4. Nonie Darwish-Cruel And Usual Punishment

Share

In the Name of Allāh
The Beneficent, The Merciful.
Peace and blessings on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
*

Revealingly.
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.
*

Response to
NONIE DARWISH
“Cruel And Usual Punishment”

“And if you are in doubt as to that which

We have revealed to Our servant,

then produce a chapter like it

and call on your helpers besides Allāh

if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not

— and you can never do (it) —

then be on your guard against the fire

whose fuel is men and stones;

 it is prepared for the disbelievers”

(Qur’an 2:23-24).

“The claim of the Qur’an, that it would baffle human efforts to produce its equal, is based on absolute truth. A Book completed in twenty-three years, dealing with every aspect of human life, and yet remaining free from any kind of discrepancy or even a slight variation, is in itself a miracle.” (Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Introduction to the study of the Holy Qur’an, p.47).    

“They desire to put out the light of Allāh

with their mouths, and Allāh will allow

nothing save the perfection of His light,

though the disbelievers are averse.

He (Allāh) it is Who sent His Messenger

(Mohammad) with guidance and the Religion

of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail

over all religions, though the polytheists

are averse”

(Qur’an 9:32-33).

“Say: If you love Allāh, follow me:

Allāh will love you, and forgive you your sins.

And Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.”  

“And He (Allāh) is the Forgiving,

the Loving”

(Qur’an 3:30; 85:14)

Allāh loves us. Allah wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise. Allāh invites us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins; as he revealed to the Prophet Mohammad to convey to us: “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). Such is the expanse of Allāh’s mercy

*

(Please note: when checking Qur’anic references please check a few verses before or after the ones listed, as the numbering may vary among translators. I have mostly used Muhammad Ali and Yusuf Ali’s translations. This presentation is not to denigrate Jesus; it is only a comment on the Gospels and on Christian’s teachings and claims. What is to borne in mind is that the Gospels are four books “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke and John –not “according to” Jesus or God– and are the “King James Version” –not Jesus’ or God’s “Version.” As Maurice Bucaille states: “The abundance of literature concerning Jesus led the Church to make certain excisions while the latter was in the process of becoming organized. Perhaps a hundred Gospels were suppressed. Only four were retained and put on the official list of neo-Testament writings making up what is called ‘Canon’.” For a history of the New Testament and the Old Testament read Maurice Bucaille’s The Bible, The Qur’an, And Science. The Bible itself conveys that it has been falsified; God revealed to the prophet Jeremiah to convey to the people:“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie”–Jeremiah 8:8. New American Standard Bible, 1985 edition).

Comment on Nonie Darwish’s work is divided into four parts (1) 1. Nonie Darwish-criticisms (2) 2. Nonie Darwish-Overview (3) 3. Nonie Darwish-Now They Call Me Infidel(4) 4. Nonie Darwish-Cruel And Usual Punishment.
   On “June 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM,” an “Anonymous” visitor to Nonie Darwish’s website, having finished reading Ms. Darwish’s book “Cruel and Usual Punishment,” stated: “I would to read some Muslim write a retort to your book… point-by-point and not just an emotional outburst (such as death to “unbeliever”).“
   In “reply” we stated that Muslims have written a “retort” to Ms. Darwish’s two books, see www.nogodbutallah.org. The website did not post our “reply.” Obviously “terrified” to let its visitors/readers know that Nonie Darwish’s books have been refuted. And “point-by-point.” (Those who endeavor to write should respect the dignity of writing and not be a cheap propagandist –in this case a cheap anti-Islam propagandist).

*

CRUEL AND USUAL PUNISHMENT

    (Please note: I have continued the numbering from the first book, Now They Call me Infidel. I have also noted the number of items in the   second book in brackets. For example 74.(1) means it is item #74 counting from the first book and item #1 of the second book, i.e. from Cruel and Usual Punishment).  

   74.(1) Nonie Darwish wrote that Muslims believe that whatever comes their way it is “God’s will.” (p. ix).

   Response:  While sustenance is from God and God can give more to those whom He chooses there is no predestination of man’s actions in Islam. It is clear from the teachings of Islam that man’s income is proportional to his effort. The pious worshipper that sits in the shrine all day, unless he has wealth or a benevolent provider, will starve, but the atheist who tills the soil and tend the flock will have plenty. This is the law of God. In fact, while Muslims can take rest, unlike Judaism and Christianity there is no “Sabbath” in Islam: “But when the (Jumu’a/Friday) prayer is ended, disperse abroad in the land and seek of Allāh’s grace, and remember Allāh much, that you may be successful” (Qur’an 62:10; 73:20). 

   John the Baptist, this greatest of man as Jesus styled him, taught “A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven”–(John 3:27). (See item #2). Even Jesus (the Christian’s son of God and God) accepted that things are done according to “God’s will;” praying to be spared from death, he prayed: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as THOU WILT”–(Matt. 26:39).

            (Incidentally Jesus’ prayers was heard and God saved Him from death on the cross. It is rather strange for Jesus who came to die willingly for the sins of the world to tell his disciples that “they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ”–(Matt. 16:20); for him to hide from his executioners–(John 11:54); to rebuke the Jews “why go ye about to kill me?”–(John 7:19); and to beseech God to be spared from death–(Matt. 26:39). If Jesus had come to die for the sins of mankind, he should have come forward joyously into the hands of his executors; and Judas, the “betrayer,” should be blessed and not cursed; and the Jews should not be blamed but praised for fulfilling the prophecy of “crucifying” Jesus. Neither should Jesus have prayed:  “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”(Luke 23:34). There was no need to “forgive them” if they were fulfilling Scripture. Allāh, God, says about Jesus: “they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them”–(Qur’an 4:157). Jesus only seemed dead. This is how God answered his prayers and saved him. In those days no one checked for pulses, if you’re limp you’re  dead. The Bible supports the Qur’an: (a) Jesus prayed to be spared from death-(Matt; 26:36-44); his prayers were answered-(Heb. 5:7. One is not glorified by being killed; and God does not need to have anyone killed in order to be glorified–John 17:1; if He does then for the thousands of years before Christ He was not glorified because as far as Scriptures go He did not require anyone to be killed); prayers of the righteous are always answered–(James 5:16; Psalm 22:24; 34:15-19; John 9:31; Matt; 7:8-9); God always answered Jesus’ prayers–(John   11:41-42); (b) Angels said Jesus was “alive,” not resurrected or risen–(Luke 24:23); (c) the Apostles treated the news of Jesus’ resurrection as “idle tales”–(Luke 24:11. If the crucifixion and resurrection were prophecies, the Apostles would not have treated the resurrection as “idle tales”); (d) Jesus cried from the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”–(Luke 23:34). There is no need to “forgive them” if they were fulfilling Scripture: they are to be honored; (e) Jesus said his sign would be like Jonas, as Jonas was alive in the whale’s belly so he shall be–(Matt. 12:39-40; Jonah 1:17; 2:1-10; if Jesus came to die for sins there was no need for his sign to be like Jonas’); if Jesus was killed/crucified his sign would not have been like Jonas’. Even if we take Jesus’ sign to refer to time (three days and three nights) rather than to status   (that he would be alive) he is unlike Jonas. Jesus’ alleged crucifixion was on Friday afternoon and alleged resurrection on Sunday morning (Jewish Sabbath is on Saturdays); this would put Jesus in the earth two nights and one and a half days –Friday and Saturday nights, and half-a-day Friday and all day Saturday. Jesus told the thief on the cross beside him, “To-day shalt thou be  with me in Paradise”–Luke 23:43.  If Jesus went to Paradise “To day” (the day of his alleged crucifixion) he could not have gone into the earth: Paradise is not in the earth!); (f) After the alleged crucifixion and resurrection Jesus had his disciples examine him to verify he was not spirit, as the resurrected is, but was of flesh and bones: a mortal–(Luke 24:38-39). The resurrected “are   (spiritualized) as the angels”–(Matt. 22:23-30. Luke   20:34-36). Jesus had flesh and bones: he was human. If those claiming Jesus was killed are right, Jesus would be wrong that he was not killed. If Jesus came to die for sins why his cow-dance, speaking in parables so only Jews would understand and be saved?–[Mark 4:9-12].

               Why did Jews want to kill Jesus? The ‘Bible Dictionary’ in one edition of the King James Bible, notes as part of its explanation of the term ‘scribe’: “Their familiarity with the law allowed the scribes to take on a role of growing importance in Jewish society –teaching in the synagogues, serving as judges, and becoming members of the Sanhedrin. Jesus refused to accept the mass of detail and the superficial technicalities which they affixed to the law, and He accused them of hypocritical interpretations of the law. For these reasons   they opposed His teachings and were  one of the groups, as were the Pharisees, that helped to plot His death –(Matt. 5:20; 21:15; Mark 10:33; 14:53; Luke 11:44; 20:46; John 8:3; Acts 4:5; 6:12).”82 Jesus was taken captive not for prophecies or redemption of sins, but because Jewish hierarchy “opposed His teachings.”

               That Jesus did not die on the cross is supported by Christian source: M. A. Faruqui in his book The Crumbling of the Cross notes that Kurt Berna, Catholic author and Secretary of the German Convent in Stuttgart West Germany, after carrying out extensive scientific research on photographs of the Shroud at Turin, “on 26   February 1959,” sent a letter to Pope John XXIII with his conclusion about the body that was in the Shroud that: “In the medical sense it is proved that it was not a dead body, because at that time a free movement of the heart was traceable. The existence of the flowing of blood, its position and its nature which is found on the Holy Shroud furnishes a clear scientific and medical proof that the so-called execution was legally not complete. According to the present discovery the present as well as the past teachings of Christianity are incorrect.”(pp.98-100). And Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din reveals that “The concluding eleven verses of St. Mark-(16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew-   (28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS (manuscripts).”83 It is doubtful that the Pope is unawares of these findings. Aside from the fact that Christ was only a messenger sent to preach only to the Israelites and that there was/is no inherited sin and no vicarious atonement, Christians who are dedicated to knowing the truth which shall set them free [from falsehood and blasphemy], as Christ exhorted them, are to demand that the Pope acknowledge or disprove these findings by Kurt Berna and Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. The  Pope must refute these findings or acknowledge their accuracy and that he is propagating falsehood –Is the Pope a Divine messenger or the Devil’s disciple?)

   75.(2)  Nonie Darwish states that doubting any word of the Qur’an or of the Prophet Mohammad is “sin” and that “death” is the penalty for those who questioned Allāh’s law. (p. x).

   Response: Nonie Darwish did not give any examples or reference to her charge that “death” is the penalty for those who question Allah’s law. In fact, Egypt alone has millions of Christians who doubt the word of Allāh, that have not been killed. As Allāh is the Creator and the Omniscient and as His prophets teach only that which Allah reveals, what sane mortal, who is fallible and whose knowledge is limited, would question Allāh and His prophets?  Would you (Nonie Darwish) doubt the word of “Jehovah” and Jesus Christ? Wouldn’t it be a “sin” to do so?

   In His Qur’an 2:2 Allāh says: “This Book (Qur’an) there is no doubt in it.” This does not mean that no one is allowed to “doubt” the Qur’an as being from Allāh. All it means is that one can have no doubt about it being from Allāh on account of the fact that the Qur’an explains all things that are necessary for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment; has no discrepancies; is inimitable as only a Divine Book can be; and that no one can show/prove any objection(s) against its origin:   

   –“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your helpers besides Allāh if you are truthful”–(Qur’an 2:23; 10:37-38; 11:13; 17:88);

   -“Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allāh, they would have found in it many a discrepancy”–(Qur’an 4:82; 39:23);

   -“And there is no animal in the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but (they are) communities like yourselves. We have not neglected anything in the Book. Then to their Lord will they be gathered”–(Qur’an 6:38);

   -“And We have revealed the Book to thee explaining all things,” “In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it, and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe”–(Qur’an 16:89; 12:111; 17:89; 18:54; 39:23, 27).

   The Qur’an also gave prophecies that have manifested during the life-time of the Prophet Mohammad, as well as gave scientific pronouncements that, fifteen hundred years later, are in keeping with modern findings.Thus, as all doubts are baseless, Allāh rightly asks: “In what narrative after it (the Qur’an), will they believe?”–(Qur’an 77:50; 7:185).There can be no doubt in the Qur’an because the Qur’an is self-evident; it testifies of itself. The Qur’an is the only Scripture with this Divine feature. No Scripture was in its pristine purity at the advent of the Prophet. Mohammad. Abdul Haque Vidyarthi wrote:

“No scripture, writing or book has got so many people to its credit who learn it by heart, as the Holy Qur’an has. Religious scriptures underwent vicissitudes and had dark ages upon them, that their very contents and their existence became suspected. It was in this obscurity that the Vedas grew from one into four, and then from four to as many as 1131, there is a verse in Maha Bhashya which explains that there are one hundred and one shoots of Yajur-veda, one thousand of Samaveda, twenty -one kinds of Rigveda and nine of Atharva-veda.

In these days we can see a dozen vedas published, in fact, which throws light on their vicissitudes.

The Masorah and Septuagint versions of the old Testament, the different authorized editions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, the apocryphal literature believed as part of inspired scriptures by some sects and rejected by others, the different versions of apocryphal Gospels, prove the credibility of the fact that no religious scripture was kept intact or properly maintained or committed to memory in the life-time of the prophet to whom it was revealed.”84 (For more see Bible corrupt & obsolete). (For more on “reason” See item #165).

  The following reference notes that Islam teaches that “Learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning: (Abu Naeem) MM1-361-112 W.” (i.e. Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p.361, #112W).

   76.(3) Nonie Darwish states: “About sixty million Christians, eighty million Hindus, and ten million Buddhists were killed during the Jihad conquests. Jews saw a mosque built on top of their temple mount in their own Holy Land in Jerusalem and Egypt was a Byzantine Coptic Christian nation for six hundred years before Muslim Bedouins invaded this ancient civilization in the seventh century and forced Islam and the Arabic language on its citizens who suffered an extreme and brutal genocide. Africa suffered 120 million deaths from jihad in the last fourteen hundred years.” (p. xv). 

   Response: What was Egypt [and the rest of Christendom, including the Americas] before Christianity and how did it became “Christian”? Go ask the natives. Jews may have their centre of worship in Jerusalem, but, as already shown, by Divine decree the “Holy Land” is Muslims; Palestine and the entire Middle-east is the moral, social, historical and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims.

   There was/is no ‘temple mount,” there is “Mosque Mount.” Allāh, the All-knowing God, tells us in His Qur’an 17:1: “Glory to Him Who carried His servant from the Sacred Mosque to the Remote Mosque, whose precincts We blessed, that We might show him of Our signs. Surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”As noted, Allah says this “Remote” shrine was a “Masjid/ Mosque” not Temple. Since Islam was not yet established how could this shrine of Solomon be called Masjid/Mosque and not Temple or Synagogue?  All prophets are/were Muslims; they are paternal brothers–(Bokhari Vol. 4, # 651-652). Solomon, though a Jew by nationality, was Muslim by faith. The shrines of prophets, though called by a name according to their languages/ races are in fact Masjids/Mosques, the name of the shrine of Muslims. Thus, Jewish claim that a “Temple” of Solomon was on the Mount has no Divine foundation. There is no “Temple Mount” but Divinely and correctly “Masjid/Mosque Mount.”  

   That the shrines built by Jinns for Solomon are noted as Synagogues–(Qur’an 34:13) is so because this is the name by which Jewish shrines are known. That this ‘Masjid/Mosque on the Mount’ is the “personal” shrine of Solomon is evidenced by the fact that it is the only one recognized by Jews as “Temple of Solomon.” And, as Solomon was a Muslim and taught Islam (which does not have a “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; and as Jews believe they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others which is implying that God is unjust–choosing people on the basis of race, a factor in which we have no choice) Muslims, spiritually, are closer to Solomon than Jews are to Solomon. In fact, those who call themselves Jews may not even be descendants of the Biblical Fathers –Jacob and his twelve sons– but rather descendants of the Khazar, an eighth-century Turkish tribe that converted to Judaism. Or the descendants of European converts to Judaism. This Masjid/ Mosque of Solomon is referred to as the Remote/Farthest Mosque –though there may have been shrines farther than it–simply because it is a shrine built by a prophet, who was a Muslim, for a prophet–(2 Chron. 6:1-11) and hence a Masjid/ Mosque.

   As noted, Solomon dedicated the ‘Masjid/Mosque on the Mount’ in Jerusalem as the centre to the worship of God for the Israelites only–(2 Chron. 6:1-11); and God decreed that He will take power and prophethood from the Israelites, who are to follow Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); will send a prophet like Moses, whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15-19); will send the Comforter who will give “all truth”–(John 14:15-16; 16:12-13); will take His kingdom from Jews and give it to another people–(Matt. 21:43); that Jerusalem will cease to be the focus of Divine worship–(John 4:21; Isaiah 60:7; 65:15; Haggai 2:9; Malachi 1:11); and will  send “another” angel with  the “everlasting gospel”–(Rev.14:6–as the “everlasting gospel” was yet to come   the Bible is rendered obsolete); and which Shiloh and prophet like Moses and Comforter and “another angel” is, indisputably, the Prophet Mohammad; and which new centre of worship is the Ka’ba in Makkah which is for all people; and which “another people” who received the kingdom taken from the Jews are the Muslims; and which “everlasting gospel” is the Qur’an, having “all truth.” Thus, as Judaism was Divinely decreed to end upon the advent of Mohammad, “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.”85 And as Jesus came to uphold the Judaic law –and enjoined his people to do the biddings of the Scribes and the Pharisees (Matt. 23:2-3) until the arrival of the Comforter– Divinely there is no such religion as Christianity, and which, like all other religions, is man-named. Jesus, as all prophets, followed and taught the Divinely-named and chosen Islam –peace and submission to Allāh, God.  

   That Muslims killed “About sixty million Christians, eighty million Hindus, and ten million Buddhists.” (If all these people were killed it would seem that they would have been completely wiped out or their numbers today would not be what they are. Perhaps the masters of mathematics can do the calculation). Since Nonie Darwish seems to have details about Muslims killing 150 million Hindus and Christians and Buddhists and 120 million Africans she can provide us with them. (According to Nonie Darwish’s charge Muslims have killed 270 million which is equal to about forty-five Jewish “holocausts.” And if they were killed within a time frame of 1400 years then Muslims have killed over nineteen thousand [19,000] Christians Hindus Buddhists and Africans for every single year to date And proportionately that would be almost five thousand [5,000] of each group per year). However, that Muslims were on a blood-thirsty rampage killing non-Muslims and forcing religion with the sword, see item #11.

   The duty of the Prophet Mohammad (and Muslims) was/is only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an, not enforce it. Unlike other religions, Christianity included, Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason. Thus, unlike Christianity which but for her sword against the pagans whose victuals she voraciously consumed (and even after digesting the pagan meal would have perished in her infancy had she not swung the blade), Islam needs no force to propel it forward. In contrast to Islam, as M. H. Haykal notes: 

“From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ. The Romans and the Byzantines of old as well as the European peoples of modern times are guilty of shedding blood in religious causes. The Crusades were launched and their fires fanned by Christians, not by Muslims. For hundreds of years, one army after another rolled out of Europe in the direction of the Muslim Orient to fight, to destroy, and to shed blood. In every case, the popes who claimed to be the vicars of Jesus Christ, blessed and encouraged these armies and hurried them to Jerusalem and other destinations….The (Christian) missionaries rejoin, “Those were the Middle Ages, ages of darkness, unfit as evidence against Christianity.” If this is an argument on which they pin some hope, let us then turn to the twentieth century in which we now live and which they call “the century of the highest human civilization.” This century has indeed seen the same darkness as did the Middle Ages. Lord Allenby, representing the allied forces of England, France, Italy, Rumania, and America, stopped in Jerusalem in 1918 after his conquest of that city toward the end of the first World War and said: “Today the Crusades have come to an end.”” (The Life Of Muhammad, p. 213. The first Crusade against Muslims was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II.  If the Christian Middle-Ages were the “ages of darkness,” then the preceding ages were even “darker.” Why then crab at Mohammad (570-632) who preceded these Crusading “ages of darkness” by more than four centuries, and who was supposed to be a “barbarian” as Ibn Warraq charged? For a comment on Ibn Warraq’s fanciful book see Why I am Not a Muslim).

   If, as noted in the quote, the Romans and the Byzantines of old and the Crusades murderous rampage were “unfit as evidence against Christianity” as the Christian missionaries claimed, then the Gospels are to be labeled “unfit.” For these soldiers of Christ were only following Jesus’ decree that those who are not with him are against him (and thus are his enemies; and a person can be neutral) and to slay enemies who do not want him to rule (though these “enemies” might not  militate against him): “He that is not with me is against me” “But those mine enemies, which not that I should rule over them bring hither, and slay them before me”–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27).If these two absurdities of Christianity were to be implemented some five billion people (who do not accept Jesus as Divine and vicarious atoner) would have to be butchered. The only reason the Church does not swing the steel blade is because she holds no sway in the land.As already noted, the Church has always been an enemy to knowledge and to the “other.”Non-Christians (and even some Christians) need to go down on their hands and knees and foreheads and thank God that Christianity is not lording their land or any other land.  

   77.(4) Nonie Darwish: “Saudi Arabia, Iran and other oil-rich Muslim countries are in a race to spread Sharia around the world with financial strings attached.” (p.xvii).

   Response: Isn’t America trying to spread her form of “democracy” around the world and perhaps give aid with “financial strings attached? And aren’t Christians trying to drown the world in the mythical blood of Jesus Christ?  If man were to follow Shari’ah as Divinely revealed he would have found his utopia.
   I do not know which Qur’an you’ve been reading or which Islam you have studied or how you understand what you are reading or have read. Islam does urge Muslims to have a “personal relationship with Allāh.” (p.xviii). Allāh tells us in His Qur’an:

   -“Remember Me I will remember you;”(2:152)

   -“certainly the remembrance of Allāh is the greatest (force);” (29:45)    

   – “And trust in Allāh. And Allāh is enough as having charge (of affairs);” (33:3)

   -“Surely Allāh will not fail in (His) promise;”(13:31)

   -“Allāh is the Friend of the dutiful;” (45:19)

   -“Those who believe and do good deeds, for them the Beneficent will surely bring about love;” (19:96)

   -“And ask forgiveness of your Lord, then turn to Him, Surely my Lord is Merciful, Loving-kind;” (11:90.Notably, while Allāh forgives all sins; and while those who sin in ignorance are forgiven, those who continue to commit the same sin again and again are not forgiven. And no one would keep on tolerating someone doing the same wrong over and over).  

   -“Surely Allāh loves those who fight in His way in ranks, as if they were a solid wall;” (61:4. Fighting in the way of Allāh is a defensive fight in the cause of justice–Qur’an 2:190; 22:39. Unlike the Christian’s God [Jesus] who had His “chosen” people genocide other nations just so His “chosen” can have their lands and loot and little virgin girls for concubines).   

   -“Allah loves the doers of good;” (2:195)

   -“Allāh loves those who purify themselves;” (2:222)

   -“Allāh surely loves the dutiful;” (3:75)

   -“Allāh loves the steadfast;” (3:145)

   -“Allāh is your Patron, and He is the best of Helpers;” (3:149)

   -“And in Allāh should the believers put their trust;” (3:159)

   -“And keep your duty to Allāh, to Whom you shall be gathered;” (5:96)

   -“Surely Allāh loves those who keep their duty;” (9:4, 7)

   -“Allāh loves the equitable (the doers of justice);” (49:9; 60:8)

   -“Say: If you love Allāh, follow me: Allāh will love you, and grant you protection from your sins. And Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful;” (3:30)

   –“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” (39:53. Christians can ransack and tumble their Bible till Judgment Day they will never find in it an exhortation to equal this profound and sublime invitation from Allāh welcoming sinners to repentance, forgiveness, and eternal bliss.

   Whereas Allāh is the Rahman –Who forgives sins without need for “satisfaction”– in contrast, the Christian’s God is devoid of this grand benevolence. That is why Christians make God complicit in murder –having His Supreme Majesty send a man (Jesus) to be their scapegoat for (phantasmic) sins. “The father shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but EVERY MAN SHALL DIE FOR HIS OWN SIN”–(Deut; 24:16; Ezek; 18:20. 2 Chron. 25:4).

   78.(5) Nonie Darwish wrote: “To be a Muslim is to take an oath of submission to the Sharia state, and that oath prevents you from claiming the human rights that are the priority of any true religion. That is why Islam’s greatest enemies are Christianity and Judaism, and nations that are founded on their values.” (p. xix).

   Response: What a howl! When you received your American citizenship did you not take “an oath of submission” to the laws of the United States? Please detail the human rights that Shari’ah prevents Muslims from claiming? What human rights do Christianity and Judaism give that Islam does not give?

   Judaism which plumes itself as the “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; relegates woman to a life of dictatorship under her husband and sells daughters into slavery; kills apostates, witches, and blasphemers; and enslave “heathen” is hardly the epitome of “human rights.”

   Christianity which relegates woman to a life of dictatorship under her husband and to be in all silence and subjection, sells daughters into slavery; kills apostates, witches, and blasphemers; and enslave “heathen;” regards women as only an object for the man’s sexual release, and a “transgressor” and “defiler” of him, that ties man and woman to a marriage “till death do us part” no matter how miserable unless they want to be charged with adultery, that views non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine,” to view those whose views differ from his as being ‘not with it but against it,’ to order the ‘slaying of enemies who do not want it to rule’ is hardly on any moral throne to preach about “human rights.”

   Jews and Christians may not be practicing these and Secularism may not tolerate them but the Jewish and Christian Scriptures demand them. And heaven lies in following the scripture: “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;” “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do”–(Matt. 19:17; 23:2. So much for inherited sin and vicarious atonement)

   79.(6) Nonie Darwish wrote “According to the Qur’an, Allāh said that he has unleashed devils to stir up (confuse) the disbelievers.” And she notes Qur’an 19:83. (p. xxi).

   Response:Qur’an 19:83 reads as translated by Muhammad Ali: “Seest thou not that We send the devils against the disbelievers, inciting them incitingly?”This only means that the evil ones were allowed to help their fellow evil-doers in their evil; as Allāh has granted respite to Satan to lead people astray).  

   Interestingly, in the Bible God says

   -“They have moved me to JEALOUSY with that which is not God; they have provoked me to ANGER with their vanities: and I will move them to JEALOUSY with those who are not a people(they must be devils?); I will PROVOKE them to ANGER with a foolish nation. For a FIRE is kindled in mine ANGER, and shall burn in the lowest HELL….I will heap MISCHIEF upon them; I will spend my ARROWS upon them…. I will also send the TEETH OF BEASTS upon them, with the POISON OF SERPENTS of the dust. The SWORD without, and TERROR within, shall destroy both the YOUNG MAN and the VIRGIN, the SUCKLING also with the MAN OF GRAY HAIRS”–(Deut. 32:15-25).

   -David asks God to put Satan against his adversaries: “Set thou a wicked man over him: and let SATAN stand at his right hand”–(Psalm 109:6).

   -And Paul who claimed he was chosen by Jesus (and by God as Christians say Jesus is God) ordered that fornicators and blasphemers be delivered to Satan: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you….To deliver such an one to SATAN for the destruction of the flesh” and “Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto SATAN, that they may learn not to blaspheme”–(1Cor. 5:1-5; 1 Tim. 1:20. According to the Bible, damsels without the “tokens of virginity” are to be stoned to death –honor killing– likewise blasphemers are to be stoned to death–Deut. 22:20-21; Lev. 24:11-16, 23). 

   Whereas Nonie Darwish notes that Allāh “unleashed devils” to confuse disbelievers. The Biblical God sent the devil to tempt His son (and to tempt even Himself, as Christians say Jesus is God). After his baptism (GOD NEEDS TO BE BAPTIZED???): “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the DEVIL”–Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:2). Intriguingly:

   -If Jesus was the son of God why would the Spirit want the son of God “tempted” by the devil; surely the Spirit trusts the son of God to be faithful to his Father.

   -Unless the Spirit is another personality than the Holy Ghost, if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit are one –and to apply 1+1+1=1 would be mathematicide– then God (as the Spirit) is leading Himself to be tempted; and if the Spirit is not the Holy Ghost, can the Spirit lead God?

   -If Jesus is God why would God have Himself tempted by the devil; surely God is confident of His nature to do good.

   -Unless the devil was incredibly stupid or knowing full well that Jesus was only human and not God/son of God, why would he offer Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them” if Jesus was God/son of God, when the kingdoms and glory are already his or his inheritance?

   ThusJohn, probably seeing the humor in this temptation, opted, in his Gospel, for his own “wilderness,” putting Jesus at a wedding in Cana, catering to boozers –turning water into wine– and ridiculing his mother: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”–(John 2:1-9. Allāh tells us to honor parents and not to even say “fie” to them, and our beloved and noble Mohammad tells us that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers –they are to be treated with utmost love, respect and honor). (For true baptism see Baptism of water or fire).

   80. (7)  ND notes that “the Qur’an tells Muslims to not befriend non-Muslims but that it is acceptable to use deceptive tactics and pretend to befriend infidels to guard themselves from real or imagined harm.” And she notes Qur’an 3:28. (pp. xxi, xxii).

   Response:Qur’an 3:28 reads (MA trans.): “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allāh –except that you guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allāh cautions you against His retribution. And to Allāh is the eventual coming.”     

   Whereas Allāh says to not befriend the disbelievers, the Jewish’s God says to enslave “heathen;” and the Christian’s God says to enslave “heathen,” treat those who doesn’t agree with you as enemies and slay these enemies who do not want you to rule. Which group of people will you want to avoid, Muslims or Jews and Christians? However, as stated at the beginning, verses of the Qur’an are to be understood against the background to which they were revealed. Muhammad Ali explains:

The Muslims, being in a state of war with the disbelievers, were forbidden to look to their enemies to guard their interests or for help of any kind. The clear statement made in 60:8, 9 settles the point beyond all doubt: “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.…Allāh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them”. Auliya’, which I translate as friends here, is the plural of wali, which is derived from a root meaning he held command or had charge of or superintended a thing, and it accordingly means the manager of a thing or of the affairs of another, and the guardian or maintainer of an orphan, and the guardian of a woman who gives her away in marriage. It also means the executor or heir of a deceased person (LL). According to R, it indicates nearness in respect of place, relation, and religion, and in respect of friendship and help and belief, etc. The word therefore includes all relations or nearness. A man may also be said to be wali-Allah, as meaning one near to Allah or a friend of Allah….It is as if it were said: Do not look to them for guarding your interests, rather guard yourselves against them.”

   And in Qur’an 60:7 Allāh says: “It may that Allāh will bring about friendship between you and those of them whom you hold as enemies. And Allāh is Powerful; and Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful”–(Qur’an 60:7).  To which Muhammad Ali comments: “This verse makes it clear that the prohibition against friendly relations with the disbelievers was only temporary, to be operative only so long as the war continued. The friendship prophetically referred to here was brought about after the conquest of Makkah.”    

   With regards to Nonie Darwish’s preposterous claim “that it is acceptable (for Muslims) to use deceptive tactics and pretend to befriend infidels to guard themselves from real or imagined harm.” The above material not only belies this charge, the harm against Muslims was nothing “imagined.” Further, Muslims are required to make peace with the enemies even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it….And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allāh is sufficient for thee”–(Qur’an 8:61-62).   

   In contrast, it is Christianity that counsels its followers to “use deceptive tactics and pretend to befriend infidels to guard themselves from real or imagined harm,” as practiced by Paul –who used “lie” and “guile” and “craft” to spread his anti-Christ “son of God” doctrine– and as taught by Jesus to prevent them from getting thrown in jail:“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison”–(Matt. 5:25-26).*As noted in item #35, this injunction of Jesus gives Christians a hole so big to accommodateevery conceivable lie and deception for any situation the battleships Iowa Jima and Lincoln can sail side by side through it. And with mega-space to spare. With this permission Christians can even frame an innocent person all the way to the executioner’s needle just so they would not be thrown in jail. They can even frame their mother. 

*(Jesus saying in Matthew 5:25-26 to “Agree with thine adversary” lest you get thrown in jail and kept there “till thou hast paid the utmost farthing” could not be about, or restricted to, a law-suit (Jesus clearly says to give the suer your cloak as well as coat–Matt. 5:40). A suer would not necessarily receive judgment in his favor so that one would have to agree with him.  Unless he likes jail, .seems only a crook would wait till he is jailed before paying every “farthing” to be freed).

   81.(8) Muslim countries may not be giving “free speech” to their citizens but Islam gives “free speech” to all. (p.xxiii).  

   Muhammad Ali, notes in his The Early Caliphate: “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. Not only were Governors thus readily accessible to all; they were actually at the mercy of the public. If there were complaints against a Governor, real or imaginary, the Caliph’s door at the capital was ever open to receive them….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. Individual expression of opinion is not freer even in this twentieth century of civilization than it was in the galaxy days of Islam, but this very fact endangered the freedom of the state…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.” (pp. 136-137).

   Nonie Darwish also condemns some airports in certain parts of the U.S. for installing “foot-faucets” for Muslims to wash before performing their prayer; and stating that “we never see similar demands from Hindus or Buddhists living in America.”

   Response: This is hilarious! Perhaps this is so because Hindus and Buddhists do not pray five times a day or wherever that appointed time reaches them, so that they would need to wash. America overthrew Muslim government (Iran), invades Muslim Iraq (twice) and kills thousands of innocents (and without giving compensation) and installs military base(s); are killing Muslims in Afghanistan so she can have a share of the Afghans some three trillion dollars worth of yet-to-be tapped riches and to secure her gas pipe-line interest; is killing suspected “terrorist” and innocents in Yemen and Pakistan and Nonie Darwish bellyaches about Muslims getting “foot-facets” to wash up –like throwing a bone to a dog. This woman really is in dire need of a sense of perception. Her comments also expose her rabid hatred (which is due to her ignorance of Islam) of Muslims and her paranoia. Incidentally, how many foot-faucets are there in each of these airports? (Perhaps a survey can be carried out to learn how many non-Muslims also use these foot-faucets. Kids, and even parents, probably find them fun and convenient).

   82.(9) Nonie Darwish: “From its inception and its founding principles, Islam was terrified and threatened by the mere existence of Judaism and Christianity in and around the Arabian Peninsula, and is still chasing them out of existence in the fifty-four Muslim countries on earth. So to presume that the ultimate destiny of Islam is reformation and acceptance of other religions displays an ignorance of Islam and the reason it came into being.” (p. xxv-xxvi).

   Response: (That Islam was “terrified and threatened by Judaism and Christianity” see CRITICS. There is nothing in Judaism and Christianity of which Islam is to be terrified. It is Judaism and Christianity that are “terrified” of Islam. From the birth of Islam Judaism and Christianity militated against Islam. Perhaps they are still militating against Islam, clandestinely. Jews and Christians were, are, and will always be “terrified” of Islam. Not only is Islam blessed with the Divine allure of wisdom, reason, argument, and examples, Islam has declared open war against the occupier/usurper, the oppressor, the aggressor, and the exploiter –those dedicated to living like parasites: like blood-sucking ticks leeching off the backsides of the defenseless. Only the occupier/usurper, the oppressor, the transgressor, the exploiter, the ignorant and the bigoted and those dedicated to falsehood are “terrified” of Islam!

   Islam does accept all religions. Allāh says He created man in different tribes and colors so we may know one another and as a trial as to who would give justice (to one that is different from him), that He raised messengers among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies, that all religions are for Him (even though one’s concept of Godhead is blasphemous), not to act corruptly in the earth, and for us (Muslims) to give justice even if it is against our own self or nearest relative and to not let hatred of a people incite us to transgress against them, and He exhorts us to seek knowledge, and gives pronouncements on science (and which precepts the early Muslims followed and brought benefits to mankind). How then do you claim that Islam is not “reformation and acceptance of other religions”? Such a claim/ statement clearly betrays your “ignorance of Islam and the reason it came into being.”            

   Nonie Darwish continues. “While Christian literature is full of repentance, Muslim scriptures, society, and history are devoid of it. In fact, those who “repent” of Islam’s teachings of cruelty and violence are called apostates and must be killed.” (p. xxvi).

   Response: Christian literature is so full of “repentance” yet the Christian God was devoid of grace and could not accept repentance without needing to first send a scapegoat (Jesus, as Christians claim) to be killed for sinners. Here is a classical case of ND’s confusion between Islam and Muslims. ND needs to read her Bible, it is her scripture that requires death for apostasyy(item #26) and blasphemy(item #65) and has instituted honor killing (item #12)and has teachings of not only “cruelty and violence,” but as already shown, is also evil, intolerant, backward, naked hate, and misogynistic.

   That Muslim scriptures are devoid of “repentance,” here is a listing of “repent” and “repentance” in the Qur’an:

   -Allah accepts repentance from His servants and forgives sins (42:25 also 6:54);

   -Allah accepts repentance of who do evil in ignorance (4:17; 9:104; 40:3. As stated in item #77, while Allāh forgives all sins; and while those who sin in ignorance are forgiven, those who continue to commit the same sin again and again are not forgiven. And no one would keep on tolerating someone doing the same wrong over and over).  

   -Allah will change the evil of the repenter (25:70);

   -mercy for repenters (4:17, 146: 6:54; 7:153);

   -turn to Allah in repentance (11:3; 30:31; 66:8);

   -turn to your Lord in repentance and bow to Him before chastisement comes to you (39:54);

   -who do wrong and repent thereafter (16:119);

   -who repent and make amends (2:160; 3:89);

   -who repent/believe/work righteousness (19:60; 25:70; 28:67; 65:11);

   -who turn to Allah in repentance (9:112; 50:32-33);

   -His mercy encompasses all things and has ordained mercy on Himself (6:12, 54; 7:156).

   -Also, Allāh not only invites us to forgive us our sins–(14:10), He implores us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us; He instructs the Prophet Mohammad to convey to us: “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). To repeat, Nonie Darwish and all Christendom can ransack and tumble their Bible till Judgment Day they will never find in it an exhortation to equal this profound and sublime invitation from Allāh welcoming sinners to repentance, forgiveness, and eternal bliss –Jannah! (See item #77).

   “It may be that “Christian literature is full of repentance,” but as their belief has established, their God is devoid of mercy and justice –loading Adam/Eve’s sin onto the head of even the fetus in the womb and then loading everyone’s sins onto the head of Jesus, and having a sinless one killed for sinners (attributing injustice to God and making Him complicit in murder). But these are not revelations from God or teachings of Jesus. They are the blasphemous concoctions and falsehood of man. Blasphemous doctrines and falsehood that pave the way to Hell –to the  “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched,” the “furnace of fire” in which there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth,” as the Christian’s son of God and God, Jesus, aptly projects it –”He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of eternal damnation”–(Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43; Matt. 13:42; Mark 3:29). They are in “danger of eternal damnation” unless he/she repents and follow the “all truth” brought by the Comforter, Mohammad–(John 14:16; 16:13). While there is life there is repentance! And as no one knows the time of his death…….

   83.(10) Nonie Darwish regurgitates the usual charge that Islam requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims wherever they find them.” (p. xxvii-xxviii).

   Response: These charges have already been debunked five thousand ways to sundown. For what it’s worth, here is her list in her renderings:

   (a) Qur’an 4:91: “Then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.”

   Response: Here is the complete verse: You will find others who desire to be secure from you and secure from their own people. Whenever they are made to return to hostility, they are plunged into it. So if they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And against these We have given you a clear authority.” (And this is what America and others have been/are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, against Germany and Japan, etc). Clearly this verse needs no explanation to debunk Nonie Darwish’s charge. However, as Muhammad explains: “By mischief, or fitnah, is meant war with the Muslims (Rz). Two tribes, Asad and Ghatfan, came to the Muslims and showed an inclination to remain at peace, but when they went back and their people invited them to join them in fighting with the Muslims, they responded to the call. Such people could not be trusted. The importance of these directions in time of war, when the Muslims were hemmed in on all sides by enemies, can hardly be overestimated.”

   (b) Qur’an 4:56: Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations. We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they might taste the torment. Lo! Allāh is ever Mighty, Wise.”

   Response: And Jesus says that blasphemers against God and the evil-doers shall receive the “greater damnation” of “hell;” and that in the “furnace of fire” there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–(Mark 3:29; Matt. 23:14, 33; 13:42; John 5:29); an “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched”–(Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43). And never mind those who “disbelieve in Our (Allah’s revelations) being roasted, Jesus sends them into the inferno to have their skins re-roasted for even less; he says that “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” –(Matt. 5:22).

   Don’t you accept that your “son of God” and God, “Jehovah,” is “ever Mighty, Wise”? (Jehovah is not a scriptural name of God. Jehovah is a Christian concoction. As Ahmed Deedat points out, there is no “J” in the Hebrew alphabet. It is said that Jews refrained from articulating the name of God because it was too Holy (though the Word of God, the Torah, did not seem Holy enough for them to not alter) thus they referred to God as YHWH. The name “Jehovah” was coined from this Hebrew formula YHWH –which would give Yehowah, Yahowah, or Yahweh, etc. but by no stretch of the English language can it produce Je-ho-Vah. Christians do not even know the name of the God they follow and yet are chasing after Muslims to follow them in their falsehood and blasphemy. Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix!)

   (c) Qur’an 4:76:  “Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allāh; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil’s strategy is ever weak.”

   Response: “Battle in the cause of Allāh” is battle in the cause of Truth and justice. As Muhammad Ali points out: “This is a prophecy that those who are siding with the devil and are fighting against the Truth will ultimately be vanquished.” History is testimony to this. Didn’t the Biblical God have his devotees fight in His cause? Will your “son of God” and “Jehovah” not triumph over the Devil?

   (d) Qur’an 8:12, 17: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (non-Muslims), smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. It is not ye who slew them, it was Allāh.”

   Response:The hand of the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God it was the hand of Jesus that) slew the enemy of His people, and even chopped off their thumbs and toes:

   -“For indeed the HAND OF THE LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed” –(Deut. 2:15);

   -“Therefore he (God) lifted up HIS HANDagainst them, to overthrow them in the wilderness”–(Psalm 106:26; Ezek. 20:15);

   -God commands the Israelites to do to the people whose land they were going to possess: “thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them”–(Deut. 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6). “And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and SMITE the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD YOUR GOD hath delivered them into your hand;” “And afterward Joshua SMOTE them” “So Joshua SMOTE all the country….as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded….because the LORD GOD of Israel FOUGHT for Israel”–(Josh. 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Josh. chs. 10-12; Num. 21:24, 35; 31:17-18; Deut. 20:16-17; 1 Sam. 15:2-3, for slaughters by Joshua, Moses, and Saul).

   As for Allah instilling terror into the hearts of the enemies and Allāh slaying them. Here is Biblical terror and God slaying (and as Christians say that Jesus is God):

   -“To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste”–(Deut. 32:35)   

   -“the TERROR of God was upon the cities that were round about them (Jacob and his household)”–(Gen. 5:5)

   -“For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the TERRORSof God do set themselves in array against me–(Job 6:4)

   -The Biblical God even “terrorized” the righteous. Either that or Job must be lying on God). “For destruction from God was a TERROR to me”–(Job 31:23)

   -“How are they (the wicked) brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with TERRORS(from God)”–(Psalm 73:19)

   -“Knowing therefore the TERROR of the Lord, we persuade men”–(2 Cor. 5:11);

   -“For, behold the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his ANGER with fury, and his rebuke with FLAMES OF FIRE. For by FIRE and by his SWORD will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be MANY”–(Isaiah 66:15-16).

   -“They have moved me to JEALOUSY with that which is not God….and I will move them to JEALOUSY with those who are not a people(they must be devils?); I will PROVOKE them to ANGER with a foolish nation. For a FIRE is kindled in mine ANGER, and shall burn in the lowest HELL….I will heap MISCHIEFS upon them; I will spend mine ARROWS upon them…. I will also send the TEETH OF BEASTS upon them, with the POISON OF SERPENTS of the dust. The SWORD without, and TERRORwithin, shall destroy both the YOUNG MAN and the VIRGIN, the SUCKLING also with the MAN OF GRAY HAIRS”–(Deut. 32:21-25).

    That Allāh smote the enemies of the Muslims. The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) smote the enemies of the Israelites:

   -“Elisha prayed unto the Lord…And he (God) SMOTEthem with blindness according to the word of Elisha”–(2 Kings 6:18);

   -“And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity….and ye shall know that I am the Lord that SMITETH”–(Ezekiel 7:9);

   -“And he (Elijah) shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children….lest I (God) come and SMITE the earth with a curse” –(Malachi 4:5-6);

   -“Speak not in thine heart….saying, For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD DOTH DRIVE THEM OUT from before thee–(Deut. 9:4-7).

   -“But the HAND OF THE LORD was heavy upon them in Ashdod, and he destroyed them and SMOTE them with emerods (hemorrhoids)….the HAND OF THE LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he SMOTE the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts ….there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the HAND OF GOD was very heavy there. And the men that died not were SMITTEN with the emerods”–(1 Sam.5:6, 9, 11-12);

   -The Christian’s God (“Jesus”) not only gave orders to “Strike off their heads” but also to “cut off “ “fingers and toes”: (The Israelites asked who would go up and fight): “And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand…and they slew of them in Bezek TEN THOUSAND MEN…and they pursued after him (Adonibezek), and caught him and cut off his THUMBS and his GREAT TOES. And Adonibezek said, THREE SCORE AND TEN kings, having their THUMBS and their GREAT TOES CUT OFF…”–(Judges 1:1-7). This is more blood and gore than all the battles fought by the Prophet Mohammad.    

   -“Then the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew ALL THE MALES….And they brought the CAPTIVES and the prey and the SPOIL to Moses, and Eleazar… 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 the Lord spake unto to Moses, saying, Take the sum of the PREY (BOOTY) that was taken, both of MAN and of beast, thou and Eleazar…And divide the PREY into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation And LEVY A TRIBUTE UNTO THE LORD….And the BOOTY, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 asses, and of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was 337,500 sheep; 36,000 cattle, 30,500 asses, and 16,000 persons (virgin girls. And of the congregation’s half portion of these 16.000 virgin girls, 320 were given to the Levite priests, as “the Lord commanded Moses.” And the LORD’S TRIBUTE (of the (booty) was 675 sheep; 72 cattle; 61 donkeys; and 32 persons ….the MEN OF WAR had taken SPOIL (BOOTY), EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF.”

   -“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it…thou shalt SMITE THEM, and UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, thou shalt MAKE NO COVENANT with them, NOR SHOW MERCY UNTO THEM”–(Deut. 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6).    

   -“And stay ye not, but PURSUE AFTER YOUR ENEMIES, and SMITE THE HINDMOST OF THEM; SUFFER THEM NOT TO ENTER INTO THEIR CITIES: for the LORD YOUR GOD hath delivered them into your hand;” “and Joshua called for all the men of Israel…Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings…And afterward JOSHUA SMOTE THEM, and SLEW THEM, and HANGED THEM on five trees.” “So Joshua SMOTE ALL THE COUNTRY of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and ALL THEIR KINGS: HE LEFT NONE remaining, but UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT  BREATHED, as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded…And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD GOD of Israel fought for Israel;” “And they UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL that was in the city, both MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX, AND SHEEP, AND ASS, with the EDGE OF THE SWORD”–(Joshua 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Joshua chs. 10-12; Numbers 21:24, 35; 31:17-18; Deut. 20:16-17; 1 Sam. 15:2-3, for slaughters by Joshua, Moses, and Saul). Notably, unlike the Arab idolaters who persecuted Mohammad, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued him and warred against him, these little males and matrons and virgin girls and cattle did not take up arms against Moses and Joshua.

            (In our “hypnotic” style of recitation of the Qur’an Muslims may be saying to “kill” the unbelievers [and this is only so because the unbelievers had first taken up the sword to “kill” Muslims]. Whereas, in chanting their Bible in Latin and Arabic [or reading it in any other language] the Christians are saying to commit genocide and misogyny –to slaughter even matrons and all males and take their lands and little virgin girls for concubines;  to have bears “tare” mischievous children and beasts to eat those who engage in false worship [though Christians themselves engage in false worship as “son of God” belief is paganism]; to enslave “heathen;” sell daughters into bondage; to rule over woman and keep her in all  subjection; that she is an object for sex, a “transgressor,” a “defiler” and “betrayer” of man; and for man to eat cakes made from “man’s dung” or “cow’s dung”–[Ezek.   4:9-15] See also the beginning and items #18 and 38]).  

   (e) Qur’an 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allāh and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but who Allāh doth know.”     

   Response:Aren’t the nations of the world strengthening their military to their “utmost” either for self defence only or for aggression as well?  As shown in this presentation Islam forbids aggression and allows fighting only in self-defense (taking the offensive position when at war is not aggression; as is said a good offence is a good defence). Muhammad Ali comments on this verse: Force (Ar. quwwah) means all those things which are a source of strength, including all kinds of implements of  war and other defensive and offensive operations. The Muslims had won a victory at Badr, though they were not even well-equipped and had made no preparation for the war. But they are told that they must in future keep themselves well prepared and avail themselves of all sources of strength, so that the enemy should by their very preparedness assume a peaceful attitude. It was evident that the weakness of the Muslims was a temptation for their opponents to attack them.”

   (f) Qur’an 47:4: “Therefore when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks, at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom. Until the war lays down its burdens.” And Nonie Darwish asserts, “It is clear from the above verses that the commandment to kidnap for ransom and slit throats is issued to Muslims as a whole and not just to select terrorists.”

   Response: As shown such a statement betrays Nonie Darwish’s ignorance of the Qur’an and of Islam in general. Muhammad Ali: The word athkhana occurring in this passage has been fully explained in 8:67a. This passage mentions the only case in which prisoners of war can be taken, and thus condemns the practice of slavery, according to which men could be seized anywhere and sold into slavery. Here we are told that prisoners of war can only be taken after meeting an enemy in regular battle, and even in that case they must be set free, either as a favour or after taking ransom. It was the former of these alternatives that the Holy Prophet adopted in most cases; for instance, in the case of the prisoners of the Bani Mustaliq, in which a hundred families were set at liberty, and in the case of Hawazin, in which fully six thousand prisoners of war were released merely as an act of favour. Only in the case of the seventy prisoners taken at Badr is there mention of redemption having been taken, but this was when Islam was very weak and the powerful enemy was determined to crush it.”

   As noted Muhammad Ali states that “The word athkhana occurring in this passage has been fully explained in 8:67a” Here is Qur’an 8:67: It is not fit for a prophet to take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land. You desire the frail goods of this world, while Allāh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allāh is Mighty, Wise” to which Muhammad Ali comments: 

            “There exists some misunderstanding as to the meaning of yuthkhina used here. Thakhuna means he or it became thick, and athkhana means ghalaba, he overcame (LA). The same word is again used in the Holy Qur’an exactly in the same sense: “then, when you have overcome them, make them prisoners”  (47:4).

               On the authority of certain reports, the commentators are of opinion that this verse and the next refer to releasing the prisoners of war taken at Badr after taking ransom from them, which act, it is said, is here disapproved. But various considerations show that these verses refer to some other incidents. Firstly, the condition laid down here for taking prisoners is that the Prophet should fight against the enemy, and that had actually been done at Badr. Secondly, the taking of prisoners and their release on this very occasion is justified in clear words only two verses further on, “O Prophet, say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allāh knows anything good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you” (v. 70). This shows that these verses were revealed when the prisoners were still in the hands of the   Muslims and that which has been taken is clearly the ransom, which must have taken many days to reach Madinah. If the verse had conveyed a Divine commandment to slay the prisoners and not to release them, that step could still have been taken. But the very fact that no such step was taken shows clearly that the verse conveyed no such Divine commandment.

               The legality of the Holy Prophet’s procedure on this occasion is clearly borne out by an earlier revelation: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make them prisoners, and afterwards set them free as a favour or for ransom” (47:4). The Prophet never slew a single prisoner of war, even after the battle of Badr, though thousands of prisoners were taken in some of these battles. On the other hand, the prisoners were almost always set free as a favour, and ransom was taken only from the Badr prisoners.

               The question is, what is then hinted at in this verse and in the one that follows? To me it seems quite clear that the reference is to the desire (mark the word desire used in the verse) — not to an action already completed — of a party of the Muslims referred to in v. 7, and you loved that the one not armed should be yours. Some Muslims desired to attack and capture the unarmed caravan, but depredations like these, though committed by disbelievers upon the Muslims, were not fit for a prophet. He must fight a hard fight in his defence first and then, if he overcomes the enemy, he may take prisoners. Thus this injunction also declares slavery to be illegal, and allows only the retaining of those who are taken prisoners in war. The frail goods of this world   appropriately refer to the caravan and its merchandise, while the addition of the concluding words in v. 69, eat then of the lawful and good things which you have acquired in war, shows that the ransom received on  account of the prisoners is among the lawful and good things.”

   In contrast, as shown in these pages, whereas Islam only allows a defensive war and only against those who fight you, Christianity considers those who do not share its views as enemies, and calls for the slaying of “enemies” against its ruler-ship–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27)..

   84.(11) Nonie Darwish: “Islamic scriptures ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war against all those who do not believe in Allāh and Mohammad. According to Qur’an 60:4, “And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate forever until ye believe in Allāh only.”” (p. xxx).      

   Response: Not only does Nonie Darwish seem to not know the background to which this verse was revealed. but she has taken the words out of context. Allāh is here noting Abraham’s speaking to his people; here is the verse in full (the words in italics are those which Ms. Darwish quoted): “Indeed, there is for you a good example of Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: We are clear of you and of that which you serve besides Allah. We disbelieve in you and there has arisen enmity and hatred between us and you forever until you believe in Allāh alone –except Abraham saying to his sire: I would ask forgiveness for thee, and I control naught for thee from Allāh. Our Lord, on Thee do we rely, and on Thee do we turn, and to Thee is the eventual coming.”Muhammad Ali comments: “Abraham’s example is quoted to show how loving and tender he was towards his people, yet, when it became clear to him that they were bent upon uprooting the truth, even Abraham could not maintain relations of friendship with them. The Holy Prophet and his companions were in like manner now obliged to renounce all relationships of friendship with a people who were not only the avowed enemies of the Muslims but also in a state of continual war with them.” (It is doubtful that America and Nonie Darwish would maintain friendship with Al-Qaeda-like or Taliban-like people even if they were family).     

   Contrastingly, while Nonie Darwish tries to deride the Qur’an/ Islam and whereas Mohammad and Muslims were faced with annihilation, Nonie Darwish’s God and son of God, Jesus,  proclaims: ‘those who are not with me is against me,’ to slay enemies oppose his rule, that he came not to send peace but a “sword” and “fire” and “division;” all of which “ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war against all those who do not believe in” “Jehovah” and Jesus until the Resurrection. Any wonder then that, “From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” In fact the Bible requires that the following people be killed, and which also “ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war against all those who do not believe in” “Jehovah” and Jesus until the Resurrection. Here are the people that Christianity has on its infamous list to be killed/murdered:

1.     (Apostasy): Those who “secretly” entice another to follow an unknown God are to be stoned to death:

“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 hast 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).  

2.      A “stubborn and rebellious son” is to be stoned to death–(Deut. 21:18-21).

3.     (Honor killings): Married damsel without the “token of virginity” is to be stoned to death: “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).

4.    A virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed,” both are to be stoned to death –(Deut. 22:23-24).

5.      A witch is to be put to death–(Exodus 22:18).

6.      Who curses his father or mother is to be put to death–(Lev. 20:9).

7.      Punishment for adultery is death–(Lev. 20: 10-12; Deut. 22:22).

8.      Homosexuals are to be put to death–(Lev. 20:13).

9.      A man who takes a “wife and her mother,” both shall be burnt with fire–(Lev. 20:14).

10.   Who commits bestiality is to be put to death–(Lev. 20:15-16).

11.   (Blasphemy): “And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed….And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.…And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death” –(Lev. 24:11-16, 23).

12.  The adulteress is to be stoned–(John 8:3-5).

                    (The Christian’s claim that Jesus forgave the adulteress is baseless–(John 8:1-11). Strangely, there is no mention of the man with whom the woman is said to have committed adultery. Neither did the woman confess to nor deny the charge, nor was she asked if the charge against her was true. (Some justice!) Jesus not only says that he came to fulfill the law,86 he explicitly instructed his followers to “observe and do” whatever the “scribes and Pharisees” bid hem to do, because they sit in Moses’ seat;87 and two of the Mosaic teachings are to take an eye  for an eye, and to stone the adulterer/adulteress. Jesus could not be said to have abrogated these Mosaic laws and yet tell his followers to observe them. It would be a contradiction –Jesus’ turn the other cheek88 and that the one who is without sin to cast a stone at the adulteress do not abrogate the Mosaic teachings of an eye for an eye89 and to stone those guilty of adultery.90   To give the “other cheek” is not applicable to infractions against cardinal laws. Jesus’ give the “other cheek” and to forgive seventy-times seven were meant to reform his people into being more tolerant of one another (and his mission was only for Jews). However, if any aggrieved Jew would have demanded “an eye” in turn from his transgressor Jesus would have had no choice but to apply the law which he came to, and vowed to, uphold.   

               If the woman was guilty and Christ did not stone her then Christ had simply failed to enforce the law of God. Jesus telling the Scribes and Pharisees, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” does not mean Jesus forgave her or that this statement abrogated the law of stoning.  To say that the law of stoning was abrogated because no man is without sin and therefore no one would be able to “cast a stone,” it would have been pointless for God to have given such a law that man could not have carried out. Further, there was no case to begin with; the woman’s accusers had all left without “condemning” her.  Jesus, rightly, as he had no evidence in the matter, could not condemn her either; him telling the woman to “go, and sin no more,” is not a reflection that a sin (adultery) was committed. While this may be the best advice that Jesus could have given, it certainly wasn’t “forgiveness.”

Aside from that, Jesus was in no official capacity to execute judgment in the matter, and, therefore the case should have been decided by the very Scribes and Pharisees that brought the woman to Jesus. Jesus must have known that they were “tempting him that they might have to accuse him,” as John 8:6 says, and was only being clever with them in saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” It would have been interesting to note Jesus’ response if the Scribes and Pharisees had said to him that, since he, Jesus, was without sin, for him to first cast a stone at her). Paramountly, as noted, Jesus came to uphold the Mosaic law. He declared in clear unambiguous words in Matthew 5:17-19: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy BUT TO FULFILL. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or title SHALL IN NO WISE PASS from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED. Whosoever therefore SHALL BREAK ONE OF THESE LEAST COMMANDMENTS, and shall teach men so, he shall be called THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” Thus if Jesus abrogated stoning to death (as no one is without sin, and certainly God knows that no one is without sin when He gave this commandment) then Jesus, by his own words, is THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” 

   The Qur’an abrogates these laws of the Bible. Allāh speaking about abrogating and changing of messages–(Qur’an 2:106; 16:101) does not mean that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another, as is believed by many. It refers to the replacing of laws/messages of Scriptures previous to the Qur’an. Muhammad Ali has dealt with this topic in his Qur’anic commentary #152–re: Qur’an 2:106. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).

   In fact Christian scriptures “ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war” not only against outsiders but also within families; here is what the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, commanded: “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). “For from henceforth there shall be five in one house DIVIDED, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be DIVIDED against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; and the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law” –(Luke 12:49, 51-53). What kind of a God and son of God is this? And what manner of “love” is this? (Mohammad forbids us from disobeying parents and exhorts us to have good relations even with our pagan parents– Muslim Vol. 3, #’s 4257, 4260; Bokhari Vol. 3, #789).

   Indisputably, Christian scriptures “ignite a flame of eternal conflict and a perpetual declaration of war against all those who do not believe in” “Jehovah” and Jesus Christ. 

   85.(12) Nonie Darwish wrote about Muslim male fighters: “They were rewarded not only with a good share of the booty, but also with brides from within the tribe in addition to the ones won in battle. Women adore them and were happy to be given to them in marriage, even as one of the many wives to serve the heroes of the tribe.” (p. 8).

   Response:Since these women “were happy to be given to them (Muslim soldiers) in marriage, even as one of the many wives to serve the heroes of the tribe,” why are you criticizing them and, worse, why are you taking their joys and interest and making it your distress? Seems as if you are sorely envious/jealous of them. And what did the Biblical fighters received? And while the Arab women gave themselves willingly and in “marriage” to their tribal heroes, the budding and even not-yet-budding Biblical girls had no choice in their bed-mates; and may even have been raped by their possessors. (See item #18 for war booty, in which “virgin” girls, even pre-pubescent ones, are part of the Christian and Jewish spoils of war).

   86.(13) Nonie Darwish: “Arabian desert culture practiced a dual system of justice and ethics: one for their tribe, and another for all others….This law of the desert was the major cultural factor that produced Islamic Sharia, a system that gives justice to people depending on who they are and to which tribe they belong. Sharia codified this kind of legal discrimination, creating different sets of laws for Muslim and non-Muslim.” (p. 9).

   Response: This is crass nonsense and ignorance of Islam! Allāh tells us in His Qur’an:

   (1)“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(16:125). It is not wisdom and goodly exhortation and best argument to have two sets of laws;

   (2) Muslims is an exalted nation who are to enjoin right/good and forbid wrong/evil–(3:103, 109). It is not exaltation/integrity and the enjoining of good and the forbidding evil to have two sets of laws;

   (3) “that when you (Muslims) judge between people, you judge with justice”–(4:58). It is not justice to have two sets of laws;

   (4) Muslims are required to be maintainers of justice “even if it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives –whether he be rich or poor, Allāh has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allāh is ever Aware of what you do”–(4:135). It is not justice against self and parents and relatives to have two sets of laws.

   (5) “Say: My Lord enjoins justice”–(7:29). No comment needed.

   (6) “Surely Allāh enjoins justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion” (16:90). It is not goodness but indecency and evil to have two sets of laws;

   (7) “Surely We have revealed the Book to thee with truth that thou mayest judge between people by means of what Allāh has taught thee. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest”–(4:105); and Muhammad Ali notes: “With a little difference in details, the commentators agree that the occasion of

the revelation of these verses was a dispute between a Muslim and a Jew, in which judgment was given by the Prophet against the Muslim. Ta’mah ibn Ubairaq had stolen a coat of mail, and having hidden it at a Jew’s, afterwards accused the Jew of the theft, while his tribe supported him. The Prophet, notwithstanding the open enmity of the Jews, cleared the Jew of the charge. It was a time when every Muslim hand was sorely needed for the defence of Islam, and a verdict against a man supported by his whole tribe meant the loss of that tribe. But such considerations did not carry any weight with the Prophet. Thus these verses lay down the broad principle that dishonesty must be punished, and the balance of justice must be held equal between Muslims and non-Muslims and between friends and foes.” Such an action from the Prophet Mohammad could not have come from having two sets of laws.

   (8) “Listeners for the sake of a lie, devourers of forbidden things, so if they come to thee, judge between them or turn away from them. And if thou turn away from them, they cannot harm thee at all. And if thou judge, judge between them with equity. Surely Allah loves the equitable”–(5:42). Having two sets of laws is not an “equitable” judgment. And Muhammad Ali gives the background of this verse: “By the agreement drawn up between the various nationalities of Madinah on the advent of the Holy Prophet there (see 2:84a), all disputes were to be referred to the Holy Prophet, but the Jews had by this time become so inimical to the Prophet that he is allowed to refuse to judge between them. In case he judged between them, he is still told to judge with equity. To be equitable notwithstanding the severest enmity of the Jews and notwithstanding the knowledge that they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam for its extirpation, shows that the Prophet had reached the highest point of moral rectitude to which man can attain.” (Perhaps Jews are to this day still plotting for the extirpation of Islam; as M.H. Haykal notes, “Their opposition and hostility were never open.”91

   (9) “And let not hatred of a people –because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque– incite you to transgress. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and transgression, and keep your duty to Allāh,” “and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitable”–(5:2, 8). It is not righteousness and piety and equity to have one set of laws for Muslims and another set of laws for transgressors. As Muhammad Ali comments to Qur’an 5:2: “The principle laid down here as to uprightness of conduct in dealing even with those whom one even hates is laudable, and the international code of modern world stands sorely in need of such a principle of uprightness. Requiring equal treatment for all nations –for those whom we hate and for those whom we love– Islam alone can serve as an international law.” (Emphasis added).  

   Clearly, there is no, and there cannot be, “dual system of justice and ethics: one for their tribe, and another for all others” in Islamic Shari’ah.  In contrast, it is Christianity (and Judaism) that has two sets of laws:

   (1) Allows subjugation of women–(Genesis 3:16);

   (2) enslavement of daughters and “heathen” neighbor–(Exodus 21:7; Lev. 25:44; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18);

   (3) Only women killed for committing adultery–(John 8:3-5. True the Torah says that both adulterer and adulteress are to be killed; if so then David should have been stoned to death for committing adultery with Uriah’s wife and Solomon and his son who had more than 350 concubines between them should have been stoned to death –and David and Solomon were prophets to know better–; and Jesus should have asked for the man with whom the woman was said to have committed adultery –and according to Christians Jesus was/is son of God and even God–; also it is doubtful that God would have threatened to give David’s wife to his neighbor to have sex with them–(2 Sam. 12:11). (The “contradiction” in Christianity is “staggering”).

   (4) Only men given right to divorce (Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18. There is no mention of woman initiating divorce).

   (5) Aside from their rabid misogyny, perhaps the most brutal double standard and injustice in Christianity and Judaism is the barring from the congregation one who is injured in the testicles, the eunuch, and the child born out of wedlock even down to his tenth generation (though his generations may all have been chaste and righteous): “He that is wounded in the stones, or had his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord”–(Deut. 23:1-2). This man may have been wounded in the “stones” while fighting for God. The child may been castrated while yet a baby, why should he be blamed and banned (punished) from the “congregation” (Synagogue/ Church)? How is it that those who committed sexual transgressions –Lot’s incest with his daughters; Jacob cavorting with his wives maids; Judah playing hide-an-seek with his daughter-in-law Tamar; David’s dallying with Uriah’s wife; Solomon and his son Rehoboam frolicking in their harems of more than 350 concubines– are made prophets and can go into the heart of the synagogue/church but the child who had absolutely no say in how he/she was conceived is barred from setting foot into the shrine? It is his parents who are to be blamed and barred from the Synagogue/Church. Incidentally, since the “bastard” is not allowed to enter the congregation, how can a Jew and Christian who may be “bastard” enter into heaven, seeing that heaven is holier than the Synagogue/Church? (And Christ did not die for “bastardy” only for inherited sin as Christians say, though the Mormons say that Christ died for committed sin; though in reality Christ did not die for any sin, and moreover, as shown, he did not die on the cross; and yet again, God said that every man shall die for his own sin).

   In fact, according to Paul men who are not punished by God are “bastards”: “My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord…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” –(Heb.12:5-8). The Good News Bible has it in easier language: “My son, pay attention when the Lord corrects you, and do not be discouraged when he rebukes you. Because the Lord corrects everyone he loves, and punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure what you suffer as being a father’s punishment; your suffering shows that God is treating you as his sons. Was there ever a son who was not punished by his father? If you are not punished, as all his sons are, it means you are NOT real sons, BUT BASTARDS.

   While some people are tried trough hardships. And even prophets suffered. What about the daughters that were punished by their fathers and even killed, they won’t go to heaven? So all the righteous men in the world who did not suffer are “bastards” and will not go to heaven? Hallelujah! And all the Popes, Archbishops, Bishops, Cardinals, Pastors and parishioners who did not “suffer” are only wasting their time eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood (spiritual cannibalism?). (Christians are wasting their time anyway: the doctrines of Christianity, as shown, are falsehood and blasphemy).This is the crud that Nonie Darwish and Christians are following and want Muslims and the world to follow! Glory, Praise and Thanks be to Allāh, God, Who sent us Mohammad to save us from such Christian obscenity and malarkey!    

   87.(14) Nonie Darwish postulates that “Judaism and Christianity” “on one hand inspired Mohammad, but on the other hand were seen as rivals to Mohammad’s emerging new religion. During the life of Mohammad in the seventh century, the impact of Christianity and Judaism was strongly felt in Arabia, and some tribes were actually converting to Christianity.” (p.11).

   Response: So it took Judaism a thousand-plus years after Moses and it took Christianity six hundred years after Jesus (till the coming of Mohammad) to make a strong “impact” in Arabia, whereas it took only twenty-three years, and during Mohammad’s lifetime, for Islam to bring Arabia into its camp; and a mere hundred years after Mohammad to rule the world, and you’re claiming that “Judaism and Christianity” “inspired Mohammad”? And you crown yourself an “independent thinker”?    

   Mohammad was not “inspired” by Judaism and Christianity. Mohammad was given revelation from Allāh, God.  Islam is not Mohammad’s religion. Islam is the Divine system crafted for all mankind. All prophets taught Islam –submission to Allāh, God. Judaism and Christianity as taught by Moses and Jesus are no “rivals” to Mohammad/Islam. Moses and Jesus were given Divine revelation (Islam) to suit their people for a limited time. The Qur’anic revelation through which Islam was perfected and Allāh’s favor to man was completed is for all people to the Resurrection.

   That “some tribes were actually converting to Christianity.” Not only was Judaism headed for oblivion; its adherent’s belief that they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others not only has no Divine foundation, it has no logical foundation. And Christianity was corrupt since the fourth century; its cardinal doctrines have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason. No wonder then that, as already noted, “The slight and transient influences of Judaism, Christianity, or philosophical inquiry upon the Arab mind had been but as the ruffling here and there of the surface of a quiet lake; all remained still and motionless below….until they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian Prophet that they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a new and earnest life” “With the light of Islam, and through the torch of knowledge and civilization lit in Arabia, a new era dawned not only over Arabia, but also over other countries. Europe remained the longest in darkness, and it was only after the torch of knowledge had been lighted in Spain by the Muslims that both the Renaissance and the Reformation came.” (See CRITICS; and item #11).

   The “some tribes (that) were actually converting to Christianity” had the wisdom to abandon the senseless, baseless, and incomplete theology of Christianity for Islam’s wisdom, reason, perfection, and completeness. (See item #11).

   88.(15) “In the early days of his movement, Mohammed learned and borrowed from and was inspired by both Judaism and Christianity.” (p. 14).

   Response: Another burst of timeless ignorance! From whom/ where did Mohammad learn and borrowed from in the later days, and who inspired him then? (Mohammad must have been taught by the “Babylonian Jew from Southern Mesopotamia,” as Ibn Warraq notes in his Why I am Not a Muslim from one of his equally unthinking and even ignorant sources). Islam teaches that Allah raised prophets/messengers among all nations and gave them revelations. If all these religions –Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam– have similarities in doctrines, it could not be said that one have been “influenced” by the other; or that Mohammad (or the Qur’an) borrowed these teachings.  A child who is given the same guide-lines as his older brother could not be said to have borrowed those instructions from the older brother. In fact, Allāh informs us that the advent of the Prophet was foretold in ancient Scriptures and that He made it known through those prophets for their followers to believe in and help the Prophet Mohammad–(Qur’an 3:80; 26:196).

      That Muhammad got his teachings from his fellow man, the following statements from the observation of Maurice Bucaille are sufficient to refute this piece of age-old foolhardiness which the critics of Islam have continued to make; Maurice Bucaille notes in his book 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 in 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 added).

   That Mohammad copied the Bible, there is “an enormous difference between the Biblical description and the data in the Qur’an concerning the Creation,” wrote Mr. Bucaille. (Ibid. p. 148). The Bible says that Adam and Eve were given a life sentence of sorrow and hardship for eating of the forbidden tree–(Genesis 3:16-19). But the Qur’an says that Allāh forgave them–(Qur’an 2:37; 20:122). The Bible says woman is a ‘defiler’ of man–(Rev. 14:4). But the Qur’an says woman is the “twin-half” of man–(Qur’an 4:1; 7:189).  The Bible says that man was not created for the woman, but that the woman was created for the man–(1 Cor. 11:9). But the Qur’an says that man and woman were created for each other–(Qur’an 2:187; 4:1; 7:189; 30:21).

   The Bible says that the Flood of Noah covered the entire earth. But Allāh, God, reveals that only Noah’s people were destroyed –(Qur’an 25:37; 29:14; 71:25). Maurice Bucaille* has shown that this Flood of Noah could not have been a global occurrence.

            *(The Bible The Qur’an and Science, pp. 32-35. It may be asked, how then is the story of this Flood known in other cultures if it was not global? The answer is simple–Allāh, God, as Islam teaches, raised prophets among all peoples; thus, just as how God gave this revelation to the prophet of Israel and to the Prophet Mohammad, He could also have given this knowledge to those prophets of other nations who taught it to their respective peoples.  The erroneous belief that this deluge covered the entire world may have come from taking the “world” or “earth” of Noah’s environment to mean the entire world/earth).

   The Qur’an explains that Iblis (Satan) vowed to lead man astray because he was cast down from grace for disobeying God, because he considered himself superior to man–(Qur’an 7:11-18). But the Bible does not give any motive for the serpent’s opposition to God and for tempting the woman (Eve)–(Genesis 3:1-13). As the serpent seemed to belong to the kingdom of thebeast–(Genesis 3:1), and must have been an animal/reptile, it could not then, not having any faculty of reasoning and no freedom of choice, beguile the woman. (The serpent could not have been human.  Adam and Eve were the only humans at that time. If the Devil had spoken through the serpent then the serpent was a helpless pawn and should not have been the one to be “cursed” to crawl upon his belly and eat dust all his life–(Gen. 3:14). One who is possessed by the Devil is not responsible for his/her actions).

   If Mohammad wrote the Qur’an, it is remarkable that this mortal produced a Book that is superior to the Bible, which is claimed to be “Word of God.” If humans taught Mohammad, he should have been in error just as they were. If Mohammad copied the Bible he should have been in error just as the Bible.

   These truth/knowledge (which scientists have confirmed) and the prophecies of the Qur’an (some of which have manifested) are sufficient to refute atheism, and to establish Mohammad as the Messenger of Allāh, God. (As already shown, it was not Mohammad’s duty to convert Jews and Christians or anyone. Mohammad’s duty, as is clearly stated in the Qur’an, was only to deliver the Divine Message).

   89.(16) Nonie Darwish wrote that after the Quraish had abandoned their siege against the prophet at Madinah, “Mohammed gave the Jews of Medina the choice of death or conversion to Islam. They chose death. And eight hundred men were beheaded and their women and children sold into slavery. Mohammed himself took a captured Jewish woman, who had just lost her husband and all her male relatives, as a sexual slave.” (p. 15).

   Response:This is another piece of “independent thinker” twaddle.This is the story of the Bani Quraiza–(Qur’an 33:26). These Jews were guilty of treachery. Muhammad Ali comments: “The Bani Quraizah were in alliance with the Holy Prophet, and when the enemy laid siege to Madinah, they were bound to repel the attack; see 2:84a. Instead of this they sided with the invading army. Muir admits that “it was agreed that the Quraizah would assist the Quraish”, and though he doubts whether “they entered on active hostilities”, there is the surest testimony that they had made an agreement with the Quraish to attack the Muslims from within. Therefore, when the besieging army took to flight and the Quraizah returned to their fortress, it was besieged by the Holy Prophet, for to leave such an internal enemy unpunished would have been a source of ever-present danger to the safety of the Muslim community. They remained besieged for twenty-five days, and then expressed their willingness to surrender, on condition that they should submit to the sentence of punishment pronounced by Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh. Had they trusted the Prophet, he would probably have given them the same punishment as he gave to the Qainuqa’ viz., emigration, but Sa‘d was exasperated by their treachery and his judgment was that the fighting men should be put to death and the rest made captives (B. 56:168). This was in accordance with the Jewish Law: “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deut. 20:12–14). Three hundred men suffered death under this sentence, and their lands fell into the hands of the Muslims.” The fate of these Jews was carved by their own hearts and heads and hands; not by Muhammad’s. 

   This Jewish woman that Nonie Darwish said Mohammad “took” was Safiyyah. And Mohammad did not “took” her.   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,”92 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.”93   

   The Jews fought fiercely 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.”94  

   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.95   

   Safiyyah: 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.”96 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 who could divorce her if he found anything unpleasant in her; 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 vilification and distortion against it, spirits on inexorably and  invincibly as Divinely decreed to prevail over all religions:  “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 Jewish and Christian 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,”97 near the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah.      

   90.(17) Nonie Darwish wrote: “Allāh made it clear in the Qur’an that Arabs are the best people ever created”–Qur’an 3:104, 110). (p. 15).

   Response:  This seems to be a misquote; Qur’an 3:104 is not about Arabs being the best people. Qur’an 2:143 states: And thus We have made you an exalted nation that you may be the bearers of witness to the people and (that) the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you. And We did not make that which thou wouldst have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels. And it was indeed a hard test except for those whom Allāh has guided. Nor was Allāh going to make your faith to be fruitless. Surely Allāh is Compassionate, Merciful, to the people.” To which Muhammad Ali comments: “The word in the original is wasat, which signifies the middle part of anything; and therefore, as being removed from either extreme, it signifies the best part of a thing, according to LL, who translates ummat wasat as meaning a just, equitable or good nation; that is, one not inclining to either extreme. The commentators explain wasat as meaning equitable and exalted (Rz, AH, Kf), and this sense fits the context. By making the Ka‘bah their qiblah, Allāh had made it known that they were the people, the Muslim nation, for whom Abraham had prayed (v. 128), and therefore they were the inheritors of all those Divine blessings which had been promised to the seed of Abraham.”

   Regarding Qur’an 3:110, Allāh says: You are the best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allāh And if the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are believers but most of them are transgressors.” Muhammad Ali explains: “Not only are the Muslims the chosen people of God, who are now called upon to be the standard-bearers of Truth in the world, but they are at the same time declared to be the best of the people that had ever been chosen for this purpose. This was no doubt due to the excellence of that Great Teacher who thoroughly purified them of the worst vices and made perfect the light within them. No prophet ever found a people in a worse condition, and none ever raised his people to such eminence. Note that the excellence of the Muslim people lies in their enjoining good and forbidding evil and in their great faith in Allāh. If they lose these characteristics, they lose their excellence as well.”

   It is to be noted that Muslims come not from one race of people but from all races. That Muslims enjoin good and forbid evil and believe in Allāh: Muslims enjoining good also requires Muslims doing good, and Muslims forbidding evil also requires Muslims avoiding evil; And belief in Allāh incorporates belief that Allāh is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute on Whom all depend; He begets not nor is He begotten; and there is none like Him; belief in all His Angels; all His Revealed Books; all His Prophets; belief in the Resurrection and Judgment. (It is to be noted, Allāh tells us to believe in all His “Revealed” Books; but some of the doctrines that are passing under God’s name are not Divine revelations, and thus Allāh also tells us what not to believe, such as inherited sin, vicarious atonement, Divinity of Jesus –son of God, Trinity, Mariolatry– karma, reincarnation, dualism, and polytheism. As shown in other presentations these doctrines have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and in the case of Christianity are also repugnant to reason). (See also item #142).

   91.(18) Nonie Darwish notes the saying of the Prophet Mohammad: “The Hour Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allāh, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”–Sahih Muslim 41:6985, Siddiqui.” (p. 16).

   Response: It is fair to say that all believers in God accept that prophets of God made prophecies through the knowledge of God. Through Allāh the Prophet Mohammad made dozens of prophecies in the Qur’an (Qur’an-prophecies) that have already manifested. Thus, this saying of the Prophet relating to the future must also be a prophecy (the future will tell).

   If this saying of the Prophet is an expression of hatred of Jews, then God saying in the Bible that the Israelites (Jews) are “treacherous,” “stiff-necked,” “rebellious,” “provocative,” and will “wander in the wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness” (and being wasted for forty years in the wilderness is worse than a quick death–Num. 14:33) must also be hatred of Jews; and Jesus ridiculing Jews as “vipers,” “evil and adulterous;” putting all the righteous blood from Adam to Zacharias, son of Barachias, unto their heads; that they will lose the kingdom of heaven; and be given the greater damnation of Hell (and damnation in hell is worse than Mohammad saying they will be killed)must also be hatred of Jews. Why then single out Mohammad and carp at him and for a saying he received from God? Surely, it is not dignity and maturity to do so.

            (Jews and Christians can deny/reject Mohammad but they cannot dispute/refute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership. Of all the claimants to Divine  Dispensation, Jesus included, Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim –the Qur’an with its propheciesscientific  pronouncements and inimitability being his proof. In fact, given the humanness of the Bible corrupt & obsolete and the conjectures surrounding Jesus –whether he is God/Trinity or not; whether he died for inherited sin or not; whereas some believe Jesus was killed, buried, and raised, “some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the cross. The Basilidans believed that some one else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel [about A.D.138] denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form,”98 coupled to the fact that   miracles, of which there is no evidence of them to substantiate and which even false Christs and false prophets can show, and sermons which a person of oratorical skills can deliver are no proofs of Divine office– but for Mohammad/Qur’an/Islam Jesus would have long since been relegated to the bin of myths and legends. It is the Qur’an/Islam/Mohammad that is keeping Jesus alive; and not only keeping him alive but has cleansed him and his mother, Mary, of the calumnies of “bastard” and “adulteress,” respectively, hurled on them by Jewish Fathers, and appareled them in rubious robes of righteousness and have secured for them today the unflagging allegiance of some one-and-one-half billion Muslims. And counting as Islam spirits on inexorably, invincibly, impregnably, as Divinely decreed to prevail over all religions! Allāh, God, truly is Great!  Subha-na Rabbayyal-A’laa! )

   92.(19) In His Qur’an 2:142-143 Allāh changed the Qibla from Jerusalem to the Ka’ba in Makkah. Nonie Darwish wrote: “Mohammad was sending the message that Muslims had thus replaced the Jews as the chosen people. But in Islam, the word chosen does not carry the same meaning of the Bible. The Jews regard being chosen as a heavy responsibility to follow God’s commandments and to repair the world. In Islam it simply means superiority.” (pp. 16-17)

   Response: (And to know this woman project herself as an authority on Islam. That Islam is superior to other religions has already been proven. As noted, Jews consider themselves to be “the most superior of all races,” which would include them being superior to you, Ms. Darwish). Jews may “regard being chosen as a heavy responsibility to follow God’s commandments and to repair the world,” the question is, are Jews observing this “heavy responsibility to follow God’s commandments and to repair the world”? Demonstrably not! If they were they would not have had adulterated God’s Book; they would not have coveted and schemed and massacred and kick Palestinians from their land, and for more than six tortuous decades subject them to all manner of inhumanities –take a cruise on the Internet, aware yourself of the atrocities Jews commit against Palestinians that are not reported in the Western media. If your stomach is not strong you might vomit. You can also read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism In The Real World; and Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; they’re free from the library!) Mostly, Jews would have kept their covenant with God and follow Mohammad/Islam. 

   Qiblahis the direction/station which Muslims face to offer our salaah/prayers. This Qiblah is the Ka’ba in Makkah. Allah instructed the Prophet Mohammad to face this Ka’ba during prayer–(Qur’an 2:143, 149-150). It was not Mohammad’s duty to get anyone to accept him as Messenger of Allah. His duty was only to preach the message of Allah–(Qur’an 24:54).

   Since Allah informed Mohammad that He instructed Abraham and Ishmael to purify His House for His righteous servants–(Qur’an 2:125, which House at Makkah is the first House of worship appointed for mankind–Qur’an 3:95), it is obvious that Mohammad was anxious for the House of Allah to be made the Qiblah for Muslims; and was wondering why the order to make this sacred (and first) House at Makkah the Qiblah was not yet given. As well, since Jerusalem was the center of the Israelite prophets –a brotherhood (of prophets) of which he himself was a member– Mohammad had no choice but to honor Jerusalem as the center of worship (until he received revelation to change to the Ka’ba at Makkah).

   This change in the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Makkah is also in keeping with the prophecy of Jacob that the kingship and prophethood shall leave the House of Israel at the arrival of Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); the prophecy of Moses that all are to follow the prophet like him–(Deut. 18:15-19), and the prophecies of Jesus that all are to follow the Comforter who will guide into “all truth–(John 14:15-16; 16:12-13) and that the kingdom of God will be taken from Jews and given to another people: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–(Matthew 21:43).(Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– has shown in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible that Mohammad is the Shiloh; as well as the fulfillment of many other prophecies of the Bible. See also Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures).

   As shown in item #90, the very statement that Muslims “enjoin good and forbid evil” (which includes Muslims doing good and avoiding evil) “crucifies” the absurdity of Nonie Darwish’s charge that “in Islam, the word chosen does not carry the same meaning of the Bible.” However, arguably, as Muslims enjoin good and forbid evil (which, undoubtedly, other religionists as well as non religionist do) the fact that of all Scriptures the Qur’an alone teaches the universality of God and requires the belief in all His Angels, Books and Prophets, Resurrection and Judgment, this alone makes Islam “superior” to all other religions. 

   93.(20) ND: “The fate of the two other religions (Judaism and Christianity) in Arabia was sealed when Mohammed declared he was the last and final prophet, making Jews and Christians the enemy of Islam. Islam thus forbade the existence of any other religion in the Arabian Peninsula. As a result, both Jews and Christians were severely punished, expelled, and killed.” (p. 17).   

   Response: (Didn’t Christians kill/expel Muslims and Jews from Jerusalem and Spain; and are Muslims and Jews not forbidden in Vatican City? Didn’t Christians incinerate Jews in 1400’s Vienna for their refusal to bow to the useless and unGodly crucifix?) However, Jews and Christians were not “severely punished” and “killed.” Jews and Christians were present in Arabia till the time of U’mar, the second Caliph. ‘Umar, rightly, booted them out for their treachery and disloyalty. (For the Jewish tribe, Bani Quraiza, who was guilty of treachery, see item #89). As for the other Jewish tribes in Arabia. Qur’an 59:2 speaks about the banishment of the Bani Nadir, and Muhammad Ali explains:

“The banishment spoken of here took place six months after the battle of Uhud, when the Bani Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Madinah, who had at first entered into a covenant with the Holy Prophet, showed signs of treachery and were punished with banishment (Bokhari) ….The following detailed account is given by Rz (Razi): The Bani Nadir 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 Sufyan.  As a consequence, Ka’b was murdered, and the Holy Prophet told the tribe to leave Madinah. They wanted ten days for preparation, but ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy (the head of the hypocrites) advised them not to leave Madinah but to fight against the Prophet, promising the help of his own men. He also assured them that, if they were compelled to go forth, he would go with them.  So they fortified themselves within their strong-holds. After having remained besieged for twenty-one days, and having despaired of help from the hypocrites, they surrendered.  The Prophet raised the siege on condition that they should depart from Madinah. With the exception of two families that chose to remain at Khaibar, they all went to Syria.

Dr. Prideaux says that the Prophet ordered a party of the Muslims to pursue the emigrants, and that thus they were all put to death. Sale has shown in his note on this verse that the incident from which Dr. Prideaux draws this strange conclusion relates really to the murder in cold blood of seventy Muslims, who, being invited to preach Islam, were treacherously put to death by an Arab tribe.”

“The Bani Nadir, being granted ten days in which to collect and take with them such of their property as they desired, devoted the time at their disposal to the destruction of their houses, lest they should be a source of strength to the Muslims.  What remained of them was demolished by the Muslims.”99

   No Head of State would tolerate such treachery within its midst. In the twentieth century (and the twenty-first also) people are expelled from their homes, lands, and countries for far less than treachery. If Mohammad wanted to execute the Bani Nadir nothing could have prevented him once they had surrendered. If Mohammad wanted their properties he would not have given them time to collect and to destroy, he would have let them go “empty-handed.”

   The Jews of Khaibar:The Prophet expelled the Jews from Khaibar because they had proven themselves treacherous. If the Prophet had dealt unjustly with the Jews how were they able to return to Khaibar for them to be expelled a second time (by ‘Umar)?  These Jews and Christians were not expelled for their religion. If religion was the factor they would not have been allowed back after their first banishment. These Jews and Christians were guilty of “conspiracy and sedition.”

   About non-Muslims and religion and these Jews and Christians expelled by ‘Umar, again Muhammad Ali: “Non-Muslims enjoyed perfect freedom of religion. Even on grave charges of conspiracy and sedition he gave them but light punishment.  When the Jews of Khaibar and the Christians of Najran were on some such charges, ordered to settle elsewhere, they were at the same time paid the full value of their properties from the public treasury. Orders were also issued to allow them special concessions on the journey as well as to exempt them from jizyah for some time.” (The Early Caliphate, p. 118).  People in today’s nations who are guilty of conspiracy and sedition face lifetime in jail, if not the firing squad. Instead of bemoaning the expulsion of these Jews and Christians –which is hardly any punishment for such a crime– the critics should be praising the Prophet and ‘Umar for their leniency.

   Like the previous Jewish tribes –Quraizah, Nadir and Qaynuqa, who proved treacherous and were vanquished by the Prophet– the Jews of Khaybar were also inimical towards the Prophet. They “were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon” the Prophet; “their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of the Quraysh,” as noted by Muhammad Husayn Haykal. After intense fighting, the Muslims triumphed over the Jews.  In despair, the Jews “begged for peace.”  The Prophet “accepted their plea and permitted them to stay on their land whose title now passed to him by right of conquest.” The Jews were allowed to farm the land. Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes: ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah, Muhammad’s deputy for the division of the Khaybar crops, dealt justly with the Jews, following in this regard the instructions of the Prophet himself.  So honorable was his conduct that he returned to them copies of the Torah seized by the Muslims in the course of the hostilities –(and it is claimed that the Qur’an says to “hate” Jews and that “Islam thus forbade the existence of any other religion in the Arabian Peninsula”). This is in direct contrast to the manner in which the Romans treated the Jews when they conquered Jerusalem and burned all the sacred writings they found in the temple and trampled them under foot. It is also far from the Christian persecution of the Jews in Spain where every Torah seized was put to the torch.”100

   That Mohammad gave sanctuary to those who were a deadly threat to him and his followers and had them benefit from half of their produce is yet another proof of Mohammad’s mercy and benevolence and tolerance. A tolerance afforded by the sublime spirit of Islam.  These Jews not only received half of their crops from Mohammad; most importantly, they were allowed to keep their heads. They were doubly fortunate. (Instead of blindly condemning “dhimmitude,” Bat Ye’or, unless she is a descendant of Khazar or European converts to Judaism, should give ‘gratitude.’ But for Mohammad’s and ‘Umar’s mercy her ascendants may have been wiped out and she never born. And Nonie Darwish needs to talk/write less and use her head more). 

   As for there being no two religions in Arabia. The Jews had proven themselves treacherous. They had strong economic power and fortifications. That they would align themselves against the Prophet in the future was a real threat. The Prophet was also alert that “the lords of Christendom who dominated the world through Byzantium might be stirred to attack in resentment against those who had brought Christianity to an end in Najran and other places in Arabia.”101 With Jewish and Christian alliance the Muslims would be crushed. Thus, there was only one way to have peace in Arabia, remove this imminent threat. That “there should be no two faiths in Arabia” only means that there is to be only “one” power. Jews were allowed to remain and practice their religion.

   No ruler would tolerate threats on its soil. This is what America and Britain are doing in Iraq (as they say) remove the power of Saddam Hussein to implement democracy.  This is what Canada is doing in Afghanistan (as she says) eradicating the Talibans to implement democracy.  And Saddam and the Talibans were not even in America, Britain and Canada; nor were they treasonous/guilty of aggression against these States; nor imminent threats to these States; as Jews were in all three categories in Arabia. Regarding Christians in Muslim lands, T. W. Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam has noted what may very well be a timeless observation: “Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to distrust of their loyalty, excited by the intrigues and interference of Christian foreigners and the enemies of Islam,   or to the bad feeling stirred up by the treacherous or brutal behaviour of the latter towards the Musalmans (Muslims).”(p. 77. Emphasis added).  

   That there should be no two religions (in Palestine) is what Jesus intended when he said that those who are not with him is against him and ordered that his enemies against his rule be brought and slain–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27). And as pointed out at the beginning, if Christianity was lording anyplace non-Christians would have to choose between the sword, exile or worship the Christian’s pagan son of God or God of the womb, or in the case of the Vienna Jews, the inferno.

   In contrast, Mohammad did not charge that those who are not with him is against him nor call for the slaughter of his enemies. But in fact, Mohammad forgave his most rabid enemies –those who, for twenty-three grueling years, persecuted him, tried to assassinate him, exiled him, pursued him, and warred on him. And fifteen hundred years after his death, his benevolence and mercy extended to his enemies vanquished at Makkah is yet to be equaled; much more surpassed!

   Would Christians (not to be confused with Secularists) tolerate two religions in America?

   -Christians did not want two religions in Vienna where they roasted Jews.

   -Christians did not want two religions in Spain from where they booted Muslims and Jews.

   -Christians did not want two religions when they completely wiped out the pagans after grafting paganism onto Jesus’ head.

   -Jesus did not want two religions in Palestine when he ordered that his enemies who didn’t want him to rule be brought to him and slain. (Jesus saying in Matthew 22:21 to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is not about a separation of Church and State. Jesus was giving justice. It would have been interesting to note Jesus’ response had someone say to him that the metal from which the coin was minted belongs to God. If Jesus was lording any place he would apply the Biblical law from one border to the other, even to the point of heaven and earth passing away–(Matt. 5:17-18).

   Do Christians want two religions in Vatican City, and in Jerusalem? It is doubtful that the Papacy would accept even a non-Catholic religion in Vatican city; much more a Muslim or Jew or Hindu shrine.

   94.(21) Nonie Darwish made mention of the Muslim Paradise with “virgins;” “trees; fruits; shade; rivers of wine, milk, and honey; and even beautiful little boys like pearls to serve “the savior of the tribe of Islam.” (p. 19).

   Response:  (And what is the Christian’s heaven like? What will the “savior” of Christianity get? What will the Christian woman get?) Are the beautiful “high-bosomed“ women and attractive male servers at restaurants there to cater to the diners belly or their loins? And what does the Paradise of the Bible promises its men and women? reading past-time stories and watching the lion strip hay like the ox; if they will get to paradise, that is. (See item #23).

   95.(22)  Nonie Darwish states: “After Mohammed’s death, the struggle over his legacy and the fear of loosing Arabian culture and Islam, which preserved it, reappeared when many Muslims abandoned Islam. Muslims were heading for a catastrophe. Muslim leaders used violent and bloody reddah (meaning ‘bringing back to Islam”) warfare to reclaim the large number who had left the faith.” (p. 20).

Response:
True, many tribes in the countryside railed against authority after the Prophet’s death. But these were the newly-converted who were not yet taught Islam. Whereas in Makkah where those knowledgeable in Islam were, there was not a single case of dissent or rebel against authority. The process of teaching representatives from these newly-converted tribes and have them return and teach their people was time-consuming. Thus at the death of the Prophet they, being ignorant of Islam, returned to their tribal life. In the words of Muhammad Ali:

“It is not historically true, however, that the whole of Arabia renounced Islam. There were many people who were true to the faith but whose connection with Madinah through the temporary ascendancy of the pretenders, was cut off. They were neither apostates nor the confederates of the rebels though, owing to the pressure of the latter, they could not openly side with the central government. There were many others whose only contention was that no zakat –(a 2-1/2 percent tax on the rich to help the poor)– should be levied on them…. (Given their tribal living) They could not appreciate the value of a central public treasury for purposes of nation building: hence their objection to the payment of zakat. Taking advantage of the general confusion, they refused to pay this tax. But Abu Bakr was particularly strict on this point. National unity, national solidarity, was his foremost concern, and refusal to pay taxes, if unchecked, was bound to dismantle the whole of the fabric. The safety of Islam as a faith was bound up with that of the Muslims as a nation. Hence the Caliph’s resolve at all costs to suppress this no-tax movement. He issued an ultimatum to all such tribes as had with-held zakat that war would be declared against them unless they duly paid. Refusal was tantamount to revolt.  There were thus three different causes that contributed to the general confusion at the Prophet’s death. Firstly, there were those who were the dupes of false prophets. Secondly, those who objected only to payment of taxes into the central treasury, and as such was confused with the rebels. Thirdly, there were those who were true to Islam but cut off from Muslims: not possessing the strength to fight the insurgents, they remained practically neutral….Tulaihah, one of the false prophets, sent his brother to rouse the Bedouin tribes to the north of Madinah” (After defeating the Bedouins). “Abu Bakr now embarked on the extermination of the insurrection, root and branch….It must be understood that the object of these campaigns was no more than the suppression of rebellion. It is legitimately open to every government to punish rebels, to execute their ring-leaders and, if necessary, to declare war on them. But over and above this, there were several other reasons that called for action. In the first place, these rebels had wantonly shed the blood of peaceful Muslim citizens here and there, causing disorder and disturbance. Again, they were out to extirpate the rule of Islam.”(MA has dealt in detail on this topic in his The Early Caliphate. Mat. taken from pp.20-26. Emphasis added).

   Evidently, these rebels were fought not for apostasy but only for their refusal to pay zakat, which payment is a command from Allāh–(Qur’an 2:43, 110, 177, 277; 5:55; 58:13; 73:20). In contrast, it is Christianity that commands death for apostates, and, after sucking dry everything pagan, took the sword to the “heathen” breast. (See items #11 and 26). 

   96.(23) Nonie Darwish opines: “Mohammed left his followers with an ambiguous, inconsistent, and incomplete book, which by itself could not provide the foundation for an Islamic constitution.” (p. 20).

   Response:There is no ambiguity in the Qur’an, only a lack of one’s meditating on it–(Qur’an 4:82). The verses of the Qur’an are of literal meaning and allegorical–(Qur’an 3:6). The guidance necessary for our moral, social, spiritual and intellectual upliftment are clearly expressed. The Qur’an in which nothing is omitted and explains all things–(6:38; 12:111; 16:89; 17:89; 18:54; 39:27); contains the best teachings and comprises of all the right Books and guides to that which is most upright–(12:1-3; 39:27; 98:3; 17:9); and is the best Message–(  7:185; 39:23; 77:50); and therefore contains all that are needed for every facet of life, is enough to formulate any law that society should require. Thus, to charge that the Qur’an is an “ambiguous, inconsistent, and incomplete book, which by itself could not provide the foundation for an Islamic constitution” betrays total ignorance of the Qur’an. Whatever laws Muslim jurists have formulated or should formulate are to be in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an.

   As already shown in item #84, the Qur’an does not require death for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft etc; and there is no honor killing. It is the Bible –Judaism and Christianity– that requires death for these actions/ practices. In Islam there is one law for everyone. No caliph or jurist or ruler is “above the law.” There is no “brutal” law in Islam, show it to me. From your perspective there are brutal and unjust laws in the Bible. The most glaring of which is the stoning to death of the damsel without the “tokens of virginity.” And a woman may not bleed (or the hymen can be ruptured) for reason other than sexual intercourse. In which event innocent “damsels” would be murdered. And may have been murdered.

   In contrast, it is the Bible that is an incomplete Book:

   -What description did Jesus give about Heaven/Paradise? None! We have to ask Mohammad. (All Jesus said was that there are many mansions in his Father’s house: John 14:2. For more on Jesus’ alleged return see Jesus-second coming). 

   -What description did Jesus give about Hell? None! We have to ask Mohammad. (All Jesus said was that Hell was an “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched” in which there will be “wailing and gnashing of teeth”: Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43; Matt. 13:42. Though Islam teaches that Hell is not forever –it is proportional to the degree of one’s sin: Qur’an 11:107; 78:21-26. See Muhammad Ali comm. on these verses).

   -What did Jesus say about: the origin of life? Nothing! We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 21:30).

   -What what did Jesus say about the fetus and its development in the womb? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 22:5; 39:6).

   -What did Jesus say about women’s menstruation? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad-(Qur’an 2:222).

   -What did Jesus say about man being created into different tribes, colors and languages? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 30:22; 49:13).

   -What did Jesus say about how milk is produced in cattle? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad(Qur’an 16:66).

   -What didJesus say about bees making honey? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–Qur’an 16:68-69). 

   -What did Jesus say about the sun and moon and orbits? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad.-(Qur’an 21:33; 36:40).

   -What did Jesus say about the moon’s light? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 10:5; 25:61; 71:16)

   -What did Jesus say about particles smaller than atom? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 10:61).

   -What did Jesus say about the formation of rain clouds? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 30:48; 35:9).

   -What did Jesus say about the formation of the universe? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 41:11).

   -What did Jesus say about the mountains stabilizing the earth? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 16:15; 31:10).

   -What did Jesus say about salt and sweet water? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 25:53; 55:19-20).

   -What did Jesus say about the expansion of the universe? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 51:47).

   -What did Jesus say about space travels? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 15:14-15; 55:33). 

   -What did Jesus say about there being more than one world? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 1:1; 56:77-80).

   -What did Jesus say about the existence of living-beings on other planets? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 19:93-95; 42:29).

   -What scientific signs did Jesus foretell at the approaching doomsday? None. We have to ask Mohammad –the Sun will fold up–(Qur’an 81:1); Stars will fall, become dust-colored (lose light)–(Qur’an 81:2); The heaven will look like molten copper; red hide–(Qur’an 70:6-8; 55:37); Ocean will boil–(Qur’an 81:6; 82:3);  The Sun and Moon will join together–(Qur’an 75:8-9).

   -What did Jesus say about the months? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 9:36).

   -What did Jesus say about the sun and moon and the computation of time? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 2:189; 6:96; 10:5).

   -What did Jesus say about the stars and guidance? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(Qur’an 6:97).

   -What did Jesus say about diseases and their cures? Nothing. We have to ask Mohammad–(For several cures taught by the Prophet see Bokhari, Vol. 7). (Details to the above scientific statements can be found in Qur’an-science).

    For matters in all facets of life we have to ask the Comforter  who guided us into “all truth”–Mohammad! Islam/Mohammad is the answer to all problems. Yes, Islam/Mohammad even tells us how to make “pasta.” (Allāh reveals that He has left nothing out of His Qur’an–[Qur’an 6:38; 12:111; 16:89]. Thus, Islam is the answer to all that are needed for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment. In fact, Islam is the answer to all problems. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 16:43: “And We sent not before thee any but men to whom We sent revelation –so ask the followers of the Reminder if you know not–” While this verse is dealing with men/revelation, it can be applied to every aspect of life where a person does not know something; all he/she needs do is “ask” someone who knows; thus, if a person does not know how to make “pasta” then he/she should “ask” someone who knows how to make pasta. Allāh/Islam directs us how to know. Allāh also tells the Prophet [and us] to pray for knowledge [Qur’an 20:114]; and the Prophet instructed us to go even to China to seek knowledge and also to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave).

   As he did not give “all truth,” Jesus is not the answer to all needs. If Jesus was the answer to all needs, the way to salvation, the only way, the truth, and the life–(Acts 4:12; John 14:6)–and died for sins, and if his Gospel was for all time there would be no need for another Comforter to guide into “all truth”–(John 14:16; 16:13); or for “another angel” and “everlasting gospel” to come–(Rev. 14:6-7. As the everlasting Gospel was yet to come, and was brought by Mohammad, THE BIBLE IS RENDERED OBSOLETE).

   Nor would Jesus have prophesied that the kingdom of God would be taken from Jews and given to another people–(Matt. 21:43). This leader –who will be the last from God as he would bring “all truth”– to this new people and to the world is the last name through which man is saved; and this “Comforter” or “another angel” is the Prophet Mohammad, and the “everlasting gospel” is the Qur’an, known also as “good news”–(Qur’an 16:89, 102); and is the Book for all nations–(6:91; 12:104); and having “all truth”–(6:38; 16:89). And the Prophet Mohammad is the only one to preach with a loud voice for man to “Fear God and give glory to Him”–(Rev. 14:6-7); Allāh, God, reveals to him (Mohammad) to:

“Say, O mankind,

surely I am the Messenger of Allah

to you all”

“So fear Allāh and obey me”

“And glorify Him morning and evening”

(Qur’an 7:158; 21:107; 34: 28; 3:50; 33:42).

   97.(24) Nonie Darwish: “Islam gave Muslim men up to four wives, but Mohammed had up to eleven wives at a time in addition to concubines.” (p. 21).

   Response: As explained polygamy in Islam is an exception, not the rule. Mohammad had no concubines. As shown, concubinage and Islam are not compatible. The reasons for Mohammad’s many wives are manifold:

(1) Social–married Safiyyah, a high-born Jewess captive of war to maintain her social status,

(2) Federal–to effect unity between tribes; one such marriage was to Hafsa; the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Aisha was three-fold: Divine revelation–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #15; to effect unity between tribes; and to put an end to marriages with pre-teen girls (see item #113). 

(3) Diplomatic–accepted Mary, the Coptic, as gift from ruler of Egypt,

(4) Religious expediency–married many widows of war, (5) Divine instructions–married Zainab as per Qur’an 33:36-37. (Regarding the critics so-called “scandal” see Zainab  and .Hafsa  And for the critic’s charge that Mohammad was a “child molester” see ‘Aisha & Mohammad;  Mohammad-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple). 

   For twenty-five years Mohammad lived a life of celibacy.  For twenty-nine years, from 25-54, he lived in a monogamous marriage with a woman fifteen years his senior.  Only from 54 did he enter into multiple marriages. After the death of his first wife, Khadijah, Mohammad married Saudah, “a widow of advanced age;” then ‘Aisha; Hafsah, a widow; Zainab, “daughter of Khuzaimah,” a widow; Umm Salmah, a widow; Zainab, the former wife of Zaid; Umm Habibah, a widow; Juwairiyah, Maimunah, and Safiyyah, three widows taken as war captives, whose marriages “in each case” “led to the union and pacification of a whole tribe;” and in the case of his marriage to Juwairiyah “a hundred families” of her tribe, “the Bani Mustaliq” “was at once liberated by the Muslims;” and Mary, the Coptic.102   

   That Mohammad was allowed many wives more than Muslims are allowed is not without merit. As Prophet, whenever there was war and tribes were defeated Mohammad, by marrying from among these defeated tribes, not only brought unity between tribes but also brought liberation to the tribes/captives, as noted above. His many wives also served as teachers to the growing number of reverts to Islam. Even Solomon married into tribes to effect unity: “To secure diplomatic and commercial treaties Solomon contracted marriage with various princesses”–(Ency. Brit; 15th Ed; Vol 2, p. 913). (As shown in item #6 the Bible –Judaism and Christianity– allows polygamy. Solomon, who is said to be wise, had a thousand wives and concubines in total and his son, Rehoboam, had more than six dozen wives and concubines in total. And Nonie Darwish rails over Mohammad’s “eleven wives.” But for her anti-Islam/anti-Mohammad/anti-Muslim veil of hatred Nonie Darwish cannot see her Christian Fathers loose loins. 

  98.(25) Nonie Darwish states: “All traditional Egyptian marriages have a virginity check.” (p. 31)

   Response: Aren’t brides of the British crown-prince subjected to “virginity check”?Egyptians may have this “virginity check” but Islam does not require it. Islam does not require proof of a woman’s virginity after consummation of her marriage either. It is Christianity (and Judaism) that requires a “virginity check” on  the damsel, the absence of which would result in her being stoned to death (honor killing): “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).

   Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity; and exhorts its women (and men) to carnal purity. Allāh requires the Muslim male and female to do our own “virginity check,” in fact we are required to even check on our acts, such as amorous speech and touching, which could lead to sullying our innocence:  “And go not nigh to fornication/adultery: surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way”–(Qur’an 17:32; zina means sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other, and includes both adultery and fornication); “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women…and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard…—Allāh has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward;” and the illustrious Messenger of Allāh, Mohammad, is reported to have said in words to the effect: guard what is between the cheeks (tongue/ speech) and what is between the legs (genitals/chastity) and he will guarantee us Paradise. Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise.

   99.(26). Nonie Darwish: “The Muslim marriage contract is traditionally called Akd Nikkah, and the literal; meaning of the word nikkah in Arabic is “sexual intercourse.” “The Sharia marriage contract is essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his wife or wives.” (pp. 31, 34).

   Response: What utter crud! Sexual intercourse is the primary function of marriage. Marriage is only complete after sexual intercourse. Allāh says marriage is a sacred agreement/contract (mithaq)–(Qur’an 4:21). Allāh created man and woman to be mates of the other, and has put love and compassion and mercy between them that he might peace and comfort in her; that they are friends of each other and a garment to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify and conceal faults– and that women have rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). Thus, a Muslim marriage is based on faith and love and equality. Marriage which is a sacred contract in which both parties are mates of the other, have mutual rights and in which either party can seek divorce, this marriage could not be said to be “granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his wife or wives” or to be a “form of slavery.” Such a claim reflects sheer stupidity.

   Whether in Islam or any religion or non-religion a wife can be “replaced.” As well, husbands can be replaced. Wives and husbands in monogamous marriages are not safe from either spouse having other sexual partners. Whereas the Muslim woman has rights as those against her and can divorce and remarry, as shown at the beginning it is the Christian’s marriage which is “essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his wife or wives.” Here are the proofs again:

   -“Unto the woman He (God) said ….thy desire shall be to THY HUSBAND, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE–(Gen. 3:16).

   -“Let the woman learn in SILENCE with ALL SUBJECTION. But I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN but to be IN SILENCE–(1 Tim. 2:11-12);

   -“And Adam was not deceived BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION –(1Tim. 2:14. Allah tells us that Adam and Eve were both deceived; and were forgiven–Qur’an 2:36-37; 7:20-22).

   – “Neither was the man created for the woman; BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN–(1 Cor. 11:9); and 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. Allāh tells us that man and woman were created from the same essence and He made them to be mates of the other and puts love and compassion between them and that he might find comfort (not only sexual release) in her–Qur’an 4:1; 7:189; 16:72; 30:21; 39:6; 42:11).

   -“he (MAN) is the IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD: but the WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN. For the man is NOT of the woman; but the WOMAN OF THE MAN”–(1 Cor. 11:7-8).

   -“WIVES, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORDAs the Church is subject unto Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS IN EVERY THING – “And the wife see that SHE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND–(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33. The man being told to love his wife does not mean she is free from bondage. People also “love” their dogs and other pets and even bequeath fortunes to them. And Paul also instructs masters to be kind to their slaves–Ephesians 6:9; Col. 4:1).

   Unlike the Muslim woman who has the right to divorce, the Christian woman has no right to divorce and is either doomed to live in a loveless, miserable, and horrible marriage ” –she is strangulated to marriage-misery to “till death do us part”–or risk the eternal stigma of “adulteress;” here is the declaration of no less a personality than Jesus the Christian son of God and even God as Christian’s say Jesus is God: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity (“fornication” in another translation), makes her COMMIT ADULTERY; and WHOEVER MARRIES A DIVORCED WOMAN COMMITS ADULTERY;” “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another COMMITS ADULTERY; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband COMMITS ADULTERY” –(Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18. A survey should be carried out to learn how many such “adulterers” there are in Christendom).

   -“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he had FOUND SOME UNCLEANNESS in her: then let him WRITE HER A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, and give it in her hand, and SEND HER OUT OF HIS HOUSE….And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand….Her former husband which sendeth her away, may NOT take her again to be his wife, after that she is DEFILED; for that is ABOMINATION BEFORE THE LORD” –(Deut.24:1-4. Talk about “easy” divorce. This takes the crown. Notably, unlike Islam which prescribes alimony for the divorced wife and puts no prohibition to her remarrying, Jesus not only put the stigma of “adultery” on the woman and man, he made no mention of alimony for the divorced wife –a “Bill of divorcement” does not necessarily have to include alimony; but only to make the divorce formal. Also unlike Islam, the Christian’s God and son of God gave no prescription for child custody remedy but left it to the parents to slug it out. And slug it out in the secular court). 

   And the classic woman-hater. Christianity condemns woman as the “DEFILER” of men. Speaking about the 144,000 who will sit with Jesus (who will be Jews –non-Jews note well–and will all be MEN) the Bible says: “but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; for they are VIRGINS”–(Rev: 14:3-4. God created man and woman to “fill the earth” and instilled in them passions for companionship to effect this; Christians view this Divine scheme as sacrilege).

   100.(27). Nonie Darwish wrote: “Even the Qur’an itself tells the wife that she can be replaced: “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” –(Qur’an 66:5). Fear and distrust is everpresent in the mind of the Muslim wife, who even if her husband never marries another, must thank her lucky stars for her husband’s faithfulness. His faithfulness to her was never a divine order from Allah.” (p. 35).

   Response: (Since a Muslim wife has rights as those against her, and as marriage is a contract, a Muslim husband also can be replaced–Qur’an 2:228; 4:21; 4:128-130; 2:229; Bokhari Vol. 7, #197).

   Can’t a Christian and other non-Muslim wife also be replaced?In fact whereas Allāh regards divorce as a shameful deed and only allows it after all avenues of reconcilement have been exhausted, Christian wives can be replaced even if the husband is not pleased with her hygiene or for any other reason he fancies–(See item #99). (Perhaps a survey can be carried out to learn how many Muslim wives are “replaced” compare to Christian wives being “replaced”). As noted above, Allāh reveals that He created man and woman to be mates of the other; that he has put love and mercy and compassion between them; that they are friends and protectors of one another; and that husbands and wives are garments of the other –to protect, comfort, beautify and conceal faults. Thus it is preposterous to claim that the Muslim husband’s “faithfulness to her (his wife) was never a divine order from Allāh;” and that  “fear and distrust is everpresent in the mind of the Muslim wife.” 

   This verse of Qur’an 66:5 is in reference to the Prophet’s wives making demands for worldly goods, which is in reference to Qur’an 33:28-29: “O Prophet say to thy wives, if you desire this world’s life and its adornments, come, I will give you a provision and allow you depart a goodly departing. And if you desire Allāh and His Messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then surely Allāh has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward.” To which Muhammad Ali comments:

            “The introduction of the subject of the Holy Prophet’s simplicity in domestic life is most fitting here. The Muslims were now growing powerful and wealthier. The victory at Badr, and the possession of the lands and property of the Quraizah, had increased their wealth. It was natural, in the circumstances, that the wives of the Prophet should desire to be furnished with better necessities of life than they had previously enjoyed. But just at this time we find a revelation enjoining the strictest simplicity upon them. These strictures could not emanate from an impostor, nor even from a man of the world whose power and wealth were increasing daily. If the Prophet had allowed his wives to share in the general prosperity of the community, there could not have been the least objection. But he received a revelation which deprived him and those most nearly related to him of those material benefits which others could easily acquire. The splendours of this world could be obtained, and were not forbidden to any Muslim, but such transitory vanities were not to be admitted into the household of God’s Prophet. As he possessed the means, his wives would be allowed to depart with rich and ample gifts, if such was their desire. This passage also throws light on the object of the Prophet’s marriages, for if his object were sensual enjoyment, he could not have been ready to sacrifice the ease and comforts attendant upon mere carnal desire to the retention of that Spartan simplicity enjoined upon his household.”

   It is not presumptuous to say that the three most notable passions of men are power, wealth, and glamorous women; (and in the case of women, comfort and pleasure). The wives of the Prophet are here told that if they consider themselves as women of sophistication and above a life of simplicity and strictures, which as wives of the Prophet they are to observe, then Allah will replace them with wives who are devout from both categories of women –matrons and virgins. As the Qur’an is guidance for Muslims to be modest and moderate, Allah has related this verse to be a red flag to Muslims of all times, who may be tempted to put desire before duty.

   Obviously the wives of the Prophet chose the rewards of the Hereafter over the temporary gloss of this life. As is noted in Qur’an 33:51 in which Allāh gave the Prophet the right to change his wives: Thou mayest put off whom thou pleasest of them, and take to thee whom thou pleasest. And whom thou desirest of those whom thou hadst separated provisionally, no blame attaches to thee.” And Muhammad Ali comments: “This verse must be read along with vv. 28 and 29, where a choice is given to the Prophet’s wives to remain with him or to depart. A similar choice is given here to the Prophet. And when his wives preferred to lead simple lives with him rather than seek worldly goods by leaving him, the Prophet was no less considerate for their feelings; for notwithstanding the choice given to him to retain such of his wives as he liked, he did not exercise this choice to the disadvantage of anyone of them, but retained them all, as they had chosen to remain with him. A reference is, indeed, contained to vv. 28 and 29 in the words that they should be pleased, all of them, with what thou givest them, which indicate that this was altogether a new arrangement in which both parties were given free choice and both sacrificed all other considerations to the sanctity of the marriage-tie.”

   What is to be noted also is that in the very next verse (33:52) the Prophet was not allowed to contract any other marriages after Allāh’s permission to him to change any or all of his present wives: “It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this, nor to change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to thee, except those whom thy right hand possesses. And Allāh is ever Watchful over all things.” Again, Muhammad Ali: “When the Prophet’s wives chose to remain with him, limitation was placed upon the Holy Prophet, viz., that he should not take any other wife. The Prophet did not contract any marriage after the seventh year of the Hijrah, when this verse was revealed. This is another limitation, viz., that it was not after this allowed to the Prophet to divorce anyone of those who had chosen to remain with him.”

   In contrast to Islam which allows the woman to initiate divorce and remarry, as noted in item #99 the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, says whoever puts away his wife except for “fornication” causes her to commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman also commits adultery. Thus, fear of being left to molt away her beautiful and youthful self in a pleasure-less life or risk being labeled “adulteress” from earth all the way to the Hereafter and in Hell is “everpresent in the mind of the” Christian “wife, who even if her husband never marries another, must thank her lucky stars for her husband’s faithfulness. His faithfulness was never a divine order from” Yahweh/Jehovah/ Jesus, as she could have been sold by her father into slavery, is  decreed to be ruled over by her husband and in all subjection, is  only an object of sexual release to avoid fornication and is a “defiler” and betrayer of man.

   Whereas Muslims are expected to live together in harmony till death, Allāh knowing human frailties He enjoin that in the event that the partners should separate that they are to do so amicably and in good friendship–(Qur’an 2:229). In contrast, as stated, Christianity yokes the woman to a life of misery and suffering “till death” or risk being burdened by the millstone of “adulteress” (and even to be stoned to death as adulterers are to be) all the way into hell.  

   And as already shown there is no “easy divorce” in Islam; no “secret” and “temporary” marriages; no concubinage. There is easy divorce in Christianity–(Deut. 24:1-4; John Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18). Regarding alimony, see items #20 and 99.  

   101.(28) Nonie Darwish notes Qur’an 4:24 which says (as translated by Muhammad Ali): And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (are forbidden) (this is) Allāh’s ordinance to you. And lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage, not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit (by marrying), give them their dowries as appointed. And there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed (of dowry). Surely Allāh  is ever Knowing, Wise.” And Nonie Darwish comments: “Muslim interpreters of this verse say that it is about marriage and not sexual intercourse. The first section tells the Muslim man that married women are forbidden. But Muslim women cannot have two husbands anyway, so why would it specify that a Muslim man cannot marry them?” (pp. 36-37).  

   Response: (Couldn’t Allāh have “specified” “that a Muslim man cannot marry them” for emphasis?) Muhammad Ali explains the statement all married women are forbidden: It is thus forbidden to a man that he should marry a woman who is already married. An exception is made, however, regarding those whom your right hands possess, by which expression are generally meant in the Holy Qur’an those who are taken prisoners in war. It sometimes happened that such prisoners became converts to Islam, and therefore they could not be sent back. Such women it was lawful to take in marriage, even though they might not have been divorced formally by their former husbands. The words ma malakat aim.nu-kum may, however, also mean those whom you have lawfully taken in marriage, because lawful possession is clearly implied in the word aiman, which signifies covenant, marriage also being a covenant. The meaning of the passage may therefore be that all free women are prohibited to you except those whom you have lawfully married.”

   This verse (Qur’an 4:24) also seems to be a prohibition of polyandry –where one woman has more than one husband or more than one man have a common wife as in Hinduism where the five Pandava brothers had one common wife, Draupadi. This verse is also a prohibition against the other Hindu practice of Niyoga –contract marriages, in which a childless widow/ widower can have temporary marriages with up to twelve spouses, one after the other, for raising children. Swami Dayananda Saraswati quotes the Rig Veda as stating: “When a man is incapable of producing children, let him address his wife as follows: –O Thou that art desirous of getting children do not expect me to raise off-spring upon thee. Do thou, therefore, seek another husband.” The woman seeking to contract Niyoga, should, however, continue to serve her husband by marriage; similarly when a woman on account of some chronic disease is rendered incapable of bearing children, let her address the following words to her husband. “My Lord! Do not expect me to bear any children. Do thou, therefore, contract Niyoga with a widow.” (Light Of Truth, p. 137. Though the woman tells the husband to contract Niyoga with a “widow” it does not negate him from contracting Niyoga with a married woman seeing that Hinduism allows polygamy as well as polyandry. (For more on Niyoga see Hinduism & women).

   102. (29) Nonie Darwish: “It was the Judeo-Christian West that abolished slavery and embarrassed Muslims into it.” (p. 38)

   Response: That the Judeo-Christian West abolished slavery is hilarious.Here again, Nonie Darwish is confusing Secularism with Judaism and Christianity. Muslims may have been (and probably still are) engaged in slavery after the Prophet Mohammad, but it was Islam, nearly a thousand years before Secularism even had light, that abolished slavery.

   Only one statement is needed to show that Islam abolished slavery. Allāh says part of the State’s fund is to be used to buy slaves their freedom–(Qur’an 9:60). Clearly as Muslims are to pay to free slaves it would be a contradiction to say that Islam allows or did not abolish slavery.

   Secularism, perhaps inspired by Islam, doubtlessly abolished slavery in the Eighteenth century, but Islam carved its doom ten centuries earlier, in the Seventh century. That Mohammad had a slave must have been prior to Qur’anic injunctions demolishing slavery. The Qur’an/Islam not only requires that public funds be used for the emancipation of the slaves; it instructs us that 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); and there are several sayings of the Prophet Mohammad that induce freeing of slaves.

   The reason Islam did not enjoin immediate emancipation of slaves is not without merit, as explained by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din: “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 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.” It is only gross ignorance to claim that Islam did not abolish slavery or that Islam incorporates slavery from the pagans.

   In fact, whereas Islam enjoins that slaves be bought their freedom and prisoners of war are to be ransomed or set free in goodwill, in contrast, the Christian’s God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) not only allows daughters to be sold into slavery and to enslave “heathen” neighbors–(Ex. 21:7; Lev; 25:44) but also vowed to sell Gentile children to the Jews –in revenge for their looting the Jewish temples and selling Jews to the Grecians– who in turn will sell these Gentile sons and daughters to others: “And I will SELL your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall SELL them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it”–(Joel 3:8).  

   In clear contrast to Islam, it is Judaism and Christianity that allows and perpetuates this baneful institution. Jesus tolerated slavery –he had nothing to say against this gross enormity– and Paul, the Kingpin of Christianity, not only reinforces slavery but makes it mandatory that slaves be kind even to their ruthless masters in absolute submission: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” “Servants, be subject to your masters WITH ALL FEAR; not only to the good and gentle, BUT ALSO TO THE FROWARD” –(Ephesians 6:5; 1 Peter 2:18).

   That Islam abolished slavery is no “lie.” It is either ignorance or a “lie” for you or anyone to say that it did not! In contrast, it may be said that Pharaoh’s Egypt enslaving the Israelites pre-dated the Bible in this baneful institution. And that the Bible incorporates slavery from the pagans.

   Regarding Secularism abolishing slavery, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes: “In 1791 the number of European factories on the coast of Africa was 40; of these, 14 were English, 3 French, 15 Dutch, 4 Portuguese and 4 Danish. More than half the slave-trade was in British hands. Things went on till the middle of the eighteenth century, when public opinion became awakened against the ignoble trade. But it needed more than half a century to make that public opinion fully alive to the urgency of the question; and an enactment in 1811 brought the slave-trade to an end as far as the British Dominions were concerned. In the Danish possessions the traffic ceased in 1802. At the Congress of Vienna in 1814 the principle was acknowledged that the slave-trade should be abolished as soon as possible. In short, the slave traffic continued in various Christian countries up to 1850.”  

   (In comparison to Mohammad alone) “Consider the generations of men who worked to abolish slavery in this country (Britain) alone. Thrice a Bill was introduced into Parliament and thrice it was rejected. Consider the amount of money that England and other countries had to pay in order to bring the slave-trade to an end. England had to pay three hundred thousand pounds to the Portuguese for giving up the trade in the north of the Equator. She paid Spain an indemnity of four hundred thousand pounds to bring the Spanish trade to an end, and an enormous sum went to pay off the companies and private adventurers, INCLUDING THE CHURCH.” (Emphasis added).

   And in his The Preaching Of Islam Thomas Arnold notes from Tavernier that “some of the heads of the Church (in Georgia, Western Asia) actually sold the Christian boys and girls as slaves to the Turks and Persians.”–(p.100). 

   The Bible ALLOWS slavery, Jesus TOLERATED slavery, Paul REINFORCED slavery; but Mohammad, the Magnificent, single-handedly OBLITERATED slavery.

   103.(30) Nonie Darwish wrote: “In the Qur’an, the dowry is often called ujur –the word ujur in Arabic literally means “wage.” So to make the meaning less repulsive, dowry was given a different word from that of the Qur’an. It is now called mahr in Egypt. Mahr (dowry) is a technical term denoting the money that must be given to the woman in the marriage contract in exchange for enjoying her –it is simply payment for sex.” (pp. 38-39).

   Response: When the man enjoys the woman doesn’t the woman enjoy the man? how is it she does not have to give him anything?

   Significantly, whereas the word ujur is used for dowry in Qur’an 4:25, the word saduqat is used for dowry in Qur’an 4:4. (Using Ms. Darwish’s “wages” instead of dowry), Qur’an 4:4 states: “And give women their wages as a free gift.” The words as a FREE gift obliterates Nonie Darwish’s charge that the “wage”/dowry is a payment to the woman in exchange for sex. The “wage”/dowry could not be “free” and yet be payment for sex or for anything else.

   Regarding the word saduqah in Qur’an 4:4 Muhammad Ali explains: “The word used here is saduqat, pl. of saduqah (from sidq, meaning truth), which means dowry or a nuptial gift. Sadaqah meaning charity is a different word from the same root. Other words used for dowry are mahr and sudaq.Thus, the word mahr is used instead of “wage” to denote that, unlike a payment which is given in return for service rendered, it is given without the recipient having given anything in return for it).

   Thus, the word mahr is used, not “to make the meaning less repulsive,” but only to show the difference between something earned and something received without having done or given anything for it. Nonie Darwish may be Egyptian but she clearly needs to learn/understand the Arabic language.

   Again, Allāh says in Qur’an 2:237: And if you divorce them BEFORE you have touched them and you have appointed for them a portion, (pay) half of what you have appointed unless they forgo or he forgoes inwhose hand is the marriage tie. And it is nearer to dutifulness that you forgo. Nor neglect the giving of free gifts between you. Surely Allāh is Seer of what you do.” If “wage”/dowry is payment in exchange for sex how is it that the man is yet to give her half of the “wage”/dowry, and even to give her all, when he has not had sex with her?

   In fact even if the man divorces the woman without even consummating the marriage Islam requires him to give the woman “wage”/settlement: There is no blame on you if you divorce women while yet you have not touched them, nor appointed for them a portion. And provide for them, the wealthy according to his means and the straitened according to his means, a provision according to usage. (This is) a duty on the doers of good”– (Qur’an 2:236). Muhammad Ali notes: “The faridah or the portion is the dowry, so that even when no dowry has been agreed upon, and marriage has not been consummated, liberality must be shown to the divorced wife, and some provision should be made for her, even though the husband may be in straitened circumstances.” (This is another instance that shows the husband is to give alimony).

   And the Prophet Mohammad married a man and woman based on the amount of the Qur’an he (the man) had memorized–(Bokhari Vol. 3, 505; Vol. 6, 547, 548. Whether the hadith means that the man was to teach the woman what he knew of the Qur’an as dowry or not is irrelevant); the point is it would be preposterous to say that the man used the Qur’an as payment for sex from the woman.

   Contrastingly. Whereas the Muslim woman gets “wages” (dowry/mahr) as a “free gift” what does the Christian woman gets? The Christian woman gets nothing. This is not surprising, considering that (as shown in item #99) the Christian woman is regarded as only an object of sexual release for the man, to be ruled over by her husband and in all subjection. Thus, the Christian woman is like a horse –to be ridden; given some oats, and locked in the stable till the next riding. Christianity may not practice it and Secularism may not tolerate but it is their Scripture’s decree. And passage into heaven lies in following the Scripture; so much so that heaven and earth shall pass away but not one dot of the law shall be omitted from being observed. Let the Christians’ son of God and “God,” Jesus, rehearse it: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am NOT come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot (dot) or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled”(Amen!)–(Matt. 5:17-18).

   Even after the Christian man has full usage of the Christian woman’s “sexual organs” yet (as shown in item #99) she is cursed all the way into the next world as being a ‘defiler’ and betrayer of her man. Clearly, the Christian woman was created only “for the sake of meeting the sexual pleasure of men.” “Nothing more and nothing less.” Nonie Darwish needs to lament over the grotesque misogyny in her religion.  

Perhaps Nonie Darwish is sub-consciously jealous/ envious of the Muslim bride getting a “free” gift whereas the Christian bride gets nothing; jealous/envious that the Muslim bride and groom are Divinely instilled with love and compassion and the bride is a source of peace and comfort whereas the Christian bride is wife only to avoid fornication; jealous/envious that the Muslim bride is friend and protector and garment to her husband as he is to her whereas the Christian bride is a “transgressor” and “defiler” and betrayer of man; jealous/envious that the Muslim bride is honored as the symbol of purity and gateway to Paradise whereas the Christian bride is cursed as “defiler” etc; jealous/envious that whereas the Muslim bride is only to be divorced after all avenues of conciliation are exhausted the Christian bride can be cast aside even for a trivial case of “uncleanness;” jealous/envious that whereas the Muslim bride is Divinely entitled to alimony the Christian bride gets nothing –she has to slug it out with her “ex” in the secular court for him to give her “wages;” jealous/ envious that the Muslim bride will be with her husband and children in Paradise whereas the Christian bride is unlikely to be with her husband and children in Paradise (Jesus may have said that in HEAVEN there is no marriage–Matt. 22:30; but this does not mean that “sex” is taboo; for we have the sons of God coming all the way down to bed the daughters of men: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them WIVES ALL OF WHICH THEY CHOSE”–Gen. 6:1-2; here we have spirits mating with humans; and God did not object; perhaps the earthly daughters were “fairer” than the heavenly ones or the “sons of God” must have gotten tired of the heavenly ones; or in all likelihood there were no women in heaven which would be in accordance with Christian teaching that woman is “defiler” of man in which event there is no place for women in the Christian heaven –heaven is only for the pure; one that “defiles” is not pure–; thus the Christian men in heaven would have to spend their time lonely and alone in the “mansions” that Jesus said he was going to prepare for them before his uncertain going and SECOND COMING; all the Christian men would be able to do in Christian heaven is read past-time Bible stories and watch the “the wolf” dwelling “with the lamb” and “the lion” eating “straw like the ox” as Isaiah 11:6-7 has it; or these bored Christian men in their boring Christian heaven will hang out together talking about and wishing they were in the Muslim Paradise, and praying, not for their daily bread as Christ exhorts them, but praying for another creation when the earth will again be filled with the “fair” “daughters of men” so they can fly down and take them as wives and, happily, be “defiled”).  

   104. (31) Nonie Darwish: “Bukhari reported a hadith on divorce that treats the woman as mere property: “A man may say to his brother (in Islam). ‘Have a look at either of my wives (and if you wish), I will divorce her for you.’”” (p. 41).

   Response:(See item #20).

   105.(32) Child custody. Nonie Darwish opines that Islamic Shari’ah is unjust to women/mothers. (p. 43)

   Response: Allāh tells us to call children by the names of their fathers–(Qur’an 33:4-5). That men are the maintainers of women–(Qur’an 4:34) seems to be the basis for the father having custody of a child, though a mother also can be financially capable of providing for herself and child. In fact, some women are higher wage-earners than some men. Also, her new husband, in the event of remarriage, could also be her (and her children’s) maintainer. Aside from these exceptions, in Islam the burden of support lies on the father. While the father, seemingly, has first right to custody–(Qur’an 2:233), it does not seem mandatory that he take this position. Three compelling reasons for this are:

   (1) As the home-maker, whereas a step-mother might be partial to another woman’s children, it is doubtful that a mother would be partial to her own children, even though they may be from many fathers. (True, a stepfather might be partial, but, generally, it is the mother who has more time with the children).

   (2) We are to honor the womb that bore us–(Qur’an 4:1), and paradise lies at the feet of mothers. While one can honor his mother mentally in her absence, physically he cannot honor the womb that bore him and his paradise cannot lie at the feet of his mother if he is estranged from her; more so if geographic borders separate them.

(3) 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 below.

   One report in the Tradition 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 a boy would be better served by his father.

   Scholars have differing views regarding child-custody. There would seem to be several factors involved –such as mental stability, parental fitness, financial means, social environment, (perhaps the experts can find more reasons)– as to which parent should have custody and which should only have visitation rights. 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.” 

   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, gave birth, and nursed us–(Ref. Bokhari Vol. 8, # 2).  But a child cannot serve his or her parents if he or she is alienated from either one. As Shari’ah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah and as the Sunnah is based on the teachings of the Qur’an, and as there is no discrimination or injustice in the Qur’an whatever in Shari’ah that is the opinion of the Jurist(s) that discriminates or contradicts the Qur’an is to be removed.

   And what does Christianity says about child custody? Nothing! And, like his silence on slavery, the Christ of the Gospels had nothing to say about the welfare of women. Nor could he, for the Biblical God (and as Christian’s say Jesus is God) decreed that she be ruled over by her husband in silence and all subjection and to submit to him as she submits herself to God. (See CRITICS).

   106.(33) Nonie Darwish wrote: “In some countries, the only way for a wife to get a divorce is to convince the Sharia court and also to pay money to her husband. She could achieve through khul, which means “a release for payment,” whereby a wife pays the husband in return for divorce. In this case a woman must pay her dowry back to her husband, who often asks for a lot more to grant her a divorce.”(p. 43).

   Response: This may be so in “some” countries. But according to Islam a woman can get a divorce for any reason she likes (though arbitration is first required to save the marriage). The husband may ask for “a lot more to grant” the wife a divorce” but he has no basis in Islam for this blackmail/extortion. As Allāh says, “there is no blame on them for what SHE GIVES UPto end the marriage; NOT what he demands (though she may give in to his demands). (See full verse further on).

   That the “wife pays the husband in return for divorce.” Isn’t this what equality is all about? Isn’t this what feminism wants – equality with man? So you want when the man divorces you to pay you but when you divorce the man you do not want to pay him, but in fact still wants the man to pay you; and pay you till he dies or till you die or remarry, or even if you have half-a-dozen or more bedmates? And you call this monumental and grotesque obscenity against the man justice? And if the dowry is “wage”/payment for sex as you claim, why does the woman have to return it to the man when he already had sex with her?

   Regarding this khul divorce Allāh says in His Qur’an 2:229:  “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah. Then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allāh, so exceed them not; and whoever exceeds the limits of Allāh, these are the wrongdoers.” And Muhammad Ali explains: “The divorce spoken of here is the revocable divorce of v. 228, after which a reconciliation may be effected in the waiting period. In the days of ignorance a man used to divorce his wife and take her back within the prescribed time, even though he might do this a thousand times. Islam reformed this practice by allowing a revocable divorce on two occasions only, so that the period of waiting in each of these two cases might serve as a period of temporary separation during which conjugal relations could be re-established. As shown in 228b, even re-marriage of the same parties is allowed after the lapse of the waiting period. The husband must make his choice after the second divorce either to retain the wife permanently or to bring about a final separation. The object of a true marriage union is indicated in the simple words keep them in good fellowship. Where the union is characterized by quarrels and dissensions instead of good fellowship, and two experiences of a temporary separation show that there is no real love in the union, and good fellowship is therefore entirely absent; the only remedy that remains is to let the woman go with kindness. It is both in the interests of the husband and the wife and in the interests of society itself that such a union should be brought to a termination, so that the parties may seek a fresh union. But even in taking this final step the woman must be treated kindly. The full payment of the dowry to the woman is another condition relating to the Islamic law of divorce, and it serves as a very strong check upon the husband in resorting to unnecessary divorce.  These words give the wife a right to claim a divorce. It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Islam that it gives the wife the right to claim a divorce, if she is willing to forgo the whole or part of her dowry. The case of Jamilah, wife of Thabit Ibn Qais, is one that is reported in numerous reports of the highest authority. Here it was the wife who was dissatisfied with the marriage. There was not even a quarrel, as she plainly stated in her complaint to the Prophet: “I do not find any fault with him on account of his morals (i.e., his treatment) or his religion”. She only hated him. And the Prophet had her divorced on condition that she returned to her husband the orchard which he had made over to her as her dowry (B. 68:12). It is even said that the husband’s love for the wife was as intense as her hatred for him (Rz). If, then, a woman could claim a divorce for no reason other than the unsuitableness of the match, she had certainly the right to claim one if there was ill-treatment on the part of the husband or any other satisfactory reason, and among the early Muslims it was an established right. Even now it is a right which is maintained in many Muslim countries. Technically such a divorce is called Khul‘. It will be noted that though this verse forms the basis of the law relating to Khul‘, the words indicate an unwillingness on the part of both spouses to continue the marriage relation — unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh. This is explained as meaning their inability to perform towards each other their marital obligations and to maintain good fellowship (B. 68:13). The reason for this, apparently, is that the passage follows one requiring a permanence of relationship that can no more be broken when the husband has adopted this choice after a second divorce, so that the relation can only be broken if the wife finds it unbearable. Another reason seems to be that the woman is usually the last to be willing to break up the marriage relationship. The words if you fear evidently refer to the properly constituted authorities and this shows that the authorities can interfere in the matter. Cases are actually on record in which a wrong done by an unjust divorce was mended by the authorities.”

   Notably, as shown in item #103, when the man divorces the woman without even consummating the marriage and they had agreed on a “wage”/dowry he is to only to take back half or none of this “wage”/dowry or she can forgo it; and even when the man  divorces her without consummating the marriage and where there is no agreement on a “wage”/dowry he is required to give her a settlement.

   Also the verse states that there is no blame on them for what she “gives” up in order to have the divorce, not that she “must” give up or return the dowry to become free. And as noted in item #103 the Prophet Mohammad married a man and woman based on the amount of the Qur’an he (the man) had memorized. If then,it is mandatory that “a woman must pay her dowry back to her husband,” as Nonie Darwish claims, how can the woman  return the portion of the Qur’an that her husband had memorized (or had taught her)? And how can the woman return this “memorization” if, as Nonie Darwish claims, the dowry is “wage”/payment for sex? give him more sex?   

   107.(34) Nonie Darwish opines: “There is no community property in Islam between husband and wife. The concept of community property doesn’t make sense with the possibility of four wives in addition to slave sexual partners.” (p. 45).

   Response: As shown in item #18 there is no “slave sexual partners” in Islam; there is “slave sexual partners” in Judaism and Christianity. Allāh says that whatever a man earns is his and whatever a woman earns in his–(Qur’an 4:32. This is called independence and equality which is what the non-Muslim woman has been fighting for all her life). That whatever a woman earns is for her is not only encouragement but a great impetus for woman to pursue knowledge and career. Surely since slave girls are to be educated and taught the best of manners, how much more imperative that free Muslim girls/women be educated and learn good manners: “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; & Vol. 3, #720. So much for Nonie Darwish’s preposterous claim that Islam allows Muslims to have illicit sex with slave women). However, Allāh saying that for men and for women is what they earn does not prevent them from pooling their resources if they desire. And whereas this individual ownership to their earnings make it even and just and easy in the event of divorce, in contrast, in Secularism/Christianity even if the couples have separate accounts they usually end up bitter in court to seek of what the “wealthier” party has. (As stated, there is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than SHARI’AH. The system designed by Allāh, God, the Omniscient could not be any less).

   Allāh also tells us that men are the maintainers of women (even though she may earn more than he does and/or possess more wealth than he does)–(Qur’an 4:34). Notably, whereas Muslim women are to be maintained regardless of her wealth and income, Secularism/Christianity has prenuptial agreement (some trust and love and all the other jazz for a marriage that pledges “till death do us part”) and the working woman in all likelihood is required to bankroll half of the common expenses. And there are perhaps cases where the husband brought nothing into the house and lived more or less like a bum, yet at the divorce the wife had to give him half of her sweat in settlement.  

   And contrary to Nonie Darwish’s claim there is “community property in Islam between husband and wife.” Even though the wife may have more than the husband she receives a share in the husband’s estate (in addition from parents and relatives)–(Qur’an 4:7, 12). In brief, the Muslims woman can earn–(4:32); inherit and own property–(4:7, 12, 177). has exclusive right to utilize their earnings however she pleases–(4:4, 32), it is incumbent on men to maintain women–(4:34). Islam liberated woman–(2:187; 4:19-22); exalts her–(4:1; 9:71-72); and has given her equality with man in financial, property, moral and spiritual matters–(4:32, 7-10, 176-177; 3:194; 33:35). 

   108.(35) Nonie Darwish states that according to Shari’ah, “Husband’s are bound to provide only food, clothing, and accommodation, not doctors’ fees, medicines, and cosmetics; a rebellious wife doesn’t get anything.” (p. 45).

   Response: This is so only if she has her own earnings; and enough. Even then, if his wallet is heavier than hers it is love and mercy and compassion to pay her expenses. However, Allāh says that men are the maintainers of women; and taking care of her in times of her illness is part of her maintenance.

   -Without doubt, men (unless they buy a new one) would pay for the repairs of their autos; and Allah did not put love and compassion between man and his automobile; but He did between man and woman –one cannot get love and compassion from an auto or a neglected wife.

   -Allah did not make man and auto garment unto the other, but He made man and woman garment unto the other –and one of the functions of a garment is to give comfort; and refusing to take care or your wife medically is not comfort to her.  In fact, since a garment conceal faults, protect, make comfortable and beautify; the wife is to be cared for in all aspects of life.

   -Allah did not make man and auto the mate of each other, but He made woman and man the mate of each other.

   -Allah did not designate man and auto friends and protectors of one another, but He made man and woman friends and protectors (in every way possible) of one another; and if the Muslim man and woman are protectors of one another how much more is one to protect his wife, who is more than a “friend.”

   The noble Messenger of Allah instructs us that he is best among us who is best to his wife, (not who is best to his camel and/or automobile), and not paying for her recovery is not being “best” to her.  The Prophet also says service to the creatures of Allah is service to Allah, not service to his auto. Not paying the bill for your wife’s “illness” is a dis-service to her.  Again, the magnificent Messenger says woman is the sovereign of your house, not that your auto is the sovereign. Also, it is related in the Tradition of the Prophet: “Narrated ‘Aisha (Allāh be pleased with her): Hind bint ‘Utba said, “O Allāh’s Apostle! Abu Sufyan is a miser and he does not give me what is sufficient for me and my children. Can I take of his property without his knowledge?” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said, “Take what is sufficient for you and your children, and the amount should be just and reasonable”–(Bokhari, Vol. 7, # 277.). As not paying for a wife’s “medical expenses” is to deprive her of “sufficiency” then the above ruling gives her the right to take from the “miser” what is sufficient for her. And without his knowledge. (Though in these times it might be difficult to access his bank account). And if he should wonder what has happened to part of his purse, you may tell him maybe it went to Jannah!

   Moreover. As woman has rights similar to those against her, if the husband is not obliged under Islamic law to pay for his wife’s medical expenses, then if he should become ill the wife would have the right to withhold nursing care from him. And unless she has her own earnings why wouldn’t a man buy his wife “cosmetics” (and fancy lingerie) to enhance her appearance for him? Allāh does not prohibit men and women from indulging in fineries. Though we are not to be extravagant.

   That the “rebellious wife gets nothing.” The Muslim marriage is a solemn contract of duties, responsibilities and mutual rights. (If the husband has observed his part of the marriage agreement) why should the “rebellious wife” receive benefit when she, without justification, does not fulfill her obligations? Go tell your boss to pay you when you have neglected to do your work or have done no work.

            (Muslims do not have to be divided and follow the incorrect renderings of the various schools of thought. It is a Muslim’s right to differ with any man below the   Prophet. Jurists of these different bodies are to mediate on the verses of the Qur’an [and Hadith] as Allāh requires, for their rulings. There is no SECTISM in Islam. Allāh admonishes us against division. Muslims who   adhere to sectism are defying Allāh [and yet they expect Allāh to give them Jannah!] The cardinal doctrines of Islam –Unity of God; Prayer, Zakaat/Charity; Fasting and Hajj– which are the basis for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment are clearly expressed. Muslims who deem other Muslims whose views run counter to their own as kafirs [disbelievers], if they knew the enormity of making such a charge they would chain their tongues. Allāh states clearly that He will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ –which part of this do we not understand? Since Allāh    will show us the truth in which we differ why then polarize ourselves and kill each other? Clearly, a Muslim who kills another Muslim has rendered himself into the realm of disbelief, as the Prophet says: “After my death, do not become disbelievers by cutting the necks of one another” –[Bokhari Vol. 9, #7. Compare Qur’an 4:92].  Moreover the noble Messenger  of Allāh states that difference of opinion among Muslims [which can be an impetus to progress] is a blessing. But Muslims have denigrated this blessing into a curse. Rather than tug against the other, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis of Egypt need to meditate on the Qur’an as Allāh requires and cast aside matters of dispute [which Allah will reveal] and unify. The same goes for Arabia and Iran and all other Muslims that stand along sectist lines. It is not only unGodly but a monumental shame and disgrace that after fifteen hundred years Sunni and Shi’ah are yet bickering over who should have succeeded Prophet Mohammad. Not even the Caliphs engaged in this foolishness; but rather they helped each other. But it seems Sunni and Shi’ah are greater than the venerable Caliphs and are above Allāh and His noble Messenger).  

   109.(36). Nonie Darwish notes that the Qur’an 4:34 allows Muslim men to beat their wives. (pp. 48-50). (See item #19).

   110.(37) Qur’an 4:3 states, “And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then (marry) only one or that which your right hands possess. This is more proper that you may not do injustice.” To which Nonie Darwish states that in a desert “culture that offers sexual rewards to warriors, and culture where sex with children was condoned, the orphans must have presented a temptation, especially with no male relatives to protect their honor.” (pp. 52-53). 

   Response:Obviously, Nonie Darwish did not consider the possibility that these “orphans” may have been of marriageable age. As shown in item #18 it is the Biblical “culture that offers sexual rewards to warriors, and culture where sex with children was condoned.” In fact, the Biblical “culture” massacred male prisoners and matron women just so the warriors could have pre-pubescent “virgins” for their harem. (For Prophet Mohammad’s many wives see item #97).

   111.(38) Nonie Darwish observes, “Mohammed had up to eleven wives in addition to women slaves. This is confirmed in Qur’an 33:50 (I have used Muhammad Ali’s translation): “O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast given their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses, out of those whom Allāh  has given thee as prisoners of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who fled with thee; and a believing woman, if she gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desires to marry her. (It is) especially for thee, not for the believers — We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to thee. And Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful” Nonie Darwish opines, “When it came to marriage and sexual privileges, Mohammed was more privileged than the rest of the believers.” (p. 53).

   Response: Wouldn’t you say that Solomon and his son Rehoboam with their total thousand plus wives and concubines were monumentally “more privileged than the rest of the (Biblical) believers”?As noted in item #6 (Polygamy), Allāh allows polygamy even though man is not capable of “impartiality” with his “love”/affection 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 a polygamous marriage than live with “impartiality” in promiscuity (if that is possible). (For Mohammad’s many wives see item #97).

   112.(39) Nonie Darwish: “The Paradise of the Qur’an promises devout men beautiful women in Paradise and unlimited sexual feasting.” and she quotes Qur’an 44:51-54; 55:56-58; 55:70-72; 78:31-34. (pp. 55-56).

   Response: As noted in item #94 the descriptions of the Muslim Paradise are figurative. It is stated that the things of Paradise and earth are the same in name only. And what does the Bible promise Christians? if they get there. (See item #23).

   113.(40). Nonie Darwish states: “Mohammed was practicing thighing with Aisha at age six and consummated the marriage at age nine.” (p. 57).

   Response:Wonder what the Israelite soldiers were doing with their pre-pubescent “virgin” slave girls they took as war booty. (See item #18).

   There is controversy whether ‘AISHA was nine or nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage. Materials have been presented showing that at the time of her marriage to the Prophet ‘Aisha was eighteen or nineteen year’s old. See AISHA’S MARRIAGE-9 OR 19? And  http://aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/ aishahage.shtml).

   Mohammad was born into a custom that engaged in child marriages. As he could not change a practice of society until or unless he received Divine revelation, in recommending “thighing” –simulated intercourse– to his followers with child brides, the Prophet was anticipating an end to intimacy with young girls; and by marrying ‘Aisha and delaying consummation of his marriage to her, he was hoping to change society of pre-teen marriages by his action. This practice did end, as Muhammad Ali notes that “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). Muhammad Ali also notes that ‘Aisha was at first “betrothed to Jubair, son of Mut’im;” and that the Prophet’s consummation of his marriage to ‘Aisha “was delayed for five years on account of ‘Aishah’s age, which was only nine at the time of nikah, according to a report of Ibn Sa’d.”103  

   Muslims who marry minors have no recourse to Islam for such a marriage. The Prophet’s marriage to ‘Aisha is no precedent for Muslims. The Prophet not only postponed consummation of his marriage to ‘Aisha for five years, he also married women of advanced age, and had their free consent. He was not pandering to prurient desire(s).  

   Interestingly, one Christian apologist on the Internet wrote that

“the Holy Bible makes a reference to the general age of a girl considered for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God likens Israel to a baby girl whom Yahweh took in and then eventually married.” The verse in reference reads: “On the day you were born your cord was not cut….Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine….” Ezekiel 16:4-14. God mentions that the young babe attained the age for lovemaking after her breasts had formed and her pubic hairs had grown, clear signs of puberty. The reason we believe that the reference is to pubic hair is because a) the hair on the head of a girl grows many years before reaching the time of puberty, and b) the connection to nakedness suggests that the exposure of her body parts needed to be covered since it was shameful for them to be exposed for all to see. In other words, there was no shame for the hair of a girl’s head to be uncovered, but exposing one’s pubic hairs would be.” Pay attention to the fact that it is only after the young girl attained maidenhood, puberty, that God passed by again and thenproceeded to marry her. God’s spreading the corner of his garment and making a covenant with the young maiden refers to marriage.” “Thus, we have a biblical text establishing puberty as the minimum age for marriage.” (The Christian also notes the views of others and concludes): “In light of the foregoing we conclude that the Bibledoes set forth the acceptable age of marriage. Yahweh’s parable to his people presupposes their prior knowledge and acceptance of the marriageable age being set sometime after a young maiden has attained puberty. Anything before this would be viewed as abnormal and unusual.” (Italics and color added).

   Thus, according to the Christian and Ezekiel 16:4-14 above, a girl is ready for marriage when her breasts are formed and she has pubic hair which are indications of puberty.  And according to news-report and other materials on the Internet an alarming number of girls in America –from those examined, 10 percent of Whites, 14 percent of Hispanics and 23 percent of Blacks– begin puberty at the age of seven (7), developing breasts, pubic hair and even menstruating. Thus, according to the Christian’s God/ Bible girls of about eight or nine are capable of marriage. And as noted in Bokhari (Vol. 3, ch. 18, heading of # 832): “Al-Hassan bin Salih said “I saw a neighboress of mine who became a grandmother at the age of twenty-one” (the footnote to this narration explains that “This woman attained puberty at the age of nine and married to give birth to a daughter at ten; the daughter had the same experience”).”

   Obviously then, Arab and Jewish girls must have developed “breasts” and “pubic hair” and menstruating at an early age –which is in accordance with the Bible, Ezekiel 16:4-14– as the Christian points out (and also in accordance with modern reports). In fact, seems that Eastern girls also began/begin womanhood at the age of about seven (7), as the Biblical declaration finds resonance in HINDUISM which teaches that “after being seven years old, the sooner a girl is married, the better.”104

   Further, apart from Al-Hassan bin Salih’s neighboress who “attained puberty at the age of nine and married to give birth to a daughter at ten;” consider these newspaper reports:

   -“Mom elated 10-year-old gave birth to daughter;”105

   -U.S. teen birth rate at 60-year low, agency reports,” saying that the drop in births were “4 percent among girls aged 10 to 14;”106

   -“the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has revealed it is paying the bills of a poor, pregnant 12-year-old to prevent her from having an abortion;”107

   -“At 14, Kimberly is a veteran of Toronto’s sex trade;” she “began selling her body when she was 11 years old;” 108

   -In Costa Rica girls say “they’ve been working as prostitutes for a year, since they were 11 and 12,” the “youngest” of these prostitutes was one who was a “9-year-old;”109

   -“At least 17 Israeli soldiers are under investigation” for having sex with “an 11-year-old girl;” according to the girl “the sex was consensual.”110

   That these 12-9 year-old girls, having “breasts” and “pubic hair,” and even menstruating can be wives is substantiated by the Bible. And the 9, 10 and 11, were probably having sex before these ages. Thus, Mohammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha is supported not only by historical and medical facts, but, whereas Christians try to denigrate Mohammad for marrying ‘Aisha, the Christian’s Bible exonerates and supports Mohammad for marrying ‘Aisha.

If Mohammad was a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” as critics charge, it is not credible that Mohammad would have married only one young girl when he could have married any number of girls/women (before the number of wives were limited and capped at four).
If Mohammad was a “womanizer” as critics charge, it is not credible that Mohammad would have lived a life of celibacy for twenty-five years; lived in a monogamous marriage for twenty-nine years (from 25-54); and married mostly widows with children, elderly and divorced instead of relish himself with vestal nubiles.
Unless critics can prove that Mohammad was a ”rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester”  –and they cannot prove so– critics need to rein in their tongues and pens. Muslims who have the resource may haul them before the Judiciary to substantiate their charges against Mohammad.  (See Age of sexual consent).  

   114.(41) While there is no minimum age for marriage in Islam (and there is none in Judaism and Christianity either) and which age is taken to be the age of reason/maturity, Nonie Darwish sates that “pre-adolescent marriage is indeed codified in Qur’an 65:4.” (p. 58).

   Response: (See item #113). Allāh reveals in Qur’an 65:4: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the pre-scribed period (iddat), if you have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): For those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: And for those who fear God, He will make their path easy” (Yusuf Ali)   

   Muhammad Ali translates: “And those of your women who despair (ya’isna) of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time is three months, and of those, too, who have not had their courses. And the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden. And whoever keeps his duty to Allāh, He makes his affair easy for him.”

   What needs to be pointed out is that this verse, in fact this entire section (65:1-7) is about divorce. “Iddat” is the period of waiting for a woman to know if she is pregnant.

  There are three points in this verse, 65:4: (i) women who have passed the age of menstruation, (ii) women who have not have their periods and are not certain if they are pregnant; thus they “despair of menstruation” because they are in the process of a divorce and have not yet have their courses (thinking they may be pregnant at a time when they are in a process of divorce). The ending of this verse (65:4) seems to make this explanation still clearer as it says, “And the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden” and (iii) women whose pregnancies are confirmed.

   Maturity is the state when a person is “fully developed.” In the physical case of a woman it is when she has breasts, pubic hair, and menstruates (thus a ten year old and even younger who has breasts, pubic hair, and menstruates is “mature” whereas a twenty-year old and older who is flat-chested, like some models, and who may even lack pubic hair and not even menstruate is not considered “mature” and may even be considered “pre-adoles-cent.” Thus according to Nonie Darwish (and other critics of Islam) the ten year-old can have sex but the twenty-year-old cannot have sex. 

   Since to be pre-pubescent is to be without breasts, pubic hair and period; thus the Qur’anic women “who have not had their courses” CANNOT be “pre-adolescent” girls; because by its very nature PRE-adolescent girls do NOT menstruate.

   If these girls are pre-adolescent and are not developed and did not have their courses when they had sex why do they need a “waiting period” to know if they are pregnant when they cannot become pregnant without first having reached the stage of having their courses?

   Even if there are cases where girls become pregnant before experiencing their first periods this does not mean that they did not have breasts and pubic hair and was of marriageable state.  As noted above there are women in late teens and even later that do not have breasts and perhaps even pubic hair and may not even be menstruating, does this mean they cannot marry?

   Muhammad Ali notes: “No particular age has been specified for marriage in the Islamic law (and there is none in the Bible either); 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 of marriage which it identifies with the age of majority: “And test the orphans until they reach the marriage (nikah). Then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, and consume it not extravagantly and hastily, against their growing up”–(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.”110A    

   Muhammad Ali also notes: “it is wrong to identify women who have not had their courses with minors, for there may be cases in which a woman reaches the age of majority though she has not had her courses and it is with such exceptional cases that this verse deals. At any rate, there is no mention anywhere in the Qur’an or Tradition of minors being married or divorced. In Jurisprudence, however, the legality of the marriage of a minor when contracted by a lawful guardian is recognised.

   Muhammad Ali also points out that “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.”110B

   To restate. Women “who have not had their courses” could not refer to PRE-adolescent girls because having no courses they cannot become pregnant and thus have no need for a “waiting period” to determine if they are pregnant.

   Those “who have not had their courses” could only refer to women whose pregnancy are not confirmed (they may have missed a period or are late in having it and therefore are not certain if they are pregnant) and to exceptional cases where a mature woman have not yet begin to menstruate.
Qur’an 65:4 would also include young women who suffer from what is now medically known as “Primary amenorrhea”   whereby a young woman has never had a period. Because of a “genetic problem” in which the ovaries “do not make enough estrogen” to effect periods.

   There is no “dirty laundry” in Islam; only a lack of understand-ing the verses of the Qur’an. Like many others, Nonie Darwish may know the language of the Qur’an but she clearly does not know the Qur’an. It is the Bible/Christianity that allows sex with “pre-adolescent” girls. (See item #18).  

   As stated elsewhere, unless and until he received Divine Revelation in a matter the Prophet Mohammad followed the Bible. Thus, if Mohammad’s followers engaged in “pre-adoles-cent marriages” they were only following what the Bible –Judaism and Christianity– allows. (As stated even if charges against Allāh, Islam, the Qur’an, and the Prophet Mohammad, were proved yet this would not make Jesus God or son of God or vicarious atoner or that mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve. These doctrines are falsehood and blasphemy).

   115.(42) Nonie Darwish notes the Caliph ‘Umar as saying that the Prophet said: “A man will not be asked about why he beat his wife” (Abu Dawud #2142). (p. 63).

   Response:  First, beating is only for the wayward wifeand if the man is not himself wayward (for woman has rights as those against her: Qur’an 2:228). Second, as the Prophet taught, this beating is not to be of a brutal nature. That the husband is not to be asked why he beat his wife is only so that he and his wife’s private matters are not be publicized. Allāh says men and women are garments to each other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and conceal faults. The act of not telling why one has beaten his wife is the act of covering her faults from others. Would you like your husband to let outsiders know your private matters or your faults? In contrast, as shown in item #19, the Biblical allowance for beating the wayward wife is without boundary.

   116.(43) Nonie Darwish wrote that Sharia requires that a woman be stoned to death for committing adultery, flogged for fornication, that her witness is half that of a man’s; her inheritance is half of a man’s; there is no community property between her and husband; indemnity for her is half that of a man’s; she is to be circumcised; she needs her guardian’s permission for marriage; she needs her husband’s permission to travel; she must cover her body; she needs to have four witnesses to prove rape; and is subject to honor killing. (pp. 65-66).

   Response: Doesn’t Christianity require the Christian woman to cover her body? Didn’t God clothe Adam and Eve?–(Gen. 3:21; and there was no one then to see them). And Jesus (the Christian’s God) was covered from neck to toe in flowing robe (as Christians show us). The Christian’s “Mother of God,” Mary, was/is covered up (as Christians depict her). Christian nuns are covered from head to toe. Coptic priests are covered in head-to-toe black. Fundamentalist Jews are covered from head to toe in black. Shouldn’t you, Nonie Darwish, and Christian women cover up like your “Mother of God”? And shouldn’t the Pope and Bishops and Christian men be covered in flowing robes and wearing long hair and beard as Jesus?    

   There is no stoning to death for adultery in Islam. Stoning for adultery (as well as other crimes) is the Jewish and Christian law. (See items #65 and 84).

   That the Muslim woman’s witness if half of man’s is only so in business. In contrast, the Christian woman has no “witness” ability. (See item #123).

   That woman’s inheritance is half of a man’s–(Qur’an 4:11, 177). Allāh designates men to be the maintainers of women–(Qur’an 4:34). It is for this reason that men are allowed double  the share of inheritance than women. For, whereas a wife can at any stage, and for any reason, quit her job and decides to stay home and be maintained by her husband, a husband cannot quit his job and intend for his wife to maintain him. The burden of support lies on the husband. The man has a higher financial responsibility.

   That there is no community property between the Muslim husband and wife. (See item #107).

   That the indemnity for a woman is half that of a man’s. Allāh tells us in His Qur’an 2:178 (see also 4:92): O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if remission is made to one by his (aggrieved) brother, prosecution (for blood-money) should be according to usage, and payment to him in a good manner. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. Whoever exceeds the limit after this, will have a painful chastisement.” While a woman’s inheritance is half that of a man’s (for the reason explained above) this is not the case if she is killed. No one can place an actual value on life. However, this compensation is negotiable between the guilty and the aggrieved, as indicated by the words “prosecution (for blood-money) should be according to usage, and payment to him in a good manner.” Thus, apparently, each case is to be decided on individually. Seemingly, the victim and/or relatives can forego retaliation and forgive the assailant–(Bokhari Vol. 6, #’s 25, 26, 27).     

   Female circumcision. Islam does not require women to be circumcised. Circumcision is the Covenant between God and Abraham and for all males. (See item #6).

   Muslim woman needs husband’s permission to travel. The Muslim woman’s movement is restricted only to the degree of her personal safety. When we hear about women in modern “free” society –Britain, Germany, Canada, the U.S., and also in India– having to band together in “marches” to take back their neighborhood from rapist(s) and girls being preyed upon, one can greatly appreciate the wisdom of Islam that women not travel about (in certain unfamiliar areas) unescorted, by a male companion of her immediate family. Even in local schools (and colleges) girls are molested, and perhaps raped and forced to perform oral sex on boys. (This difficulty can be eliminated in a well-secured all-female school).

(Even the Canadian government recognizes the danger to women traveling alone. The Toronto Star, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, p. A10, carried the article by Richard J. Brennan, “National Affairs Writer,” titled: “Don’t forget to pack a fake husband, federal guide tells    female travellers” which states that “Foreign Affairs Canada” encourages single women traveling by themselves abroad to wear a “fake wedding ring” and carry a picture of an “imaginary” husband [married women are to carry a picture of their husband] to ward off unwanted male attention. The travel guide is said to note that “women face greater obstacles [than men] when travelling alone””).

   Women can go out by themselves to take care of their needs:  “O women! You have been allowed by Allah to go out for your needs”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #164).  This statement by the Prophet; what is to be considered is the background to which it was made. At the time of the Prophet’s marriage to Saudah –when this permission was given, before the Hijrah, (the Prophets migration from Makkah to Madinah)– Islam was still besieged by the enemy; and thus, not safe for Muslim women, who were subjected to annoyance by the enemy, to be traveling alone. While this permission may still have had some restrictions, after the triumph of Islam (and in places of peace and security) this restriction would seem to be lifted. For women to obtain an education is definitely a “need.”

   Rape: While there is probably no environment that is completely safe for a woman (or man), Islam has given severe punishment for violating a woman. The crime of rape may fall under “mischief in the land” which carries a penalty ranging from execution, crucifixion, dismemberment, or imprisonment–(Qur’an 5:33). While four witnesses are required to prove adultery/fornication, this does not seem to be the case in the matter of rape. Whereas adultery/fornication is consensual, rape is a violation. While four witnesses are required (and which is probably impossible to have) so as to protect chaste women from slander; requiring four (or less) witnesses to the act of rape would only embolden the rapist, and even lead to more such violations. In fact, since modern governments employ the polygraph test to ascertain the loyalty of security personnel, there is no reason why this test should not be employed in the case of rape and even other cases. Even if it is not used as evidence.  

   There is no honor killing in Islam. There is honor killing in Judaism and Christianity. (See item #12).

   117.(44). Nonie Darwish asserts, “Qur’an 24:33 absolves a man from using a slave girl for prostitution: “And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world’s life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.” And she comments that this verse is about the slave owner “profiting financially by selling the body of the slave girl to other men. However, while the above verse tells men not to force their slaves into prostitution, it assures them that if they do, then Allāh is forgiving and merciful.”(p. 66). And in her endnote to this statement, Nonie Darwish wrote: “Out of embarrassment, some Muslims try to misinterpret this verse, saying that “Allāh forgiving” was meant for the slave girl not for the slave owner. But how could this be, when the verse is clearly addressing men and not the slave girl? Also, how can Allāh forgive the slave girl for something she has no control over?”

   Response: So the innocent Christian newborn babe who has done no sin is in need of forgiveness, but the slave girl that sins, even though she is forced into it, is not in need of forgiveness? So God can send Jesus to be killed for this babe’s non-committed sin, but Allāh cannot forgive this slave girl for her committed sin?  So mankind –from a newborn babe to the hoary-headed adult– is in need of forgiveness for a sin he and she did not commit –for a sin Adam/Eve committed– but a slave girl who engages in sin, even though she was forced into, is not in need of forgiveness? So the Biblical God can forgive the newborn babe and the hoary-headed (who was not engaged in any wrongdoing) for inheriting sin from Adam/Eve, but Allāh cannot forgive the slave girl who has engaged in wrongdoing, even though she was not a willing participant? (And maybe she became willing during the act).

   Muhammad Ali gives us the background to this revelation (Qur’an 24:33): It is related that ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ubayy, the leader of the hypocrites, kept slave-girls for prostitution (Rz). Prostitution, which seems to have prevailed before the advent of Islam in Arabia, is condemned here. But this curse has obtained an incredible prevalence in the whole of Christendom, and is legalized in many countries of Europe as a necessary evil, while in others it is openly connived at.” This “forgiveness” IS for the slave girl. This is evident as careful reading of the verse shows; the words “whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion….” Those who “compel” are the slave owners and those who are under “compulsion” are the girls. And as Allāh says that “after their compulsion” He is Forgiving, Merciful for their being compelled. Even though it was not the girl’s choice it was still a sin and the owners who forced her into it are warned that while she would be forgiven they would not be forgiven. Muslims are admonished not to follow the hypocrites, and the girl is consoled/comforted that if she is forced she is not to be distressed, Allāh will not hold her accountable.

   118.(45) Nonie Darwish wrote: “If a woman cannot be in the company of men who are not her relatives, then how can she have a job outside the home?”(pp. 73-74).

   Response: 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).  

   While Islam does not allow the unnecessary mingling of the sexes there are situations where it is allowed –at the Hajj for instance and the workplace. Muslims, males and females, are not only required to restrain our sexual passions –and this is one of the benefits of fasting– and conduct ourselves decorously but also to be ever conscious that our speech and actions are recorded –brief period(s) of illicit joy is not worth compromising Allāh’s Everlasting Bliss. Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise.

            (That Allāh is ever watching and seeing us does not mean that Allāh’s vision follows us at work, shopping and in the bathroom etc; it means that our actions and speech are being recorded and by our limbs–Qur’an 82:10-12; which would give evidence on the Day of Judgment: “On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet bear witness against them as to what they did”–Qur’an 24:24. Also 36:65; 41:19-23. See Genesis 31:45-52; Joshua 24:26-27 where a “stone” shall bear witness. Man has satellites miles away in  surveillance of the earth, can transmit words and pictures through space from one corner of the Globe to the other,  can store mountains of data on the head of a pin and in computer chips, can record sounds and images on plastics and replay them, can be in one place and operate by remote control distant objects, can transmit audio and video signals through the air and have his television [even in the off mode] receive and convert these signals into sound and image and record them. Consider then how much more advanced and sophisticated the recording system of Allāh the Fashioner of the universe must be. Allāh calls on us to reflect: “Does man think that we shall not gather his bones? Yea, We are Powerful to make complete his whole make”–Qur’an 75:3-4).

   119.(46) Nonie Darwish notes a hadith “which tells of Salem, the adopted son of Abu Huzaifa, who was breastfed by Abu Huzaifa’s wife when he was already a grown man with a beard, by the Prophet’s order,” because Abu Huzaifa disliked the “young man” coming into his house. (p. 74).   

    Response:(Abu Huzaifa might have feared that his wife and Salem would be intimate. Thus, Abu Huzaifa’s wife suckling Salem would make it unlawful for Salem to have intimacy with her; in which event Abu Huzaifa would not have any dislike for Salem coming to his house).

   There are variations to this hadith–(Muslim Vol.2, 3424-3428). How old was Salem at the time he was suckled (even fourteen year-old can grow a beard)? and some narrations convey that Salem had just attained puberty. Whether it is authentic or not, it would be grossly absurd to take this hadith as precedent so as to have a Muslim woman breastfeed a non-related male co-worker (to make him a family member and rendering it unlawful for them be intimate) making it acceptable for her to work alongside him. Significantly; Salem was first “adopted” as a child before he was suckled whereas this co-worker would not have been adopted as a child by the Muslim woman and/or her husband. It would be doubly preposterous for the man and/or his wife to adopt a grown man so that she could suckle him (if she has milk in her breast) so she could work alongside him.

   Whereas Nonie Darwish uses this hadith to cast aspersions on the Prophet and Islam, the Biblical God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) instructs the prophet Ezekiel to make cakes with human excrement but then changed it to cow’s dung after Ezekiel complained against the abomination: “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).  And whereas Nonie Darwish finds it abhorrent that the Prophet should have a young man (even a bearded one) “suckle” the breast of the wife of his “adopted” father, Christianity/Christians (of which Nonie Darwish is one) have no qualms about having their God cull Himself into a sperm (and whose?), spend nine moths in the womb, emerged from the vagina, and “SUCKLE” from a woman. 

   120.(47) About the Muslim woman’s covering her body Nonie Darwish states that “in reality a woman’s body is considered a thing she should be ashamed of.”) (p. 77).

   Response: How much of your body do you cover and how much do you expose? As stated at the beginning, even Mary, the Christians “Mother of God” (and mother of their son of God), as Christians show us in their depictions of her, is covered like the Muslim woman. Why then bitch at Muslim women? (See CRITICS).  

   There is no prohibition against the Muslim woman going to the Mosque or congregating in one’s home–(Bokhari Vol.1, #824, 826, 827, 831, 832; Vol. 2, #22; Vol. 7, #165). There is also a report of a woman leading people of her household in prayer–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1. #’s 591-592).

    That the Prophet said women have ten aurats. Nonie Darwish wrote: “How can a woman be honored in Islam if the God who has created her considers her an awrah (pudendum) and prefers that she not worship him in the house of God?” (p. 78).

   Response: Any clean place is a house of God. The Mosque is the community gathering place; it is not only for worship but an administrative centre. As shown above, women are not forbidden to go to the Mosque.

   Webster define pudendum as “the external genital organs of a human being and esp. of a woman.” (Unless it is applicable to Nonie Darwish) it is preposterous to claim that the Prophet says that women have ten “external genital organs.” Aurat/aurah means private part(s). Islam considers the entire woman’s body as private. As shown in CRITICSit is the Christian’s God that “considers” woman as an object only for sex –as a “pudendum.”

   121.(48) Nonie Darwish notes that Muslim women are to be confined to the home (p. 82)

   Response: As shown in item #118 and elsewhere Islam does not require that the Muslim woman be walled in the house.  In contrast, as already shown it is the Christian woman who is “confined to the home.”

   122.(49) Nonie Darwish wrote that “hadiths and verses of the Qur’an” “deepen the feelings of guilt and humiliation of Muslim women.” And she notes from the Qur’an “Decked out fair to men is the love of lusts –Women, children, heaped up heaps of gold and silver, horses of mark, cattle and tillage.” And she notes, “The Prophet said: “I have not left any calamity fitnah after me more detrimental to men than women.”” (p. 84).

   Response: Isn’t it the truth that “Women, children, heaped up heaps of gold and silver, horses of mark, cattle and tillage” are things that men “love” and “lusts” after? (Survey the world and find out). That women is the fitnah more detrimental to men;” all this means is that men will lust after women and would likely do anything to have her; and without doubt sex is the most sought after pleasure by men of all age groups, from puberty upwards. And maybe even before puberty. And figurative or not, the Biblical God not only “decked” out Israel with gold but anointed her: “I anointed thee with oil…I clothed thee also with broidered work…with fine linen…with silk…I DECKED thee also with ornaments…bracelets…chain on thy neck…a jewel on thy forehead…earrings…beautiful crown…Thus was thou DECKED out with GOLD AND SILVER…But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornication on everyone that passed by; his it was…Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of MY GOLD AND OF MY SILVER…and madest to thy self images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them”–(Ezekiel 16:9-17). Clearly, beauty and riches can lead one into corruption. In fact, as shown at the beginning, the Christian woman is viewed as a transgressor, and “defiler” and betrayer of man. Clearly there cannot be a greater trial for man than such a (Christian?) woman. 

   The Muslim woman has no right to harbor “feelings of guilt and humiliation.” If the Muslim woman feels this, then either she does not know Islam or Islam has not yet entered her heart. As stated, Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. In contrast, it is the Christian’s teaching that “all the trials, misfortunes and woes that befall men come from women.” From the panoramic pen of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din

“Before Islam, Woman was treated as a chattel. No religion or civilization had as yet raised her to the status that should have been her birthright. She was regarded as an evil but necessary appendage, and she received the worst treatment of all from Christianity. The story of the Temptation in the Book of Genesis, and the basic principle of the Church creed taken therefrom, damaged her position tremendously.

In dealing with the status of Woman, Islam and Christianity stand poles apart. The one has raised her from the lowest possible depths to a level equal to that of man, at a time when her degradation knew no limit; the other thrust her back to thraldom at a time when she was beginning to emerge from it under Roman civilization. This civilization was struggling to raise her status when Christianity came like an icy blast and nipped the efforts in the very bud. This statement, though historically accurate, will surprise many amongst those who are accustomed to listen to the very different story told by Christian writers. But if even Jesus does not seem to concern himself about the female sex, and if those who immediately followed him –and have since been looked upon as the builders of the Church, and filled with the Holy Ghost– did nothing to improve her condition, while their words and actions brought every odium on her; and if Christian States have continued this treatment for centuries, and, indeed until recent days, when Woman began to assert herself, how can they declare that Christianity brought an honourable position to Woman?

The Hebrew Law was unfavourable to her. The Divine command, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” had the effect of reducing her to the position of a chattel in the house, and so she was, in Judaic society. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Whenever something appeared to him as an abuse of the Law, he expressed his disapproval of it, and tried to reform it. But in the case of Woman his silence shows that the idea of ameliorating her lot never occurred to him, though the self-indulgence of his tribe was peculiarly damaging to woman-kind.

If Paganism supplied the idea of a suffering Deity and of a crucified Saviour, and the sad event in the life of Jesus favoured their incorporation with Christianity, the legends of the Temptation in Genesis served as a beautiful connecting link between the two. It inspired the story of the Fall of Adam, and through him, the fall of the human race –a theory absolutely, and now admittedly, unknown to the Jews, but initiated by the writers of the Pauline literature to strengthen and explain the Pagan theory of redemption through blood. To that extent it acted well, but it was of no service to Woman. The whole blame of human perdition, by reason of this first sin, was laid at her door: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.” Woman consequently could not be in the good books of those who took these expressions as the Word of God and believed in the theory of the Fall of Adam. This explains the cruel attitude which the Early Fathers and the real builders of the Church adopted towards Woman, following, as they did, in the foot­steps of St. Paul. In fact, her disgrace at the hands of these Fathers was the true and logical sequel to the Christian beliefs, of which the following is an illustration: “Do you know,” says Tertullian, when addressing Women, “that you are each Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt, of necessity, must live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the Divine Law; you destroyed as easily God’s image.”

The Christian apologist of modern culture, while he sees in it mediaeval savagery and wantonness, cannot rationally deny that “the pious aspersions” of the Father were not without justification. The logic was simple and true. If it was believed that sin was a heritage and eternal condemnation its price –and so it is believed till to-day– then eternal con­demnation has come through Woman; she opened the door of all human sufferings. She is “the organ of the devil,” “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” “the poisonous asp,” “the malice of the dragon.” These are some of the blessings that Woman received from persons of exalted position in the Church, such as St. Bernard, St. Anthony, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, and St. Paul, who seem to me to be at the bottom of it. His personala grudge against the sex, in consequence of his suit being rejected by a young Jewish woman, the high priest’s daughter, perhaps was responsible for it. Say what you will, if “sin in nature” is the foundation-stone of the sacramental religion, which Christianity has become –the principle of atonement and of the divinity of Christ are mere corollaries of it, and then Woman deserves all that has been said by these Fathers. Present-day culture may not tolerate it, but her real redemption lies only in exposing the falsity of these beliefs. And was not the Holy Prophet, even on this very point, the real benefactor of Woman, seeing that he gave the lie to this crude theology, and took exception to the theory of sin in nature? He declared that every child was born sinless, and that in the case of the Temptation, man and woman were not respectively the tempted and the tempter, but both of them equally suffered and were equally deceived by the evil agency.

Just at the time when the Christian Church was so outrageously trampling on womanhood, and the rest of the world was treating her no less cruelly, Muhammad came to save the situation. He raised Woman to such a height as she had never dreamed of before –a height which leaves her nothing higher for which to strive.

While the Christian Fathers were harping on the slogan that woman was made for man and not man for woman, Muhammad told the world that woman was the twin-half of man, in commenting upon the Qur-anic verse, that revealed in the following words the great truth that man and woman had come from the same essence and were one and the same in that respect: “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.” The Qur-an gave the name of mohsina to Woman, which meant that she was neither the “organ of the devil” nor his gate­way, but a rocky fortress against Satan; a lighthouse of virtue and continence that alone can save man from shipwreck while tossing among the stormy waves of passion. The Bible says: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” but Muhammad says: “Woman is the sovereign of your house.” St. Paul may say: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection, for I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”; but the Qur-an contradicts him when it says: “Woman has like rights with those of man, –the same is due to her as is due from her.” She is not “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” but “a garment of man as he is her garment”b; she is not the “instrument of iniquity,” as these Christian Fathers call her, but, in the words of the Qur-anc, a fountain of love and affection. Let Jesus say to his mother: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” –put whatever construction you like on these words and come with any explanation you please, people in Christendom even to-day reflect this utterance of their Master in their actions– the affluence of sons go hand in hand with the indigence of mothers in the West –mothers are discarded and disregarded– but a Muslim leaves no effort undone to pay all respect and reverence to his mother, because his Prophet Muhammad tells him: “Paradise lies at the feet of a mother.” Happy marriage may be a lottery in the West, as some assert, but it makes a wife, in a Muslim house, the dearest of friends, a counterpart of man susceptible to all healthy and salutary influences. It could not well be other­wise, seeing that we are bound to obey the Master who says: “The best of you are they who behave best to their wives.” Again he says: “The best of you before God and His creation are those who are best in their own families, and I am the best to my family.”

“One of the disciples inquired of the Prophet as to what treatment should be meted out to a wife. He answered: ‘“Give her to eat when you eat yourself, and clothe her when you clothe yourself; and do not slap her on the face nor abuse her, nor separate yourself from her in displeasure.’”

“Give your wife good counsel, and do not beat your noble wife like a slave.”

            “Admonish your wives with kindness.”

“A Muslim must not hate his wife; and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, then let him be pleased with another which is good.”

Just a quarter of a century after the time when the council of Christian Fathers at Nicaea were discussing whether any female could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and with great difficulty they had come to the conclusion that she might enter into Paradise, but that she would have to be sexless, the Qur-an brought the gospel to her in the following words:­–

                        “Enter into Paradise, ye and your wives delighted.”

“But whoso doeth the things that are right, whether the male or female, and is a believer, whether male or female, they shall enter into Paradise.”

“Whoso doth that which is right, whether male or female, him or her will we quicken to happy life” –(43:70; 4:124; 16:97).

When the world was doubtful whether any spiritual advancement was open to Woman at all, the Qur-an taught the following: “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 almsgiving men and the alms-giving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember­ –Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.”(Qur’an 33:35).

It is only utter ignorance of Islam and blind prejudice against it that comes to the surface when our adverse critics assert that Woman, under Islam, does not possess a soul. It hardly needs any elaborate discussion to refute this piece of fool­hardiness. If a Man possesses a soul, Woman must possess one also, seeing that both are, according to the teaching of the Qur-an, of the same essence.”111

   Interestingly, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din responding in his Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London over mis-statements on Islam: “I read in Dean Farrar’s famous Life that Christianity “ennobled man, elevated woman, and lent a halo of innocence to the life of the child.” When and where did Christianity accomplish these things before the modern times? Modern ideas and ideals have come from sources other than Christianity. A religion that teaches that every child is born in sin rather robs him of innocence than lends him a halo. These writers should know better and respect history more. They should think twice on the implications of the doctrines of their own religion before making such assertions. The Christian tenet of original sin involves an assumption which ennobles neither man nor child, neither can the principle of he Immaculate Conception elevate motherhood.”(p.71). It may be submitted that instead of lending the child a “halo of innocence,” the doctrine of inherited sin has fastened onto the child two little horns on his and her forehead and a barbed tail on their behinds.

   123.(50) Nonie Darwish notes hadiths of the Prophet Mohammad. (pp. 84-85).

            (a) Women in hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands; evidence is half of a man’s; and cannot pray nor fast during their menses.

   Response: That women are ungrateful to their husbands, perhaps the only way to determine this is to conduct a survey. Truth is not hatred! Truth is truth!

   That women cannot pray and fast during her menses. She cannot pray during her menses because she is in a state of ceremonial impurity; she does not have to make up missed prayers (perhaps because she can engage in other forms of worship, such as chanting the Qur’an and/or reciting tasbeeh –Glory be to Allāh, Praise be to Allāh, Allāh is Great– and other teachings of praise and glorification)–(Abu Dawud Vol.1, #262).  She cannot fast during her menses because she is losing blood and iron; and may also be nursing her child. However, as fasting has not only spiritual but moral, physical, and physiological benefits, she (as well as men who have missed fasting in Ramadan) is required to fast the number of missed days–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1, #263. Incidentally, as shown in CRITICS, while the Muslim woman can engage in all contact with her husband except sexual intercourse during her menses, the Christian woman is regarded as a plague.

    Qur’an 2:282 that woman’s witness is half of a man’s. This is so only in the matter of business, as women were not familiar with business and may not remember correctly. A woman’s testimony cannot be half of that of the man’s in every area of life, for as pointed out in Qur’an 24:6-9, (in the matter of the wife’s alleged infidelity) the testimony of the wife supersedes that of the husband’s; and no court would dare to assert that a man’s testimony in all matters is inferior to that of the wife’s, or that the testimony of a man is “worth half”  (or “one-fifth,” as per the verse) that of a woman’s. And, notably, a woman’s chastity is a more sensitive matter than business. Also, the Prophet Mohammad taught that after worship of Allāh the next in line for our service is our mother, and three times over before service to our father man –she having carried him, given birth and nursed him–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2).  And no critic would dare assert that a father’s worth is only one-quarter the worth of a mother.  

   Contrastingly, the Christian woman seems to have no “witness” capacity, and the man only a “half.” Whereas Nonie Darwish tries to cast aspersion on this teaching of Qur’an 2:282, the Bible teaches about those who “hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon” that, “At the mouth of TWO witnesses, or THREE witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of ONE witness he shall NOT be put to death”–(Deut. 17:2-6). Would Christians say that one man’s witness is not to be taken under all situations? And the answer is yes as Deut. 19:15 shows: ONE Witness shall NOT rise up against a man for ANY iniquity or for ANY sin” and as the teaching of Jesus (the Christian’s God) shows: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two MORE, that in the mouth of TWO or THREE witnesses every word may be established” “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO MEN is true”–(Matt. 18:15-16; John 8:17). Whereas Deuteronomy deals with “witness” in the case of false worship and “any” sin, Matthew deals with personal transgression and John seems to deal with all cases which is in consonance with Deut. 19:15. Thus, the Jewish and Christian man’s witness is less than the Muslim man’s. And since Christianity (and Judaism) requires TWO men to bear witness (in all matters) and as Islam requires one man and two women (and only in business matters) then clearly, the Muslim woman is equal to the Christian man (and Jewish man) as both their ‘witness” credibility is half. In fact, as the Muslim woman’s “witness” is half only in business matters compared to the Christian man whose witness is half in all matters then, clearly, the Muslim woman has a greater “witness” credibility than the Christian man. (Jesus mentions the witness of two MEN, did he forgot the women, or does the Christian woman has no “witness” credibility?)

Notably, JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES govern by the teaching of the Bible that ONE Witness shall NOT rise up against a man for ANY iniquity or for ANY sin”–(Deut. 19:15).  The Toronto Star, Tuesday, July 3, 2012, notes in its article by Wendy Gillis, “Sex abuse verdict emboldens Canadians” which reports the story of a Jehovah’s Witnesses girl when “she was 9 years old” being “repeatedly molested” by a male “fellow churchgoer;” that if the accused denies the charges against him and there is no one to substantiate the charges then the Jehovah’s Witnesses ““elders cannot take action”” because the Scriptures say ““‘No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin.’””

   It would be interesting to note the Jehovah’s Witnesses response if a 9-7 year-old Jehovah’s Witnesses girl was to have consensual sex with a Jehovah’s Witnesses adult male and if the man was charged by the State, if Jehovah’s Witnesses would apply the defense in court that the Biblical teaching allows girls who have sprouted breasts and genital hairs as being ready for sex; as the ANSWERING ISLAM Christian apologist and critic (on the Internet) states:

“the Holy Bible makes a reference to the general age of a girl considered for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God likens Israel to a baby girl whom Yahweh took in and then eventually married.” The verse in reference reads: “On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD.” Ezekiel 16:4-14. God mentions that the young babe attained the age for lovemaking after her breasts had formed and her pubic hairs had grown, clear signs of puberty. The reason we believe that the reference is to pubic hair is because a) the hair on the head of a girl grows many years before reaching the time of puberty, and b) the connection to nakedness suggests that the exposure of her body parts needed to be covered since it was shameful for them to be exposed for all to see. In other words, there was no shame for the hair of a girl’s head to be uncovered, but exposing one’s pubic hairs would be.” Pay attention to the fact that it is only after the young girl attained maidenhood, puberty, that God passed by again and thenproceeded to marry her. God’s spreading the corner of his garment and making a covenant with the young maiden refers to marriage.” “Thus, we have a biblical text establishing puberty as the minimum age for marriage.” (The Christian also notes the views of others and concludes): “In light of the foregoing we conclude that the Bible does set forth the acceptable age of marriage. Yahweh’s parable to his people presupposes their prior knowledge and acceptance of the marriageable age being set sometime after a young maiden has attained puberty. Anything before this would be viewed as abnormal and unusual.” (Highlight and color added). Thus since girls as young as seven sprout breasts and pubic hair and even menstruate then, according to the Bible these seven-year-old girls are ready for sex and marriage. For more on this see ‘AISHA; WOMAN- TESTIMONY HALF OF MAN’S.

            (b) That the majority of residents in hell are women.       

   Response: We will have to wait for Judgment Day to know if this is truth. Significantly, (whereas in Islam the rich has equal opportunity with the poor to enter into heaven) Jesus says the rich will never enter into heaven: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”–(Matt. 19:24. Nonie Darwish needs to tell this to all the rich Christians, from the White House all the way down, especially those who covet Muslims’ lands and oil and other resources and try shovel riches into storehouses on earth. And coveting is a major Biblical sin–(Ex. 20:17. And the Church is said to have billions in assets).

            (c) People ruled by a woman will never be successful.

   Response:  Since the Qur’an is our Constitution, and a man or woman would have to govern by it, therefore it seems logical that a woman also can be ruler.  Perhaps the reason why some positions such as head of state, leader of the armed forces, imam and judge are not delegated to women are because 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, God, 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.

            (d) A woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil.

   Response: This simply means that men, who are generally the aggressor, are drawn to women to commit sin. Isn’t this the truth?) The hadith to Nonie Darwish’s charge states: “Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.” –(Muslim #3240).  Without doubt, this is sage advice; rather than to lust after other women and commit sin with them calm your intimate urges with your wife. (The functional man who is not stirred by an attractive woman needs to see his doctor).

            (e) Women are more harmful to men than anything else.

   Response: While, doubtlessly, men have betrayed women. The biggest names in betrayal are women: Lot’s two daughters betrayed their father into giving them “seed”–(Gen. 19:30-38); Tamar betrayed her father-in-law, Judah, by disguising as a “harlot” to commit adultery with her–(Gen. 38:11-18); Delilah betrayed Samson, selling him out to the Philistines for “pieces of silver”–(Judges 16:5-21); Bathsheba betrayed her husband, Uriah, bedding down with David, Jesus’ grandfather–(2 Sam 11:2-5); and Mata Hari is said to have betrayed France to Germany. (Notably, Judas was no “betrayer” of Christ. According to the Gospels Judas was fulfilling scriptures. Fulfilling scriptures is not “betrayal;” it is honor).  While the Prophet may have said this he also is reported as saying that a virtuous wife is the most valuable asset and that paradise lies at the feet of mothers. It is the Biblical teaching, as shown elsewhere, that regards woman as being the “most harmful” to men: she being “transgressor” and a “defiler” and betrayer of man.

            (f) Nonie Darwish quotes from the “Codified Islamic Law”:  “The husband may forbid the wife to leave the home.”

   Response: Wouldn’t your husband “forbid” you to leave the home if he has reasons to believe you might be heading into danger? Or if he believes the bunch you are going out with is wayward, or that you might be peer-pressured or ebb into compromising situations? As shown, Islam does not prevent a woman from going about her needs. It is the Christian woman who is ruled from marriage to death by her husband and relegated to “all subjection” that can be “forbidden” to leave the home.

            (g) ND quotes Al-Ghazali as stating: “If the husband’s body is covered with pus and blood and if the wife lick and drink it, still her obligation to (her) husband will not be fulfilled.”

   Response: For what this saying of Al-Ghazali is worth, Islam forbids the use of blood. Al-Ghazali, as all men, is not infallible.

            (h) ND quotes from Tabari: “Women are domestic animals; beat them.”

   Response: But Allāh tells us that men and women are mates of the other, with love and compassion and mercy between them; are friends and protectors of the other; and are garments to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify and conceal faults. So who are you going to believe and follow –Tabari or Allāh? 

            (i) Nonie Darwish quotes from Tabari: “Women are half devils.”

   Response: Allāh says that men and women are created from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1). Thus if women are half devils, Tabari (and all men) must be half devils as well. Tabari can say what he likes Allāh, the Creator, says that He created man and woman to be mates of the other; has put love and compassion between them; that they are FRIENDS AND PROTECTORS of the other; are garments of each other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and cover faults; and that man may find peace and comfort in her. Doesn’t sound to me like “Women are half devils.” In fact, as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din explains, “The Qur-an gave the name of mohsina to Woman, which meant that she was neither the “organ of the devil” nor his gate­way, but a rocky fortress against Satan. (See item #122). In contrast, Christian women are more like “half devils” (and even like whole “devils”) considering her Scripture molds her as being good only to avoid fornication, and dubs her as transgressor and as “defiler” and betrayer of man. No wonder her Christian Fathers have “Christened” her with such corrosive titles as “devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the Divine Law; you destroyed as easily God’s image;” “the organ of the devil,” “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” “the poisonous asp,” “the malice of the dragon.” (See item #122)

            (j) ND notes the Prophet as saying: “A woman has a crooked character, similar to the man’s rib that she was created from. The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.”

   Response: First, Allāh did not say that woman was created from a man’s/Adam’s rib. Second, this saying of the Prophet is not a derogatory statement, but an advice. What is meant is that women who are comfortable or accustomed to doing things one way should not be forced to adopt another method –such forcing is likely to result in contention. Or that, as he also said, and which would seem to be an explanation of the former saying, that if one is displeased with one trait of his wife, he should be pleased with another in her that is good (rather than try to change her and risk having a dispute; or to condemn or quarrel with her over the trait that he is displeased with).  

   124.(51) Nonie Darwish: “It has been rumored that several Egyptian belly dancers took an early retirement after wealthy Saudis bribed them with millions of dollars to abandon belly dancing and appear on Arab TV preaching their newly found piety and virtue” (p. 89). (Even the Saudis good deeds are castigated. See item #44).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “Perhaps the most repulsive and tragic of such women are those who openly celebrate the death of their suicide-bomber sons in the jihad against the Jews….Such women are called heroes in Arab papers and are set up as the ideal example of what a Muslim woman should be. These miserable souls have paid dearly to get respect, recognition, and a life pension.” (p. 89).  

   Response: Didn’t Jews kill Muslims and drive them from their land? Why then shouldn’t Muslims undertake the noble armed jihad against Jews and reclaim our land? Didn’t America undertake “crusade” at the U.N. and stole Muslim Palestine and gave it to Jews and for more than sixty torturous years been helping Jews against Muslims? Why then should Muslims not undertake the noble armed Jihad against Jews to reclaim our lands? Why should Muslims not undertake the noble armed Jihad against America for America to stop helping Jews and return Palestine to us? Will you accept such travesties perpetrated against Muslims for yourself and/or family? Will America? Will anyone?

   What makes you think these martyrs (shaheeds) are “suicide-bombers? And why are these mothers “miserable”? These mothers not only get “respect, recognition, and a life pension” but for their patience, devotion, and trust in Allāh they will also get Jannah; the ultimate and most coveted of rewards. Such a  Muslim mother is “the ideal example of what a Muslim woman should be.”

   In Islam power is no “illusion.” 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 (when we follow the injunctions of Allāh): “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers”–(Qur’an 24:55). Our history is testimony to this truth of Allāh. Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant.

(Fourteen hundred years ago Prophet Mohammad brought us from darkness into light; he took us from ignorance into knowledge; he brought us from tribalism into unity –he demolished the barriers from among Muslims. But we have taken this gilded scepter of Islam and forged it around our necks into a yoke of defeat, division and dependency. We Muslims are to uproot and incinerate the cancer of      sectism ravaging the Ummah of Mohammad: “Be not of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it;” He, Allāh will make clear to you wherein you differ–(Qur’an 30:31-32; 16:92; 39:46; 42:10. TO FOSTER SECTISM IS TO DEFY ALLĀH;  as Allāh will show us the truth of the matter wherein we differ why  are  we  polarizing  ourselves  and  killing  one another? and we expect Him to give us Jannah!); we must end internecine war: “Never should a Believer kill a Believer;” Muslims are of one Brotherhood; so make peace between your brothers; “After my death, do not become  disbelievers  by  cutting the necks of one another” –(Qur’an 4:92; 21:92; 49:10; Bokhari Vol. 9, #7); we are to take to the text books and lab “and say: My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114). The venerable Caliph, ‘Umar reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.”

Hijrah 1436 (year 2015) can be our reunification date. It is not a stupendous task for us to be united–we already are, under the Holy Kalimah. The tribes of 7th century Arabia had lascivity, poetry and idolatry: they united. We 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). How much longer are we going to have SECTISM keep us from Allāh and success?

   125.(52) ND. spoke about “gender apartheid” between “the husband and wife relationship especially in public, poisoning it with feelings of shame, distrust, and hostility.” (p. 111).

   Response: Allāh says that He created men and women to be mates of the other, puts love and compassion and mercy between them, that they are friends of one another, and husbands and wives are garments to the other; such a sublime relationship can hardly be regarded as “gender apartheid” between “the husband and wife relationship especially in public, poisoning it with feelings of shame, distrust, and hostility.” You need to revisit Christianity’s treatment of woman before trying to libel Islam.

   Regarding the hadith of Bokhari Vol. 7 #115 which states that some Muslims “used to avoid chatting leisurely and freely with our wives lest some Divine inspiration might be revealed concerning us. But when the Prophet had died, we started chatting leisurely and freely (with them).” It is preposterous to view these Muslims avoidance in chatting with their wives so that no Divine revelation would be given against it as “gender apartheid” in Islam. If Allāh had wanted “gender apartheid” He would not have depended on the actions of these Muslims. That there is no “gender apartheid” in Islam is made clear by Allāh in His Qur’an where He says that Muslim men and women are friends and protectors of the other; the only restriction being that they (non-couples) are not to engage in “amorous” conversations –(Qur’an 9:71; 33:32). It would be absurd to say that Allāh forbids “amorous” conversations between husband and wife when they are mates of the other.  

   It is Christianity –with its rabid misogyny: that woman is good only for sex and a “defiler” and betrayer of man who is to be ruled over in “silence” and with “all subjection” and who can be put away for almost any reason– that fosters “gender apartheid” between “the husband and wife relationship especially in public, poisoning it with feelings of shame, distrust, and hostility.” There is no master-slave relationship between men and women in Islam. There is master-slave relationship between men and women in Christianity. (See item #18).

   126.(53) Nonie Darwish wrote: ““The Prophet said, ‘I looked at Paradise and saw that the majority of its residents were the poor.’”” (p. 117).

   Response:  Whereas Islam/Mohammad taught that the rich has equal opportunity to enter Paradise Jesus, the Christians’ son of God (and God, as Christians say that Jesus is God) declared that the rich shall never make it into heaven:  “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”–Matt. 19:24. As stated, Nonie Darwish needs to pass this gem on to her rich Christian brothers and sisters, from the White House all the way down; especially those who covet Muslims’ land and oil and other resources and are shoveling treasures into storehouses on earth–Matt. 6:19-20).

   Thus reason dictates that since, obviously, the majority of people are “poor” and moreover as there will be no rich man/ woman in heaven, as Jesus says, then “the majority of people in Paradise will be the poor.” Mohammad is correct in his saying. A truth substantiated by Nonie Darwish’s son of God and “God.” But anti-Mohammad bigotry is so excruciatingly blissful in Christendom Nonie Darwish cannot even discern this simple truth. But then again Christians do not seem to govern by reason –as God requires (Isaiah 1:18)– but follow blind faith. (As one brother said to me years back that [theologically] Christian reasoning is dead [nailed to the cross of blind faith]. Though I would not say that Christian reasoning is dead: only that it is still in the womb).

   127.(54).Nonie Darwish wrote: “Poverty and contentment with one’s share in life is a virtue in Islam, and the men on the street have bought that scam. Women have also been scammed into protecting their valuable chastity, waiting endlessly in their parents’ homes to realize their aspirations for marriage, which is limited and controlled by those who can afford to pay the dowry for their enslavement.” (p. 117).

   Response: Didn’t Jesus teach that poverty is virtue? Here is what the Christians son of God (and even God as Christians say Jesus is God) taught:  “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;” “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth…But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven;” (Christians are to depend on strangers for food) “As ye go (to) preach…Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses. Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat;” “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.…for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”–(Matt. 19:24; 6:19-20; 10:7-10; 6:25-34).

   Fortunately America and Europe haven’t “bought that scam.” If America and Europe were to follow such absurd doctrines –which may very well have been doctrines invented by man in order to subdue, subjugate, and sack unthinking natives of their treasures; as it was said that the white man gave the black man the Bible and took his gold; and that first the white man clothed the natives then enslaved him– America and Europe would plummet from the pinnacle of progress like a giant lead ball into the black hole of backwardness. If everyone was to follow this teaching of Christ to depend on others the whole world would be a place of loafers and beggars.

   Not even Christians follow these ridiculous doctrines. In fact, not even the Church, the “vicar of Christ,” follows them; herself having billions in assets. And the Pope and Bishops and Bible thumpers must have loads of gold or cash or credit card(s) on them, and the best and expensive shoes; and the Pope seems to have the biggest of “staves.”  

   “Poverty and contentment with one’s share in life is a virtue in” Christianity as practiced in monkery. After all, whereas “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, the Son of man (Jesus) hath not where to lay his head”–(Matt. 8:20). It may be said that Jesus was the “Prince of Poverty” and demanded that his followers also live and die in “poverty.” (Please note this is the Christian’s Jesus; for the Muslim’s Jesus read the Qur’an)

   Muslim men on the street may have bought into the “scam” that “Poverty and contentment with one’s share in life is a virtue,” but this is not the teaching of Islam.

   First, there is no such distinction as “secular” knowledge. All knowledge is from Allāh as indicated by the very first five verses of Revelation given to the Prophet Mohammad (Qur’an 96:1-5) and that of Qur’an 14:1 which states, respectively: “Read in the name of thy Lord who creates –Creates man from a clot, Read and thy Lord is most generous, Who taught by the pen, Taught man what he knew not;” “I, Allāh, am the Seer. A Book which We have revealed to thee that thou mayest bring forth men, by their Lord’s permission, from darkness into light, to the way of the Mighty, the Praised One.”

   And this knowledge from Allāh is designated into two groups (1) material knowledge which provides nutrients for the body (2) religious or spiritual knowledge which provides nutrients for the soul. 

   Unlike Christianity which teaches backwardness and beggary Mohammad teaches us to pray and to work and to teach the Message of Allāh at our own expense –to be dignified. Islam has declared war on ignorance and “fatalism”:

   -Allāh instructs us: “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,’ and 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). And Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate that ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls”–(p. 120).

   -Muslims are enjoined to seek Allāh’s help in obtaining knowledge: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114). Muslims are also required to pray and to seek of the grace/bounties of Allāh–Qur’an 62:9-10).

   -We can have only what we strive for–(Qur’an 53:39).

   -“For men is the benefit of what they earn. And for women is the benefit of what they earn”–(Qur’an 4:32).

   -To give/spend of the good things which we earn–(Qur’an 2:267).

   -“And give…and squander not wastefully–(Qur’an 17:26).

  -Not to hoard wealth–(Qur’an, 3:14; 9:34-35; 70:17-18; 104:2-3).

  -“O children of Adam attend to your adornments at every time of prayer and eat and drink and be not extravagant…Say, who has forbidden the adornment of Allāh…”–(Qur’an 7:31-32). (see also PREDESTINATION).

   Allāh does not forbid Muslims from having wealth, only the hoarding of it. In Islam the prince and the pauper have equal opportunity to get into heaven. Muslims are expected to be scientists, engineers, physicians and surgeons etc; for us to be industrious to the best of our ability. And while situations and social circumstances can force one into penury, the self-imposed fakir has no sanction from Islam.

   Whereas Jesus advocated and encouraged loafing, mendacity, stagnation and backwardness, Mohammad taught us to be industrious, independent, educated and self-sufficient. Whether grudgingly or gracefully, who will you emulate?

   While it is correct to say that Islam require its men and women to “protecting their valuable chastity,” Islam does not require Muslim WOMEN to be “waiting endlessly in their parents’ homes to realize their aspirations for marriage.” Islam requires that both men and women engage in the pursuit of knowledge and the bounties of Allāh. So much so that even slave girls were to be educated and married;  the Prophet Mohammad declared: “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).Islam does not have a prescribed age for marriage. A woman can propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #54, 63)

   “Protecting their valuable chastity, waiting endlessly in their parents’ homes to realize their aspirations for marriage,” is the lot of Christian women. If her father does not first sell her into slavery–(Ex. 21:7). The Christian woman is wife only to avoid fornication (for the humiliation and degradation of Christian women see CRITICS).      

  128.(55). Nonie Darwish sates: “Violence against infidels is central to Islamic scriptures and jurisprudence. This is what the good Muslim man must do to the unbelievers:  “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I will terrorize the unbelievers (non-Muslims). Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of heir fingers and toes–(Qur’an 8:12); “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war” –(Qur’an 9:5). (pp. 118-119) 

   Response: (These are probably the most age-old and worn out verses of the Qur’an that critics have cited in their ignorance or desperation to vilify Islam. They have been debunked 5000 ways to sundown. And the word “torture” in the second verse is incorrect; the word is “besiege”–besiege them).It is not “violence” to defend against those whose sole purpose, and without justification, is to extirpate you. It is the God-given right! Contrastingly, whereas Allāh allows “killing” in self-defense those who first take up the sword against you, the Biblical God not only massacres the young and old and  men and women and even asses and ox so that the Israelites can occupy  their land He even sanctions enslaving peaceful “heathen” neighbors. (Talk about terrorism!). And the Christians’ “God” and son of God commands the slaughter of those who merely does not want him to rule (though they would not militate against him). And whereas Muslims are to “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, besiege them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war;” here is what the Biblical God commands:

   -“thou shalt smite every male thereof: But the women, and the little ones…shalt thou take unto thyself;”“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.–(Deut.20:12-17; Num. 31:17-18);

   -“So they made war against the Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed EVERY MALE ….And they brought the CAPTIVES and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar… And Moses said to them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who has known man intimately, but ALL THE GIRLS who have not known man intimately (virgins) SPARE FOR YOURSELVES (Can you visualize the “terror” on these especially little boys and women watching their fellows being butchered and waiting their turn?)….Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, You and Eleazar…take a count of the BOOTY that was captured, both of MAN and of animal; and divide the BOOTY between the WARRIORS who went out to battle and all the congregation….Now the BOOTY that remained from the SPOIL which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep…and of human beings, of the WOMEN who had not known man intimately (virgins), all the persons were 32,000. And the half, the portion of those who went out to war, was as follows: the number of sheep was 337,500…And the human beings were 16,000…The men of war had taken BOOTY, every man for HIMSELF.”

   -The Christian’s God also smote the dazzling daughters of Zion and peeked at their “private parts”: “Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their SECRET PARTS”–(Isaiah 3:16). 

   -The Christian’s God (Jesus) gore included even the fetus: (After the Lord had brought drought on Samaria) “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the SWORD: their INFANTS shall be dashed to pieces, and their WOMEN WITH CHILD shall be ripped up” –(Hosea 13:15-16).  

   -And here are two classics and unsurpassed cases of “terror” in the annals of Scripture and even history, from Nonie Darwish’s God (and as Christian claim that Jesus is God Jesus from Jesus): for their teasing the baldheaded Elisha, the Christian’s God had the children torn by bears: “And he (Elisha) went up from thence to Bethel…there came forth LITTLECHILDREN…and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up thou BALD HEAD…And he (Elisha) turned back, and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth TWO SHE BEARS out of the wood, and TARE FORTY AND TWO CHILDREN of them” –(2 Kings 2:22-24). And regarding the children of Jeshurun for their worship of “strange gods”: “I will spend my ARROWS upon them ….I will also send the TEETH OF BEASTS upon them, with the POISON OF SERPENTS of the dust. The SWORD without, and TERROR within, shall destroy both the YOUNG MAN and the VIRGIN, the SUCKLING also with the MAN OF GRAY HAIRS”–(Deut. 32:15-25). This must the mother of all terrorism! Not even Al-Qaeda can equal this, much less beat it).

  -The Christian’s God (“Jesus”) sent evil and had dogs eat Jezebel: “Behold I (God) will bring EVIL upon thee….and will cut off from Ahab him that PISSETH against the wall….And of Jezebel also spake the Lord, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel”–(1 Kings 21:21-24).

  -The Christian’s God (“Jesus”) also had people decapitated: “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).

   -The Christian’s God (“Jesus”) not only gave orders to “Strike off their heads” but also to “cut off “ “fingers and toes”: (The Israelites asked who would go up and fight) “And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand…and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men…and they pursued after him (Adonibezek), and caught him and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Adonibezek said, THREE SCORE AND TEN kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off…”–(Judges 1:1-7).   

   But for Mohammad’s trees of righteous self defense, Nonie Darwish cannot see the Christian’s forest of aggression, genocide, faunicide and female child sex slavery.

  129.(56) Nonie Darwish notes an incident in which a “blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him….So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her…He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allāh! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you…I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion…I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.” (p. 122).

   Response:  (This man had “two sons” with his “mother”? While in pre-Islamic Arabia a man could inherit the wife of his father, these pre-Islamic women were not captives of war so that they should be designated as “slaves.” Thus, if this man’s wife was his father’s wife and he had inherited her she could not be his “mother,” if she was he should have referred to her as his mother –that he had two sons from/with his “mother”).  

   Whatever this hadith is worth, it is to be noted that the Prophet did not order this killing. That no blood-money was payable for the woman’s death is so because no one gives compensation to the enemy. If you think this is injustice, go tell the Allies of WWII they should compensate the Germans; Britain to compensate Argentina; America and Allies to compensate Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein’s descendants and the Talibans (and Saddam Hussein and Talibans did not abuse America and entourage).

   Even in modern times one can land in jail for merely uttering a threat of “death.” (America flew thousands of miles to Yemen to kill her own citizen Awlaki; the Allies are killing Talibans, who have done nothing against them, and in Taliban’s own country; and so-called “Israel” have killed their hapless and helpless Palestinian victims and even writer and poet; and people are held and even charged as accomplice and associate; and even as acquaintance in the case of Al-Qaeda). Consider then what these modern nations would do to one on their soil who advocates or plots death to their leaders or associates, as Mohammad’s opponents were advocating; and not only advocating but had actually persecuted, tried to assassinate, exiled, pursued to another city, and even pursued his followers to another country (Abyssinia/Ethiopia) to annihilate them? Did Mohammad not had the right to kill those who first sought to kill him? Lets’ see you allow someone to kill you if you have the chance to kill him.

   Contrastingly, whereas Nonie Darwish tries to denigrate the Prophet Mohammad, a mere mortal, for this killing of the woman (and as noted, Mohammad did not authorize this killing), as noted in item #128 Nonie Darwish’s God of the Bible (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) sends bears to eat children for teasing the bald headed (which is hardly comparable to that which Mohammad was made to suffer); he sends beasts against heathen; had helpless and blameless and dumb animals slain; had all women even little boys slain and budding and prepubescent girls taken as war booty (and possibly to be raped); had non-combatant pregnant women and their fetus ripped open;  regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and those who are not with as being against him (and people can be neutral; here the non-Jews are forced out of his camp as being “dogs” and ‘swine” then he charges them as being against him; talk about “catch 55”), and orders that his enemies (which would include the “dogs” and “swine” he forced out of his camp) who doesn’t want him to rule to be slain (even though they might not militate against him–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27. Wonder what this Christians son of God and God would have done if he had military power, or if he was persecuted, was victim of assassination attempt, exiled, pursued, and warred on as Mohammad was).

   And Nonie Darwish finds fault with Mohammad for this woman’s death (though as shown, Mohammad did not order the killing of this woman). How much more gruesome and “chilling” can the Christian’s/Biblical God, “Jesus,” executions be? 

   130.(57) Nonie Darwish opines (that the Islamic system) “backed by powerful scriptures heaps shame on anyone who has second thoughts about jihad. The Qur’an encourages Muslims who are slow and reluctant to attack unbelievers: “Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘march in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come?….If you do not go to war, he God will punish you sternly, and will replace you with other men”–(Qur’an 9:38-39).” (p. 125)

   Response:Men who refuse or try to dodge military conscription are hounded and court-martialed, and even for refusing to take part in a war of aggression. What would you, Nonie Darwish, say about the Christian “system” backed by the Bible attacking and killing “unbelievers,” men and women, old and young, cattle and ox and everything that breathed, just to occupy their lands and take little virgin girls for concubines; and the butchering of pregnant women and fetus and infants just because they rebelled against God (as noted in item #128)? To ‘march in the cause of God,’ is to march in the cause of truth and justice. And there is no better cause in which to march than in the cause of truth and justice –in the cause of Allāh, God!

   Nonie Darwish continues: The Qur’an promises rewards in the afterlife for waging jihad: “Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from a woeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons….He will forgive you your sins and admit you to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph”–(Qur’an 61:10-12)” “The message to men is: “The Prophet said, “To fight in Allāh’s cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.” (p. 125).  

  Response: So Christ can give his life in the cause of sinners (as Christians allege) but Muslims cannot give their lives in the cause of Allāh?  So the Christian’s God can have His people (Israelites) slaughter indiscriminately to give them land, loot, and women (very young “virgins”) on earth; but Allāh cannot give Muslims “rewards in the afterlife” for fighting in His cause?)

   To fight in Allāh’s cause is to fight in the cause of truth and justice.  It is doubtless that all believers in God expect a better life in the Hereafter. Soldiers who give their lives for their countries and even for the freedom/justice of others are honored with the highest award their country can offer. Where then is the difficulty that Allāh should award those who undertake noble jihad in the cause of truth and justice? There is no better cause than to give one’s life in the service of Allāh. And no better/ higher reward than the reward from Allāh.

   131.(58) Nonie Darwish notes the Prophet as saying: “Whoever has killed an unbeliever and has proof or a witness of it, then his belongings will be for him.” (p. 126).

   Response:  As evidenced by the Qur’an Islam only allows Muslims a defensive fight. The ‘unbeliever” referred to is one who militates against Muslims. And thus his belongings are for the Muslim one who triumphs over him.

   From day one of his mission Mohammad was under the threat of extirpation. He was under the shadow of the assassin; persecuted; exiled, pursued; and warred upon. All he did was preached the Message of Allāh. Had the enemies not taken up the sword against Mohammad, Mohammad would not have taken up the sword in self-defense. What fool is there who would not try to protect his life against the attacker and using whatever method of defense available?(Even in modern times nations who are transgressors try to defend themselves).

   Whereas Mohammad, as all victors, are entitled to the spoils (booty) of war, the Bible God had His “chosen people” slaughtered others to occupy their land and consume their belongings, even their pre-pubescent girls. (See item # 18 for this Biblical carnage). To restate. But for Mohammad’s trees of righteous self defense, Nonie Darwish cannot see the Christian’s forest of aggression, genocide, faunicide and female child sex- slavery.

   132.(59) Nonie Darwish notes: “The Prophet has said that Muslims will divide into many sects but only one sect will go into heaven. That means the majority of Muslims are infidels and apostates who do not deserve heaven.” (p. 126).     

   Response:Allāh informs us in His Qur’an that the verses for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment are clear and that some people follow the allegorical verses in order to mislead: “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of it’s verses are decisive –they are the basis of the Book– and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation”–(Qur’an 3:7).  

   Prophet Mohammad was probably conscious of the fact that there will be religious charlatans, (and ignorant people who will follow them, rather than seek knowledge on their own) perhaps this is why he cautions us that ‘After my death, do not become disbelievers by cutting the necks of one another’ –(Bokhari Vol. 9, #’s7; 83 and 539); and for Muslims to not call one another kafir (disbeliever) for if it turns out that the accused is not a kafir then the caller becomes the kafir–(Bokhari Vol. 1 # 386.  Vol. 8 # 70, 71, 125 (A), 125 (B), 126).

   And supremely, His Holy Highness, Allāh, admonishes us in His Qur’an to not divide ourselves, that He will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ: “(Be not) Of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it,” “And He will certainly make clear to you on the day of Resurrection that wherein you differed”–(Qur’an 30:32; 16:92; 39:46; 42:10. Yet Muslims defy Allāh and divide; and even slaughter one another; and yet expect Allāh to give us Paradise. Talk about hallucination/delusion!)

   And the venerable caliph ‘Umar reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.”

   If “the majority of Muslims are infidels and apostates” it is not because of Jihad or of any other teaching of Islam. It is because of their own arrogance or ignorance or stupidity –or all three– for defying Allāh and His illustrious Messenger that they will be toasted in Hell. Muslims are to turf out SECTIST leaders. We are not Sunni and Shi’ah and Ahmadi and Wahhabi etc; WE ARE MUSLIMS FIRST, LAST, AND FOREMOST! We are to designate each  and every Masjid as “UMMAH OF MOHAMMAD–ISLAMIC CENTRE” and identified by their street address. Islam is not each one doing his own thing: Islam is everyone doing one thing!

   133.(60) ND: “The driving force behind Sharia is jihad, asserting the supremacy of Arabia, the never-ending restless expansion and enforcement of Islam worldwide.” (p. 127).

   Response:The Divine institution of the noble jihad is not about “asserting the supremacy of Arabia,” or of anyone. As explained jihad is the striving in the cause of justice. The least of this striving is the armed struggle. In fact, every honest individual is to be engaged in this jihad. The Prophet’s (and Muslims’) duty is to only teach the Qur’anic Message not enforce it. Islam does not need force to propagate its teachings: Islam, in contrast to Christianity and other religions, is blessed with the Divine allure of reason. And, in the words of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din: “Compulsion is of no avail when logic begins to rule the world.”  (For Jihad see item #8).   

   Shari’ah liberated woman from the bog of degradation and humiliation in which Judaism and Christianity had her mired and given her rights that leave her nothing for which to strive.

   It is Christianity with her millions of missionaries that is on a “never-ending restless expansion” in the world. (See item #44).

   134.(61) Nonie Darwish notes two Egyptian Christian brothers, ages “eleven and thirteen,” refusing to accept Islam when their father converted to Islam. The boys said “they will not “deny their Christianity and convert to Islam no matter what it would cost them.”” (p. 131).

   Response: Poor misguided boys! God calls man to belief not through mystery or magic or mythology of miracles –and even false Christs and false prophets can perform miracles–(Matt. 24:24), or through apparition –whereas Christians have sightings of the non-existent “virgin” Mary (and who knows what Mary looks like?), Hindus have signs of statues drinking milk.112 God calls on man to belief through “reason”: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”–(Isaiah 1:18. Compare Qur’an 16:125).

   Perhaps in time these poor, woefully misguided brothers will each become a truly “independent thinker” and follow Jesus’ dictum to “know the truth” which will set them “free” from falsehood and blasphemy. They will apply “reason” as God requires them and will ransack the Bible and will not find anyplace where God or Jesus says that mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve –and would “reason” that to say that God put Adam’s/Eve’s sin onto others  is to attribute injustice to God. That these two brothers will tumble the Bible over and over and not find anyplace where God or Jesus says that God sent Jesus to be vicarious atoner (a scapegoat) for the sins of others –that God did not send Jesus to die for anyone; that to say that God had one person, an innocent one, for others is to make God complicit in murder; and John 3:16 is not about vicarious atonement, but that reading from verse one shows it is about miracles; but that they will find in the Bible that God says everyman shall die for his own sin–(Deut; 24:16; Ezek; 18:20. 2 Chron.25:4). That these boys will realize that

   -Jesus is not son of God but he is only “called” son of God”–(Luke 1:35); that Son of God s only an epithet of honor: “the Lord came unto Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David….I will be his father, and he shall be my son”–(2 Samuel 7:4, 5, 14); and that there are several who, like Jesus, are “called” son of God: Adam is son of God–(Luke 3:38); Solomon is son of God–(1 Chr. 28:6); David is begotten son of God–(Psalm 2:7); Israel is son of God, even His “firstborn”–(Ex. 4:22); All the sons of God shouted for joy–(Job 38:7); Ephraim is “firstborn” of God–(Jer. 31:9); Children of Israel are sons of God–(Hosea 1:10); Righteous are sons of God–(Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:1-2); Those who receive Jesus, who believe in his name are sons of God–(John 1:12); Even peacemakers (which would seem to include atheists and women) are children of God–(Matt. 5:9); Jesus gave others “power to become the sons of God”–(John 1:12); Satan also is son of God–(Job 1:6).

   -that Jesus is not God with us but only his ”name” means God with us–(Isaiah 7:14 and Matt.1:23). They will “reason” that God and/or His son does not need to eat “butter and honey” to be able to choose between good and evil; heck! not even ordinary mortals need to eat butter and honey to distinguish good from evil–(Isaiah 7:14-15); that if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, Elisabeth could not be filled with the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost was in Mary’s womb, and was also with Zachariah–(Luke 1:41-43, 67);  if Jesus was God, God would have ascended to himself–(John 20:17); if Jesus was God, God would have led himself into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil–(Matt. 4:1); if Jesus was God, God would have sent himself to the Jews–(John 6:38; 17:3); if Jesus was God, God would have prayed to himself; “forsaken” himself on the cross; thanked himself; heard himself; and worshipped himself–(Matt; 26:39; 27:46; Luke 10:21; John 11:41; 4:22); if Jesus was God, God would have been able to do things of himself–(John 5:30); if Jesus is God, man would do greater works than God–(John 14:12); if Jesus was God, God would be sitting on his own right hand–(Mark 16:19).

   Perhaps these two “Christian” boys would eventually “reason that God would not have a “chosen people” to the exclusion of others –that for God to do so would make Him unjust: choosing people on the basis of race, a factor on which we had no choice, a factor He gave us     

   Perhaps these two “Christian” boys would eventually learn that karma and reincarnation are not Divinely revealed doctrine, they will consult Britannica and read that:“The origin and the development of the belief in the transmigration of souls are very obscure…This doctrine of samsara (reincarnation) is attributed to the sage Uddalaka Aruni, who is said to have learned it from a Ksatriya chief. In the same text, the doctrine of karma (works) …also occurs for the first time, attributed to Yajnavalkya. Both doctrines appear to have been new and strange ones, circulating among small groups of ascetics who were disinclined to make them public.113 And these boys will reason that Karma law of action and equal reaction– is for science. That Along with his right to retaliate, man is endowed with reason and to be merciful and forgiving. That the God Who gives to all human action an equal and opposite reaction is devoid of mercy: there is no room in Him for forgiveness. And that if karma/reincarnation were Divine truths, trying to improve the conditions of the unfortunate –which is the “reaction” to their bad karma– would be to work against karma; and if such works are successful man would have subverted karma.

   These two “Christian” boys may also learn that while Hindus are divided as to whether one is reincarnated in only one kingdom –as a mosquito or pig all the time– or in “any of 8,400,000 general species of material bodies…the primitive microbes and amoebas…the aquatic, plant, insect, reptile, bird, and animal species, and culminating in human beings and demi-gods” that in fact reincarnation into different creatures or plants is no punishment for sins the souls as animals can be said to be at no disadvantage, nor as a means of punishment for a past life of evil; an animal is suited to its kingdom; a worm, dog, cat, cockroach, etc; must be just as comfortable and happy in its state and surroundings as man (generally) is in his. In fact, the souls, in some cases, are worse off in the form of man than they are in the form of animals if we take into account the miseries man suffers at the hands of his fellow man –enslavement, torture, eviction; discrimination, as in the caste system. Consider how some dogs and cats are treated regally, pampered, well nourished, and may even inherit their master’s will. These dogs and cats could not have been humans relegated to animals, so as to be pampered in reward for pampering animals in a past life. Because, according to karma, those who do good go to a higher form of life, not to a lower form. In the physical sphere, man, by virtue of his ability to reason, is the highest form of life (If sub-humans had wisdom bees and hornets, by virtue of their size, sting and flight might be ruling the world –forcing man to constantly wear armor. And apes, that have hands as man, would be designing sky-scrapers and bullet trains and powering space-crafts and ocean liners).And that if souls are reincarnated as various creatures they must remember their past lives and be master linguists –in both human and animal speech– having experienced lives as these creatures; and the souls must remember their past lives seeing that God is inside the soul, and God is Omniscient. In fact, every one or nearly everyone should be a master linguist. But there are no such known individuals –in the nearly two billion years since the Veda is said to have been revealed, there should be legions; surely with such talents one would come forth to be known. If the soul does not remember its past life then a person who relates an experience of a past time cannot attribute such an experience to reincarnation.

   These “Christian” boys would “reason” that  souls do not come from any external place to join with the fetus; that the limbs and soul are latent in the life-germ much like the parts and fragrance of a plant are latent in its seed–(Qur’an 23:12-14). As the fragrance of the flower, though a different medium, manifests from the seed likewise the soul, though a different medium, manifests from the cell according to the laws inscribed by Allāh, God. And that souls do not transmigrate from one creature to another is evident from the fact that man can clone creatures and humans.  Karma can not dictate that a soul enter a clone –which is a duplicate of a being– as the being would be alive and still has its soul.

   -Perhaps these two “Christian” boys would reason that if there were two Creators (or more than two) then the other Gods would have been able to seek a way to the Lord of the Throne (to overthrow Him)–(Qur’an 17:42); if there were other Gods besides God  governing the heavens and the earth there would be confusion in them–(Qur’an 21:22); if there were other Gods with God then each would have taken away what He created, and some of them would have seek to dominate others–(Qur’an 23:91); if there were other Gods besides God it would be expected that they would send their messengers with their own revelations. These “Christian” boys would better visualize the chaos of having more than one God as noted by Hinduism: “Viswaamitra was a king who attained sainthood through terrible austerities. He had long ago exhibited his spiritual powers by starting to create another Brahma and a rival universe: he had gone as far as the creation of new constellations, but was prevailed upon to stop by the entreaties of the alarmed gods.” (p. 19). These boys might imagine polytheism with its multiple gods; half a’ dozen disgruntled or ambitious gods each creating his own “rival universe.” And might shudder with relief that there is only one God.

   -Perhaps these two “Christian” boys would eventually “reason” that Bahaiism does not have any basis in Islam as there is no such teaching as a “hidden” Imam from which Bahaiism is born, but that this is only a Shi’ah belief. That Bahaiism has abandoned the religion of Abraham, as they do not practice circumcision which is the sacred and everlasting covenant between God and Abraham, and is the bedrock of the three great prophets, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad, and all who profess to be the followers of Abraham and believers in God. That Bahaiism has fanangled the Zodiac system –a year does not have twelve months but nineteen, and that a month does not have 29-30 days but 19, which would mean that the moon is no longer useful in computing the months seeing that the month now consists of only nineteen days.

   That these “Christian” boys will come to the conclusion that

Any man and woman that governs by reason has no alternative but to follow Islam

   135.(62) Nonie Darwish: “Christian pastors often said, “We are all sinners” and only through the grace of God can we be forgiven…The notion that God is gracious and forgiving was an exciting revelation to me. That meant we don’t have to die in bloody battles killing others –“the real sinners”– to guarantee salvation.” (p. 133).

   Response: (And to know you project yourself as an authority on Islam). Since one is forgiven through the “grace” of God, why then did God need to send Christ to be killed for the sins of others? That is not “grace’ that is dis-“grace.” A monumental dis-“grace.”

   Christian pastors may say that “We are all sinners” but their  Bible contradicts them as it declares that Noah was “just” and “perfect”–(Gen. 6:9). Abel was “righteous”–(Heb. 11:4); Zaccharias and his wife were “righteous” and “blameless”–(Luke 1:5-6); and all prophets were “holy”–(Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21). In fact, according to the pastors (and your) God and son of God, “Jesus,” man is capable even of being as “perfect” as God; he says: “be ye therefore PERFECT, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”–(Matt. 5:48). (I suppose this is what happens when the sheep blindly follows their shepherds: one follows the other into Hell). Surely, some of those Christian saints, especially those visited by the non-existent “Virgin” Mary, must have been sinless and “perfect.” Mother Theresa, at least. No?

   Regarding your “notion that God is gracious and forgiving was an exciting revelation to me. That meant we don’t have to die in bloody battles killing others –“the real sinners”– to guarantee salvation.”Allāh informs us at least 113 times (at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur’an except the ninth) that He is not only “gracious” but “the Most gracious,” as well as “the Most Merciful.” and He calls on us in many verses to forgiveness, the most profound verse of His unselfish “grace” being that of Qur’an 39:53 where He implores us in loving compassionate terms to forgive us our sins; He instructs the Prophet Mohammad to convey to us: “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).(See item #82 for repentance in the Qur’an. See items #77 and 185 for love in the Qur’an).

   Muslims do not kill in order “to guarantee salvation.” Had you read the Qur’an rather than look for non-existent evils you would have known that Islam is the greatest source of “salvation.” You would have known that a Muslim “salvation” is guaranteed if he/she observes the basic tenets of Islam –Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj. Muslims fight injustice. (While there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not in support of terrorism), had Palestine not been stolen from Muslims and had the West not covet Muslim’s land and oil/resource there would be no Muslim fighting against Jews and Christians (and atheists).

   While it has already been shown that Islam is superior to all other religions. If you can show where in the Qur’an Allāh tells Muslims to “kill and rape” not only innocent non-Muslims but any non-Muslims I will follow what you follow. And as you cannot show this then you must follow what I follow –Islam!

   In contrast, there is no “salvation” for non-Jews in Christianity:

“Ye worship ye know not what: we (Jews) know what we worship: for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS”–(John 4:22); “I pray for them (Jews): I pray NOT for the world”–(John 17:9). The religion that regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and preached in parables to deny people salvation is not the religion of “grace”: it is the religion of dis-“grace”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:11-12).

   136.(63) ND quotes Qur’an 5:51, “O ye who believe take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” Don’t think even for a second that the above verse does not cause a major divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.” (p. 135).

   Response:What has caused “a major divide between Muslims and non-Muslims is the “non-Muslims” (specifically Jews and Christians) coveting of Muslim lands and oil/resource and the theft of Palestine!Muhammad Ali comments on this verse (5:51): 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.” And verse 52, as Muhammad Ali states, reads:“But thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease, hastening towards them, saying: We fear lest a calamity should befall us. Maybe Allāh will bring the victory or a commandment from Himself, so they will regret what they hid in their souls.” Muhammad Ali explains: “By hastening towards them is meant hastening to make friendship with them or seeking their help. The hypocrites did this, fearing a Muslim reverse. By victory is meant a victory for the Muslims, and the reference is clearly to the conquest of Makkah. It shows that these verses were revealed before the conquest of Makkah in the year 8 A.H. The reference in amr or commandment is evidently to the establishment of the Kingdom of Islam, by which is meant the dominance of Islam, there being a further reference to the spiritual conquests of Islam in v. 54, for which see 54a.” And the prophecy of verse 54 reads: “O you who believe, should anyone of you turn back from his religion, then Allāh will bring a people, whom He loves and who love Him, humble towards the believers, mighty against the disbelievers, striving hard in Allah’s way and not fearing the censure of any censurer. This is Allah’s grace — He gives it to whom He pleases. And Allāh is Ample-giving, Knowing.” Muhammad Ali: “The Muslims were severely persecuted while at Makkah and their troubles at Madinah increased tenfold owing to the presence of warring tribes on all sides. Yet they faced all these hardships with the greatest perseverance, and cases of apostasy were rare. In 6 A.H. Heraclius asked Abu Sufyan, who was then the leader of hostilities against the Prophet: “Does anyone of them apostatize out of hatred for his religion?” Abu Sufyan’s reply was, No. Again he asked him: Are they increasing or decreasing? Abu Sufyan said; “They are increasing in numbers” (B. 1:1). It is a fact that apostasy never thinned the ranks of Islam.” 

   Incidentally, whereas Allāh prohibits friendship with Jews and Christians, the Biblical Jewish* and Christian God regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and says (and as Christians claim that Jesus is God, Jesus says) to enslave “heathen” neighbors. And according to Jews++ and Christians all non-Jews and non-Christians are “heathen”/ ”infidels.” In which event, counting the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Parsis etc; and atheists  Jews and Christians are allowed to enslave some five billion people the world over.

   Clearly, with the theft of Palestine and their coveting Muslims lands and oil and with their Scriptural decree regarding non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and to enslave “heathen,” it is Christianity and Judaism that “cause a major divide between Muslims” and Jews and Christians. Materially and spiritually.

*(That Jews do not believe in Jesus is immaterial; they cannot disprove Jesus’ Divine messengership. ++As Jews believe they are God’s chosen people to the exclusion of  others and as they do not believe in Allāh, according to such beliefs all non-Jews, in following a God not sanctioned by the Bible, are “heathens”: “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 hast 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).

   Nonie Darwish continues, quoting Qur’an 60:1 (as Muhammad Ali translated): “O you who believe, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends. Would you offer them love, while they deny the Truth that has come to you, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allāh, your Lord? If you have come forth to strive in My way and to seek My pleasure, would you love them in secret? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest.” The above verse tells Muslims not to befriend or show kindness, respect, or affection to those who disbelieve, and that they are not only their enemies but also Allāh’s enemies.” (p. 136).

   Response: Muhammad Ali notes: “It should be noted that the reason given for not taking the disbelievers as friends is that they are the enemies of Allāh and His Messenger, who drove out the Prophet and the Muslims from their homes. Vv. 8 and 9 afford a full explanation.” And verses 8 and 9 states: “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;” Allåh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” And Muhammad Ali comments:This verse (verse 8) and the one (verse 9) that follows, revealed as they were at a time when the relations between the Muslims and the disbelievers were most strained on account of the existence of a continual state of war between the two parties, settle conclusively that friendly relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, as such, are not prohibited. It is in the light of these verses that all the verses forbidding friendly relations with the disbelievers should be read, because here the true principle is revealed in unmistakable language, allowing friendly relations with one class of disbelievers and prohibiting such relations with those of another class.”

   Would you be friends with those who fight you for your religion and drive you out off your lands or those who help others do this to you? Only the fool would. And are not those who commit injustice against others the enemies of God? In fact, as shown in preceding pages, the Christian’s God consider as enemies even those who provoked him: “And again the ANGER of the Lord was kindled against Israel”–(2 Samuel 24:1); “God is ANGRY with the wicked everyday”–(Psalm 7:11); The Israelites “have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto ANGER;” “Because of all the evil of the children of Israel (Jacob) and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to ANGER;”–(Isaiah 1:4; Jeremiah 32:32).

   Further, Allāh says to “let not hatred of a people incite you to transgress”–(Qur’an 5:2); to give justice and even against one’s self and relations–(Qur’an 4:58, 105, 135; 7:29; 57:25); to fight on behalf of non-Muslims–(Qur’an 22:39-40); that zakaat (compulsory charity) is for the poor and the needy, without distinction of race or creed, the wayfarer, and the financially bondaged–(Qur’an 9:60; 90:12-16); and to look after the welfare of the orphan –(Qur’an 2:220; 4:2, 6, 10, 127; 17:34). If this is not “kindness, respect, or affection to those who disbelieve” then what is. 

   And Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate, that during the reign of ‘Umar when the whole of Persia “came completely under the rule of Islam” that while “jizyah was imposed in some parts, there were other adjacent parts where the people neither embraced Islam nor paid jizyah. They only agreed to render military assistance in time of need.” “In affairs of state, non-Muslims were duly consulted.” ‘Umar also ordered “that old-age pensions must be granted to all the old people among non-Muslim subjects, who must also be exempt from jizyah.  Poor-houses for the weak and the disabled were open to Christians just as to Muslims.”(pp.101,118). Muslims also made donation to Christian Churches, as Muhammad Ali notes: “Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time:  “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])””(The Early Caliphate, p. 86).

   In contrast, it is Christianity that is devoid of “kindness, respect, or affection to those who disbelieve” (those not of its race). It is not “kindness, respect, or affection” to regard people of races other than your own as “dogs” and “swine” and to preach in parables so they would not understand and have “salvation;” to view those not with you as being against you (and one can be neutral); and to slay enemies who do not want you to rule (though they not militate against you)–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:11-12; Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27). Such a religion is evil, intolerant and naked hate.

   On who or what is a Believer/Muslim. Islam comprises of five major components: Unity of Allāh, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and Hajj. Acceptance of the Holy Kalimah –There is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh– initiates one into Islam and makes him a Believer/Muslim: “Believers are those who believe in Allah and His Messenger, and who doubts not and struggle in the way of Allāh”–(Qur’an 49:15; 8:2-4; 9:71; 24:62; 49:15). Belief in Allāh means that Allāh is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute; on Whom all depend; He begets not nor is He begotten and there is none like Him (He is one in Attributes; there is none with Attributes as He); and incorporates belief in all His Angels, Revealed Books, Prophets, Resurrection and Judgment–(Qur’an 112:1-4; 2:177). Thus, mere acceptance of the Holy Kalimahsubmitting to the Unity of Allāh– makes one a Muslim. There are varying degrees of being “Muslim” according to one’s practicing of the precepts of Islam: “And for all are degrees according to their doings”–(Qur’an 6:133; 23:1-11). 

   One who accepts the Holy Kalimah cannot rightly be called a kafir/disbeliever even if he is guilty of major sins, so long as he does not engage in worship of any other than Allāh. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam, that, as explained by Ibn Kathir in his dictionary of tradition, the Nihaya, that: “Kufr (unbelief) is of two kinds: one is denial of the faith itself, and that is the opposite of faith; and the other is a denial of a far‘ (branch) of the furu‘ (branches) of Islam, and on account of it a man does not get out of the faith itself.”(p. 123)

   Regardless of the depth of his error, a Muslim who advances his arguments from the Qur’an cannot be called a kafir (disbeliever). Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Three things are the basis of faith: to withhold from one who confesses faith in la ilaha ill-Allah, you should not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any deed…”(Abu Dawud 15:33.” Muslims who kill Ahmadis and other believers in la ilaha ill-Allah because their views run counter to your own, take note. You are impaling your souls on the Fire).  And ‘Umar is reported to have said, “Whoever calls the people of la ilaha ill-Allah unbeliever (kafir) is himself nearer to unbelief (kufr)” –(Ibid. p. 125)

   Further, Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that, Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah’s and His Apostle’s protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection. And that: If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him Fasiq, i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is innocent. Also, “cursing a believer is like murdering him; and whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, then it is as if he had killed him”–(Bokhari Vol. 1 # 386.  Vol. 8 # 71 –See also chapter 73. And #’s 125 (A), 125 (B), 126). (Muslims who call, or are quick to call, other Muslims kafir, note well. You might be kindling your Hell-Fire with your tongues).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “The Qur’an asks Muslims not to even try to guide disbelievers and hypocrites. Qur’an 3:118 says, “O you who believe! Take not as your intimates those (unbelievers) outside your religion. They will not fail to do their best to corrupt you.” (p. 136).

   Response:  Here is Qur’an 3:118 in full: O you who believe, take not for intimate friends others than your own people: they spare no pains to cause you loss. They love that which distresses you. Vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and that which their hearts conceal is greater still. Indeed We have made the messages clear to you, if you understand.” Muhammad Ali explained: “As the context shows, the Jews assisted the enemies of Islam to make war upon the Muslims, so the Muslims were warned against close and intimate relations with them; see 60:8, 9. (60:8-9 noted in the explanation above)

   It is ludicrous on the face of it to charge that “the Qur’an asks Muslims not to even try to guide disbelievers and hypocrites,” seeing as the Qur’an is for all mankind. Not taking the  “disbelievers and hypocrites” for “intimate friends” does not mean to not give them the Message.

   In contrast whereas Allāh prohibits friendship with those who want to “corrupt” you, the Biblical God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) says to kill those who try to call you to the worship of unknown Gods: “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 hast 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).  

   The Divine approach would be to try and teach these “dreamers” as Allāh had the Prophet Mohammad preached to the Idolaters. (There is no mention of Moses preaching to the non-Jews; neither could he; for, like Jesus, Moses also was a tribal prophet sent to the Israelites). Mohammad’s advent put an end to tribal prophets and tribal Gods and heralded in the era of Divine Universality –bringing all mankind under one law; much like a country consisting of many provinces is under one central governance. Mohammad is the only world Prophet:“Say: O mankind, surely I am the Messenger of Allāh to you all, of Him, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He; He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allāh and His Messenger, the Ummi (unlearned) Prophet who believes in Allāh and His words, and follow him that you may be guided aright”–Qur’an 7:158; 13:7; 21:107; 34:28.

   Jews and Christians can reject Mohammad but they cannot refute his claim to Divine Messengership. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation, Moses and Jesus included, Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim –the Qur’an with its inimitability, prophecies that have already manifested, and scientific pronouncements that have been verified– are his proofs).  

   Nonie Darwish continues, quoting Qur’an 4:88-89: “Why should you, then, be two parties in relation to the hypocrites while Allāh has made them return (to disbelief) for what they have earned? Do you desire to guide him whom Allāh leaves in error? And whomsoever Allāh leaves in error thou canst not find a way for him. They long that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be on the same level; so take not from among them friends until they flee (their homes) in Allāh’s  way. Then if they turn back (to hostility), seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friend nor helper from among them,” (p. 136). (M. Ali trans).

    Response: Muhammad Ali gives the background to this verse: “Clearly those waverers are implied here who went back to disbelief after they accepted Islam, and thus again joined the disbelievers. As to their identity, there are six different conjectures, and I need not puzzle the reader with these.”

   Significantly, continuing from verses 88-89 (of ch. 4) verse 90 shows that not all “waverers” are to be pursued: “Except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allāh had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allāh allows you NO WAY AGAINST THEM.” Muhammad Ali explains: “This verse explains the previous one, showing clearly that even waverers were not to be killed or fought against if they refrained from fighting, though they may have gone over to disbelief after accepting Islam. The commentators agree that the persons referred to in this verse were disbelievers and not Muslims, and they are generally supposed to have been the Bani Mudlaj (Bd). Note also that we have here the clear injunction that if any people offered peace, they were not to be fought against.”

   It is also important to take this matter one step further and enter verse 91 which states: You will find others who desire to be secure from you and secure from their own people. Whenever

they are made to return to hostility, they are plunged into it. So if they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And against these We have given you a clear authority.” To which Muhammad Ali notes: “By mischief, or fitnah, is meant war with the Muslims (Rz). Two tribes, Asad and Ghatfan  came to the Muslims and showed an inclination to remain at peace, but when they went back and their people invited them to join them in fighting with the Muslims, they responded to the call. Such people could not be trusted. The importance of these directions in time of war, when the Muslims were hemmed in on all sides by enemies, can hardly be overestimated.” (As stated, to understand the Qur’an, knowledge of the background to which verses were revealed is critical. Muhammad Ali has not only given a background to verses, his preliminary notes and commentaries are a King Solomon’s mine of information. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed and maybe downloaded online: www.muslim.org. No Muslim is to be without a copy). 

  137.(64) Nonie Darwish: “Mohammed himself often prohibited and punished his followers who communicated with his enemies. The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza was accused by Mohammed of befriending his enemies, and that was the reason behind their massacre in the battle of the Trench, in 627.” (pp. 136-137)

   Response: The Bani Quraiza was guilty of treachery. (See item #89). Where and whom did Mohammad punish? Give details. It is doubtful that any leader, ancient or modern would tolerate his people communicating with the enemies. Which communication may inadvertently give secret(s) or other information to the enemy. Even in modern times nations sever ties with those they perceive (and perceive only) as being enemy.  

   In the early sixties, British Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, is said to have resigned over a scandal involving Christine Keeler who was said to be the “mistress” of an alleged Soviet spy; (seemingly, no “secret” information was passed by the woman from one to another); and there was also a report about U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy’s link to a German woman who was said to be a former member of a Communist party; which link had threatened to capsize Kennedy’s political career. These women were not declared or proven “enemies” only pleasure-givers. Why then raise a stink against Mohammad who was persecuted, besieged, escaped assassination, exiled, pursued, and under declared war, for prohibiting his people from “befriending his enemies”? Would you allow your family members to befriend people who are dedicated to your extirpation? Only the insane would have his family members befriend people who want to annihilate him; or befriend those who slaughter and occupy his brother’s house.

   138.(65). ND: “Several Sharia laws promote discrimination against lower classes, and certain professions.” (p. 139).

    Response: (Please give details). As already shown there is no “discrimination” in Islam. And there is no “lower class.” Allāh created man in the best mold, gives us guidance –those who reject guidance and/or do not govern by reason have rendered themselves lower than animals– and rewards us according to our belief and good deeds–(Qur’an 95:4-6; 6:133; 49:13; 98:7). (See item #86).

    As for “freethinking,” Allāh requires this from us. That is why He calls on us to belief through wisdom, reason, argument, and examples; and likens those who do not use their faculties of reasoning as cattle. Whereas materially Christians govern by “freethinking,” theologically Christians govern by blind faith –though God calls to reason (Isaiah 1:18). As shown in preceding pages the cardinal doctrines of Christianity have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; and is brutally and rabidly misogynistic.  

   139.(66). Nonie Darwish wrote that in the case of “blood money” for a Jew or Christian, “sharia” only pays “one third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.” (p. 139).

    Response: “Christian” America stole Palestine from Muslims and gave it to Jews. Hundreds (if not thousands) of Palestinians lost their lives and as already noted, “800,000” were uprooted, “531” of their villages were destroyed and “eleven” of their  neighborhoods were “emptied of their inhabitants,” because of this “Christian’s” abomination. How much compensation did “Christians” pay to the Muslim Palestinians?

   “Christian” France “genocide” a million INNOCENT Algerians because she wanted to lord over them, how much compensation did France pay for the victims?

   “Christian” America invaded Iraq twice, killing legions of innocent Muslims. How much compensation did “Christians” pay Muslims?

   Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein massacred some thirty Palestinian Muslims as they worshipped in the Ibrahim Masjid in Hebron; how much compensation did so-called “Israel” pay to the victims’ families?

   “Christian” America (and Allies) have killed hundreds –and entire families– if not thousands of innocents Afghans in her mis-targeted (wild?/crazed?) bombings, including an entire wedding party of dozens; how much compensation did “Christian” America (and/or Allies) pay to the victims’ relatives or government?

   Russia massacred at least half a million in Chechnya and Dagestan, how much compensation did Russia pay for the victims?

   China occupies and kills Uighur Muslims in East Turkistan, how much compensation did she pay for the victims?

   India is killing innocents in Kashmir, how much compensation has India paid for the victims?

   As noted on the Internet, Jews assassinate Palestinians, including writer and poet (writing on behalf of their OWN land and people), how much compensation have Jews given for these victims?

   As stated in item #4 Jewish officers cold-bloodedly murdered 52 Arab peasants returning from their fields for violating a curfew of which they had no knowledge. And that the murderous officers were conscious that the peasants were unawares of the curfew. It is said that after a public outcry the murderous officers were brought to trial, found guilty and fined one “piaster” (which is “less than one cent”).114 The Message? An Arab (of which Nonie Darwish is one) is worth about 0.019 cent. Or in other words a Jew is not to be tried/punished for killing Arabs, whose lives are worthless (which seems to be in consonant with their claim that Jews/”Israelis” are “the most superior of all races”). Welcome to the only “democracy” in the Middle East. And they holler about Hitler. And Nonie Darwish bellyaches about Jews receiving one-third blood money in compensation from Shari’ah. Nonie Darwish needs to get her sense of justice (if she has) in perspective. (You need to read Edward Said The Question of Palestine, and Ilan Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Zionist Jewish’s atrocities and injustice will make you upchuck. If you have a heart).

    “Christian” Jesus catered to devils and cast two thousand of them (devils) into a herd of innocent and blameless pigs, causing them to go crazy and drowning; (here, Jesus had total disregard for people’s property), how much compensation did Jesus pay the “piggers”? “Christian” Jesus cursed a blameless and innocent fig tree to death because it had no fruit –and this was because of Jesus’ own fault, as Christians say Jesus is God, for not putting any fruit on it– how much compensation did “Christian” Jesus give to the owner?

   140.(67) Nonie Darwish wrote that “there are no Sharia laws forbidding abortion….Adoption, however, is illegal under Sharia. It was forbidden by Mohammed after he married his wife of his adoptive son who was required to divorce her so he could marry her. In effect it could be claimed he was marrying his daughter-in-law, so adoption in Islam was thus made illegal after this incident” (p. 140)

   Response: As Abraham can marry his father’s daughter (which is “a wicked thing” to the point of ostracism) and as Lot can build two nations –the Moabites and the Ammonites– incesting  with his daughters where is the difficulty that Mohammad married his adoptive son’s wife?–(Gen. 20:11-12; Lev. 20:17; Gen. 19:30-38).

    Adoption.  There is no prohibition against adoption in Islam. Only that an adopted son is not to be regarded as one’s own son, and are to be called by the names of their biological fathers–(Qur’an 33:4-5. Bokhari Vol. 5, #335).

    That Mohammad’s “adoptive son who was required to divorce her (his wife) so he (Mohammad) could marry her.” Nonie Darwish is alluding to Mohammad’s adopted son Zaid, and his wife Zainab. First, Zaid was an “adopted” son, thus Zainab was not Mohammad’s daughter-in-law. Second. To respond to this folly, it is necessary to comment on the Qur’anic verses relating to Zainab and Zaid. (The following material is taken from Muhammad Ali’s Qur’anic commentaries on Qur’an 33:36-37. Emphasis added).

   Allāh revealed: “And it behoves not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided an affair, to exercise a choice in their matter”–(Qur’an 33:36). “All the commentators agree that this verse was revealed on the occasion when the Holy Prophet demanded Zainab, his cousin through his aunt, in marriage for Zaid, his adopted son. Both Zainab and her brother were averse to this match, because Zaid was a freedman, and it was in obedience to this revelation that their scruples were overcome and Zainab accepted Zaid for her husband….The verse has no connection with the subsequent events, which brought about the divorce and Zainab’s marriage with the Holy Prophet. It, moreover shows that it was the Prophet himself who had arranged this marriage between Zainab and Zaid, and were it not in deference to his wishes, Zainab would never have consented to the alliance.” (It is doubtful that Mohammad would have insisted that Zainab should marry Zaid if Mohammad had desired Zainab for himself).

   Allāh continues: “And when thou saidst to him to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom thou hadst shown a favour:  Keep thy wife to thyself and keep thy duty to Allah; and thou concealedst in thy heart what Allah would bring to light, and thou fearedst men, and Allah has a greater right that thou shouldst fear Him.  So when Zaid dissolved her marriage-tie, We gave her to thee as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers about the wives of their adopted sons, when they have dissolved their marriage-tie”–(Qur’an 33:37). (Was it lust for Zainab that Mohammad concealed in his heart, or was it fear of his niece’s marriage dissolving? It is odd that if Mohammad had written the Qur’an as some say, and if he was guilty of lust for Zainab, that he should have entered such a verse into the Qur’an that would cast aspersions upon his character. It is odd that Allāh and Mohammad would consider Mohammad’s “love” –an emotion instilled by Allāh– for a woman as something to be “feared” of Allāh). Muhammad Ali:

“This verse [Qur’an 33:37, quoted above] consists of two distinct and separate parts, the first dealing with Zaid’s divorce of Zainab, and the second beginning with so when Zaid, etc;  with the Holy Prophet’s marriage with Zainab, and therefore a full explanation of the events in connection with this marriage is necessary.  Zaid belonged to the tribe of Kalb, and was taken prisoner in childhood and sold as a slave at Makkah, where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother, who gave him over to his sister, and she in her turn presented him to the Holy Prophet, who, as was his wont, liberated him. But Zaid was so much attached to the Holy Prophet, that when the Prophet gave him the option of accompanying his father to his home or of remaining with him, Zaid chose the latter course.  On account of his great attachment, Zaid was called the son of Muhammad, and he was one of the early converts to Islam.  It is to these events that the opening words of the verse refer, when they speak of Zaid as being one to whom Allah as well as the Prophet had shown favour.

  Zainab was the daughter of the Prophet’s own aunt, Umaimah, daughter of ‘Abd al-Muttalib.  She was one of the early converts to Islam, and the Holy Prophet pro-posed to her brother that she should be given in marriage to Zaid.  Both brother and sister were averse to this match, and only yielded under pressure from the Holy Prophet, for which see the last note.  It is related that they both desired that the Holy Prophet himself should marry Zainab. In fact, when marriage was first proposed to Zainab, she gave her assent under the impression that the Prophet wanted her for himself (Rz), but the Prophet insisted that she should accept Zaid (IJ).

 The marriage was, however, not a happy one.  Zainab was harsh of temper, and she never liked Zaid on account of the stigma of slavery, which attached to his name.  Differences arose, and Zaid expressed a desire to the Holy Prophet of divorcing Zainab.  The news was grieving for the Prophet, for it was he who had insisted upon the marriage, and he therefore advised Zaid not to divorce her.  He feared that people would object that a marriage which had been arranged by the Prophet was unsuccessful. According to one interpretation, it is to this circumstance that the words refer, and thou fearedst men, and Allah has a greater right that thou shouldst fear Him. According to this interpretation it is also to the same matter that the words and thou concealedst in thy heart what Allah would bring to light refer, for the Prophet did not like that the disagreements between Zainab and Zaid should become generally known.  The Prophet’s injunction to Zaid not to divorce his wife is contained in unmistakable terms in the Holy Qur’an. But it was all in vain, and Zaid at last divorced Zainab.  According to another interpretation, however, the words and thou concealedst in thy heart to thou shouldst fear Him, are a continuation of the advice which the Prophet gave to Zaid not to divorce Zainab (Rz). This interpretation suits the context even better than the first interpretation, for as we are further told in v. 39, the prophets fear none but God.

After Zainab was divorced the Holy Prophet took her in marriage, that being the wish of the lady and her relatives before her marriage with Zaid, and the Prophet was, now that the marriage arranged by him proved unsuccessful, morally bound to accept their wishes. Moreover, the Qur’an had declared against an adopted son being regarded as if he were a real son, and now there was an opportunity where the Holy Prophet could by his own example deal a death-blow to that custom.  This reason is plainly given in the second part of the verse: We gave her to thee as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers about the wives of their adopted sons. The Qur’an does not give any other reason for the marriage.

This simple story is made the basis of a mean attack on the Holy Prophet.  It is stated that the Prophet having seen Zainab by chance through a half-open door, was fascinated by her beauty, and that Zaid, having come to know of this, divorced her, and then she became the Prophet’s wife. That Muir and Arnold, not to mention more prejudiced writers, accept this, only shows how far religious prejudice may carry “criticism.” It is admitted that Zainab was the daughter of the Prophet’s real aunt; it is admitted that she was one of the early believers in Islam who fled to Madinah; it is admitted that the Prophet himself had arranged the marriage between Zaid and Zainab; and finally it is admitted that Zainab desired, as did also her brother, before she was married to Zaid, that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet. What was it then which prevented the Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin?  Had he not seen her before?  He was so closely related to her that on the face of it such a supposition is absurd.  Then there was no seclusion of women before Zainab’s marriage with the Prophet, a fact the truth of which is attested by Muir himself.  Having not only seen her when she was a virgin, but knowing her fully well on account of her close relationship to him and her early belief in Islam, while both she and her relatives were desirous that the Prophet should take her for a wife, what hindered the Prophet from marrying her?  The story is so absurd that any man possessing ordinary common sense would unhesitatingly reject it.” (M. Ali, Comm.1990, 1991).

   141.(68) Nonie Darwish: “As Muslims, we were taught a lie that Islam abolished slavery.” “Mohammad himself owned a black slave and traded in slaves.” (p. 141).

   Response:(Slavery dealt with in item #102).That Mohammad had a slave must have been prior to Qur’anic injunctions demolishing slavery. Contrastingly, as shown in item #102, it is Judaism and Christianity that allow and perpetuate this baneful institution. That Islam abolished slavery is no “lie.” It is either ignorance or a “lie” for you or anyone to say that it did not!

   142.(69). Nonie Darwish: “Allāh said in Qur’an 3:104 and 3:110 “that Arabs are the best of people ever created….You are the best community ever raised among the people.” This notion of “best” is not similar to the Jewish expression “chosen,” which brings deep feeling of obligation and responsibility; in the case of the Arabs, it brings pride and dominance. Arabs are the best, and the Qur’an is perfect.” (p.143).

   Response: (The Qur’an is perfect! The Guidance from the Omniscient and Just cannot be otherwise. You just need to meditate on it). Have you ever asked the Jewish hierarchy (and perhaps even the lower-archy might tell you) what they believe “chosen” people to mean. Here is one intellectual (?) view (as noted by Ismail Zayid. And note well, Ms. Darwish this impacts on you also): “The Jewish “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.””115 (And Hitler was pilloried 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 that Muslims are, 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 mentality of “the most superior of all races” –a mis-shapen mentality unworthy not only of the enlightened Twentieth century but unworthy of all centuries– may very well be said to be the nucleus of Apartheid –mental, physical, and spiritual. (See also item #90).

   143.(70) Nonie Darwish: “The fastest way to offend a Muslim is to question or point out discrepancies in Muslim scriptures. This isn’t just a personal offense. The Qur’an itself discourages Muslims from asking questions: “O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble…Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.” “Muslims are taught that asking questions are from Satan. Allāh’s Apostle said, “Satan comes to one of you and says, ‘Who created so-and-so’ till he says, ‘Who has created your Lord?’ So, when he inspires such a question, one should seek refuge with Allāh and give up such thoughts.” (p. 143)  

   Response: Perhaps only the unschooled Muslims will be offended when questioned about his Scripture. There are no discrepancies in the Qur’an; only a lack of meditating on its verses. Point out these discrepancies and we will point out your errors –“Insha-Allāh!”

   Who is there that can give a wiser and more just decision than Allāh, God, and His Prophet/prophets? Would you question a judgment given by “Jehovah” or Jesus?  What would you say to your children if they should question your decision in a matter in which you know they have limited or no knowledge? Apart from the precept that Muslims are not to question a decision given by Allāh and His Prophet the only questions Muslims are not allowed to ask are the spiritual ones regarding the unseen; which no one can answer. Materially, Allāh created the heavens and the earth and everything within for our use, which utility can only be achieved through knowledge; and acquiring knowledge requires research; and research entails asking questions. And Allāh and the Prophet Mohammad as the Qur’an and hadith record require Muslims to seek knowledge. Material and Spiritual.  

   That “Muslims are taught that asking questions are from Satan.” Who is Satan? Satan comes in three forms:

   -Satan is the being that vowed to lead man astray;

   -Satan is the evil suggestions that appear in one’s mind. It is without doubt that believers in God at one time or another have had evil suggestions popped up in their minds. And who better is there than Allāh to seek protection in and from against “Satanic” promptings? Even Jesus Christ taught his followers to pray to God: “Our Father….lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”–(Matt. 6:13). And since the “Spirit” (God?) can lead Christ, this son of God (and even God as Christians say Jesus is God) to be tempted by Satan–(Matt.4:1-10); how much more vulnerable to Satan then is an ordinary mortal, who is not lead by the “Spirit,” to Satan’s pestering. And who but Satan who is an avowed enemy to man –to lead man astray from God– would come to create doubt in your faith and say, ‘Who created so-and-so’ till he says, ‘Who has created your Lord?’

   -Satan is the evil person that suggests unGodly acts to another. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 3:72: 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.” To which Malik Ghulam Farid explains: “The Jews were held in high esteem by the pagan Arabs for their religious learning. They took undue advantage of this and thought of a device to turn Muslims away from their Faith by outwardly embracing Islam in the early part of the day and giving it up in the latter part, seeking in this way to make the unlettered Arabs believe that something must have been seriously wrong with Islam, otherwise these learned men would not have so hurriedly given it up.” Were the actions of the Jews not “satanic?”

   Nonie Darwish: “The examples are many in seventh-century Arabia where people are forgiven for killing under certain conditions: “A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allāh declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (p. 148).

   Response:As stated elsewhere, from day one of his mission Mohammad and his followers were under the threat of annihilation, and on his own land. (Jews even tried to kill the Prophet by presenting him with a “roasted poisoned sheep,” claiming that they were testing the truth of his claim to Divine prophethood [as if the Prophet was immune to the laws of nature]–Bokhari, Vol. 4 #394). Notably, Mohammad did not order this killing. One does not pay compensation to the enemy. Today America is flying thousands of miles away to kill “enemies;” is she paying compensation to the victim’s families? many Iranian scientists (who have not “abused” anyone) have been assassinated recently, have the assassins or their employer(s) compensate the families of these scientists? (Blood money is discussed in item #136).

   144.(71) Nonie Darwish: “Mohammed condemned the fate of his community to strife, instability, and bloodshed when he said in a hadith: “This community of mine is a community blessed with mercy. It is not punished in the Hereafter. Instead, it is punished in this world with strife, instability, and bloodshed.”  (pp. 148-149).    

   Response: Allāh admonishes us in His Qur’an to not divide ourselves into sects–(Qur’an 30:32); and that if Muslins do not protect one another there will be mischief and oppression–(Qur’an 8:73). Muslims are subjected to this “strife, instability, and bloodshed” beginning from the hypocrites who sought to destabilize the fledgling Islamic state. Even today there are perhaps those who clandestinely intrigue against Islam/Muslims.  

   After the fall of the Ottomans, Britain France and Russia dissected the Middle-east. America stole Palestine and gave it to Jews; America “pressured” Sudan to dismember (which was the obvious projected outcome of the referendum on secession);  America spearheaded the aggression and devastation of Iraq, America and Britain overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government, so-called “Israel” cahooted with Britain and France to attack Egypt so Britain could lord over the Suez Canal; America is now in Afghanistan obviously to share in Afghanistan’s some trillion dollars worth of yet-to-be  tapped riches and to secure her gas pipeline “interest,” America and others are bullying Iran from exercising his inalienable and Sovereign right to enrich uranium for whatever reason; Russia massacred Chechnya and Dagestan. (Perhaps the history-scholar knows more on this).

   Mohammad did not “condemn” his community. Mohammad was prophesying the atrocities that would be committed against his community if it is heedless of Allāh’s admonition to not divide itself, and for it to have military preparedness (for defense). (We can reclaim every grain of sand that was stolen from us, including south Sudan, and have total control of our lands, lives, and resource if we end our internecine war and our puerile and unGodly sectism and cohere ourselves as Allāh/Islam requires us).

   It is Jesus who condemned not only his community but the world to strife, instability, and bloodshed: “He that is not with me is against me;” “Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me;”  “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword;” “I am come to send fire on the earth;” “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division”–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27; Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:49, 51).

   Islam is the religion of peace:  

   -(In the previous verse Muslims are urged to fight those given to hostility) “Except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allāh had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them”–Qur’an 4:90).

   -Muslims are to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allāh. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allāh is sufficient for thee. He it is Who strengthened thee with His help and with the believers”–(Qur’an 8:61-61). “It may be that Allāh  will bring about friendship between you and those of them whom you hold as enemies. And Allāh is Powerful; and Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful”–Qur’an 60:7). Muhammad Ali comments: “This verse makes it clear that the prohibition against friendly relations with the disbelievers was only temporary, to be operative only so long as the war continued. The friendship prophetically referred to here was brought about after the conquest of Makkah.”

   -“Allāh forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allāh loves the doers of justice”–(Qur’an 60:8); Muhammad Ali: “This verse and the one that follows, revealed as they were at a time when the relations between the Muslims and the disbelievers were most strained on account of the existence of a continual state of war between the two parties, settle conclusively that friendly relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, as such, are not prohibited. It is in the light of these verses that all the verses forbidding friendly relations with the disbelievers should be read, because here the true principle is revealed in unmistakable language, allowing friendly relations with one class of disbelievers and prohibiting such relations with those of another class.”

   And the next verse (60:9) states: “Allāh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” It is doubtful that a sane person would befriend those who “fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion.”

   Islam IS the religion of peace. Islam teaches us to be wise, not stupid!

   There are no contradictions and abrogation in the Qur’an. There are “staggering” contradictions in the Bible.

   145.(72) Nonie Darwish quotes one Dr. Ali Gum’a as stating: ““The Companions of the Prophet Blessed themselves with His Urine, Sweat, and Saliva,” and that a woman ““drank the urine of the Prophet, and the Prophet told her: “This stomach will not be dragged through the fire of Hell, because it contains some-thing of our Lord the Messenger of Allāh.”” (p. 151.

   Response: (This is the first hadith that I have encountered in which the Prophet is said to have referred to himself as “Lord”). 

   Wonder how this woman got the Prophet’s urine? by requesting it or did the Prophet just offered it to her? Stranger yet that the entire community of Muslims –men and women and even youths–did not seek to shortcut their way to paradise by drinking the Prophet’s urine.

   For what Dr. Ali Gum’a statement (a hadith?) is worth. The Prophet taught us to avoid soiling our body and clothes with bodily waste (mush less drinking it. Perhaps women who perform fellatio swallow semen; maybe Nonie Darwish knows of this or can inquire from her circle of friends if and how many do; and give us her comment).

   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 Nonie Darwish.

            (Notably, there is a hadith in which the Prophet told his followers to “Drink camel urine, it contains the cure for all ills”–Bokhari Vol. 7, # 590. The Prophet also told us about several other cures–See Bokhari Vol. 7, ch. 71, the Book of medicine). It was reported that “Dr. Faten Abdel-Rahman Khorshid, a Saudi Arabian scientist, “has discovered that nano-particles in the urine of camels can attack cancer cells with success….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.” See A GOD WHO HATES-WAFA SULTAN item #70) 

   Significantly, while Nonie Darwish tries to denigrate the Prophet, the Biblical God (which ND believes in, 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” –(Ezekiel 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 and come in contact with genital fluid and urine, and they fault Mohammad for helping people with whatever cure was then available.

   It is without doubt that “the majority of Muslims do not know what is in their scriptures.” What Muslims do know, however, is that the cardinal doctrines of their religion is based on reason. The question is, do you, Nonie Darwish (and all Christians)  know what is in your scriptures? And what is not in your scriptures that you have hung your soul on?

   146.(73)  ND: “With today’s sudden interest in Islam and the ideology that brought worldwide terrorism, causing huge government and private budgets for protection from Muslim jihadists, the world is exposing Muslim texts.” (p. 152).

   Response: It is not “Islam” and its “ideology” “that brought  worldwide terrorism.” It is the West’s coveting Muslim lands and oil/resource that has “brought worldwide terrorism, causing huge government and private budgets for protection.” Before Palestine was stolen and before the West began wanting to control Muslim lands and oil/resources there was no “terrorism.” If man would give to others the rights he exacts for himself billions would not be blown battling “jihadists.”

  You have not shown anything –and you cannot show anything– in Islam and its ideology that needs to be exposed. And no one can show any such thing. As stated, and as have shown, there is no charge against Allāh, Islam, the Qur’an. the Prophet Mohammad and even some against Muslims that are not refutable. You need to mediate on the Qur’an.

   In contrast, it is Christian’s teachings that are being “exposed” of its falsehood and blasphemy. As shown in this presentation the cardinal doctrines of Christianity –inherited sin, vicarious atonement, and Divinity of Jesus– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; Christianity is evil, intolerant, backward, naked hate, and misogynistic; Christians lie on God, they lie on Jesus, they blame the Devil; the Gospels portray Jesus as liar, hypocrite, and fraud.

   147.(74) ND: “The Qur’an warns against the evil of the envier when he envies”–(Qur’an 113:5). In one hadith the Prophet says, the influence of an eye is a fact; if anything would precede the destiny, it would be the influence of an evil eye.” In another, “The effect of evil eyes to cause sickness is true.””(p. 153)  

   Response:  Jesus exorcised as many as “two thousand” devils from one man alone. How did these devils get into the man? Surely if Jesus can cast those two thousand devils into swine, someone (perhaps false Christs) can also cast devils into someone they do not like. Surely if there is white magic there must be black magic. The Bible warns: “There shall not be found among you anyone that…useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter of familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer”–(Deut. 18:10-11; Lev. 20:27). Moreover, the Bible teaches that angels sinned and were cast into hell (for practicing “sorcery”)–(2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6. See Qur’an 2:102 for the angels Harut and Marut; and Muhammad Ali’s explanation). 

   The “evil eye” does affect others. America, Jews, Britain,  France, and Russia covet Muslims’ lands and oil/resource. This “evil eye” has led to the treacherous dissection of the post-Ottoman Middle-East by Britain, France, and Russia; the theft of Palestine and massacre and expulsion of Palestinians; massacre in Chechnya; and the invasion and devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the “evil eye” of America and the Soviets have led to the destruction of lives and countries of the Vietnamese and Koreans and elsewhere. In fact, to preserve her “interest,” America has overthrown the governments of some fourteen countries –Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq– as noted on the Internet.  (America can have “interest” in other people’s country and can engage in subversion to protect that “interest” but none can have “interest” in America and/or engage in subversion on her land. And you wonder why people fly planes into buildings and strap bombs to their bodies; though there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not to support terrorism).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “Muslim scholars tell us that a Jew had thrown a curse on the Prophet of God….Then God sent him this well-known surah: “Say I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, Who whispereth in the hearts of mankind, Of the jinn and of mankind” –(Qur’an 114:1-6).(p. 153).

   Response:Is there any other than God who can protect man from evil? (See beginning of this item).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “Cursing against Jews, Christians, unbelievers, America, Britain, and the West in general is common practice. However, I have never once heard a Muslim preacher curse communists or Hitler.” (pp. 153-154).

   Response:Muhammad Ali explains the word la’nat of Qur’an 2:88 (and 5:64) where Allāh has cursed the Jews:Curse, as implying an imprecation of evil, is not the exact equivalent of la‘nat, which implies the banishing and estranging of one from good (LA), though it must necessarily be adopted as such for want of another simple equivalent.”

   Whereas communists (Russia) was involved in the treacherous Sykes-Picot agreement with Britain and France and divvied up the post-Ottoman Middle-east, and Russia is slaughtering Chechnya (and Dagestan) to lord over her riches

   -it was not “communists or Hitler” that stole Palestine from Muslims –it was Jews and Christians/America/Britain;

   -it was not “communists or Hitler” that overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government –it was Christians/America and Britain because Britain wanted to have control of Iran’s oil;

   -it was not “communists or Hitler” that were in cahoots with Jews to attack Egypt –it was Jews and Christians/Britain and France so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal;

   -it was not “communists or Hitler” that invented “Iraqi’s killing Kuwaiti babies” and Saddam Hussein’s phantom “weapons of mass destruction” to invade Iraq, it was the “West” so America can have Iraq’s oil and establish military base(s) there.  

   Notably, Jews were “cursed” not only by Allāh but also by David, Jesus and Moses–(Qur’an 5:78; Deut. 28:15-19, 20-68) Muhammad Ali comments on Qur’an 2:159 where Israelites are cursed by God: “The reference in those who curse seems to be to Moses and the Israelite prophets: “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee: cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out” (Deut. 28:15–19). After enumerating the curses of the Lord, His sending upon them “cursing, vexation, and rebuke”, His making the pestilence “cleave” to them, His smiting them with “a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting … and the botch of Egypt…and madness and blindness”, the curses of men are thus spoken of: “Thou shalt go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them”, “thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore”, “thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell therein”, “thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people … the fruit of thy land and all thy labours shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed always” (Deut. 28:20–68).

   Muhammad Ali comments on Qur’an 5:78 where Israelites were cursed by David and Jesus:  “After Moses, David and Jesus, who represent the highest achievement of Israelite prophethood in temporal and spiritual glory, spoke of the advent of the Holy Prophet in unmistakable terms. The curse is used here in its original sense of being removed further off from Divine mercy. Both prophets had warned the Jews that their transgressions called for Divine punishment which should soon overtake them if they did not mend their ways. The time of both was followed by a great affliction overtaking the Jews, in the respective depredations of the Babylonian kings and the destruction wrought by Titus.”

  Regarding Hitler, seems some Jews believe that the “holocaust” was Divine punishment. (From the conjectures on the Internet no one seems to know why “Hitler” had Jews killed. Some even say that the “holocaust” was a Jewish machination).

   Nonie Darwish notes hadiths about the Prophet asking Allāh to curse those who turned Muslims out of their homes.

   Response: Perhaps Nonie Darwish would ask God to bless and reward those who massacre her people and boot her and her family out into exile. As noted above, Moses, David, and Jesus cursed the Jews.  Jesus cursed Jews with all the blood from Abel down to Barachias and consigned them to the greater damnation of hell; and he cursed the people of Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida–(Matt, 11:20-24); and David and Jesus did not suffer the blade of the assassin, exile, pursuit, and persecution as Mohammad did. Moreover, the Christian’s God (and as Christian’s say Jesus is God, Jesus) even cursed the Israelite children, because of their parents “murmurings” against God, to “wander in the wilderness forty years” bearing their parents “whoredoms” until their parents “carcases be wasted in the wilderness”–(Deut. 14:32-33).

   Why should Mohammad not prayed that Allāh afflict his enemies with famine? Didn’t God send famine on Pharaoh/Egypt?–(Gen. 41:31-32). Didn’t God send pestilence and plagues on the enemies of Moses and the Israelites–(Ex. chapters 7-11)?     

   Why should Mohammad not ask Allāh to destroy Quraish chief and others? These are some that persecuted, tried to assassinate, exiled, pursued and warred on Mohammad. Wouldn’t you desire and pray to God for help against those who want to destroy you? The Christian’s God (Jesus) destroyed Pharaoh and his people for the Children of Israel; and, as shown above, He even destroyed and wiped out everyone and everything that breathed so the Israelites can occupy their lands.

   Why should Mohammad not petition Allāh to invoke evil upon the infidels? Is there anyone better to petition than the Divine to invoke evil on evil-doers? And the Christian’s God (Jesus) sent nine plagues –count them again n-i-n-e and sing Hallelujah– unto Pharaoh and his “infidels.”

   Unlike Jesus who ordered the slaying of his enemies that did not want him to rule over them, Mohammad forgave his inveterate enemies of twenty-three grueling years upon his triumph over them at Makkah –he would not have prayed for Allāh to bring famine on them or for Allāh to destroy them if they were not bent on annihilating him and his followers.

   In fact, Mohammad grieved for his enemies and even prayed for the dead ones to be spared hell; and would have prayed more than seventy-times if he knew they would be forgiven: “Then maybe thou wilt kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in the announcement;” “Perhaps thou wilt kill thyself with grief because they believe not;” “if I knew that if I asked forgiveness for him more than seventy times, he would be forgiven, I would ask it for more times than that”–(Qur’an 18:6; 26:3; 9:84, 113. Bokhari Vol. 6, #193, 194).  Such is the expanse of the mercy and magnanimity of this wonderful man, Mohammad.

   Whereas Mohammad, not for one instant, utter words disgraceful against God, Jesus Christ, in what may be considered the blackest degree of disgrace ever exampled by a son of God (and “God”) in Scriptural history, accused God of having forsaken him–(Matt. 27:46. God calling out to God/Himself? God forsaking God/Himself? This is Christian reasoning). 

   148.(75) Nonie Darwish notes that the Prophet Mohammad “cursed” a young orphan girl that she will not grow to maturity. The Prophet later apologized to the girl’s guardian, saying: “don’t you know that I have made this term deal with my Lord. And the term deal with my Lord is that I said to Him: I am a human being and I am pleased just as human being is pleased and I lose temper just as a human being loses temper, so for any person from amongst my Umma whom I curse and he in no way deserves it, let that, O Lord, be made a source of purification and purify and nearness to (Allāh) on the Day of resurrection.” (p. 155). 

   Response: Rather than being an event for scorn or derision it is an example of grace and dignity. It takes a man of integrity to accept his human limitation and apologize and even asked for the Divine grace on the one he has wronged. What magnanimity!

   Contrastingly, Nonie Darwish’s “God” and son of God, Jesus, not only “cursed” a helpless and blameless fig tree for not having figs, he arrogantly defended his action by telling his disciples that if they have faith they can do more than kill a fig tree–(Matt. 21:17-21; Mark 11:12-14; 20-23). And, in the Bible God not only cursed the Jews but cursed innocent children to wander forty years in the wilderness, bearing their parents “whoredoms” –(Num. 14:32-33).

   149.(76). ND wrote: “Mohammad died with extreme bitterness against the Jews who refused to abandon Judaism and convert to Islam. He cursed them more than any other group in the Hadith and in the words he delivered from Allāh in the Qur’an. In fact the last statement that Mohammad made was: “O Lord, perish the Jews and the Christians, They made churches of the graves of their prophets. There shall be no two faiths in Arabia.”(p. 155).    

   Response:That Mohammad was only concerned about the welfare of mankind is enshrined in the Qur’an 18:6 as noted by Allāh: Then maybe thou wilt kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in this announcement.” To which Muhammad Ali comments: “This verse gives us an insight into the anxiety which the Holy Prophet had on account of a fallen humanity, an anxiety so great that he is spoken of here as almost killing himself with grief. His was a life of absolute devotion to the cause of humanity, his only concern being that man should rise to the true dignity for which God had made him. This anxiety was not only for those who were directly addressed by him, but, as the context shows, it was as deep for another people, who attributed a son to the Divine Being, and whom outward finery was to mislead to such an extent as to make them strangers to spiritual truth. Reading the next verse along with this, no doubt is left that the Prophet was shown the earthly embellishments which are so great a trial for Christendom today.”

   And which group did God and Jesus cursed more in the Bible? It was not Mohammad’s duty to “convert” anyone; his duty was only to deliver the message of Allah. That Mohammad was bitter about the Jews not accepting Islam, as noted in item #147, Mohammad also grieved for the disbelievers for their rejection of the Divine Message and their suffering in the Hereafter. How much more Mohammad must have grieved for the Jews, who should have known better –and in fact was cognizant of his Divine Messengership status (Qur’an 26:196-197; 46:10)– for their rejection of him. Mohammad was trying to save them from Hell-fire!  

   Their history shows that Jews and Christians wanted to perish Mohammad. Had the disbelievers not forced “war” on Mohammad, Mohammad would not have had to resort to defense.  In fact Jews was so inimical towards the Prophet that they went to the extreme of disbelief and chose idolatry over monotheism. As Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes in his The Life Of Muhammad:

            (Not certain whether Mohammad was telling the truth about Godhead) “The Quraysh therefore asked the Jews to tell them, since they were the first People of the Book and held the keys of knowledge in the matters in which the Quraysh disagreed with Muhammad, whether or not Muhammad’s religion was better than Makkan religion. The Jews answered by giving preference to Makkan religion over Islam and to Makkan rights over Muhammad’s. It was to this that the Qur’an referred   when it said, “Would you consider those who were given part of the scripture, that they believe in evil and injustice and commend to the unbelievers their own unbelief as guidance superior to the true faith of those who believed? Such men are accursed of God. And whosoever God curses, will never prevail. Nor will anyone ever come to his rescue”–(Qur’an 4:51-52). This attitude of the Jews toward Quraysh and their favoring of the latter’s paganism over the monotheism of Muhammad was the subject of a severe rebuke by Dr. Israel Wolfenson, in his The Jews in Arabia: “It was the duty of the Jews not to allow themselves to get involved in such a scandalous mistake. They should never have declared to the leaders of the Quraysh that the worship of idols was better than Islamic monotheism even if this were to imply frustration of their requests. The Jews, who have for centuries raised the banner of monotheism in the world among the pagan nations, who have remained true to the monotheistic traditions of the fathers, and who have suffered throughout history the greatest misfortunes, murders, and persecutions for the sake of their faith in the One God should, in loyalty to this tradition, have sacrificed every interest –nay their very lives– to bring about the downfall of paganism. Furthermore, by allying themselves with the pagans they were in fact fighting themselves and contradicting the teachings of the Torah which commands them to avoid, repudiate –indeed to fight– the pagans.” (pp. 301-302). 

   Did Christians want two faiths in Vienna where they roasted Jews? and in Spain from where they booted Muslims and Jews?   Do Christians want two faiths in Vatican City, and in Jerusalem? Did Jesus want two faiths in Palestine when he ordered that his enemies who didn’t want him to rule be brought to him and slain–(Luke 19:27). (See item #93 for a response to this).

   If Mohammad asking God to “perish” the transgressing Jews and Christians was “extreme” bitterness against the Jews;” what kind of “bitterness” was it for God –and as Christians say Jesus is God– to have the Jewish children wander in the wilderness for forty years and bear the “whoredoms” of their fathers, until the fathers’ carcases are wasted? And for Him to have “TWO SHE BEARS” “TARE FORTY AND TWO CHILDREN” just for being mischievous? And for Him to send “TEETH OF BEASTS” and “SWORD” and “TERROR” to “destroy both the YOUNG MAN and the VIRGIN, the SUCKLING also with the MAN OF GRAY HAIRS” of Jeshurun’s children, for their worship of devils and other gods? All of which are “extremities” compared to anything Mohammad uttered.

   If Mohammad asking God to “perish” the transgressing Jews and Christians was “extreme” bitterness against the Jews;” what kind of “bitterness” was it for Jesus (the Christian’s God and son of God) to pour the blood of Adam and all the earlier righteous people onto the heads of the Jews? And to consign them to the greater damnation of Hell? And to lambaste them as “fools” and “blind guides” for straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel? For his lambasting the people of Bethsaida, Capernaum and Corazin for not heeding him? For taking the kingdom of God from Jews and giving it to another people? All of which are  “extremities” compared to anything Mohammad uttered.     

   150.(77) ND: (In Jerusalem, Occupied Palestine) “Arab Muslims built their mosque above the temple ruins to end all traces to Jewish culture, heritage, and history.” (p. 156). 

   Response: (When you say “Jewish” are you referring to the descendants of Jacob or to the descendants of converts to Judaism? If the former, prove that present day Jews are of the twelve tribes of Israel/Jacob. If the latter, then “Jewish culture, heritage, and history” are in the land[s] of their forefathers; not in Palestine).   

   Didn’t Christian slaughter Muslims and Jews and took over Jerusalem? Didn’t Christians boot Muslims (and Jews) out of Spain and transformed the Mosque into a horse stable and Cathedral? Were there Jews in Jerusalem when this Mosque was built? There is no “Temple” Mount. There never was. There was and is Mosque/Masjid Mount. (See AL-AQSA MASJID).

   In contrast. Since 1948 Jews have demolished Palestinians’ villages and even changed the names of places to remove traces of Arab’s existence in Palestine. Prof, Edward Said notes Moshe Dayan, one-time army general of so-called “Israeli,” as saying that Jews came to Palestine which was “already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here;” and that there is “not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”116 Regarding this systematic destruction of Arab villages, Prof. Said notes: “Professor Israel Shahak, who reckons almost four hundred villages were thus eliminated, has said that these villages were “destroyed completely, with their houses, garden-walls, and even cemeteries and tombstones, so that literally a stone does not remain standing, and visitors are passing and being told that “it was all desert.’””117 (Prof. Said also notes similar destruction in the West Bank and Gaza after the “Israeli occupation” in 1967; and that by “August 1971, 16,212” Palestinians houses were “demolished.” (For an insight into the injustices committed against the Palestinians one needs to read The Question Of Palestine; Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage; Ilan Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; and Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, International terrorism in the Real World, Old and New. No amount of bit-quotes can even begin to represent this monumental and grotesque obscenity perpetrated, and continues to be perpetrated, against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians).                                

   151.(78) ND: “Muslim preachers describe the West and the Jews as the personification of Satan and therefore deserving of being cursed, humiliated, deceived, and killed….That is what Islamic scriptures have done to the Muslim mind.” (p. 157).

    Response: Humorously, isn’t Satan “deserving of being cursed, humiliated, deceived, and killed”? As already shown, God, Moses, David, and Jesus cursed the Jews. Have you ever asked these “Muslim preachers” to justify their claim as to why they view “the West and the Jews as the personification of Satan”? Perhaps if you read Prof, Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism In The Real World, and research American exploits in the world you will know that it is not “what Islamic scriptures have done to the Muslim mind” but rather what America and Jews have brought onto themselves.

   Perhaps you should investigate why Muslim Imams refer to America as the “Big Satan” and “Israel” as the “Little Satan.” However, what would you, Nonie Darwish, call a Muslim country that uses its diplomatic thuggery at the UN to steal a Christian’s land and give it to, say, the Roma, and for six torturous decades help the Roma to slaughter the Christians to keep them subdued and from liberating their land?  What would you call a Muslim nation that, using its military supremacy, invade Christian countries, and also overthrow their governments, and try to control Christian lands and resources?  In fact, Iran (and Syria, and perhaps even North Korea) has done nothing against America yet America labeled Iran (among the other two countries) as the “axis of evil.” Perhaps you can also find out America’s justification for her “axis of evil” label. Perhaps the Muslims will tell you to go read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism in the Real World, Prof. Edward Said, The Question of Palestine, and Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Or if you have an aversion to reading books the Muslims might tell you to cruise the Internet, to ‘Google’ “Foreign governments overthrown by the U.S.” and “People assassinated by the U.S.” And if you’re not up to that either, they might tell you to go and be a really, really, really “independent thinker.”  

   Nonie Darwish continues: “In my last visit to Egypt, I read in Islamic literature that Israeli Viagra is aimed at sterilizing Arab men.” (p. 157)

   Response: Did you investigate to confirm or contradict this? Or did you automatically reject it as propaganda? And considering the Arab population…… In fact, considering that Jews pride themselves as being “the most superior of all races” –which conveys that all other races are inferior and can be subjected to any vile treatment; and which belief may have led to Ariel Sharon’s pomposity that “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”118– and given that adults and children were used in experiments –experimented on with syphilis and gonorrhea, bubonic plague, chemicals, and toxic and radioactive materials as noted on the Internet it would be prudent that Arabs that are released from so-called “Israeli” jail(s) be tested for experimental abuse(s).   

   152.(79) Nonie Darwish: “According to Sharia law r8.2: “Lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” Some of the Shafi laws say lying is a sin and/or crime. But according to Islamic Sharia, there is such a thing as “permissive lying.” In law r8.0, “Umm Kulthum added, ‘I did not hear him (Prophet) permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (in smoothing over differences).” “The politically correct crowd in the West must understand that Sharia laws demand that Muslims lie to them.”  (pp. 158/159).

   Response: Rather intriguing that Shafi law would consider lying a “sin and/or crime” whereas Shari’ah is alleged to allow lying. If Shari’ah, which is derived from the Qur’an, allows “lying” how can some Shafi laws consider lying to be a sin and/or crime? (This piece of “independent thinker” hogwash dealt with in item #35).

   Regarding 9/11, Nonie Darwish wrote about her speaking about the truth of 9/11.

   What is the truth about 9/11? Who is telling the truth about 9/11?  Regarding the destruction of the World Trade Centres, Muslims may have been the ones that flew the planes into the buildings, but given the controversies surrounding the collapse of the buildings –the three most prominent being the security activity prior to the attack, the manner in which the buildings collapsed as in a controlled demolition, and failure to test debris for explosives– the official serving of events is hardly palatable. Perhaps even gulls would not swallow it. Perhaps the truth will be known some fifty years from now when materials are declassified –the time when most people will be too old or dead or too young to care and the architects of the destructions are dead and beyond prosecution.

   But why destroy the buildings and how to explain it to the public? In answer to the latter question, “terrorism” seems the perfect scapegoat; as to the first question, perhaps the locale needed to be developed along modern lines. As to the bigger question, who will finance the rebuilding, the future will reveal.  

            (Regarding this destruction of 9/11 it is noted that Americans have made, or are making, a We Shall Never Forget book for children to color. That Americans have the right to do what they wish is without question. Perhaps Iraq/Muslims should commemorate the March 20, 2003 (3/20) invasion and destruction of Iraq for its phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction with a coloring book for their children. The cover might look something like this: IRAQ 3/20 in large block letters done rainbow style at the top, and imposed in the middle with the words in about half-size letters We Shall Never Forget.  In the background Baghdad is in flames and the foreground is littered with color photographs showing the mangled, smashed and severed bodies of the tens of thousands of civilians –not counting the hundreds of thousands that are said to have been killed in sectist violence which is a direct result of the aggression–  with an inset showing some of the 500,000 babies that died from American-led sanctions. To the left of the cover is a vaporous figure (Saddam Hussein?) labeled ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ looking at the carnage; and at the top of the cover and below the caption is an incoming “shock and awe” bomb draped in the American flag. The materials to be colored –which are to include the infamous Abu Ghraib tortures and Guantanamo Bay (these are civility and democracy?)* must not be lies and propaganda; just truth and facts. Iraq can stablish a “Martyr’s Square” in Baghdad with the names and ages of the martyrs immortalized in stone).

    *(The inhumanities meted out to prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, some of whom may have been innocent, reminds me of ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, after he was gravely wounded by assassins:  “He sent for his assassin (Ibn Muljam) and said to Hasan: “In case I die, this man may be executed. But you must see to it that he is in no way tortured, that he is well-fed and comfortably accommodated.” Now, that is civility and democracy; moreover [while there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not to condone terrorism], unlike modern nations, Caliph ‘Ali was no aggressor no transgressor no occupier and no exploiter for him to be attacked/assassinated. The venerable Caliph “succumbed to his wounds on the 17th of Ramadan.” (Muhammad Ali, The Early Caliphate, p.201. Emphasis added).   

   153.(80) (Golda Meir was the daughter of Ukrainian Jews who later became a prime minister of so-called “Israel” (Occupied Palestine). On the Palestinian/Arab efforts to reclaim Palestine, Nonie Darwish states: “Golda Meir was right when she said, “The Arabs will stop fighting us when they love their children more than they hate Jews.”” (p. 160.)         

   Response: (Golda Meir is also noted as having said that there was no such thing as a Palestinian). Spoken like a seasoned Zionist. Keep blaming the Palestinian/Arab victims and soon the gullible populace will swallow and parrot your every twisted syllable. Jews schemed to boot Palestinians off their lands and with the help of America did so. And for more than six torturous decades have subjected the Palestinians to all manner of inhumanities and slaughter. And Palestinians/Arabs are charged as “hating” Jews. No, Ms. Darwish, Golda Meir did not get it “right.” Arabs do not “hate” Jews; it is Jews who “hate” Arabs. Arabs/Muslims love our children that is why we are fighting to reclaim our stolen heritage. And we will go on fighting to the Resurrection if need be. And whether we die or triumph in the endeavor Paradise is ours! That is something no Jew or Christian can fathom –something only a true Muslim can know. We Muslims are the people of hope! We Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant!

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

   154.(81) (On the injunctions for Muslims to undertake the noble armed Jihad). Nonie Darwish: “Qur’an 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it, But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you.” The wishes of Allāh for followers to do jihad delivered by Mohammed through the Qur’an has thus become law: “Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allāh alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed ud that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.’”” (p. 161).              

   ResponseIsn’t it “good” to fight to eradicate evil? Since it is good to fight to eradicate evil then isn’t this fighting good for you? If you do not think it is good to fight to eradicate evil tell it to the Allies of World War II; tell it to America for chasing Al-Qaeda and Talibans (though Talibans did not do any “evil” to  America); tell it to the British for going half way round the globe to boot Argentina off the disputed Falklands Island. If you believe fighting isn’t good to prevent crime tell America she needs to close the shops of the FBI and CIA. And whether his war is justified or not, since the fallen human soldiers receive the highest honor of his land why can’t the Muslim soldier striving in the cause of justice be rewarded with the highest honor from Allāh?

   That Mohammad said “to fight you till you worship Allāh alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission.”

    Response: As already shown Islam does not force religion onto anyone. Allāh says in His Qur’an 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allāh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, Nor follow the Religion the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” Muhammad Ali explains:

“this verse introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabuk expedition followed, which constitutes the subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this chapter. As the object of this Christian power was simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final vanquishment by the Muslims is spoken of are different from those dealing with the final vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’an neither required that the idolaters should be compelled to accept Islam, nor was it in any way its object to bring the Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the idolaters wanted to suppress Islam by the sword, and the Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim Arabia under subjection. The fate of each was, therefore, according to what it intended for the Muslims. The word jizyah is derived from jaza, meaning he gave satisfaction, and means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim Government whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection; or, according to AH, because it is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military service.

The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously. The word yad (lit., hand) stands for power or superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of the superiority of man over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement of your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH). It may also be added that the permission to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, Fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you (2:190). The Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his followers. He fought against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition against the Christians when the Roman Empire first mobilized its forces with the object of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that, when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but returned without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies of Islam and fomented trouble against the newly established Muslim Kingdom, as a result of which both these empires came into conflict with the Muslims and, notwithstanding the fact that both the Persians and the Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same time to subjugate Islam, the result was what is predicted here in clear words — they were both reduced to a state of subjection by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.”(Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).

   In contrast, Jesus advocated that only his religion be followed: “He that is not with me is against me;” “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and SLAY THEM BEFORE ME”–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27). Only the occupier, usurper, transgressor, oppressor, those dedicated to falsehood and those dedicated to living off the blood of others are terrified of the noble jihad.

   Regarding ‘Umar fighting Khosrau.

    Response: On Qur’an 22:23, 25:10, and 33:22 Muhammad Ali has shown that these verses contains prophecies about Muslims inheriting the treasures of Kisra and the palaces of Chosroes and Caesar. History is testimony to this.

    That the Persians and Romans were dedicated to crushing the fledgling Islamic state is a matter of history, as detailed by Muhammad Ali in his The Early Caliphate. About ‘Umar fighting Khosrau (Chosroes), Muhammad Ali notes that Muslims after defeating the Persians at Mada’in

 “The victorious army pushed forward to the capital and, on beholding the palaces of the Chosroes, Sa’d burst out into an exclamation of joy: “Allahu Akbar,” he shouted, “This day the Prophet’s prophecy has been fulfilled,” referring to the incident when the Prophet, while engaged in digging a ditch around Madinah before the battle of Ahzab, observed that he had just been shown in a spiritual phenomenon known as kashf –the palaces of the Chosroes and that the angel Gabriel had informed him that his followers would possess them. At length, Sa’d laid siege to the western part of the capital….Thus the whole of the territory between the Euphrates and the Tigris, which is Mesopotamia proper, came into the possession of the Muslims….In the month of Safar, 16 A.H., corresponding to March, 637 A.D., Sa’d entered Mada’in and, while thus marching through the town in triumph, he had on his lips that prophetic verse of the Qur’an: “How many the gardens they left, and springs and crops and magnificent mansions and luxuries in which they lived! Even so; and We gave them as a heritage to another people” (Qur’an 44:25-28).        

 It was without doubt a clear sign of Divine might that a small nation, looked upon with contempt and whose envoy was sent back with a basket of dust on his head –that such an insignificant nation overthrew a most mighty empire with no more than 30,000 men. Silver, gold and diamonds, the spoils of war, when collected, made a considerable heap. One-fifth, including the Chosroes’ robes and ornaments and a highly precious carpet inlaid with diamonds, was sent to Madinah. Fifteen years before, when the Prophet was running away for his life from Makkah to Madinah and a price was set on his head, dead or alive, a certain man named Suraqah had gone out in search of the precious fugitive. It so happened, however, that every time Suraqah came within reach of the Prophet his horse stumbled and fell. Seeing that some hidden Power protected the Prophet, the pursuer repented of his conduct and on bended knees asked for pardon. But he had more than a pardon. “Suraqah,” said the Prophet, “I see the gold bracelets of the Chosroes on thy wrists.” And lo! The spoils that came to Madinah actually included a pair of the Persian king’s gold bracelets. Suraqah was immediately sent for and made to wear them, and the joy of the faithful knew no bounds when they saw the prophecy of their beloved Master come out so literally true. When ‘Umar beheld the enormous riches brought as spoils, tears came to his eyes. On being asked what made him weep at the moment of joy, the Caliph said: “I fear lest this wealth and comfort should ultimately cause the ruin of my people.” And when Ziyad, who had escorted the spoils to the capital, asked the Caliph’s permission for the army to extend its conquest towards Khurasan, he positively forbade him: “I would much rather see an insurmountable mountain between Mesopotamia and those lands, so that neither they should be able to approach us nor should we be able to approach them.”” (However, because of Persia’s “violation of solemn treaties,” the Caliph ‘Uthman would bring most of Khurasan under Muslim rule). (As noted in AN OVERVIEWitem ‘b’, God decreed that Muslims would “subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Muslims can regain every grain of sand of Palestine and other lands that have been forced to divide, such as Sudan. As the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.” Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant: “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). Why then the fifteen-hundred year squabble as to who should have succeeded the Prophet; and why have disregard for Lady ‘Aishah because she fought against ‘Ali? are not the wives of our beloved Prophet as our “Mothers”? : The Prophet is closer to the faithful than their own selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers”–Qur’an 33:6). Allāh says: “(Be not) Of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it;” “And He will certainly make clear to you on the day of Resurrection that wherein you differed;”And in whatever you differ, the judgment thereof is with Allāh”–(Qur’an 30:32; 16:92; 42:10). What part of ‘Do not divide your religion Allah will show us the truth of the matter wherein we differ’ do you not understand?You defy Allāh and polarize yourselves, let our lands be stolen and manipulated, and even slaughter each other and yet expect Allāh to give you Jannah?

   155.(82) ND wrote that Allāh commands “to hate, lie, deceive, enslave, and even kill,” and that “some Muslims don’t wish to admit that their religion wants to take over the world and create a one-party Fascist state called the Caliphate.” (p. 161).

(How many Muslims have come knocking on your door about Islam? Contrast this to the number of Christians that come knocking on doors, including mine, to try and get me to swallow the body and mythical blood of Christ [spiritual cannibalism] and a seat in the pew of PAGANISM. And how many Muslim missionaries are there in the world compared to the tens of thousands, if not a million, trying to snare the uneducated natives with their “fake” BIBLES. See APPENDIX I).

   Response: That Allāh commands “to hate, lie, deceive, enslave, and even kill.” Allāh Who created out of love, has inscribed mercy on Himself, gives guidance, allows man freedom of conscience and implores us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins could hardly be indicted as commanding “to hate, lie, deceive, enslave, and even kill.” Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise. In contrast, as shown, it is the Christian’s God (and as they say Jesus is God it is Jesus) that “commands “to hate, lie, deceive, enslave, and even kill.”

   That Islam “wants to take over the world and create a one-party Fascist state called the Caliphate.” Doesn’t Christianity want to take over the world? Doesn’t America want to take over the world and institute her form of “democracy”?If Moses or Jesus was lording America whose law do you think they would govern by, America/the West’s “democracy or The Ten Commandments? Would you call Moses’ and Jesus’ system a “one-party Fascist state?” Would you say that Moses and Jesus were fascists for upholding the Law of God?   And isn’t the Vatican a “one-party” entity? And isn’t the Pope a “fascist” governing for life or until incapacitated? even though the cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Divinity of Jesus, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; and Christianity is evil, intolerant, backward, naked hate, and misogynistic; that Christians lie on God, they lie on Jesus, they blame the devil; and the Gospels portray Jesus as liar, hypocrite, and fraud. (AYAAN HIRSI ALI also makes mention of “Islamic fascism” and claims that Mohammad was a “tyrant”).

   Let us see where your “Fascism” is in the Islamic “Caliphate.”   Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as: 1: ”the body of principles held by Fascisti 2:a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcibly suppression of opposition.”

   (a) Fascism has Political philosophy, movement, or regime: Islam and politics are incompatible. There is no politics in Islam. Unlike politics in which the end is justified by (almost) any means and anyone can seek office, Islam requires power be given to those suited for the position and to exercise justice–(Qur’an 4:58, 135; 5:8); to govern by consultation–(3:158; 42:38); ensures freedom and tolerance–(2:256; 8:39; 10:99; 18:29; 50:45; 109:1-6); gives man equality in human endeavors and extols righteousness as the sole criterion of greatness–(18:110; 49:13); and the Prophet Mohammad taught:

“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). Where is the “Fascist state”?

   (b) Fascism exalts nation and race: Islam does not “exalt nation and race.” That we all came from a single pair –Adam and Eve– this alone demolishes the charge that Islam is “fascism” which “exalts nation and race.” Islam regards all humans as created equal and that one is better than the other only in belief in Allāh and doing good deeds. It regards Muslims, which comprises of people of all races, as the best nation (spiritually) because Muslims enjoin good (which requires us doing good also), forbid evil (which requires us abstaining from evil also), and believe in Allāh.

(Whereas other religionists [as well as atheists] enjoin good and forbid evil, [and do good deeds] only Muslims believe in Allāh –belief in Allāh means that Allāh/God is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute, on Whom ALL depend; having no consort He begets not; being the First and Creator of all and thus could not have a mother He is not begotten; being the Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer and One in Attributes there is none like Him; being Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent He has no need to and does not Incarnate; belief in all His Angels, all His Books and belief in all His Messengers, and in the Resurrection and Judgment. [While Allāh tells us to believe in all His Books He also tells us what not to believe that are passing under His name, such as “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; KARMA & REINCARNATION; divinity of JesusAS GOD, SON OF GODTRINITYvicarious atoner and INHERITED SIN]).

   Having regarded non-Jews as “dog” and “swine” it is Jesus, the Christian’s God and son of God that is “fascist”: exalting  Jewish “nation and race.” And it is Judaism –as Jews claim that they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others– that “exalts nation and race”: The Jewish, 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.””119 (See note for full text).

(Regarding racial superiority. How rightly the Prophet Mohammad gave the celestially and profoundly perfect answer to this mis-shapen mentality of high-birth. Said the magnificent Messenger of Allāh that whoever prides himself on being of high-birth ‘tell him to bite on his father’s penis’119A –that is where he came from; that is the lowly beginning from where we all came. And the Prophet made it the point that when using this saying to not alter the word “penis” so as to make it a delicate expression; the proud one must face the full impact of his vain pride; that his pride originated from or lies in his father’s “penis.” While one race may be technologically more advanced than others, this mentality of “the most superior of all races” –a mis-shapen mentality unworthy not only of the enlightened Twentieth century but unworthy of all centuries– may very well be said to be the nucleus of Apartheid –mental, physical, and spiritual.

   And If supremacy is based on race, residency in PALESTINE, 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 2:143 and 3:109, 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). 

   (c) Fascism has severe economic and social regimentation:

   There is no “severe economic regimentation” in Islam. Though Islam admonishes against excesses, Muslims have the liberty to earn and dispose of their wealth as they please. The only yearly compulsory financial contribution is the two-and-a-half percent zakaat on those with financial soundness. All nations levy taxes on their subjects.

   While regimentation helps cultivate discipline and build character, there is no “severe social regimentation” in Islam. There is a five-times-daily spiritual observance which one can offer privately if he/she cannot get to the Mosque (the only compulsory congregational prayer is the Friday, Jum’a, prayer). Other main religious gatherings are Eid-ul-Fitr (Feast after the Fast of Ramadan), Eid-ul-Adha (commemorative intended sacrifice of Abraham of his then “one and only” son, Ishmael); and the pilgrimage to Makkah. Other religionists also have “social” gatherings.

   These five daily prayers of Muslims 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 for humans than to intersperse his day with prostrations –the highest expressive form of glorification– to his Creator.  This is no “regimentation”: this is spiritual bliss! (In our five daily prayers Muslims engage in exercise, meditation, and spirituality). The military (and perhaps other organizations) has daily regimentation, is this “fascistic”?

   (d) Fascism has a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader: As noted in (a) above, Islam is DEMOCRACY. Every system has its laws. While these laws are man-made and limited to man’s knowledge of the day, SHARI’AH, the system designed by Allāh the Omniscient, is the superior system for all times. And whereas in the man-made system leaders are chosen periodically due to their promises and performance, in Islam, the system being “perfect” no change in leadership is needed, so long as the Caliph govern according to the Qur’an. (No one, except crooks maybe, would want to replace a just and progressive ruler).

   Islam exhorts the pursuit of knowledge and progress. While Islam does not allow pursuit of the material to the detriment of the spiritual; Allāh tells us that everything in the heavens and earth were created for our benefit and urges us to seek knowledge to put them to our service; and that after we finish offering our prayers to go into the land and seek of His bounties. And His magnanimous Messenger informs us we have a duty to Allāh, to ourselves, families, and the community.

   In Islam there is only one law for the king and the commoner. The Prophet Mohammad did not choose a successor to himself.  After his death Abu Bakr was elected as Caliph. Abu Bakr, though he had sons capable of the position, selected ‘Umar to succeed him. But ‘Umar’s appointment was final only after consultation and confirmation with the other Companions. 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)  

   The freedom and equality espoused by Islam is unrivalled in the annals of history, ancient and modern.  Muhammad Ali has pointed out in his The Early Caliphate:

“Bilal, ‘Ammar, and others who were, originally slaves but were among the first to embrace Islam, were shown preference over the great chiefs of the Quraish.…All distinctions of heredity were abolished and society was ordered on the Qur’anic principle: “The most honourable among you is the one who has the greatest regard for his duty.”

“The weak and disabled were granted allowances from the public treasury, and in this there was no discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim. The system of old-age pensions now prevailing in many countries in Europe was first introduced by ‘Umar.  For wayfarers, large caravansarais were erected in all big centres. Children without guardians were brought up at the expense of the state.”

“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.” (pp. 121, 122, 136, 137, 143).

   Without doubt, “equality and freedom of opinion were the two most important rights that Islam conferred on every individual,” as noted by Muhammad Ali. (The Early Caliphate p. 143). 

   And Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din aptly points out: “Islam brought to man for the first time the best form of democracy in all its ramifications. As to government, ‘Umar, the second Caliph, remarked that it was no government if the voice of the governed was not heard. State property was made public property by him, in every sense of the word.”119B There is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than SHARI’AH. The system from Allāh, God, could not be less.  Where is the “centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader”?

   (e)  Fascism undertakes forcibly suppression of opposition: Mohammad only sought to preach the Divine Message of the Qur’an. For this he was persecuted; besieged; subjected to assassination attempt; forced into exile; pursued; and warred on. Had the opposition not first taken up the sword against Mohammad, Mohammad would have had no reason to take up the sword in self-defense. Whatever measures Mohammad took to preserve himself and followers Mohammad was fully justified. No one would do any less. As Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– points out in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible: “all the blood shed in the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad, could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allāh. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving.” (See JESUS-SON OF MAN).

   Mohammad not only preached love, mercy and forgiveness but in the greatest demonstration of love, mercy and forgiveness the world has ever known he, unlike Jesus who ordered that his enemies be slain, forgave his most horrid persecutors of twenty-three grueling years upon his triumph at Makkah: “It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka’ba on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said to the Quraish: How do you think I should treat you?  They said: We hope for good, a noble brother and the son of a noble brother.  Then he said: I say as my brother Joseph said: “No reproof be against you this day”(Rz)”119C

   No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -“No reproof be against you this day”! Mohammad not only prayed for the deceased Muslim, but prayed for the idolater; saying: “if I knew that if I asked forgiveness for him more than seventy times, he would be forgiven, I would ask it for more times than that” –(Qur’an 9:84, 113. Bokhari Vol. 6, #193, 194).

   Mohammad even forgave the horrid Hind. The woman who is said to have cut open the body of his uncle, Hamza, as he lay dying on the battlefield and ripped out his liver and chewed it.   Such is the expanse of the “love” of enemies, mercy, forgiveness and magnanimity of this wonderful man Mohammad. Where is the Fascism of forcibly suppression of opposition? 

(That four persons were executed upon the Prophet’s triumph at Makkah compared to the thousands that were forgiven is hardly any blot on Mohammad’s mercy. Of these four individuals, as M.H. Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad, p; 411, two were Muslims guilty of murder before apostatizing; al Huwayrith for tempting the Prophet’s daughter, Zaynab; and a slave woman of Ibn Khatal for castigating the Prophet in song [which castigating may have inspired or encouraged others to militate against the Prophet]. If you believe that this slave woman should not have been executed; even in modern times people are imprisoned for way less than incitement; just ask world-famous peace activist Jaggie Singh, and anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and his late brother-in-cause Steve Biko; as well as those Muslims jailed or held in detention under mere suspicion or without any kind of charge. And the Twentieth-century jailers crown themselves as “civilized” and “democratic.” Imagine then the punishment[s] that would have been meted out to peace-activists and freedom-fighters if they had castigated or incited against their leaders, as was done against Mohammad. Incidentally, Palestinian author and writer, whose lands were stolen, have been assassinated by their occupiers merely for writing about the injustice committed against them). 

   Contrastingly it is Christianity, as her doctrines attest, that is “Fascism” (see APPENDIX II); it is Christianity that “wants to take over the world and create a one-party Fascist state called” the Papacy; ask the Pope. And there is nothing in the Bible to foster material progress: Jesus’ dictum to “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on…for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”–(Matt. 6:25-34);this will only mire man in the bog of stagnation and backwardness.

   By telling man to pray only and leaving it all to God to send him groceries through handouts, the Christian’s God and son of God is teaching man to be loafers and mendicants. If America was to follow such a doctrine, instead of her being on the pinnacle of progress she would plummet like a giant lead-ball  into the black-hole of backwardness.

   In Islam, earning bread honestly is a part of righteousness and an act of worship. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out: “The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think independently for themselves on Islamic lines.119D

   156.(83) Nonie Darwish: “Jihad against the Jewish State is not over land or because Jews are monsters and kill Arab babies and rape Muslim women; it is because in the seventh-century Mohammed ordered Muslims to eliminate Jews.”(p.162)

   Response: What utter twaddle!Why didn’t Mohammad wiped out Jews of Arabia when they proved treacherous instead of sending them packing? Why didn’t ‘Umar wipe them out instead of just banishing them? Why did Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin) invited them back to Jerusalem if “Mohammed ordered Muslims to eliminate Jews”?

   Muslims are fighting for their land. And no amount of self-styled intellectual literary and verbal gymnastics can obliterate or obfuscate or erase this indelible truth! And unless and until every grain of sand of Palestine is returned to Muslims, Muslims have every right and all rights and the highest authority –the Divine Authority– to undertake the noble armed jihad against the occupiers of Palestine. All the way to the Resurrection if need be. And Muslims will prevail. Muslims are the people of hope–(Qur’an 4:104).Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant!–(Qur’an 20:1-2).  Allaho Akbar!

~~~Palestine~~~

Timeless

Celestially Ours

Vive le Palestine libre!

Azad Philistine Zindabad!

Ashat Philistine Hurra!

Long live free Palestine!

Who will be the next Saladin?

   157.(84) Nonie Darwish. “Muslims have robbed the Jews of a life of peace in their homeland, of their holy temple, expelled them from Arabia and limited them to second-class dhimmi status.”(pp.162-163) 

   Response: (Another piece of sheer bunkum!) If Jews wanted a life of peace they would have gone to Uganda where the British was giving them a homeland. Muslims haven’t “robbed” Jews of anything. It is Jews who have robbed Muslims –of our lands and our children’s heritage. As to the Jewish temple, as noted at the beginning God decreed that Muslims are to own the entire Middle-East, and Jesus (your son of God and “God”) prophesied that the kingdom of God shall be taken from Jews and given to another people –and this “another” people are us, Muslims. As for Jewish expulsion from Arabia, as already detailed, Jews were expelled from Arabia because of what their own hands and heads and hearts had wrought –treachery! Jews have a right to be there, not the state! The state is not only an illegally created Zionist entity; it is an obscene blot in the heart of the Islamic sun.

   That Jews are second-class dhimmi status: As already noted Palestinians are “second-class” citizens in their own country.

   Regarding Jizya. As already shown the duty of the Prophet Mohammad (and Muslims) was to teach the Qur’an not enforce it. Allāh says in His Qur’an 9:29: Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” Muhammad Ali comments:

     “The last word on the wars with the idolaters of Arabia  having been said, this verse introduces the subject of  fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the   Jews had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians  in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian  power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its  forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabuk expedition followed, which constitutes the  subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this  chapter. As the object of this Christian power was  simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final vanquishment by the Muslims is  spoken of are different from those dealing with the final  vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’an  neither required that the idolaters should be compelled to  accept Islam, nor was it in any way its object to bring the  Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the  idolaters wanted to suppress Islam by the sword, and the  Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim   Arabia under subjection. The fate of each was, therefore,  according to what it intended for the Muslims. The word  jizyah is derived from jaza, meaning he gave  satisfaction, and means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim  Government whereby they ratify the compact that  ensures them protection; or, according to AH, because it  is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military  service.

    The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously.  The word yad (lit., hand) stands for power or  superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of  the superiority of man over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement  of your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH).  It  may also be added that the permission to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, Fight in the way of  Allah against those who fight against you (2:190). The  Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his  followers. He fought against the Arabs when they took  up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an  expedition against the Christians when the Roman  Empire first mobilized its forces with the object of  subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that,  when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the  initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but  returned without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman  Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies of Islam  and fomented trouble against the newly established  Muslim Kingdom, as a result of which both these  empires came into conflict with the Muslims and,  notwithstanding the fact that both the Persians and the  Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited  resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same time to subjugate Islam, the result was what is predicted here in clear  words — they were both reduced to a state of subjection  by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.” 

Jizyah; as Muhammad Ali explains:

 All that happened in the time of the Prophet was that certain small non-Muslim states were, when subjugated, given the right to administer their own affairs, but only if they would pay a small sum by way of tribute towards the maintenance of the central government at Madinah. It was an act of great magnanimity on the part of the Prophet to confer complete autonomy on a people after conquering them, and a paltry sum of tribute (jizyah) in such conditions was not hardship but a boon. There was no military occupation of their territories, no interference at all with their administration, their laws, their customs and usages, or their religion; and, for the tribute paid, the Muslim state undertook the responsibility protecting these small states against all enemies. In the later conquests of Islam, while it became necessary for the Muslims to establish their own administration in the conquered territories, there was still as little interference with the usages and religion of the conquered people as was possible, and for enjoying complete protection and the benefits of a settled rule they had to pay a very mild tax, the jizyah.” (The Religion Of Islam, pp. 560-561).  

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

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

   All governments levy taxes to raise revenues. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Early Caliphate that when a Muslim government could no longer provide the protection for which jizyah was taken, this amount was returned to the people. He gave the example of Abu ‘Ubaidah when he

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

   Regarding the term “dhimmi.” Dhimmidoes not refer to Jews and Christians only, but to all non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Again, Muhammad Ali:

 “The very name ahl al-dhimmah (lit., people under protection) given to the non-Muslim subjects of a Muslims state, or to a non-Muslim state under the protection of Muslim rule, shows that the jizyah was paid as a compensation for the protection afforded; in other words, it was a contribution of the non-Muslim towards the military organisation of the Muslim state. There are cases on record in which the Muslim state returned the jizyah, when it was unable to afford protection to the people under its care.”

 “The following classes were exempt from jizyah: all females, males who had not attained majority, old people, people whom disease had crippled (zamin), the paralyzed, the blind, the poor (faqir) who could not work for themselves (ghair mu’tamil) the slaves, slaves who were working for their freedom (mudbir) and the monks…..”

    “Caliph ‘Umar once saw a blind Dhimmi (non-Muslim) begging, and finding on enquiry that he had to pay jizyah, he not only exempted him but, in addition, ordered that he paid a stipend from the state-treasury, issuing further orders at the same time that all Dhimmis in similar circumstances should be paid stipends.” (The Religion Of Islam, pp. 561, 562, 564).

 Those who are jaundiced against jizyah and “dhimmitude” must turn their sights to the Biblical Fathers and the Defenders of the Faith –David, Saul, Samuel and Joshua and the Christian conquerors of Jerusalem and Spain– whose victims were shrouded in blood, expelled or forced to convert. Not to mention the 800-year Inquisitions –Medieval, Roman and Spanish– from 1000-1834. Praise be to Islam’s mercy and tolerance –to jizyah and “dhimmitude”! (See also BAT YE’OR & ISLAM/MUSLIMS)

    As for your statement that Jews liberated Jerusalem in 1967. Jews did not liberate Jerusalem in 1967; Jews occupied Jerusalem in 1967 just as they occupy most of Palestine.    

   158.(85) (On the killing of “Israeli tourists” at Taba, Egypt) Nonie Darwish: “Muslims blamed it on Israel….Do they really want the world to believe that the Israeli government is killing its own citizens in Egyptian resorts for the purpose of embarrassing Egypt, the only country to initiate a peace process with them?”  (pp. 163-164).

   Response: Why not? perhaps it was because of the “tourist dollar” going to enrich Egypt instead of staying at home. Why is it unbelievable that Jews would commit acts against their own people to achieve a certain end? The Internet page Jews against Zionism notes that though some “dispute” it “the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I.” (The material on this topic is lengthy and informative. Readers are urged to check out this site on the Internet. The article also notes):“Read about the brutal Zionist role in the Holocaust. Read “The Jews of Iraq” by Naim Giladi, a first hand account of violence and intimidation of Iraqi Jews to leave their homeland. The writings of Mr. Naim Giladi document in detail what the Zionists did in Baghdad in 1950 to provoke the departure of the Jews to the Zionist state……………

   Horrifying Accusations of Violence and Intimidation Read More (This article notes that “In more recent times the Zionists have sought every opportunity to encourage Jews to leave their home countries.” They “magnify” “even the smallest event of hostility toward Jews on the heels of Zionist policy” to “ruthlessly humiliate the nations involved, and agitate for Jews to go to the Zionist state, the so-called “natural home” of the Jewish People.  This has been the case in countries such as France, Argentina, Uruguay, the former Soviet Union and Egypt.” And that “The promises of the Torah are always to be realized. This verse from the Torah demonstrates that those who are his enemies will pay a price when The kingdom of G-D will prevail. Deuteronomy 32:43: Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People.”

Deuteronomy 32:43 which says: “Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People” does NOT refer to future nations; it refers to those nations at the time of the many “ites” kingdoms that Joshua would exterminate, so God can keep His word to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–Deut. 7:6, 8, 12; 10:15. This is clearly stated a few verses later, in verse 49, where God showed Moses the land of Canaan: “and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the Children for Israel for a possession.” And this blessing was tied in to Jews following the Prophet Mohammad as stated early in the next chapter: “And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the Children of Israel before his death. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them”–(Deut; 33:1-2).

  If Sinai and Seir refer to Moses and Jesus, respectively,  “Mount Paran is not found in any other country except Arabia, Makkah being located in its valley;”120 and refers to Mohammad; the ten thousand saints is the number of followers the Prophet Mohammad had upon his conquest of Makkah; and the fiery law in his right hand is the Holy Qur’an–this shows that the Prophet Mohammad is this blessing to Jews. This prophecy of Moses is also tied in to that of Deut. 18:18-19 that speak of the prophet like Moses that God will raise up and in whose mouth God will put His words. And these two prophecies (Deut. 33:1-2; 18:18-19) are tied in to that of Jacob as noted in Genesis 49:10 which decrees: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Prof. ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud–the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani–in his book Muhammad in the Bible, has explained this prophecy in detail to show that it cannot apply to either Moses, David, or Jesus, but, that this prophecy could relate only to the Prophet Mohammad because “Muhammad came with military power and the Qur‘an to replace the old Jewish worn-out sceptre and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifices and of a corrupt priesthood.” Prof. Dawud notes, that the Jewish “institutions” of “Royal Sceptre and the Prophetical Succession” “have been extinct for over thirteen centuries;” and that “the tribe of Judah also has disappeared together with its royal authority and its sister –the prophetical successionboth have been out of existence for the same period of time as the advent of Mohammad. (Moreover, present-day Jews may not even be Biblical Jews, but off-springs of converts to Judaism). Thus, “The Jews are forced to accept one or the other of the two alternatives, namely, either to admit that Shiloh has come already, but that their forefathers did not recognize him (Allāh, God, says they knew Qur’an 2:146; 26:197), or to accept the fact that there exists no longer a tribe of Judah from which Shiloh will have to descend.” Moreover, the prophecy clearly states that Shiloh “is to be a total stranger to the tribe of Judah, and even to all the other tribes,” –the sceptre and the law-giver were to remain with Judah until the arrival of Shiloh. “If Shiloh be a descendant of Judah, how could those two elements [sceptre and lawgiver] cease to exist in that tribe?” Shiloh “could not be a descendant of any of the other tribes either, for the sceptre and the lawgiver were for all Israel, and not for one tribe only. This observation explodes the Christian claim as well. For Jesus is a descendant of Judah–at least from his mother’s side.” It is clear from the above that “the Jews are vainly expecting the coming of another Shiloh, and that the Christians are obstinately persisting in their error in believing that it was Jesus who was intended by Shiloh.” (Muhammad in the Bible, pp. 54, 55, 58, 57). 

   In brief: the Judaic Law was Divinely decreed to end upon the advent of the Prophet Mohammad, as prophesied by the prophets Jacob, Moses, and Jesus, respectively–(Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15, 18-19; Matt. 21:43; John 14:15-16; 16:12-13). Jews are required to follow the Prophet Mohammad, who has been shown to be the fulfillment of these prophecies. Jews salvation lies in them following Islam; which consists of people of all races and nationalities. As Jews are commanded by God to follow Mohammad, then, as Muhammad Ali states, rightly, “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future”–(comm. Qur’an 17:8)

    Contrary to Jewish belief, there is no eschatological Messiah for the Jewish people or a “return” to the Holy Land: “The Old Testament never speaks of an eschatological messiah –one inaugurating the last times (i.e. the coming of a king in the last days to redeem the Israelites)– and even the “messianic” passages containing prophecies of a future golden age under an ideal king never use this term. Nevertheless, many modern scholars hold that Israelite messianism grew out of beliefs connected with kingship.”121 (Interestingly, Jews were awaiting the return of Elias, but as Jesus told them: “Elias is come already, and they knew him not” because Elias came in the person of John the Baptist–(Matthew 17:10-13). God sending a Messiah to redeem Jews and their land would contradict His decree that power and prophethood would be taken from the Israelites, who are to follow Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); contradict His sending a prophet like Moses, whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15-19); contradict His sending the Comforter who will give “all truth”–(John 14:15-16; 16:12-13);  contradict His taking His kingdom from Jews and giving it to another people–(Matt. 21:43);   contradict His decree that Jerusalem would cease to be the focus of Divine worship–(John 4:21; Isaiah 60:7;  65:15; Haggai 2:9; Mal. 1:11); and contradict His sending “another” angel with  the “everlasting gospel”–(Rev. 14:6). And which Shiloh and prophet like Moses and Comforter and “another angel” is, indisputably, the Prophet Mohammad; and which new centre of worship is the Ka’ba in Makkah which is for all people; and which “another people” who received the kingdom taken from the Jews are the Muslims; and which “everlasting gospel” is the Qur’an, having “all truth.”

   Even if we put aside all the prophecies and Divine sayings against Jews. With the mischief and mayhem on their hands probably more than the hairs on their heads, to claim that the Just and impartial God is telling future “nations” to “praise” Jews (or “acclaim” them or “rejoice” with them as other translations have) has to be a fantastic fantasy or morbid delusion: “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked”–(Ex. 23:7). “My covenant does not include the wrong-doers, said He (Allāh God)” –(Qur’an 2:124). Jews salvation lies in them following Mohammad/Islam. (See JUDAISM).

   159.(86) Nonie Darwish: “Tens of thousand of Egyptians have died in wars initiated by Egypt against Israel.”(p. 164).

   Response: (More warped cerebration of blaming the victim). These wars were not “initiated by Egypt.” These “wars” were initiated by Jews and America when Palestine was stolen. Egypt’s and Arabs and Muslims’ retaliation is only a natural response to this monumental and grotesque obscenity against us. No one in the world would accept for himself and herself that which was, and which continues to be, perpetuated against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians. Palestinians are not to suffer for Europe’s shame. In the annals of modern history no people has suffered more and for so long as the Palestinians have. If there is any cause worthy of our stand, if there is any cause on which to immortalize our names, it is the cause of the Palestinians. 

~~~Palestine~~~

Timeless

Celestially Ours

Vive le Palestine libre!

Azad Philistine Zindabad!

Ashat Philistine Hurra!

Long live free Palestine!

Who will be the next Saladin?

   160.(87) Nonie Darwish: “Why did the Muslim world and its media not protest when Saddam Hussein killed fellow Muslims? Why would they cover up for him? Why did they close their eyes to the genocide in Algeria and Sudan? The reason is simply because if the genocide is done by Muslims, it is ignored or forgiven. But Jews must never kill Muslims, even in self-defense.” (p.165)

   Response: Is this justification for Jewish occupation and slaughter of Arabs/Muslims? (While this is not to condone Saddam Hussein) Who would you fight, your brother who is fighting your brother or the stranger who is fighting your brother and to hold on to your brother’s property? And, (justified or not) Saddam Hussein was stemming rebellion –which your “God” and son of God, Jesus, said to do in Luke 19:27: “those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me;” and that “He that is not with me is against me”(Matt. 12:30)– as opposed to Jews occupying Muslim lands and slaughtering Muslims. 

    You wrote/speak about Muslims not condemning Algeria. Where is your condemnation of France for massacring a million Algerians so France can lord over them? Where is your voicferance to have France’s massacre of the Algerians declared “genocide”? “The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats.”

   161.(88) ND notes the Prophet Mohammad as saying: ““The Hour of Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. and the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say, oh servant of Allāh, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”” “The world must demand that this hadith be taken out of Muslim scriptures and never be taught again to any Muslim child.”(p. 166).

   Response: You mean take this hadith out like the Jews “effaced” the name “Ishmael” from the Book of Genesis and inserted “Isaac?” Man can alter scriptures, man cannot alter Divine decrees. And if this hadith is to be taken out from Muslim scriptures then what about Jesus’ (your son of God and “God”) decree that Jews will receive the greater damnation of hell and that the kingdom of God shall be taken from Jews and given to another people, shall these be removed from the Bible? In fact, if one is to remove verses unfavorable to Jews the entire Bible might have to be scrapped. (For this hadith see item #91).     

   162.(89) Nonie Darwish: “Mohammed mobilized his men to kill eight hundred Jewish men and take their women and children as slaves.” (p. 166).

   Response:  See item #89 for the response to this tripe.

   163.(90). Nonie Darwish: “The rewards to Muslims who kill the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians) was clear then inside Arabia. Qur’an 33:26 and 27 says, “he has tossed some People of the Book who had backed them up, out of their strongholds and cast panic into their hearts, one group you killed while you captured another group. He let you inherit their land, their homes, and their properties, plus a land you have not yet set foot on.” (p. 166).

   Response: (Wonder how many who have read your books and know Islam have laughed at your ignorance of Islam and at your ignorance of Christianity). Weren’t the rewards of the Israelites clear when God had them massacre even animals to inherit their land? The hand of God was with the Israelites through all their butchery for them to have land, and booty which includes little “virgin” girls:

   “For indeed the HAND OF THE LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were CONSUMED” –(Deut.2:15).

   -“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 item #18).

   -“And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the Lord your God hath delivered them into your hand;” “and Joshua called for all the men of Israel…Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings… And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees.” “So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, as the Lord God of Israel commanded…And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL FOUGHT FOR ISRAEL;” “And they UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT WAS IN THE CITY, BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX, AND SHEEP, AND ASS, with  the EDGE OF THE SWORD”–(Joshua 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Joshua chs.10-12; Numbers 21:24, 35; 31:17-18; Deut. 20:16-17; 1 Sam. 15:2-3, for slaughters by Joshua, Moses, and Saul). And unlike the enemies of Mohammad who persecuted Mohammad, besieged him, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued and warred on him, these young males,  matron women, and ox and sheep and ass did nothing to be slaughtered, and the “virgin” girls did nothing to be taken as “concubines” or to be “raped.” 

   However, regarding these verses of Qur’an 33:26 and 27 that Nonie Darwish tries to berate, and which are about the Jewish tribe, Bani Quraizah, Muhammad Ali notes:

“The Bani Quraizah were in alliance with the Holy Prophet, and when the enemy laid siege to Madinah, they were bound to repel the attack; see 2:84a. Instead of this they sided with the invading army. Muir admits that “it was agreed that the Quraizah would assist the Quraish”, and though he doubts whether “they entered on active hostilities”, there is the surest testimony that they had made an agreement with the Quraish to attack the Muslims from within. Therefore, when the besieging army took to flight and the Quraizah returned to their fortress, it was besieged by the Holy Prophet, for to leave such an internal enemy unpunished would have been a source of ever-present danger to the safety of the Muslim community. They remained besieged for twenty-five days, and then expressed their willingness to surrender, on condition that they should submit to the sentence of punishment pronounced by Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh. Had they trusted the Prophet, he would probably have given them the same punishment as he gave to the Qainuqa’, viz., emigration, but Sa‘d was exasperated by their treachery and his judgment was that the fighting men should be put to death and the restmade captives (B. 56:168). This was in accordance with the Jewish Law: “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deut. 20:12–14). Three hundred men suffered death under this sentence, and their lands fell into the hands of the Muslims.  The land which you have not yet trodden refers to the foreign lands which are here promised to the Muslims and which they conquered later.”

   Nonie Darwish continues: “As Muslim children, we were always told that Jerusalem was a Muslim city taken away by foreigners, the Jews. We believed it.” (pp. 166-167).

   Response: Whether you now believe it or not You were told correctly. The entire Middle-East is Muslim’s heritage. (See AN OVERVIEWitem [b]). Moreover, those who call themselves Jews have, in all likelihood, no genetic connection to the Biblical fathers, and are probably of European descent and descendants of converts to Judaism –foreigners! (See Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe. Also ANTI-SEMITISM).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “With the creation of Israel, Muslims once again are reminded of Mohammed’s shame when Jews found his religion a bad attempt to imitate their religion and replace it. The Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe must be killed again and again,” (p. 167).

   Response:(What a chasmic yawn! Can you prove that the Jewish occupiers and usurpers of Palestine are of the Quraiza tribe? Can a Jew identify himself with any of the Twelve Tribes of Israel/Jacob? (Jacob was given the name Israel by God–Gen. 32:28; 35:10). As stated above, present-day Jews may very well be descendants of European and other converts to Judaism. And these aliens claim ownership to PALESTINE under non-existent Divine contract; and have massacred even the newly born and bombed, mined, and bulldozed their way to this unGodly end. And on to this day is yet barring Palestinian farmers from tending their farms and are destroying their groves, This is God’s “chosen” people: “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE WICKEDExodus 23:7).

   Mohammad trying to save Jews from Hell-fire is “shame”? If the “Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe must be killed again and again,” Mohammad would not have given them the chance to choose their arbitrator when they were guilty of treachery: Mohammad would have lopped off their treacherous heads ipso facto. (See MOHAMMAD JEWS & RAIDING PARTIES).  

   As shown in preceding pages Mohammad’s duty was only to preach the Message of the Qur’an. It is the Jews “shame” that they did not accept it (nor now accept it). Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the Qur’an knows that Islam is not “imitation,” “bad” or otherwise, of any religion. In fact, except their teachings of monotheism, Islam and Judaism are wide apart as the walls of the Grand Canyon. Not only does the Torah require Jews to follow Mohammad but the Qur’an abrogates several of the commandments of the Torah; such as stoning/ putting to death adulterers, homosexuals, blasphemers, apostates, honor killing, and the putting away (divorcing) of the wife just for her even having a bad odor. As Muhammad Ali rightly points out, “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.” In this MA is echoing Nonie Darwish’s son of God and God, Jesus, who declared to the Jews: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–(Matt.21:43). Amen! And this pronouncement of Jesus is sealed in the words of Allāh in Qur’an 3:109: “You (Muslims) are the best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allāh.” Ameen!  The QUR’AN/ISLAM consists of teachings of other Scriptures that are applicable for  all times and also consists of teachings that are not met with in other Scriptures; thus the Qur’an consists of, exceeds, and supersedes all Scriptures. It is doubtful that a wise individual would follow a book that is devoid of “all truth” over one that contains “all truth” or that the individual would choose for himself an iron spoon instead of a gold one. 

   Mohammad grieved for and prayed for his idolatrous enemies: “Then maybe thou wilt kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in the announcement;” “Perhaps thou wilt kill thyself with grief because they believe not;” “if I knew that if I asked forgiveness for him more than seventy times, he would be forgiven, I would ask it for more times than that”–(Qur’an 18:6; 26:3; 9:84, 113. Bokhari Vol. 6, #193, 194).  Consider how much more Mohammad must have sorrowed that Jews who were believers in God should have known better than the Idolaters that he was indeed the Messenger of God prophesied in the Torah. And they did know as Allāh revealed:  “And surely the same (prophecy about the advent of Mohammad and the Qur’an) is in the Scriptures of the ancients. Is it not a sign to them that the learned men of the Children of Israel know it?”“Say: See you if it (the Qur’an) is from Allāh, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel (Moses) has borne witness of one like him (in Deut 18:15, 18-19), so he believed, while you are big with pride. Surely Allah guides not the iniquitous people”–(Qur’an 26:197; 46:10. Jews and Christians can reject Mohammad; Jews and Christians cannot dispute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation [Jesus included] Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim; the Qur’an –with its prophecies that have already manifested, its scientific pronouncements, and its inimitability– is his proof).

   The “creation of Israel” is not “Mohammad’s shame” (man cannot preserve what God decrees demolished). It is Jews (and your) “shame” and disgrace –in this life and in the next– that they reject Mohammad.

   164.(91) Nonie Darwish: “The expansion of Islam surrounding Arabia was necessary padding to fend off the impact of Judaism and Christianity.” (p. 168)

   Response: And what is this “impact of Judaism and Christianity”? For two thousand years after Moses and a thousand years after Christ mankind was waltzing about with flint tools and torches. A mere hundred years after Mohammad backward camel-drivers were lording the world and brought light to mankind. What kind of Jewish and Christian “impact” was Islam trying to “fend off”? The only Jewish and Christian impact Islam was trying to fend off was one of bigotry, backwardness, and stagnation. The world is to go on its hands and knees and foreheads and thank Allāh for sending Mohammad and Islam to remove the Jewish and Christian “blight” from the world. (See CRITICS).

   165.(92) Nonie Darwish opines that “Muslims are forbidden from doubt, analysis, and thinking for themselves.” (p. 170).

   Response: Allāh and the Prophet exhort us to seek knowledge; and even from the cradle to the grave. It would be pointless for Allāh and the Prophet to impress on us to seek knowledge and yet bar us from “doubt, analysis, and thinking for” ourselves.  The following reference notes that Islam teaches that “Learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning: (Abu Naeem) MM1-361-112 W.” (i.e. Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p.361, #112W). There are several verses in the Qur’an in which Allāh calls on man to use his faculty of reasoning:

   -“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” –(Qur’an 16:125);

   -“Do you enjoin men to be good and neglect your own souls while you read the Book? Have you then no sense?” –(2:44);

   -“In the creation of the heavens and the earth and alternation of the night and the day, there are surely signs for men of understanding. Those who remember Allāh standing and sitting and (lying) on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth”–(3:189-190).

   -“And certainly he (the devil) led astray numerous people from among you. Could you not then understand?” –(36:62);

   -“And in the variation of the night and the day and (in) the sustenance which Allāh sends down from the heaven, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, are signs for a people who understand”–(45:5);

   -“And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allāh has revealed,” they say: “Nay, we follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way”–(2:170);

   -“And they say: had we but listened or pondered, we should not have been among the inmates of the burning Fire”–(67:10).

   Those who do not use their faculty of reasoning are compared to animals:

   -“And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, so they have no sense”–(2:171);

   -“They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not. They are as cattle; nay, they are more astray”–(7:170);

   -“Surely the vilest of beasts, in Allāh’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not”–(8:22);

   -“Or thinkest thou that most of them hear or understand? They are but as the cattle; nay, they are further astray from the path”–(25:44).

   In his comprehensive work, The Religion Of Islam (available through www.muslim.org; in Arabic also), Muhammad Ali points out:

“The Qur’an does recognize revelation as a source of knowledge higher than reason (because Allāh, being Omniscient, His knowledge is beyond the realm of  man’s mental capacity), but at the same time admits that the truth of the principles established by revelation may be judged by reason and denounces those who do not use their reasoning faculty. It also recognizes the necessity of the exercise of judgment in order to arrive at a decision: “But if any news of security or fear comes to them, they spread it abroad. And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those of them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it”–(Qur’an 4:83. “The original word for the italicized portion is yastanbitun from istinbat which is derived from nabat al-bi’ra, meaning: “he dug out a well and brought forth water.” The istinbat of the jurist is derived from this, and it signifies the searching out of the hidden meaning by his ijtihad and is the same as istikhraj, i.e., analogical deduction (TA.).”). The verse recognizes the principle of the exercise of judgment which is the same as Ijtihad, and though the occasion on which it is mentioned is a particular one, the principle recognized is general. The exercise of judgment (ijtihad) is recognized in Tradition (of the Prophet) 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 any 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 Allāh 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.” (pp. 98-99).  

   That “Muslims are forbidden from doubt, analysis, and thinking for themselves” is an exposure of Nonie Darwish’s  sheer ignorance of Islam. (See also item #75).

   166.(93)  Nonie Darwish:  “The expression “In Shaa Allāh,” meaning “if Allāh wills,” is the most commonly used expression by Muslims. Other commonly used expressions that reflect societal fatalism: “Maktoub” –“everything is written,” and “Elquesma” –“this is my destiny or my share in life.” Society becomes fatalistic, stagnant, and rigid.” (pp. 170-171).

   Response: “Everything is written” means everything exists in the knowledge of Allāh, God. (See item #9). (About astronomy in the Qur’an, read Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Qur’an, And Science).

   167.(94) Nonie Darwish: “Muslim societies have not contributed much to humanity, but have actually destroyed and sucked away the talent and innovation bit by bit from the nations they conquered.” (p. 172).

   Response:(What malarkey! Informed individuals must be laughing their heads off at your ignorant if not arrogant charge). While it is true that non-Muslims were under the employ of Muslims (and were paid for their services), as already shown it was Muslims that brought light to mankind. (See CRITICS).     

   As noted in item #18, after the World War II defeat of Germany, the U.S. (as noted on the Internet) collected “military and scientific booty;” scooping up some 1600 German scientists and their families (and doctors and engineers) for American usage. America most likely owes her rocket and space program to these brilliant German minds. Would you say that America “sucked away the talent and innovation bit by bit from” these German (captives?) 

   As noted in preceding pages Jews slaughtered and occupied some thirty “ites” kingdoms and “concubinized” little “virgin” girls. Would you say that Jews “actually destroyed and sucked away the talent and innovation bit by bit from the nations they conquered” and slaughtered to have their lands and “virgin” girls?

   Contrary to Nonie Darwish’s fanciful charge that “Muslim societies have not contributed much to humanity,” here are some Muslim contributions to humanity.

   –Abul Hasan invented the Telescope.

   -Ibn Yunus, a “genius in science,” invented the Pendulum.  

   -Kutubi made the first watch.

   -Muslims invented the mariner’s compass.

   –Mir Fatehullah Khan invented the gun and gunpowder (contrary to popular belief that the Chinese invented gunpowder).

   -Ibn al-Hashem invented photography

   –Muhammad Musa, invented the “Astrolabe” (instrument for measuring the earth)

   -Arab chemists were the first to manufacture soap.

   –Al-Masudi In his celebrated work The Meadows of Gold, he has described an earthquake, and the first windmill which was also invented by a Muslim.

   –Jabir Ibn Afiah, a mathematician, constructed the first observatory in Europe (in Spain).

   -Muslims developed the Algebra of the Greeks to higher applications. Invented “Spherical trigonometry,” and “the “tangent,” etc.  Invented the invaluable “zero.”

   -“Razi (Rhazes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Abu Ali al-Hasan (Alhazen) were the greatest medical scholars of mediaeval times. Al-Razi was the inventor of “Seton” in Surgery and the author of Al-Judari wal Hasbak, an authentic book dealing with measles and small pox;” this book “is one of the most authentic books on the subject even to the present day. It was translated into Latin and other European languages and was published more than forty times between 1498 and 1866 A.D. It contains detailed information regarding the treatment of postules. The greatest achievement of Al-Razi in the realm of medical science is his celebrated work Al-Hawi (Latin Continens) the most comprehensive encyclopaedia of medicine ever written by a medical man, which runs into 20 volumes. This book was translated into Latin by the Sicilian Jewish physician, Faraj Ibn Salim, on the order of Charles I, King of Sicily, and named Continens. “Its influence on European medicine was thus very considerable,” says Max Meyerhof. Al-Razi has also contributed to gynecology, obstetrics, ophthalmology and has written valuable treatise on the treatment of some common diseases in the East including stones in the bladder and kidneys. He was also an eminent surgeon and is the inventor of ‘Seton’ in surgery. He settled in Baghdad where he founded a hospital named Bimaristan. He selected its site by hanging pieces of raw meat in various localities and choosing the spot where they showed least signs of putrefaction.

   -“Abu Ali Al-Husain-al-Sina, known as Avicenna in the west was one of the greatest intellectuals of the Islamic world.” “His gigantic work AlQanun-Fil-Tib known as Canon in Latin is the culmination and masterpiece of Arab systematisation. It is a medical encyclopaedia dealing with 760 drugs, as well as with general medicine, simple drugs, and diseases affecting all parts of the body. It is particularly concerned with Pathology and Pharmacopoeia and was translated into Latin in the 12th century by Gerard of Cremona. The popularity of this excellent book may be gauged by the fact that during the last 30 years of the 15th century it was printed 16 times and in the 16th century 20 times in various European languages. Publications including sections from this work as well as commentaries on it in various languages of both the east and West are innumerable. According to a celebrated western writer, “Probably no medical work ever written has been so much studied….Hence his influence on European medicine has been overwhelming.”‘ Sir Jadu Nath Sircar, the celebrated Indian Historian pays eloquent tribute to Ibn Sina when he says, “Avicenna was the greatest intellectual giant of the middle ages.”” He discovered the spreading of disease through water. Avicenna was responsible for elevating Islamic medicine to its zenith, and his portrait as well as that of AI-Razi still adorns the grand Hall of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Paris.

   -“Muslims have made a lasting contribution to the development of Medical Science. Razi (Rhazes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Abu Ali al-Hasan (Alhazen) were the greatest medical scholars of mediaeval times. Al-Razi was the inventor of “Seton” in Surgery and the author of Al-Judari wal Hasbak, an authentic book dealing with measles and small pox.” “Alhazen was the world’s greatest authority on “optics”. The contagious character of the plague and its remedies were discovered by Ibn Katina, a Moorish Physician.

   –Jabir known as the father of Arabic alchemy was a mystic and was known as ‘Ceber’ in mediaeval Latin literature.” “Sir Thomas Arnold pays eloquent tribute to this great Muslim scientist when he says, “At the very dawn stands the figure of a Muslim whose shadow lies athwart the science of the middle ages in the orient as in the Occident.”

   -“Ali Ibn Al-Abbas-al-Majusi known in the west as Haly Abbas, who died in 994 A. D., was the author of a celebrated work Kitab-al-Maliki known as Liber Regius in Latin, an excellent and compact encyclopaedia dealing with both the theory and practice of medical science. It is less voluminous than Al-Razi’s Hawi and it remained a standard book until it was superseded by the Canon the masterpiece of the great Avicenna. Perhaps Majusi was the first physician to write about the capillary system and to describe accurately the way in which a child is born.

   –Abu-Al-Jarrah-Al-Zahrawi known in Latin as Abul Casis was a great surgeon who wrote AE-Tasrif containing 30 sections, the last of which deals with surgery.” “Al-Tasrif is fully illustrated with sketches of surgical instruments and it profoundly contributed to the development of surgery both in the East and the West. It was translated into several European languages and the famous French surgeon Guy de Chauliac benefitted from one of its Latin translations. Stanley Lane Poole in his celebrated work The Moors in Spain pays eloquent tribute to the part played by Spanish Muslims in the awakening of the West, when he says, “Every branch of science was seriously studied there, and medicine received more and greater additions by the discoveries of the doctors and surgeons of Andalusia than it had gained during all the centuries that had elapsed since the days of Galen.”‘

   -“Ali Ibn Isa of Baghdad known in Latin as Jesu Occulist has written an excellent treatise on ophthalmology, a branch of medicine dealing with eye diseases. It was translated into Latin and was considered the authoritative work on eye diseases in Europe till the middle of the 18th century.

   -“Abu Ali al-Hasan (965-1020 A.D.) known as Alhazen in the west is recognised as the greatest authority on optics the world produced.” “He has made valuable contributions to the development of physics and medicine, but his outstanding achievement is in the realm of optics. He has corrected the theories of Euclid and Ptolemy on the subject. His Opticae Thesaurus influenced such great writers on optics as Roger Bacon, Leonard da Vinci, John Kepler and all mediaeval western writers, who base their works on the research of Alhazen. The two greatest luminaries of the Islamic world Ibn Sina and Al-Beruni shared and fully endorsed Alhazen’s opinion that, ‘It is not the ray that leaves the eye and meets the object that gives rise to vision. Rather the form of the perceived object passes into the eye and is transmitted by its transparent body.” 

   -“Ibn Rushd known as Averroes in the west who died in 1198 in Morocco is the greatest Aristotelian philosopher, He is the author of 16 medical works of which one Kulliyat Fil Tib dealing with general rules of medicine was translated into Latin as Colliget. It was printed several times in Europe. Averroes is one of the most outstanding literary figures that Islamic Spain has produced and he was instrumental in clearing away the darkness of illiteracy that had enveloped Europe.(Averroes, Avicenna, Alhazen, Saladin –Salahuddin Ayyube, the majestic liberator of Jerusalem– don’t you just adore the way the West/ Christians adulterate the names of Muslims, just like they adulterate their “Book of God.” Perhaps by adulterating the names of Muslims they are trying to obliterate or obfuscate the truth that these benefactors of humanity are Muslims).  

   -“Ibn Katina, the Moorish physician who died in 1369 A.D. is the author of excellent book on the plague. A severe plague which ravaged Alemaria in Spain in 1348-49 A.D. caused the celebrated physician to write a treatise on the plague which was superior to all earlier works on the subject. This book was edited and translated in Europe in the 15th century A.D. and revealed the contagious character of the plague and its remedies which were not known to Greek physicians.

   -“The study of medicine in Europe began at Salerno (Sicily) where Constantine the African, a disciple of an Arab Physician organised the first medical school. The medical school of Montpellier soon followed suit, which was founded on the pattern of Cordova under the guidance of Jewish doctors. Other schools on the same lines were opened at Pisa and later at Padua (Italy) where Canon of Avicenna and the Surgery of Abul Qasim remained until the 17th century the text books of medical science throughout Europe. Robert Briffault writes, “The Pharmacopoeia created by the Arabs is virtually that which but for the recent- Synthetic and organotherapic–Apic preparations, is in use at the present day; our common drugs, such as nux vomica, Senna, Rknbarb, aconite, gention, myrrh, calomel and structure of our prescriptions, belong to the Arabic medicine.(The material on Muslims contribution to mankind is voluminous. Just “Google” The Islamic Scholar, or Muslims contribution to the world, or Muslims contribution to Science, or Muslims contribution to Medicine, from where I gleaned my information).

   In contrast, as her history attests, and as already shown, the Christian “blight” trashed everything science and progress. And when they booted Muslims out of Spain, they turned the astronomer’s observatory built by Jabir Ibn Afiah into a belfry and made a Mosque into a horse stable; the Christian “blight” also demolished the public bathhouses Muslims had erected –fifteen hundred years after Christ ‘cleanliness had not yet come to Christianity’ in the words of one narrator (quoted from memory). Though Christianity is still mired in spiritual uncleanness –attributing injustice to God (that he put Adam’s/Eve’s sin onto all humans and even from the womb and then putting every man’s sin onto Jesus); making God complicit in murder (that He sent one man, and an innocent one, to be killed for everybody’s sin and not even some human government kill the innocent for the guilty); gave the Eternal God a son; trumpeted that the Omniscient God/son of God needs to eat “butter and honey” so “he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,” and, what must be the “mother” of all blasphemies, the Christianculled God into a sperm (and whose?) and confined Him into the womb of a woman He created and drew Him out her vagina (and called her Mother of God”), have Him nursed her paps, and circumcised Him, to make Him scapegoat for the sins of the world (denying God’s Supreme and Majestic qualities of mercy and grace, to forgive without need for some “satisfaction”).   

   168.(95) Nonie Darwish wrote that Muslims “must acknowledge the elements of Islam and Sharia that defy universally accepted norms of human rights.” (p. 174).

   Response: Please detail these “norms of human rights” that Islam and Shari’ah have defied? All your charges have already been obliterated.

   Islam teaches that all men are created equal (Qur’an 95:4), we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), 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), all men were given rites and ceremonies and all religions are for Allāh–(22:34, 67; 8:39); to return evil with that which is better–(23:96), to deal justly (2:279, 5:8); not to rob men their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self, parents, kins, or whether he be poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8), encourages feeding the needy and the poor, free the captives, help those in debt, care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or make mischief (26:183); not to transgress, or aid in sin and aggression (2:190; 5:2), to restrain anger and forgive (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); liberated woman–(2:187; 4:19-22); exalts her–(4:1; 9:71-72); gives her equality with man in financial, property, moral and spiritual matters–(4:32, 7-10, 176-177; 3:195; 33:35; 4:124; 16:97; 43:70);  honors her–(4:1); made her a garment to man and man a garment to her–(2:187); given her rights similar to those against her–(2:228);  made her a protector of man as he is her protector–(9:71); and established her as a source of peace,  comfort, love and compassion–(7:189; 30:21). Where are the “universally accepted norms of human rights” that Islam and Shari’ah have defied?

   In contrast, Christianity (not to be confused with Secularism) allows slavery and bondage of daughters; subjugation of woman from birth through marriage until death (and even in the life to come); views woman as an object for sex, a “defiler” of man, and a betrayer of man; considers non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine;” regards those who does not share its views as being against it (and a person can be neutral); and commands the slaughter of “enemies” opposed to its rule (even though these “enemies” might not militate against it). It is Christians who “must acknowledge the elements” of Christianity “that defy universally accepted norms of human rights.”

   169.(96) Nonie Darwish wrote: “Qur’an 2:30 says, “Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent (a Khalifa) on earth.’ They said: ‘Wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?’ He said: I know what ye know not.”” And she notes that according to Shafi Law that “under Sharia, the three ways of choosing the caliph are by selection, by nomination, and by force.” (p. 178).

   Response:Islam is Democracy! (See ISLAM & DEMOCRACY).   Islam requires that leadership be given only to those worthy of power, and to govern by consultation/counsel–(Qur’an 3:158; 4:58; 42:38). Muhammad Ali notes to Qur’an 42:38: “In this, Islam has laid the basis of Government by parliaments, and the idea found a clear practical expression in the early days of the Caliphate, when the Khalifah had to refer every important affair to counsel. It is strange indeed that Government by parliament is now looked upon by Europeans as an institution which is quite foreign to Islam and unsuited for the Muslim people” (This must be “Europeans” arrogance or ignorance of Islam; or both). 

   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). Further, Muhammad Ali points out in his The Early Caliphate:

“Bilal, ‘Ammar, and others who were, originally slaves but were among the first to embrace Islam, were shown preference over the great chiefs of the Quraish.…All distinctions of heredity were abolished and society was ordered on the Qur’anic principle: “The most honourable among you is the one who has the greatest regard for his duty.”

“The weak and disabled were granted allowances from the public treasury, and in this there was no discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim. The system of old-age pensions now prevailing in many countries in Europe was first introduced by ‘Umar.  For wayfarers, large caravansarais were erected in all big centres. Children without guardians were brought up at the expense of the state.”

“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.”  (pp. 121, 122, 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. (The Early Caliphate p.143). 

   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 have illustrated, 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). “Surely, the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing. Aware”–(Qur’an 49:7, 13). Despots who consider themselves pious are deluding themselves.

   170.(97). Nonie Darwish: “Qur’an 33:36 reads: “And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allāh and his messenger, he verily go astray in error manifest.” Obeying Allāh alone is not sufficient. According to this verse, Muslims have no right to decide and must completely surrender brainlessly –like sheep– to Mohammed. This verse also confirms that independent thinking is not allowed in Islam.” (p. 179).

   Response: If the American President should give you an order in any matter will you question him? If Moses or Jesus was to come and give you a command in some aspect of your life that was displeasing to you would you question or disobey him?  When parents decide something for their child and the child rebels doesn’t the parent tries to explain to the child that it is for his/her own good –that the parent knows better what is good for him/her?

   Does anyone know more than God and his prophets? Obviously Jews and Christians believe they do, why else would they not carry out the Divine instructions and stone to death etc; as the Biblical God requires? And Christ came to uphold the law and to uphold it so much so that “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these LEAST commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”–(Matt. 5:17-19. And to execute the adulterer and homosexual is not a “least” commandment. Seemingly Christians are even ordaining the homosexual as “vicar” of Christ). That Muslims are not to question the Prophet relates only to decisions made by the Prophet –much like a judge in a courtroom– it does not bar Muslims from “independent thinking.” (See items #75 and 165).

   As already noted, the following reference notes that Islam teaches that “Learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning: (Abu Naeem) MM1-361-112 W.” (i.e. Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p.361, #112W).

   171.(98). Nonie Darwish: “Sharia law protects the Muslim head of state from being charged with Hudud crimes (the most serious under Sharia). “Head of Islamic Sate cannot be charged with Hudud crimes (Murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of Rape.”–(Hanafi Law, 188. Codified Islamic Law, vol. 3, no. 914 c.” (p. 180).  

   Response: In Western democracy there is “diplomatic” immunity, whereby the elite are exempt from charges/ prosecution for certain crimes. Hanafi law may state that “Head of Islamic Sate cannot be charged with Hudud crimes (Murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of Rape.”  But I need only mention two verses from Allāh, the Supreme, that contradict this: “Surely, Allāh does not enjoin indecency,” “Surely Allāh enjoins justice and the doing of good…and he forbids indecency and evil and rebellion”–(Qur’an 7:28; 16:90); and “adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in (all, not) some cases of Rape” are indecencies. Whether it is the Idolaters going around the Ka’ba or theft, whatever has the devil in it is indecency: “And whoever follows the footsteps of the devil, surely he (the devil) commands indecency and evil”–(Qur’an 24:21).

   In Islam there is one law for the king down to the beggar. The Messenger of Allāh, is noted as saying that even if his own daughter was to steal he would cut off her hand: “What destroyed the nations preceding you, was that if a noble among them stole, they would forgive him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would inflict Allāh’s Legal punishment on him. By Allāh, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut off her hand”–(Bokhari Vol. 4, #681. Vol. 5 #597).

   And regarding Qur’an 2:178 which speaks about retaliation that “in the matter of the slain: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female,” Muhammad Ali explains that “that if a free man is the murderer, he himself is to be slain; if a slave is the murderer, that slave is to be executed; if a woman murdered a man, it was she that was to be put to death. The pre-Islamic  Arabs used in certain cases to insist, when the person killed was of noble descent, upon the execution of others besides the murderer; they were not content with the execution of the slave or the woman, if one of them happened to be the murderer. The Holy Qur’an abolished this custom (AH, Rz).”

   In contrast, as shown in item #18, it is the Christian’s God (“Jesus”) that allows “rape.” The Biblical God even tells David (for David’s committing adultery with Bathsheba and sending her husband, Uriah, to be killed in battle) that He will give his wives to his neighbors to have sex with them: “Thus saith the Lord…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. The wives, who are not guilty, are sexually violated for the sin of their husband. This is Christian’s and Jewish’s justice. This is the kind of drivel that Nonie Darwish and other unschooled and unthinking people are struggling to enthrone above the splendorous Islam).   

   172.(99). ND: ““Allāh’s Laws,” which were created under the caliph one hundred years after Mohammed died gave Islam the muscle and the backbone to create a totalitarian state, where the laws became the guaranteed protectors of the caliph.” (p. 181).

   Response: As shown in item #169 Islam is democracy. And is the highest expression of democracy. Shari’ah laws which are based on the Qur’an do not and cannot “create a totalitarian state, where the laws became the guaranteed protectors of the caliph.” Islam forbids oppression and requires Muslims to fight against oppression. That there is no “fealty” to an unjust ruler is further and clearly illustrated by the venerable Caliph, the Right Honorable Abu Bakr Siddiqi, in his inaugural speech: “If I do well in my job, help me. If I do wrong, redress me….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. Ameen! (The Life of Muhammad, pp. 510-511). Muslim leaders who govern contrary to Islam are to be admonished (and Muslims can only know if leaders are astray if Muslims have knowledge of Islam. In Islam, there is no blind obedience to despotic leaders). Leaders that do not reform are to be removed from office. Muslims who acquiesce to despotic leaders thinking they are following Islam need to visit/revisit Allāh and His noble Messenger. So does Nonie Darwish. In contrast, as shown in this presentation, it is the Biblical God’s laws that gave Christians  “the muscle and the backbone to create a totalitarian state.”

   Islam does not require critics to be killed. Allāh tells us in His Qur’an that: “when you hear the Signs of God being denied and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other talk”–(4:140. Also 6:68); “Revile not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance”–(6:109). There is no order to kill the deniers/ mockers /revilers of Allah. Allah says: “And those who molest the Messenger of Allah, for them is a painful chastisement” (this is a Madinan chapter revealed “in the ninth year” of the Hijrah, near the end of the Prophet’s mission. And there is no order to kill–Qur’an 9:61). Even in the early Madinan chapter, there is no order to kill those who “annoy” the Prophet: they are “cursed” and would receive “an abasing chastisement”–(Qur’an 33:57). 

   In contrast, it is the Bible that requires the blasphemer/ denigrator be killed: “And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed….let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.…And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death….And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses”–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23).(This is one of the Biblical laws that the Qur’an has abrogated–2:106; 16:101).    

   173.(100) Nonie Darwish: “Mohammed himself lured Muslims with promises of booty from jihad: “Mohammed promised that we would enjoy the treasures of the Persians and Romans.”” (p. 182).

   Response:As explained in item #8 Jihad means to “strive” or exert one’s self in the cause of Allāh –freedom, truth, and justice. Mohammad gave the people a choice between Hell and Paradise. Those who wisely opt for Paradise and defended themselves in battle are rewarded with the spoils of war. As shown in item #18 even the Christian’s God (Jesus) had his share of war booty, and not only animals but people –675 sheep; 72 cattle; 61asses; 32 human beings–(Num. 31:36-40). The Christian’s God (Jesus) even had “16,750 shekels” worth of gold booty made as “an offering” to Him.  

   That Muslims “would enjoy the treasures of the Persians and Romans.” These are prophecies that manifested during and after the death of the Prophet. (a) In His Qur’an 22:23 Allāh reveals: Surely Allah will make those who believe and do good deeds enter Gardens wherein flow rivers — they are adorned therein with bracelets of gold and (with) pearls. And their garments therein are of silk.” Muhammad Ali comments: “The following incident, mentioned by Baihaqi, shows that the companions of the Prophet understood these prophecies in another sense too: “The bracelets of Kisra, the Persian monarch, were brought to ‘Umar, and he caused Suraqah, son of Malik, to wear them, on which he praised the Almighty”. The reason for ‘Umar causing the bracelets to be worn by Suraqah is also given by the same authority in another report, according to which the Holy Prophet had said to Suraqah: “How wilt thou feel when thou wearest the bracelets of Kisra” (Khasa is al-Kubra, vol. ii, p. 113). (b) In His Qur’an 33:22 Allāh reveals: “And when the believers saw the allies, they said: This is what Allāh and His Messenger promised us, and Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth. And it only added to their faith and submission.” And Muhammad Ali explains: “The reference here is to the Divine promise that a time would come when the combined forces of Arabia would be put to flight. This promise was given long before, and at a time when the Holy Prophet and his few followers were being severely persecuted at Makkah. Here are the words of one prophecy: “What an army of the allies is here put to flight”(38:11); “Soon shall the hosts be routed and they will show their backs” (54:45), says another. So when the combined forces attacked Madinah, the words of the prophecy were in the heart of every true Muslim. They rejoiced because they were certain that the combined forces of the enemy would be put to flight. It was only the hypocrites who had misgivings, as the last section shows. The battle had, in fact, inspired greater faith in the ultimate triumph of Islam, not only by bringing earlier prophecies to fulfillment but also because it was here that, when the Holy Prophet smashed a big stone with a hammer (a stone which had proved an obstacle in the digging of the ditch) and a flash of light followed, he announced the mighty prophecy that the flash of light had revealed to him the palaces of the Chosroes and the Caesars, and that he had been informed that his followers would be triumphant over both the empires (Ah. IV, p. 303).”

   174.(101) Nonie Darwish: ““The Prophet said that anyone who tries to disrupt the unity of the Muslims should be killed by the sword.”” (p. 182) 

    Response: (Wouldn’t you take action against “anyone who tries to disrupt the unity of” your house/family?) What would a modern leader do if anyone tries to disrupt the unity of his people? Jesus even commands to slaughter those who doesn’t want him to rule even though they may not militate against him. And the Biblical God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) decrees that those who entice others to worship unknown God is to be killed. In fact, modern leaders go even to far away lands to “kill” others who did not “disrupt” their countries. They even want to “kill” others whom they suspect are trying to equal them militarily. The Bible even commands the killing of enemies that are outside of its society and even taking their women as captives: “And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war with thee, then thou shalt besiege it….thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”–(Deut. 20:12-14).In fact, Nonie Darwish supports Jews killing their Palestinian victims who try to fight for their liberation. Why then carp at Mohammad for killing those who “disrupt” Muslim society when nations do it to protect their own society? And when occupiers do worse, kill their victims, and when you support their grotesque travesties?

   175.(102) ND. “Many Muslims deny that suicide missions are allowed in Islam…but the Qur’an orders Muslims to kill and get killed in jihad: “They fight for God’s sake; they kill and are killed as a rightful promise from Him.”–(Qur’an 9:111). (p. 184).  

    Response: When the leaders of countries send their soldiers into battle don’t these fighters “kill and are killed” in promise to their country? Allāh does not order Muslims to “kill” and get “killed;” only that in fighting in the cause of justice they “kill” and get “killed” (Fighting in war is not suicide, taking your own life is). Here is the verse of Qur’an 9:111 in full: Surely Allāh  has bought from the believers their persons and their property — theirs (in return) is the Garden. They fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? Rejoice therefore in your bargain which you have made. And that is the mighty achievement.” Muhammad Ali:

“The promise which is said to be binding on Allāh, as laid down in the Qur’an, as well as in the previous books, is this, that Allāh will grant the believers His blessings, if they exert themselves with their persons and their property in His way: “Allāh has bought from the believers their persons and their property — theirs (in return) is the Garden”. The Gospels give the same promise: “If thou wilt be perfect,” said Jesus to a wealthy man, “go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21). “Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” said Peter. Jesus’ reply was: “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (Matt. 19:27–29). (Notably, those who call themselves Christians are not following Jesus, they are following paganism. Believers in Jesus are required to follow Mohammad–John 14:16; 16:13). Moses’ teaching contains similar promises. For instance, the promise of God, “that ye may increase mightily….in the land that floweth with milk and honey,” is made conditional on “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:3–5) which is the sameas exerting oneself to one’s utmost in the way of God with one’s person and property. (Notably Jews are also required to follow Mohammad–Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15, 18-19. Qur’an 26:196-197; 46:10). It should be borne in mind that the words they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain, are not a part of the promise, but are expressive of the condition of the Companions, and show that they were true to their promise. The promise to spend one’s person and property may be carried out in various ways under different circumstances, and the Companions of the Holy Prophet were as true to this promise during the thirteen years at Makkah as during the ten years at Madinah.”         

   176.(103) Nonie Darwish. “One of the enormities (major sin) in Sharia is: Fleeing from combat with unbelievers, unless one is falling back to regroup or separating to join another unit to reinforce them.” (p. 184).

    Response: So what is your point? In modern times men (“draft dodgers”) are hounded and court-martialed for simply refusing to fight in an illegal or unjust war. And soldiers are known to have been executed for desertion/dereliction of duty. Muslims are not to be afraid of the enemy; whether we triumph or are killed we are guaranteed the reward of Paradise: “And speak not of those who are slain in Allāh’s way as dead. Nay, (they are) alive, but you perceive not”–(Qur’an 2:154; 3:156, 168-170; 4:74; 22:58-59; 47:4-6). And Muslims are the people of hope: “And be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy. If you suffer they (too) suffer as you suffer, and you hope from Allāh what they hope not. And Allāh is ever Knowing, Wise”–(Qur’an 4:104). So press forward, Muslims. Reclaim every grain of sand that was stolen from us; including South Sudan which was stolen through American “pressure” on Sudan’s government! (Why did America not “pressure” Britain to let the Irish secede? Why does America not “pressure” India for Kashmiris to decide their destiny? Why does America not “pressure” China to get out of Tibet and East Turkistan?  Why does America not “pressure” Russia to get out of Chechnya and Dagestan? Isn’t it illegal to “pressure” someone into doing something? No court of justice would deem as legal an item that is acquired through “pressure”).

    Nonie Darwish also laments: “Not one university in any Muslim country today has a Christian Studies or Judaism Studies department; only Islam is taught.”

   Response: In the Bible God says that prophethood and kingship will be taken from the house of Judah when Shiloh comes; Moses said that when the prophet like him comes all are to follow him; and Jesus says that the kingdom of God shall be taken from Jews and given to another people and also that another Comforter will come who will guide into “all truth” and is to be followed. Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani–has shown in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible that Shiloh, the Comforter (and other prophecies) is the Prophet Mohammad. And as the Comforter will guide into “all truth” then not only is there no wisdom in following a man (Jesus and Moses) who did not give all truth, but the Bible is now rendered OBSOLETE.The Qur’an not only supersedes the Bible in matters moral, social and spiritual; but also intellectual. There is nothing in the Bible to foster material growth. In fact, so-called “Christian” nations find nothing useful in the Bible and began to make material headway only when they torpedoed the Bible and began thinking along Islamic lines; as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out: “There is one thing that is remarkable in the history of material science in relation to Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, as long as religion kept its hold on its adherents, Europe made no progress in any way, but when the Western mind became emancipated from canonical rule and Church thralldom, civilization came in leaps and bounds in every form. On the other hand, Islam, at its very advent, gave a tremendous impetus to science and culture…The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think independently for themselves on Islamic lines.” (For full quote see CRITICS).  

     Why then should Muslim universities have “Christian Studies or Judaism Studies department”? While it is good to know something about the past. What sane individual would squander invaluable, irreplaceable hours behind obsolete materials or invest in a defunct item? Why would Muslims waste invaluable and irreplaceable time teaching antiquated, adulterated, and unGodly Jewish and Christian doctrines to our people? Moreover when “Christians” stole our land (Palestine) and gave it to Jews, and when Jews are not only occupying our land but for more than six torturous decades have been subjecting their Muslim victims to all manner of inhumanities. Islam is the present and the future and the Hereafter! Moreover, as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din exposed in his revealing work The Sources of Christianity (emphasis added):

       “At the appearance of Jesus there were temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysius among the Greek, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia; Osiris, Isis and Horus in Egypt; Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth. All these Deities were sun-gods, and of all or nearly all of them, as Edward Carpenter says, it was believed that: (1) They were born on or very near Christmas Day. (2) They were born of a Virgin Mother. (3) And in a cave or underground chamber. (4) They led a life of toil for mankind. (5)They were called by the names of Light-Bringer, Healer, Mediator, Saviour and Deliverer. (6) They were, however, vanquished by the Powers of Darkness. (7) They descended into Hell or the Underground. (8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly World. (9) They founded Communions of Saints and Churches, to which disciples were received by baptism. (10) They were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.”

         The Passion of Jesus mimics that of Baal, “the Babylonian Sun-God, (who) was in existence centuries before the Birth of Christ:”

        “Easter (Anglo-Saxon, Eostre, O.H.G. Ostera) was the  goddess of Light and Spring in whose honour the  festival was celebrated everywhere at the said dates. Hot  cross-buns and eggs were distributed and eaten in Egypt  and Ireland, in the same way as it is done now in  Christendom, at the time of Easter.”

    “The sign of the Cross also is not of Christian origin. It does not date from the crucifixion.…the Cross was the sign of life in the Pagan symbolism….Curiously enough, the Cross in Christendom signifies the same as did the Egyptian cross –the sign of new life brought by the crucifixion. In Ireland a similar cross has been discovered, with a crucified effigy, but it is the effigy of a Persian prince and not that of the Nazarene, as the head of the crucified bears a Parthian coronet and not the crown of thorns; which identifies it with the Mithraic cult, originally from Persia. It left many other signs in Ireland and Cheshire.”

   “Read the history of the Early Fathers, and you are more and more convinced that while the Church was using sword and fire in destroying every trace and memory of Sun-worship in its original form –as in the burning of the Alexandrian Library and the killing of  Hypatia–the great teacher of the Sun-worship cult– it was taking everything and anything of the heathen days into its own teachings and traditions in order to make the new faith popular. Fish was taken as a Christian symbol before the introduction of the Cross. This fish represented Jesus, and the ancient tomb inscriptions of the medieval days bore the Fish, and not the Cross. The Gospel cannot explain the why and how of the Fish symbol, excepting that Jesus often ate fish. But the sun-scripture is the real explanation. The sun passes the Zodiacal sign Pisces –the Fish– in February, and if the date of the Epiphany is in February, Christ, as a Sun-God, must be symbolized by the Fish.

        The evidence that the Church, as built by the priests of the dark medieval days, owes everything to the Pagan   world, and not to the sacred name under which it passes, is so overwhelmingly preponderating in nature that one becomes compelled to say with full justification, in the words of the Archbishop of York, that the Church repels. If the laity has realized that in their worship in the Church they are worshipping only the Sun-God, and keeping up the tradition of the Pagan cult, will they not resent it? No wonder the pews have become empty, and the clergy have no chance but to address empty benches.” (pp. 51-52, Emphasis added). 

      “The Sabbath of Jesus was the Sabbath of the Jews. He was a Jewish Rabbi and Teacher among them, as admitted by Dean Inge in the paper read to the Modernist Conference at Cambridge in 1917. Jesus would refer his disciple to the scribes for the religious lore. He was averse to any schism or innovation in the faith. He would have heaven and earth pass away but not allow a jot or title of change in the faith and its observances. Saturday was the day of Sabbath, and not Sunday, which was the day of the worship of Apollo the Sun-God. How and why the sacred day of the God of the Israelites, to be observed as one of the Ten Commandments, gave way to the day of the Pagan God –perhaps through St. Paul’s or Constantine’s instrumentality– is a mystery, but open enough to admit of easy explanation in the light of the multitude of facts, some of which have already been dealt with. 

   ….The Emperor Hadrian intended to build a temple to the Christ and to rank him in the number of the gods (Lampridius I.43). This intention was carried out by his successor, Constantine, whose patron God was Apollo. He retained Apollo’s figure upon his seal, even after establishing Christianity as the State religion –a representative of the sun, with the inscription “To the Invincible Sun, my Companion.”  The conversion of Constantine to Christianity was more a political adventure than a search for truth. His murder of his nephew, and despotic disposition as a ruler, could not find favour with his equals, the senators. He had to go to the plebeians, most of whom were Christians. But he could not go against the popular faith to which he himself was so tenaciously attached. He, however, solved the problem in a most diplomatic way. He took the name of Jesus as a figure-head, and recognized the title “Christ” as but another name for the Sun-God; in all other respects he kept the Pagan Church intact in all its traditions, ritual and mode of worship. Sunday was the day of the worship of the Sun –the Roman Dies Soli. To respect the religious susceptibilities of the Roman Sun-worshipper, Constantine could not do better than to keep the same day as the day of the Christian Sabbath. An average   Roman Catholic Cathedral, with its altar facing towards the east, the monks and nuns with the tonsure, the acolytes, the choir and the rest of the paraphernalia, carries us at once to the temples of the Pagan world.”(pp. 54-55).

  “The institution of monks and nuns can also be traced to the same origin. Jesus neither advocated nor recommended celibacy. The single life of Jesus –though his first miracle took place on an occasion of marriage, and his participation in it give sanctity to the marital   institution– might encourage monasticism, but how are we to explain the tonsure (circle shaved on the top of the head)?  Even Paul, with all his tendency to use most of the older cult as material for the Church he built, is silent on the question. Sun-worship alone can explain it. Mithraism had its monks and nuns, as Tertullian admits, with the tonsure in honour of the disc of the Sun.  To be shorn of hair is, doubtless, a sign of asceticism; but it is the form of the tonsure –the round bare place on the head of the Romish priests and monks, formed by shaving the hair, that bears resemblance to the disc of the Sun. Does it not show that, as Apollo came to supplant Mithra, so the place of the former was given to Christ, while everything of their religion was kept intact with all its legends, festivals and forms of worship? (p. 57). 

        The Holy Communion also represents the ancient Eucharistic Ceremony, which was observed from Persia to Peru, in every Sun-worship country. The idea of Sin and Expiation is also an ancient idea. The sacrificed animal represented the Dying Deity, as Lord Krishna says in the Bhagwat Gita, “I am the oblation, I am the sacrifice, I am the ancestral offering.” “In the truly orthodox conception of sacrifice, says Elie Reclus, “the consecrated offering, be it man, woman or virgin, lamb or heifer, cock or dove, represent s the deity himself.”

        The person, whose sacrifice was represented, was believed to be actually present at the time of the sacrifice, and his flesh, eaten by the worshippers, made the latter at one with the former. The flesh of the god entering into the body of man created a sort of holy communion between the deity and the votary. It is not I who make this assertion; the Early Fathers have said   the same. Do they not say that the Mithraic Eucharist   was identified with the Lord’s Supper?Ponder over the words of the Lord Krishna quoted above. The same idea had been working in the minds of the ancients everywhere –the atoning personality becoming God, and the belief that to eat anything taken out of the sacrifice, or from meals prepared in celebrating the ceremony, purifies the body of the eater and brings him into union with God. I admit that Jesus has been represented as saying something on this point, but it scarcely seems to convey the idea and beliefs that underlie the Church conception of the communion –the at-one-ment of the votary with the Lord by his participation in the supper.  The idea is pagan, pure and simple, in its origin as well as in its conception.”(pp. 57-58).

     “Be the memory of Muhammad glorified and remain evergreen! To keep his religion free from all pagan ideas and rituals, he would not allow his followers to say any prayer at the time when the sun assumes a conspicuous phase in his diurnal course. We Muslims have been enjoined to say our prayers five times a day. But we have been forbidden to say any prayer just exactly at the time when the sun rises, or at the time when it sets, or at the time when it passes the meridian, so that the Muslim Prayer may not become identified with Sun-worship.  Islam is the only religion which did not need any incorporation of the existing ideas. It stood rather against them, if they were wrong, and tried to demolish them; yet the religion prevailed and purged the world of its polytheistic rituals and practices –those of Sun-worship– among them while the religion of Jesus, through hands unworthy of the name of the Master, became absolutely metamorphosed into the pagan cult. They retained the name of Jesus, no doubt, but so did the worshippers of Apollo when he became the favorite deity after Mithra. The Mithraic cult flourished centuries before the Apollo-worship, but the two faiths are one and the same, the difference being in name.  Apollo had to represent Mithra in the whole cult, and so Jesus was taken as a substitute for Apollo in Rome, but the cult was in all other respects the same –the  same birthday, the same Virgin-birth, and Immaculate conception, the same baptism, the same Eucharist, the same Passion Story, the same descent into hell, the same  resurrection and ascension into heaven, the same Easter-day merriments, the same sign of the Lamb, the same hot-cross buns, the same eggs, the same Sunday –the Roman Dies Solis– the Day of the Sun, the Lord’s day, and the same phraseology and philosophy.

        …The scholar may attempt to explain away the palpable similitude, as suggested by the early Fathers, but “the Pagans had their Christ everywhere,   including India. The miraculous birth, the Immaculate conception, the birthplace, the star, the song of the heavenly host at the birth, the child God presented with gifts, the slaughter of the innocent, the temptations, the fast of forty days, the Crucifixion and the death to redeem mankind, the descent into Hell and ascension; the Second Coming, the anointed as Judge of the dead, the Alpha and Omega, the Trinity, in different accents and stress, are the same.”(pp. 59-61).  (It is amusing, at best, that Pope Benedict should charge that Islam has a “pagan layer of life;” see ISLAM & THE POPE).

        (K.K notes from T.W. Doane, Bible Myths, (pp. 287-297), forty-eight(48) similarities between Jesus and Buddha, who preceded Jesus by some five hundred   (500) years; such as their “virgin” birth; descent of the “Holy Ghost,” upon their “virgin” mothers; announcement of their birth by an “asterim” “called the Messianic Star;”” their temptation by the Devil; transfiguration; performance of miracles; their return in the latter days to restore the world to order and happiness [this should be a doozy, considering that Jesus taught Resurrection and Judgment whereas Buddhism teach karma and reincarnation]; both of them being the “Alpha and Omega, without beginning or end, “the Supreme Being, the Eternal One;”” and “Buddha is   represented as saying: “Let all the sins that were  committed in this world fall on me, that the world my be delivered.””  Whereas “Jesus is represented as the Saviour of mankind, and all sins that are committed in this world may fall on him, that the world may be delivered”). (pp. 62-70). Who copied from whom? K.K. continues: 

    “St. Paul also introduced new Philosophy and logic into Christian theology, and expressed them in new phraseology –which till to-day graces all Church orations. Religious sermons are besprinkled with phrases like the following which Paul and a few others were the first to use in Christian literature; “God’s First-Begotten Son, the Intermediary between God and man”; “The   Intercessor with the Father”; “The Good Shepherd”; “The Image of God”; “The Foundation of the Universe”; “The Bread of Life”;  “The Sinless”; “The Price of Sin”; “The Gift of God to man to ransom his sins”; “The High Priest”; “The Second God”; “The Interpreter of God to man”; “The Giver of the Water of Everlasting Life”; “Seated next to God”; “The Physician and healer of Souls”;  “No one worthy of God but he who follows the Son”;  “The human heart the only shrine of God”; “God  of Triune nature and the Son to take the second place in the Holy Trinity”; “Actions without faith of no value.”

        Everything sounds new, charming and graceful too; something certainly not known to the other disciples – nay, not even taught by the Master; and it was left, therefore, for the Holy Ghost to “fill” someone and for that someone to reveal it to the world; and why, therefore, should not St. Paul be accepted as having been filled with the Spirit, when sprinkling such gems of philosophy and theology on those who believe, with a force that could exert, for the coming two thousand years, more influence on his following than the Lord of  Christianity himself? St. Paul undoubtedly could have been taken as the founder of this theology, speaking as if filled with the Holy Ghost, by the rest of the world too, as he is accepted by the majority of the Christian Church, had his inspiration not been traced to the following passages that exist in the writings of Philo:  “His Word which is his Interpreter;”122 “To his Word he gave this especial gift that He should stand as an Intercessor between the Creator and the created;”123 “We  maintain that by the High Priest is meant the Word Who is free from all transgression, being of heavenly parentage”;124  “The Word of God is the Physician and Healer of all our evils”;125   “The heavenly food….is the Divine Word”;126  “The Image of God is His Eternal Word”;127  “The High Priest is His Divine Word hence His head is anointed”;128  “The Shepherd of His holy flocks”;129  “What man is, there of true judgment who, when he sees the deeds of most men, is not ready to call out aloud to God, the Great Saviour, that He would be pleased to take off this load of sin, and, by appointing a price and ransom for the soul, restore it to its original liberty?”;130  “He, therefore, exhorts every person who is able to exert himself in the race which he is to run, to bend his course without remission to the Divine Word above, who is the Fountain Head of all wisdom, that by drinking of this sacred spring, he, instead of death, may receive the reward of everlasting life”;131  “Being the Image of God and the First-Born of all intelligent creatures, He is seated immediately next to the One God   without any interval of separation”;132  “Even if  no one is as yet worthy to be called a Son of God, one shall nevertheless labour earnestly to be adorned like unto His  First-Born Son, The Word”;133 “God, by  the same Word by whom He made all things, will raise the good man  from the things of this world and exalt him near unto Himself”;134  “God, escorted on each side by personages from on high, whose attributes were goodness and power, the Divinity in the middle being in union with the other two, impressed a threefold appearance upon the soul of Abraham who beheld them.”135 

    Are we not accustomed to hear these, word by word, from the pulpit of the Christian churches? Do not these quotations from Philo sound like the writing of Paul?  Thus we trace the source of Pauline inspiration. It is the human brain, and not the Spirit of the Lord. St. Paul is  not filled with the Spirit, in the fulfillment of the prophecy (St. John 16:13), to say “all truth” in all that he has ingrafted on the virgin soil of Christianity and thus affected the whole Church teaching after him. In his philosophy he is the disciple of Philo and Plato, and not of Jesus; and if these two great men had nothing to do  with the Master, one belonging to Judaism and the other   to a pagan cult, St Paul deserves no claim on the allegiance of those who wish and ought to be in the footsteps of Jesus.

    …What an irony of fate that he who declared “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or title shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled,” should be followed –nay, superseded– by him who declared the Law a curse and not a blessing from God, and that only to win favor with those with whom the Master would have nothing to do –the Greeks and the Romans. But the reason is not far to seek. St. Paul could not claim any respect from his own people. At first an implacable enemy of Jesus and persecutor of his followers, then a renegade from Judaism and therefore hated by the Jews –so much so that his very presence in the synagogue, where he came to explain his schism to Judaism at the request of the other apostles, excited such contempt and hatred of the people as top drive him, an exile from his home. He could not, moreover, work with the other apostles, who would take him to task for ignoring the  Law. He, therefore, had sufficient reason to make the gentile lands the field of his future work. He must work somewhere, and that was his last resort. The Gentiles were not the people of the Law. Actions in observance of the Law could not carry any weight with them; Law was a burden and a gate to sin if not observed, and hence a curse.” (pp. 78-81).”

          It is hardly any surprise then that:

         “The last Conference of Modernism (August, 1925) has dealt its final blow to the Church dogmas in rejecting the theory of “sin in nature,” inasmuch as the doctrine of “sin by heritage” is the very bed-rock of the Church faith, and if it is rejected, its sequel –the Doctrine of Atonement, the Grace of the Blood, the Divinity of Jesus– must, ipso facto, go too. And in this respect….here again Islam was the first to deny the Christian doctrine, when it said that every child, when born, comes into the world with a pure and untainted nature. They must be on a fool’s errand who seek to induce us to accept things rejected by their best men, and to reject those doctrines now accepted by their intellectually advanced people. This all reminds me of Canon Gairdner’s remark:  “Islam is the only one (religion) that definitely claimed to correct, complete and supersede Christianity.””136  (This is not only a “claim,” it is proven fact!)

“And say:

The Truth has come and falsehood vanished.

Surely falsehood is ever bound to vanish.”

(Qur’an 17:81

   As there is no inherited sin and thus no vicarious atonement then ipso facto the entire edifice of Christianity crumbles into a heap of rubbish.

   177.(104) ND: The Muslim State is in a permanent state of war with non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam. “According to Qur’an 60:4, “And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allāh only.” (pp. 184-185).

   Response: The Muslim State is not in a permanent state of war with non-Muslims who refuse to accept Islam. As shown, Allāh gives man freedom to his beliefs. However the Divine institution of armed Jihad is ever-present for when the need arises.     Enmity has arisen between Muslims and non-Muslims because of the non-Muslims stealing Palestine and coveting our oil. However, Nonie Darwish has again used these words out of context. (See item #84).

   178.(105). Nonie Darwish: “Even Mohammed, the first head of the Muslim State, admitted he was made wealthy from terror: “The Prophet said, ‘I have been awarded victory by terror, so the treasures of the earth are mine.” “Both Mohammed and the caliphs that succeeded him filled their treasury with money and wealth taken from jizya and ransom in jihad wars. “Allāh’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. While I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’ Allāh’s Apostle has left the world and now we are bringing out those treasures.”(p.185).

   Response:Allāh making the Prophet wealthy from “terror” only means that Allāh casts terror into the hearts of the enemies, not that Allāh literally terrified them: “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” –(Qur’an 3:151; 8:14; 59:13).

   Mohammad only preached the Divine Message. Had the ene-mies not first taken up the sword to cast “terror” into Mohammad and his followers Mohammad would not have had to resort to casting “terror” into his attackers in self-defense.  

   In contrast, as shown in this presentation, the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is god, Jesus) made the Israelites wealthy through massacre and terror. The Hand of God also gave the Israelites virgin girls. In fact the Biblical God even terrified the enemies of His Israelite sons by grounding them with hemorrhoids; and even terrified children by having them torn by bears and eaten by a beast. The Biblical/Christian’s God (Jesus) “smote” left, right, and centre; and everything that breathed. (See items #18 and 83).

   That Mohammad was given “the keys of the treasures of the world.”Jesus told his followers they are not to think about what they will eat and wear that “all these things shall be added unto you” (that God will send), and John the Baptist, the greatest man born of a woman as Jesus says, taught, “A man can receive nothing EXCEPT IT BE GIVEN HIM FROM HEAVEN”–(Matt. 6:25-34; 11:11; John 3:27). Since God “sends” as Jesus says, and since man can have only what “heaven” sends as John says,  where then is the difficulty with Mohammad saying Allāh gave him “the keys of the treasures of the world”?

   Notably the prophet was given the “keys” of the treasures. And what are the keys of the treasures? Knowledge! And after the death of the Prophet, Muslims used the keys/knowledge and brought benefits to mankind. Mohammad was not only given      “the keys of the treasures of the world,” he and Muslims were given the “kingdom of God” and Makkah was made the new House of God: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you (Jews), and given to a nation (Muslims) bringing forth the fruits thereof;” “The glory of this latter house (Ka’ba/Makkah) shall be greater than of the former (Temple/Jerusalem), saith the Lord of the hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of the hosts”–(Matt. 21:43; Haggai 2:9). 

   179.(106) Nonie Darwish: “According to Sharia, there is only one exception to the obligation of a Muslim citizen to obey the caliph, even if he is unjust, and that is if the caliph is a kaffir: “….unless the ruler has Kufr (disbelief)” (p. 189)

   Response: Since a caliph is a Muslim ruler, a kafir (disbeliever in Allāh) could not be a caliph. It would be a contradiction. As noted in item #172, no obedience is incumbent upon Muslims if the caliph does not rule according to Islam. The only exception would seem to be if the state is threatened by an enemy; in which event internal disunity or insurrection would serve as a weapon in the hands of the enemy.

   Islam does not prohibit making peace with non-Muslims. Muhammad notes about the peace treaty of Hudaibiyah (Qur’an 48:24):

This is again a reference to the Hudaibiyah truce. Thrice already had the disbelievers attacked Madinah with very strong forces to crush Islam, and the Muslims had repulsed them every time, inflicting severe loss on them. This is referred to in the words, after He had given you victory over them. Yet they offered terms which were humiliating to the Muslims and the Prophet accepted them to avoid bloodshed, so deeply did he love peace. Thus the hands of both sides were held back. Authentic reports state clearly that ‘Umar openly gave vent to his injured feelings (B.54:15). The chief terms of the agreement were: (1) That the Muslims should return without performing a pilgrimage. (2) That they should be allowed to perform a pilgrimage next year, but should not stay for more than three days. (3) That if a disbeliever, being converted, went over to the Muslims, he should be returned, but if a Muslim went over to the disbelievers he should not be given back to the Muslims (B. 54:15). The last term of the agreement was specially dissatisfying to the Muslims; but it shows the strong conviction which the Holy Prophet had in the truth of Islam, for he was confident that none of his companions would go over to disbelief and join the Quraish; and also that those who became converts to Islam would not desert it on account of persecution. Thus it happened that the converts to Islam from among the Makkans, not being allowed to settle at Madinah, formed an independent colony of their own (B. 54:15), proving thereby the genuineness of their convictions and the strength of their faith.”

   Also, to effect peace the Prophet, because of the disbeliever’s objection to the Qur’anic Message, removed his Divine Messenger status from one treaty. In fact Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are required to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allāh. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allāh is sufficient for thee. He it is Who strengthened thee with His help and with the believers”–(Qur’an 8:61-61). However, one does not make peace with a people who stole/ occupies your land or your brother’s land. Only idiots would do this. Or would support them.

   180.(107) Nonie Darwish: “I must admit that I do not understand how a Muslim scholar can read the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah of the life of Mohammed and emerge with such denial of the failed fourteen-hundred-year history of Sharia, a history that brought down great civilizations such as Persia and Egypt and replaced it misery, poverty, stagnation, terror, and turmoil. To them it is never the fault of Sharia or Islam, but the inability of Muslim leaders to bring us the heaven of the Muslim Sharia state that never existed in the first place.” (p. 192).

    Response: And the scholars are absolutely right! Knowledge and wisdom were given to Muslims. The Qur’an gives success–(Qur’an 20:1-2). This “heaven of the Muslim Sharia state” was realized a mere hundred years after the passing of the Prophet and lasted for about a thousand years until Muslims became drunk with success and lapsed from Islam. As the caliph ‘Umar rightly said, God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.” This throne of excellence is ever available for Muslims to ascend. We need to turf out all the hypocrites and traitors and tyrants. There is no place in Islam for ignorant back-pedalers. Islam needs progressive thinkers to institute its lofty ideals. Which will again place Muslims in our rightful position in the world: “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers–(Qur’an 24:55).

   181.(108). Nonie Darwish: “Mohammed himself regularly raided caravans and made war for profit.” (p. 193).     

   Response:(Even today there are countries that raid other countries for their resources, and unlike Mohammad these countries were not transgressed upon). Didn’t the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, didn’t Jesus) had Jews regularly “raid” other nations and made war for profit? Read your Bible. See items #18 and 128. In fact some half of the Old Testament is dedicated to war. As Professor Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani) points out that “all the blood shed in the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad, could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allāh. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving.”136A (See JESUS-SON OF MAN).

    Mohammad preached against the irrationality of polytheism, the futility and degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of human worship (Gods born of the womb), the depravity of wine and profligacy, and the injustice against daughters, wives, orphans and slaves. The Makkans were free to accept or reject Mohammad’s message. Had they not made war on Mohammad, Mohammad would not have had to resort to physically defend himself. No man would do any less. (There are nations today that have not been wronged and are yet transgressors). If Mohammad “raided caravans and made war for profit” 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 then 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? Be it Seventh century Arabia or Twentieth century era, the occupier/usurper is not to be left untouched to devour the fruits of his victims in peace. 

  182.(109). About early Muslims, ND wrote: “With a sword in one hand and a holy book in another, they marched to spread their get-rich-quick formula for wealth and power.” (p. 193).

   Response: See item #11 for a response to this timeless twaddle. Again the words of De Lacy O’Leary: “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

   In contrast, it is the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, it is “Jesus”) that blessed the Israelites/Jews with “get-rich-quick formula for wealth and power” by wiping out their enemies, all males and matrons, and taking their possessions and little “virgin” girls. And later, after sucking the pagan breasts dry Christianity took the sword to the “heathen mother;” and has since slaughtered her way through history forcing the body and mythical blood of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism) down the throats of conquered people. As Muhammad Ali, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, and M.H. Haykal notes, respectively: 

            “When St. Paul saw that the Jews would on no account accept Jesus Christ as a messenger of God, he introduced the pagan doctrine of sonship of God into the Christian religion, so that it might become more acceptable to the pagans.” 137  

             “Mithraism came from Persia, where it seems to have been flourishing for about six hundred years, the cult reaching Rome about 70 B.C. It spread through the Empire, and extended to Great Britain. Remains of  Mithraic monuments have been discovered at York,   Chester and other places. Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin. He traveled far and wide; he had twelve disciples; he died in the service of humanity. He as   buried,   but   rose   again   from the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing.138  His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox–Christmas and Easter. He was called Saviour, and sometimes figured as a Lamb. People were initiated into his cult through baptism. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance. These statements may excite surprise in the mind of the reader of to-day; he may be disposed to doubt their genuineness, as while on one side he reads the story of the Jesus of the Church, in the legend of Mithra on the other Mithraism has left no traces in the world, although it was so powerful in the third century A.D. that, had it not been suppressed in Rome and Alexandria by the Christians with physical force, as has been admitted by St. Jerome, it would have left no chance for the flourishing of Christianity; and that it died only when most of its legends became incorporated in the simple faith of  Jesus,139 and the Church lore fully saturated with Mithraic colours, so much so that Tertullian had to admit the fact, though in a way befitting his position. He says that the learned in his days considered Mithraism and Christianity identical in all but name. St. Jerome and other Early Fathers became puzzled at the similarity existing between the two faiths, but their ingenuity ascribed it to the machinations of the Devil to mock their faith.”140

      “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” 141

  The only reason the ignominious sword of Christianity is sheathed is because the Church holds no sway in the land. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din aptly states it: “Compulsion is of no avail when logic begins to rule the world.”

   Unlike nations that are transgressors, oppressors, occupiers and aggressors and yet seek to crush their victims, Mohammad was no transgressor, no oppressor, no occupier, no aggressor, and no exploiter. Whatever measures Mohammad took to safeguard his people from extermination Mohammad was fully justified. No honest critic or individual would state otherwise. The only sword that Islam wields is the sword of truth and justice:   

“THEY (Muhummed’s critics) SEE FIRE INSTEAD OF LIGHT,  UGLINESS INSTEAD OF GOOD. THEY DISTORT AND PRESENT EVERY GOOD QUALITY AS A GREAT VICE.  IT REFLECTS THEIR OWN DEPRAVITY…THE CRITICS ARE  BLIND. THEY CANNOT SEE THAT THE ONLY ‘SWORD’ MUHAMMAD WIELDED WAS THE SWORD OF MERCY,  COMPASSION, FRIENDSHIP AND FORGIVENESS –THE SWORD THAT CONQUERS ENEMIES AND PURIFIES THEIR HEARTS.  HIS SWORD WAS SHARPER THAN THE SWORD OF STEEL.142 

   But for Mohammad, God would yet be in the cave of nationalism rather than on the Mount of Universalism.    

(As noted above, “Mithraism and Christianity [are] identical in all but name and thatSt. Jerome and other Early Fathers became puzzled at the similarity existing between the two faiths, but their ingenuity ascribed it to the machinations of the Devil to mock their faith.” If this is how easy it is for the Devil to “mock” [“shanghai”] Christians and Christianity the Devil must be doing the “tango”143 throwing “a” voice144 around, giving visions of the non-existent “Virgin” Mary145 and having Christians speak in yet to be identified “tongues.”146  The  Devil must have also “set the heathen poets” to copy the Passion Play so that Jesus’ Passion Play should ape the Passion Play of Baal who preceded Jesus by centuries. See JESUS-INHERITED SIN).

   183.(110) Nonie Darwish notes: ““The Prophet said, Khosrau will be ruined. There won’t be a Persian king after him. Caesar will be ruined. There will be no Caesar after him. You will spend their treasures in Allāh’s cause.’ He proclaimed, ‘War is deceit.’” Even Allāh shared Mohammed’s spoils of war after every battle. “Spoils of war are for Allāh and Mohammed.” “One-fifth of booty belongs to Allāh.”” Considering the above, it is not unreasonable to ask: Is Islam a religion or a state?” (pp. 195-196).

    Response: Did Jesus made prophecies? Was this saying of Mohammad about Khosrau and Caesar manifested? And to know Christians claim that Mohammad is a “fraud” and “impostor” and false prophet. (See item #154).

   Allāh sharing in spoils of war means that that portion is to be deposited in the public treasury –Bait-ul-Mal– or be used for missionizing: And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And these are they who are successful”–(Qur’an 3:104). Muhammad Ali:  “The heated imagination of a Christian annotator sees a flash of “the sword” in these words. (This Christian should be lamenting over the obscene Christian sword).   Compare 9:122: “And the believers should not go forth all together. Why, then, does not a company from every party from among them go forth that they may apply themselves to obtain understanding in religion and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious?” Both verses, in fact, direct the Muslims to have always among them a missionary party, whose only object should be the propagation of Islam and rightly directing their own people. This is the most neglected injunction of the Qur’an in our day. Muslims have arrangements for all things but have no arrangements for inviting people to the great truth revealed in the Holy Qur’an. The word khair means good, and the Qur’an is called khair in 2:105.

   As shown in item #18 the Christian’s God (Jesus) also had his share of “booty” and little “virgins” girls: “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, You and Eleazar…take a count of the BOOTYthat was captured, both of MAN and of animal…And levy a tribute UNTO THE LORD…Now the BOOTY that remained from the SPOIL which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 head of cattle, 61,000 asses, and of human beings, of the WOMEN who had not known man intimately (virgins), all the persons were 32,000. And the LORD’S TRIBUTE of the booty was 675 sheep; 72 cattle; 61 asses; and 32 humans (virgin girls).”

   Regarding Nonie Darwish’s question, “Is Islam a religion or a state?” Islam is both a religion –way of life– and state. And if Jesus and Moses were lording America or anyplace else they would govern by the Law of the Bible –there would be no separation of religion and state. Jesus, as he vehemently declared, came to uphold the law, even to the point that heaven and earth shall pass away but not one jot shall not pass unfulfilled. Jesus’ saying to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is not an indication of separation of religion and state. Jesus was only exercising justice.

   And what is Christianity (not to be confused with Christ)? is it a “religion or a state”? (As “son of God” is only figurative –and as shown, God has an army of sons and daughters including atheists and even Satan; and Jesus is only “CALLED” son of God; and only Jesus’ “NAME” means God with us; and God or his son would NOT need to eat “BUTTER AND HONEY”  that “HE MAY KNOW TO REFUSE THE EVIL AND CHOOSE THE GOOD” as Isaiah 7:14-15 records– and as there is no inherited sin and thus no vicarious atonement then ipso facto the edifice of Christianity collapses into a heap of rubbish. Christianity may rightly be crowned as the king of false religions).   

   184.(111) Nonie Darwish: “Islam is terrified of Christianity and Judaism.” (p. 196).

   Response: (See CRITICS). As shown, it is Christianity and Judaism that are “terrified” of Islam. Christianity and Judaism were, are, and will always be “terrified” of Islam.

   185.(112) Nonie Darwish:  “While concentrating on jihad and submission, the concepts of love, trust and compassion were neglected. The word love is never mentioned, not even once, in the Qur’an.” (p. 196).

   Response: Jihad, which also comprises of hating injustice, and speaking out and writing against injustice, are motivated by love and compassion for the victims of injustice. Allāh tells at the beginning of every chapter of His Qur’an (except the ninth) that He is Rahman and Raheem –The Beneficent and The Merciful. Muhammad Ali explained these two attributes of Allāh, God:

Rahman and Rahim are both derived from rahmat, signifying tenderness requiring the exercise of beneficence (R), and thus comprising the ideas of love and mercy. Al-Rahman and al-Rahim are both active participle nouns of different measures denoting intensiveness of significance, the former being of the measure of fa‘lan and indicating the greatest preponderance of the quality of mercy, and the latter being of the measure of fa‘il and being expressive of a constant repetition and manifestation of the attribute (AH). The Prophet is reported to have said: “Al-Rahman is the Beneficent God Whose love and mercy are manifested in the creation of this world, and al-Rahim is the Merciful God Whose love and mercy are manifested in the state that comes after” (AH), i.e. in the consequences of the deeds of men. Thus the former is expressive of the utmost degree of love and generosity, the latter of unbounded and constant favour and mercy. Lexicologists agree in holding that the former includes both the believer and the unbeliever for its objects, while the latter relates specially to the believer (LL). Hence I render al-Rahman as meaning the Beneficent, because the idea of doing good is predominant in it, though I must admit that the English language lacks an equivalent of al-Rahman.”

   The most profound expression of “love, trust, and compassion” as expressed by Allāh in His Qur’an (39:53) is not to be met with in any other Book that claims to be from God: “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.” Imagine the expanse of love and mercy and compassion of Allāh Who needs nothing from us to implore us in such loving compassionate terms to forgive us our sins. And without need for some “satisfaction.”

   Contrastingly, the Christians cannot fathom such a gracious God Who could forgive sins without need for some “satisfaction.” That is why they make His Holy Majesty complicit in murder and have Him sent Jesus as “scapegoat” to be killed for their sins (though some Christians say it is for inherited sin and some say it is for committed sin; and not even honest human leaders kill the innocent for the guilty). Yet the Bible said “God is gracious and merciful” and that He desires “mercy and NOT sacrifice”–(Ex. 34:6; Hosea 6:6). (Christians are following PAUL and his PAGAN SON OF GOD into Hell). (For Christian’s “lie” “guile” and “crafty”ness to deceive people into eating the body and drinking the mythical blood of Jesus Christ [spiritual cannibalism] see item #35)

   Regarding Nonie Darwish’s claim that “The word love is never mentioned, not even once, in the Qur’an.” (Wonder which Qur’an this woman was reading; must have been the “fake” one that the haters of Islam/Truth are said to have printed: A FAKE AMERICAN QUR-AAN” having “over 366 pages and is in both the Arabic and English languages…is being distributed to our children in Kuwait in the private English schools!” See CHRISTIANS-INTERNET). The following is a listing of Allāh’s “Love” (and even of Allah’s “Love NOT”) that you (Ms. Darwish and others) can ascertain for yourself. If you need, Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed and perhaps even downloaded online: www.muslim.org.

   -Allāh bestows Love on the righteous; 19:96;

   -Allah cast Love over Moses, 20:39;

   -Allāh is full of Loving-kindness; 85:14;

   -Allāh is Merciful, Loving-kind; 11:90;

   -Allāh Loves; 2:195, 222; 3:76, 134, 146, 148, 159; 5:14, 45, 96; 9:4,7, 108; 49:10; 60:8: 61:4;

   -Allāh Loves those who fight in His cause, 61:4;

   -Allah puts Love and mercy between men and women, 30:21;

   -If you do Love Allah, follow me, Allah will Love you/forgive your sins, 3:31;

   -It may be that Allah may grant Love between you and your enemies, 60:7;

   -Allāh Loves NOT; 2:190, 205, 276; 3:32, 57, 140; 4:36-42, 107, 148; 5:67, 90; 6:141; 7:31, 55; 8:58; 16:23; 22:38; 30:45;  31:18; 42:40; 57:23-24; the arrogant/boastful/niggardly–(4:36); the treacherous/sinful–(4:107).

   186.(113) ND opines that early Qur’anic verses of tolerance were abrogated by later “violent messages.” (pp. 196-197).

   Response: There are no “violent messages” in the Qur’an. Fighting a defensive war is not violence. If you believe it is, then tell it to the Allies of World War II.  Killing people just so your “chosen” ones can have their land, as the Bible allows is violence.        

   There is no “intolerance” in the Qur’an/Islam. There is “intolerance” in the Bible (in Judaism and Christianity): enslave “heathen;” kill apostates and blasphemers; “He that is not with me is against me;” “Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me”–(Lev, 25:44; Deut; 13:5-16; 17:2-5; Lev. 24:11-16, 23; Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27).  

   That the earlier Makkan revelation of ”tolerance” was abrogated by the later Madinan revelation of “intolerance” is the critic’s usual baseless claim. Firstly, there is no “abrogation”
in the Qur’an. Allāh speaking in His Qur’an 2:106 and 16:101 that “Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten,” refers to the Mosaic law; in which the laws of honor killing, stoning, and death for adultery, apostasy, etc are abrogated by the Qur’an. (See ABROGATION IN THE QUR’AN).

  If the later Madinan verses abrogate the earlier Makkan verses–which would mean that “tolerance” was “abrogated by “intolerance,” how can any critic account for this later Madinanverse which says: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety.  This is because they are a people who know not”–(Qur’an 9:6). As pointed out this is a Madinan sura, “revealed in the ninth year of the Hijrah,” as Muhammad Ali notes. Muslims could not be instructed to give idolaters “protection’ and safe escort to their “place of safety” if “tolerance” was “abrogated by “intolerance.”” Again, if Madinan verses abrogated Makkan verses how can it be accounted for the Madinan verses which says: “There is no compulsion in religion” “Allah 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 Allah loves the doers of justice”–(Qur’an 2:256; 60:8).

   In the human sphere, a nation that is perceived as evil is first requested by the World body –the UN– to change its policy on its own. Failing to comply, the nation is subjected to the second step of sanctions. And followed, if need be, by the third stage of military action against it.

   Allāh is Just; He does not punish a people for its evil without first sending a messenger, to admonish them to reform to goodness: “And We destroyed no town but it had (its) warners –To remind. And We are never unjust”–(Qur’an 26:208-209. Also 28:59).

   At Makkah the Idolaters not only rejected Prophet Mohammad’s “compassion” with their persecution but pursued him to Madinah to annihilate him. Hence, they entered the second phase of their war against peace –to be threatened with punishment. Yet, they were heedless. Therefore, the third phase –that of defensive action/force– became necessary.   

   Makkan “compassion” did not change to Madinan “retribution”: the method of approach changed to suit the prevailing atmosphere. The Qur’anic message is both “compassion” and “retribution” –compassion to those who refrain from transgression and retribution against transgressors. Parent’s have both “softness” and “hardness” of hearts: exercising one or the other depending upon the child’s behavior –whether the child is obedient or delinquent. One does not abrogate the other.

     Since Islam 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);  Allah 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); sent messengers to all nations-(10:47); 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-(4:135);  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 mosques would have been pulled down-(22:40); that all religions are for Allah-(8:39); to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy-8:61-62– it cannot then be said that there is “intolerance” in Islam. 

    Islam which gives man freedom of choice and which calls on man through wisdom, reason, argument and examples does not keep Muslims “under the penalty of death.” In contrast, as her scripture and history show, it is Christianity that keeps people “under the penalty of death” –such people as blasphemers, apostates, “stubborn and rebellious” sons, witches, those who curse their fathers, those not with Jesus (non-Christians), those against Jesus’ rule (those against Christianity), damsels that do not bleed on their wedding night (honor killing; perhaps half of the married damsels in Christendom do not bleed on their wedding night, someone should do a survey). Christianity keeps them all “under the penalty of death.”

   187.(114) On page 197, Nonie Darwish notes from statistics “brilliantly compiled by Bill Warner, the director of the Centre for the Study of Political Islam”

   Response: (Marvelous!) There is no “politics” in Islam; “politics” and Islam are incompatible. Whereas in “politics” the end is justified by any means, in Islam the end is justified only through righteous means:

            (a) Mr. Warner revealed that “at least 75 percent of the Sunnah (life of Muhammad) is about jihad.”

   Response: Did Mr. Warner also “reveal” that from day one of his mission till shortly before his death –nearly twenty-three grueling years– the Prophet and Muslims were under the threat of annihilation? Where then is the problem if the Qur’an and hadith are about armed jihad? I would like to know which people under the threat of annihilation would not be occupied with strategies to defeat the enemy but would worry about the futures of pork-bellies and soya-beans. (Jihad is the striving for truth and justice. And takes several forms, as already detailed).

            (b) Mr. Warner “revealed,” “About 67 percent of the Qur’an written in Mecca is about the unbelievers or politics. Of the Qur’an of Medina, 51 percent is devoted to the unbelievers.”  

   Response: Weren’t the people of Makkah and Madinah “unbelievers” to whom the Qur’anic message was to be delivered to first for their reformation? Why then should these verses not be about them? When the President of America delivers his State of the Union address who does he direct it to, the Incas? When Jesus preached to whom did he direct his message? In fact Jesus was so tribal/centralized that he ordered that his message be not given to the Gentile “dogs” and “swine” (which includes you, Nonie Darwish) and he even preached in “parables” so these “dogs” and “swine” (you again) would not understand and be converted and saved).

            (c) Mr. Warner “revealed,” “Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.”

   Response: Mr. Warner needs to know the Islamic concept of religion.  Religion in Islam is a complete way of life –personal, moral, social, intellectual and spiritual. There is no separating one from the other.  Thus “religion” in Islam is not “part.” It is total.

            (d) Mr. Warner “revealed” “even hell is political. There are 146 references to hell in the Qur’an. Only 6 percent of those in hell are there for moral failings, such as murder or theft, The other 94 percent in hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime.” Hence, Islamic hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.””

   Response: Aren’t individuals who refused to fight in a war court-martialed for the “intellectual sin” of disagreeing with the U.S. government? Aren’t certain individuals who have “political” beliefs/views that are contrary to government(s) kept under surveillance and even jailed for their “intellectual sin”? (Go talk to anti-Apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and his late brother-in-cause Steve Biko and to world famous peace-activist Jaggie Singh as well as to those demonstrators in 1992 Los Angeles who were protesting the building of a roadway and to the many Muslims who are mere “suspects” held without charge or trial).   

   And which teachings of the Qur’an can you (and your helpers) contradict? Detail them. There is no teaching of the Qur’an that anyone can surpass so as to “speak against” it. Thus if you cannot exceed or equal the Qur’an what excuse do you have for not accepting and following it? And if you transgress it why aren’t you deserving of hell?If you are caught transgressing the law of America wouldn’t you suffer for your transgression?

  There is no “intellectuality” in worshipping idols –objects that can confer no benefit or effect any harm; objects fashioned by one’s own hand. There is no “intellectuality” in following books and/or man that does not give all details over one that gives all details. There is no “intellectuality” in subjugating ones-self to doctrines that are repugnant to reason.  

   The Islamic HELL 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, to exist in the spiritual realm man must possess spiritual qualities. He can acquire those qualities on earth by following Divine instructions or –like gold being made pure of dross– be put through the purifying process of Hell. In the Hereafter we will be given new bodies–(Qur’an 56:60-61).

   If the “Islamic hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.” For what reason did Jesus profile Jews and consign them to hell? Jesus also lambasted and consigned the disbelieving people of Chorazin, Capernaum and Bethsaida because they would not accept him; in fact according to Jesus the people of Tyre and sidon and Sodom would fare better than the Chorazites and Capernites and Bethsaites on Judgment Day–(Matt. 23:31-38; 11:20-24). Jesus also charged: “He that is not with me is against me” even though they may be neutral and even though they may do all the good and no evil, but just because they do not believe in him–(Matt. 12:30). Jesus even hurled those into hell who say “thou fool” (unless they repent): “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”–(Matt. 5:22). Though he himself calls the Jews “fools”: “Ye fools and blind”–(Matt. 23:17, 19). And the Biblical God sent “beasts” etc; to savage Jeshurun and children, and even the “suckling,” for their false worship and He commands that those who go after unknown Gods to be killed; thus, according to Bill Warner’s “brilliancy” the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God then Jesus) had/have people killed “for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with” Him (and for even being neutral), “a political crime.”(Deut. 32:15-25; 13:5-16; 17:2-5).  

   There are various reasons why a person will go to HELL. The chief reason being, even if he/she does all the good and no evil, because of his/her disavowing his/her belief in Allāh, God, and turning to disbelief –in the human sphere when one party does not honor his contract they usually end up in court where judgment is given against the defaulting party. Before we were sent into the world we made a covenant with Allāh that He is our Lord (and He sent prophets to remind/guide us): “And when thy Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants, and made them bear witness about themselves: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes; we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of Resurrection: We were unaware of this, Or (lest) you should say: Only our fathers ascribed partners (to Allah) before (us), and we were (their) descendants after them. Wilt Thou destroy us for what liars did?”–(Qur’an 7:172-173. Compare with Jeremiah 1:5 where God told him: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee”).

   Muhammad Ali comments on the above verse from Allāh (Qur’an 7:172): “The verse does not mention the bringing forth of descendants from Adam, but from the children of Adam, and this seems clearly to refer to every human being as he comes into existence. The evidence is, therefore, that which human nature itself affords. It is, in fact, the same evidence which is elsewhere spoken of as being afforded by human nature as in “the nature made by Allah in which He has created men” (30:30).”  

   Hence, contrary to Mr. Bill Warner, “The other 94 percent (of people) in hell are” NOT there “for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime” and “for those who speak against Islam;” they are in Hell for their breaking their covenant with Allāh!

   Mr. Bill Warner and you need to talk/write less and use your heads more, then you would not be making asinine statements against Islam and, worse, impaling your souls on the flames of Hell.

   188.(115) ND: “The conclusion that I –and others who have studied it– have reached is that Islam as a whole is not a religion. It is Arab Imperialism and a protectionist tool to preserve what they believe to be a supremacist Arab culture.” (p. 198).

   Response: Clearly, you –and others– need to restudy Islam/the Qur’an. (You also need to study/restudy Christianity. You are following PAUL and his PAGAN SON OF GOD into Hell-Fire).

   Islam does not merit people on their race or “culture” but by their belief and good deeds.

   Islam is superior to all other religions. Refute this if you, “and others,” can. 

   189.(116) Nonie Darwish notes that soon after the Prophet’s death some of his followers apostatized. (p. 198).

   Response: (See item #95).  

 190.(117) Nonie Darwish: “The Qur’an, which is Allāh’s words, talks about how he took the lands of the unbelievers: “See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?”–(Qur’an 21:44). “And how many a community have We destroyed…And We, even We, were the inheritors”–Qur’an 28:58). “See they not how We aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?”–(Qur’an 13:41). “And verily We have destroyed townships”–(Qur’an 46:27). “And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allāh is ever Able to do all things”–(Qur’an 33:27. “He it is Who have caused those of the People of the Scripture who disbelieved to go forth from their homes….while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allāh. But Allāh reached them from a place whereof they recked not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers”–(Qur’an 59:2). (pp. 199-200)                  

   Response:Do Christians not believe that God is ever able to do all things? Allah does not have to take the lands of the unbelievers; the heavens and the earth belong to Him. Whereas Qur’an 21:44; 28:58; 13:41 and 46:27 are general; Qur’an 33:27 refers to the Bani Quraizah who was executed for treachery (see item #89); and Qur’an 59:2 refers to the Bani Nadir who was  banished for treachery (see item #93).

   On the obverse. How did the Biblical/Christian’s God (Jesus) take the land from the “heathen” and give it to the Israelites/ Jews? How many communities did the Christian’s God (Jesus) destroyed) because of the people’s wickedness? I only need enter one verse: “Speak not in thine heart…saying, For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land: but for THE WICKEDNESS OF THESE NATIONS THE LORD DOTH DRIVE THEM OUT FROM BEFORE THEE…Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; FOR THOU ART A STIFFNECKED PEOPLE …from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, YE HAVE BEEN REBELLIOUS UNTO THE LORD” –(Deut. 9:4-7). As already shown, the Christian’s God (Jesus) not only smote and cast “terror” but had bears tear children; had Jeshurun’s children eaten by beasts; had dogs eat Jezebel; and people decapitated. He even smote people with hemorrhoids.  

   191.(118) Nonie Darwish: “While some religions cater to the side of humanity that seeks fairness and the golden rule –to treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated– Islam discovered and preserved the side of humanity that wants to take from others, subjugate others, and perhaps even be subjugated to reinforce the feeling of victimhood. Islam exploits the dark side found in all of us to different degrees.” (p. 200).

   Response: What a maraud! Islam forbids hoarding of wealth –(Qur’an 3:14; 9:34-35; 70:17-18; 104:2-3); admonishes against being “niggardly in spending”–(3:179; 17:29); enjoins spending in the cause of orphan, needy, the wayfarer and to fee slaves etc; 9:30); instructs that the poor/needy has a right in the wealth of the rich–(51:19; 70:24-25); forbids aggression and/or oppression and to fight against them–(2:190-191, 193; 8:39; 22:39-40): “And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed, these it is against whom there is no way (of blame). The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and revolt in the earth unjustly, For such there is a painful chastisement”–(42:41-42).  Muslim universities opened their doors to students of all backgrounds, and lodged and boarded them free of charge.  And in our fifteen hundred years of history have not developed armaments for aggression, subjugation or exploitation.   

   It is the West (“Christian” nations) that want to “subjugate” and to “take” (and have “subjugated” and have “taken”) from Muslims –the treacherous dividing up of post-Ottoman Middle-East;  theft of Palestine; “pressuring” Sudan to hold referendum on separation (of which the outcome of “division” was a foregone conclusion); overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government to control its oil; aggressed against Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein to control its oil and erect military base(s); cahooted with Jews and attacked Egypt so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal; genociding in Chechnya and Dagestan by Russia; genociding in Algeria by France; savaging in Libya by Italy. And she is now in Afghanistan to secure her gas pipeline “interest” and to parasite in Afghanistan’s some three trillion dollars worth of untapped riches. (Not to mention her monumental and indelible disgrace of chaining the African woman naked, and plundering the “vast resources” of the Congo).147 (As noted on the Internet, the U.S. is said to have overthrown the governments of some fourteen countries to safeguard her “interest” –Hawaii; Cuba; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Nicaragua; Honduras; Iran; Guatemala; South Vietnam; Chile; Grenada; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq. This is what Nonie Darwish supports rather than vociferate against).  

   192.(119) Nonie Darwish: “The Qur’an itself asks Muslims to not only highly tax but also disrespect, disgrace, and degrade those who refuse to convert to Islam. “Fight them [unbelievers], Allāh will punish them with your hands and disgrace them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the chests of a believing nation” –(Qur’an 9:14) (p. 202).

   Response:As shown in item #172 (Jizya), Islam does not “highly tax” non-Muslims.As noted,Islam gives man freedom of religion and teaches that Allāh raised prophets among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies and declared that all religions are for Him. Allāh Who creates out of love and has inscribed mercy on Himself; gives us guidance and is solicitous of our welfare and wants us to have a life in Paradise; and implores us in loving compassionate terms to forgive us our sins; thus the Qur’an/Allāh could not be indicted as requiring Muslims “to highly tax” and to “disrespect, disgrace, and degrade those who refuse to convert to Islam.”  To charge that the Qur’an/Islam forces people to “convert to Islam” betrays one’s ignorance of the Qur’an/Islam. Those who militated against Mohammad, who only preached, brought on themselves “disrespect, disgrace, and degrad(ation).”  

   In contrast, and as shown, it is Christianity that “disrespect, disgrace, and degrade those who refuse to convert to” the useless and unGodly crucifix –it regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and preached in parables so the “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be converted and saved; views those not sharing its views as being against it, and ordering that enemies opposed to its rule be slain; allows enslavement of “heathen” neighbor and bondage of daughters; degrades woman as an object of sex, and as “defiler” and betrayer of man; that she be ruled over in silence and all subjection; views her as “adulteress” if her husband divorces her (except for fornication); and that she can be discarded for just for being sloppy or unkempt: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he had FOUND SOME UNCLEANNESS in her: then let him WRITE HER A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, and give it in her hand, and SEND HER OUT OF HIS HOUSE”–(Deut.24:1-4. Talk about “easy” divorce. This takes the Oscar. What if the woman finds “uncleanness” in the husband?).

   193.(120) Nonie Darwish: “Egypt and Persia were the two true superpowers of the seventh-century. In 639 CE they were both invaded, and by 641 CE both were under the total control of Arab Muslim forces. Muslim invaders met any resistance with extreme brutality. In the town of Nikiou, Egypt, not one soldier resisted them, yet the Muslims slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches, sparing no one –man, woman, or child. They looted the villages and enslaved the people.”(p. 203).

   Response: Nonie Darwish must be thinking about the Christian Crusaders who slaughtered every Muslim and Jew of Jerusalem when they conquered it; and about the barons leaving with their weighted-down chariots of “loot” when Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin) re-conquered Jerusalem from the Crusaders.      

   It must be the miracle of creation that ill-equipped Arab invaders would vanquish Egypt and Persia “the two true superpowers of the seventh-century.”

   Persia and Egypt were defeated in 638-641 by the Caliph ‘Umar.  In his insightful book The Early Caliphate Muhammad Ali has detailed the expeditions of the Caliphs. Muslims expeditions against Persia and Egypt were purely defensive. And, as already shown they were the opposite of slaughter and pillage. In fact, Christians were slaughtering and pillaging one another; it was Muslims who brought peace and justice to them. (See items #11 and 30).

   Muhammad Ali notes that ‘Umar was in Syria, which was suffering from a plague, when army commander, ‘Amr ibn ‘As, requested permission to invade Egypt. The plague had taken a toll of 25,000 Muslim soldiers. But “The danger of an invasion by the Caesar had not as yet disappeared. Under these circumstances, the Muslims could ill-afford to quit Syria. It was, as Sir William Muir puts it, after much hesitation that the Caliph gave his consent. And what was the army with which ‘Amr ibn ‘As set out to invade Egypt? Just 5,000 strong! No sane general would, with such a force and under such circumstances venture out on an expedition of such magnitude without urgent reasons. The apprehension, it seems, was that the Caesar was about to march on Syria through Egypt and it was to check this advance that ‘Umar permitted his Syrian commander to proceed to Egypt. The last invasion of the Caesar at the invitation of the people of Jazirah, in which the Muslims lost Antioch, had also been made from Alexandria.” At Fustat (in 640 CE) after a seven-month siege “Zubair with a handful of men scaled the wall of the fort by means of a ladder and fell on the besieged with shouts of Allahu-Akbar.  The Christians were seized with terror and laid down their arms. The entire garrison was granted amnesty.” And in 641 CE in Alexandria, Muslims triumphed over the combined Roman and Egyptian forces “and the whole of Egypt thus came into the possession of Muslims.”(Ibid. pp 94, 95). (It is doubtful that Muslims would grant amnesty to soldiers, who might only be  zealous enough to strike you in the back, but would have “slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches, sparing no one –man, woman, or child” and “looted the villages and enslaved the people”).

   It may also be noted about the charge that ‘Umar ordered the burning of the library of Alexandria, Muhammad Ali points out: “Gibbon’s conclusions are positive on the point. This famous historian has proved that the library was burnt long before the Muslim conquest of the town. Muir also exonerates the Muslim conquerors from this charge: “The story of the burning of the library of Alexandria by the Arabs,” says he, “is a late invention.”” (Ibid. p. 96). As shown in CRITICS it is Christian’s wild rampage that burnt everything knowledge.    

   Regarding Persia. As noted in item #30, Rustam, the famous Persian general had vowed: “The whole of Arabia will I smash.” As with Egypt, ‘Umar was averse to advance against Persia but  were compelled to do so because they “persistently break faith and rebel” against Muslims. Muhammad Ali wrote: “To quote Muir again: ““The truth began to dawn on ‘Umar that necessity was laid upon him to withdraw the ban against advance. In self-defence, nothing was left but to crush the Chosroes and to take entire possession of his realm.”” Again: ““He was compelled at last by the warlike attitude of the Persian court to bid his armies take the field with the avowed object of dealing the empire a final blow.”” As Muhammad Ali observes: “These last words from the pen of a Christian historian are clear and yet, in the face of this positive admission, ‘Umar is accused, for his subjugation and annexation of Persia, of lust of loot and territorial extension. He was by no means inclined to resort to such a measure but, if allowed any longer lease, Persia would certainly have gathered strength and crushed Arabia. Circumstances thus forced the Caliph’s reluctant hand.”(Ibid. pp. 99, 100).    

   Unlike Muslims who were compelled to self-defence by imminent threats at their borders, there are nations today who face no imminent threat at their borders who “smash” (or want to “smash”) other nations and even thousands of miles beyond their borders. They steal other people’s land; overthrow governments; commit murder (assassinations); and exist as parasites on other people’s resource(s). Rather than try to hurl blame on faultless ancient Muslims, Nonie Darwish (and her ilk) needs to direct her energy against modern leaders who are arrogant, hypocritical, bullying, and evil.      

   194.(121) Nonie Darwish wrote about “dhimmis –people of different religions allowed to exist in virtual servitude by paying excessive taxes (jizyah), but prevented from enjoying the rights and protection of normal Islamic citizens. Qur’an 9:29 says: “Until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (p. 204)

   Response: (See item #172).

   195.(122) Nonie Darwish: “Egyptian history before Islam was to be regarded as the era of Jahiliyyah, meaning the age of ignorance.” (p. 205)

   Response: While ancient Egyptians were advanced materially and their achievements are to be honored and preserved (where possible), clearly to worship idols –things that can effect no harm nor confer benefit, objects fashioned by your own hands– is “ignorance. Didn’t God in the Bible prohibit the making of and worship of images/idols? In fact, Christians in their making and bowing down before idol/crucifix are in contravention of this decree of God and are imitating those of the “age of ignorance.” It may also be said that Christians, in their son of God belief –which, as shown, is paganism– are in religious Jahiliyyah.

   Muslims stagnation and poverty are not because of the teachings of Islam but because of Muslims negligence of the teachings of Islam. Had Muslims continued down from the Prophet living Islam we would still be leading the world in material achievements. This throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend. All we need do is uproot and incinerate our sectism and cooperate in all matters from economic to military; give up the pig and intoxicants and illicit relations and bow down to the only Source of all Power and Greatness. Allāh admonishes us in His Qur’an “(Be not) Of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it;” “And those who disbelieve are friends one of another. If you do it not (i.e. if Muslims do not protect each other), there will be persecution in the land and great mischief.” –(Qur’an 30:32; 8:73). One only has to look around the world to see the truth of these words of Allāh.

   First, Muslims would not themselves be oppressors and despots; second, the Middle-East would not have been dissected; Palestine would not have been stolen; Iran’s Mossadegh government would not have been overthrown; there would not have been the disgraceful war between Iraq and Iran (though it was forced on Iran); Britain, France and the Jewish occupiers of Palestine would not have attacked Egypt (so Britain can have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal); Singapore would not have been ripped away from Malaysia; Iraq would not have been invaded (and twice); Uighur Muslims of East Turkistan would not be under China’s jackboot; Chechnya (and Dagestan) would not be under the claws of the Russian bear and half a million Chechnyans annihilated; Afghanistan would not be in rubbles and tears; Kashmir would not be in agony; thousands of Muslims would not have been slaughtered in Bosnia and tens of thousands of Muslim females raped by Serbia; Italy would not have savaged Libya; Darfur would not be bleeding; Sudan would not have been “pressured” by America to give up its southern part (and the wealthiest part at that). Somalia would not be in distress. (The historians probably know of more examples). We can yet reverse some of these transgressions and injustices by uprooting and incinerating the cancer of sectism that is ravaging the Ummah of Mohammad. 

   196.(123) ND wrote that “the colonial period of Muslims, as when Muslims colonized Spain for eight hundred years, is viewed not as a source of guilt but as source of pride.” (p. 207) 

   Response: Darn right, Muslims presence in Spain was a “source of pride,” as shown in item #167. In fact, Muslims presence in the world is a “source of pride.” I only need one quote here to supplement what is stated in item #167 of Muslims in Spain. Here is what Encyclopaedia Britannica records (that after Muslims vanquished the Visigoths from Spain in 711) “Thus began several centuries of Moorish dominion, which made medieval Spain a place of HIGH CULTURE, WITH A WIDE ARRAY OF SCIENTISTS, PHILOSOPHERS, WRITERS, AND ENGINEERS WHO IMPROVED THE LAND AND REBUILT THE CITIES.”148 Muslims presence in Spain was not only a “source for pride,” but one of benevolence: “Muslim Universities opened their doors in Baghdad in the days of Nizam-ul-Mulk, and in Granada in the days of Abdul Rahman to students without distinction, caste, colour or creed, where they were looked after, boarded and lodged at the public expense.”(See CRITICS). Islam not only gave light/knowledge to the world but in opening their universities “to students without distinction, caste, colour or creed, where they were looked after, boarded and lodged at the public expense,” Islam gave to the world honor and dignity.

   Notably, Christopher Columbus first saw the globe of the world at Muslim Spain. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London: “It was to the Muslim universities in Spain that Columbus learned that the earth was a spheroid, for one of the Muslim educational appliances was the globe.”(p. 48) 

   In contrast to “Western European countries” that “colonized” to, as its history attest, subdue, subjugate and sack –as in sacking the Congo of its vast riches; and even vilely holding magnificent African women naked and chained at the necks– Islam does not “colonize;” Islam illuminates/edifies. Further as already noted when Christians booted Muslims from Spain, the Christian blight  turned the observatory into a bland belfry, made a mosque into a stable, and demolished all the public bath houses; thus it is Christians who are to be viewed “as a source of guilt” and crudeness.

   Muslims teach Arabic to the natives because Islam is the universal religion and the Qur’anic expression is a universal language. A person of one language can offer congregational salah/prayer in any part of the world and would be conversant with the Qur’anic recitation, as opposed to salah being offered in a language (which the visitor/traveler may not understand).

   197.(124) ND notes that “pre-Islamic Egypt was ruled by several powerful, ambitious women, loved and respected by the citizens, and who actually ruled as pharaohs including Nefertari, Nefertiti, Cleopatra VII, and the great Queen Heshepsut….To accommodate the heat, both women and men in Ancient Egypt covered little of their bodies. That did not bring any shame to the queens….Almost 99 percent of Egyptian Muslim women today, under the hot sun choose to wear the Bedouin style hijab, and many are covering their faces by choice.” (p. 207)

   Response: Staggering isn’t it? ancient Pharaohs gave their women equality despite the Bible condemning them to be lorded over by their husbands; and thousands of years later 1960’s “Christian” American women were burning their brassieres for equality with men.

   So the ancient women choice was to cover “little of their bodies” and the Muslim women’s choice is to cover the “whole” of their bodies. Where’s the beef? And how “little” of your body do you cover in the North American summer sun? And what about men in western countries wearing suit and tie in summertime? And what about Mary, the Christians’ “Mother of God,” covering her body from head to toe? And the Christian nuns? And the Coptic priests?  And the Pope and Bishops and Jesuit priests?           

   Incidentally. These queens may have ruled Egypt and are now dust or mummies and have no honor. As Mohammad was King of Arabia his wives may be regarded as queens. Though these wives/queens did not rule, as the Queens of Egypt, yet they, fifteen hundred years after their death –while the Queens of Egypt are largely forgotten and unhonored– are honored by some one and a half billion Muslims as their spiritual mothers. And so long as man govern by reason –which is the Divine requirement– there will be Muslims to the Resurrection, and these Queens of Arabia and the Muslim world will be honored not only to the Resurrection but also honored in the next world.

   And while the monarchs of the world are also largely forgotten and unhonored, King Mohammad still reigns supreme daily among Muslims and will reign in the Hereafter; as he will be given the right of intercession. In which event Neferteri and others will in all likelihood be clamoring to him (and even to his wives/queens to plead to him on their behalf) to be spared the flames and to be given entry into the Gardens of everlasting Paradise. And you also, Ms. Darwish, will be pleading at Mohammad’s feet. 

   And what kind of lofty position does Christianity give to women? None! as already shown. That Esther was queen and there were Biblical women who were prophetess –and even false Christs, as Jesus declared, can prophesy– are moot arguments. The decree of God that women are to be ruled over by their husbands and which decree was upheld by Jesus and enforced by Paul, trumps all human considerations.

   ND continues: “In comparison with the past, today’s Egyptian women have lost many rights under Islamic Sharia.” (p. 207)  

   Response: Kindly detail these “rights” that Muslim women have lost under Shari’ah, (and Islamic Shari’ah is based on the teachings in the Qur’an).

   -Shari’ah saved daughters from being buried alive–(Qur’an 16:58-59; 81:8-9).

   -Shari’ah saved woman from being deserted by husband’s simply saying “thou art to me as the back of my mother” –(Qur’an 33:4.  M. Ali comm.).

   -Shari’ah saved woman from her husband suspending conjugal rights indefinitely by his oath of to not have relations with her–(Qur’an 2:226. M. Ali comm.)

   -Shari’ah saved woman from being inherited against her will–(Qur’an 4:19).

   -Shari’ah saved widows from becoming the property of her husband’s eldest son–(Qur’an 4:22).

   -Shari’ah extricated woman from the bog of bondage and humiliation in which Christianity and Judaism had her mired, and sits her on the pinnacle of liberty and honor.

   -Shari’ah gave woman mutual rights with man. Muslim WOMEN have rights that leave her nothing for which to strive; from birth all the way to Jannah!

   In contrast, it is Christian women –in Egypt and everywhere– that have “lost many rights” in comparison with Egyptian women of the past. In fact, as shown from the Bible the Christian woman has no right(s) –she is decreed to be ruled over by her husband till her death; in silence and in all subjection; can be sold into slavery by her father; is good only to avoid fornication; is a “defiler” of man; a transgressor, and betrayer of man. She has no place in heaven either, seeing that on earth she is a “defiler” of man, (consider how much lowly her status would be in the Hereafter).  

   198.(125) ND: “The sad truth is that there is hardly any ill in Muslim society that is not confirmed by scriptures: The Prophet said: “Then go to the persons who do not join the congregational prayer and order their homes to be burnt.””(p. 213)

   Response:(Please detail these ills of society that can be confirmed in the Qur’an). As shown, Islam requires Muslims to seek knowledge and to subjugate the heavens and the earth for  our utility: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114); ‘seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave,’ to go to China if need be–(Baihaqi) Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p. 361, #111 W); ‘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, #3634). “Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth”–(Qur’an 31:20; 45:13). One cannot make subservient “whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth” without material knowledge.

   In contrast, it is the Christian’s scripture that allows “ills” in society, as it history and scripture show: “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.….for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”–(Matt. 6:25-34). By telling man to pray only and leaving it all to God to send him groceries through handouts, the Christian’s God and son of God is teaching man to be loafers and mendicants. If America was to follow such a doctrine, instead of her being on the pinnacle of progress she would regress into the black-hole of backwardness.

   Contrast the Christians’ “God” and son of God, Jesus, with the injunctions of Allāh and His noble Messenger, Mohammad. While Islam does not allow pursuit of the material to the detriment of the spiritual; Allāh tells us that everything in the heavens and earth were created for our benefit and urges us to seek knowledge to put them to our service; and that after we finish offering our prayers to go into the land and seek of His bounties. And His magnanimous Messenger informs us that we have a duty to Allāh, to ourselves, families, and the community. Earning bread honestly is a part of righteousness and an act of worship.

   That the Prophet Mohammad said: “Then go to the persons who do not join the congregational prayer and order their homes to be burnt.” (The saying of the Prophet was: “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’addhin to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses”–Bokhari Vol. 1, #626).  If Mohammad had given this command who could have prevented it from being executed? No one! And there would have been several dutiful Muslims to carry out his order. The question is how many houses were burnt? Not a single one! Moreover, it is hardly believable that Mohammad would have burned any house (which might have killed innocent children) seeing that he taught that a Muslim is not to burn his enemy and not even an ant, that fire is the punishment of Allāh–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2667-2669). Clearly, this thought which the Prophet expressed was only to communicate the importance and benefit of the congregational prayer: that if Muslims knew the benefit they would even crawl to get to the Mosque–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #’s 589; 626; Vol. 3, #854).

   The Fajr (dawn) prayer especially is the acid test for a Believer in Allāh. As Salahhuddin Ayube (Saladin) the majestic is said to have stated, in gathering soldiers to liberate the Holy Land, that when the Mosques are filled for the morning prayer his army will be ready. It is not an easy undertaking for one to kill the sweet sleep of dawn to pray, and pray to a Master he does not and cannot see.

   Salah –the formatted Muslim five daily prayer– not only distinguishes Muslims from other religionists. This prayer is a constant reminder that Allāh is One and Only, without mother and father and son and daughter and partner and associate and does not incarnate, and is the only Presence worthy of worship; it reminds us of our duty to be truthful and just and to keep away from shameful deeds and that success lies in prayer to Allah.

In our bending posture (ruku) we proclaim subhana-rabbiyal-‘Azeem (Glory be to You Allāh, the Magnificent; though the English equivalent “Glory” for the Arabic “Subhan” is inadequate, as Subhan conveys the quality of perfection and free of all defects and free of all needs and wants; qualities which no human can possess) and in our prostration (sijda, the lowest position that that one can position himself/herself) we extol Suhana-rabbiyal-‘Alaa (Glory be to You Allāh, the Most High). In effect we are declaring, respectively: “Allāh, You alone is perfect and free of all needs and wants; You are the Magnificent;” and “Allāh, You alone is perfect and free of all needs and wants; You are the Most High”).

Even in the midst of our social intercourse when we may tend to lapse or be distracted from our duty we are called to this remembrance. And, depending on how long we make our recitation, these five prayers basically take only about an hour a day or less. (We perhaps goof off for longer than an hour). There is no better way to spend our time than in the glorification of our Creator to Whom is our eventual return.   

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can put Adam/Eve’s sin onto every person then put every person’s sin onto Jesus and then have this innocent Jesus killed for everybody’s sin.

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can have bears “tare” forty-two children for being mischievous–(2 Kings 2:22-24).     

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God ((“Jesus,” as Christians say) can terrorized Jeshurun’s children and the virgin and old man and have them eaten by beasts–(Deut. 32:15-25). This must the mother of all terrorism!

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God ((“Jesus,” as Christians say) can consign Jews to the greater damnation of Hell–(Matt. 23:14,  33).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christians God) can command that all his enemies who are against his rule be slaughtered–(Luke 19:27).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christian’s God) can send fire and sword and division into the world–(Luke 12:49, 51-53; Matt. 10:34).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can allow selling defenseless daughters into slavery and enslaving peaceful “heathen” neighbors–(Ex. 21:7; Lev. 25:44).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christian’s God) can counsel his followers to lie through their nose and agree with their adversary and send innocent people to the gallows–(Matt. 5:25)

   And clearly, to have Mohammad thinking about burning you and your house is hardly any suffering compared to be killed for someone else’s sin; to be torn by bears; to be terrorized then eaten by beasts; to be consigned to hell, be it lesser or greater; and be slain just because you are against a certain ruler; to be sent fire and sword; to be sold into slavery and enslaved; and to be railroaded into jail or to the gallows.   

   199.(126) ND notes: “Qur’an 9:28 says: “O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean.” In another verse, 9:95, it says: “Unbelievers are unclean, impure and filthy.” (p. 214).

    Response: The idolaters were considered unclean because “they indulged in evil practices and went naked round the Ka’bah,” as Muhammad Ali explained. Idolatry and evil practices are “uncleanness”–(Qur’an 5:90). Regarding Qur’an 9:95; here is the verse in full and Muhammad Ali’s comment: They will swear by Allah to you, when you return to them, so that you may leave them alone. So leave them alone. Surely they are unclean and their refuge is hell — a recompense for what they earned.”  “It is related that on his return from Tabuk, the Holy Prophet forbade the Muslims to have any intercourse with the hypocrites. This injunction was in obedience to the revelation which he had received during the journey, as is clearly shown in vv. 83, 84.”

   In contrast, the Bible not only considers all men and women as being “unclean” but also as being incapable of attaining righteousness: “how can he be clean that is born of a woman?”  “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one;” “What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous”–(Job 25:4; 14:4; 15:14).      

   200.(127) Regarding Allāh’s ninety-nine names, ND states: “Some of the names are “the deceiver,” and Al Muthil, meaning “the one who humiliates, oppresses, or puts down.” (p. 217).

   Response:Allāh’s names are the most beautiful–(Qur’an 59:24). Allāh Who created man because He loved to be known, Whose mercy precedes His anger, Who guides and makes everything clear in His Qur’an and is ever solicitous for the betterment of man could not be a “deceiver” or “the one who humiliates, oppresses, or puts down.” Deceiving and humiliating are works of the Devil. Allāh exhorts us to fight “oppression.” Allāh does not deceive, He gives us clear guidance; (it is the Christian’s son of God and God, Jesus, that humiliates and deceives: labeling non-Jews (which includes you, Nonie Darwish) as “dogs” and “swine” and  preaching in parables so the “dogs” and “swine” would not understands and be saved; and urged his followers also to engage in lies/deception telling them to agree with their adversary, which “agreeing” would include lying and deception, so they won’t be thrown in jail–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:9-12; Matt. 5:25). Regarding “Al Muthil” (al-Mudzill) Muhammad Ali notes: “A great misconception regarding the teachings of the Qur’an is that it ascribes to God the attribute of leading astray. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While al-Hadi or the One Who guides, is one of the ninety-nine names of Allah, as accepted by all Muslims, al-Mudzill, or the One Who leads astray, has never been recognized as such. If leading astray were an attribute of God, as guiding certainly is, the name al-Mudzill should have been included in the list of His names, as al-Hadi is. But the Qur’an, which repeatedly says that God’s are all the excellent names, could not ascribe to Him what it has plainly ascribed to the Devil, viz., the leading astray of men.…It is impossible that God, Who is so solicitous for the guidance of man, should Himself lead him astray. Guiding and leading astray are two contradictions which could not be gathered together in one being.” “The mistaken idea that God leads people astray arises out of a misconception of the meaning of the word idzlal when it is ascribed to God.” (The Religion of Islam, pp. 323, 324, 325)(See also PREDESTINATION).

   201.(128) Nonie Darwish: “When it comes to Islam, more religion does not mean more tolerance, compassion, and kindness between people. More Islam means more violence and religious intolerance.” (p. 218.

   Response: Utter crud! As shown, there is no system more peaceful, just and equitable than the Islamic value system. In contrast, as shown, as her history and scripture testify “When it comes to” Christianity, “more religion does not mean more tolerance, compassion, and kindness between people. More” Christianity “means more violence and religious intolerance;” and more brutal and rabid misogyny.

   202.(129) Nonie Darwish: “There are 35,213 Qur’an verses, hadiths, Sharia laws, and various Muslim scriptures commanding and encouraging killing, violence, war, amputation, corporal punishment, hatred, boycott, humiliation, and subjugation aimed mainly against non-Muslims.” (p. 219).  

   Response: More “independent thinker” bunkum! Already obliterated in preceding pages. Muslim scripture is the Qur’an. The Prophet Mohammad taught only according to the Qur’an. The hadith and other literatures are to confirm to the teachings of the Qur’an or be discarded.

   Amputation/Dismemberment and Flogging: (See item #65)

   203.(130). Nonie Darwish notes: “According to the U.S. Constitution, “All men are created equal.” (p. 220).

    Response: Allāh tells us this in Our Constitution a thousand years before the U.S. Constitution. See item #25.

   204.(131) ND: “The Qur’an tells Muslims that the non-Muslim victims were not really killed by them. It was Allāh who did the killing by using the hands of Muslims. That is how Muslims are spared the feeling of guilt over slaying non-believers  Not only that, but Allāh says that killing infidels will heal the breasts of believers: “Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers”–(Qur’an 9:14). “Allāh will afflict you with a doom from Him or at our hands [meaning: the doom afflicted on disbelievers by Allāh, but at the hands of Muslims]”–(Qur’an 9:52). “Ye [Muslims] slew them not, but Allāh slew them. And thou [Mohammed] threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allāh threw”–(Qur’an 8:17). (pp. 221-222)      

   Response: As has shown Muslims are not mandated by Allāh to slay non-believers; only those who first take up arms to kill Muslims. Aren’t soldiers satisfied and comfortable and at ease (heal the breasts) after routing the enemies whose sole intention was to wipe him out? –mission accomplished as they say.

   If the Qur’an had required Muslims to “murder” all non-Muslims in “cold blood” the prophet would have wiped out the Idolaters and Jews and Christian from Arabia; Muslims would have wiped the Hindus from India and the inhabitants of Spain and wherever else they triumphed. Allāh will not enjoin such an enormity considering that He raised messengers/prophets among all people, gave them rites and ceremonies and declares that all religions are for Him and that everyone has the right to choice of belief, as the legion of Qur’anic verses attest (and for this freedom of choice we will be called to judgment). Wiping out people because of difference of religion is the Christian religion as her history and scripture show. 

   That it was Allāh that did the killing for Muslims. Who was it that sent the plagues against Pharaoh? Who was it that slaughtered the “heathen” so that the Israelis can occupy their land? Who brought ”doom” to Sodom and Gomorrah?” The Christian’s God’s (Jesus) hands killed for the Israelites and He even gave the people hemorrhoids: “For indeed the HAND OF THE LORD was against them, to DESTROY THEM from among the host, UNTIL THEY WERE CONSUMED”–(Deut. 2:15); “the LORD destroyed them (the Zamzummins) before them (the Israelites)”–(Deut. 2:20-21); “But the HAND OF THE LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with EMERODS (hemorrhoids)….the HAND OF THE LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, BOTH small and great, and they had EMERODS in their secret parts”–(! Sam. 5:6, 9). 

   Nonie Darwish also notes sayings of the Prophet that Muslims are not to be killed for killing an Unbeliever or non-Muslim or infidel. (p. 222).

   Response: This is so only in the case of the Unbeliever who acts or wars against the Muslim state. Giving compensation to the enemy camp only strengthens his camp against you. (See item #139).

   In fact, whereas Nonie Darwish bemoans Muslim’s non-compensation for “infidels” who ACT against Muslims, not only are INNOCENT Muslims not compensated they are conveniently and callously referred to as “collateral damage.” (And Nonie Darwish wonders why Muslims fly planes into buildings and strap bombes to their bodies. And while there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not to support terrorism, so long as Jannah sits in the lap of justice Muslims will spare no dewdrop to extinguish the injustice against us. Oh, and the shaheeds [martyrs] go straight to Jannah: “And speak not of those who are slain in Allāh’s way as dead. Nay, (they are) alive, but you perceive not,” “And think not of those who are killed in Allāh’s way as dead, Nay, they are alive, being provided sustenance from their Lord”–(Qur’an 2:154; 3:168-170). And, “Narrated Anas: “Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and he was a young boy then. His mother came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) and said, “O Allāh’s Apostle! You know how dear Haritha is to me. If he is in Paradise, I shall remain patient, and hope for reward from Allāh, but if it is not so, then you shall see what I do?” He said, “May Allāh be merciful to you! Have you lost your senses? Do you think there is only one Paradise? There are many Paradises* and your son is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al-Firdaus”–(Bokhari Vol. 5, # 318). “So let those fight in the way of Allāh who sell this world’s life for the Hereafter, And whoever fights in the way of Allāh, be he slain or be victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward”–(Qur’an 4:74  

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

   205.(132) ND notes (Qur’an 9:5: “Fight and slay the pagans Christians wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush.” (p. 223).

   Response:And this is what America and others have done/are doing to their enemies. And, as already shown, the Christian’s God (Jesus) commands the Israelites to pursue their enemies and massacre even women and children and animals just to occupy their lands). There is no “pagans Christians” in the verse that Nonie Darwish has quoted. Here is Qur’an 9:5 in full and Muhammad Ali’s comment:  So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”

“The clear exception of the last verse shows that by the idolaters here are meant, not all idolaters or polytheists wherever they may be found in the world, not even all idolaters of Arabia, but only those idolatrous tribes of Arabia assembled at the pilgrimage who had first made agreements with the Muslims and then violated them. The exception here has given rise to much misconception. It is thought that it offers to the disbelievers the alternative of the sword or the Qur’an. Nothing is farther from the truth. The injunction contained in the first part of the verse establishes the fact that the whole verse relates to certain idolatrous Arab tribes who had broken their engagements with the Muslims, and who had now been apprised of a similar repudiation by the Muslims. The order to kill them and to make them prisoners and to besiege them and ambush them amounts clearly to an order to fight against them, as it is in war only that all these things are made lawful. They had so often broken their word that they could no more be trusted. Yet, if they joined the brotherhood of Islam, and there was an absolute change in their condition, the punishment which they otherwise deserved could be remitted. It was a case of forgiving a guilty people who had repented. It should also be noted that a mere confession of the faith is not required; what is required is an absolute change, so that the old crimes are all abandoned. Therefore, along with the confession of the faith, it is required that they should keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. The subject is further clarified in the next verse and the following section.” And the next verse (9:6) states: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.” And M.A. notes: “This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered to kill anyone on account of his religion. “You shall give him a safe conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Muhammadanism”  (Sale).”

   In contrast, it is the Bible that requires the killing of those who worship unknown Gods and the apostate; and even to kill a “stubborn and rebellious son” and the blasphemer–(Deut; 13:5-16; 17:2-5; 21:18-21; Lev.24:11-16, 23).

    Islam does not require that homosexuals and lesbians be “killed.” Such men are to be given lashes–(Qur’an 4:16) and such women are to be imprisoned–(Qur’an 4:15). Not only does a woman’s conduct impact more on society and the family, Islam has conferred lofty titles on women –Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. As such her sentence for unorthodox sex is greater than that of the man. What is to borne in mind is, not only that Islam makes it almost impossible to prove charges of homosexuality –requiring four eye-witnesses to the act– unless homosexuals and lesbians engage in public Islam does not permit the peeping into other people’s house. It is the Bible that requires death for homosexuality–(Lev. 20:13).

   206.(133) Nonie Darwish notes: “Qur’an 9:95: “They will swear by Allāh unto you, when ye return unto them, that ye may let them be. Let them be, for lo! they are unclean, and their abode is hell.” Meaning Muslims should not let non-Muslims who pretend to believe (so they don’t get killed) be, and that they are unclean and should go to hell.” (p. 224).

   Response: What a maroon! You really do need to understand the Qur’an. Muhammad Ali explains: It is related that on his return from Tabuk, the Holy Prophet forbade the Muslims to have any intercourse with the hypocrites. This injunction was in obedience to the revelation which he had received during the journey, as is clearly shown in vv. 83, 84.”  Whereas the Prophet Mohammad preached the Qur’an openly and freely to all, in contrast, as already detailed, Jesus regarded non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and couched his sayings in parables so the “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be saved. (As stated, Nonie Darwish knows nothing about Islam and she knows even less about Christianity).

   207.(134) Nonie Darwish asserts that “Muslim scriptures” “command them to kill non-Muslims as a guarantee to go to heaven…Therefore the source of the problem must be addressed, and Western governments must take jurisdiction over selling and buying books that order the murder of their citizens, even if such books are called holy scriptures,” (p. 225)

   Response: In which event the Bible would have to be the first to go as it commands making slaves of “heathen” neighbor (which would entail killing if the neighbor resists); selling daughters into bondage (which would entail killing if the daughter resists or kills the father while he sleeps); and requires that enemies who do not want Christians to rule to be slain (in which event some two-thirds of the world would be slaughtered).

   If Muslim scriptures had “command them to kill non-Muslims as a guarantee to go to heaven” how is it there are still Coptic Christians in Egypt? And for certain every Muslim wants to go to heaven. (You really do need to talk/write less and think more).

   As shown the Qur’an/Islam does not order the murder of anyone, citizens or non-citizens. In any event you can even burn the Qur’an if you like (as some brainless Americans are said to have done), Muslims know the Qur’an by heart. Oh I forgot Christians would have no qualms in burning Muslims. They had quite a bit of practice with the Jews of 1400’s Vienna and in twentieth century Europe. 

   Since Muslim scriptures are to be based on the Qur’an, then no “Muslim scripture” based on the Qur’an can be shown to command Muslims to kill non-Muslims who have not first taken up arms against Muslims or have driven Muslims from our lands.

   There is no “hate speech in the Qur’an. Truth is not “hate”. Truth is not anti-Semitism. Truth is not “anti” anything. Truth is truth! (Detail these “hate speech” in the Qur’an and hadith).  

   It is the Bible that contains “hate speech.” Here is a sampling: 

   -it sanctions slavery–(Lev. 25:44)

  -regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine;” those not with Christians as being against Christians; and to slay enemies against their rule–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; 12:30; Luke 19:27);

   -speak in parables so non-Jews will not understand and be forgiven–(Mark 4:9-12);

   -sanctions selling daughters into bondage–(Ex. 21:7).

  -commands that woman be ruled over by her husband–(Gen. 3:16); and for her to be in silence and subjection–(1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; Eph. 5:22-23, 33);

   -regards woman as ‘transgressor,’ betrayer, and ‘defiler’ of man–(1Tim. 2:14; Ezek. 16:44; Rev. 14:1-4);

   -regards woman as an object of sexual release for the man–(1 Cor. 11:7-8; 11:9; 7:1-2);

   -woman can be beaten as a child can, to keep her from hell–(Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14; 1 Tim. 3:4; Heb. 12:6-8);

   -keeps woman in marriage misery all her life or risk being labeled “adulteress”–(Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18);

   -woman can be discarded if her husband thinks she is unclean–(Deut.24:1-4);

   -woman can be severely punished for walking provocatively (never mind her dressing provocatively)–(Isaiah 3:16-17).    

   208.(135) Nonie Darwish wrote:  “Yes, there is separation of church and state, but if the day arrives when the church orders the murder of non-Christians, then I will be the first one to demand the removal of such a notorious commandment from Christian literature.” (p. 228).

   Response: Then go grab your bull-horn and jump onto the paddy wagon. Your Bible/son of God (and even God as Christians say that Jesus is God) already commands the killing of non-Christians: “He that is not with me is against me,” “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should rule over them, bring hither and slay them before me”–(Matt.12:30; Luke 19:27). In fact, as already shown, your Bible/God not only commands the killing of non-followers, it has already massacred them, and even animals, just to take their lands.

   209.(136) Nonie Darwish suggested that a petition be presented to the American Congress “to require a disclaimer on all Muslim books sold in America; that includes every Qur’an, Hadith, or Sharia book and any text book that has verses or hadiths commanding the killing of apostates or non-Muslims. The disclaimer should read something like this:

“The calls for murder and violent jihad in this book are only metaphorical and should not be acted up against modern day Jews, Christians, atheists, or former Muslims. Any act of violence on the basis of such scriptures will be prosecuted under the law under the hate-crime laws of the United States of America.” (p. 228)

   Response: The Qur’an/Allāh/Islam does not call for the “murder” of anyone. Prove that it does! There is no “violent jihad;” Jihad and violence are incompatible. (For the various forms of JIHAD see item #8).

   Muslims do not need an arrogant, ignorant, self-aggrandizing Twentieth-century woman to dictate and impose on us which part(s) of the Qur’an is “metaphorical” and which is literal. Allāh, the All-Knowing Revealer informs us about this in the Seventh century in His Qur’an 3:7: He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allāh, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.”

   -There is nothing “metaphorical” about Jews scheming and kicking Palestinians out of their homes and lands and occupying Palestine, and slaughtering them to hold onto it.

   -There is nothing “metaphorical” about America stealing Palestine (through diplomatic thuggery at the U.N.) for Jews, and for more than six torturous decades have been aiding in this monumental and grotesque obscenity against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians.

   -There is nothing “metaphorical” about America running around like a “wild ass of a man” to control Muslim’s lands and oil (there is nothing “metaphorical” about America overthrowing some fourteen foreign governments –Hawaii; Cuba; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Nicaragua; Honduras; Iran; Guatemala; South Vietnam; Chile; Grenada; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq– as noted on the Internet, to protect her “interest”).

   And unless and until every grain of sand of Palestine is returned to Muslims and unless and until America ends her running around like a “wild ass of a man” to control Muslim lands and oil, Muslims have every right and all rights and the Highest Authority –the Divine Authority– to undertake the armed noble Jihad against America (not civilians) and the Jewish occupiers of Palestine. And whether Muslims live or die in this endeavor Jannah/Paradise is ours. And Jannah/Paradise is no “metaphor”!

   What you (Nonie Darwish, and Christians) need to do is put your face into your Bible and wail and gnash your teeth over its LITERAL commands to enslave “heathen;” to sell children and deal in human trafficking –“And I will SELL your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall SELL them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it”–Joel 3:8–; to wipe out everything that breathes just to occupy their lands; to slaughter all males, even little boys, and matron women and corral all the prepubescent “virgin” girls as SEX SLAVES; and over its brutal and rabid misogyny–CHRISTIANITY-WOMEN).

   Regarding forcing Islam onto people: Allāh already has this “disclaimer”:

   -“There is no compulsion in religion”–(Qur’an 2:256)   

   -“Clear proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a keeper over you”–(Qur’an  6:105)

   -“And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(Qur’an 10:99)

   -“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright”–(Qur’an 16:125)

   -“And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29) 

   -“and say: I believe in what Allāh has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you. Allāh is our Lord and your Lord. For us are our deeds; and for you your deeds. There is no contention between us and you”–(Qur’an  42:15)

   -“We know best what they say, and thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45

   -“We have truly shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful”–(Qur’an 76:3)

   -“Say: O disbelievers, I serve not what you serve, Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve, Nor shall I serve that which ye serve, Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve. For you is your recompense and for me my recompense”–(Qur’an 109:1-6).

   In contrast, what you, Ms. Darwish (and your fellows-in-cause), critically need to do is have the following pledge inserted at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution:

WE PLEDGE IN THE NAME OF GOD TO

OUR ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR VIOLATION

-We will not covet Muslims’ lands and oil and/or their other resource(s) and seek to exploit and/or control them

-We will not fabricate lie(s) or engage in deception(s) to bomb other nations for whatever reason(s)

-We will not overthrow any foreign government(s) that we do not like or that is not favorable to us; nor will we finance or support in any way any such action(s)

-We will not assassinate or be part of the assassination of any individual(s) in a foreign land 

SO HELP US GOD

And have the following disclaimer placed on the cover of every Bible of every denomination and at the entrance of every Church of every denomination in the world:

BE AWARE–THE BIBLE

   -God or Jesus did not say that mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve. To say that God put Adam’s/Eve’s sin onto others is to attribute injustice to God

   -God or Jesus did not say He sent Jesus to be killed for mankind’s sin(s). To say that God had Jesus killed for peoples’ sin(s) is to make God complicit in murder. John 3:16 is NOT about vicarious atonement; it is about miracles, much like the brass serpent of Moses had miraculous power –read chapter 3 from verse one. God says: “The father shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but EVERY MAN SHALL DIE FOR HIS OWN SIN”–(Deut; 24:16; Ezek; 18:20. 2 Chr. 25:4).

   -God or Jesus did not say that God incarnated Himself as Jesus. To say that God incarnated Himself as Jesus is to say that God was in Mary’s womb and came out her vagina. Mary could not be mother of God seeing that she was created by God and that God is the First and Creator of all and could not have a mother. God des not need to take forms to go any place or to do any thing: God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent.

  -God does not need to eat butter and honey in order to know to choose the good and avoid the evil. God is Omniscient–(Isaiah 7:14-15).

   -Jesus is NOT God. Only the NAME “Immanuel,” which Christians attribute to Jesus, is “interpreted” to mean “God with us”–(Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). 

   -Jesus is NOT son of God. He is only CALLED son of God–(Luke 1:35). God has several sons and daughters: Adam–(Luke 3:38); Solomon–(1 Chr. 28:6); David is begotten son of God–(Psalm 2:7); Israel–(Ex. 4:22); Ephraim–(Jer. 31:9); Children of Israel–(Hosea 1:10); Peacemakers(Matt. 5:9); The Righteous–(John 1:12; Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:1-2); All the sons of God–(Gen. 6:1-2; Job 38:7); Satan also is son of God–(Job 1:6).

   -Jesus did not say to teach the Gospels to all nations. The verses of Mark 16:9-20 and Matthew 28:19 are forgeries in the Bible.

   -God sent Jesus ONLY FOR JEWS: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”–(Matt. 10:5-6). “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”–(Matt. 15:24). “I pray for them (Jews): I pray not for the world”–(John 17:9). “Ye (Samaritans) worship ye know not what: we (Jews) know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews”–(John 4:21). In fact, Jesus’ mission was so solely and wholly to the Israelites that he considered non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and preached in parables so that the non-Jews would not understand and be saved: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine;” “And he (Jesus) said unto them (his followers), Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them (non-Jews) that are without (God), 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 should be forgiven them”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:9-12). And bear in mind that

“God’s anger is revealed from heaven

against all the sin and evil of the people

WHOSE EVIL WAYS PREVENT

THE TRUTH FROM BEING KNOWN

 (Rom. 1:18).

BE AWARE

BLIND FAITH IS NO PASSPORT TO PARADISE

–REASON IS THE DOOR TO GOD–

(ISAIAH 1:18)

“Like the devil when he says to man: Disbelieve.

But when he disbelieves,

he (the Devil) says: I am free of thee:

 surely I fear Allāh, the Lord of the worlds.”

(Qur’an 59:16)

(Invariably, whenever the above verse comes to mind my thoughts are drawn to the Pope. Wondering if in the privacy of his chambers he bows down to Allāh). 

   210.(137) Nonie Darwish notes from the Qur’an: “He (praised is He) prohibits killing the soul that God has forbidden (to kill) unless for just cause.” (p. 230)

   Response: This injunction by Allāh is in Qur’an 6:152; 17:33; 25:68. This verse does not sanction killing apostates and adulterers, etc. As already shown there is no death for apostasy and adultery. This verse is only about premeditated murder.

   The Saudi textbook statement that “major polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible” (that a Muslim can take the life and property of someone believed to be guilty of this “major polytheism”) is incorrect (unless the textbook means that if the polytheists first take up arms against Muslims in which case the Muslims will be defending themselves, then the enemy’s blood and wealth is permissible). The Prophet did not fight the polytheists for their wealth and property. The Prophet was given permission to fight a defensive fight because war was made on him: “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed;” “And fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allāh loves not the aggressors” –(Qur’an 22:39; 2:190).

   Shi’ah and Sufi Muslims worship of saints. Allāh says to pray to Him: And your Lord says: Pray to Me, I will answer you. Those who disdain My service will surely enter hell, abased”–(Qur’an 40:60); “Or, take they intercessors besides Allāh? Say: What! Even though they control naught, nor do they understand. Say: Allāh’s is the intercession altogether. His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. Then to Him you will be returned”–(Qur’an 39:43-44); and the Prophet Mohammad admonishes against taking the graves of prophets as places of worship–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #427. Vol. 2, #414, 425, 472. Abu Dawud Vol. 2, #3221).  

   Shi’ah and Sufi Muslims who visit shrines of saints for their intercession, though they are guilty of a serious sin, are still Muslims and are to be called to abandon their practice. Allāh says the dead knows nothing: He says, referring to those who are worshipped as Gods (including Christ), And those whom they call on besides Allāh created naught, while they are themselves created. Dead (are they), not living. And they know not when they will be raised;” “And they take besides Him gods who create naught, while they are themselves created, and THEY CONTROL FOR THEMSELVES NO HARM NOR PROFIT, and they control not death, nor life, nor raising to life”–(Qur’an 16:20-21; 25:3).

    These “saints” are dead and cannot hear and help themselves. Much less can they help the living. In fact, the living are to pray for the dead –to ask forgiveness for them and for Allāh to give them Jannatul-firdaus (the highest heaven). What then is the matter with the Imams of these Muslims? what are they teaching their followers? Do these Imams not know that such a practice is akin to idolatry and shirk (giving partners to Allāh)?

   As already noted, there are varying degrees of being a Muslim. Acceptance of the Holy Kalimah –there is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh– initiates one into Islam and, unless one worships another God than Allāh or renounces the Holy Kalimah, he is still a Muslim. Neither Allāh nor the prophet ordered the killing of those who seek intercession from saints, live ones or dead.

   Allāh says that only the Prophet Mohammad is given the right of intercession: “And those on whom they call upon besides Him (Allāh) control not intercession, but he (Mohammad) who bears witness to the Truth and they know (him)”–(Qur’an 43:86); “I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection)–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #429). If the people do not correct their un-Islamic practice of praying at the graves of saints (or any other) the authorities may elect to demolish these tombs. The Prophet forbade the building of structures over graves–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #3219).   

   211.(138) Nonie Darwish notes: “Qur’an 9:5, “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.” (p. 231)

   Response: This is what America and others have done/are doing to their enemies. This is what the Christian’s God (Jesus) commanded.(See item #205).

   The Christian’s God (Jesus) had mischievous children eaten by bears and He sent beasts and poisonous serpents against Jeshurun’s unGodly children–(Deut. 32:15:25; 2 Kings 2:22-24).

    Nonie Darwish continues: “Qur’an 98:6 says, “Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures.” (p. 231).

   Response: We will have to wait for the Hereafter to know if it is true that the disbelievers and the idolaters will be “in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein.” And, never mind the disbelievers and idolaters, Jesus (the Christian’s God) said that those who even call others “fool” will go to Hell: “but whoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire”–(Matt. 5:22. Interestingly, Jesus himself calls the Jews “fools” which would mean that, by his own words, Jesus also is heading for hell–Matt. 23:19). And Jesus said that this hell is an “everlasting” “furnace of fire” that “never shall be quenched” and in which there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (those who do not have teeth shall bear it on their gums).Moreover, Jesus not only poured the blood from Abel to Barachias into the hands of Jews, he also consigned them to the greater damnation of hell; is this Biblical “hate speech” of Jews? Is this “anti-Semitism”?

   The Qur’an consists of, exceeds, and supersedes all other Scriptures. Since no one can dispute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership and since no religion can be shown to be superior to, or equal with, Islam then what reason can one have for not accepting Islam/Mohammad? Are such rejecters then not “the worst of creatures”? How rightly then Allāh says:  “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”–(Qur’an 3:84). And the Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that a Jew or Christian (from the shepherd down to the sheep) who rejects him will go to Hell–(Muslim Vol. 1; #284).

(While all prophets were Muslims –submitting to the  will of God– and taught Islam –submission to God– their teachings were limited to their respective people and for a limited time. No one gave the name of a religion or claimed his mission to be final; but rather spoke of a great teacher yet to come who all are to follow and who will guide into “all truth”–Deut. 18:15, 18-19; John 14:16; 16:13. This is because Islam was perfected and God’s favor to man was completed only through the Prophet Mohammad: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and competed My favor to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion” –(Qur’an 5:3). Not only are all previous Scriptures now obsolete but there is no wisdom in following a book or person that did not give “all truth.” Moreover, since the original of those Books are not with us, and those that are with us have been adulterated. The Bible itself conveys that it has been falsified; God revealed to the prophet Jeremiah to convey to the people:“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie”–Jeremiah 8:8. New American Standard Bible, 1985 edition).

   Nonie Darwish continues: “Hadith 9:57 states: Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (p. 231)

   Response: (See item #26 for apostasy). As pointed out, the Qur’an was revealed over a period of 23 years. Until and unless he received Divine revelation in a matter the Prophet followed the Torah. The Torah required death for apostasy as well as for other sins as already shown. The Qur’an as already shown does not require death for apostasy. This is one of the verses that the Qur’an has abrogated–(Qur’an 2:106 and 16:101). The Prophet taught only according to Divine revelation: “Say: I warn you only by revelation;” “I follow naught but that which is revealed to me;” “Your companion errs not, nor does he deviate. Nor does he speak out of desire. It is nothing but revelation that is revealed”–(Qur’an 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4).

   212.(139) Nonie Darwish: “Not only is hate speech and anti-Semitism taught in some Islamic schools and mosques, but it is also creeping into institutions of higher learning in the United States.” Listen to the words of an invited speaker at the University of California at Irvine: “We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings. You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew, and this has been demonstrated time and time again in Occupied Palestine. And now they have American diplomats and politicians and decision makers and strategists in their pockets.” With the above rhetoric, American institutions of higher learning are being infected with culture of the Arab Street in Gaza and West Bank. That is a clear example that the seventh-century fatwa against Jews is following them right here to America.” (pp. 231-232)

   Response: Patent Rubbish! What about the efforts that are being made in American institutions to silence criticism of “Israel”? Where is your mouth on this, “muzzled by the food it eats”?The intelligent and the civilized and the democratic approach are to ask the speaker to produce proof of his claims. If he cannot then he will be exposed as a liar! This is a greater victory than trying to silence him. But you know you cannot contradict him because he has proof of Jewish inhumanities in “Occupied Palestine” so you try to discredit him.

   How can Jews “co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings” when Jews consider themselves God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others, that they are the “the most superior of all races” and as Prof. Noam Chomsky notes:  “Zionism is thereby conceived as the doctrine that Israel must be accorded rights beyond those of any other state; it must maintain control of occupied territories, thus barring any meaningful form of self-determination for Palestinians; and it must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. It is perhaps of some interest that those who declare themselves “supporters of Israel” insist on the validity of the notorious UN resolution declaring Zionism to be racist.”149 Clearly, a state (and a people of such mis-shapen mentality) that stands on such a policy of discrimination and “superiority” can never “co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings.” And such a “racist” state certainly cannot be trumpeted as a “democracy.”From Jewish’s own declarations, the “invited speaker” was correct! You need to remove the rose-“colored glasses of those spectacles” that have been set astride your nose.150  

   There was no seventh-century fatwa or any fatwa against Jews. As already shown, Seventh-century Jews suffered because of their treachery. Modern day Jews are “hated” because of their occupation of Palestine and their atrocities against Palestinians. No one would accept for himself and herself the monumental and grotesque obscenity that was perpetrated, and continues to be perpetrated for more that six torturous decades now, against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians. There are many non-Muslims (Jews among them) who are not only critical but vociferous about Jewish injustice against Palestinians; have they also a “fatwa” against Jews. Grow up!  Truth is not “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” Truth is truth. Those who want their virtue extolled and their vice suppressed need to cultivate dignity and maturity.

   213.(140) Nonie Darwish: “Quite obviously –and I cannot emphasize it enough– the causes of Islamic fanaticism, zealotry, and suicide terrorism are rooted in the Qur’an.” (p. 232).

   Response: More claptrap! The only thing “obvious” is your ignorance of the Qur’an and of Islam in general.As shown there is no “fanaticism, zealotry, and suicide terrorism” or any terrorism in Islam. To charge that Allāh Who gives man freedom and requires only the teaching of the Qur’anic message (not forcing it) and enjoins justice even against one’s self and to not let hatred of people cause us to transgress, to not act corruptly in the earth, and that all religions are for him, that He would enjoin “fanaticism, zealotry, and suicide terrorism” is a betrayal of one’s gross ignorance of Islam or bigotry. Or both! That the Qur’an/Islam is “peaceful” has already been shown. To substantiate her ridiculous claim that “fanaticism, zealotry, and suicide terrorism are rooted in the Qur’an” Nonie Darwish references Qur’an 3:169; 4:74; 4:95; 9:111. Which I will show in detail:  

   -Qur’an 3:169: And think not of those who are killed in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they are alive being provided sustenance from their Lord.”  Is there any one better to serve than God?  Didn’t the Israelites slaughtered and occupied the lands of others in the service of God? and how were they rewarded? Wasn’t Jesus serving God when he commanded that his enemies who did not want him to rule be brought and slain? and how was Jesus rewarded? according to the Gospels he is sitting “on the right hand of God.” (Luke 19:27; Mark 16:19. God sitting on the right hand of God??? This is one of the lunacies that Nonie Darwish and Christians want Muslims and others to mutilate our intelligence and follow). 

   -Qur’an 4:74: So let those fight in the way of Allāh who sell this world’s life for the Hereafter. And whoever fights in the way of Allāh, be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” It is without doubt that all devotees of God are expecting a better life in the Hereafter. And makes sacrifice(s) to attain the best/highest rewards of this coming life. Is there a higher cause to fight for than in the cause of truth and justice? Do soldiers not kill and get killed? Whether a soldier in the service of his country is slain or victorious is he not honored, and even rewarded? Where then is the “fanaticism, zealotry, and suicide terrorism” in Muslims making the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of truth and justice and receiving the rewards of the Hereafter?

   -Qur’an 4:95: The holders-back from among the believers, not disabled by injury, and those who strive hard in Allāh’s way with their property and their persons, are not equal. Allāh has made the strivers with their property and their persons to excel the holdersback a (high) degree. And to each Allāh has promised good. And Allāh has granted to the strivers above the holders-back a mighty reward.” Are draft-dodgers and deserters equal to the soldiers who face the enemy? Are these dodgers and deserters rewarded as the soldiers are? 

   -Qur’an 9:111 (see item #175).

   In contrast, as appended to in preceding pages, “fanaticism, (and) zealotry” “are rooted in the” Bible. In fact, as shown, evil, intolerance, backwardness, naked hate, and misogyny “are rooted” in the Bible/Christianity.    

   214.(141). Nonie Darwish: “As a journalist in Egypt in the early 1970’s, I met a few American journalists who told me that: “Arab media was government controlled.” (p. 232).

   Response: Not to support the Arab media being “government controlled.” But did these journalists knew or told you that the American public is victim of thought control? (You need to read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism In The Real World).

   215.(142) On p. 241, Nonie Darwish charged:

               (a) “What the West views as virtue, Islam views as an opportunity.”

               Response: For instance? please give examples.

               (b)While the West values assimilation, Islam values segregation. (Please note: do not confuse “West” with Christianity; or confuse Secularism with Christianity).

               Response:Islam does not prohibit social intercourse with non-Muslims. Muslims do not have to engage in intoxicants, “parties” and illicit relations to be assimilated in society. If this is what you mean by assimilation there are, without doubt, Westerners who also avoid such activities. If you mean mode of dress, the British was in India for some two hundred years, find out how many English men wore kurta and dhoti and how many English women wore sari and lengha and shalwar kameez and urhni –hair veil; the British was also in the middle East for nearly a hundred years, find out how many wore jubbah and keffayah.  When you went to Egypt on your visit did you assimilate?

               (c) While the West values freedom of speech, Islam prohibits asking questions.

Response: Being a democracy, Islam also values freedom of speech as evidenced during the Early Caliphate. (See items #75, 165, 169, 170). To emphasize, the following reference notes that Islam teaches that “Learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning: (Abu Naeem) MM1-361-112 W.” (i.e. Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p.361, #112W).

               (d) While the west advocates pacifism, Islam calls for war.

Response:Proven Balderdash. As shown, Islam prohibits all aggression and requires Muslims to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy. If the West advocates pacifism, why then is the “West” still arming itself beyond her head? Why not lead by example? The “West” wants to render the world, especially Muslims, docile and pacifistic so she can run around the world like a “wild ass of a man” overthrowing governments and controlling other people’s lands and lives and resources to safeguard its “interest.” (The West can have “interest” in other people’s country; the people cannot have “interest” in their own country. Let’s see you and the West accept this crud for yourselves). There is no militancy in Islam; there is no pacifism either; there is the noble Jihad when needed. The West wants others to be “pacifist” so she can lord, and lord easily, over them.

               (e) While the West respects all religions, Islam advocates killing or subjugating those who believe in other religions.            

Response: Double balderdash! already proven. Allāh raised prophets among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies, prohibits compulsion, and declares that all religions are for Him. Allāh gave man the liberty to follow what he chooses; and it is because of this freedom he/she will be made to account for following and attributing falsehood to Him. And He requires us to govern by reason–(Qur’an 16:125; Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Blind faith is no passport to Paradise: Reason is the door to God!)    

   These alleged Islamic opposites of the “West” are the terms of Christianity, as verified by her history and scripture.

   Contrary to your wild claim. Western culture and political institutions” are not based on “Judeo-Christian ethics and values.” They are based on secularism. The Judaic idea that they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others, that relegates woman to a life of servitude and her daughter into bondage and enslaves “heathen,” and the Christian ideas that non-Jews are “dogs” and “swine,” regards woman as a mere object for sex and a “defiler” and betrayer of man, encourages lies in all avenues to avoid being thrown in jail by the “adversary,” and promote backwardness cannot produce institutions based on “ethics and values.”  They are themselves devoid of “ethics and value.” It is Islam, as shown, that has “ethics and value.” In fact, not even Christian nations find anything useful in the Bible. That is why they had to torpedo it and turn to Islamic lines so they could make material progress. Glory, Praise, and thanks to Allāh for sending us Mohammad!

   216.(143) Nonie Darwish: “Western culture has produced the most humane, fair, and equal system of government and most prosperous society ever in the history of man.” (p. 242)

   Response: This is why honest and decent citizens have to hide  in gated communities with rocket-launchers etc;  while criminals roam free; where relatives of murdered victims have to pay for the upkeep of their killers, even though these relatives might have barely enough for themselves. (See item #65 for some of the “dead weight” of society).

   -Government(s) that has two sets of laws –one for the diplomatic elite (diplomatic immunity) and one for others– could hardly be trumpeted as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that steals Palestinians land and gave it to Jews could hardly be crowned as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that overthrows other people’s government (as noted on the Internet) –Hawaii; Cuba; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Nicaragua; Honduras; Iran; Guatemala; South Vietnam; Chile; Grenada; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq– and try to control their lands and resources could hardly be crowned as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that engage in, or aid or abet, torture –water-boarding etc; and the disgraceful Abu Ghraib tortures in Iraq  and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba– could hardly be praised as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that jails people –and even mere suspects– without charge and/or trial and/or without seeing their accuser and evidence against them could hardly be labeled as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that ravage and devastate other people’s lives and lands –Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan– in their quest for world domination/hegemony could hardly be touted as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that enforces U.N. Resolutions against one country and not against others could hardly be esteemed as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   -Government(s) that takes the right to have whatever technology and armaments it chooses and dictates what others are not to have can hardly be crowned as “the most humane, fair, and equal system.”

   In fact such Government(s) can be said to be arrogant, hypocritical, tyrannical, and “Satanic”/evil. Clearly, lofty words have lost their value in some culture and governments. And robbed of their worth by some individuals.

   True, “western culture” have produced “prosperous society” (and Islamic culture prospered centuries while the West was still groping in darkness and in the field of nihility). The “western culture” has also given us what may be said to be the worst destructions in the history of man –two World Wars; nuclear wipe-out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (some of the smaller ravages have already been mentioned); and have stockpiled more conventional, nuclear and biological destroyers than there are people on the earth. And are now hustling against each other to weaponize the sky. And we worry about the flu and West Nile virus.

   217.(144) “Evil ideologies cannot simply claim to be inspired by a God and expect the West to consider it a religion.” (p. 243).

   Response: Absolutely right! As you are alluding to Islam, prove the “evil” in Islam. I have already shown the “evil” in Judaism and Christianity, in which event you have to advocate and vociferate for the “West” to eradicate them.  As shown there is no evil and discrimination in Shari’ah. Shari’ah is the Supreme System. A system crafted by Allāh, the Omniscient and Just God, could not be otherwise.

   218.(145) Nonie Darwish: “If Muslim governments and citizens have access to build Mosques in America, then they must give the U.S. government and citizens the same access in their countries.” (p. 250).

   Response: A fair trade. Though it is NOT a “Christian” government but a Secular government that gives Muslims this “access.” Christians/Christianity, as her history and scripture attest, would not give Muslims (or any other) this right. However, along with these same rights that you advocate that U.S. government and citizens are to receive, you are to equally advocate that the U.S. government and citizens give to Muslim governments and citizens the right to bomb America in turn, overthrow her government, conspire with others to carry out clandestine activities against her (as in her conspiring with Britain and overthrowing Iran’s Mossadegh government), and to control her resources.

   219.(146) Nonie Darwish: “Many Western converts eventually leave Islam when they discover the ugly other side of the coin in Muslim life; three out of four Western converts, according to some estimates, eventually leave Islam. It is time for Europe and America to reach into their rich Judeo-Christian heritage and champion those values that make them strong and can sustain and give purpose to the youth of the West.” (p. 252)

   Response: The “three out of four Western converts” that “eventually leave Islam,” either did not study Islam or did not have a knowledgeable teacher. (There is no religion that can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam).

   As shown there is no “ugly side” to Islam. It is Muslims that have an “ugly side;” the un-Islamic works of those who are misguided or unschooled   

   What rich Judeo-Christian heritage? As shown in this presentation there is nothing “rich” from the “Judeo-Christian heritage.”

   -There is nothing “rich” about pluming one’s self as God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others –attributing injustice to God;

   -there is nothing rich in enslaving “heathen” neighbors and selling daughters into bondage.

   -There is nothing rich about God putting one man’s sin onto others and then having an innocent man murdered for everybody’s sin –attributing injustice to God and making him complicit in murder;

   -there is nothing “rich” about stuffing God in a woman’s belly and drawing Him out her vagina to teach man –a baboon is a baboon no matter what cosmetics surgery and silk suit you wrap on him: his brain and mentality is still baboon;

   -there is nothing “rich” in regarding those who are not of your race as “dogs” and “swine” and preaching in “parables” so these “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be converted and saved;

   -there is nothing “rich about a God and son of God needing to eat butter and honey so that he may know to choose the good and refuse the evil;

   -there is nothing “rich” about the Book that has nothing to foster material progress;

   -there is nothing “rich” about the Book that relegates woman to her lifetime of ruler-ship under her husband and in silence and “all subjection” and views her only as object of sex and as transgressor, defiler and betrayer of man; and who can be discarded just for being unclean. 

   The “Judeo-Christian heritage” has no meaningful “purpose” to offer Western youths, or adults (or anyone else). What the West and her youths are enjoying are the bequeaths of Secularism influenced by Islamic teachings. Islam is the only Divinely chosen Religion and Shari’ah is the Supreme System. Rather than blindly follow their misguided leaders and ignorant writers “the youth of the West” (and also Muslims) need to study the Qur’an for themselves; and the best way to begin this is to obtain a copy of Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an which can be viewed, and perhaps downloaded, at: www.muslim.org (Muhammad  Ali’s comprehensive work The Religion of Islam has recently been translated into Arabic and can be obtained online).

  220.(147) Nonie Darwish: “Muslims are not confident that Islam will survive without the sword and the harsh punishments of Sharia.” (p. 253)

   Response: Muslims who are of this view are like you –they do not know Islam. That charge that Islam was spread by the sword has already been slashed. Mohammad did not enforce Islam. As shown, Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Message. Had the opponents not taken up the sword in offence Mohammad would not have taken up the sword in defense.  The doctrines of Islam are not only conducive to “reason” –the factor through which God calls on man to belief–  but there is nothing omitted from the Qur’an that are needed for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment. Moreover, the Qur’an consists of teachings of other Scriptures that are good for all times and has teachings that are not met with in past Scriptures –the Qur’an contains the “all truth” that Christ prophesied that the Comforter will bring, and which Comforter all are to follow. Thus, the Qur’an consists of, exceeds, and supersedes all Scriptures. In effect, the Bible and all other Scriptures are rendered OBSOLETE.

   There are no “harsh punishments” in Shari’ah. There are “harsh punishments” in Christianity. In fact, as already detailed, there are lethal punishments in Christianity; even the damsel who is unfortunate to have lost her “tokens of virginity” through act(s) other than sex is “stoned” to death and branded a “whore”:

“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). (This is one of several laws of the Bible that the Qur’an has abrogated. See ABROGATION IN THE QUR’AN).

   221.(148) ND: “Without the jihadist sword, death sentences for apostasy, and blasphemy laws, Islam would not have grown the way it did worldwide and would have probably vanished from history’s memory of religious movements.” (p. 254).

   Response: Utter bunkum! This presentation has obliterated this chronic and timeless crockery. In contrast it is because of the sword that Christianity has survived. After sucking every thing pagan, had Christianity not put the blade to the “heathen” breast from which she nourished Christianity would have died in babe-hood. (See item #11).  

   222.(149) Nonie Darwish quotes the words of an “Author Unknown”: “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.” (p. 257).

   Response: This is a classical depiction of Muslims. What is to be borne in mind, however, is that it is Muslims who have decayed; not Islam. The Divine system can never suffer decay. This Divine throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend. The only requirement is for us to return to the call of Allāh. To restate, as the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.” (God brings man into disgrace in that He withholds His favor. Thus, in effect, man disgraces himself).

   223.(150) Nonie Darwish: “Muslims need to hear that the human right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is above the right of any religion that wants to take it away.” (p. 257).

   Response: This is what the Palestinians have been/are being denied. Their “right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” has been taken by the Jewish “religion” that they claim gives them the right to possess Palestine –God gave us this land! Yeah right! And I am Messiah II. (U.S. President Harry Truman must be God of the Jews; and God must have used American diplomatic thuggery at the U.N. to wrestle PALESTINE from the Palestinians).

   As preceding materials have shown Allāh/Islam gives man “right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” regardless of his belief and non-belief. And it is because of this freedom man will be called to account for his disbelief  in Allāh –and no religion can be shown to be superior to, or equal with, Islam– and of his deeds.

   Regarding atheism: We would have to compromise our reasoning to accept that man could have evolved by chance from a microscopic cell into such a magnificent form of symmetry, beauty and precision –giving bones and flesh and limbs; limbs having joints that not only swivel but are locked in place and with precision and smoothness; and bones and organs clothed in flesh, and the bones and flesh professionally beautified in skin. With each and every part: feet, hands, ears, eyes, mouth etc., all formed in the same location on each and every human being; and with both eyes of the same color and shade, with each and every part knowing where on the body it has to be formed;  furnished with a set of wondrous teeth, even, and varied for cutting, tearing and grinding food; and endowed with a digestive system, organs for breathing, consuming and evacuating –separating nourishment from waste–; given a mind, brain and heart a. self-propelling device and pumping incessantly for up to a hundred years and perhaps even without need for servicing; and instilled with emotions; endowed with the faculties of reasoning; and given sight, hearing, and speech; equipped with various taste-buds; instilled with carnal passion to ensure the need for companionship and equipped with complimentary genitals and reproductive systems and with regenerative cells for their propagating; provided with mammary glands and milk for the sustenance of the off-springs; given wisdom; intricate networks of vessels, and blood; provided with a unique set of fingerprints and toe-prints never duplicated, and nails to strengthen fingers and toes. This engineering marvel could not have come into existence by chance. This remarkable creature could only be the handiwork of the Master Designer called God.

   While in creationism man is equipped with the capacity of wisdom (which manifests as he matures), in chance man must not only evolve physically, but also mentally.  If the physical came by chance, the mental must also come by chance. This would mean that chance has the ability to fashion the physical as well as the abstract. Then there is the soul, and the unseen beings –angels and spirits– which must also have to come into existence by chance. (Devils are unseen, yet it is accepted that they possess, and are exorcised from, humans. It is not incredible then to accept the existence of angels and spirits).  Since the physical is composed of cells what is the unseen composed of? It is not reasonable that mere chance could evolve beings visible and some invisible.

   Neither is it reasonable that chance could instill in plants the intricate system of photosynthesis to purify the air. Nor could it dictate that some creatures produce their young through eggs and others in the womb; for kangaroos to carry its young in a pouch; bees to seek nectar and make honey in their bellies; birds and butterflies to migrate (and with a sense of direction) for the winter; instill organization in ants; birds to emit sweet, powerful sounds; and provide different kinds and varieties of fruits and flowers; equip the porcupine with quills, the skunk with a spray as defense, vipers with venom; and instill in spiders the capability of spinning webs (which are “geometrically perfect” and whose “fragility cannot be imitated by man”).151 Such capabilities cannot be a chance happening: it could only be acquired through the design of a Super Power–God.    

   Chance would also have to equip  the bat with sonar in order to navigate and furnish it with the power of flight through wings of skin instead of feathers; it would have to instill the genetic code into the peacock  to restore its color pattern which is a “blend of delicate art, careful selection and superb merging” after molting; it would have to provide the locust with a mouth “so appropriate to its ways of nourishment, its sharp jaws are so useful to eat grass and leaves and its artistically delicate but fairly strong legs are powerful enough to support its body on the blades of grass and leaves of trees”; it would have to design the ant –“its alimentary canal, the places where food enters and refuse leaves its body, the cartilage of its ribs which protects its respiratory and circulatory systems and its stomach, its head with its pinpoint eyes and its organs and their connection with brain and body, you will be struck at the marvels of creation in this small body and you will not find it easy to describe and explain them.” “The details of living organisms are wonderfully small and delicate and amazingly intricate: and the differences in the organs of various forms of life are minute but precise.”152 It is clear that chance cannot bring about such marvels. (See CREATION OR EVOLUTION).

   224.(151) Nonie Darwish quotes from Thomas Jefferson: “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” (p. 257).

   Response: Absolutely! Though it may depend on what some of those “written laws” are (to covet and plunder are not “virtues” high or low). Isn’t this what Palestinians are trying to do reclaim/preserve/”saving” their country?  If it works or can work for Thomas Jefferson and Americans why deny it to the Palestinians? If man would give to others the rights he exact for himself –and which the Qur’an/Islam requires– the world would not be wobbly like drunken rats.        

I bear witness: There is no God but Allāh!

And I bear witness: Mohammad is the

Messenger of Allāh!

From Allāh we came,

and to Allāh we shall return!

*

APPENDIX I

CHRISTIAN’S DESPERATION

It was said to me that there is an Arab TV channel that features Christians posing as Muslim-converts to Christianity to entice Muslims to convert to Christianity. I have also heard of Christians giving money to a poor Muslim [improving his condition] to convert, so as to influence other Muslims in his area to convert to Christianity. And aforetime there was what was known as “rice” Christians –using food as weapon to convert the hungry to Christianity.

   And many years ago, during an in-house presentation, it was stated that in India Christians are giving apples to poor children and telling them that Jesus sent it. What a maroon! Jesus could not find figs for himself on earth to eat and he is sending apples from heaven to others –this Christian’s God/son of God was not only ignorant of the season for figs; he was so disappointed and despondent at his lack of fore-knowledge that fig was not in season and so frustrated at his powerlessness to produce fruit he cursed the helpless and blameless fig tree to death–(Mark 11:11-14, 20-21. Please note: this is the Christians’ Jesus; for the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an).

   And Ahmed Deedat has shown in his booklet Is the Bible God’s Word? that whereas the word “VIRGIN” in Isaiah 7:14 has been replaced with the phrase “a young woman” in the RSV Bible; the word “BEGOTTEN” of “begotten son” of John 3:16, has been “excised;” the verse of 1-John 5:7 which speaks of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [the Trinity] “has also been scrapped from the RSV” Bible; and the verses of Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51 which refer to the Ascension of Jesus were “expunged” but later “restored to the text,” Deedat notes that while these terms have been “unceremoniously excised” from English Bibles, they are retained in the Bible’s nearly 1500 other non-English languages. Such is Christian’s desperation and deception to snare the innocent natives into eating the “body” and drinking the mythical “blood” of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism). This must be the lowest depths of spiritual depravity.

   But this is hardly surprising. People who would adulterate the Book of God –the very God from Whom they seek their daily bread, and on Whose “right hand” they want to sit– would probably do anything else. And considering that PAUL who not only forged his own “gospel” but as he confessed caught people through “lie,” “crafty”ness, and “guile,” Christians seem to be imitating Paul in their mission of propagating falsehood and blasphemy.

As noted above, Ahmed Deedat points out that the Ascension of Jesus was expunged but restored to the next. Not only did Jesus not give “all truth” (leaving it to the Comforter, Mohammad, to give “all truth”John 14:16; 16:13), God did not send Jesus to the Black and the White and the Brown and the Yellow and the Red. God sent Jesus ONLY FOR JEWS; as Jesus himself declared: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”–(Matt. 15:24); “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”–(Matt. 10:5-6);  “I pray for them (JEWS): I pray NOT for the world”–(John 17:9); “For the Son of man is come to seek and save that (JEWS) which was lost” (of which some ten of these Jewish tribes were said to be in Kashmir; Jesus is noted to have traveled to India)153–(Luke 19:10; Matt.18:11). And he (Jesus) considered non-Jews (which includes Nonie Darwish) “dogs” and “swine”: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26); and he told the Samaritan woman: “Ye worship ye know not what: we (Jews) know what we worship: for salvation is of the JEWS”–(John 4:21). In fact, Jesus’ mission was so wholly and solely to the Israelites that he spoke in parables so the non-Jews would not understand and be saved: after relating the parable of the sower to the people Jesus said to them: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;” and, afterwards, when he (Jesus) was alone with the Israelites they asked him about the meaning of the parable: “And he said unto them, Unto you (who have God) it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them (non-Jews) that are without (God), 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 should be forgiven them”–(Mark 4:9-12) –the Good News Bible put it even more clearly: “You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God,” Jesus answered. “But the others, who are on the outside, hear all things by means of parables, so that, ‘They may look and look, yet NOT see; they may listen and listen, yet NOT understand. For if they did, they would turn to God, and he would forgive them.’” In other words though the non-Jews (who may be sincere seekers of God) have the faculties of sight and hearing and can see and hear, he (Jesus) spoke in parables so that they would not understand his words because he did not want them to accept God and have their sins forgiven.What a ghastly horribly sickening thing to do. (As prophet, Jesus could not turn away anyone; this is why he indulged non-Jews; but he could avoid them, which he did, as is evident from his admonition to his disciples not to preach to non-Jews, and from his speaking in parables so that they would not understand). This statement by Jesus also proves that Jesus did NOT come to save sinners. The claim that after his make-believe resurrection Jesus ordered that the Gospel be preached to the world, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, in response to Christian “mis-statements” on Islam,  notes in his Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London (1926):

   “The concluding eleven verses of St. Mark-(16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew-(28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS (manuscripts). The fact was discovered by the first translator of the Bible into English and they made a marginal note in their version of the Bible which continued for some time. But we do not find the said note in any of the copies now published by the said society(Foreign Mission Society). Is it fair and honest to keep others in darkness as to the true value of the contents of the Bible?The reader must know thatconcluding portion of St. Mark and the verse in St. Matthew are spurious and a subsequent addition. But I am afraid the Foreign Mission would not allow the correction. It would tell against their very Mission, if they eliminate the verse from St. Matthew; they lose the only pillar that supports the structure of the Trinity. No other verse in the whole Scripture speaks of it. The said eleven verses of St. Mark are the only justification for the existence of the Foreign Mission. You, as well as I, know, my Lord, that the call to Jesus came solely and wholly from Judaism. He came only to gather the scattered sheep and would not give the children’s bread to the dogs, the world beyond the Israelites. The Foreign Mission is a mere trespass on lands forbidden by the Master. It transcends the limit marked by Jesus. Throughout his life the Gentiles and others did not concern him: they were the swine. Then came the make-believe Resurrection, and they say the Master changed his mind as to his mission and ordered it to be carried to the four corners of the world (indicating that he was unsure of his mission), but this all depends upon the questionable verses of St. Mark, and hence their retention  in the Bible. St. Matthew is no authority on this point. The word “nations” there is a mistranslation and a wrong substitute for “the tribes”–the rest of the Jewish tribes scattered all over the world. This being the case, the Mission cannot afford to eliminate the verses from their version, nor will they put marginal notes, as did the old versions, to show the true nature of the verses.154 It would weaken the cause and show the futility of their status, since in carrying on evangelical work in the non-Christian world (in the non-Jewish world, the Bible/Christ is only for Jews)155 they are acting against the express admonition of the Master. It may that reasons other than religion are at the back of it all, and goading their activities, but decency, if not religion, assuredly demands the publishing of things as they are.”(pp.31-32). (Such is Christian’s deception and desperation to snare the unschooled and the unthinking into drinking the mythical blood and eating the body of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism). Utterly disgraceful and unGodly! It is doubtful that a man of God would make forgeries in a Book of God, and even yet proclaim it to be Book of God. Christians adulterate their Word of God and then have the arrogance and the audacity to turn around and ask this very God to give them their daily bread. In fact, they not only turn around and ask God to give them their daily bread, they even pray to him to have Muslims (and others) follow them in their wickedness and blasphemy. Sadly, some Muslims do apostatize and follow them. And Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix.

Recently, the Egyptian government was reported to have charged some seven individuals living abroad over the MOHAMMAD MOVIE (Innocence of Muslims) that charges the Prophet Mohammad as being “a fraud, a womanizer and a madman.” Prophets of God are ambassadors/representatives of God on earth. And denigrating a prophet of God is tantamount to denigrating God. Though Islam does not require prosecuting denigrators –though Muslims are to invite them to prove their charges; and for certain they cannot prove any charges against Allāh, the Prophet, Islam, and the Qur’an– it is rather amusing that one would denigrate a prophet of God and seek human protection from reprisal (though as stated Islam does not require any reprisal). The question is who would protect such denigrator(s) from God?  

Though Christians reject Mohammad as Prophet of God, Christians cannot refute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership. Of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation, Jesus included, Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim; the Qur’an –with its PROPHECIES [which have already manifested]; SCIENTIFIC