)
Response: Naturally, we will have to wait to see if this hadith comes true. Our limbs and skin and even a stone and heap will give witness on the day of Judgment–(Qur’an 17:36; 24:24; 36:65; 41:19-23; Gen. 31:48-52; Josh. 24:27). If Jews believe this hadith and are planting salt trees “to hide behind,” then Jews are clever till they have become stupid. For in this day and age no tree can stand up to flame throwers, missiles, and defoliants. Jews ought to know this well: having destroyed the Palestinians wheat fields of Akraba on April 28, 1972. This hadith would seem to be of figurative expression. This tree that shields Jews would seem to be America. At the manifesting of this prophecy Jews will be scurrying to get to America. (Jews can save themselves a heap of grief by accepting Islam/Mohammad in which event they would be fulfilling their covenant with God).
(65). WS. “Whenever Muhammad wanted to stop his followers from doing something, he would say: “God has cursed the Jews because they did that.” He said, for example. “God cursed the Jews because they took the graves of their prophets as place for prayer.”(Sahih Muslim, 823). (Worshipping graves is idolatry, worshipping even live prophets is idolatry: the Bible clearly states that only God is to be worshipped–Exodus 20:3-5; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29. So if God cursed the Jews for violating His law why carp at Mohammad for expressing the truth?)A man asked one day: “Oh Prophet of God, I have a slave girl whom I desire and to whom I wish to do what a man does, but, for fear she may become pregnant, I ejaculate outside her body. But I have heard that ejaculating outside a woman is considered tantamount to murder of the fetus–is that true?” “He replied in a hadith: “May God curse the Jews, as they said that! Pay no attention to them, and ejaculate where you will. If God wished her to become pregnant you would not be able to ejaculate outside her body.” If education is responsible for shaping the human mind, then the entire mind is the product of education. What sort of mind can teachings such as these produce?” (pp. 201-202).
Response: It is a Jewish requirement that if an elder brother dies without fathering a child, his younger brother is to take over the wife and raise issue with her–(Deut. 25:5; Matt. 22:24). Mohammad was right: it was/is a Jewish belief! According to the Bible coitus interruptous was punishable by God with death. Onanism is the Christian word for this act of spilling the seed outside the woman. Onanism was derived from Onan, the second son of Judah. After “the Lord slew” Er for being “wicked,” Judah instructed Er’s younger brother, Onan, to marry Er’s widow, Tamar, “and raise up seed to thy brother.” But Onan did not favor the arrangement, so “when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also”–(Gen. 38:2-10). Clearly, as the Prophet Mohammad said, this was a Jewish belief. Why then carp at Mohammad for expressing a truth: for giving “education”?
(66). WS. “Islam subjugated the cultures of all the people it afflicted, but it eradicated all traces of indigenous Arab culture more thoroughly than those of any other.” (p. 205).
Response: Islam is not an “affliction,” Islam is a blessing! As shown in preceding pages, Islam is enlightenment. The “indigenous Arab culture” was one of female infanticide, polytheism, idolatry, superstition, subjugation of women, drunkenness, profligacy, gambling, and backwardness. What sane society (or person) would want to retain such obscene “cultures”?
(67). WS. “Muhammad was a warrior rather than a thinker. He left no moral legacy for his followers to build upon or use as a basis for the societies they founded. Nor did he leave them room outside the boundaries of this law in which they might have exercised their freedom and perhaps, responding to the demands of time, have invented a moral code of their own.” (Which Islam have you been studying? Never heard of Ijma?) (p. 206).
Response: Mohammad was a thinker, soldier, general, statesman, diplomat, administrator, king, laborer…..What other code is there that is more “moral” than the Qur’an/Islam? Prove it! That Mohammad “left no moral legacy for his followers to build upon or use as a basis for the societies they founded. Nor did he leave them room outside the boundaries of this law in which they might have exercised their freedom and perhaps, responding to the demands of time, have invented a moral code of their own.” Only Allāh, God, is “infallible;” and as the prophets of God do and say only as they are commanded, to this degree they also are “infallible.” Since Islam is the religion for all time, no one can close the door of independent reasoning. Not even the Prophet gave such a ruling that the door of independent reasoning was closed: but in fact left this door wide open. (Muhammad Ali has dealt at length with this subject –Ijtihad–in his excellent work The Religion of Islam). Ijtihad, “the third source from which the laws of Islam are drawn,” has its origin in the Qur’an itself, and in the Tradition of the Prophet. Allah calls on man in several places of the Qur’an to reflect, to understand, to be sensible. “Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind”–(Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22); 25:44).” (The Religion Of Islam, p. 98).
“The exercise of judgment (ijtihad) is recognized in Tradition as the means by which a decision may be arrived at when there is no direction in the Qur’an or tradition. The following Tradition is regarded as the basis of Ijtihad in Islam: “On being appointed Governor of Yaman, Mu’adh was asked by the Prophet as to the rule by which he would abide. He replied, ‘By the law of the Qur’an.’ ‘But if you do not find direction therein,’ asked the Prophet. ‘Then I will act according to the practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet,’ was the reply. ‘But if you do not find any direction therein,’ he was again asked. ‘Then I will exercise my judgment (ajtahidu) and act on that,’ came the reply. The Prophet raised his hands and said: ‘Praise be to Allah who guides the messenger of His Apostle as he pleases,” (Abu Dawud, 23:11). This tradition shows not only that the Prophet approved of the exercise of judgment, but also that his Companions were well aware of the principle, and that reasoning or exercise of judgment by others was freely resorted to when necessary, even in the Prophet’s lifetime.” (Ibid. p. 99).
(During the rule of the Caliph ‘Umar) “When there was a difference of opinion, the decision of the majority was acted upon. Besides this council, there were great individual teachers, such as ‘Aishah, Ibn Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar and others whose opinion was highly revered. Decisions were given and laws made and promulgated subject only to the one condition that they were neither contrary to the Qur’an nor to the practice of the Prophet.”(Ibid. p. 100). The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said “The differences of my people are a mercy”–(J.S. p. 11)” (Ibid. p. 110).(Tragically, Muslims have denigrated this blessing into a curse–polarizing ourselves into sects, engaged in internecine wars, etc).
“The impression prevailing in the Muslim world at present that no one has the right, even in the light of the new circumstances which a thousand years of the world’s progress have brought about, to differ with the four Imams, is entirely a mistaken one. The right to differ with the highest of men below the Prophet is a Muslims’ birthright, and to take away that right is to stifle the very existence of Islam. …In fact, the closing of the door on the free exercise of judgment, and the tendency to stifle independence of thought which took hold of the Muslim world after the third century of Hijrah, was condemned by the Prophet himself who said: “The best of the generations is my generation, then the second and then the third; then will come a people in which there is no good”–(KU. VI, 2068)”
(The three generations referred to in the tradition) “refer to three centuries, the first century being the century of the Companions, since the last of them died at the end of the first century after the Prophet and the second and the third being those of the next two generations known as Tabi’in and taba’ Tabi’in. As a matter of fact, we find that while independence of thought was freely exercised in the first three centuries, and even Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, the immediate followers of Abu Hanifah, did not hesitate to differ with their great leader, rigidity became the rule thereafter with only rare exceptions. The time when independence of thought was not exercised is, therefore, denounced by the Prophet him-self, as the time of a crooked company.” (Ibid. pp. 115-116).
Allah the Gracious revealed that He created everything in the heavens and the earth for our use (and whose subjection and utility can only be achieved through knowledge). And the Prophet Mohammad, the magnanimous, taught us: ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’ If Muslims are not illuminated by this brilliant flame from the mighty Messenger of Allah, to explore the expanse of reason and progress, no other human being can brighten the density of our minds.
To charge that Mohammad “left no moral legacy for his followers to build upon or use as a basis for the societies they founded. Nor did he leave them room outside the boundaries of this law in which they might have exercised their freedom and perhaps, responding to the demands of time, have invented a moral code of their own” is to betray ignorance of Islam.
(68). WS. “If you read the biography of the Prophet from beginning to end you will find no trace of any kind of moral authority….morals, by definition, do not change with the changing times…Morals are a common code shared by all peoples of the world at all times in all places. What is moral in Beverly Hills will be considered moral in the tribes of Africa, and vice versa.” (How about cannibalism? This is considered “moral” by some African tribe(s). And homosexuality, lesbianism, and alcoholism: are these considered “moral” by all peoples?) “The moral code is a set of natural laws that enjoin people to do what is right and avoid what is wrong.” (Is it “right” to “coerce” and bring “duress” and “pressure” on other nations to vote according to your dictates? Is it “right” to bomb other nations on pretext? Is it “right” to oppress the weak and exploit the poor? Is this the moral code that “nature” drew up? Do all peoples share this “moral” conduct?)“In the desert environment that gave birth to Islam, human thought and behavior reflected the fears characteristic of life in those surroundings. The fact that people did not feel safe gave rise to all the customs that dominated that time and place, as a reaction to this destructive emotion.” (So Americans and others resort to homosexuality, alcoholism, drug addiction, and various crimes because they “fear” something. And Americans and others are just like the desert Arabs: they invest in sophisticated security equipments, hide themselves in gated communities, buy dogs and guns, and women march the streets to take back their neighborhood because they “do not feel safe.” In fact, it may be argued that, according to your logic, 1400 years after the desert Arabs Americans are living in greater “fear”). (p. 207).
Response: That “If you read the biography of the Prophet from beginning to end you will find no trace of any kind of moral authority,” is sheer nonsense. Can pomegranates be reaped from cactus? The Prophet’s life was/is itself a “moral authority.” It is doubtful that a practitioner of sin and evil could inspire and mold others into a fortress of virtue and God-consciousness. Mohammad extricated people sludged in the crucible of idolatry and polytheism and superstition, drunkenness, gambling, profligacy, and ignorance and molded them into a fortress of rationality, sobriety, chastity, and supremacy! And that’s no “ogre”!
(69). WS. “Anyone who openly rejected any one of these Islamic customs was considered an apostate and was punished by death.” (p. 208).
Response: There is no death for apostasy in Islam. See Islam-Shari’ah. Briefly. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an: “Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them in the (right) way”–(Qur’an 4:137) If apostates were to be killed there would be no question of them “believing” then “disbelieving” then “believing again.” If the Prophet gave death to apostates it would have been prior to Qur’anic revelation on the topic; in which event he would have been following the Torah which requires death for apostasy: “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt….If thy brother…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou has t not known, thou, nor thy fathers…thou shalt surely kill him…..” –(Deut; 13:5-16). “If there be found among you…man or woman….And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded…..Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman …and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”–(Deut; 17:2-5).
(70). WS. “Muhammad told his followers in a hadith: “Drink camel urine, it contains the cure for all ills.” Muslims can graduate from the most famous medical school in the world yet still believe that camel urine can cure illness. Their belief does not seem in most cases from scientific conviction but from fear of the deadly sword.”(p. 208).
Response: (Can’t an illness be cured by more than one product? And where is the problem if Muslims prefer camel urine or camel urine vaccine over other sources? Isn’t this a personal choice?
The only “deadly sword” that Islam wields is the one against the occupier the usurper the oppressor the aggressor and the exploiter. The sword of Islam is the glorious sword of truth and justice and of intellect).
This hãdith about the Prophet’s teaching on camel urine is found in Bokhari Vol. 7, #590. Mohammad also told us about several other cures–(See Bokhari Vol. 7, ch. 71, the Book of medicine). (Perhaps women who perform fellatio swallow semen; maybe Wafa Sultan knows of this or can inquire from her circle of friends if and how many do; and give us her comment).
The Saudi Gazette (on the Internet) Monday, 19 July 2010, reports in the article Nano-particles in Camels’ urine may help treat cancer,by Farah Mustafa Wadi:
“Dr. Faten Abdel-Rahman Khorshid is responsible for one of the Kingdom’s greatest national achievements in the field of science for her work which began with the urine of camels and concluded in a potential cure for cancer.… (She) has discovered that nano-particles in the urine of camels can attack cancer cells with success. Her work began with experiments involving camel urine, cancer cells found in patients’ lungs and culminated in injecting mice with leukemic cancel cells and camel urine to test the results. Speaking to the Saudi Gazette, Dr. Khorshid claimed that she was inspired by Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) medical advice and that camel urine consists of natural substances that work to eradicate malignant cells and maintain the number of healthy cells in a cancer patient.
“This treatment is not an invention, but rather, taken from our Prophet’s legacy,” she remarked. A Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari (2855) and Muslim (1671) claims that some people came to Madina and fell ill with bloated abdomens. The Prophet (pbuh) told them to combine the milk and urine of a camel and drink that, after which they recovered. A swollen abdomen may indicate edema, liver disease or cancer. ….
In the case of a volunteer patient with lung cancer, the medicine helped in halving the size of the tumor after only one month. The patient, and others like him, are still undergoing treatment. Heeding the advice found in the Hadith, Dr. Khorshid is combining specific amounts of camel milk and urine to develop her medicine and focuses on particular types of cancer, including lung cancer, blood cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, brain tumors and breast cancer.”
I recall the statement of one public figure that (unless there is an infection) urine, upon leaving the body, is sterilized. While it may be loathsome to drink camel urine in our time, perhaps it was the only and/or best cure at that time. However, whether in Seventh-century Arabia or in Twentieth-century America if camel urine should be the only cure for an ailment it is doubtful that a person would not consume it to save his life or free him/her from some chronic condition. Even Wafa Sultan.
Incidentally, while Wafa Sultan tries to denigrate the Prophet, the Biblical God (and as Christians claim that Jesus is God, Jesus) commanded the prophet Ezekiel to eat cakes made from human excrement; (that God changed it to cow’s dung after Ezekiel complained about the grossness of such and act is irrelevant, this is a contrast between what a human did and what the Biblical God would have man do, “pollute” his soul); the Christian’s God said: “Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley….and make thee bread thereof….And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight…And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with DUNG THAT COMETH OUT OF MAN…Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been POLLUTED…Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee COW’S DUNG for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith”–(Ezekiel 4:9-15).
(One party on the Internet attempts to explain this injunction from “God” by sayingthatthe“human dung” and “cow’s dung” were to be used as “fuel” to bake the cakes.
But even if Jews did save human and cow’s dung to be used as fuel and even if fresh dung can burn as fuel, the Bible itself belies the claim. God tells Ezekiel to take a mixture of barley and other grains: “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it WITH dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel EAT their DEFILED bread among the Gentiles…Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been POLLUTED: for from my youth up till even now have I not EATEN of that which dieth of itself, or is torn to pieces; neither came there ABOMINABLE FLESH INTO MY MOUTH.”
The bread could not be “defiled” if the dung was used as fuel, moreover if it was a common practice by Jews to use dung as “fuel.” The bread could only be “defiled” and an “abomination” to eat if it was mixed with human dung.
Clearly, itwas meant for Ezekiel to eat the human “dung” which to him was an “abomination” whereupon God substituted “cow’s dung”instead: “Thenhe(God)saidto me, Lo, I give thee cow’s dung FOR MAN’S DUNG, and thou shalt PREPARE THY BREAD THEREWITH”–(Eze 4:15).
Unlike the camel urine curing the men, God telling Ezekiel to eat cakes made with human “dung” or cow’s “dung” is not for any cure. (Perhaps Mohammad’s critics and denigrators engage in oral sex -fellatio and cunnilingus- and come in contact with genital fluid and urine, and they fault Mohammad for helping people with whatever cure was then available.
(71). WS. (She relates a story from Ibn al-Athir about the Prophet sending five men to kill Kaab Bin al-Ashraf who had been lampooning the Prophet. After Kaab was killed. They returned to the Prophet): “He told them, ‘You have succeeded honorably,’ and they flung Kaab’s head into his hands.” “When a Muslim reads this story, no matter how well educated and informed, he finds nothing in it that makes him curious enough to ask: “Where in this story is the mission with which God entrusted his prophet?” (pp. 209-210).
Response: Muhammad Ali notes (comm.. Qur’an 59::2) that the Bani Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Madinah, had “made a treaty with the Holy Prophet to stand neutral between him and his enemies. When he was victorious at Badr, they said that he was the Prophet promised in the Torah, on account of the victory, but when the Muslims suffered a loss on the day of Uhud, they (i.e., the Bani Nadir) repudiated their vow and broke the agreement. Ka‘b, son of Ashraf, went to Makkah with forty horsemen and made an alliance with Abu Sufyån. As a consequence, Ka‘b was murdered.” Clearly “Kaab Bin al-Ashraf” was an enemy soldier bent on annihilating Mohammad and his followers. Surely it is an “honor” for a patriot to kill his country’s and/or President’s lethal enemy; ask any modern day ruler. And to have a devotee kill the lethal enemy of a Prophet is one of “the mission with which God entrusted his prophet.” Wouldn’t you kill your lethal enemy before he should kill you?
(72). WS. “Umm Qirfa was a woman who, most Muslim historians agree, was over a hundred years old when Muhammad’s followers, at his request, because she had written a poem against him, tied her legs to two camels and drove them in opposite directions until she was torn limb from limb.” (p. 210).
Response: Contrary to the claim that Umm Qirfa was killed because “she had written a poem against” the Prophet, there are material showing that she warred against the Prophet. Her followers engaged in “terror” against Muslims. And that the Prophet did not order this killing. She was killed then news was brought to the Prophet. And if the Prophet was pleased she was killed what is the problem? It is yet to be known that soldiers/ generals at war feeling remorse for those who had donned the garb of battle with the sole intention to annihilate them. The manner in which Umm Qirfa was killed was the method used, seemingly, by her own people. Muhammad Ali (commenting on Qur’an 16:106, speaking about Muslims accepting Islam and being tortured to recant) notes: “Yasir and Sumayyah, husband and wife, suffered death at the hands of the disbelievers because they would not recant, the latter being put to death most cruelly, her legs being tied to two camels which were made to run in opposite directions. Their son ‘Ammar, however, was not so resolute. The cruellest persecutions were inflicted on those slaves who had become converts to Islam. Muir says: “These were seized and imprisoned, or they were exposed upon the scorching gravel of the valley to the intense glare of the midday sun. The torment was enhanced by intolerable thirst, until the wretched sufferers hardly knew what they said.” Yet even under these trying circumstances, which would have maddened even the most resolute man, there were those among these slave-converts who were as firm as a mountain; as in the case of Bilal, of whom it is recorded that “in the depth of his anguish the persecutors could force from him but one expression, Ahad! Ahad! (One! One! God)”(Muir).”
Equally significant, (according to one source I consulted) this story about the killing of Umm Qirfa was reported by Waqidi. And Muhammad Ali notes about Waqidi: “As regards Waqidi, all competent authorities entertain a very low opinion of his trustworthiness. The Mizan al-I‘tidal, a critical work on the lives and characters of the reporters of hadith, speaks of Waqidi as unreliable and even as a fabricator of reports”–(comm. 2382, to Qur’an 53:21). (Christians who use this alleged incident to vilify Mohammad/Islam need to read their Bible to know about torture and mutilation. And as they say that Jesus is God then Jesus is responsible for all the slaughter and torture and mutilation in the Bible. Moreover, Christians should be crying over the Falsehood they follow. As shown elsewhere the doctrines of Christianity have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; Christianity is evil, intolerant, and backward; Christians lie on God, they lie on Jesus, they blame the Devil).
Regarding lampooning. From the beginning of his ministry the Prophet Mohammad was a target of annihilation attempts. By intriguing against his life and openly reviling the Prophet these opponents identified themselves as “enemy combatants” and were subjected to reprisals. Even today and in “civilized” society during times of tension “free speech,” which may even express the truth, may be viewed as an incitement to unrest against the State, and be subjected to reprisals. People are targeted for opposing authority. People who are mere suspects are routed and even tortured or killed. We have the notorious Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons in Iraq and Cuba, respectively. Muslims are profiled and restricted from flying and some are held without charge; Canada spent some one billion dollars to host the June 2010 G20 summit, some if it to keep protesters away from the site of the meeting; a political cartoonist, Shahid Mahmood, is on a “no-fly list,” and in his own country;* Palestinian poets and intellectuals are victims of so-called Israel’s “death squad” (see Internet). Unlike rogue leaders, the Prophet Mohammad was no tyrant, no occupier no usurper no oppressor no exploiter and no aggressor. Whatever measures Mohammad took to protect himself and followers from extirpation Mohammad was fully justified. No honest writer or critic or historian would state otherwise. (Muhammad Ali has refuted charges against Islam. No Muslim home should be without a copy of his translation of the Qur’an, and no Muslim student’s computer should be without an electronic copy. His translation of the Qur’an with text, notes, and commentaries can be viewed/downloaded online: www.muslim.org). *(Toronto Star, Friday, July 16, 2010, p. A18).
(73). WS. (About Muslims): “From their earliest youth they have been brainwashed by teachings that have convinced them that God has created them to be slaves.” (p. 212).
Response: We love Allāh by loving His creatures, as the Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said. Thus, Service to humanity is service to Allāh. Muslims are not “slaves” of Allāh: Muslims are “servants” of Allāh. Allāh/Islam abolished slavery. Islam requires that public funds be used for the emancipation of the slaves–(Qur’an 9:60); righteousness includes freeing the slaves–(Qur’an 2:177; 90:13); to free a slave in expiation of a certain oath–(Qur’an 58:3); and that slave-masters assist their industrious slaves to earn their freedom–(Qur’an 24:33). These declarations were the herald for the abolition of slavery. That Islam did not abolish slavery overnight is not without its merit. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din explains: “The immediate abolition of slavery was likely to cause many and far-reaching complications. The slave class possessed no wealth. They had neither house nor property, trade nor learning. Their immediate emancipation would have produced a class of penniless vagabonds and indolent beggars, seeing that their lifelong habit of abject dependence on their masters had killed all initiative in them. (Even in modern times and societies people with less severe handicaps than the slaves of seventh century Arabia have difficulty surviving. The men most likely would have resorted to thievery and the women to bartering their bodies, all of which Islam strives against). The task of Islam was not only to secure freedom for those already in slavery, but to make them useful members of society. And the Holy Prophet was quite alive to the situation.” (Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 87-94. See Islam-slaves/slavery).
The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that Allāh said: I loved that I should be known, so I created man.* Apart from creating us as a test to see who will be the best among us, and giving us free will, Allāh created us to have mercy on us and to forgive us. One who is created out of “love” and given free will and to benefit from mercy and forgiveness could not be a “slave.” Forcing one to “love” you is not “love” but loathe. To claim that Muslims have “been brainwashed by teachings that have convinced them that God has created them to be slaves” is sheer canard and ignorance. (What are these teachings that “brainwashed” Muslims; detail them!) *(M. Ali Qur’anic comm. 2770).
(74). WS. “As long as he prays, fasts, and reads the Koran, a Muslim feels that he has done his duty, as his sense of responsibility does not extend beyond the performance of these specified commandments.” (Which Muslims have you been talking to? And what is the atheist’s duty: work, eat, sleep, and accumulate wealth?)(p. 212).
Response: Some Muslims may believe so, but Allāh says: “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteous is the one who believes in Allåh, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict. These are they who are truthful; and these are they who keep their duty”–(Qur’an 2:177); “And they give food, out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the captive”–(76:8); and to fight/strive in the way of Allāh for truth and justice (striving in the way of Allāh includes propagating the Qur’anic Message and engaging in social services: as the Prophet Mohammad taught that We love Allāh by loving His creatures or in other words service to humanity is service to Allāh)–(2:244; 9:111; 22:39-40, 78; 61:11).
(75). WS. (The expression Insha-Allāh means Allāh, God, willing or Allāh pleases): “If you ask a Muslim a question that requires the answer yes or no, he will reply inshallah. Inshallah does not necessarily mean either yes or no. It means that the answer lies with God, and God will decide. The expression inshallah allows Muslims to avoid taking responsibility (Really? No wonder you’re making foolish noise against Islam).(p. 216).
Response:There is no predestination of man’s actions in Islam. The answer does not “lies with God, and God will decide.” As stated Insha-Allāh means Allāh, God, willing or Allāh pleases. “Allāh instructs us in His Qur’an 18:23-24: “And say not of anything: I will do that tomorrow, unless Allāh please.” This does not mean that “God will decide.” What it means is that since man does not know the future then his promise to do a thing is not definite. His doing that thing is dependent upon Allāh giving him life and well-being at that point in time. When the moment arrives he cannot play lazy and not do it then lay the blame on Allāh that Allāh did not will it for him to do that thing. Allāh enjons us to keep our oaths–(Qur’an 5:1, 89; 16:91): we would not be able to fulfill oaths if Allāh would decide for us.
If Allah had pre-determined man’s life then His sending of prophets and revelations to guide us and to turn us from evil would be meaningless. If Allah has predetermined our fate then His instructions to us to pray, give charity, feed the poor and the orphans and the needy, and to free the slaves would all be pointless. Allah did not predetermine man’s actions any more than He leads us into temptation. That man has complete freedom of choice in his actions is made clear in the following verses of the Qur’an: “Have We not given him (man) two eyes, and a tongue and two lips, and pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways (of good and evil)?”–(Qur’an 90:8-10); “So He reveals to it (the soul) its way of evil and its way of good, he is indeed successful who purifies it, and he is ruined who corrupts it”–(Qur’an 91:8-10). What are predestined are the laws of nature. (See Islam-predestination).
That “If you ask a Muslim a question that requires the answer yes or no, he will reply inshallah. Inshallah does not necessarily mean either yes or no.” Aren’t there non-Muslims who give no clear answer to questions? (You should listen to politicians. A seasoned one can speak a houseful and speak till the cow jumps over the moon and yet not say “yes” or “no”). However, a Muslim is required to speak “straight words”–(Qur’an 33:70).
(76). WS. “The second time I was interviewed by Al-Jazeera after I appeared on the show dealing with the clash of civilizations, the interviewer asked me, “Do you mean this is a clash between the backwardness of the Muslims and modern civilization as exemplified by the West?” I answered without hesitation, “Yes, that’s what I mean.” This reply generated enough reaction from the Arab world to fill a book.” (p. 218). (With her knowledge about Islam, instead of being on Al-Jazeera Wafa Sultan should be on Jokes ‘R’ Us. Apologies to “Jokes ‘R’ Us,” if any).
Response. In the words of one individual (a Muslim scientist I believe), ‘To be a Muslim is to be a scientist.’ Contrary to popular hoopla, there is no clash of civilization between Islam/ Muslims and “modern civilization as exemplified by the West.” As shown in these pages Western progress/technology is compatible with the teachings of Islam. There is no “backwardness” in Muslims. This religion, Islam, which promotes the pursuit of knowledge and prosperity and the acquisition of wealth could not produce “backward” adherents. Muslims have become lazy! After their ascent to the pinnacle of success Muslims laxed. And became stagnated. While the West took the knowledge accumulated by Muslims and flew with it. Muslims’ Renaissance is currently hampered by those who kill each other in unGodly dedication to sectism and by leaders who are content to wallow in their wealth and subjugate their populace. (They defy Allāh and expect Allāh to give them Jannah! Fools!) As stated elsewhere, Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant. This throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend. There is no clash of civilization between Islam/Muslims and the West: there is a clash between justice and injustice. Injustice as “exemplified by” non-Muslims –Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Uighurs of Eastern Turkistan.
(77). WS. “On the one hand, Western technology has provided Muslims in abundance with a lifestyle they had never dreamed of, and on which they have come to depend. But, on the other hand, this new way of life bears no relation and is not compatible whatsoever with the teachings, concepts, and religious laws they grew up with.” (pp. 222-223).
Response: This has already been debunked. Islam not only took the stars out of the clutches of the astrologers and sat them firmly into the laps of the astronomers, Islam, of all the religions, exhorts man to conquer the heavens and the earth for his use.
(78). WS. (On Muslims): “They are torn between acceptance and rejection of life among people who their beliefs do not allow to trust or accept as friends (this only applies to intimate matters) not social intercourse. It is doubtful that westerners trust or accept Muslims in their private affairs)or superior at work: Islam categorically forbids Muslims to accept a job in a workplace where their boss will be a non-Muslim. (Where does Islam forbids this?) Life in the West has improved the Muslim’s standard of living and guaranteed his children a brighter future than their peers in the Muslim world can expect, but at the same time it has exposed these children to a way of life that Muslim religious law finds unacceptable.”
Response: Don’t the “religious law” of Christianity, Judaism, and perhaps Hinduism and Buddhism, also find intoxication, adultery, fornication, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, “unacceptable”? In fact, there are perhaps millions of non-religious and even atheists who find these practices “unacceptable?” Don’t you find them “unacceptable” for yourself and children? A person can yet live among these practices and not take part in them or feel alienated. In fact, Prophets of God were sent not to righteous communities but to those in need of Divine guidance.
(79). WS. “Muslim women living in the United States do not usually tolerate ill treatment at the hands of their husbands…. they seek a divorce settlement in an American court. They use the laws of their adoptive society to wrest custody of their children away from their husbands and force them to pay child support. But this very same woman, were you to ask for her opinion of the moral climate of her adoptive society, would subject you to endless lectures vilifying American morals and praising Islamic law and morality as exemplified in Muslim society.” (p. 225).
Response: What does divorce –a matter involving two people and perhaps children– have to do with an individual American personal life? Clearly, no one would compare divorce to drunkenness, prostitution, and illicit sex. And it is doubtful that decent citizens would consider drunkenness, prostitution, and illicit sex to be better than sobriety and chastity. In fact, there are probably millions of Americans, religionists and atheists, who avoid such practices.
Whereas in Islam the divorced wife is awarded a settlement, irrespective of her financial status–(Qur’an 4:32), and adjudged according to the length of marriage and the man’s financial status–(Qur’an 2:236-2237), and after which time, if financially straitened, she becomes zakaatable on the State–(Qur’an 9:60), there is in Secularism the obscene divorce law that can penalize the man to support his wife for the rest of her unmarried life, even though she may have a legion of bed-mates. Marriage is a contract of obligations between a man and a woman. There is no “till death do us part.” If the contract is terminated so are the obligations. To tie the man indefinitely to this severed agreement by having him bankroll the woman’s lifestyle is gruesome injustice. (Please see Islam-divorce).
On the matter of child custody. Briefly. The Prophet is noted as saying, not to separate a mother from her child–(Tirmidhi # 979). Though interpretation of “child” may be open to discussion. As noted further. One report notes the Prophet giving the mother custody of the child so long as she does not remarry–(Abu Dawud Vol. 2, p. 616, # 2269). Another reports the Prophet giving the child the right to choose which parent he wants to be with–(Abu Dawud Vol. 2, p. 617, # 2270). These two reports seem to convey that a young child be in the care of the mother and a child who can decide for himself has the option of choosing the parent he/she wishes to be with. This also seems to show that the child’s welfare is to be given first consideration. There are some factors that need to be considered in a child custody case. In the matter of menstruation and other female topics a girl would be better served by her mother and in male matters the boy would be better served by his father. As the child’s welfare is to be given first consideration, and as a divorce in Islam is expected to be an amicable affair–(Qur’an 2:229, 231) the mother and father are to be considerate to the other and both are to be given equal participation in the child’s life. This seems to be the requirement as expressed in Qur’an 2:233 which states in part: “…Neither shall a mother be made to suffer harm on account of her child, nor a father on account of his child.” (Please see Islam-child custody).
(80). WS. (In the U.S. Regarding a Muslim’s son she heard of who “had committed suicide in mysterious circumstances, at the age of twenty. She gathered from “rumors”): “that his father had been behind his suicide. He had forced him to live an austere life in accordance with the teachings of Islamic law, and the young man had fallen into a state of depression six months before he died by his own hand.”(p.226).
Response: Islam does not require Muslims to live an “austere life”: only a moral “life.” As appended to in these pages, Islam enjoins on us the pursuit of knowledge, to eat and drink the good things the earth produces, and to accumulate wealth (though not to hoard it). As shown the teachings of Islam are compatible with modern progress/technology. Islamic teachings do not contradict with Western progress. Only the Muslim who does not know Islam would find himself and herself “psychologically” “disoriented” between Islam and Western success. Muslims climbed the ladder of success when the West was yet running around with flint tools and torches
This world is not a prison to Muslims. The regimentation of five daily prayers, yearly fasting for a month, restriction from intoxicants, gambling and non-marital sex is not a “strait-jacket” for Muslims. (A survey should be carried out on the intellectuals of society, political figures, doctors, and lawyers to find out if they allow themselves to become intoxicated, engage in non-marital sex, and gamble; and how many feel that by avoiding such drunkenness, non-marital sex, and gambling that they are missing out on the fun and enjoyment of life).
The five daily prayers are like the regimentation of employment –working eight hours a day five days a week, fifty weeks a year for some fifty years of life. Muslims pray at dawn (10 mins.), noonday (15 mins.), late afternoon (10 mins.), sunset (15 mins.) and at night-time (25 mins.). While some non-Muslims also pray during the day, what do others do at these times –sleep, drink, work, entertain or engage in illegal acts? There is nothing more spiritually beneficial to one than to intersperse his day with prostrations –the most expressive form of glorification– to his Creator. This is no “straitjacket”: this is spiritual bliss!
Fasting helps to cleanse the system. Perhaps there are those who skip lunch to control weight, and for other reason(s). (People may drink to feel happy and escape reality. One does not need intoxicants to have a good time). One being intoxicated –not knowing what he/she is doing or what is being done to him/her– could not be fun and enjoyment. One being intoxicated –vomiting, saying thing(s) one would not normally say, doing thing(s) one would not normally do, getting into situation(s) one would not normally get into– could not be fun and enjoyment. Waking up and feeling as if a brick wall has slammed into your head and with your mouth tasting like sewer (as I’ve heard it said) –could not be fun and enjoyment.
(There are spouses that are promiscuous). Engaging in non-marital sex –with the possibility of your partner having another or multiple partners, and running the risk of contracting dreaded diseases such as AIDS, syphilis, and gonorrhea– could not be fun and enjoyment. Gambling away your wallet, and perhaps your dependent(s) livelihood, and ending up broke and penniless, could not be fun and enjoyment, (there are the occasional winners, but the ratio of losers to winners is staggering).
Intoxication, gambling and non-marital sex could not then truly be said to be fun and enjoyment.
Muslims are enjoined to pray for good in this world and for good in the Hereafter and to be saved from the Fire of Hell–(Qur’an 2:201, 202); to seek the bounties of Allah–(Qur’an 62:10); and to eat and drink of the good things–(Qur’an 2:168; 16:115). By abstaining from intoxicants, gambling and illicit sex Muslims are not missing out on any fun and enjoyment. They enjoy sobriety, economy and morality, and are risk free from acquiring sexually transmitted diseases (through sexual promiscuity). It is a mistake to cerebrate that this world is a prison or strait-jacket for Muslims.
Allah God tells us that the Qur’an gives success–(Qur’an 20:1-2); and has promised to Muslims: “He will surely make them rulers in the earth as He had made those before them rulers …..”–(Qur’an 24:55). Being successful and rulers could not be imprisonment for Muslims. Being bound by laws of justice and being free from inebriation, immorality and harmful habits are not imprisonment. It is liberty –physical, moral, and spiritual.
Allāh, God, also tells us: “For those who do good in this world is good. And certainly the abode of the Hereafter is better. And excellent indeed is the abode of those who keep their duty –Gardens of perpetuity which they enter, wherein flow rivers: they have therein what they please. Thus does Allah reward those who keep their duty”–(Qur’an 16:30-31). Muslims can have Paradise in the ephemeral and in the Eternal.
(81). WS. (In a café in Qatar, wherein Qur’anic recitations ere broadcasted): “As I sipped my coffee, I heard the following verse: “And He has created horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride” (16:8). This verse is still recited even though there is not a single donkey or mule left in the whole of Qatar. The asses and the mules wrestle in the Muslim unconscious minds, and it is the Muslim themselves who are the victims of this struggle.” (What struggle? Muslims have been at the top of the ladder while the rest of the world was yet looking for materials to build this ladder). (pp. 228-229).
Response: Do you not read stories of the past? And even of fiction? There may not be a single donkey but there is the truth and reality. And they still exist in some parts of the world. Your children may no longer cling to your skirt but they still have fond memories of the stories you may have read or told them. While Allāh did not create aircrafts and mechanized vehicles, though He gave man knowledge as to how to, Allāh tells us in two places of the Qur’an that in the future we will make these crafts and undertake space travels: “O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power”–(Qur’an 55:33). In explanation Maurice Bucaille notes: “There can be no doubt that this verse indicates the possibility that men will one day achieve what we today call (perhaps rather improperly) ‘the conquest of space’. One must note that the text of the Qur’an predicts not only penetration through the regions of the Heavens, but also the Earth, i.e. the exploration of its depths.” The other reference to space-travels is Qur’an 15:14-15 in which Allāh says, speaking of the disbelievers: “Even if We opened unto them a gate to Heaven and they were to continue ascending therein, they would say: our sight is confused as in drunkenness. Nay, we are people bewitched.” Again, the learned author, Maurice Bucaille: “The above expresses astonishment at a remarkable spectacle, different from anything that man could imagine….When talking about the conquest of space therefore, we have two passages in the text of the Qur’an : one of them refers to what will one day become a reality thanks to the powers of intelligence and ingenuity God will give man, and the other describes an event that the unbelievers in Makka will never witness, hence its character of a condition never to be realized. The event will however be seen by others, as intimated in the first verse quoted above. It describes the human reactions to the unexpected spectacle that travellers in space will see: their confused sight, as in drunkenness, the feeling of being bewitched …This is exactly how astronauts have experienced this remarkable adventure since the first human spaceflight around the world in 1961. (Mr. Bucaille describes the scene of earth from space and states) Here again, it is difficult not to be impressed, when comparing the text of the Qur’an to the data of modern science, by statements that simply cannot be ascribed to the thought of a man who lived more than fourteen centuries ago.” (The Bible, The Qur’an, And Science, pp. 168-169). And this mention of space-travel was way long before the Wright brothers and Cape Canaveral.
Islam does not prohibit Muslims from accumulating wealth (only the hoarding of it) and enjoying the good things in life (one does not need intoxicants, gambling, and illicit relations to have a “good” time). Muslims of Qatar certainly seem to know that there is no contradiction between Islam and science/progress; that Allāh/Islam has created man to have the best of both worlds–(Qur’an 2:200-202; 4:134; 42:20); “horses, mules, and donkeys,” and jets and yachts and all!
(82). WS. (She lists several reasons why she loves America –and which are compatible with the teachings of Islam– with the exception of two): “America is a regime, a legal code and a moral authority –a vast entity that no one can harm;” and “America for me means that my daughter can come home and tell me she’s had lunch with her boyfriend without being beaten for having impugned the family honor.” (pp. 235, 236).
Response: There is no “honor killing in Islam. See Islam-honor killing. Briefly: Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 24:3: “Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: Nor let any but such a man or Unbeliever marry such a woman. To the Believers such a thing is forbidden.” The verse shows that there is no “honor killing” in Islam; adulterers/fornicators could not be left to have sex or to marry their kind if Islam had required honor killings. The punishment is lashes–(Qur’an 24:2; 4:25). Honor killing is the Jewish and Christian law. If the Prophet gave death to those who dishonor the family in this manner it would have been prior to Qur’anic revelation on the topic; in which event he would have been following the Torah which requires death for sexual dishonor: “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you”–(Deut. 22:20-21).
While America has brought immense benefit to mankind. That America is a “moral authority”(???) It is not “moral authority” to bring “coercion” and “pressure and duress” on nations to vote according to your dictates so Jews could have possession of Palestine; it is not “moral authority” to support injustice against the Palestinians, and for six torturous decades, and to expect them to accept a situation which neither you nor anyone else in the world would accept for himself and herself; it is not “moral authority” to try to topple Fidel Castro, and to grudge him with fifty years of sanctions, and all because he endeavored for the control of his country and welfare of his people; it is not “moral authority” to advocate “democratic” elections yet when parties not favored by you are victorious in these very “democratic” elections –as in Algeria and Occupied Palestine/Hamas– you turn from them; it is not “moral authority” to invade Iraq not once but twice and on baseless claims; it is not “moral authority” to overthrow foreign governments (see Internet); it is not “moral authority” to assassinate or plot to assassinate “foreign individuals” (see Internet); it is not “moral authority” to destroy other people’s country –Korea and Vietnam– for political hegemony; it is not “moral authority” to have for yourself armaments to your forehead and to deny others –such as Iran and North Korea– their inalienable rights to such armaments, and even with threats of sanctions and military strikes. It is “moral authority” such as these that have the world wobbly like drunken rats! And, (without prejudice or hatred, but of reflection) Pharaoh and Caesar and others also believed that they were insulated from “harm.”
On Wafa Sultan’s, “my daughter can come home and tell me she’s had lunch with her boyfriend without being beaten for having impugned the family honor.” Whereas Islam does not prohibit young Muslim males and females from having cordial relations within its boundary, as Muslim males and females are friends of one another–(Qur’an 9:71) there is no boyfriend/ girlfriend association. (Without sarcasm or insult, but for reality) what would your reaction be should your daughter tells you that she is pregnant? And moreover that she does not know which one of her boyfriends is the father? Or even worse; that some five weeks after the party she went to with her friends, she tells you she realized she is pregnant and she doesn’t know how it happened: that all she had was some punch, perhaps the punch was spiked or someone slipped a “mickey” unnoticed into her drink; that she must have passed out and doesn’t remember; she doesn’t know who violated her or how many; perhaps she might be infected with STD and even AIDS?
Most, if not all, secular laws do nothing to those guilty of adultery and fornication. Adultery could not only “ruin families, destroys house-hold peace,” deprives children of their need for parental togetherness, and contribute to the moral decay of society; but which could multiply sexually transmitted diseases, genital warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS –which may even become epidemic and even threaten chaste individuals (we’ve heard of people contracting AIDS through tainted blood and infected needles)– diseases which may affect the unborn who doubtlessly has the right to protection from diseases, may create unwed mothers and fathers; and perhaps abandoned children; traumatized individuals (traumatized by not knowing the identity of their biological parents); and which could perhaps cost millions of dollars to society to stem these diseases and to provide for pre and post-natal care for unwed mothers and children, and to provide for the welfare of these hapless children and even the unwed mothers; and if the fornicating couples have multiple sex-partners they may end up not knowing whose baby they are having, or who is having their baby, and if such babies are given up for adoption or abandoned then, depending on the age of these couples, a mother may end up having sex with her son, and a father with his daughter when these children are grown. Thus, adultery and fornication, seemingly a personal affair, can and do have far-reaching effects in society. Should fornication and adultery then not be forcibly deterred? Islam allows that such persons be identified and disgraced.
(83). WS. (On U.S. President Barack Obama): “Everyone knows he was born of a Muslim father, spent part of his life in a Muslim country, and attended a Muslim school. This was not what concerned me: President Obama’s assurances that he is a Christian were enough to allay any doubts I might have had, together with my conviction that any American capable of being a presidential candidate is an American worthy of my trust –and this conviction of mine remains solid today.” “Obama’s curse, for me, is his middle name: Hussein. Why? Islamists who grasp the true nature of Islam and believe absolutely that they have a divine mission to take over the whole world one day regard Obama as a heaven-sent sign that they are no more than a stone’s throw from realizing the dream they live for.” (If this is the true nature of Islam who can prevent it? And where does Islam requires Muslims to enforce Islam onto the world? And how will Obama being president realize the “Isalmist’s” “dream”?). “My fear for America was that a victory for Obama would breathe fresh life into Islamic terrorism because of what his middle name might suggest to those watching in Islamic countries. (So by merely changing his name a man has changed his “convictions”? Talk about paranoia). Still, I was sanguine until the day when I watched an interview with former Secretary of State Colin Powell on NBC’s Meet the Press.” “Mr. Powell expressed his displeasure at the McCain campaign’s accusations that Obama was a Muslim, and retorted, “And what if he were? What would be wrong with that?” At that moment I felt as if the room were spinning around me and I held on to my chair, afraid I might fall.” (Mr. Powell was right. What if Obama was a Muslim? “What would be wrong with that?” If Obama was a Muslim living the teachings of Islam there would be peace and justice in the world! Only the occupier the usurper the oppressor the transgressor the exploiter the criminals and those dedicated to falsehood are terrified of Islam!) (pp. 239-240).
That “President Obama’s assurances that he is a Christian were enough to allay any doubts.” The doctrines of Christianity–Trinity, Divine sonship, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason. Christianity is evil, intolerant, and backward. (See Christianity-lies, evil, hate).
If “President Obama’s assurances that he is a Christian,” meant that he considered Christianity to be superior to Islam in any way (and not just to appease the ignoramuses and bigots or to keep up appearance in the polls) he just flipped himself from the shade and into the fire. And, as stated, if “Christianity” was lording America Wafa Sultan would have had to hightail it back to Syria or kiss the useless and unGodly crucifix or have her head lopped off. (Christianity is not only a “fake” theologically she is an enemy materially. See Christianity-enemy to knowledge).
If President Obama is a “Christian” then what is he doing in Iraq (shoveling treasures from oil into storehouses on earth) and in Afghanistan chasing after Al-Qaeda and the Talibans (even though the Talibans did not transgress against America). Obama does not want to “love enemies” and “forgive seventy times seven”? If Obama is a “Christian” he is to be Christ-like: he is to beat his muskets and missiles into plowshares and shovel treasures into storehouses in heaven, and fishing for men (instead of fishing for worldly goods; as Christ was said to be a fisher of men).
Wafa Sultan continues (p. 241) noting “how Muhammad had beheaded eight hundred Jews from the Bani Quraiza tribe in one night, then taken their wives and children hostage, and spent the same night with the Jewish woman Safiya, whose husband, father, and brother he had just killed. This is only a drop in the ocean of what was written about the crimes of Muhammad in the Arabic sources, but, unfortunately, Mr. Powell –it seems– has never troubled to familiarize himself with the most malicious enemy ever to have confronted him or threatened his safety.” (As you have “familiarized” yourself with this “most malicious enemy,” I invite you to please detail all his “evils!”)
If Wafa Sultan was taught correctly or “familiarized” herself as she projects herself to be an authority on Islam she would know that Mohammad did not “kill” anyone! As noted in item #24, these men were executed for treason. And executed according to the dictates of the Torah!
The assertion that if Colin Powell should investigate the teachings of Islam “he will bite his lips and say to himself: “I was ignorant of the true nature of my enemy, and this was my worst failing,” is neurotic twaddle! In fact, should Colin Powell investigate Islam (and I urge him to, as well as all Americans) and if he is a seeker of truth for the truth and not to distort the truth he would have no argument against accepting Islam; as there is no religion superior than, or equal with, Islam. (If Mr. Powell would appreciate it, I can try, insha-Allāh, to send him a copy of Muhammad Ali’s translation –the best I have seen yet– of the Qur’an. Or he can view and possibly download or purchase a copy online: www.muslim.org).
(84). WS. (She notes the words of an “American general” who after reading the Qur’an twice was asked by a reporter): “What conclusion did you reach after you had read it?” He bowed his head for a moment before replying, “We have to defend ourselves.” (p. 242).
Response: The general should have been asked, “Defend ourselves against what or which teaching of Islam?” The general may very well have meant that in order to continue our wretched foreign policy, and lifestyle “We have to defend ourselves” against Islam which does not support aggression, oppression, occupation/usurpation, exploitation, intoxicants, prostitution, gambling, illicit relations; and which requires truth, and justice even against one’s own self and family, equality for all people; and that the exacting of ones rights is diametrically equal to the instituting of the rights of others. If the general have read Wafa Sultan’s book he may still be howling at her naiveté.
(85). WS. “The Koran says: “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allāh does not guide the wrongdoers” (5:51). Would a Muslim candidate for the American presidency be able to put his trust in Jews and Christians if he believes they are not fit to be his friends and protectors? This is a question I leave to Colin Powell to answer, and when I get the right answer from him I will be assured that America is in safe hands.” (p. 243).
Response: It is doubtful that a Christian or Jewish candidate would “put his trust in Jews and Christians if he believes they are not fit to be his friends and protectors.” You do not want the “right answer” from Colin Powell: you want the answer that concurs with your skewered beliefs. This verse is applicable only during war. Malik Ghulam Farid points out: “It refers only to those Jews or Christians who are at war with Muslims and who are always hatching plots against them,” and “Jews and Christians forget their own differences and become united in their opposition to Islam. Truly, has the Holy Prophet said, “All disbelief forms one community,” viz., all disbelievers, however inimical to one another, behave like one people when opposed to Muslims.” And Muhammad Ali notes: “All non-believers, whatever their own differences, had made common cause against Islam; this is what is meant by their being friends of each other. The Muslims are warned that they should not expect help or friendship from any party of them, whether Jews, Christians, or idolaters. It would have been weakness of faith in the ultimate triumph of Islam if, from fear of a powerful enemy, they had sought help and friendship here and there among a hostile people, as the next verse shows. When two nations are at war, an individual of one nation having friendly relations with the enemy nation is treated as an enemy; that is exactly what the Qur’an says here.” The verse would also apply to intimate matters (it is doubtful that Jews and Christians trust or accept Muslims in their private affairs). That Muslims are required to deal benevolently with Jews and Christians (and all else) is cemented in Qur’an 60:9, “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.” Muslim men can even marry Jewish and Christian women–(Qur’an 5:6).
(86). WS. (On U.S. President Barack Obama): “Only in America could a member of a minority be elected by a majority.” “And only in America could a girl be born of mixed races, then acquire a new citizenship totally unconnected with her origins.” (p. 244).
Response: Never mind “a member of a minority be elected by a majority” and “a girl be born of mixed races” acquiring “a new citizenship totally unconnected with her origins;” and of even becoming President of America. Islam took the slave from the dust of despair and put the scepter of regality into his grasp. The panoramic pen of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din:
“To understand to what heights it was possible for slaves to attain, it is interesting to follow the history of Kutubuddin, one of the Emperors of Delhi. Kutubuddin, the founder of the Dynasty of the slaves, was a war-prisoner and, as such, a slave. But he won the favour of his master and became his successor. He himself had a war-prisoner, Shamshuddin Altamash, to whom his master gave his daughter in marriage. Not 1ess than eight kings, most of whom were, like Kutubuddin, slaves in their youth, with all the pomp and dignity of absolute rulers, and the only queen who ruled at Delhi –Razia Begum–were also of the same Dynasty. The Kutub-Minar, a big tower of marble, which was built by the first slave king of India in the beginning of the thirteenth century, is a standing monument of the high position that Islam conferred upon slaves.
Subuktagin, the father of Muhammad of Gazni, the famous invader of India, was, again, a slave captured in the war by Aliptagin, the first king of the Gazni Dynasty, but became his successor as a king. There were slaves who led, as generals, Muslim armies which included scions of the best families, the aristocrats and the best blood in the country to victory.
It is not necessary to go into the far distant past for reference, for we have in modern times the Amir Abdulrahman Khan, the grandfather of the present Amir of Afghanistan, who had as his commander-in-chief his own slave. Another of his slaves filled the important post of High Treasurer. Yet another two of his slaves were given the highest positions under his rule. All this appears in his autobiography, and he states the facts in order to show what treatment a slave may aspire to, with a Muslim master, and under the Islamic Law.” (Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 95-96).
And regarding your assertion that one day muezzins will announce that they have found a “God who loves.” Allāh tells us in His Qur’an: “He has ordained mercy on Himself”–(Qur’an 6:12, 54); “Your Lord is the Lord of all-encompassing mercy” –(6:148); “And My mercy encompasses all things”–(7:156); (He created us to have mercy on us) “Except those on whom thy Lord has mercy, and for this did He create them”–(11:119); (and He invites us in loving compassionate terms to forgive us our sins) “O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–Qur’an 39:53); that He loves those who judge in equity–(5:45-47; 4:135; 5:42; 49:9); He loves the doers of justice–(60:8); He loves the doers of good, and the dutiful–(2:195, 3:75, 133, 147; 5:13, 93; 9:4, 7); He loves those who purify themselves –(2:222; 9:108); He loves the steadfast –(3:145; 61:3); He loves those who trust in Him–(3:158); He bestows love on the righteous–(19:96); He is the Forgiving, the Loving–(85:14). Thus, for fourteen centuries, from the dawn of Islam, muezzins have been announcing to the world –and will continue to announce to the Resurrection– that Allāh is the “God Who loves!”
To emphasize. Rather than labor over phantom evils in Islam and mythical faults of Mohammad it would serve Wafa Sultan better to direct her energy and “influence” to remedy the real maladies afflicting the society in which she lives.
Noted on the Internet
Wafa Sultan is said to be a Syrian national living in the U.S.
Response: Weren’t these Jews and non-Muslims paid for their services? Muslims brought light to the world. Are Muslims being recognized by Jews and non-Muslims in their texts for their accomplishments, or are they being minimized and ignored and maybe even revised? Professor Edward Said notes in his revealing book The Question of Palestine: “The opportunities for education inside Israel were (and still are) poor in comparison with those for Jews….Inside Israel the Arab has traditionally been regarded as somebody to be prevented from ever acquiring a national consciousness. (ES detailed the gross differences between Palestinians and Jewish education facilities, and noting from Sabri Jiryis).…”Jewish history is taught broadly at every stage,” and when Arab subjects are taught, they are always presented within a perspective emphasizing Arab decline, corruption, or violence; a survey of recent examination question reveals nothing asked about Mohammed, Harun al-Rashid, or Saladin. Jiryis gives more details of how the Israeli government’s education policies for Arabs aim to produce “loyalty to the state” and an awareness “underlining the isolation of the Arabs in Israel.” (pp. 126-127). Does your heart ache and bleed for these aggrieved and hapless Palestinians? (You should read this book. And again, if you have). In the annals of modern history no people has suffered so much injustice and misery and for so long as the Palestinians have and are still suffering. Now that you are one “of 100 influential people in the world “whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world.”” you must put your dignity where your mouth and pen are and make it the number one local national and international priority and advocate and vociferate for the return to the Palestinians their homes lands and country; and compensation for the more than six torturous decades of misery and injustice meted out to them, and continues to be meted out to them. If there is one cause on which to immortalize our names it is the cause of the Palestinian people!
(2). Sultan’s latest book, A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam, was released on October 13, 2009. 
Sultan describes her thesis as witnessing “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose”. It has brought her telephone threats, but also praise from reformers. Her comments, especially a pointed criticism that “no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant”, brought her an invitation to Jerusalem by the American Jewish Congress. (The full quote, as noted by The New York Times, March 11, 2006, by John M. Broder, states: “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.” “Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”
Response: (It is doubtful that one who has refuted Wafa Sultan’s claims will be “given an invitation to Jerusalem by the American Jewish Congress”). (i) There is no “barbarism” in Islam. I challenge anyone to prove “barbarism” in Islam. As shown on this site, Islam is the religion of progress. (ii) Islam, the Religion perfected by Allāh, the All-Knowing, cannot be in need of “reform.” These Muslim “reformers” need to “re-study” Islam. (iii) (While there is no terrorism in Islam, and while this is not in support of terrorism, and while Muslims have no justification in defending Islam through violence) Muslims blow themselves up perhaps because it is the only way to have the maximum effect with the minimal armaments they have. It may be that “no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant.” And while Germans killed Jews (and Jews also killed Muslims/ Palestinians, and still kill) Germans did not steal half of the Jew’s country and give it to another people. Jews have defended their religion by dispossessing the Muslims/Palestinians of their homes, land and country to create their “Jewish” state –as Jewish general, Moshe Dayan declared: “We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here.…There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population” (See Palestine); Jews have destroyed (and are still destroying), and still killing –Jews “official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse;” Jews “provoke the Arabs” to get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them;” Jews colluded with France and Britain and attacked Egypt so Britain could “occupy” Egypt’s Suez Canal; Jews were the first air-plane hijackers in the Mid-East; Jews provoked the war in Lebanon; through its “Operation Trojan” deception Jews suckered America into bombing Libya; Jews “hijacked” a Syrian civilian jet to get “hostages” (For references see Rabbi Marmur & Farouk Hosny). Jews have not only killed Muslims but notably even other Jews. (See the Internet, Zio-fascism SAVING THE J-WS FROM ADAM AUSTIN’S WOODCHIPPER; Shaped by Terrorism, Nourished by Blood By Barbara L of http://snippits-and-slappits. blogspot.com
“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.
Horrifying Accusations of Violence and Intimidation
(iv) Jews have nothing to protest over –they have gotten what they were after: occupying Palestine. Muslims protest against this theft, against foreigners wanting to run their countries and control their resources; and killing their civilians left, right, and center. (v) That “Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results.” But this path did yield results for Jews. How did Jews come to be in possession of Palestine, by reciting kaddish, or through intrigue and terrorism and American diplomatic thuggery at the U.N.? (vi)That “The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.” (Not that Muslims are to dwell in stagnation), but, as noted elsewhere on this site, Muslims did for humankind centuries ago what humankind can never repay: Muslims brought light to humankind –material and spiritual!
(3). Sultan believes that “The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam [is] also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force.” In a discussion with Ahmad bin Muhammad, she said: “It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity”. Sultan stated that she was shocked into secularism by the 1979 atrocities committed by Islamic extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrians, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor, Yusef al Yusef, an ophthalmologist from the University of Aleppo, renowned beyond Syria, in front of her eyes, when she was a medical student. “They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, ‘God is great!’ ” she said. “At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god.”
Sultan’s account of some aspects of her life is disputed by others. According to Abdussalam Mohamed, staff writer for the Southern California Muslim newspaper InFocus, an anonymous Syrian expatriate who met and got to know the Sultans when they first came to the United States told him (Mohamed), that the assassination of Yusef al Yusef took place off-campus, and at a time when Sultan wasn’t even around. InFocus says this was confirmed by Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Aleppo (Syria) and by another Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore.
Response: (a) That Islam “preaches violence and applies its agenda by force” is debunked in these pages. (b) So Allāh/Islam is to be blamed because “Islamic extremists” commit crimes? If Wafa Sultan should have at least two children and she should teach them the ways of good and evil and exhorts them to follow the path of goodness, and if one or all should commit evil, you can fault Wafa Sultan. And maybe even look for another mother in her place. Clearly, Wafa Sultan seems only to know the language of the Qur’an but not the Qur’an. Muslims are required to seek knowledge; we are not to blindly follow our leaders. Only by doing so can we know if the leaders are transgressing the precepts of Islam.
Wafa Sultan blaming Islam/Allāh for this killing by the “Muslim Brotherhood” highlights clearly her lack of knowledge of the teachings of Islam/Allāh. If anyone can prove “extremism” in Islam I will follow that which he or she is following; and if he or she cannot prove “extremism” in Islam –and for certain he or she cannot prove “extremism” in Islam –he or she must follow what I follow. This is an open challenge!
(4) In 2006 Wafa Sultan was named in Time Magazine in a list of 100 influential people in the world “whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world.” Time stated that “Sultan’s influence flows from her willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic extremism that are widely shared but rarely aired by other Muslims.”
Response: (a) A person who blames one person for the crimes of another is “in a list of 100 influential people in the world “whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world”? (Any wonder the world is wobbly like drunken rats?). (b) That Wafa Sultan’s “influence flows from her willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic extremism.” The first thing that Wafa Sultan –this Time Magazine “100 influential people in the world”– needs to get right is to distinguish between Islam and Muslims: There is no “extremism” in Islam. Prove it! If Wafa Sultan desires to write about Muslims who are extremists they should label such Muslims appropriately; and not linked them to “Islam”!
(5). In the same Time interview, Sultan described herself as a Muslim who does not adhere to Islam: “I even don’t believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim.” However, in a recent conference associated with conservative writer and activist David Horowitz, Sultan said:
“I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself…Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem…. (Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed.
Response: (Wonder who has been taking lessons from whom: Wafa Sultan from Irshad Manji or Irshad Manji from Wafa Sultan). Irshad Manji wrote in her much-trumpeted book The Trouble With Islam: “I owe the West my willingness to help reform Islam. In all honesty, my fellow Muslims, you do too.” (p. 222). Now Wafa Sultan wants to fight Islam/Allāh. Allah says: “This day have I perfected for you your religion”– (Qur’an 5:3). Can man/woman “reform” or “fight” what Allah has perfected? Can man/woman improve upon (make better) what Allah has perfected? Subhan Allah!!! How can anyone “fight” these teachings? :
–the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (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 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)
–not to deal 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), 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), 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 God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90)
–forbiddance against helping one another in sin, and to counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (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 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); because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75)
–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), not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135)
–to avoid illicit carnal relations (17:32)
–to establish regular prayer, because prayer keeps one from in-decency and evil (29:45); to give in charity, which is for relatives and orphans, the poor, needy, the wayfarer, and the freeing of slaves (2:177; 9:60)
–that both man and woman were created from the same medium (4:1), and are to be life partners (25:54; 16:72; 24:32); with love and compassion between them–(7:189; 30:21)
–that Woman has like rights with those of man –the same is due to her as is due from her (2:228). She is a garment of man as he is her garment (to cover, protect, beautify, and comfort (2:187); and is “a fountain of love and affection”–(30:21); and his friend/ protector–(9:71)
–that women can earn, and can inherit and own property (4:32, 7, 177). and have the exclusive right to utilize her earnings however she pleases (4:4, 32); and that she is to be honored (4:1) liberates and exalts her (2:187; 4:19-22; 4:1; 9:71-72); that both Man and Woman are inheritors of Paradise (43:70; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35)
–that condemns compulsion (2:256); aggression (32:20); oppression, persecution (2:193; 42:42); exploitation (6:153; 26:181-184; 83:1-4)
–that promotes peace (8:61), love (60:7-8); patience (23:111), tolerance (24:22; 45:14), and justice for all regardless of race, color, or creed (4:135; 7:29; 16:90)
–that advocates that all, regardless of race, nationality or color are equal, and that one is better than the other only through righteousness –(49:13); and encourages the pursuit of knowledge to both male and female for the purpose of good uses (20:114)
–to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); and for religious freedom, for all (8:39; 22:40).
Why would any woman or man want to “fight” such magnanimous teachings? Woe to the woman (or man) who wants to “fight” Islam/Allāh!
In all her raving and ranting and rambling Wafa Sultan has not proven –neither can she nor anyone else, prove; and this is an open invitation/challenge to her and anyone else to prove– that Allāh is “A God Who Hates”! As there is no evil in Islam, you are expending your health and wealth and life and the little time you have in fighting a vain and useless “fight!”
Blind faith may be blissful, but it is no passport to Paradise.
1. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 373.
2. Ibid; pp. 366-367.
3. Ibid; pp. 370-371.
4. Ibid; p. 373.
5. Ibid; p. 373.
6. Ibid; p. 374
7. Toronto Star, Friday, December 8, 2006. Art; Fighting for the rights of Uyghurs, by Nicholas Keung, Immigration/ Diversity Reporter, p. A18.
8. Edward Fitzgerald, The Rubaiyat Of Omar Khayyam, verse III, p. 39.
9. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, 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. Emphasis added.