In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
“Now They Call Me Infidel”
“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”
“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
“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,
(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).
NOW THEY CALL ME INFIDEL
1. ND (Nonie Darwish) wrote: “My mother and grandmother continually reminded us what the Koran says about basad, which is envy. The evil from others, we were told, can take away the good things in life that God gives us.” (p. 3; also p. 26).
Response: There is merit in what your elders said. It is Jewish “envy” of Palestinians/Arabs land that led to the theft of Palestine. Jewish “envy” for Arabs/Muslims’ lands led to diabolical plots and executions to satisfy this “envy.” Ilan Pappe, “Israeli historian,” notes in his revealing book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the methods “employed” “to forcibly evict” the native Palestinians were “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning;”and that at the end of their “mission” which took “six months” to complete: “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.” (pp. xii, xiii). “Ethnic cleansing” is not only a crime against humanity, it is a crime against God.
It is “envy” by Britain, France and Russia that saw the dissecting of the Middle east after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It is “envy” by Britain, France and Russia and America that drives their “buzzardry” for Muslim oil and other resources.
“Envy” is common in society. There are individuals (such as chronic thieves) when they know you have something they would like to have and they do not have the resource(s) to acquire it legally (or they just want to have what you own so that they can be parasite on you), they steal or try to steal it from you. And they do not care if they kill, maim, or disfigure you in the process. It is preposterous to cerebrate that Allāh would instruct Muslims to guard against those who “envy” (which is a sin) and yet allow Muslims to “envy” others.
2. On her father being assigned to Gaza, Occupied Palestine, ND wrote about her mother that: “as an obedient Egyptian wife she knew it was her duty to go with her husband. As did everyone in our culture, she subscribed to the fatalistic view that all was in Allāh’s hands.” (pp. 3-4).
Response: As if Christian Women are not to be obedient to their husbands: as shown, Christian women are mandated to a life of subjugation under her husband.While everything is indeed in “Allāh’s hands” as He alone is the ultimate Power (and even Christians believe that God can do anything), and whereas man can have only what God gives as He alone can give sustenance (and which teaching is echoed by John the Baptist in John 3:27 that “A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven”), there is no “fatalism” or predestination of man’s actions in Islam. Muhammad Ali notes:
“A great deal of misunderstanding prevails about the doctrine of predestination and the absolute decree of good and evil by God. It is necessary first to understand the correct meaning of the Arabic words qadar and taqdir –the ideas commonly associated with their meaning being un-known both to the Qur’an and to Arabic lexicology. Qadar and taqdir, according to Raghib, mean the making manifest of the measure (kamiyya) of a thing, or simply measure. In the words of the same authority, God’s taqdir of things is in two ways, by granting qudra, i.e., power, or by making them in a particular measure and in a particular manner, as wisdom requires. An example of this is given in the taqdir of the date-stone, out of which it is the palm only that grows, not an apple or olive tree, or in the taqdir of the sperm of man, out of which grows man only, not any other animal. Taqdir is therefore the law or the ordinance or the measure which is working throughout the creation; and this is exactly the sense in which the word is used in the Qur’an.” (The Religion of Islam, pp. 309, 310. Emphasis, added) It is the laws accorded to nature/creation that are predestined.
The Polytheists claim that Allāh, God, is responsible for the actions of man is rejected by Allāh, God, Himself: “Those who are polytheists say: If Allah pleased, we would not have set up (aught with Him), nor our fathers, nor would we have made anything unlawful. Thus did those before them reject (the truth) until they tasted Our punishment. Say, Have you any knowledge so you would bring it forth to Us? You only follow a conjecture and you only tell lies. Say, Then Allah’s is the conclusive argument; so if He had pleased, He would have guided you all”– (Qur’an 6:149, 150). Muhammad Ali explains:
“The polytheists’ contention here is that what they do is in accordance with the will of God, and this is condemned as a mere conjecture and a lie. And against it, two arguments are adduced. The first is that previous people were punish-ed when they persisted in their evil courses; if what they did was because God had so willed it, He would not have punished them for it. The second is that God had never said so through any of His prophets: “Have you any knowledge with you so you should bring it forth to Us?” And in the verse that follows, the argument is carried further: “If he had willed, He would have guided you all.” The conclusion is clear. If it were the Divine will that people should be compelled to one course that would have been the course of guidance. But men are not compelled to accept even the right way; much less could they be compelled to follow the wrong course. This is clearly laid down: “We have truly shown the way, he may be thankful or unthankful” (76:3). And again: “The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve” (18:29). The Divine will is therefore exercised in the raising up of prophets, and in the pointing out of the courses of good and evil, and human will is exercised in the choice of one course or the other.” (The Religion of Islam, pp. 316, 317).
What is to be considered is that if Allah has pre-determined man’s life then His sending of prophets and revelations to guide us and to turn us from evil would be meaningless. If Allah has predetermined our fate then His instructions to us to pray, give charity, feed the poor and the orphans and the needy, and to free the slaves would all be pointless. That man has complete freedom of choice in his actions is made clear in the following verses of the Qur’an:
-“Have We not given him (man) two eyes, and a tongue and two lips, and pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways (of good and evil)? (90:8-10)
-“So He reveals to it (the soul) its way of evil and its way of good, he is indeed successful who purifies it, and he is ruined who corrupts it” (91:8-10)
-“Whoever does good it is for himself, and whoever does evil, it is against himself… But whoever repents after his wrong-doing and reforms, Allah will turn to him (mercifully). Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (45:15; 5:39)
-“And wrong not men of their dues, and act not corruptly in the earth, making mischief” (26:183)
-“And whatever misfortune befalls you, it is on account of what your hands have wrought and He pardons much” (42:30)
-“Surely Allah enjoins justice and the doing of good…and He forbids indecency, and evil and rebellion. He admonishes you that you may be mindful” (16:90)
-“O men…follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is an open enemy to you” (2:168).
Allāh instructs us to pray: “Guide us on the right path” and “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 1:5; 20:114). Clearly, the God who gives guidance, and Who increases His servants in knowledge could not predestine the actions of those servants –a robot or a puppet has no need of, or use for guidance and knowledge. Neither could Islam, which advocates pursuit of knowledge, be said to be backward or non-progressive.
Again, Allāh instructs us to “save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones”–(Qur’an 66:6). The God who tells us to “save” ourselves and families cannot be said to predestine us and our families; for then no one would be able to save himself and his family.
In Islam man’s fate is not written in the stars (Astrology). In fact, 1400 years ago the Prophet Mohammad took the stars from the clutches of the astrologers and sat them firmly in the laps of the astronomers: declared the noble Messenger of God through Divine Revelation: “Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth”–(Qur’an 31:20; 45:13).
The belief that Allāh said that half of mankind is destined to hell and the other half to heaven is not a declaration of pre-destination; but, if such a saying was made by Allāh, it could only mean that Allah knowing that not all of mankind will follow His guidance, thus, (by their own choice) part will go to hell and part to heaven. In Islam man's destiny is carved by his own heart and head and hands: not by Allāh.
There is fatalism/predestination in Christianity. That man is born with sin condemns the unbaptized and the still-born to eternal perdition, and must be buried in unconsecrated grounds. That inherited sin is washed away by sprinkling water on the new-born is charm. Even superstition. And Jesus says not to think about tomorrow, God will provide as He provides for the flowers and the fowl; he advised in Matthew 6:25-34: “Therefore I say unto, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor as yet for your body, what ye shall put on…Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedeth them….Consider the lilies of the fields, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin….Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field….Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth 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. Therefore take no thought about the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself, Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof;”
Fatalism at its pinnacle (perhaps this is why he had to curse a blameless and innocent fig tree for not getting any figs). If America (and Europe and elsewhere) should adhere to this dictum America (and others) would plummet from the pinnacle of progress like a giant lead ball into the black hole of backwardness.
Where material progress is concerned not even Christians have any use for the Bible. Only when they torpedoed the Bible and turned to Islamic teachings did they begin to make material progress: Christianity is an enemy to knowledge.
3. Nonie Darwish wrote (about education in Egypt) that “the main goal of our education was to instill a commitment to destroy Israel. Peace was never discussed as an option, and we were made to feel that peace with Israel would bring only shame to our Arab people.” “We were never told of the Jewish roots in the region” (p. 9).
Response: And the main goal of Jews were to “destroy” Palestinians and occupy their land, Palestine, which they have done. (Significantly, Arabs are often called to account for their manifesto to drive Jews “into the sea” yet there have never been any calls for Jews to account for their manifesto to occupy Palestine). Let’s see you give the mugger a portion of your wallet rather than wanting to whack the bejubees out of him and take back your wallet.
What Jewish “roots?” What makes you believe that the present occupiers of Palestine are descendants of the Biblical Fathers? (See Anti-Semitism). As Edward Said pints out in his revealing book The Question Of Palestine, Jewish presence in Palestine was for a mere sixty years two thousand years ago. Unless Jews can prove their lineage to Jacob and not to the eight century Turkish Khazar tribe that converted to Judaism or to European converts,Jewish “roots” is in Egypt.
On the spiritual plane, God did not promise to give Jews Palestine twice. Moreover, the land was promised to the earlier righteous descendants of Abraham, the later “treacherous” and “stiff-necked” Israelites who actually inherited the Holy Land, their inheriting it was only incidental upon God fulfilling His promise to Abraham. Significantly, it was not God who gave Jews Palestine through Moses in 1948; it was American president Harry Truman who gave Jews Palestine through diplomatic thuggery at the U.N.
On the secular plane, using ancestry to justify the occupation/ usurpation of the land of another would give the descendants of Columbus the legality to occupy the Americas (where there were no natives); would give the descendants of the slaves brought to America and to the West Indies the right to claim their ancestral homelands in Africa; would give the native Indians the right to reclaim North, South and Central Americas; and would give the Mexicans the right to re-take San Diego, which was taken from them in their war with America. (This theft of Palestine would not have been possible had Muslims adhered to the words of the All-Knowing Allāh and His magnificent Messenger to not divide ourselves; and to have military preparedness –not for offense but for defense And yet we divide ourselves and expect Allāh to grant us Jannah).
However, Jews have a right to be there. Not the State! The state is an illegally created Zionist entity. And an obscene blot in the heart of the Islamic sun. As shown, Palestine is the moral, social, historical and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims. And no amount of “intellectual” whitewash can obliterate this. It is “shame” to make peace with those who occupy/steal your land. The occupier/usurper is not to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of his victims in “peace.”
4. (The fedayeen was Egypt’s military unit in Gaza, Occupied Palestine. It was headed by ND’s father. Jews sent a team to assassinate ND’s father who was not home at the time. ND read about the incident later). ND wrote: “The commandos left us unharmed….The Israelis chose not to kill us even though the fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.” (p. 11).
Response: Jews/”Israelis” had no qualms about savagely murdering some three hundred “old men, women, children, newly-born” on April 9, 1948 “without any military reason or provocation of any kind;”*32
-Jews/”Israelis” had no qualms shooting at point-blank range “52 villagers, men, women and children” of Kafr Qassim on October 29,195633 for violating a curfew of which they had no knowledge and which fact the murderers were aware of;
-Jews/”Israelis” have no qualms about having a policy to attack their Arab victims “en masse”; 34
-Jews/”Israelis” have no qualms to “provoke” Arabs so they could “smash” them; 35
-Jews/”Israelis” had no qualms to “forcibly evict” Palestinians by employing “large scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition;” and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning”; 36
-Jews/”Israelis” had no qualms to dispossess “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people,” destroying “531” of their “villages” and emptying “eleven urban neighborhoods”; 37
-Jews/”Israeli’s” have no qualms in subjecting Arab prisoners to loathsome, despicable, disgusting, sickening, stomach-churning treatment: “These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” 38 (This, from the “only democracy” in the Middle-east. Not even the Nazi’s did this! And Arabs/Muslims are said to be backward and barbaric).
*(Regarding this massacre at Deir Yassin, Ismail Zayid here quotes from the1951 publication of Menachem Beigin’s book The Revolt, Story of the Irgun: “Menachem Beigin said “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” However, the “Revised Edition” titled The Revolt and published 1983 by W.H. Allen, London, does not have these words by Beigin: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” Page 164 of this Revised Edition says in its footnote that this massacre at Deir Yassin was an “Arab…propaganda to smear the Irgun.….The “Dir Yassin Massacre” lie is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world.” But the Deir Yassin massacre could not be “a lie” when: (1) Beigin, the leader of the Irgun, himself is said to have declared that there was a massacre: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” (2) there was an eyewitness to the aftermath of this massacre: “An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross, who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre.” (3) There is a historical account of this massacre: Britannica, probably the world’s most recognized source of reference and accurate recorder of history states that there was a massacre: “The Irgun stormed and captured the village of Deir Yassin and massacred much of the population.” (4) Dov Joseph, a prominent Israeli, called the Deir Yassin massacre “deliberate and unprovoked attack.” Reflectively, when anyone denies the “holocaust” or speak against it they are hauled before the judge; labeled “Jew hater” and “anti-Semite.” But there was no outcry against the deniers of the Deir Yassin massacre: no one was hauled into court, or labeled “Arab hater” or “anti-Arab.” Perhaps when discussion(s) about the Revisionist(s) of history are conducted, Beigin’s statement on this massacre at Deir Yassin should be on the agenda).
5. Nonie Darwish wrote about her mother: “After my father’s death, she was expected to sacrifice her life as well. Society expected the widows of martyrs to live to please society and their children but never to pursue personal happiness.” (p. 24).
Response:Egyptian society may expect this but not Islam. Allāh has given the Muslim woman rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). Muslim women can remarry.
Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam: “A study of the Tradition literature shows that, notwithstanding her rightful position in the home, as the bringer up of children and manager of the household, woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community.” Women took part in “congregational prayers,” “join(ed) the soldiers in the field of battle”–“carrying of provisions, taking care of the sick and wounded, removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield, or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.” “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field, served the male guests at a feast and carried on business, they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them. A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (pp. 628-629). The noble Messenger of Allah is the foremost interpreter of the Qur’an; and he did not consign woman into solitary confinement. While Islam requires that both men and women are to conduct themselves honorably and decorously, the Islamic marriage is a sacred contract in which both parties have rights and responsibilities: it is not a life sentence of solitary confinement for the woman.
6. Nonie Darwish berated Islamic Shari’ah and polygamy; and the custom of female circumcision, and insinuates that Islam allows “secret” marriages. (pp. 26-27).
Response: There is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah. The system crafted by Allāh the Omniscient could not be any less.
Qur’an 4:3 which permits polygamy (maximum four wives) was revealed following the battle of Uhud, as Muhammad Ali notes, in which “70 men out of 700 Muslims had been slain, and this decimation had largely decreased the number of males, who, being the breadwinners, were the natural guardians and supporters of the females.” Polygamy in Islam is an exception rather than the rule. It is only recommended as a remedial measure. It is a fact that females mature earlier than males –a report in the Toronto Star Tuesday November 7, 2000, under the heading Early puberty, low birth weight linked?, Section A18, by Lindsey Tanner of Associated Press, says that in the U.S. “it has been estimated that nearly half of black girls and 15 per cent of white ones start puberty by age 8”– and women live longer than men do; and the flames of war usually leave in its ashes many widows. While some women may be financially independent, they have feminine needs, which can be met either in the unceremonious cot of concubinage or in the honorable bed of wifehood.
It is not morally healthy for men to have half a dozen paramours than to have women in the dignity of polygamous marriages. To prevent the moral decay of society, Islam allows a limited polygamy to alleviate the problem of female preponderancy. Islam allows polygamy even though Allāh knows that man is not capable of “impartiality.” This is so because the preservation of the moral standards of society is of higher importance than man’s inability to be impartial with his affections. (And it is morally and socially better that man live with this partiality in polygamous marriage than in promiscuity. Adultery also has ”partiality” where the man/woman may have more tender feelings towards one partner over the other).
As Muhammad Ali commented: “polygamy in Islam is both in theory and in practice an exception, not a rule, and as an exception it is a remedy for many of the evils especially prevalent in Western society. It is not only the preponderance of females over males that necessitates polygamy in certain cases, but there is a variety of other circumstances, not only for the moral but also for the physical welfare of society. Prostitution, the great evil of civilization, which is a real canker, with its concomitant increase in bastardy, is practically unknown to countries where polygamy is allowed as a remedial measure.”
Polygamy is no vice but a virtue when practiced in accordance with the Qur’an. It is doubtful that a decent woman would not prefer to be a second or even third or fourth wife in the divine sanctuary of marriage but to be in the immoral parlor of concubinnage –a kept woman. Allāh/Islam is not to be cited if Muslims abuse this blessed, beneficial and honorable institution.
(Perhaps an investigation into post World War II Europe to find out how many war-widows, either because of poverty or for sexual gratification, engaged in illicit relation and the number of children born from such illicit relations; in which event these children, or some of them, would have had to endure the stigma of illegitimacy and even not knowing who their fathers are/were. Perhaps even the women might not know whose children they had. Though it is doubtful that Europe would have kept record of such “dark” and disgraceful days. Glory, praise and thanks to Allāh for this wonderful allowance of limited polygamy when needed. For the reasons of Prophet Mohammad’s several marriages see item #97).
The Bible also allows polygamy –Lamech had two wives (Gen. 4:19); God gave David “his master’s wives” (2 Sam. 12:8); Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3. And Solomon is said to be “wise”); and Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had “eighteen wives and three score concubines” (2 Chr. 11:21). Even Abraham enjoyed polygamy/concubinage with Sarah and Hagar, as did Jacob –Jesus’, the Christian’s God and son of God, grandfather– with Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, respectively (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:1-13). Notably, Jesus did not abrogate polygamy. Jesus saying that a man may forsake his parents and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh is no abrogation of polygamy. What Jesus was stating here was that husbands and wives are closer to each other than they are to their parents. Jesus had nothing to say about Woman, Slaves, and Orphans. These and “all truth” he left for the Comforter(Mohammad) to give (John 14:15-16; 16:12-13). And as Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his book Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, “Alexander the Great and his father Philip had each more than one wife….The Hebrews never objected to plurality of wives….Indeed, during the first two centuries polygamy was freely practised in Christendom.” Charlemagne “had two wives at one time, besides divorced ones and some concubines….Philip of Hesse and Frederick William II of Prussia obtained the sanction of the Lutheran clergy for contracting bigamous marriages….The Anabaptists freely preached that a true Christian must have several wives; and the Mormons regard polygamy as a divine institution.”(pp. ix, x). Christians may not be practicing polygamy (though they might be dallying in concubinage/ adultery) and Secularism may frown on it and even criminalize it, but the Bible –Judaism and Christianity– allows polygamy. Unbridled polygamy.
Significantly, unlike the condition under which polygamy was allowed in Islam –“70 men out of 700 Muslims had been slain, and this decimation had largely decreased the number of males, who, being the breadwinners, were the natural guardians and supporters of the females”–there was no such condition in the Judeo-Christian’s scriptural history to justify the allowance of polygamy. Moreover to allow Solomon and his son unbridled polygamy. And even unbridled concubinage.
(Notably, while Christians carp at Mohammad’s several marriages as “licentious self-indulgence;” when it comes to speaking and writing about the thousand wives and concubines of the prophet they believe in; and their sex-ploits Christians become dumb and illiterate).
Circumcision. Islam does not require that females be circumcised. Circumcision is the blood that sealed the Covenant between Allāh God, and Abraham: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee. Every MAN CHILD among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every MAN CHILD in your generations”–(Genesis 17:7-12).There was no female’s blood in this covenant.
Egyptians may be practicing “secret” marriages but there is no “secret” marriage in Islam. Allāh says to hold to family ties–(Qur’an 4:1). Keeping children (and in-laws) apart is not holding to family ties. These “secret” children may also unknowingly intermarry, it is un-Islamic for a brother to marry his sister–(Qur’an 4:23). Also, a son might unknowingly marry his father’s widow/ex-wife, which is un-Islamic; (or a son of his first wife might unknowingly marry his father’s widow/ex-wife from his “secret” marriage)–(Qur’an 4:22). (See Islam-women).
7. About the Islamic/Muslim festival of Eid-ul-Adha, Nonie Darwish wrote that this feast “involves the killing of a lamb to commemorate the Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac.” (p. 31).
Response:(This is a classic example of Nonie Darwish’s pathetic knowledge of Islam or an effort to glorify her new religion). The son of Abraham’s intended sacrifice was Ishmael. Nonie Darwish needs to stop trying to find non-existent faults in Islam and study her Holy (more like hole-ly) Bible, and even better, she needs to study comparative religion. She would learn that, as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani of the Uniate-Chaldean Sect) exposes: “The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael.” (For full details see Palestine). Man can alter Scriptures of God; man cannot alter decrees of God! (See also item #28).
8. Nonie Darwish wrote about Jihad: “It is a religious holy war against infidels, an armed struggle against anyone who is not a Muslim. It is a fight for Allāh’s cause to promote Islamic dominion in the world.”(p. 33).
Response:What utter ignorance, rubbish and paranoia! Isn’t Christianity trying to drown the world in the mythical blood of Jesus Christ? Isn’t America trying to implement her idea of “democracy” in Muslim lands (and even around the world?) So these are acceptable but it is anathema for Muslims to institute Islam –truth and justice– in the world? Islam will dominate the world through wisdom, reason and its lofty principles not through “a religious holy war against infidels.” Mohammad’s (and Muslims) duty was to deliver the Qur’anic Message not enforce it.
Jihad does not mean “religious war” or “holy war” in the sense of taking up arms and killing non-Muslims; it is “holy war” in the sense of striving against all forms of evil. Jihad is the noble struggle against all forms of injustice. Jihad means to “strive” or exert one’s self in the way of freedom, truth, and justice:
1. to strive against our low desires (such as greed, selfishness, covetousness, jealousy, vanity, pride)
2. to strive against evil temptations (such as to commit a sin or a wrong against someone)
3. to speak out against an injustice
4. to finance or take up arms against occupation, oppression/ persecution, exploitation, and usurpation (Muslims are allowed to fight only in self-defense; when he is not the aggressor. In Islam, to defend one's self, property, and family, and even others who are wronged, is a God-given right)
5. to strive with the Qur'an against false worship. This form of Jihad is known as "Jihad kabiran"–the mighty striving–(Qur’an 25:52); perhaps because the worst form of bondage is bondage of the intellect.
The lesser Jihad, which is the armed struggle, liberates man physically; and the greater Jihad, which is the ideological struggle–propagating the Qur’anic Message of Allah God–liberates man morally, intellectually and spiritually. Islam strives to liberate man physically, morally, intellectually and spiritually. Islam liberates man:
(a) physically–in that it gives one freedom of religion, movement and expression.
(b) morally–in that it impresses on us to be modest and moderate; and that the exacting of one’s rights is governed by the instituting of the rights of others
(c) intellectually–in that it frees man from the degradation of worship of other humans and of nature and idols; and makes man the equal of man, and the master of nature; and instills in man that the only existence greater than himself is Allāh, God.
(d) spiritually–in that it enjoins man to entomb his lower desires; and to robe himself in the garments of prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage and Divine Attributes–which will give him success in this life and in the life to come.
It would be a subjugation of reason to cerebrate that the God Who enjoined His believers to swing the steel against the aggressor, oppressor, occupier, usurper, and the destroyers of shrines would condone such actions by His believers themselves. The permission to use the sword is limited to against those who first take up the sword to fight Muslims, and Muslims are to cease fighting when the enemies cease: “Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed;” “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors;” “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors”–(Qur'an 22:39; 2:190; 2:193).In fact, Muslims are required to make peace and 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 8:61-62).
Muslims are even required to fight on behalf of non-Muslims:“Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches, and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty”–(Qur’an 22:40). Muhammad Ali comments on this verse:
“The religious freedom which was established by Islam thirteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues and cloisters as well–in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom. The mosques, though they are the places where the name of Allah is remembered most of all, come in for their share of protection even after the churches and the synagogues. Early Muslims closely followed these directions, and every commander of an army had express orders to respect all houses of worship, and even the cloisters of monks, along with their inmates.”
Had the “infidels” not taken up the sword against Mohammad’s peaceful preaching and been bent on annihilating him, Mohammad would have had no cause to lop off their wretched heads. Whatever measures Mohammad took to preserve himself and community Mohammad was fully justified. No honest writer and historian and critic would state otherwise.
In contrast, modern nations take up the bazooka against those who have done nothing against them. Nonie Darwish needs to preach against these rogues and hypocrites and bullies. Tell them that the exacting of one’s rights is diametrically equal to the institution of the rights of others.
If Islam had decreed war on “infidels” there would not be a Coptic church in Egypt and a Cathedral in Istanbul or any church in Muslim lands; and when Muslims were in India they would have eliminated the Hindus. It is Christianity, as her history and scripture attest, that seeks to wipe out the “infidels.” (One Christian commentator said that Muslims have their jihad and Christians have the crusade. If this is meant to equate the crusade with jihad there is no comparison. Jihad is a Divinely instituted office for championing truth and justice, whereas the crusade is a murderous man-made aggression. “Crusade” is derived from a blend of the French croisade and Spanish cruzada; and the crucifix is pagan in origin, dating back to the “Mithraic cult”).
If Islam had require Muslims to conquer lands for Allāh, it is doubtful that Muslims would have devoted all their efforts to bringing benefits to mankind and not have invested some of their efforts to developing instruments of colonization as “Christians” have developed –subduing, subjugating and sacking– as her history testifies. It is Christianity that was (and still is) on a “holy war” to promote Christian “dominion in the world.” As M.H. Haykal eloquently and aptly points out: “From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” (The Life of Muhammad, p. 213).
9. Nonie Darwish states that she was reminded by a sheikh to always say “Insha-Allāh” (“if Allāh wills”). “But I did so with a sigh of slight revolt. I always hated to be reminded to say it. Everyone around me was so fatalistic. Even as a child, I sensed something wrong with that fatalism.” (p. 35).
Response:Pity you did not “sensed,” not even now, to ask for an explanation of the saying.As noted in item #2 there is no fatalism in Islam. There is fatalism in Christianity.
As only Allāh knows the future and we do not know if we will be alive at that time, then when we say that we will do something in the future we are only assuming that we will be able to do it. Thus, Insha Allah signifies ‘if God gives us life and well-being at that point in time’ then we will do that thing (and if there is no other matter of greater importance to prevent us from fulfilling our promise). It does not mean that God will dictate for us. Also it does not mean that if we did not do the thing we promised, that God did not permit us to do it –that we can sit idly not caring to do it and lay the blame on God, that God did not allow us to do it. If we have health and well-being and nothing of greater importance to attend to at the time to fulfill our promise, and yet do not fulfill our promise, then we are in neglect.
10. Nonie Darwish wrote: “Many Jews were forced out of Egypt in the 1950’s. Some were accused of espionage after the 1956 war….The two Jews who were tried as traitors and executed came from prominent, wealthy Jewish-Egyptian families…After the war, most Jews left Egypt penniless, having been forced to leave behind their businesses and homes.”(p. 37).
Response: So wealthy Egyptian Jews are incapable of engaging in espionage and being traitors. Were they given a fair trial? What about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes and lands and country without anything, and not for being (or even suspected of being) spies and traitors, but simply because Jews coveted their lands and wanted to erect “Eretz Israel”? Where is your pen and mouth on this monumental and grotesque obscenity that no one in the world, including you, would accept? Again, the reminder: The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats. Jews were fortunate they left minused their bank accounts. The Palestinians had to leave their lands, homes and perhaps even bank accounts and even their blood and lives when Jews, with the aid of American diplomatic thuggery, took over Palestine.
11. Nonie Darwish: “Historically speaking, Copts (Coptic Christians) could be considered more authentically Egyptian than Muslims, because they were the ones who resisted forced conversion when the Arabs invaded Egypt in the seventh century. Nevertheless, Copts endured a second-class citizenship and derogative names.” (p. 38).
Response: (Nonie Darwish needs to read T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam). That Coptic Christians resisted “forced” conversion is nonsensical on the face of it. How could Coptic Christians have “resisted” “forced” conversion and yet be in Egypt? They would have been banished or put to the sword, as Christian conquerors put to the sword those who refused to be subservient to the useless and unGodly crucifix; or in the case of the Viennese Jews of the 1400’s, fed to the fire.
Christians suffered and also lived under security and prospered under Muslim rule: “Living under this security of life and property and such toleration of religious thought, the Christian community –especially in the towns– enjoyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliphate.”39 Christians held public offices including in the “department of finance;” “the Christians frequently amassed great wealth and were much honoured in the house of the great;” Muslims also “permitted the Copts to erect churches in the new capital of Cairo.” The “non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy.” In fact, Muslims were so tolerant of Christians that Muslims even prevented Christians from persecuting one another. “In the fifth century, Barsauma, a NESTORIAN BISHOP, had persuaded the Persian king to set on foot a FIERCE PERSECUTION OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, by representing Nestorius as a friend of the Persians and his doctrines as approximating to their own: as many as 7,800 of the orthodox clergy, with an enormous number of laymen, are said to have been BUTCHERED DURING THIS PERSECUTION. Another PERSECUTION was instituted against the ORTHODOX by Khusrau II, after the invasion of Persia by Heraclius, at the instigation of a JACOBITE, who persuaded the King that the Orthodox would always be favourably inclined towards the Byzantines. But the principle of Muslim toleration forbade such acts of injustice as these: on the contrary, it seems to have been their endeavour to deal fairly by all their Christian subjects; e.g. after the conquest of Egypt, the JACOBITES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPULSION OF THE BYZANTINE TO ROB THE ORTHODOX OF THEIR CHURCHES, but later they were RESTORED BY THE MUHAMMADANS TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS when these had made good their claim to possess them.In view of the toleration thus extended to their subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, THE COMMON HYPOTHESIS OF THE SWORD AS THE FACTOR OF CONVERSION SEEMS HARDLY SATISFACTORY, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution.”40
Christian suffering seemed to have been the result of their intrigue against the State. Decrees to exclude non-Muslims from public offices depended on the prevailing situation. Mr. Arnold notes: “The last of these was prompted by the discovery of an attempt on the part of the CHRISTIANS TO BURN THE CITY OF CAIRO.”41 Regarding the harsh rule of Harun al-Rashid, as Mr. Arnold points out, “these decrees were the outcome, not so much of any purely religious feeling, as of the political circumstances of the time. The Christians under Muhammadan rule have often had to suffer for the BAD FAITH KEPT BY FOREIGN CHRISTIAN POWERS in their relations with Muhammadan princes, and on this occasion it was the TREACHERY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR, NICEPHORUS, that caused the CHRISTIAN NAME TO STINK in the nostrils of Harun. 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.”42 (This is perhaps true today also).
Some persecutions of Christians were due to “the alleged abuse” of their position to “plunder and annoy the faithful, treating them with great harshness and rudeness and despoiling them of their lands and money;” and for “acting as the spies of the Abbasid dynasty and hunting down the adherents of the displaced Umayyad family;” and later, “were accused of treasonable correspondence with the Crusaders.”Thus, far from being forced to convert to Islam, Christians “brought on themselves severe restrictive measures which cannot justly be described as religious persecution.”43
Contrary to Nonie Darwish’s claim that Copts (as “the Jacobite Christian of Egypt are called”) were forced to convert to Islam. Christians were the ones decimating Christians: “The JACOBITES, who formed the majority of the Christian population, had been very roughly handled BY THE ORTHODOX adherents of the court and subjected to indignities that have not been forgotten by their children even to the present day –“Justinian is said to have had 200,000 Copts put to death in the city of Alexandria, and the persecutions of his successors drove many to take refuge in the desert.” Some were tortured and then thrown into the sea; many followed their Patriarch into exile to escape from the hands of their persecutors, while a large number disguised their real opinions under a pretended acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon. To these Copts, as the Jacobite Christians of Egypt are called, the MUHAMMADAN CONQUEST BROUGHT A FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS LIFE SUCH AS THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED FOR A CENTURY…In the early days of the Muhammadan rule then, the condition of the Copts seems to have been fairly tolerable, and there is no evidence of their widespread apostasy to Islam being due to persecution or unjust pressure on the part of their new rulers. Even before the conquest was complete, while the capital, Alexandria, still held out, many of them went over to Islam, and a few years later the example these had set was followed by many others.”44
There is a common misunderstanding that Muslim soldiers went to battle with the sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other to spread Islam by the sword. Every Muslim is required to be a preacher of Islam. The Muslim soldier taking the Qur’an on expeditions was not to force religion. The sword was for defense and the Qur’an was for preaching the Divine truth as the opportunity arose. Thomas W. Arnold has stated in his The Preaching of Islam that: “of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THESE CHURCHES TO THE PRESENT DAY IS A STRONG PROOF OF THE GENERALLY TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF THE MUHAMMADAN GOVERNMENTS TOWARDS THEM.” “Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear NOTHING.”(pp. 80,136. Emphasis added).
Coptic Christians in Egypt owe their heads to the benevolence of Islam which prohibits compulsion and the Right-Honorable Caliphs observing this sublime doctrine–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:105; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).
Contrast this majestic ideal of Islam of religious freedom to the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, commanding: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should rule over them, bring hither, and slay them before me”–(Luke 19:27); which statement along with the equally preposterous, “He that is not with me is against me”–(Matt. 12:30), must be the ones that gave birth to the murderous Crusades. (Please note: this is the Christians’ Jesus; for the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an).
That, “Historically speaking, Copts (Coptic Christians) could be considered more authentically Egyptian than Muslims.” So the pre-Islamic Egyptians who converted to Islam are less “authentically Egyptian” because their belief changed? (And you want Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims who have more than 4000 years of history in Palestine to give Jews who had a mere two thousand years history and only “sixty-years” of ownership, more than half of Palestine for their homeland?)
(Not that it is condonable but) So Copts “endured a second-class citizenship and derogative names” what about the Palestinians who are “second-class” citizens, and in their own country? “Derek Tozer, a British correspondent, writing in The American Mercury, stated: The official policy of the Government (of Israel) is unequivocal. Arabs, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, are officially ‘Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards.”45 And while Copts endured “derogative names” Palestinians are subjected to despicably-degrading treatment at the hands of their occupiers “such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another,” as that noted by Prof. Noam Chomsky in item #4.
On Muslim’s triumph at Jerusalem by 'Umar, the third Caliph of Islam, in 638. Karen Armstrong states that ‘Umar “presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam.”46 And that Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin), upon his triumph at Jerusalem (Ms.) Armstrong wrote: “The sultan kept his word. Not a single Christian was killed.” And, “Saladin also invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.”47 And Thomas Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam (p.54): “Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes: “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.”
And as Ahmed Deedat has noted that “after eight centuries in Spain the Muslims were totally eliminated from that country… One can blame the Muslim for exploitation if you like but one cannot charge them with using the sword to convert the Spaniards to the Islamic religion.” “The Muslims were also the masters of India for a thousand years, but eventually when the sub-continent received independence in 1947, the Hindus obtained three-quarters of the country and the Muslims the balance of the one-quarter. Why? Because the Muslims did not force Islam down the Hindus’ throat! In Spain and in India, the Muslims were no paragons of virtue, yet they obeyed the Qur’anic injunction to the letter–LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: FOR TRUTH STANDS OUT DISTINCT FROM ERROR: (Holy Qur’an 2:256)”
“The Muslim conquerors understood from this command that “compulsion” was incompatible with true religion: because (as Yusuf Ali has noted in his Qur’anic commentary) “Religion depends on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force. Force can conquer but cannot convert.”
Except for some eccentrics here and there, the Muslims as a whole adhered to the commandment of God in the lands over which they held sway. But what can the enemy say about countries where no single Muslim soldier had set foot?
(ii) MALAYSIA: The overwhelming number of its people in this country are Muslims yet no Muslim soldier had landed there either.
(iii) AFRICA: The majority of the people on the East coast of Africa as far down as Mozambique, as well as the bulk of the inhabitants on the West coast of the continent are Muslims, but history has not record any invading hoards of Muslims from anywhere. What sword? Where was the sword? The Muslim trader did the job. His good conduct and moral rectitude achieved the miracle of conversion.” (Muhummed The Greatest, pp. 29-31)
Further: "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.”48
“Islam has taken nothing by the sword”!
“Muslims' conquests were never motivated by the will to colonize. The Prophet left the kings of Arabia and her princes on their thrones with their territories, economies, and political structures virtually untouched. In conquering, the Muslims sought the freedom to preach the faith.”49
In the indelible words of Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri:
"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.”50
It is Christianity, as her history and Scripture attest, that is the religion of the sword. From her pagan birth to the Twentieth century. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his revealing book The Sources of Christianity writing about Mithraism, 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,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.”(pp.30-31). And Muhammad Husayn Haykal summed up the Christian’s carnage aptly: “From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” (The Life of Muhammad, p. 213).Even recently, we had Serbians massacring Muslims (and raping thousands of women, including young girls) in Bosnia and giving the three-finger (trinity) salute.
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. 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.
Islam is not only “simple” truths; Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason. Again, Mr. Arnold, from Caetani and Canon Taylor, respectively:
“Similarly, Caetani sees in the spread of Islam, among the Christians of the eastern Churches, a revulsion of feeling from the dogmatic subtleties introduced into Christian theology by the Hellenistic spirit. “For the East, with its love of clear and simplest concepts, Hellenic culture was, from the religious point of view, a misfortune, because it changed the sublime and simple teachings of Christ into a creed bristling with incomprehensible dogmas, full of doubts and uncertainties; these ended with producing a feeling of deep dismay and shook the very foundations of religious belief; so that when at last there appeared, coming out suddenly from the desert, the news of the new revelation, this bastard oriental Christianity, torn asunder by internal discords, wavering in its fundamental dogmas, dismayed by such incertitudes, could no longer resist the temptations of a new faith, which swept away at one single stroke all the miserable doubts, and offered, along with simple, clear and undisputed doctrines, great material advantages also. The East then abandoned Christ* and threw itself into the arms of the Prophet of Arabia.”(p.71). *(Notably, the east did not “abandon Christ:” it abandoned falsehood and blasphemy taught under the name of Christ).
“It is easy to understand why this reformed Judaism* spread so swiftly over Africa and Asia. The African and Syrian doctors had substituted abstruse metaphysical dogmas for the religion of Christ: they tried to combat the licentiousness of the age by setting forth the celestial merit of celibacy and the angelic excellence of virginity –seclusion from the world was the road of holiness, dirt was the characteristic of monkish sanctity– the people were practically polytheists, worshipping a crowd of martyrs, saints and angels; the upper classes were effeminate and corrupt, the middle classes oppressed by taxation, the slaves without hope for the present or the future. As with the besom of God, Islam swept away this mass of corruption and superstition. It was a revolt against empty theological polemics; it was a masculine protest against the exaltation of celibacy as a crown of piety. It brought out the fundamental dogmas of religion –the unity and greatness of God, that He is merciful and righteous, that He claims obedience to His will, resignation and faith. It proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a day of judgment, and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked; and enforced the duties of prayer, almsgiving, fasting and benevolence. It thrust aside the artificial virtues, the religious frauds and follies, the perverted moral sentiments, and the verbal subtleties of theological disputants. It replaced monkishness by manliness. It gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition to the fundamental facts of human nature.” (pp. 71-72. Emphasis added) *(Islam is not “reformed Judaism”).
Even if charges against Allāh, Islam, the Prophet Mohammad and the Qur’an were proved, yet this would not make Jesus God or son of God or vicarious atoner or that mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve. And even if Christianity was followed as Jesus taught, yet this Christianity would not be superior than, or equal, with Islam. In fact, such a Christian would have no alternative but to follow Islam/Mohammad. The Divine truth is, Jesus was only a prophet of Allāh, God, sent to minister to the Children of Israel and to foretell the coming of another Comforter (Mohammad) who will guide mankind into “all truth” and whom all are to follow; and:
“There is no God but Allāh;
Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh.”
12. ND states that honor killing is “Islamic culture.” (p. 39).
Response:Wrong! Honor killing may be Egyptian culture, it certainly is not “Islamic culture.”
Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 24:3: “The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any but an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to believers”–(Qur’an 24:3 M. Ali). “Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: Nor let any but such a man or Unbeliever marry such a woman. To the Believers such a thing is forbidden” (Yusuf Ali).
Zina means sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other –i.e. adultery and fornication. Thus, according to the verse a woman, whether she is married or single, who had sexual relations with a married man or a single man then she can only marry a married man or a single man (or an idolater) who also had illegal sex; and a man, whether he is single or married, who had sexual relations with a married woman or a single woman then he can only marry a married woman or a single woman (or an idolatress) who also had illegal sex.
The verse shows that there is no “honor killing” in Islam; adulterers/fornicators could not be left to have sex or to marry their kind if Islam had required honor killings. The punishment for zina is a hundred lashes for the free and fifty lashes for slaves –(Qur’an 24:2; 4:25).
Honor killing is the Jewish and Christian law: “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).
13. ND wrote that “despite the extreme hardships and poverty our society was suffering, the Egyptian media had only one agenda, and that was jihad –to destroy Israel.” (p. 41).
Response: (Jihad is already dealt with in item #8). It was “Israel’s” “agenda” to destroy Palestine. And which they have. However Arabs/Muslims do not want to “destroy” “Israel,” only to reclaim what is ours. You cannot “destroy” something that shouldn’t be.
Palestinians are not calling for the destruction of a Jewish country: only for the return of what was “stolen” from them. Reclaiming your wallet from a robber is not depriving him of his property, the wallet being not his to begin with. If Pike erects a tent on Crown lands, no court would charge the government with destruction of Pike’s property –the tent having no right to be there to begin with. Jews have a right to be there. Not the state.
To drive out the occupier from your land is not “terrorism.” It is heroism! A god-given right! If you believe it is “terrorism” go tell it to the Allies of World War II and the French; tell it to Britain for booting Argentina from the (disputed) Falklands Island; go tell the Dalai Lama that he and his Tibetan family instead of trying to get China out of Tibet they should be singing China hosanna! hosanna!
Palestinians are often criticized for not accepting Partition whereas Jews accepted. Why would Jews reject this Crown Jewel of a Plan that gave them another people’s land? Why should Palestinian accept this dastard deed that ‘stole’ their land?
-The U.N. had no right to Partition Palestine–The U.N. is not the Sovereign owner of Palestine
-Britain had no right to promise Jews a homeland in Palestine; let Britain give Jews England or Scotland or Ireland or Wales (or Tristan da Cunha. Britain fought the Irish for thirty grueling years than yield one farthing’s worth of soil to them; yet Britain had the audacity and the arrogance to promise Jews a homeland in Palestine)
-America had no right to bring “coercion and duress,” and “pressure’ on nations to effect partition of Palestine; let America give Jews New York or California or Texas
-If France wants Jews to have a homeland let the French give Jews Paris or Marseilles or Nice
-If Canada wants Jews to have a homeland let Canadians give Jews Ontario or Quebec or Alberta
-If Germany wants to atone for the “Holocaust” let the Germans give Jews half of the Fatherland.
Let’s see the Americans and the British and the French and the Canadians swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel their governments have been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for six torturous decades now! Palestinians are not to suffer for Europe’s shame.
Vive le Palestine libre!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin?
14. (About her father’s murder, Nonie Darwish wrote): “What did he die for? Arab hatred of Israel and Jews was destroying so many lives….What was wrong in allowing a few million Jews to live among us in peace?” (p. 49).
Response: You need perspective. It was not Arab “hatred” that is “destroying so many lives.” It is Jewish “hatred” and “envy” of Arab/Muslim lands and “Christians” stealing this land and giving it to Jews that is “destroying so many lives.” For generations Arabs and Jews existed together in “peace” until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head; and American diplomatic thuggery at the U.N. aided them in their dastard deed.
Incidentally, since Jesus (the Christian’s God and son of God) can command people to “hate” their relations without any real justification where is the difficulty if Muslims hate Jews for scheming and occupying our lands? Jesus says:“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).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).
15. Regarding the 1967 Arab-Jewish war, Nonie Darwish wrote that Egyptian President Nasser “closed the Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, Israel’s major shipping lane for oil, and blockaded the Israeli port of Eliat.” (pp. 51-52).
Response:Eliat is not “Israel’s” property. As Ismail Zayid point out: “Before May 15th, 1948, while the British Government was still responsible, the Jews had occupied many purely Arab cities like Jaffa and Acre and scores of villages –that were in the territory assigned by the U.N. Resolution for the Arab State– and evicted more than 300,000 inhabitants from their homes. In an attempt to stem this tide…On 15th July 1948 the U.N. imposed a final truce between Israel and the Arabs, by which time Israel had occupied an even larger part of the territory allotted to the Arab State in Palestine. Despite the truce and in defiance of the U.N. orders and in violation of the final Armistice Agreement between Israel and Egypt on 24th February 1949, the Israelis, utilizing their military superiority, attacked the Egyptian army and occupied still more territory. This included, for interest, the Arab village of Um Rashrash, where the port of Eliat on the Gulf of Akaba was later built, which was occupied on 10th March 1949. Yet, years later, the “right” of free passage to it was to be demanded not only by Israel but, amazingly, by the unknowing misinformed world public opinion.” Eliat was illegally built on stolen Arab land!
16. Nonie Darwish criticizes the Islamic “arranged” marriage, preferring the Western/Christian practice of “dating” and “romance.” (p. 62).
Response: There is no “arranged” marriage in Islam where the woman has no say in the choice of husband. Allāh says that He creates mates for us from among ourselves–(Qur’an 30:21; 42:11), and that this marriage is a mithaq, solemn covenant–(Qur’an 4:21). “Thus marriage is, according to the Qur’an, the union of two souls which are one in their essence”–(M. Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 584, 586).
That women have the right to choose their husbands is made clear by the Qur’an which shows that widows and women divorcees have the right to choose their husbands–(Qur’an 2:232; 2:240), and by the Tradition of the Prophet: Says the noble Messenger of Allāh, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #67, 68; Vol. 9, #98, 100); a virgin’s consent, because of bashfulness, is expressed by her silence–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #68; Vol. 9, #98, 100-101); and that “If a man gives his daughter in marriage in spite of her disagreement, such marriage is invalid”–it notes the dissolution of such a marriage by the Prophet on behalf of a “matron” who disliked the marriage her father had arranged–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #69; Vol. 9, #78). A woman may also propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7 #’s 48, 53, 54). There is a report of a woman proposing marriage to the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #505).
While there is no “dating” and “romance” in Islam couples are allowed to engage in chaperoned visits (to ascertain compatibility) where the prospective mates are seen but not heard. This requirement is not without merit, as the Prophet Mohammad taught that when a man and woman are alone there is a third party –the Devil– urging them to sin. Islam endeavors to guard a woman’s chastity from slander. Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
In the Western/Christian practice of “romance” and “dating” the couples are likely to become sexually involved (or the boy may force himself upon the girl) which may result in the girl becoming pregnant. There is also the possibility of them not getting married. (It is doubtful that Nonie Darwish and/or conservative parents would encourage their children, especially their daughters, as women are usually the victims of sexual crimes, to dress seductively and/or be involved in a culture of alcohol/drugs and liberal sex. For the ramifications of unbridled sex see Islam-adultery).
Even if the girl does not become pregnant she runs the risk of being stoned to death, as Christianity requires, for playing “the whore in her father’s house”: “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). (Jesus did NOT abrogate the Mosaic law of “stoning” see Jesus and the adulteress).
(Perhaps a survey can be carried out to learn how many “arranged” marriages end in divorce and how many “choice” marriages end in divorce). In fact, as already noted, just for strutting like a temptress the Christian’s God (Jesus) sent scabs onto the Jewish daughters: “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).
17. Nonie Darwish blindly reviles the Islamic tolerance of polygamy.She also wrote about Muslims practicing “secret” and “temporary” marriages. (pp. 66-67).
Response: (Polygamy and “secret” marriage have already been dealt with in item #6). There is no “temporary” (mut’a) marriage in Islam. Since Islam teaches that: –marriage is a sacred contract (a matter that is sacred is not to be taken frivolously); spouses are to wait three months before divorce (all avenues of conciliation is to be explored before divorce); the father must support offspring(s); and that divorce is a most shameful deed; there could be no “temporary marriage” in Islam.
“Temporary marriage” which was allowed among early Muslims was now prohibited by Qur’anic injunctions. Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam: “The evils that prevailed in Arabia were not touched until the Prophet received a Divine revelation, but when a reform was introduced after a Divine revelation, it was impossible that the Prophet himself should have allowed the evil again.”(p. 591). There are reports of the Prophet, while initially allowing temporary marriage, later forbade it: “Narrated Ali: I said to Ibn Abbas, “During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut’a and the eating of donkey’s meat”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #50. Also #51, 52). Muslims who engage in “temporary” marriage have no recourse to Islam for this practice. In contrast it is the Bible/Christianity that allows all kinds of illegal sex –adultery/concubinage and female war captives as booty. (See item #18).
18. Nonie Darwish wrote that Islam allows Muslims to have unmarried sex with slaves; and that “A woman can be forced into a slave-master sexual relationship.”(p. 72).
Response:Qur’an 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30 speak about whom your right hands possess; this phrase relates to captives of war but it does not mean that the Muslim man can have sex with female captives outside of marriage. Slave girls are to be taken in marriage only.
Sura 4:3-4 allows the Muslim man to marry up to four wives: “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. And give women their dowries as a free gift.” Clearly, Muslims are instructed to MARRY either a free believing women or a war-captive; and to even give them “dowries.” This verse clearly sanctions marriage between Muslims and their female captives. This is made even clearer in verse 25 which states: “And whoever of you cannot afford to MARRY free believing women, (let him marry) such of your believing maidens as your right hands possess…So MARRY them with the permission of their MASTERS, and give them their dowries justly.”Clearly, the charge that Islam allows Muslims to have illegal sex with their captives is baseless. In fact, the Prophet Mohammad taught: “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).
Sura 23:5-6 says: “Successful indeed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers….And who restrain their sexual passions –except in the presence of their mates or those whom their right hands possess.” (Sura 70:22-30 says the same as 23:5-6). The claim that these verses of Suras 23 and 70 being Makkan Suras allowed sex with slave women is also baseless. Whereas Suras 23 and 70 were revealed towards the end of the early Makkan period, Sura 17 which is of the mid early Makkan period requires Muslims to not even do the things (such as touching, amorous speech and intense/sultry gazing) that lead to zina (sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other; and which includes both adultery and fornication). Here is the verse (17:32): “And go not nigh to adultery/fornication: for it is a shameful deed. And an evil, opening the road (to other evils),” and Sura 25 which is also of the same Makkan period says in verses 68 (speaking about those who will inherit paradise): “And they who call not upon another god with Allāh….nor commit adultery/fornication.” These Suras (23, 70, 17 and 25) are of the Makkan period and it would be poor cerebration to surmise that Allāh would require abstention from illegal sex and also enjoin the commission of illegal sex. Muhammad Ali explains Qur’an 23:5-6:
“Furuj, plural of farj, indicates the part of a person which it is indecent to expose(LL), particularly the pudenda. In this sense hifz al-farj means generally the observing of continence, or the restraining of sexual passions.The words au ma malakat aimanu-hum, of which a literal rendering is given in the translation, usually indicate slaves. It should be noted that this chapter is a Makkan revelation, and the conditions under which slave-girls could be taken as wives were given later at Madinah; see 4:25a. If the reference here is to sexual relations, the permission regarding those whom their right hands possessmust be read subject to the conditions of 4:25. It may be added that slave-girls, when taken as wives, did not acquire the full status of a free wife, and hence they are spoken of distinctly. It may, however, be added that hifz al-farjin a wider sense means the covering of parts of the body which it is indecent to expose, and in this connection it must be borne in mind that according to Islamic rules of decency, the exposure of such parts of the body, as are generally exposed in ballrooms and theatres, is disallowed, but a certain degree of freedom is allowed to women in the presence of their husbands and female servants and to men in the presence of their wives and male servants.” (Much like men showering together at a gym).
Allāh also enjoins:“And marry not the idolatresses until they believe”–(Qur’an 2:221); “And marry those among you who are single, and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves”–(Qur’an 24:32). And, as stated above, the Prophet Mohammad taught: “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).
Again, Allāh says: “Surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil”–(Qur’an 29:45); and adultery, whether with slave-girls or with the free, is indecency. To enjoin decency and allow concubinage is a contradiction. It would be a contradiction of the most glaring kind for Allah to enjoin chastity and decency, to instruct us to come not near to adultery/fornication and still sanction “concubinage.” And there are no contradictions in the Qur’an–(4:82).
Islam which gives woman rights as those against her from birth all the way to Paradise, and a marriage which is a solemn contract, and in which Allāh has put love and mercy and compassion between them and in which they are friends and protectors and garments –to comfort, beautify, protect, and conceal faults– of the other; this union between man and woman could not be a “slave-master” relationship –sexual or otherwise. Slave-girls are NOT the sexual property of their Muslim owners.
Unless and until he received Divine revelation in a matter the Prophet Mohammad followed the Bible; if the Prophet allowed his followers to engage in concubinage then he was following the Bible. Once he received Divine revelation there would be no going back to the past. The Qur’an supersedes all other sources of guidance.
Slave girls are the sexual property of their Christian owners. Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, had “three hundred” and “sixty” concubines between the two of them. It is Judaism and Christianitythat allow unmarried sex with slaves and has a “slave-master” relationship –sexual and all others. The Christian woman is decreed to be ruled over by her husband (that she is to be ruled over in all facets of life is inherent in this decree of “ruling” and in which daughters can be bonded into slavery), which decree Jesus had nothing to say against, and which decree Paul emphasized commanding that woman be in all silence and subjection, to honor her husband as unto God. etc; and that she is no more than an object for the man’s sexual gratification: “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).
While Islam requires freeing of captives–(Qur’an 47:4), and Mohammad had no concubines, here is what God (and as Christians claim that Jesus is God, here is what Jesus) 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. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive FOR YOURSELVES”–(Deut.20:12-17; Num. 31:17-18). Note well the verse says women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, which would indicate that these were pubescent as well as prepubescent girls.
That the Biblical God does NOT oppose sex with women other than one’s wife is plainly shown in this verse where God told David, because of David’s adulterating with Uriah’s wife, that He will give his wives to his neighbor to have sex with them: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold…I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and GIVE THEM UNTO THY NEIGHBOUR, AND HE SHALL LIE WITH THY WIVES in the sight of this sun”–(2 Samuel 12:11).As the Biblical/Christian God (Jesus) will take one person’s wives and give them to his neighbor to have sex He can clearly have His “people” marry captives as well as adulterate with captive women and girls. Moreover, if it was forbidden to have sex with women other than one’s wives it is doubtful that Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, both kings/rulers and even prophet(s) (and who came AFTER Moses) would have “three hundred” and “sixty” concubines between the two of them,51 some of whom may very well have been war-captives –women and budding girls.
That the Bible decrees death for adultery and yet allows cocubinage and sex with slave girls and even giving one’s wives to be sexually violated by his neighbor. Clearly, the contradictions in Christianity is not only “staggering” it is mind-boggling!
(As noted above, God told David, because of his dallying with Uriah’s wife, He will give his wives to his neighbor to have sex with them. What kind of a God and Book are Christians following that would have one man’s wives defiled/violated by another man? And for the sin of their husband? This is not only a desecration, it is demeaning to the wives/women and an injustice against them. Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly’ desecration and injustice and sexual violence against women “sits at the heart of” Christianity—in Jesus’ commands (as Christians say Jesus is God), and in the Bible. Christianity “therefore” can never be a religion of peace or justice. And as it stands its cardinal doctrines are NOT even Divine revelation.
That “virgin” girls were/are part of the Christian’s war “booty” is cemented in this Divine edict of Numbers 31:1-53 (and as Christians say Jesus is God then this is what Jesus commanded of the war “booty”) of which even God came in for a share of booty: “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 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.”(Surely, these 16,000 young “virgin” girls who were “booty’ were taken by the “warriors” not for ploughing fields. And the 320 given to the Levite priests could have hardly been for “altar”-girl service. And, to repeat, evidently it is the Christian’s God –“Jehovah;” and as Christians claim that Jesus is God, then it is Jesus– Who allows his followers to despoil the land of others, and to loot, and to take their little virgin girls as sex-slaves; and even assigned some for himself).
To restate, as shown above, if it was forbidden to have sex with women other than their wives it is doubtful that Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, both kings/rulers and even prophet(s) (and who came AFTER Moses) would have “three hundred” and “sixty” concubines between the two of them. It was not forbidden for Biblical men to commit adultery. If it was, it is doubtful that five hundred years after Moses’ “thou shalt not commit adultery” Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, would have nearly four hundred concubines between the two of them.
The Bible may say “thou shalt not commit adultery;” but this directive is clearly for the married woman. According to Jews and Christians Hagar was a bondswoman. Thus according to them Abraham committed ‘adultery” with Hagar (and impregnated her and tossed her out the house) and he is the head prophets of all nations; Jacob committed “adultery” with not one but two of his wives handmaids; Judah committed adultery with his daughter-in-law. And these were prophets. Even hundreds of years after the Mosaic law of “adultery” David committed “adultery” with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba (God even threatened to give David’s wives to his neighbor so his neighbor can have sex with them–(2 Samuel 12:11); Solomon committed “adultery” with some three hundred concubines; and his son Rehoboam committed “adultery” with his five dozen concubines. And David and Solomon were also prophets. That the Biblical “thou shalt not commit adultery” is to the married woman only is gleaned from the fact that it is the damsel alone without “the tokens of virginity” that is stoned to death for playing the “whore” in her father’s house. And even Jesus knew this; for when the Jews brought the woman whom they said was taken in adultery requiring that she be “stoned” as the law requires, there was no man that she committed the act with to be “stoned;” nor did Jesus asked for him. (David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, yet he was not “put to death”–Lev. 20:10).
Even America took her share of war “booty.” 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.
Talented non-Muslims under Muslim rule were paid for their services. Thomas Arnold notes in his The Preaching Of Islam that under the “security of life and property” Christians “enjoyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliphate;” “Christians frequently held high posts at court;” “the Christians frequently amassed great wealth and were much honoured in the house of the great;” “In trade and commerce, the Christians also attained considerable affluence;” and “non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy.” (pp. 63-65).
There is no “slave-master sexual relationship” between the Muslim husband and wife. Marriage which is a sacred contract giving them mutual tights could not be a “master-slave” relationship. A relationship in which men and women are friends and protectors of the other, where there is love mercy and compassion between them, and where they are garments of the other –to protect, beautify, comfort and conceal faults– could not be a “master-slave” relations.
Contrastingly, there is a “slave–master sexual relationship” in Christianity. Instituted by the Biblical God; tolerated by the Christians’ “son of God,” Jesus; and reinforced by Paul: The Christian wife is to be ruled over by husband (inherent in this decree is the husband’s right to take whatever action he deems necessary to keep her in subjection)–(Genesis 3:16). Jesus had nothing to say about women. His mission as the Gospels show was one of miracles and a few sermons. And Paul declares that Woman is to be in silence and all subjection, and not to usurp power, etc; and the most vile, degrading, and humiliating treatment of all is that the Christian woman is an object for the man’s sexual release and a “defiler” of man–(Rev: 14:3-4). Christianity may not be practicing it –just as they are not practicing the Biblical laws of stoning to death etc– and Secularism may not tolerate it but the Christian scripture demands it. And heaven, as Jesus says, lies in observing the commandments of God.
Clearly, unlike the woman of Islam who has rights alongside man from birth all the way to Jannah, in contrast, whatever freedom and bliss the Christian woman is enjoying is due solely to the dictates/culture of Secularism.
(Their false beliefs aside. Christians may want to use the excuse that they cannot institute the Biblical laws seeing as they have no state, and have to conform to secular laws [and fortunately so for the Christian woman and her daughter]. But this is a lame-duck excuse. As Christians are “ninety-five percent” of American population, they can demand their independent homeland. After all, if Jews who were a mere thirty percent of Palestine could be awarded 56 percent of Palestine for their homeland then surely Christians who are the overwhelming majority in America can be given at least half of America for their homeland. American Christians may even want to use the tactics/strategy Jews used to get their way in Palestine. And all the way to the U.N. They might even want to imitate their government also and indulge in some diplomatic thuggery with their fellow Christians at the U.N. to achieve their state-hood. After all, to adjust the words of Jesus a bit, those who will not be with them would be against them. Christians could start by demanding Manhattan or Florida; at least. Then encroach, occupy, and usurp as their Jewish brothers-in-Scripture have done in Occupied Palestine. Sweet Jesus would be so proud of them. And delectably, polygamous Christians would no longer need fear and be menaced by Uncle Sam’s “bigamy” police-patrol and be jealous of Muslims “four wives” and be obsessed with Mohammad’s “particularly active sex life,” they will be free to meditate from “pudenda” to “pudenda;” and even to rival Solomon’s and his son’s (Rehoboam) harems of their combined almost 1100 wives and concubines. Haaa-leee-luliah!)
19. Nonie Darwish wrote about the Qur’an allowing Muslims to beat their rebellious/wayward wives. (pp. 73-74).
Response:(And how does the Christian husband discipline his rebellious/wayward wife who is under his all subjection for all of her life? –“till death do us part”).The Muslim wife has rights upon the husband and the husband has rights upon the wife. The wife has the right that the husband feed, clothe and house her, and treats her kindly. The husband has the right that the wife protects his property, preserves her chastity, and raise their children in the best manners and education. That marriage is a sacred contract, that husband and wife have mutual rights, that Allāh has put love, mercy and compassion between them, that they are friends and protectors of the other, and that theyare garments to the other –to beautify, protect, comfort, and conceal each other’s faults– this alone shows that there is no indiscriminate beating of the wife.
Allāh reveals “As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance)”–(Qur’an 4:34.Fear of “disloyalty” would stem from an act contrary to mutual agreement, as marriage is).
A child who is more prone to forgetfulness, is not an example of role model, and not “contracted” to moral behavior is spanked for misdemeanor, made to stand in a corner, or/and sent to bed without supper; if a woman reports, truthfully or not, that she was assaulted, her male partner is thrown in jail; if one commits an offence he/she is fined or thrown into prison. So where is the problem if Islam imposes corporal discipline for the wife who is required to be a role model and is obligated to moral conduct?
Partners in a business are required to fulfill their obligations. If one party lacks in his responsibility/duty or does not wish to fulfill it he is to sever his partnership; he cannot expect to abdicate his role and yet receive the rewards of the business. Marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant. The wife (or husband) that does not fulfill her responsibility cannot expect to receive the benefit from the marriage. Such a wife is to leave the marriage. In requiring the man to be patient and continue supporting her –and to even seek arbitration– while she abdicates her duty Islam is being tolerant with her, giving her time to reform, and trying to save the marriage. These three steps required by Islam –admonishing her; avoiding her bed; and lightly beating her– which is a drawn-out process, highlights her stubbornness in reforming and observing her part of the marriage contract; all the while receiving the benefit of the contract. Under such a strain to the man this light chastisement can hardly be deemed unjust or severe to the woman. She brought it onto herself. And to avoid it she could leave before it reaches the final stage.
Chastisement is only for the wayward wife and only as a last resort (and only if the husband is not himself wayward, for women have rights similar to those against them–Qur’an 2:228).
(That a wife, who is able to, can “beat” the wayward husband, the Prophet advises against this*–perhaps because it may lead to ridicule from his male counterpart; which might lead him to become criminal against his wife. While a “beaten” wife can also become criminal she may less likely be so on account of women being softer at heart, less likely to be ridiculed by her counterpart, and have greater concern and care for her family).* (Al-Hakim, cited in, Mubarak Ali, The Muslim Handbook, p. 288).
This chastisement of the “disloyal” wife is not to be of a brutal nature. Muhammad Ali has noted, “The Prophet is reported to have said: “You have a right in the matter of your wives that they do not allow anyone whom you do not like to come into your houses; if they do this, chastise them in such a manner that it should not leave an impression. (Tirmidhi 10:11).” Thus very light chastisement was allowed only in extreme cases.” The wife has the right to leave the husband if she fears cruelty from him: “if you fear that they cannot keep the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby”–Qur’an 2:229). Allāh giving the woman time to reform in 4:34 clearly shows that the husband is to be patient with the wife.
That in the case of the woman’s rebellion Allāh enjoins “sexual desertion” and chastisement but in the case of the woman fearing ill-teatment and “sexual desertion” Allāh enjoins reconciliation–(Qur’an 4:128), this is not unfair or an injustice against the woman. This difference of approach between the two is not without merit. Clearly the woman who tries to desert the bed of the brutal/wayward husband might not only be ravaged, she might not live to take him to court. (And in some societies he may serve only a couple of years or even months with good behavior, as compared to Islam where Allāh requires execution for murder). So Allāh, the Wise, using “diplomacy” in instructing reconcilement (discussion rather than desertion) in the case of the wife is for the wife’s benefit. Whereas, as stated, in the case of the husband admonishing and desertion, this is giving the wife time to reform. Allāh will not discriminate against women because of her form and physiology –factors in which she had no choice– a form and physiology He gave her. Allāh is Just!
Significantly, this chastisement of the wayward wife would seem almost impossible to be carried out. For, if the wife fears cruelty from her husband and/or if she is wont to be out of the marriage then she can leave before the situation reaches the third stage where the husband is allowed to chastise her.
The Prophet and Caliphs would not utter words degrading to Woman seeing Allāh has conferred honor upon her, and for us to “Speak what is best”–(Qur’an 17:53). We are not even allowed to revile false gods–(Qur’an 6:108). Even in his life-time sayings were forged in the Prophet’s name (much like the “fables invented by Christian writers who seek to vilify Islam” such as the Hafsa Scandal).
Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, is noted as saying: “During the very lifetime of the Holy Prophet (AS) many a false tradition was attributed to him. This continued till the apostle of God got so vexed that he stood up and declared, ‘Whoever deliberately and purposely tells a lie against me or attributes lies to me shall make a place for himself in the Hell’”–(Nahjul Balagha, sermon 215, p. 386. See also Bokhari Vol. 1, # 106-109; Vol. 4, # 667, 712). Whatever contradicts the Qur’an is to be discarded. Allāh will not discriminate against Woman because of her gender–a factor she had no control over; a form and physiology He gave her. ‘Umar could not be against women learning to write when the Prophet advised the educating even of slave-girls–(Bokhari Vol.; 3 # 720. Vol 4 # 655).
That the Prophet never beat any of his wives is evidenced from this hadith, in which Bokhari records a long narration in which ‘Umar’s wife told him that his daughter, Hafsa, “argues with Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) so much that he remains angry for a full day.” Whereupon ‘Umar went to Hafsa who admitted, “we argue with him.” To which her father advised her “Don’t be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of the love of Allah’s Apostle (peace be on him) for her (i.e. ‘Aisha).”(Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 435).
It is doubtful that ‘Aisha and Hafsa would have “argued” with the Prophet and to the extent that “he remains angry for a full day” if he was beating them.
While Islam allows this light chastisement of the wayward wife (and, as shown, only if the husband is not himself wayward, and the wife has rights as that against her) what does the Bible say about wives (good and wayward)? The Biblical God (and Jesus as Christians say Jesus is God) decreed that woman (if she is not sold into slavery by her father–Exodus 21:7) she is to be lorded over by their husbands in all facets of life; and regards her as sex object; a “defiler” and betrayer of man. In fact, even God beat and scourge His sons into obedience and those who are not are “bastards”:“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT, whereof all are partakers, then are ye BASTARDS, and NOT SONS”–(Hebrews 12:6-8). Thus one can imagine what latitude of “beating” the Christian husband is allowed to bring/keep his wayward wife in all subjection.
20. Nonie Darwish states: “Divorce under Islamic law is very easy for a man and is accomplished by the husband repeating the phrase “I divorce you” three times.” (p. 75).
Response: (Khul divorce is dealt with in item #106). There is no “easy divorce” in Islam. Marriage is a sacred contract–(Qur’an 4:21). A sacred matter is not dispensed with lightly. And the Prophet Mohammad is reported as saying: “of all things which have been permitted divorce is the most hated by Allah”–Abu Dawud 13:3 (M Ali, comm. #293). It is doubtful that a person of dignity would undertake a “hated” action without first giving it lengthy consideration. Or that Allāh would allow a “most hated” thing to be annulled by a superfluous expression –I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you– considering that even an oath made against one’s-self needs compensation in return for its expiation–(Qur’an 5:89). And a marriage covenant is not only sacred but unites the man and the woman socially, morally, spiritually, and intimately.
However, while divorce is “the most hated” thing, there is no ‘till death do us part’ in Islam. If a couple cannot live in harmony, it is better for them to part in peace than live in misery. Islam enjoins counseling. A divorce is allowed only after all avenues of reconciliation have been explored–(Qur’an 4:35).
Since woman has rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228) and since marriage is a contract–(Qur’an 4:21) either party may file for divorce: “And if they separate, Allah will render them both free from want”–(Qur’an 4:130). And, “if you fear that they cannot keep the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby”–(Qur’an 2:229). There is a report of Thabit ibn Qais wife’s seeking permission from the Prophet to divorce her husband; which permission was given on agreement that she return the wedding gift to her husband–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #197).
Reading the relevant portions of the Qur’an 2:228-232 on divorce Allāh enjoins: “And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses. And it is not lawful for them to conceal that which Allāh has created in their wombs… And their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation…(228); “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep them in good fellowship or let
(them) go with kindness…(229); “So if he divorces her (the third time), she shall not be lawful to him afterwards until she marries another husband. And if he divorces her, there is no blame on them both if they return to each other (by marriage)….(230); “And when you divorce women and they reached their prescribed time, then retain them in kindness or set them free with kindness”(231); “And when you divorce women and they end their term, prevent them not from marrying their husbands” (232).
As emphasized, “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; and “So if he divorces her (the third time).”It is a mistake to take Allāh’s saying that divorce may be pronounced “TWICE” and if he divorces her the “THIRD” time and group these two to mean that the utterance of the word “divorce” three times dissolves a marriage. Firstly, the word “pronounced” in the statement is the translator’s opinion: it is not part of the Qur’anic text. The translator could have alternatively used the word “undertaken” or “effected” which would then render the two statements thusly: “Divorce may be (undertaken/effected) twice” “So if he divorces her (the third time).” In which instance there would be no question of the husband “pronouncing” I divorce you “three” times.
As noted, Allāh, says, “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep them in good fellowship or let (them) go with kind-ness”–(Qur’an 2:229, and 2:228 says reconciliation is allowed during the three-month waiting period); and, “So if he divorces her (the third time), she shall not be lawful to him afterwards until she marries another husband. If he (the latter husband) divorces her, there is no blame on them both if they return to each other (by marriage)”–(Qur’an 2: 230).
After the first intent to divorce, there is a waiting period of three months before this divorce is finalized; within this three-month waiting period the couple may resume married life, or end the marriage after the waiting period; and may remarry each other–(Qur’an 2:232. Bokhari Vol. 6, #52). This is allowed for up to two times. After the third intent to divorce they may reconcile during the waiting period; but if the divorce is finalized this third time, they can only remarry after the wife has married someone else, consummate that marriage and is divorced from the latter husband–(Qur’an 2:230. Bokhari Vol. 3, #807). (The reason that it is mandatory for the wife to marry another man after the third divorce before remarrying her former husband seems obvious. Since carnal intimacy is the closest a man and a woman can be physically, and since a man, generally, would not want another man to touch his wife, then he must really need/love the woman to still want her after knowing that she had been intimate with another man. This almost impossible condition for them to remarry seems to be a red flag against hasty divorces. The practice of marrying a woman after her third divorce by another man and then divorcing her, without consummating the marriage, so she can remarry her former husband, is invalid. The marriage has to be consummated by the second husband before divorcing her–Bokhari Vol. 3, #807).
The reason why a divorced woman must wait three menstrual courses before remarrying–(Qur’an 2:228) would seem to be a guide to find out if she is pregnant or not as the continuing words of this verse (2:228) show: “And it is not lawful for them to conceal that which Allāh has created in their wombs.” Bokhari Vol. 6, #431 notes the Prophet declaring as illegal a divorce which was enacted while the wife was still menstruating. The prescribed waiting time is, generally, three months–Qur’an 2:228; 65:1, 4).
Allāh mandating against preventing the couple to reunite, even into the third breach of the marriage highlights the expanse to which Islam goes to fortify the marriage-bed on its foundation. Wife and husband are garments to the other–to protect, beautify, comfort, and conceal flaws–(Qur’an 2:187). Allāh enjoining arbitration to prevent dissolution of a marriage and the Prophet’s saying that a divorce is “most hated” in the sight of Allah, either saying taken singularly, has enough weight to crumble the notion that there is “easy divorce” in Islam. Saying “I divorce you; I divorce you; I divorce you” to sever this sacred covenant and rent this beautiful garment of marriage is not only “easy,” but absurdity.
(Notably. Whereas in Islam the divorced wife is awarded a settlement, irrespective of her financial status–[Qur’an 4:32], and adjudged according to the length of marriage and the man’s financial status–[Qur’an 2:236-2237], and after which time, if financially straitened, she becomes zakaatable on the State–[Qur’an 9:60], there is in Secularism the obscene divorce law that can penalize the man to support his wife for the rest of her unmarried life; even though she may have a legion of bed-mates. Some women might find this “lifetime windfall” from the man charming and attractive; but they might have a diametrically opposite disposition if their beloved son(s) is the victim of this penalization. Marriage is a contract of obligations between a man and a woman. There is no “till death do us part.” If the contract is terminated so are the obligations. To tie the man indefinitely to this severed agreement by having him bankroll the woman’s lifestyle is gruesome injustice. Another such “till death us do part” marriage and the poor man may as well hop onto a UFO).
There is “easy” divorce in Christianity. The Christian man can divorce his wife just for finding “some uncleanness in her;” and if she is divorced or widowed from a second husband she is forbidden to remarry her former husband, and is regarded as being “defiled”–(Deut. 24:1-4. See CRITICS at the beginning).
Nonie Darwish wrote: 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.’”” (Bokhari Vol. 7, #10).
Response: As this narration shows, Abdur Rahman had migrated from Makkah to Madinah. As he, Rahman, had no wife, Sa’d bin Arabi who had two wives “suggested that Abdur Rahman take half, his wives and property.”(Talk about brotherhood and benevolence rather than scheme and steal other peoples’ properties and lands; or to bring “pressure” and “duress and coercion” on others to help you steal one person’s property to give to a homeless). The hadith did not say if Sa’d bin Arabi sought the consent of his wives before offering her in marriage to ‘Abdur Rahman. Even if Sa’d did not consult with his wife, given the situation it is doubtful that the “chosen” wife, in the spirit of Islam, would not have agreed to it.
And whereas this Muslim, a human, can be excused for bowing to the noble art of giving one of his wives in marriage to his wife-less brother-in-faith, and even without consulting her, in contrast, the Christian’s God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) threatened to give David’s wives, and even without their consent, to his (David’s) neighbor to be “raped;” and all because David had married Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, after adulterating with her and sending Uriah to be killed in battle, (the Christian’s God is punishing David by having his wives violated): “because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold. I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I WILL TAKE THY WIVES BEFORE THINE EYES, AND GIVE THEM UNTO THY NEIGHBOR, AND HE SHALL LIE WITH THY WIVES IN THE SIGHT OF THIS SUN. For thou didst it (adultery) secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun”–(2 Samuel 12:10-12).In which event Sa’d bi Ar-Rabi Al-Ansari was more gracious and merciful than the Christian’s God. But this is not novel, considering that the Christian’s God needed to have a man (Jesus as they say) killed just so he could forgive others for their sins, (even though it was their way-long-gone parents, Adam/ Eve, who had committed the sin). There’s Christian justice for you.
Islam does not forbid women, single, married or divorced, to have an independent lifestyle. As shown in this presentation, Muslim women can work etc). As already shown it is Christianity that forbids women to have an independent lifestyle. She is doomed to be ruled over by her husband etc. Christians may not practice it and Secularism may not tolerate it but the Christian Scripture demands it. And heaven lies in obeying the scriptures. Whatever fruits if bliss the Christian woman (and man) is enjoying is not from any tree planted by Christ but from that of Secularism/modern culture.
The reason why a non-Muslim man or woman is required to convert (more correctly “revert” to Islam, as All People Are Muslims) is simply because no one gives up a superior item for an inferior one: and Islam is superior to all religions.
There is no “easy” divorce in Islam. In contrast, there is “easy” divorce in Christianity, and Christian Women have no right to “divorce” –she is strangulated to marriage-misery to her death– and is labeled a “defiler;” and if the husband should divorce her and if she remarries she (as well as the former and latter husbands) is eternally pinned with the stigma of adulteress/(adulterer)–(Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18).
And unlike Islam which prescribes alimony for the divorced wife and puts no prohibition to her remarrying, the Biblical God and Jesus not only put stigma on the woman and man, they 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, Jesus, 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! (Child custody is dealt with in item #105).
(Hinduism does not permit a wife to divorce her husband. “Hinduism discriminates between husband and wife. The legislation of Manu, who legalized abduction as one of the right forms of marriage, is very candid in this respect. A man can divorce his wife but in no circumstances a woman can divorce her husband. In all circumstances, she has to obey her husband as a deity and tolerate any atrocity meted out to her by him. (Manu says): “Though the husband be cruel and untrue to his wife, this does not free her from her obligations to him. Though unobservant of approved usages, or enamoured of another woman, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must constantly be revered as a god by a virtuous wife .Although the wife must honour her husband as a god, and remain a widow after his death, the husband, seven years after marriage, if there be no son, may supersede her by another wife. A wife who speaks unkindly may be put aside without delay. If a wife drinks, shows hatred to her lord, is mischievous, or wastes his property, she may at any time be superseded by another wife.” (In fact, the Hindu woman is so oppressed that the following lamentation of one is recorded): “O Lord! Why hast Thou created us to make us suffer thus? From birth to death, sorrow is our portion. While our husbands live, we are their slaves; when the die, we are still worse off. But they have all they wish here, and promises for the life to come.”52 (The Hindu woman’s position is just like the Christian’s as shown in preceding pages. In fact the Christian woman is worse off).
21. Nonie Darwish claims that “Judeo-Christian laws” “prohibit polygamy and wife beating and give them equal rights with their husbands” (p. 78).
Response:Such a claim, as shown in preceding pages, betrays Nonie Darwish’s ignorance of Christianity. The Old Testament sanctions not only polygamy but concubinage –the most notable practitioners being no less than David and Solomon (and he is said to be “wise”) and his son Rehoboam. And Jesus, who came to uphold the Mosaic law and uphold every dot even though heaven and earth shall pass, had nothing to say against it (polygamy). His mention that a man must cleave to his wife as one flesh does not negate polygamy but only to emphasize the closeness of husbands and wives. The Bible also sanctions sex with prepubescent girls. (See item #18. Also Christianity-Sex Slaves & Prepubescent Girls).
Notably, whereas polygamy in Islam is an exception only in certain cases and Allāh has limit the number of wives to maximum four, Solomon and his son, Rehoboam have demonstrated that in Judaism and Christianity there is unbridled polygamy and concubinage. While Muslims may have kept harems, there is no “harem” in Islam. There is “harem” in Judaism and Christianity.
Regarding Judeo-Christian “wife beating” a survey should be carried to find out how these Judeo-Christian husbands deal with their wives who rebel against being “ruled over” by their husbands and to live their lives in “all subjection.” There is no equal rights in being under total ruler-ship and in all subjection and being an object of male sexual release and a “defiler” of man. Nonie Darwish has mistaken Secularism for Christianity.
22. Nonie Darwish is enamored by the church wedding marriage vows to “love honor, and cherish his one and only wife “till death do us part.””
Response: This vow to “love honor, and cherish” one wife is the product of secularism. It has already been shown that the Bible/Christianity sanctions unbridled polygamy as well as unbridled concubinage. And the Bible’s misogynistic doctrines –that the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man; her husband will rule over all her life; it is not good for a man to touch a woman but only to avoid fornication (she is only an object for sex); she was transgressor (because she was deceived by Satan/Devil); only man is the glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man; to submit to husband as if he was God, and to reverence him; to learn in silence and all subjection; not to teach or usurp authority over the man but be in silence; sell daughters in bondage; that woman is “defiler” of man– are hardly an expression of “love and honor.” And as shown in “CRITICS” and in item #20 this vow of “till death do us part” is a potential “death-trap” for the Christian woman. And man.
(In the Secular/Christian marriage ceremony the priest usually addresses the audience: “Dearly beloved we are here to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony .…Sometimes the bride and groom express their own marriage vows/promises; then the priest ask each of them in words of similar import: “do you promise to love, honor and cherish, to have and to hold and to forsake all others, till death do you part; they affirm “I do” then the priest continues that if there is anyone who knows of any reason why this man and woman should not be joined together let him/her speak now or forever hold his piece; [I have never heard of anyone objecting]. The priest then concludes that those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder. I now pronounce you man and wife…”
The Muslim marriage is a sacred contract between a man and a woman who have consented to the other of their own free choice. The husband is required to give the wife a free gift (mahr/dowry) either in property or cash; before or after marriage. The marriage is publicly announced and requires two adult witnesses. The marriage sermon is delivered by the Imam thusly: (Glorification of Allāh) “All praise is due to Allāh: we praise Him and we beseech Him for help and we ask for His protection and we seek refuge in Allāh from the mischief of our souls, and from the evil of our deeds; whomsoever Allāh guides, there is none who can lead him astray and whom Allāh finds in error, there is none to guide him; and I bear witness there is no god but Allāh and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.” (Recitation of Qur’an 3:101; 4:1; 33:70-71 and directed mainly to the bride and groom): “O you who believe! be careful of your duty to Allāh with the care which is due to Him and do not die unless you are Muslims;” “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord Who created you from 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) Allāh by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allāh ever watches over you;” “O you who believe! be careful of your duty to Allāh and speak the right word: He would put your deeds into a right state for you; and forgive you your faults; and whosoever obeys Allāh and His Apostle, he indeed achieves a mighty success.”
The Imam then explains the rights and obligations of each partner; announces that the couple has agreed to become husband and wife, that they have agreed upon the mahr/dowry; followed by the bride and groom’s public acceptance of each other of their own free will. The ceremony is concluded with everyone joining with the Imam in the following invocation for the husband and wife: “May Allāh shower His blessings and may He bless you and unite you two in goodness.” (Other prayer for the prosperity of the couple may be added). Then comes the walima (wedding feast).
23. Nonie Darwish: “Even after death, in the paradise of Islam, women are given the short end of the stick. The idea of heaven is a lustful man’s dream. Since men who die as shahid (martyr) are promised seventy-two virgins, a woman in Islam’s heaven is supposed to be servicing men’s sensual desires together with about seventy-one other women,” (p. 87).
Response: And wouldn’t these women in Paradise also enjoy the men? Do you not also enjoy your husband’s “sensual desires” as he enjoys yours? While as already shown, Islam has given on earth the Muslim woman rights that leaves her nothing for which to strive (rights that no other religion has given their women), Islam also guarantees the Muslim woman a place in Paradise (shown at the end of this topic). Whereas, in contrast, it is Christian “women (who) are given the short end of the stick;” from birth all the way into the Hereafter. In fact, Christian women are not even given “the short end of the stick”: they are given no “stick.”
First. There is nothing scandalous about having pleasure in paradise. This –having peace and joy– seemingly, is the desire and goal of every religionist. However, heavenly bliss is not a pleasure of the body. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out:
“The Muslim Paradise is not, it must be understood, a garden for the voluptuary, where he may sit in the company of maidens under the shade of trees, with goblets of wine circling continually for the enjoyment of the dissipated. We read, it is true, of Hur (Q; 44:54) in the Muslim Paradise…. But we are assured that these damsels of heaven will be possessed of a pure and spotless heart (Q; 56:22), which the very word Hur literally means. Their eyes, fascinating as they may be, will not be the bearers of amorous message… We shall all be free of physical appetites and there will be no further procreation of the species….It may be said that the Hurs are not wanted if they are not to play the role of wife as in our earthly sojourn. But those who say so only betray the hollowness of their own minds. Even in this life bed is not the best part of our happiness. All earthly tastes lose their attractions for us when we pass a certain age. Intellectual or spiritual pleasures alone can captivate us for good. Knowledge, and not the flesh, is our real pleasure.”52A (Much like a ballerina finds pleasure in his/her dancing, and a musician in his/her music.)
What is to be remembered is that the verses of the Qur’an are of literal and allegorical meanings. There are several descriptions of the “Garden(s)” in the Qur’an. These descriptions are not to be taken literally. Allah says in His Qur’an 32:17: “And no soul knows what delights of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward for their (good) deeds.” The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: Allah says, I have prepared for My righteous servants that which no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and which the heart of man cannot conceive–(Bokhari Vol.’s 4:467; 6:302-303; 9:589). And one commentator noted that the things in Paradise and on earth are the same only in name. Man can relate to things only in the physical life. To us the ultimate in possessions are gold and precious stones, wealth and carnal pleasure. So Allah relates to us in terms of what we understand. These descriptions of paradise are to let us know that we will receive in paradise the ultimate in bliss. This reward is not a lure for us to do good and to avoid evil, but rather the fruits of our own labor that we have toiled for in this life.
As sex in marriage is Divinely lawful on the earthly plain there is no difficulty if it should be allowed in the spiritual plain. Carnal pleasure in the conjugal bed is a form of worship of God–(Genesis 1:28. Qur’an 25:54; 16:72; 24:32). The ignorant revile this blessed union as vulgar.
Whereas the Muslim Paradise is criticized as one of sensuality, what is the Christian heaven like? Christians depict heaven as a picturesque landscape of people laxing and reading, with the lamb and wolf nesting together (Isaiah 11:6-7, “the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb…and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” This must be a cruel joke on the lions or they would have to be outfitted with dentures of incisors and molars for stripping and grinding hay, and have their systems redesigned to process and evacuate hay). In other words, the Christian’s heaven is B-O-R-I-N-G.Small wonder the Christian is obsessed with Mohammad’s “particularly active sex life,” and the gardens of “virgins” Muslims will have. The Christian is jealous to boot.
(A survey should be done among Christians–male and female–to find out how many prefer to lax in heaven reading past-time stories and watching lions stripping hay instead of being in the Muslim Paradise of joys beyond human comprehension, lounging on couches of velvet savoring “wine” from goblets of gold and silver and enjoying “an eternity” of “sex.” And don’t forget the priests).
Jesus had no knowledge if he was going to heaven. Jesus says “If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”–(John 12:32). For the man who is confident he is going to heaven it is queer Jesus should say “If” I be lifted up instead of ‘after’ I be lifted up or ‘when’ I be lifted up. Jesus told one of the thieves being crucified: “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise”–(Luke 23:43). But not only was Jesus not killed/crucified as proven elsewhere, he did not go to paradise “To day”: at least eight days after his alleged resurrection he was with his disciples–(John 20:26). Thus, Jesus (the Christians’ God and son of God) not only did not know “if” he was going to heaven he did not even know when he will be going. (Poor thief!) In fact, not only did Jesus not know “if” and “when” he will be going to heaven, but by his own pronouncement seems he was “in danger of hell fire;” he says: “whoever shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire”–(Matt. 5:22); yet he calls the Jews “fools”–(Matt. 23:17, 19; Luke 24:25).
Jesus tells his followers that his Father’s house has many mansions and, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself”–(John 14:2-3). Here again, Jesus, like his uncertainty in going to heaven, is not certain “if” he is going to prepare a place for his followers. And as Jesus has not yet returned, all those Christians who died and will die before his alleged return will not get taken.
As to Jesus saying that if he be lifted up that he “will draw all men unto” him. It is clear that in the two thousand years since Jesus is alleged to have gone to heaven and is sitting “on the right hand of God”* that he has not drawn “all men” unto him; there are tens of millions of atheists and non-Christians the world over who have died or are still living who do not believe in him, or accept him as God or son of God or vicarious atoner. This would seem to suggest that, either Jesus did not utter those words or his words are not true or that he was not “lifted up from the earth.” *(Since Buddha is also believed to have ascended to heaven as well as Enoch and Elijah, then there are at least four individuals in heaven and possibly sitting “on the right hand of God”–Mark 16:19).
(Significantly, whereas Christians are scanning the sky over Jerusalem for Jesus’ dubious return, Jehovah’s Witnesses allude in their book Mankind’s Search For God, (p. 353-354) that Christ came in 1914; but that his coming was an “invisible presence.” And they may be right, for this would be in keeping with Jesus’ declaration that he came not to send peace but sword, fire and division: “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. 10:34; Luke 12:49, 51. This Christians’ son of God and “God” is truly a warmonger: “The Lord is a man of war”–Exodus 15:3. And there was loads of fire and sword from the “division” of World War I in 1914).
Contrastingly, while no one knows where Jesus went or if he is coming back or not or has already come or “if” he has prepared a place for his followers (though those who follow inherited sin and vicarious atonement and son of God doctrines are not his followers but followers of Paul) the Prophet Mohammad tells us in clear unambiguous words that Allāh has already prepared Gardens and mansions for us. All we need do is believe in Allāh and do good deeds and Paradise is ours –as easy and simple as that; no uncertain trip to heaven and back and no vague promises. And the promise of Allāh is ever true–(Qur’an 19:60-61; 31:8-9; 39:20; 61:12). Muslims have assurance of heaven–(Qur’an 4:124; 33:35; 36:56; 41:8; 43:70; 46:15-16; 52:17; 64:9).
Contrary to Nonie Darwish’s claim that Muslim “women are given the short end of the stick” in Paradise. Allāh says that Muslims and their wives will be in Paradise:
-“Surely the owners of the Garden are on that day in a happy occupation. They and their WIVES are in shades, reclining on raised couches”–(Qur’an 36:56);
-“Enter the garden, you and your WIVES, being made happy” –(Qur’an 43:70);
-“And whoever does good deeds, whether male or FEMALE, and he (or she) is a believer –these will enter the Garden, and they will NOT be dealt with a whit unjustly”–Qur’an 4:124);
-“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 almsgiving 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).
In contrast, as already shown, from birth to death “earthly” Christian women are under the iron fist of their husbands; her father can sell her into bondage, she is regarded as only an object of sexual release for the man and humiliated as a “defiler” of man (the Christian man being told by Paul 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. Paul also instructs masters to be kind to their slaves–Ephesians 6:9; Col. 4:1).Christian women have no place in heaven either. Apart from Jesus’ dubious preparation of a place in his Father’s house for his supposed followers, the Bible says in Revelation 14:1-4 that the 144,000 who will be with Jesus are all MEN“These are they which were not DEFILED WITH WOMEN; for they are VIRGINS. These are they which follow the Lamb (Jesus) whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among MEN, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.” What about the “virgin” WOMEN (the nuns and even others) are they not followers of God and Jesus? Surely, Mother Theresa, at least, seems deserving of a spot with Jesus. And if men are “defiled” by women through sex, are women not likewise “defiled” by men through sex? And can women also not be redeemed from the earth? Or did the Bible/God/Jesus forget about the women? Thus, as the Christian woman is a “defiler” on earth how can she be allowed into heaven? In fact, “earthly” Christian women have no “witness” credibility. The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) says in John 8:17: “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO MEN is true.”(See item #123).
24. Nonie Darwish wrote: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.” (p. 126).
Response: Is there a Jew who does not hate the Nazis/Hitler?
You have that right. It is a crisis of Jewish “hate” and “ingratitude.” Lest we forget, it was the Majestic Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin) who brought Jews back to Jerusalem from where they were barred by Christians, their brothers-in-scripture. And this is how Jews repay Muslims/Arabs’ benevolence and love –with hatred, intrigue, massacre, expulsion, occupation/ usurpation and more than sixty years of torture, humiliation, and barbarism– they devour the hand that fed them! (But this could hardly have been unexpected considering that Jews were treacherous against God–(Jer. 3:20; 5:11); broke their covenant with Him;53 were arrogant/ungrateful to their prophet –telling Moses to go and fight while they sit and wait–(Num. 13:31-33; 14:1-4; Qur’an 5:22-24); killed the prophets of God–(Matt. 23:31-35, and even tried to kill God’s “only begotten son,” (Jesus); were treacherous against the Prophet Mohammad; and tried to deceive Muslims–(Qur’an 3:71); and as M. H. Haykal points out “their opposition and hostility were never open”54 [perhaps this is so even today]; and in post-1948 Palestine they colluded with France and Britain and attacked Egypt so Britain could “occupy” Egypt’s Suez Canal;55 were the first air-plane hijackers in the Mid-East;56 provoked the war in Lebanon;57 and one-time so-called “Israeli” leader “Ariel Sharon” “advised that the way to deal with demonstrators is to “cut off their testicles””58 [wonder what Sharon had in mind to “cut off” from female demonstrators]; through its “Operation Trojan” deception suckered America into bombing Libya59 (Isn’t this a war crime?); and “hijacked” a Syrian civilian jet to take “hostages”60 (Were the hijackers hunted down and brought to trial?) Jews also assassinated a legion of Palestinians, including writer and poet, as noted on the Internet). (For a list of Jewish atrocities read Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, Edward Said, The Question of Palestine; Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, if you can digest intellectual, “civilized,” and “democratic” savagery. See also SHAPED BY TERRORISM, NOURISHED BY BLOODBy Barbara L of http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/).
And as noted in item #1 Ilan Pappe notes in his scholarly presentation, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the ruthless methods used by Zionist Jews to savage the Palestinians in which “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.”
(Jews are ferreting out geriatric Nazi suspects and dragging them to court for “war crimes.” Wonder if they will be so zealous in ferreting out those who commit war crimes against Arabs. Jews schemed and booted Palestinians off their lands; provoked and attacked her victims en masse; and assassinated etc; and claim to be God’s “chosen people.” Imagine their conduct if they were Satan’s choice. Jewish misguided belief that all nations will have to bow to them dealt with later).
Whatever “crisis of hate, lack of compassion,” Arabs/Muslims have for Jews was cultivated by Jewish heads and hearts and hands. Arabs/Muslims “hate” of the occupying Jews (and their helpers) is not only fully justified; it Divinely justified: “There is a party of them (Jews) keeping to the moderate course; and most of them—evil is that which they do;” “most of them have no faith;” “thou wilt always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them;” “most of them are transgressors;” “Allāh has cursed them on account of their unbelief;” they “were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary…because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits;” “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;” “and drive them out from where they drove you out;” “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;” “And be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy. If you suffer they (too) suffer. And you hope from Allāh what they hope not. And Allāh is ever Knowing, Wise”–(Qur’an 5:66; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81; 2:88-89; 5:78; 60:9; 2:191; 4:74, 104).
Unless and until every grain of sand of Palestine is returned to Muslims and unless and until America stops running around like a “wild ass of a man” trying to control Muslim lands and oil/resources Muslims have every right and all rights and the Highest Authority –the Divine Authority– to undertake the noble armed jihad against America (not civilians) and the Jewish occupiers of Palestine. All the way to the Resurrection if need be. And Muslims will prevail. Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. Muslims who acquiesce to this domination of Palestine are traitors to Allāh and His noble Messenger–(Qur’an 48:10; 2:190-191; 8:72-73; 60:9; 42:39-41). Such Muslims are to begin formulating their excuse for when they face Allāh on the Judgment Day. And they expect Allāh to give them Jannah.
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!
Notably, it is Jesus (the Christian’s God and son of God) that has a “crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity,” disowning his mother and commanding “hate” between families:
-“Then one said unto him (Jesus), Behold, thy mother and thy brethren….But he answered and said, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?” (and he gestured to his disciples) “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Mary could not have been guilty of neglecting God so that Jesus should dishonor her; Mary was chosen over all women because she was “highly favoured” by God, and “blessed”–Luke 1:28. In fact, Christians honor Mary as “Mother of God.” And, to this day, as Christians claim, Mary makes appearances and even cures/gives power to people so that they are canonized as saints).
-“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).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).
25. Nonie Darwish notes that The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that “all Men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness;” and that in America “your human rights are not granted to you by the president or Congress, but by your Creator, whomever you may believe that to be.” (p. 126).
Response: His Holy Highness, Allāh, tells us this more than a thousand years before the U.S. Constitution–(Qur’an 23:12-14; 30:30; 95:4). His Holy Majesty also gave woman rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Jannah while the twentieth century U.S. woman was burning her brassiere for equal rights with her “male chauvinist pig.”
That “All men are created equal,” Your Jewish idols do not agree with that. Jewish hierarchy claims they are the “most superior of all races”61 (which means they are “superior” to you also). And one time so-called “Israeli” leader, Ariel Sharon, is noted as having said: “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.”62 (Hitler and Germany should be so blessed. Lest we forget! Imagine the furor had such a declaration been made by a Muslim/Arab leader, say, Iran’s ‘Mr. Cool,’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example. The sky would have already caved in from henny-penny’s and her dutiful cluckers boisterous squawking. But nary a squeal was heard about this Jewish arrogance. Perhaps Iran or other nations can claim the same for themselves and/or friends and allies. Great racket isn’t it?) I do not know how you are going to paint these lunacies –anti-world? anti-Muslim? anti-Arabism? I leave these beautiful babies for you, the “independent thinker,” to dress. How rightly the Prophet Mohammad gave the celestially and profoundly perfect answer to this mis-shapen mentality (of high-birth) that is unworthy not only of the enlightened Twentieth century but unworthy of all centuries. Said the magnificent Messenger of Allāh, that whoever prides himself on being of high-birth ‘tell him to bite on his father’s penis’63 (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 not to 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.” (The “most superior of all races” my skinny “Goy” behind!)
The Church/Christianity does not regard all men as being “created equal” viewing non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” undeserving of the “children’s bread” and preaching in parables so these “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be saved–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:9-12). In fact the Church/ Christianity does not even regard its own woman as equal with man: relegating her to lifetime of servitude under the hammer-hand of her husband; etc. as noted in CRITICS.
What about the “human rights” of the Muslims who are held/ jailed (and even “tortured”) without charge and those who are tried without seeing the evidence against them and/or facing their accusers? And what about the “human rights” of the Palestinians that the U.S. has trampled upon, stealing their lands and giving it to Jews? Only the subjects of the U.S. are granted “human rights” by their “Creator”?
26. Nonie Darwish wrote that (in Egypt) “Our knowledge of Islam was based on memorization and compliance, and not on study, debate, or asking questions.” (p. 133).
Response: This may be so in Egypt. But Allāh requires Muslims to seek knowledge in order for us to make subservient to us whatever is in the heavens and the earth–(Qur’an 20:114; 45:12-13). And He calls us to belief though wisdom, reason, argument and examples–(Qur’an 16:125). Islam not only encourages the utility of reason but likens those who not use their reasoning faculties to cattle: “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). (See also item #165).
There is no death for apostasy in Islam. Allāh says: “And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever –these it is whose works go for nothing in this world and the Hereafter;” “How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing, and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them?”–(Qur’an 2:217; 3:85). Again: “Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them in the (right) way”–(Qur’an 4:137. If apostates were to be killed there would be no question of them believing then disbelieving then believing again). Further:“Whoso disbelieves in Allāh after his belief –not he who is compelled while his heart is content with faith, but he who opens (his) breast for disbelief– on them is the wrath of Allāh and for them is a grievous chastisement”–(Qur’an 16:106. The wrath of Allāh is on them; not that they are to be killed).
The Prophet governed by the Qur’an–(10:15; 21:45; 53:3-4). Prior to Qur’anic revelation on a subject the prophet was required to govern according to the Torah. Killing of apostates (and blasphemers, homosexuals, and adulterers, etc) would have been prior to the above noted Qur’anic injunctions, in which event the Prophet was following the Bible which requires death to apostates: “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;” “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; 13:5-16; 17:2-5). (Like honor killing, this is another one of the Biblical laws that the Qur’an has abrogated–(Qur’an 2:106 16:101). As stated only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix (or follow any other religion).
27. Nonie Darwish notes that Egyptian Muslims are “describing Christian Egyptian Copts” as nagass “meaning “filthy” or “dirty.” (pp. 135-136).
Response: There are three kinds of uncleanness: (1) ceremonial uncleanness, such as having bodily matters (urine and feces) on the skin and clothes, which Muslims are to avoid; and are to tissue and wash (if water is available) after a bladder and bowel movement; (2) moral uncleanness, such as illicit relations, theft and robbery (whether in business matters or otherwise), etc; (3) spiritual uncleanness, such as teaching or attributing to God doctrines which God did not reveal.
Perhaps in calling Copts “nagass” Egyptian Muslims are referring to ceremonial uncleanness because they are aware that Copts tissue only; that they are unwashed.
Or perhaps Egyptian Muslims are referring to spiritual uncleanness. To say that God loaded Adam’s/Eve’s sin onto every person (even the babe that just came out the womb) and then loads everyone’s sins onto Jesus is to attribute injustice to God (inherited sin); to say that God had Jesus killed (as a scape-goat) for everyone’s sins is to make God complicit in murder (vicarious atonement), giving God a son –which is an “abominable assertion,” attributing to His Eternal Grace the function of sexual intercourse, as fatherhood/begetting requires the union of sperm and ovum, and as Jesus is said to “begotten” son of God which is such a heinous sin that “The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down to pieces, that they ascribe a son to the Beneficent”(Qur’an 19:88-90)– to put God in the womb of a woman and bring Him out her vagina (trinity) are falsehood and blasphemies; and as such are spiritual uncleanness.
(Don’t Christians consider the “heathen” –one that does not accept the Biblical God– to be spiritually unclean? Don’t Christians consider as “infidel” one who does not follow the Christian religion? In fact according to the Bible, and as Christians say Jesus is God, then Jesus commands that those who worship others than the God of the Bible are to be killed: 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).
Allāh the Omniscient revealed–(Qur’an 9:30) and research has proven that the Christian’s doctrine of ‘son of God’ is paganism. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din states in his revealing work The Sources Of Christianity: “To-day it is an established verity that Church theology was only an assimilation of Paganism; what an irony of fate, that those who called others heathens should have turned out to be heathens themselves in their beliefs!” (pp. 14-25).
Thus, in calling Christian Copts “nagass” perhaps the Egyptian Muslims are referring to either or both instances of uncleanness –ceremonial or/and spiritual. Ask them. Incidentally, it is said that cleanliness is next to Godliness.
28. ND wrote, “(Egyptian) Muslims know nothing about other religions or how close Islam is to both Judaism and Christianity. For instance, they never associate the great feast in Islam with the biblical story of Abraham and his son Isaac, but with a Muslim Abraham (Ibrahim) and his son Ishmael.” (p. 136).
Response:(See also item #7).Abraham was neither a Jew nor Christian. There was no Jew/Judaism or Christianity then. Abraham, as all prophets, was a Muslim –one who submits to will of Allāh, God. This great feast (Eid al-Adha, the animal sacrifice of the Hajj, on the tenth day in the twelfth month, Dhul-Hijjah) of Muslims is in honor of Abraham and Ishmael. That Ishmael, and not Isaac, was the son Abraham offered in his intended sacrifice is borne out by Allāh in His Qur’an. Abraham prayed for an heir and is given a son; then he had a vision about him sacrificing this son–(Qur’an 37:100-111), and AFTERWARDSAbraham was promised Isaac as stated in verses 112-113: “And We gave him the good news of ISAAC, a prophet, a righteous one. And We blessed him (Abraham) and Isaac.” (Ishmael was some fourteen years old when Isaac was born. Muslims who say that the Qur’an is not clear about which son was the intended sacrifice are to study the Qur’an carefully).
(Strangely, whereas Jews commemorate their freedom from Pharaoh and the dubious story about one drop of oil lasting for eight days they do not commemorate this most Holy covenant of sacrifice in which God decreed to “multiply” them “as the stars” and as the “sand” upon the seashore and give them as possession the “gate” of their enemies–(Gen.22:17). The only reasonable answer to this Jewish failure to commemorate the sacrifice of “Isaac” would be that Jews knowing that Ishmael was the intended sacrifice and not Isaac, their commemorating this sacrifice in the name of Isaac would be a mockery of themselves; as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani) revealed that because of their jealousy, Jews “efface(d) the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac.” (See OVERVIEW item [b]).
Regarding Nonie Darwish, “Muslims know nothing about other religions or how close Islam is to both Judaism and Christianity.” While Allāh tells us to believe in all His revealed Books –and He did not reveal doctrines of “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; inherited sin, vicarious atonement, son of God, and Trinity; karma and reincarnation; dualism; and polytheism– this is only for personal reference, not for institutionalized study.
Not only have Jews adulterated the Old Testament they blaspheme against God –pluming themselves as God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; thus ascribing injustice to God that He chooses people on the basis of their race, a factor in which we have no choice, a factor He gave us. As for Christians, they not only adulterate the New Testament –making forgeries, thus lying on God and lying on Jesus– they write books with their own hands and say it is from God –all the books of Paul are man-made. Christians also attribute injustice to God –inherited sin: that God put Adam/Eve’s sin on everyone– they made God complicit in murder –that God send Jesus to be killed for everybody’s sin– they gave God a son (and a pagan one at that), and in their Trinity they put God in the womb (an unclean place) of a woman He Created and bring Him out her vagina and worship her as “Mother of God.” Moreover, there is nothing in the Bible to foster material progress. And most significantly, with the advent of Mohammad who brought “all truth” –and there is nothing that is needed for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment that is omitted from the Qur’an– the Bible is rendered OBSOLETE! There is no wisdom in investing in outdated products. There is no wisdom in delivering your soul to debased and defunct doctrines.
The Qur’an contains teachings given to past people that are good for all time as well as teachings that were not given to past people. Thus, the Qur’an consists of, exceeds, and supersedes all other Scriptures. All we need to know about Judaism and Christianity are in the Qur’an. Allāh has revealed the Truth! Islam neither “proscribed nor coerced” religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 16:125; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6). Whatever Muslims need to know about Judaism and Christianity is in the Qur’an. Allāh has revealed the truth!
29. On entering the women’s room in a Mosque, ND wrote: “All the women were sitting on the floor. (Muslims must show humility before God, and sitting on a chair is considered a sign of disrespect to God)” (Words in brackets are ND’s) (p. 138).
Response: (Seems as if you have never been to a Mosque in Egypt, to know that Muslims sit on the floor. No wonder you do not know anything about Islam. Perhaps your men-folk are to be blamed for their subjugating women). Aren’t Christians also to “show humility before God”? Arguably they don’t; if they did they would not institute blasphemous doctrines for which they have no Divine authority.
When Moses was on Mount Sinai God instructed him to remove his shoes, that the ground was Holy ground. And Moses prostrated on the ground. This is how Jesus and a host of others also humbled themselves before God; even animals prostrate before God.
1. Abraham “fell on his face”–(Gen. 17:3).
2. Joshua “fell on his face to the earth and did worship” –(Josh.5:14).
3. Elijah “cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees” –(Kings 18:42).
4. Moses and Aaron “fell upon their faces”–(Numbers 20:6).
5. Balaam “bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face”–(Num; 22:31).
6. Jesus “fell on his face and prayed”–(Matthew 26:39).
7. Even “beasts fell down and worshipped God”–(Rev. 19:4).
While the highest physical form of expression of humility to God is the prostrating on the ground, Muslims, depending on the situation and one’s physical or medical condition, can also pray standing, sitting on a chair, riding on an animal or other transportation. When we greet earthly monarchy we genuflect with respect and humility; should not the Monarch who created all then deserving of the highest form of respect and humility?
Obviously, Christians do not consider their Church holy, entering and praying with their shoes on. Nor do they consider God worthy of the highest form of respect and humility, sitting on chairs/benches. (Some while back, a Christian organization in the U.S. charged that Hindus worship “devils.” If Hindus worship “devils” then the Hindus have greater respect and adoration for their “devils’ than Christians have for their God and son of God and “Mother of God;” for, like Muslims, the Hindus also remove their shoes before entering their Mandir and sit with “humility” on the floor).
30. Nonie Darwish writes: “Conquering the world for Islam has been going on since the seventh century….Before the seventh century, Egypt was Christian and did not speak Arabic. The same for Mesopotamia, which had substantial Christian and Jewish populations as well as various other tribal groups and religions. During an era of political confusion and military weakness the two regional powers were overwhelmed by Arab tribes who swept in from the desert and by force changed their religion to Islam and their language to Arabic.” (p. 144).
Response: And what was Egypt before it became Christian, and how did it become Christian? If Islam had require Muslims to conquer lands for Allāh, it is doubtful that Muslims would have devoted all their efforts to bringing benefits to mankind and not have invested some of their efforts to developing instruments of colonization as “Christians” have developed –subduing, subjugating and sacking– as her history testifies.
As stated in item #11, Muhammad Ali has dealt with this topic in his book The Early Caliphate. Muslims expeditions were not for territorial or religious expansion, the fledgling Islamic state faced threats from both the Romans and the Persians. Muslims had to choice but to put a check on these enemies bent on crushing Islam. Here are excerpts from The Early Caliphate that debunks all the claims that Muslim military missions were for land, religion, and loot:
-“Muslims did all they could to avert war, and were driven to it only by the repeated attacks of the Persians and the Romans.” (p.62)
-“Take, for instance, the words of ‘Umar spoken after the conquest of Mesopotamia and recorded by all historians: “I wish between ourselves and Persia there were a mountain of fire.” Muir records in The Caliphate that when a certain general, Ziyad, after the conquest of Mesopotamia, asked ‘Umar’s permission to advance on Khurasan in pursuit of the Persian forces, ‘Umar forbade him, saying: I desire that between Mesopotamia and the countries beyond, the hills shall be a barrier so that the Persians shall not be able to get at us, nor we at them. The plain of al-Iraq sufficeth for our wants. I would prefer the safety of my people to thousands of spoils and further conquest.” Commenting on this, the Christian historian observes: “The thought of a world-wide mission was yet in embryo; obligation to enforce Islam by a universal crusade had not yet dawned upon the Muslim mind.” This is a clear admission that Islam is free of the charge of being spread at the point of the sword till at least the time of ‘Umar.” (pp. 63-64. This is typical Christian arrogance. Considering that “From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” The Qur’an/ Islam does not require Muslims “to enforce Islam by a universal crusade.” This is the Christian “mind,” as his Scripture and history testify).
-“There is no doubt that at the very outset when Islam took a firm footing in the soil of Arabia, Persia and Rome viewed this rising power in their neighborhood with jealousy and alarm.” (p. 65)
-“In the year 14 A.H. (After Hijra), when Rustam, the famous Persian general, came out for battle on the field of the Qadisiyah, this is how he loudly swaggered: “The whole of Arabia will I smash.”(p. 66).
-The Persians “violated the independence of Arabia by encroaching upon its soil. They made common cause with the rebels and sent troops for the destruction of the power of Islam. Likewise, towards the north, the Romans stirred up Christian tribes against Islam.” (p. 67).
-To only expel the enemy would have been a “blunder” on the part of the Muslims, for, as Muhammad Ali rightly states, “the enemy would certainly have reappeared soon after in greater force. It would have been sheer stupidity to have stopped at that. In all civilized warfare, when once the die is cast, it is open to either party to continue the fight to a finish. Either one of the contending parties must surrender or it must be thoroughly crushed. Such are the rules of the game, and if the Muslims played that game to an issue, where lay the harm? In prosecuting war till Persia and Syria were completely broken down, Muslims had behind them all the sanction of civilized warfare, ancient as well as modern.” (p. 67)
It is Christianity, as her history and Scripture attest, that is the Sword of Force.
31. Nonie Darwish: “The raiding Arab armies continued their conquest, claiming all of the Middle East for Islam (including parts of Europe, such as Turkey and Spain).” (pp. 144-145).
Response: And how did Christianity establish itself in the world and secure its presence in Spain? Perhaps you will also write about the history of Christianity. And don’t forget to detail the murderous and man-made Crusade. (See items #11and 30).
As noted at the beginning, all the lands of the Middle-east, as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani) has explained, were Divinely decreed to be conquered by the Prophet Mohammad. (So if Nonie Darwish has a gripe with that she can take it up with her “Jehovah”/Jesus).
There is no “Islamic tyranny.” Islam and tyranny are incompatible. Islam is democracy: Islam allows freedom of religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:105-109; 9:107-108; 10:88-100; 18:29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6); freedom of movement, thought, and expression–(4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10); to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(4:58); to govern by consultation/counsel–(3:158; 4:58; 42:38). (See item #169).
In contrast, as shown in this presentation, there is “tyranny” in Christianity –it regards those not with her as being against her; commands that enemies against her rule be slaughtered; commands that women be lorded over in silence and subjection, and that she is an object for sex, a “defiler” and betrayer of man; and have her live in fear of being sold into slavery by her father.
32. ND wrote: “I even heard a Muslim leader once proudly claim…that America was not the true power behind the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was the Muslim mujahadeen in Afghanistan. America to them did not win the Cold War but the Muslim fighters in the caves of Afghanistan did.” (pp. 145-146).
Response: This was no “Cold War!” This was probably a hot as Hell “War.” Americans can laugh all they want. They can even laugh their heads off and you can wring your hands wretched to the Resurrection but the Muslim leader was right. America may have supplied the armaments but it was the fearless Mujahiddeen giving their blood, limbs and lives that gave the wretched Soviet menace its crushing defeat. That defeat was the beginning of the end of the dismembering of the heinous Red Bear! (Chechnya and Dagestan are to emulate the Afghan Mujahiddeen).
33. Nonie Darwish wrote: “Some Muslims dare to ask why Islam has not provided them with a better society than that of the infidels.” (p. 147).
Response: Here again Nonie Darwish confuses Islam with Muslims. Islam not only provides the best of societies, but Islam brought light to the world. If the current crop of Muslim Fathers were practicing Islam Muslims would still be leaders: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(Qur’an 20:1-2). Muslim history is testimony to the truth of this Divine decree. Even the present system of Muslim(?) government are contrary to Islam. There is no despotism (and nepotism) or monarchy in Islam. Observant Muslims are justified in being “disappointed” with not only Egyptian society but all such Arab/Muslim societies. Their turning their backs on Islam/Shari’ah has sunk them into stagnation and disaster. As the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, admonishes 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.” (Allāh brings “disgrace” by withholding his favor; thus man brings “disgrace” upon himself). Those Muslims who “dare to ask why Islam has not provided them with a better society than that of the infidels” need to use their heads for more than wearing hats and hairstyles. They need to learn our religion. And live it!
34. Nonie Darwish wrote that the Qur’an “encourage(s) killing, jihad, and war against the infidels.” (p. 150).
Response. As any person familiar with the Qur’an/Islam will attest that the only “infidels” the Qur’an requires Muslims to “kill” are those who first take up the sword to annihilate Muslims. (Incidentally, this is what America and Allies claim to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan –kill the transgressors [and many innocents]; even though, unlike the idolatrous Arabs who were hounding Mohammad and Muslims to extirpate them, Saddam Hussein and Talibans did not transgress against America and Allies. America is also killing [and killing innocents] in Yemen and Pakistan). Only the blind and the bigoted and the ignorant (who ape others) would indict the Qur’an/Islam of killing all “infidels.” (Jihad dealt with in item #8).
While Islam does not sanction fighting against civilians and to fight only a defensive war; fighting the occupier (and his helper) and the usurper is not “terrorism;” it is heroism! (You want to know about terrorism read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism In The Real World. Also Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine).
In contrast, it is the Bible (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, it is the Christian’s God, Jesus) that “encourage(s)” (enslaving) and killing “infidels”/”heathen“: commanding:
–“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant (slave), she shall not go out (be freed) as the menservants do;” “Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids (male and female slaves), which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids”–(Ex. 21:7; Lev. 25:44).
-The “Prince of peace” continues”: “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;” “He that is not with me is against me” (and a person can be neutral);
-“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (though these enemies may not militate against him). If this last two statements of Jesus were to be implemented some eighty percent of the world would be slain. Perhaps these are the verses on which the murderous Crusades were founded–(Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:49, 51; Luke 19:27 and Matt. 12:30).
35. ND states: “Lying is forbidden in Islam except in certain situations such as war to spread Islam to non-Muslims.” (p. 152).
Response: What utter rubbish! Here are the “lying” in Islam that Nonie Darwish is talking about.The Prophet taught: “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar”–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #857; Muslim Vol. 4, #6303; Abu Dawud Vol. 3, # 4902). And that exemption was granted for one who tell lies in 3 cases only: “in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband”–(Muslim Vol. 4, #6303; Abu Dawud Vol.3, #4903).
Regarding “lying” in battle. It is doubtful that one would tell the truth to his enemies, and/or that a wise general would divulge sensitive materials to his soldiers and risk betrayal should there be a traitor in his outfit. In the other two instances. Since such “lying” would not result in harm or injustice to anyone but rather effect peace and harmony, where then is the problem? Incidentally, blatant “lies” were told –that Iraq was killing Kuwaiti babies and that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction– that led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents and billions of dollars worth of devastation. Where are Nonie Darwish’s pen and mouth on this? Why aren’t you vociferating that these “liars” be hauled before the World Court? Is your mouth “muzzled by the food it eats”?
Significantly, the Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that it is among the major sins to give false witness (tell lies)–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #8). That one who spreads false information to cause enmity will not enter Paradise–(Ibid. #82). Whoso does not give up telling lies, Allāh is not in need of his fasting–(Ibid. #83). Truthfulness leads to righteousness and to Paradise. Lies leads to evil and to Hell–(Ibid. #116). A hypocrite tells lies, does not keep his promise, and is dishonest–(Ibid, #117). And he guarantees a house in Paradise for one who avoids lying even if he were joking”–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, #4782).
Muslims are required to give justice even if it be against one’s self or family, and to not side with the dishonest–(Qur’an 4:105, 135; 7:29; 16:90). Muslims are required to speak straight words–(33:70); to propagate Islam through “wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(16:125); Muslims are not even allowed to conceal testimony, it is a sin to do so–(2:283). To “lie” in order to propagate Islam would be to tell lies against Allāh; and Allah says about those who tell a “lie” against Him: “And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allāh or gives the lie to His messages”–(Qur’an 6:21, 94, 145; 29:68). It is patent foolishness to charge that Muslims are allowed to spread their religion through “lies.”
Muslims do not have to lie to non-Muslims to spread Islam. Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason –which Christianity is devoid of. Allāh calls man to belief through wisdom, reason, argument and examples–(Qur’an 16:125). And, there is no compulsion in religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).Allāh not only requires Muslims to give justice even against his own self, and to preach with wisdom and goodly exhortations –which is opposed to “lies”– Allāh requires Muslims to speak the truth: “O you who believe, keep your duty to Allāh and speak straight words”–(Qur’an 33:70). Not to mix truth with falsehood nor hide the truth: “And mix not up truth with falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know”–(Qur’an 2:42). And telling “lies” is “mixing truth with falsehood” and hiding “the truth.” Thus, it is not only foolishness to claim that Muslims are allowed to “lie” to propagate Islam, it is gross absurdity.
Contrastingly it is Christianity (and Nonie Darwish’s “God” and Son of God, Jesus) that teaches its followers to lie; Jesus says: “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”–(Matthew 5:25-26).* This injunction of Jesus gives Christians a hole so big to accommodateevery conceivable lie and deception and for any situation that 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.
Sure the Bible says not to bear false witness, but clearly this is superseded by Jesus (who is said to be son of God and even “God”) for “Christians” to have no borders when it comes to saving their hide. In fact, when it comes to saving the Christian’s hide from being tossed into jail the Christian’s son of God (and God) gives him and her full license to lie through his gums to even send his/her mother down the creek, and without any paddle. And Jesus came some five hundred years after Moses. (And even Jesus and the Biblical God engaged in “lying” as shown further on).
*(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).
Unlike Islam which calls man to belief through wisdom, reason and truth. It is Christianity/Paul that calls people to God through lies and deception; Paul says, “being CRAFTY, I caught you with GUILE”–(2 Cor 12:16); and “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also judged a sinner?”–(1 Cor. 7:25; Rom. 3:7. It is not “faithfulness” to forge in the name of God and to have people glorify God through lies. Perhaps it is this un-principle of Paul that has lead Christians to keep the many terms –such as “virgin” of virgin birth; “BEGOTTEN” of “begotten son;” the verses alluding to trinity; and the alleged Ascension of Jesus [Isaiah 7:14; John 3:16; 1-John 5:7; Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51]– in their nearly 1500 non-English Bibles, which terms they have expunged from their English Bibles. They have retained these verses in the 1500 non-English Bibles so as to deceive the poor, unschooled natives into eating the body and drinking the mythical blood of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism). This is probably the lowest depth of spiritual depravity). And Paul’s most heinous “lie” against God is the introduction of the Pagan’s son of God belief into the religion of Christ. (Given the millions of those who call themselves Christians lined up behind Paul, perhaps Paul’s biggest and most successful “lie,” “crafty” and “guile” is his shrouding of Jesus in the pagan cloak of “son of God”).
Even the Christian’s son of God (and God as Christians say that Jesus is God) lied; telling his followers: “Go ye up unto this feast, for my time is not yet full come,” “But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret”–(John 7:8-10). Clearly, Jesus did not want to go with them, and lied that he would be going later; and soon as they had gone from him he left for the feast.
Moreover, the Biblical God (and the Christian’s God, Jesus) had his prophets “lie.” In 1 Kings chapter 22, King Ahab wanted to know if he would be successful in the battle of Ramoth-gilead. Confused, because he as getting conflicting answers from his “prophets,” King Ahab summoned Micaiah, even though he disliked Micaiah because the latter does not give him favorable answers. Micaiah prophesied that king Ahab would be killed and the Israelites defeated–(22:17). This upset King Ahab. He wanted to know how it is that he gets conflicting answers from his prophets and Micaiah. Micaiah replied that he had a vision of the Court of God about God asking which one of his spirits will tell King Ahab that he must go to battle and be killed. The spirits all came up with one story or the other to convince King Ahab. Then one clever spirit elected to do the job by being a “lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets. And he (God) said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a LYING spirit in the mouth of all these prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee”–(22:17-22). Incidentally,Micaiah was sent to prison for his prophecy. King Ahab was killed in accordance with the decree of God as prophesied by Micaiah.
Since the Biblical immortal God can allow “lying” causing “evil” against King Ahab, why carp at the mortal Mohammad for allowing “lying” in order to effect peace and harmony among people and without resulting in “evil” against anyone? As noted above, Muslims are not allowed to tell a lie even when joking. Much less to “lie” to spread Islam.
36. Nonie Darwish states: “Muslim countries do not give the same accommodation and tolerance to Jews, Christians, and minorities in the Middle East that they demand for themselves in the West.” (p. 154).
Response: Muslims gave more than “accommodation and tolerance to Jews;” Muslims brought Jews back to Jerusalem from where their brothers-in-scripture, the Christians, had walled them out. And for centuries Muslims lived in peace with Jews until Jews decide to devour the Muslim hands that fed them. (See item #24). The view that Muslim religious freedom in the West is due to Christian tolerance is a grand illusion. This tolerance is the result of the disempowerment of the Church and the empowerment of secularism –America and Europe may be offsprings of Christianity but they are not adherents of the Church. The Church has always been an enemy to knowledge and to the “Other.” Her history, based on her Scripture, is testimony to this. (See Christianity-enemy to knowledge).
If Muslims in the Middle East look at Jews and Christians with squinted eyes Muslims are fully justified. From the birth of Islam Jews proved treacherous. And Christians have established themselves as being unworthy of Muslim’s benevolence. Here is the observation of Thomas Arnold in his book The Preaching of Islam:: “Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to distrust of their loyalty, excited by the intrigues and interference of Christian foreigners and the enemies of Islam, or to the bad feeling stirred up by the treacherous or brutal behaviour of the latter towards the Musalmans.” And that, “Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing.”(pp. 77, 136).
Whereas “Christian” Britannia promised Palestine to Jews“ “Christian“ America aided by “Christian” countries stole Muslim Palestine and gave it to Jews; “Christian” America pressured Muslim Sudan to dissect itself –why did America not pressure Britain to let Ireland secede? Why does America not pressure China to let East Turkistan secede? Why does America not pressure Russia to let Chechnya secede? Why does America not pressure India to let Kashmiri’s exercise their UN rights to determine their future; and for the Sikhs to have the Punjab for their homeland? Why does America not pressure the Philippines to give the Muslims their own State? Why does America not pressure Europe to give the Roma a homeland?*–“Christian” America invaded Muslim Iraq twice; “Christian” America is now in Muslim Afghanistan to get a share of Afghanistan’s some three trillion dollars worth of yet-to-be-tapped riches and to secure her gas pipeline “interest.” Only recently, in 2012, “Christian” aid workers in Egypt were arrested for inciting unrest in the country. And how did “Christian” America respond? Not that the charges are to be verified and the arrested be given fair trial, but she demands that Egypt release these alleged mischief-makers.
*(Just as how it is a shame and disgrace that Europe does not afford the Roma a homeland. It is a monumental shame and disgrace that Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria do not see it as a religious duty to cede a piece of land each where their borders converge and give it as a homeland to our Kurdish brothers and sisters –the family of the man called “Saladin,” Salahuddin Ayube, of Islam, the “indomitable” and legendary Liberator of Palestine, who expended his personal wealth [and died a pauper] for the advancement of Muslims. And if these countries fear treachery on the part of the Kurds that they might collude with one (or more) and fight the other(s) –and this is the ignoble depth to which our sectism has sunk us, and there is nothing in Islam to divide us; we must be the biggest maroons in creation to believe we can not only defy Allāh by dividing ourselves but also kill the other and yet expect that Allāh will grant us Jannah– the Kurds can be restricted from having a military).
37. Nonie Darwish claims “I was an independent thinker and simply could not submit blindly to any ideology, especially radical Islam.” (p. 155).
Response: Islam and radicalism are incompatible. Islam does not have any prefixes. The precepts required for our moral, social, intellectual and spiritual upliftment are clearly expressed in the Qur’an. The Prophet Mohammad’s duty was clearly only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an, not enforce it. Muslims who try to “bomb” others into Islam have no sanction from the Qur’an/Allāh. However, had Palestine not been stolen from Arabs/Muslims and had the West not covet and try to control Muslim lands and oil there would be no “radical Islam”! Injustice is the incubator of terrorism! Will you label Christianity “Sodo-Christianity” for the Christian priests sodomizing young boys? Would anyone be justified for labeling it as such?
Islam IS the religion of peace! Islam is such a religion of peace that Muslims are to make peace even in the face of deception by the enemies.If you were truly an “independent thinker” and had invested some effort you would have known this! And mostly you would not be “blindly” following Paul and his pagan son of God into Hell.You may know the language of the Qur’an but you certainly do not know the Qur’an. You know nothing about Islam and even less about Christianity.
38. Nonie Darwish states: “Fear, jihad, anger, and terrorism should not be advocated in any house of worship.” (p. 160).
Response: Then you should not be in Church. Jesus (your Son of God, and even God Himself as Christians say Jesus is God) declared:
-“FEAR him (God) which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”–(Matt. 10:28. God “fearing Himself?);
-“The FEAR of the Lord is clean, enduring forever”–(Psalm 19:9);
-God tells Moses: “This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the FEAR of thee upon the nations…”–(Deut. 2:25; 11:25);
-David, (Jesus’ grandfather and the Christian’s son of God and even “God”) declared:“I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy FEAR will I worship toward thy holy temple”and he invites others also to this fear of God:“Come, ye children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the FEAR of the Lord;”–Psalm 5:7; 34:11);
-“The FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”–(Psalm 111:10; Prov. 9:10); “The FEAR of the Lord prolongeth days”–(Prov. 10:27);
-“in the FEAR of the Lord is strong confidence…The FEAR of the Lord is a fountain of life…The FEAR of the Lord tendeth to life”–(Prov. 14:26-27; 19:23);
-“I will put my FEAR in their hearts”–(Jeremiah 32:40).
Fear of God is of two kinds. Fear that is akin to love, or to avoid sin/evil (much like not wanting to betray or disappoint parental trust); and “fear” meaning to fear God’s retribution, as Jesus says “FEAR him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”–(Matt. 10:28). and even the “another angel” after Jesus with the “everlasting gospel” was prophesied to preach in a loud voice to the nations of the world: “FEAR God, and give glory to him”–(Rev.14:6-7. Which is what and how the Prophet Mohammad preached).
Jihad which is the striving in the cause of God/justice is dealt with in item # 8.
Anger: Anger is a natural emotion which is even felt by God:
–“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).
-Even Jesus expressed “anger”: “And when he had looked round about on them with ANGER”–(Mark 3:5).
-“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).
While it is acceptable for one to feel anger and hate and to hate evil and to speak out against evil and the practitioners of evil, one must guard against allowing this hatred to incite injustice, as Allāh admonishes us in His Qur’an: “let not hatred of a people incite you to transgress”–(Qur’an 5:2). As noted above, the Biblical God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) expressed His anger in war: “For there fell down many SLAIN, because the WAR was of GOD”–(1 Chron. 5:22). After all the Christians’ God (“Jesus”) “is a man of war”: “The LORD is a MAN OF WAR: the Lord is his name”–(Ex. 15:3.For more of Jesus’ “sword” and “fire” and “division” on earth see Matt. 10:34; 12:30; Luke 12:49-51; 19:27).
In fact Jesus (the Christian’s God and son of God) commanded people to “hate” their relations; he says:“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).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).
Terrorism: You have heard about state-sponsored terrorism, here is Christianity’s “Divine”-sponsored “terrorism” (and note well, unlike the Qur’an that allows Muslims a defensive fighting after they have been transgressed upon and only against those who fight youthe Christian’s God (and as Christian’s say that Jesus is God, Jesus) commands Moses, Joshua and Israelites to massacre the natives just so they could inhabit the land (perhaps this is where Jews got their inspiration to kick Palestinians out of Palestine). Here is Christianity’s “terrorism” in all its Biblical glory:
-“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 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 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).
–“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. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves”–(Deut.20:12-17; Num. 31:17-18).
-“Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them (fetus) shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. Their bows shall also dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children”–(Isaiah 13:15-18).
-“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up”–(Hosea 13:16)
-“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me”–(Luke 19:27. Though an opposer is not necessarily a militant); “He that is not with me is against me”–(Matt. 12:30. And a person can be neutral). If these two statements of Jesus–Luke 19:27 and Matt. 12:30–were to be implemented some eighty percent of the world would be slain).
But for Mohammad’s trees of righteous self-defense, Nonie Darwish cannot see the Christian’s forest of aggression, genocide, faunicide, and child sex slavery.
Incidentally, the Christian’s God not only dealt in “Fear, jihad, anger, and terrorism,” He dealt in “jealousy” and “mischief” and with “sword” and “terror.” “Provoked” by the children of Jeshurun the Christian’s God (and as they claim that Jesus is God, Jesus) declared:
–“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).
-“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).
The Christian’s God even had over three dozen children ravaged by bears just for making fun of a bald person: “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).
All this “terrorism” carnage and gore from the Christian’s God (Jesus) is hardly surprising considering that the Christian’s God (Jesus) is a “man of war”–(Ex. 15:3. Seealso Joel 3:9). And all this “jealousy” and “anger” and “terrorism” just because Jeshurun’s children worshipped “strange gods” and “sacrificed unto devils,” and children teasing the bald man, in contrast to Allāh giving Mohammad permission to fight those, not because they were idolaters/polytheists, but because they persecuted and made war on Mohammad. As stated, Nonie Darwish knows nothing about Islam and she knows even less about Christianity. Rather than try to find non-existent evils in Islam Nonie Darwish should be wailing and gnashing her teeth at the lies, falsehood, absurdities, brutal misogyny, and “terrorism” she follows.
(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 of human dung.
39. Because of Jewish medical care to her brother, who was in Gaza at the time, and kindness of the Jewish people towards her mother who was with her brother, Nonie Darwish wrote: “My eyes were opened about Israel and its moral standards.”(p. 166).
Response: Jews may have been kind to your brother and mother but
-it is hardly “moral standards” to scheme and savagely kick Palestinians off their lands so they could occupy Palestinian’s land.
-It is hardly “moral standards” to “provoke” Palestinians/Arabs so they could be “smashed.”
-It is hardly “moral standards” to slaughter Palestinians/Arabs “en masse” and subject them to all manner of suffering and humiliation, and for more than six torturous decades now.
-It is hardly “moral standards” that “Israel must be accorded rights beyond those of any other state.”64
–It is hardly “moral standards” that “Israel” “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens.”65
–It is hardly “moral standards” to plume yourself as “the most superior of all races.”66 (And to know, Hitler was pilloried for his view that Germans is the master race).
-It is hardly “moral standards” to force Arabs to “urinate and excrete on one another” and to “lick the earth.” 67
-It is hardly “moral standards” to tear families apart and deport them, moreover deport them from their own land –Ilan Pappe notes in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (pp. 248) that Palestinians who marry “Israeli” citizens were forcibly taken from their homes/families by soldiers who burst into their homes in the “dead of night” and “dragging out thirty-six women and eventually deporting eight of them” back to their homes in the West bank; cutting them off “from their husbands and children; some of the women “had been married for years to Palestinian men from Jaljulya, some were pregnant, many had children.” While nations seize and deport illegal individuals; to send soldiers? in the “dead of night”? and “dragging” women out? But this is hardly scandalous considering that “Israel” is built on the blood of Palestinians. (So much for the much ballyhooed “only democracy” in the Middle-East. Pht!) These Jewish occupiers of Palestine must adore naïve Arabs (and Muslims) like Nonie Darwish.
ND continues: “I later asked my brother about his feelings toward Israel. He said he has mixed feelings, but he, like many Egyptians, still; regards Israel as the enemy. That is the gratitude Arabs give Israel for its goodwill and decency.” (p. 166)
Response: Someone steals from you and gives you a handout and that’s “goodwill and decency.”And how did Jews repay Arabs/Muslims “goodwill and decency.” They devour the hand that fed them. (See item #24).
Nonie Darwish continues: “When Egyptians made the decision to send my brother to Hadassah Hospital, they proved one startling fact: in times of crisis, Arabs trust Jews” (p. 167).
Response: In their time of crisis Jews also favored their oppressor, Pharaoh. Israelites, in spite of their years of sufferings under Pharaoh, trusted Pharaoh (over Moses and God) and wanted to return to Pharaoh after their liberation–(Exodus 14:12; 16:3) and all because of their craving for the Egyptians “flesh pots” and “bread.” Consider then what Jews would have done if they needed to save their lives (as your brother needed), what they would have done for Pharaoh to be saved. Just look what they have done to the Palestinians just for a piece of land.
Vive le Palestine libre!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin?
40. ND wrote that as she spoke with a “large number of young Egyptians, “it became clear they had no idea about Muslim-upon-Muslim atrocities in Iraq, Algeria, the Sudan and other places. All they cared about was Israel's humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and America’s presence in the Middle East, even if it was to protect countries from Saddam Hussein, as it did for Kuwait in the Gulf War.” (p. 173).
Response: America was not in Kuwait to protect Kuwaitis but for its oil interest. Moreover, that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies was a Hollywood-style production to garner consensus to invade Iraq. Significantly, Kuwait was a province of Iraq before it was carved out of Iraq much as Lebanon was a part of Syria and was carved out and placed under Maronite Christian domination. If two of your brothers are fighting and a stranger who has stolen your belonging is fighting you to hold on to your property, to whose defense do you believe your third brother would come –your brothers or you?
41. Nonie Darwish opines: “Not even America and Europe’s attack on the Serbs to stop the slaughter of the Muslims in Bosnia, or defending Muslims Afghanistan against the Russians, earned the West any favor or gratitude from Arabs.” (p. 175).
Response:America and Europe (world policemen?) waited until Serbia was almost through genociding and raping Bosnia and you want Muslims to put a crown on them? And where were America and Europe when Rwanda was hemorrhaging?
America and Europe did not “defend” Afghan Muslims from Russia. America was looking after her own gas pipe-line “interest.” America no doubt provided arms to Afghans but as noted in item #32 Muslims defended themselves. Today “America and Europe” are killing Muslims (Talibans) in their own country. (Please do not try to tell me they are killing Talibans to institute democracy. Go tell this to naive people. Like yourself).
42. Nonie Darwish states that “the summit on racism in Durbin, South Africa” “was hijacked by Third World and strong pro-Arab and Muslim countries to accuse Israel and America of racism while rejecting any discussion of anti-Semitism in the Muslim World.” (p. 176).
Response: While hatred against a people is not to be tolerated, it depends what you call anti-Semitism. Truth is not anti-Semitism. In fact, unless Jews can prove themselves to be descendants of the Biblical Fathers (and not descendants of European coverts to Judaism or descendants of converts of the Khazar, an eighth century Turkish tribe) the term Anti-Semitism may be redundant.
That Muslim countries “accuse Israel and America of racism.”
Clearly, to pride yourself as “the most superior of all races;” that “Israel” “must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens;” to scheme to dispossess another people of their lands because of their race and religion and to employ terrorism to achieve this end, and to slaughter the victims to hold on to this “stolen” land is not only racism; it is criminal. And to aid and support this is also racism and criminal. In fact, Jews themselves insist that Zionism is racism; Prof. Noam Chomsky revealed: “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.”68 (As shown, this U.N. resolution is not “notorious”).
43. Nonie Darwish pained: “Saudi money (is) in action to strengthen radical Islam’s grip in Egypt and perhaps help bring about the Muslim Caliphate they want to build before the oil dries up.” (p. 177).
Response: Don’t Christians have their Papacy? Where then is the problem if Muslims want our Caliphate? –and there is no system on earth that is more equitable and just than Islam/ Shari'ah! And whereas the Mosque teaches Divinely revealed and rational doctrines, in contrast the Church teaches anti-Christ, unGodly, and irrational doctrines. As stated there is no such item as “radical Islam.”
If Muslims return to serving Allāh, we won’t have to loose sleep wondering what we will have after “the oil dries up.” Allāh will provide new, and perhaps even more profitable, source(s). Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. 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.”69
Secular America is ruled by secular laws, where then is the problem that Muslims want Muslim Egypt (and elsewhere) to govern by Muslim law? Since Muslims can live under secular law why shouldn’t non-Muslims live under Muslim law? (Up to a certain degree Islam allows non-Muslims under Muslim rule to govern by their own scripture).
Nonie Darwish also points out that it was the West that brought the oil out of the ground for the Arabs. True. And the West brought the oil out for the Arabs for free, right, Ms. Darwish?
44. Nonie Darwish “belly-ached” (pun intended) that in Egypt Saudi money “paid millions of dollars to some famous belly dancers to quit belly dancing and renounce this form of entertainment as un-Islamic….I personally saw them on TV covered from head to toe advocating that other women follow their example.” (p. 177).
Response: Even the Saudi’s good deeds are criticized. And to know that Christ is said to have kept company with a prostitute; and declared that he came to call sinners to repentance:“I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”–(Luke 5:52). Note well, Christ came to call sinners to REPENTANCE; not that he came to die for sins. Because everyman shall die for his own sin:“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).
Isn’t Christianity with her “millions of dollars” and missionaries on a “never-ending restless expansion” in the world? So it is acceptable that Christians propagate falsehood and blasphemy but it is not allowed for Muslims to propagate truth and reason?
So you want to have the right to wear T-shirt and shorts in Egypt and wherever and whenever you like but Muslim women cannot wear Islamic garment in Egypt and wherever they want? This has to be the ultimate in arrogance and audacity!
On a visit to Egypt, Nonie Darwish complained about her sleep being interrupted by the Muslim’s Adhan –call to prayer– for the dawn (fajr) prayer.
Response: While you were living in Egypt, were you not awakened by this call to the fajr prayer? This call to prayer says:
Allāh, God, is great
I testify that there is no God but Allāh
I testify that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh
Come to prayer
Come to success
Prayer is better than sleep
Allāh, God, is great
There is no God but Allāh.
Regardless of whatever name we call Him it is without doubt that all believers in God accept Him as being Great/Greatest and pray to Him for success. And What better rendition is there for one to be awakened by than of words extolling the Unity, Glory, Greatness, Majesty and Grandeur of Allāh, God. In fact, this is the best, most profound, and sublime national anthem anyplace in the world! And Muslims declare it proudly and eloquently five times a day in melodious intonation. Subhan Allāh!
Perhaps if you, Ms. Darwish, should decide to visit Egypt again you might want to consider investing in a pair of ear plugs. However, have no “fear” Ms. Darwish, when you die you (as all of us) will sleep till the Resurrection. Allāho Akbar!
45. Nonie Darwish dogmatized: “Americans are ninety-five percent Christian and built their country according to their Judeo-Christian heritage and not on Muslim principles.”(pp. 179-180).
Response: What “Judeo-Christian heritage”? As already shown there is nothing in the Bible to foster material progress. Not even Christian nations find anything useful in the Bible; that is why they torpedoed it and turned to Islamic lines before they began to make material progress. Three thousand years after Moses and a thousand years after Christ America, Europe and the rest of the world were waltzing around with flint tools and torches. Whereas about a hundred years after the advent of Mohammad Arabs/Muslims –backward camel-drivers– were sitting in “thrones of Caesars.” From its inception Islam gave Muslims the impetus to higher learning and science. (See CRITICS).
Contrastingly, whatever strides secular Europe was making the Christian scourge burned, tortured and/or killed. “Americans may be “ninety-five percent Christian” (and this may be so only for census purposes) and Christians may be doing good works but, apart from the body and mythical blood of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism), the only thing “Christian heritage” has bequeathed to America and Europe and the world is evil, intolerance, backwardness, naked hate, and brutal and rabid misogyny. American and European material achievements did not come from “Judeo-Christian heritage” but from Islamic principles.
46. Nonie Darwish claims that “since Muhammad did not marry all of his women; the malak yamin, meaning “owned slaves,” did not count as wives.” (p. 181).
Response: It is the Biblical prophets (that you believe in) that did not marry all those whom they had sex with:
-Abraham had sex with Hagar (who Christians say was a “slave” woman);
-Jacob had sex with his two wives handmaids;
-Judah paid his daughter-in-law, Tamar, for sex;
-Solomon had three hundred concubines, and his son, Rehoboam, had sixty concubines;
-David dallied with Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife.In fact, as shown, the Christian’s God (Jesus) even said he would give David’s wives to his neighbor for him to have sex with them (and all because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba): “Thus saith the Lord, Behold…I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun”–(2 Sam. 12:11. This has to be the Mount Everest of injustice and misogny).
If Mohammad “did not marry all of his women” then he was only following his Biblical brother-prophets. However, that Mohammad married “all of his women” is gleaned from one of the early verses of the Qur’an, which Mohammad minutely followed: “Go not near to adultery/ fornication: surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way”–(Qur’an 17:32. See also Qur’an 24:2-3; 25:68). (See item #18).
47. Regarding the Muslim woman’s over-garment (robe) and head cover ND states: “This same dress –which existed out of necessity long before the emergence of Islam– is now regarded by Muslims as Allāh’s divine choice for women.” (p.182).
Response: Islam –peace and submission to Allāh, God– did not emerge in Saudi Arabia, Islam dates back to the creation of Time–(Qur’an 41:11). Covering up does not diminish a woman’s mental capacity and ability. And how do you feel about the Christian nun’s habit –their covering from head to toe with only their faces and hands visible– and Jewish women’s wear that is similar to the Muslim woman’s? The Bible also requires that women cover their heads–Num. 5:18; 1Cor. 11:5-6). And what about men in Western countries who are clad from neck to toes in suit and tie; and in summertime? And, Mary, the Christian’s “Mother of God” as depicted, also wears an over-garment and head-cover; is Nonie Darwish condemning/ridiculing her “Mother of God” (or her son of God’s mother) also?
These garments of the Muslim woman –overcoat (jalaba) and head cover (hijab)– are to distinguish the Muslim woman from other women, a mark of devotion and of distinction: of being the exalted nation–(Qur’an 33:59; 24:31; 2:143; 3:110). Allāh has conferred upon the Woman of Islam the loftiest position. Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. Islam has ennobled woman. It has adorned her with a crown of excellence. The scarf is more than a piece of cloth on the head; it is embroidery for the soul. To help mould the Woman of Islam into a fortress of modesty and virtue. (Men are to be covered, from the navel to the knees and one part of the chest). Islam intends the scarf to be a symbol of piety and humility. A symbol of beauty and excellence: a beauty and excellence manifesting from within –manifesting through love and obedience to serve our Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer. A beauty that never ages nor tarnishes. A beauty that becomes increasingly resplendent with time. There is no beauty more lustrous, more alluring and more enduring than beauty of the soul; and no woman more beautiful than she who vests her self for the love of Allāh, God.
Islam does not forbid women from wearing fine garments and jewelry, (Allah likes to see His bounties on His servants). But it does not allow such appareling for the purpose of display. A person cannot attain piety until and unless he has achieved humility. To achieve humility one must exercise simplicity and modesty. The act of covering one’s self helps to build modesty. (To women who are of the view that it is discrimination against them in that men are not required to cover their heads: men have to shave their heads at the hajj, women do not; men are required to be circumcised, women are not; men are required to give women dowry, even though she may possess greater wealth than him; men are required to maintain women, whereas women are free to do whatever with their finances. And men also have a dress code –to cover the area from, and including, the navel to the knees and half of the chest. Even without comprehending the excellence of the hijab, covering the head when required is no price to pay for Allah’s everlasting beauty.
Women who are wearing jeans under their over-garment in revolt against Islam must know that they are dressing themselves for the Fire. There is nothing in Islam to protest against –Islam regards womanhood as the symbol of purity; and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. Whereas choosing to not wear the hijab (and jalaba) is one matter, why would the Muslim woman desirous of Allāh’s everlasting grandeur revile the hijab? Revolt against the hijab is revolt against Islam; revolt against Islam is revolt against Allāh; revolt against Allāh is the Sureway to Hell-fire).
Significantly, whereas the critics of Islam charge that Islam discriminates against women and that the hijab is a symbol of the Muslim woman’s subservience; Islam requires that men give a gift to their brides even though she may be wealthier than he is; that men maintain their wives even though she may have a mountain of money; that men be circumcised and women not; and that men shave their heads at the Hajj and women not. Yet no critic of Islam has charged that Islam discriminates against men; or that Islam teaches hatred of men; or that Islam favors women over men; or that these are symbols of the Muslim man’s subservience to women.
Allah is a Just God. He will not discriminate against Woman because of her form and physiology –a form and physiology He gave her; a form and physiology of which she had no choice. In fact, if form and physiology is the measure of superiority, Woman is superior to Man –she having carried man, gave birth to him and nursed him. Three degrees of excellence and superiority that Man have yet to acquire.
(Notably, whereas the Muslim woman’s head cover and overcoat is a religious requirement, the Christian’s crucifix is not a religious requirement. The crucifix was not instituted by God or Christ. In fact, the crucifix which was not even present in Jesus’ time, is an anathema as stated by God Himself [and as Christians say that Jesus is God then Jesus himself declared the crucifix an abomination]: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God”–(Exodus 20:4-5).
48. Nonie Darwish: “(Muslim) Women have been taught to view their bodies as nothing more than an object of seduction that causes men to commit sin.” (p. 183).
Response: As noted, the Muslim women's garments –overcoat (jalaba) and head cover (hijab)– are to distinguish the Muslim woman from other women, a mark of devotion and of distinction: of being the exalted nation–(Qur’an 33:59; 24:31; 2:143; 3:110. See Hijab/Head covering).
And that Allāh has created man and woman to be mates, and has put love and mercy and compassion between them, given them mutual rights, that they are friends and protectors of the other, and that they are garments to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify and conceal faults–; and for both of them to conduct themselves decorously –to “lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions”–(Qur’an 24:30-31).Thus, to charge that Muslim “Women have been taught to view their bodies as nothing more than an object of seduction that causes men to commit sin,” is crass ignorance of the Qur’an/ Islam. (Contrary to the vile behavior of some Muslim men towards women, Islam honors womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. These brothers need to spend less time behind the hookah and the bottle and more time learning/understanding the Qur’an).
Contrastingly. It is Christian women who “have been taught to view their bodies as nothing more than an object of seduction that causes men to commit sin and a source of spiritual impurity; here are some Biblical gems on woman:
–“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the WOMAN FOR THE MAN–(1 Cor. 11:9);
-“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);
-“The 144,000 people stood before the throne…They are the men who have kept themselves pure by NOT having SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN; they are VIRGINS” (Good News Bible. The Gideons rendering is: “These are the ones who have not been DEFILED WITH WOMEN, for they are CELIBATES.” (See Christianity-Women of).
Nonie Darwish has traded Islam’s crown of honor for the Christian yoke of dishonor. And is trying to browbeat Muslim women into aping her.
49. Nonie Darwish: “After 9/11, many Americans sincerely asked: “Why do they (Arabs/Muslims) hate us?”” (p. 198).
Response: Perhaps Muslims can ask of Americans: Why do they covet our lands and oil/resources?
Muslims do not “hate” Americans. Muslims hatred for America is rooted in the Palestinian/Jewish conflict. Muslims “hate” America’s injustice, arrogance and hypocrisy against Muslims.
Injustice: (British instigation) and American machination –diplomatic thuggery at the U.N.– stole Palestine from Palestinians/Muslims and gave it to Jews, and instead of redressing this injustice she has, for six torturous decades, arrogantly supported this abomination against Palestinians/ Muslims.
Arrogance: America wants the right to do and to have whatever she likes and to dictate what other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, must not have (or must not do, as in the case Iran enriching uranium and of North Korea launching a rocket). America exacts rights for herself but deny others the same rights.
Hypocrisy: When Muslims are the victors in so-called “democratic” elections –as in the case of Algeria and in Hamas’ victory in Palestine, (and in Egypt where the military is trying to derail the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi as president)– they are spurned. (When America and her Allies speak about “democracy” they mean governance according to their dictates). UN Resolutions against Muslims –Iraq, Iran. Libya– are vigorously enforced; whereas those against Jews (and India, in the case of the Kashmiris right to self-determination) are not. America has endeavored to control Muslim countries and their resources. But Muslims do not have the right to control America and American resources.
What victim would not “hate” such an unjust, arrogant, and hypocritical establishment? Whatever dislike Muslims have for America it is fully justified. However, America is not be “hated.” America is to be pitied. She seems to have not learned the invaluable lesson from the past that the abuse of power –be it military, economic or intellectual– is the certain ruin of a people. America needs to spade through the rubble of time and dialogue with the Pharaohs and the Caesars and the Chosroes.
50. ND continues her verbiage: “To Muslims who remain silent (about speaking out against 9/11) this is what I have to say: Are you aware that 9/11 and the last forty years of Islamic terrorism has tainted how history will judge Islam?”(p. 199.
Response: What a hoot!Clearly Nonie Darwish is ignorant of or is trying to obfuscate the dynamics of 9/11.
(While there is no “terrorism” in Islam and this is not to support “terrorism”). The answer to Nonie Darwish’s question lies in her very own statement – “the last forty years of” Islam. Islam has been around for nearly fifteen hundred years and have existed with Jews and Christians and others, what is so significant then about “the last forty years of” Islam?
Before America stole Palestine from Muslims there was no Muslim “terrorism;” before the West began running around like a “wild ass of a man”70 to control Muslim lands and oil/resources there was no “Islamic terrorism.” Britain, France, America, Russia and Jews are like buzzards at Muslim’s lands and oil:
-Russia, Britain and France carved up post-Ottoman Mid-east to suit their treacherous designs (Kuwait was sliced out of Iraq and Lebanon was chunked out of Syria and put under Maronite Christian domination); since the nineteenth century Jews were scheming to kick Palestinians out of Palestine (British instigation and American machination –American diplomatic thuggery at the U.N. (League of Nations)– stole Palestine and gave it to the Jews);
-“Israel,” Britain and France attacked Egypt in 1956 so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal;
-American-British manouvre overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government in 1953 so Britain could have control over Iran’s oil;
-Russia is coloring Chechnya “red” to scrounge off Chechnya’s riches;
-America invaded Iraq to set up military base(s) and control Iraq’s oil; America is now in Afghanistan –ostensibly to rout Taliban and set up “democracy,” though when the colonialist and the imperialist speak of democracy, what they mean is having someone else’s country run according to their dictates– for its gas pipe-line interest and a share in Afghanistan’s some three trillion American-dollars worth of yet-to-be tapped riches;
-America, Britain and France are now circling over Gadhafi’s carcass in Libya.
With all their greatness and power and progress they are yet like parasites –blood-sucking ticks leeching off the backsides of the defenseless. What a monumental disgrace! Shameful! One would expect that in this new dawn of the twenty-first century they would have cultivated dignity and maturity. Nevertheless, they too will crumble into the dust, never to rise again; just like the Pharaohs and the Chosroes and the Caesars.
America and Britain and France and Russia –for all their pride and glory– will bear this indelible stain of shame and disgrace on their histories. History will immortalize them as, and rightly so, the wingless vultures.
(While there is no “terrorism in Islam, and this is not to support terrorism). Unless and until every grain of sand of Palestine is returned to Muslims (Jews have a right to be there, not the state); unless and until the West stop trying to run Muslim countries and control their oil/resources Muslims have every right and all rights and the Highest Authority –the Divine Authority– to undertake the noble armed Jihad, all the way to the Resurrection if need be, to liberate themselves and lands. So long as Jannah/Paradise sits in the lap of justice Muslims will spare no dew-drop to extinguish this hell of injustice! And Muslims will prevail –Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant!
No one would accept Muslims stealing their lands and giving it to another, and no one would accept Muslims trying to run their countries and controlling their resources. Why then should Muslims accept this? Palestine is the moral, social, historical and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims!
It is not Islam that the “last forty years” will judge. It will judge America, Britain, France, Russia and the Jews.
51. Nonie Darwish states, “Everyone’s rights and duties are spelled out very clearly in Islam, and, no, there is no equality under Islamic law between Muslims and non-Muslims or between men and women.” (p. 212)
Response:Only two statements need be entered to obliterate this piece of twaddle. Allāh says to judge between people with justice and to give justice even if be against your own self–(Qur’an 4:58, 105; 135). And that women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner–(Qur’an 2:228).
It is your “rights and duties (that) are spelled out very clearly in” Christianity –you (as all Christian wives) are tied to your husband “till death” do you part, even in the most miserable condition or risk being tarnished as an “adulteress” to all eternity; you are an object of sexual release for the husband; and to be ruled over by him in silence and all subjection. Christianity may not be observing them and Secularism may not tolerate them but your Scripture demands them. And passage into heaven depends on following the Scripture. But Christians do not care about Scripture. Christians do not “fear him (God) which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” and they do not govern by reason as God requires, Isaiah 1:18. If they had they would not have adulterated their “Word of God,” teach doctrines that have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and repugnant to “reason;” and they would not lie on God and lie on Jesus.
(Jesus must have known that his teachings would be corrupted after he was gone. This must be the reason he cautioned his present and future followers to “seek truth” from the falsehood that would be propagated under his name. And to forewarn them in Matthew 7:22-23 that: “Many will say to me in that day,* Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Which words of Jesus find consonance in the Qur’an 5:116-117: “And when Allāh will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allāh? He will say: Glory be to Thee! It was not for me to say what I had no right to say…I said to them naught save as Thou didst command me: Serve Allāh, my Lord and your Lord (comp. Mark 12:29); and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die Thou wast the Watcher over them. And Thou art witness of all things.” And one of the worst of sins is to teach falsehood in the name of God [and in the name of His prophets, as they teach only what God instructs them]: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”–(Mark 3:29. Ignorance is no excuse. God calls to reason–Isaiah 1:18; a doctrine that goes against reason could not be Divine.
*This day that Jesus spoke of is the Day of Judgment, when people will be brought with their prophets before Allāh, God, in witness against their people: “And We shall draw forth from among every nation a witness and say: Bring your proof. Then shall they know that the Truth is Allāh’s and that which they forged will fail them”–(Qur’an 28:75; also 16:84, 89). And on this Day even our limbs and skin will give evidence against us–(Qur’an 24:24; 36:65: 41:19-23); even a stone will bear witness–(Genesis 31:48-52; Joshua 24:27).
Whereas your “rights and duties are spelled out very clearly in” Christianity; aren’t your “rights and duties” also “spelled out very clearly” as a citizen of America?
52. Nonie Darwish rambles on that “the goal of jihad is to conquer the world, literally, for Islam.” (p. 212).
Response: Doesn’t Christianity (and maybe even Jews –see Protocols of the Elders of Zion) wants to rule the world? Isn’t America trying to establish her form of “democracy” in the world?Muslims do not have to conquer the world for Islam/Allāh. The heavens and the earth and everything within already belong to Allāh. Contrary to some cleric(s) Islam does not want to rule the world. Allāh has given man free choice to his belief. However, this is the Age of Knowledge and Reason. It is the Divine requirement that we govern by reason–(Isaiah 1:18; Qur’an 16:125).
As reason is the factor that separates us from, and elevates us above, the beast our judgment is to be based on reason, and if our judgment is not based on reason then we have degraded ourselves lower than the beast, seeing that they do not have the capacity to reason, and that we have this capacity and do not utilize it. As man begins to choose his faith on the basis of reason (as he governs his other aspects of life), and as Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason, and as no religion can be shown to be superior to Islam or equal with Islam, then man have no choice but to follow Islam. Blind faith is no passport to Paradise–Reason is the door to God.
Regardless of what one calls himself and herself All People Are Muslims. And for certain Allāh, the All-knowing, knows that man will govern himself by reason as He revealed that He has sent Mohammad with the religion of Truth to prevail over all other religions–(Qur’an 9:33; 48:28; 61:9). (See item #8 for Jihad).
So what if Islam should rule the world again as it did for almost a thousand years (soon after the passing of the Prophet Mohammad?) In its thousand-year reign how many armaments have Muslims developed? In the last two hundred years how many countries have Muslims colonized or tried to colonize or sought to exploit the wealth of other nations? How many Muslim countries have subverted the governments of non-Muslims or assassinated their leaders or tried to run their countries and/or control their resource(s), or deprived them of their homes, lands and country (or instigated conflicts in other nations)? Now, consider the non-Muslims record on how many Muslims are/ were victims of non-Muslims travesties. Briefly:
-after the fall of the Ottomans, Britain, France and Russia instead of giving the Arabs independence as promised, proved themselves treacherous and divvied up the Middle-east;
-Britain sliced Jordan out of Syria and carved Kuwait out of Iraq; France carved Lebanon out of Syria and placed it under Maronite Christian rule;
-the British held Egypt, Sudan, Aden, Iraq and Nigeria;
-the French, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan;
-the Italians, Libya;
-British instigation and American machination carved the Jewish State out of Palestine;
-in 1956 the Jewish State in “collusion” with France and Britain attacked Egypt, so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal, nationalized by President Nasser;
-Kashmir is yet deprived of her right to determine her own destiny; Russia is still coloring Chechnya and Dagestan red;
-Bosnians are still trying to recover from Serbia’s onslaught;
-Iraq is yet to rise from the rubble of American aggression (for oil and/or hegemony);
-Afghanistan is almost reduced to beggary and rubble;
-Sudan was “pressured” by the UN and US to dismember itself.
Should Islam rule the world again it would be a great blessing to mankind. Nay, it would be the best blessing mankind will ever have! (See Jesus or Mohammad-best system).
Whereas the “Sword” of Christianity is the Sword of Subjugation and evil. The “Sword” of Islam is the glorious sword of Liberation! Of justice! Of truth! As Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani) eloquently expresses in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible (p.260): “The sceptre (in Hebrew “shebet”–rod, staff) is the emblem of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and administration. The little sceptre accorded by God to the tribe of Judah–(Gen.49:10)–was taken away, and a stronger and larger one was given to the Apostle of Allāh (the “Shiloah”) in its place. It is indeed marvelous how this prophetical vision of the Seer was literally fulfilled when Muhammad’s sceptre became the emblem of the Muslim sovereignty over all the countries –in Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Syria, and Arabia where the people of God were persecuted by the pagan powers of those countries and by the foreign heathen powers of the Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans!” This blessed “Sword” of Islam is to be emblemized not only on the flag of Arabia but on the flags of every Muslim nation.
53. Nonie Darwish opined that “Muslim and Arab society” “has produced terrorism.” (p. 214)
Response:As shown in preceding pages, Islam is “peace and tolerance, love and harmony.” You need to level your complaint against those who transgress against Muslims. Had Palestine not been stolen from Muslims and had the West not covet Muslims lands and oil there would be no “Muslim and Arab” “terrorism.” “Terrorism” was “produced” by those who transgressed against Muslims. Injustice is the incubator of terrorism!
54. Nonie Darwish states: “Arabs have always rejected peace with Israel, using Israel as the excuse for a jihad that has now reached all corners of the globe.” (p. 217).
Response(Another classic example of your ignorance or naiveté or blind patriotism.You need to read the statement by “Dov Weissglas, spokesperson for Ariel Sharon, Ha’aretz, 6 October 2004,” as noted by Ilan Pappe in his revealing book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 248. It clearly shows that Jewish proposals of peace is, with American “blessings,” only for public consumption).
Surely, if after two thousand years Jews can come and demand Palestine based on some non-existent Divine contract, Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims have the right and can go back sixty years and drive the Jews out of Palestine. It is easy for you to say make peace with the transgressor and occupier and usurper because it is not your home and land. Will you make peace with a mugger by giving him a portion of your wallet or will you want to whack the “bejubees” out of him and take back your full purse; and even have the rogue chucked in jail and the key tossed on mars? Jews have a right to be there; not the state!
Let America (the facilitator of this monumental and grotesque obscenity against the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims) give Jews New York or Texas or Kentucky for their homeland; (more Jews live in America anyway); or let Britain (the instigator of the theft of Palestine) give Jews England or Ireland or Scotland or Wales; or let France give them Paris or Marseilles or Nice; or let Canada give them Ontario or Alberta or Quebec.
As they are friends and allies one of the other, the American and British and French and Canadian populace would not mind swallowing this unpalatable bit of morsel their governments have been trying to force-feed the fearless and forbearing Palestinians for more than six torturous decades now! That would certainly end “jihad” against Jews. (We often read from Western writers that Jews made the “desert bloom;” as if it is meant to justify the theft of Palestine. Though Palestinians made the desert bloom way long before Jews. See item #56).
If Jews want “peace” they can take the dignified route and return to Palestinians our homes and lands. Though Muslims can forgive Jews for their transgression and massacring Muslims and can forego compensation for this transgression, massacre and our more than six torturous decades of loss and suffering, as Allāh/Islam requires us Muslims to be merciful and to forgive, capitulation on Palestine is not the choice for Muslims; Muslims do not surrender to expulsion/occupation–(Qur’an 2:191; 60:8-9); “And be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy. If you suffer they (too) suffer. And you hope from Allāh what they hope not. And Allāh is ever Knowing, Wise”–(Qur’an 4:104). “And think not of those who are slain in Allāh’s way as dead. Nay, they are alive being provided sustenance from their Lord, Rejoicing in what Allāh has given them out of His Grace, and they rejoice for the sake of those who, (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they have no fear, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice for Allāh’s favor and (His) grace and that Allāh wastes not the reward of the believers”–(Qur’an 2:154; 3:168-170; 4:74).
The only “peace” is that every grain of sand of Palestine be returned to Muslims. Any Muslim that acquiesces to this foreign domination of Palestine is a traitor to Allāh and His noble Messenger, Mohammad; and will have to account to Allāh for his/her betrayal of their pledge: “Those who swear allegiance to thee (Mohammad) do but swear allegiance to Allāh. The hand of Allāh is above their hands. So whoever breaks (this faith), he breaks it only to his soul’s injury. And whoever fulfils his covenant with Allāh, He will grant him a mighty reward;” “O Prophet, when believing women come to thee giving thee a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allāh, and will not steal, nor commit adultery; nor kill their children, nor bring a calumny which they have forged themselves, nor disobey thee in what is good. accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allāh. Surely Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful”–(Qur’an 48:10; 60:12; Bokhari Vol. 6, #414-418. These verses make it clear that accepting the Holy Kalima –There is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh– is a pledging of allegiance to Allāh and His noble Messenger. And this pledge includes that Muslims: “drive them out from where they drove you out;” “Allāh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers” –(Qur’an 2:191; 60:9. Palestinians/Arabs were fought and driven from their homes/lands because of their “religion”).
What are required from Muslims are dedication, determination and devotion. Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait and rest of the states of the Arab sun, and Sudan and Pakistan to obliterate their unGodly, destructive, and humiliating sectism and unite in all matters –from economic to military. We are not black or white, we are not Arab and non-Arab; we are Muslims first, last and foremost! Our constitution is based on the indivisible Holy Kalima and Qur’an, Prayer, Zakaat, Fasting and Hajj. All the rest are secondary –Allāh will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ. Which part of this injunction from Allāh do we not understand?– “(Be not) Of those who split up their religion and become parties; every sect rejoicing in that which is with it;” “He (Allāh) 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). We Muslims must be the biggest morons in creation if we believe we can defy Allāh and sectify ourselves and expect Allāh to give us Paradise.
As stated in Overview item (h), it would not be any surprise if intellectual and informed Arabs should tell you that you need to change the name of your support group from “Arabs For Israel” (AFI) to (DAFI).
Vive le Palestine libre!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin?
55. Pompously, Nonie Darwish. wrote that “some Palestinians have begun to feel that the world owes them.” (p. 219)
Response: “Some” Palestinians? And “begun” to feel that the world owes them? Palestinians’ homes, lands, and country were stolen from them and some even lost their lives, and for more than sixty torturous years are subjected to humiliation and injustice. Darn right, the world owes Palestinians! And owes all Palestinians! And owes them BIG! And don’t play forget; it was mainly the “Christian” world that raped Palestine! These nations need to redress this monumental and grotesque obscenity they have committed against the Palestinians or continue to live with this indelible stain of shame on their history. And how is it that Jews can receive compensation from Germans and Palestinians cannot receive compensation from Jews and the world?
56. Nonie Darwish states that “supporting Israel and the Jewish people who have contributed to the Middle East culture for thousands of years is simply good, right, and the honorable thing to do.” (p. 220).
Response: Muslims have not only been supporting Jews, it was Muslims who brought them back to Jerusalem from where their brothers-in-scripture, the Christians, had barred them. Muslims will yet support them; just let them return Palestine to the Palestinians who owned the land for thousands of years before Jews. Jews can make the desert bloom they make the tar talk they can even make the rock sing, this is no justification for kicking Palestinians off their lands. Significantly Palestinians also made the “desert bloom” and for hundreds of years before Jewish presence. Here is what your Bible commentator says, speaking about the discovery of “The Tell el-Amarna Letters”: “A most valuable discovery which throws light on the history of Palestine BEFORE THE HEBREW CONQUEST…They show that Palestine was inhabited by AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE AND CITY DWELLERS by 1400 B.C. and that they were HIGHLY CIVILIZED and POSSESSED MUCH WEALTH.” (Self-Pronouncing Edition, Holy Bible, Sect; The Archeology of the Bible, p. 20, emphasis added). There is no report that the Palestinians were occupiers and thieves. Or that they engaged in intrigue and treachery and terrorism and stole another people’s land. They were “HIGHLY CIVILIZED and POSSESSED MUCH WEALTH” way long “BEFORE THE HEBREW CONQUEST”).
How about Jews engaging in that which “is simply good, right, and the honorable thing,” and return to Palestinians their homes and lands. After all they have occupied it for about 65 years now; about five years more than they did 2,000 years ago. Perhaps you can give one family (or a homeless American family) half of your house (as the 1947 UN Partition Plan gave Jews more than half of Palestine) and you can move into the basement with your family. That would be the “simply good, right, and the honorable thing (for you) to do.” Put your dignity where your mouth/pen is.
57. Pages 221-222, Nonie Darwish outlines her manifesto for Arab-Jewish peace:
“We are Arabs and Moslems who believe:
- We can support Israel and still support the Palestinian people. Supporting one does not cancel support for the other. (Comment: Yes it does. You are rewarding intrigue and terrorism –as “Israel” stands on the very foundation of intrigue and terrorism as noted, respectively, in their writings and as admitted to by Menachem Beigin, who later became a prime minister of “Israel,” who led the Irgun Zwei Leumi in its massacre of the unarmed “old men, women, children, newly-born” “with grenades and knives.” “Menachem Beigin said: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” [What manner of mentality would declare murdering unarmed “old men, women, children, newly-born” a “victory”?] [See Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage]).
- We can support the State of Israel and the Jewish religion and still treasure our Arab and Islamic culture. (Comment: One does not support the occupier/usurper of his land or his brother’s land; he puts aside whatever squabbles he has with his family and unites and drives the occupier/usurper off his land, as Divinely authorized. Arabs/Muslims have been supporting Jewish religion and culture for centuries until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head. It may be submitted that those who support the occupier/usurper of his land are traitors to themselves and people; Muslims who do are traitors to their brothers and sisters and traitors to Allāh and His noble Messenger–(Qur’an 48:10; 2:190-191; 8:72-73; 60:9; 42:39-41). Such Muslims need to formulate their answer for when Allāh will question them. And they expect for Allāh to give them Jannah. It is doubtful that you, Ms. Darwish, would support those who occupy/ usurp your house, or your children’s or brother’s house).
- There are many Jews and Israelis who freely express compassion and support for the Palestinians. It is time that we Arabs also express reciprocal compassion and support. (Comment: Palestinians/ Arabs/Muslims do not want “Jews and Israelis” compassion and support, only the return of our homes and land. Let the “Jews and Israelis” keep their “compassion and support” and return our lands and we will “freely express compassion and support for” them to have a homeland in America or Britain or France or Canada, or any of the other country that voted for the Partition of Palestine; whether they voted under American “pressure” and “coercion and duress” or not. See further on).
- The existence of the State of Israel is a fact that should be accepted by the Arab world. (Comment: NO! It is not a fact. It is only a temporary set back for Muslims. Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. As stated, any Arab/Muslim that accepts this foreign occupation of Muslim land is not only a traitor to himself/herself and people but is a traitor to Allāh and His noble Messenger. Man cannot preserve what God decrees demolished).
- Israel is a legitimate state that is not a threat but an asset in the Middle East. (Comment: NO! It is an illegally created Zionist entity –created through American diplomatic thuggery at the United Nations: “Sumner Welles affirmed: “By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world, that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to Partition.”” And “James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote: “The methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal.”” No Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” Where are the Muslim’s, and other just individuals, legal brains to challenge this illegally created Zionist entity in the World Court? Where is your “just” voice, Ms. Darwish? So-called “Israel” is an illegally created Zionist entity and an obscene blot in the heart of the Islamic sun –as already shown, God decreed that all the lands in the Middle East are to be Muslims. The Middle East survived for centuries without so-called “Israel.” To be progressive as their past, Arabs/Muslims need to return to Islam/ Shari'ah. As the venerable Caliph admonishes 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.” As stated, Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. The fajr/dawn prayer is the acid test for Muslims’ success; as the Majestic Salahuddin [Saladin] is stated to have said, in preparing his army for the liberation of the Holy Land, that his army will be ready when Muslims fill the Mosques for morning prayer. Who will be the next Saladin?)
- Every major World religion has a center of gravity. Islam has Mecca, and Judaism certainly deserves its presence in Israel and Jerusalem. (Comment: Jews can return Palestine to its Palestinian owner and still have their centre of gravity in Jerusalem. Jews having a “centre of gravity” is pointless, anyway. Not only is the Bible now OBSOLETE, but as Jews were covenanted to follow the Prophet Mohammad then, as Muhammad Ali rightly states: “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.” Jews salvation lies in them following Islam! And so is Christians’ salvation! Any Jew and/or Christian who rejects Mohammad/Islam has consigned himself/herself to Hell –the “furnace of fire” which is “everlasting” and “never shall be quenched,” and in which there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth;” Matt. 13:42; 18:8; Mark 9:43. And those who have no teeth shall bear it on their gums).
- Diversity should not be a virtue only in the United States, but would be encouraged around the world. We support a diverse Middle East with protection for human rights and respect and equality under the law to all minorities, including Jews and Christians. (Comment: Islam established “diversity” “human rights and respect and equality” to all fourteen centuries ago. Go and check the Qur’an. In contrast, as pointed out in these pages, Christians, as their history and scripture attest, would not tolerate “diversity” “human rights and respect and equality” to all. They would slaughter and “burn” and force the body and mythical blood of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism) down the throats of the “other.” Unlike the Sword of Islam which is the glorious Sword of Liberation, the Sword of Christianity is the Sword of Subjugation!
- Arabs must end the boycott of Israel. (Comment: Certainly! Let “Israel” return Palestine to us. Then, we will not only end our “boycott” we will have mercy on them and forgive them for their transgressions against us and forego compensation and might also ask Allāh, God, to overlook their breaking His covenant, their stiffneckedness, arrogance, mischief, and treachery and to forego having them chastised to the Resurrection, as well as ask him to negate Jesus’ decree that they suffer the greater damnation of Hell. And while we are in the praying mode we, as Angels ask for the forgiveness for all mankind–(Qur’an 42:5) though we are no “angels,” might also be merciful and ask Allāh to forgive you for choosing to follow falsehood, and blasphemy against Him. Even though you are an “independent thinker.”
- Palestinians have several options but are deprived from exercising them because of their leadership, the Arab League and surrounding Arab and Moslem countries who do not want to see Palestinians live in harmony with Israel. (Comment: Rubbish! This is political twaddle. Palestinians want the return of their heritage and their children’s heritage. Return Palestine and there would be no “Arab League” and others to dictate to them. Most of all there will be no sly/ignorant people like you to mislead unthinking Arabs and Muslims).
- If Palestinians want democracy they can start practicing it now. (Comment: They have! Hamas won in a “democratic” election! Where is your mouth/pen against the “West’s” refusal to accept Hamas –“muzzled by the food it eats”? When the West speaks of “democracy” she means “democracy” according to her dictates).
- We stand firmly against suicide/homicide terrorism as a form of jihad. (Comment: Terrorism is no “form of Jihad.” How do you know it is “suicide/homicide”? Unlike the soldier on the battlefield, the occupied has the right to fight however and with whatever at his disposal. Man has no right to edict judgment against him: this judgment is for Allāh! Fighting the occupier/usurper is not “terrorism.” It is heroism! And passport to Paradise! Those who do not wish to be obstacles against liberation are to leave)
- We are appalled by the horrific act of terror against the USA on September 11, 2001. (Comment: So are we. We are also appalled at the horrific invasion of Iraq, not once but twice, and the killings of tens of thousands of innocents, and also appalled at the “lies” that Iraq was killing Kuwaiti babies and that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the death of some 500,000 babies from senseless sanctions. Aren’t you appalled at these? Where is your voice/pen against these? Why aren’t you calling for those involved to be tried for war crimes? Is your mouth “muzzled by the food it eats?”)
- Arab media should end the incitement and misin-formation that result in Arab street rage and violence.(Comment: Not only Arab, all media should end incitement and misinformation. However, truth is not “incitement and misinformation.” You want to know about misinformation/thought-control read Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New, International Terrorism In The Real World).
- We are eager to see major reformation in how Islam is taught and channeled to bring out the best in Muslims and contribute to the uplifting of the human spirit and advancement of civilization. (Comment: Muslims have already “contribute(d) to the uplifting of the human spirit and advancement of civilization.” And while the rest of the world was running around with flint tools and torches. There is nothing wrong with the manner in which Islam is taught. There is something wrong with those who transgress against Muslims and expect Muslims to be docile and pacifistic –something they would not accept for themselves. In fact, there is something morbidly wrong with such people who expect this from Muslims. And “We are eager to see major reformation in” these people’s attitude. This is the twenty-first century. It is long overdue that they cultivate dignity and maturity and not covet Muslims lands and oil/resources and try to control them; and to dictate to Muslim nations what we can have and cannot have.
- We believe in freedom to choose or change one’s Religion. (Comment: Allāh, God, has given man freedom of religion. Muslims who prevent this have no assent from Allāh/Islam. Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere are to learn Islam and also try to educate the woefully misguided and misled Christians about the falsehood and blasphemy they are following. In contrast, as shown in this presentation, it is the Bible/Christianity, not to be confused with secularism, that denies man “freedom to choose or change one’s Religion”: “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;” “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. 13:5-16; 17:2-5).
- We cherish and acknowledge the beauty and contri-butions of the Middle East culture, but recognize that the Arab/Muslim world is in desperate need of constructive self-criticism and reform. (Comment: True, the Arab/ Muslim world is in need of reform –and their stagnation is mainly due to their neglect of adhering to Islamic principles, and brainless leaders who seem to forget or not care that they have to account to Allāh for betraying the trust of their people. However, in the matter of the Arab/Muslim-Jewish divide there is nothing for which we are to engage in self-criticism. For their parasitic disposition it is the West and Jews that need to engage in “self-criticism.” Unless they are devoid of dignity). Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would give ear to your preposterous proposals. As stated, it would not be of any surprise if intelligent Arabs should tell you you need to change the name of your group from “Arabs for Israel” (“AFI”) to “DAFI.”
58. ND asserts that Arab culture breed terrorists. (p. 226).
Response: Claptrap! Arab/Muslim “terrorism” was bred in the West! It was born when Palestine was stolen and when America/West began trying to control Muslim lands and oil. Injustice is the incubator of terrorism! Truth is not Anti-Semitism! Truth is not anti-Americanism! Truth is not hate! Truth is truth! To charge that truth is anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism is to be anti-Truth!
59. Nonie Darwish states that she cannot demand an end to “Israeli” “retaliation” against Palestinians “when Israeli children are being killed while riding buses to school or eating pizza in a café.” (p. 228).
Response: But she has the audacity and arrogance to condemn Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims to fight for what was stolen from them; and be silent about (condone?) innocent Palestinians being “provoked” so they can be smashed, and live under a military policy that attacks them “en masse.” Let’s see Darwish and Jews accept this crud for themselves. “Israel” being the occupier has NO “right” to retaliate! Retaliation is for victims! And Palestinians are the victims! Did Germany have the right to retaliate against France or the Allies?
So “Israeli children are being killed while riding buses to school or eating pizza in a café;” what were those Palestinian children doing when they were murdered with “grenades and knives” and were being kicked out of their country? What the eyes do not see the heart does not bleed for. Once again, the insightful poet: “The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats.”
60. ND wrote: “I often tell my Muslim audience to put themselves in the shoes of the Israeli prime minister. Like any leader, his number one job is to protect the people.” (p. 228)
Response: You need an informed “Muslim audience” on which to try and peddle your twaddle. Isn’t the number one job of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims to “protect” their “people” and reclaim their land that was stolen from them? You should put yourself and have Americans and British and French and Canadians. etc; put themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians and accept the theft of more than half of their lands, including the valuable coastline, and given to another sector of society for their homeland.
If you believe that Palestinians/Arabs /Muslims are “terrorists” for liberating Palestine you can tell that to the Allies of World War II for liberating France and containing the Nazis –they must be the biggest “terrorist” in history. And so would be Britain for ousting Argentina from the (disputed) Falklands Island. Incidentally, Britain can come halfway round the world and claim the Falklands which are in Argentina’s backyard but Argentina cannot claim it. And Jews can come from Russia and elsewhere and claim Palestine but Palestinians cannot claim Palestine. You really do need to remove those rose-“colored glasses” that have been set astride your nose.
61. ND. continues: “When a terrorist attacks Israeli civilians, what do Arabs expect the Israeli leader to do? I offer a little quiz with four choices: (1) Turn the other cheek (this is what your God and son of God, Jesus advocated)and allow them to throw you in the Mediterranean like they continually threaten to do(how is it you do not speak about Jews manifesto to depopulate Palestine of Arabs? Is your mouth “muzzled by the food it eats”?) (2) Blow up the whole West Bank and Gaza. (3) Find an Israeli nut case from a mental hospital, strap him with a dynamite belt, and tell him to blow himself up in a Palestinian restaurant or on a bus. Or, (4) bulldoze the home of the Arab terrorist who just killed your Israeli citizens, giving the residents of the house forty-eight hours to leave and take their valuables (how can they take their valuables when Jews are occupying it?)Answer number 4 is perhaps the most humane of all, other than turning the other cheek and allowing the total destruction of Israel.”(But it is allowable that Jews destroy Palestine).
Response: If Jews did not covet Palestine there would no “terrorist attacks.” I have a quiz for you (Nonie Darwish) and Jews and America and Britain (and all your supporters), what would you do if your land is stolen and given to another (1) You play possum; (2) Stick your head ostrich-like in the sand; (3) Hold your head in your hands and wail and gnash your teeth; Or (4) You kill the son-of-a-bee (and his helpers) or die like a hero fighting with whatever and however for what is yours and family’s? Would you consider yourselves “terrorists” for fighting the occupier and usurper?
Unlike the soldier on the battlefield the occupied has the right to fight however and with whatever at his disposal. Man has no right to edict judgment against him: this judgment is for Allāh! Those who do not wish to be obstacles against liberation can take the dignified route and vamoose.
62. Nonie Darwish condemns the Islamic tolerance of polygamy. (p. 229).
Response: Your Bible/God not only allows polygamy but allows unbridled polygamy and even unbridled concubinage. As stated, you know nothing about Islam and know even less about Christianity. (Polygamy dealt with in item #6).
63. Nonie Darwish: “Defending Hamas is supporting terrorism. What arrogance to say that a group of people has no right to exist.” (p. 230).
Response: To liberate one’s land can hardly be labeled “terrorism.” Supporting the occupied is not “terrorism,” it is dignity and maturity. Supporting the occupier is “terrorism.” America, Britain, France, you, and no one else would regard himself and herself as “terrorist” for doing what Hamas is doing. Hamas needs modern/sophisticated armaments.
It is doubtful that anyone is saying that Jews have “no right to exist.” Only that the state does not! Jews have been “existing” in Palestine for centuries. In fact, it was Muslims who brought Jews back to Jerusalem/Palestine from where they were barred by their fellow Biblical-brothers, the Christians. If you believe that supporting the occupied is terrorism tell that to the Dalai Lama and his people. Why don’t you put your dignity (if you have) where your mouth/pen is and advocate, and advocate all the way to the U.N., that American, Britain, or France give fifty-six percent of their land (as the fifty-six percent that was stolen from Palestinians) to the Roma for their homeland?
64. Nonie Darwish bemoans: “On every campus I visit, there are groups of covered-up female students….I consider myself a reasonable feminist who wants equality and respect, but I feel that treating one’s body like a tempting juicy steak that should be covered up –besides being uncomfortable and impractical– implies an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude. (Do you consider the Christian nun’s habit as implying “an arrogant, holier- than-thou attitude”? And Mary, the Christian’s “Mother of God” is also covered up, is she also treating her body like “a tempting juicy steak that should be covered up”?).It also displays a symbol of the oppressive ugly past of the Middle East and an in-your-face-defiance of all the achievements women have fought for in the last one hundred years.”(p. 231) (What utter rubbish. What are these rights that women have fought for and achieved in the last hundred years that Islam have not given woman fifteen hundred years ago? Please detail them!)
Response: This must be the ultimate in arrogance! How do you know this is how the Muslim women feel about or treat their bodies –like a tempting juicy steak? You want to wear your choice of T-shirt and shorts in Egypt –this is not an in-your-face-defiance– but you berate the Muslim young women for wearing their choice of Islamic wear in America. Did these Muslim young women confess to you that their Islamic dress is “uncomfortable and impractical” to them? You want to strut about topless and bottomless and Muslim women like a tent, what is your problem? You want to do what you choose to do and also to dictate what Muslim women are to do. And you wonder why the world is wobbly like drunken rats. As stated elsewhere, Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
If you believe Christianity gives you “equality and respect” you need to consult your Bible. As appended to in these pages, if the Christian father does not first sell his daughter into lifelong slave-hood–(Ex.21:7), Christianity gives you nothing but lifelong subjugation under the iron-fist of your husband, brands you as “transgressor” and “deceiver” of man; makes you an object of sexual release, curses you as “defiler” of man all the way to the next world, and sets you up in marriage (misery) till “death do you part”–(Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; Eph. 5:22-23, 33; 1Tim. 2:14; 1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Cor 7:1-2; Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18).
65. Nonie Darwish: “How ironic that while sharia laws are being challenged by brave Arab and Muslim feminists in the Middle East, we are seeing radical Muslim groups promoting sharia laws to apply to Muslims in Canada.” (p. 232).
Response: Those “Arab and Muslim feminists in the Middle East” are not brave; they are ignorant of the teachings of Islam, just as you are. It is not Shari’ah that needs to be reformed. It is the Muslim’s understanding of Shari'ah that needs to be reformed. The system designed by Allāh, the Omniscient, is perfect. Allāh is Just. He does not discriminate against woman. Woman has no choice in her form and physiology; a form and physiology He gave her. Islam/Shari'ah does not have to conform to man: man has to conform to Shari'ah. These “Muslim feminists in the Middle East” need to trash their ignorant slogans and learn the Qur’an/Islam and demand their Allāh-given rights from their equally ignorant and maybe arrogant men-folk. Let them know that they cannot expect justice from Allāh when they deny women their dues/justice. There is no system on the face of this earth that is more just and equitable than Shari'ah.
There is no stoning in Islam. Adulterers are to be given a hundred lashes. Slave women are to receive half the hundred. Stoning to death could not be halved–(Qur’an 24:2; 25). There is stoning for adultery in Judaism and Christianity: “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”–(Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; John 8:3-5).
There is no honor killing in Islam. There is honor killing in Judaism and Christianity. See item #12).
There is no death for apostasy in Islam. As already noted, until he received Divine revelation on a topic the Prophet Mohammad followed the Torah. There is death for apostasy in Judaism and Christianity. (See item #26).
There is no death for blasphemy in Islam. Muslims are to avoid those who deny and mock Allāh, God–(Qur’an 4:140. Also 6:68). Muslims are admonished to not revile false Gods lest their followers ignorantly revile Allāh–(Qur’an 6:109). Allāh says that Muslims will face “much abuse” from the People of the Book and the Idolaters; but Muslims must be “patient and keep your duty”–(Qur’an 3:185). Those who “molest” and “annoy” the Prophet will receive chastisement in the Hereafter–(Qur’an 9:61; 33:57). There is no order to kill these deniers/mockers/ revilers. Further, Allāh says that those who say that Jesus is God and the Trinitarians are “blasphemers”–(Qur’an 5:75, 76). If there was a law against blasphemy in Islam, according to these verses there probably would have been no Christians in the dominion of the Prophet Mohammad during his reign; neither would there have been any Christians in the countries ruled by Muslims; they would either have had to revert to Islam, flee, or face imprisonment or death. There is death for blasphemy in Judaism and Christianity: “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). Islam abrogates the Biblical laws of death for adultery, homosexuality, apostasy blasphemy, honor killing, etc;–(Qur’an 2:106; 16:101).
There is no “easy” divorce in Islam. There is very “easy” divorce in Judaism and Christianity. (See items #20 and 106).
Amputation/Dismembering the thief: So the Christian God can have a sinless man killed/crucified for sinful people but Allāh cannot have those who maraud in the land –robbing and other banditry, raping, hacking computers and corrupting files etc, which may the source of one’s livelihood. This is “intellectual” cerebrating?
Allāh, God, enjoins charity. Muslim society is to be charitable; and the hungry are to ask assistance so that there should be no need for theft because of hunger. The punishment for theft is the cutting off of the hand of the thief–(Qur’an 5:38). Allah also says: “But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, Allah will turn to him (mercifully). Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”–(Qur’an 5:39. Also 5:33-34). Cutting off of the hand is dependent upon whether theft was because of hunger, for profit, or mischief. In the case of hunger there is to be no cutting off of the hand. In the case of the latter two, compensation or restitution may be effected before apprehended by the law. Muhammad Ali states, “cutting off of the hand is the maximum punishment.” Muhammad Ali has noted an incident whereby a slave was not dismembered because the slave’s master evidenced that he heard the Prophet say that “there was to be no cutting off of the hand in the case of theft of fruit”–(The Religion of Islam, p. 729). Those who condemn this law of Islam should consider:
-if it is better for a man to dismember his “offensive” limb (as Christ says–Matt. 18:8) to preserve the health of his other parts, how much more appropriate it is that the cancer of society be excised to maintain the moral health of society
-what individual is there who would not amputate a limb of his body that is afflicted with cancer so as to prevent the cancer from infecting his or her entire body
-what law-abiding citizens, men and women are there, toiling honestly and tiringly for their livelihood would take kindly to thieves to come and plunder their belongings; how many such men and women are there who, after a day of toiling, would prefer to keep vigil at night against thieves, in sympathy for them, to spare their hands from being chopped off
-what honest person is there who would not like to sleep with windows open on sweltering summer nights, without having to fear about thieves and robbers coming into their homes.
Interestingly, regarding the “Flame virus” which was let loose on computers in 2012 it is stated that “The U.S. explicitly stated for the first time last year that it reserved the right to retaliate with force against a cyber attack.” –(Toronto Star, Wednesday, May 30, 2012; Data-stealing virus puts UN on alert, p. A 13. If this means that the US does not, and/or will not, send virus on others and/or is not complicit in other(s) doing so, and gives other nations the same right of retaliation, then this is commendable of the US. If not, it is arrogance and bullying). While such a state-sponsored crime would be difficult to retaliate against without killing perhaps thousands of innocents; in the case of individual-committed crime it would be more prudent, to have an International treaty whereby such an individual have his hand cut-off. And if it is acceptable to even kill for such a crime, where is the difficulty in cutting off the hand of hackers?
The Bible requires “amputation” for an even lesser crime: “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (testicles/genitals): Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her”–(Deut. 25:11-12). So, unless the Christian woman wants to get out of a miserable marriage or if she wants to collect on the insurance policy on her husband (and let her husband be killed) she will lose her hand for grabbing the assailant’s “secrets” to save her husband from being killed.
(Much flak has been dumped on the religious police in some Muslim countries. What about the “vice” police in non-Muslim countries chasing after drunk drivers and speeders –while some may argue that drunk drivers and speedsters may cause harm to the other, so are adultery and fornication which results in broken homes and lives and venereal disease, bastard and abandoned children, unwed parents; mothers who might become a pest on the Medicare and welfare system of society, etc;– policing common bawdy house (adults engaged in consensual sex in privacy); marijuana grow-ups (people growing greens in the privacy of their homes); banning alcohol and cigarettes to under eighteen (and one should be able to make his/her own choice) and banning them in certain public areas? If we can have “policing” for material welfare (which is temporal) how much more important it is that one’s moral and spiritual welfare (which are eternal) be safe-guarded. Although there is no Qur’anic injunction or teaching in the Tradition of the Prophet to beat people to pray or cover up. Muslims are to constantly remind ourselves or be reminded by the State that Allāh is ever watching and our words and deeds are being recorded–(Qur’an 10:61; 34:3; 43:80; 45:29; 50:16-18; 78:29; 82:10-12). Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise. We are to decide if intoxicants and brief periods of illicit joys are worth sacrificing Allāh’s everlasting bliss).
Flogging–(Qur’an 24:2; 4:25). Muhammad Ali: “Chastity, as a virtue, is not given the first place in modern civilized society, and hence adultery is not considered a sufficiently serious offence to subject the guilty party to any punishment except the payment of damages to the injured husband. The breach of the greatest trust which can be imposed in a man or a woman, the breach which ruins families, destroys household peace, and deprives innocent children of their loving mothers, is not looked upon even as seriously as the breach of trust of a few pounds. Hence the Islamic law seems to be too severe to a Westerner”–(Comm. Qur’an 24:2).
Most, if not all, secular laws do nothing to those guilty of adultery (and fornication) which could not only “ruin families, destroys household peace”, and deprives children of their need for parental togetherness, and contribute to the moral decay of society; but which could multiply sexually transmitted diseases, genital warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS –which may even become epidemic and even threaten chaste individuals (we’ve heard of people contracting AIDS through tainted blood and infected needles), diseases which may affect the unborn who doubtlessly has the right to protection from diseases– may create unwed moms and dads; and perhaps abandoned children; traumatized individuals (traumatized by not knowing the identity of their biological parents); and which could perhaps cost millions of dollars to society to stem these diseases and to provide for pre and post-natal care for unwed mothers and children, and to provide for the welfare of these hapless children and even the unwed mothers; and if the fornicating couples have multiple sex-partners they may end up not knowing whose baby they are having, or who is having their baby, and if such babies are given up for adoption or abandoned then, depending on the age of these couples, a mother may end up having sex with her son, and a father with his daughter when these children are grown.
Thus, adultery and fornication, seemingly a personal affair, can and do have far-reaching effects in society. Should fornication and adultery then not be forcibly deterred? Islam allows that such persons be disgraced and identified.
(Recently, I came upon a television show by chance and learnt one of the fallouts of adultery. A man denied his son for twenty-three years, believing that his wife had cheated on him, resulting in the birth of the son [who was raised by his sister]. It was unsettling to listen to the son’s hurt at the rejection [even though in such a situation the child is blameless]. As it turned out, DNA evidence showed that the man was the boy’s father. I do not recall if it was stated that the mother was alive or not; but imagine her heartaches at her innocence and her son being denied love by his father. This father and son [and sister and mother] might have gone to their graves with bitterness and pain and hurt and anguish if there was no DNA science or if no DNA test was done).
These laws of Islam –dismemberment and flogging– are not “torture.” If the taking of painful injections for the containment of rabies, and suffering radiation for the treatment of cancer, and suffering deprivation to free oneself from addiction, are not torture –but rather are the remedies for the diseases afflicting the individual– then flogging the adulterer and fornicator, dismembering the thief, and executing the murderer –which are remedies for the diseases afflicting not only the individual but the society– could not be deemed as “torture.”
Society is not to be hostaged (with cost and disease) by loose sexuality; and overrun by criminals because man considers himself more humane than God. If individuals are brazen enough to transgress the law, be it religious or secular, they must suffer the consequences.
Lovers’ heads and robbers’ hands, may be falling in Saudi Arabia, as one critic styled it. And in the West robbers are sent to prison; and most likely end up robbing again and may even commit acts of murder and rape; and lovers run the risk of contracting herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS which they may in turn infect others. It is doubtful that a decent law-abiding citizen would not prefer a society where thieves are permanently removed from thievery, and promiscuity discouraged, but would prefer a society overwrought with the “dead weight” of robbers, rapists, murderers, drunkenness, gambling, drug-dealing, drug addiction, pimping and prostitution, pornography and child pornography, and sexually-diseased children.
(The Toronto Star Tuesday, January 11, 2000, in its article “AIDS crisis called major world threat”, by Kathleen Kenna of the Washington Bureau, reports U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan as saying, “Nowhere else has AIDS yet become a threat to economic, social and political stability on the scale that it now is in southern and eastern Africa;” that “Last year, AIDS killed about 10 times more people in Africa than did armed conflict,” he said. If people were following Divine injunctions to avoid illicit carnal relations, AIDS may not now be a “major world threat.” In fact there may not be AIDS).
Flogging is “aimed more at disgracing the culprit than at torturing him. In the time of the Prophet, and even for some time after him, there was no whip, and flogging was carried out by beating with a stick or with the hand or with shoes. The culprit was not stripped naked, but he was required to take off thick clothes.” Stripes are to be given “on different parts of the body so that no harm should result to any one part, but the face and the private parts must be avoided.”(M. Ali, comm. Qur’an 24:2. The Religion of Islam, p. 731, resp.).
Public floggings serves to identify the guilty individuals so that chaste men/women would avoid them as marriage partners: “The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any but an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to believers”–(Qur’an 24:3. This verse shows that there is no honor killing in Islam; those guilty of illegal sexual intercourse would not be left to have relations among themselves or with idolaters).
The believer in God who does not apply the law of God, thinking himself to be more humane than God or in trying to avoid the heat of popular opinion, is simply throwing the Book of God behind his back.
“Hell is hotter.” And inescapable.
66. Nonie Darwish was invited to so-called “Israel” to speak. On her trip she wondered if Jews would accept her; and about the many “Israeli” children killed by Arab raids etc; and its “survival” among the Arabs, that, “It must be God’s protective hands over this little place.” (pp. 235-236).
Response: Not even a wisp of thought about the occupied Palestinians and their misery and humiliation and deaths, and for more than six torturous decades. Not even a squeak about the thousands of Palestinians killed and dispersed to other lands all because Jews covet their land; not even a breath about the “800,000” Palestinians that were uprooted and their “531 villages” that were destroyed, and the “eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.” (See item #1).
No. Ms. Darwish it is not “God’s protective hands over this little country;” it is America’s military might! America’s diplomatic thuggery at the UN created it and America’s military might protects it. But only for a little while. Man cannot preserve what God decrees demolished! As Divinely decreed, all the lands in the Middle-East are Muslims. And we will reclaim every grain of sand. And at that time not even a legion of Americas will be able to prevent it. In fact, America herself will be in dire need of help. The future shall witness it!
Vive le Palestine libre!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin?
67. Nonie Darwish wrote that while she was in so-called “Israel”: “When I saw Jesus Christ’s birthplace surrounded by Muslims, I could not help wonder how many Christians and Jews are allowed in Mecca and Medina? (The answer, of course, is zero).” (Brackets are ND’s). (p. 237).
Response: Jesus’ birthplace surrounded by Muslims is nothing strange, Muslims believe in Jesus. In fact, considering that Christ is only a figurehead in the Church –the doctrines passing under Jesus’ name are alien to Jesus, son of God belief as already shown is a remnant of paganism– Muslims, who honor Jesus in his true status –of him being a messenger of Allāh, God, sent only to the Jews as he declared– are the only followers/believers that Jesus has. To crown Jesus as son of God and God is not honor to him but dishonor. No prophet of God –and Jesus was only a prophet of God– would make himself equal with God or a relation of God; and no man of dignity would appreciate a son being wrongly ascribed to him (as Christians ascribed sonship to God), and no parent would appreciate parental honors due to him alone be given to another (as Christians give worship to Jesus which should be to God). Second, Muslims have the right not only to be majority in Occupied Palestine but also to lord over Palestine: Palestine is our land. All of it. Jews have a right to be there; not the state!
As to your “wonder” about “how many Christians and Jews are allowed in Mecca and Medina.” Jews and Christians were already in Makkah and Madinah fifteen hundred years ago. And most likely would still be there but for their treachery and disloyalty which resulted in their eviction. Jews were always treacherous towards Muslims. In fact Jews are/were treacherous even against God: “Surely, as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt TREACHEROUSLY with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord,” “For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very TREACHEROUSLY with me, saith the Lord”–(Jer.3:20; 5:11); not to mention their breaking their covenant with God; were arrogant/ungrateful to their prophet–telling Moses to go and fight while they sit and wait–(Num. 13:31-33; 14:1-4; Qur’an 5:22-24); killed the prophets of God–(Matt. 23:31-35, and even tried to kill God’s “only begotten son,” Jesus). Jews were treacherous against the Prophet Mohammad; and tried to deceive Muslims–(Qur’an 3:71); and as M. H. Haykal points out “their opposition and hostility were never open” [perhaps this is so even today]; Muhammad Ali noted that upon his settling into Madinah the Prophet Muhammad made a “treaty of mutual obligation” with the Jews in which “the Muslims and the Jews were bound not only not to turn their hands against each other but also to defend one another against a common enemy;” and “when the enemy laid siege to Madinah, they were bound to repel the attack.” But, “Instead of this they sided with the investing army.” The Quraizas “were in alliance with the Prophet, but when the Quraish attacked Medinah, which, under the treaty, they were bound to repel, they secretly sided with the invading army.”71 And Jews repaid Muslims benevolence (Saladin’s bringing them back to Jerusalem) by devouring the Muslim hand that fed them. (See item #24).
As for Christians, more than a hundred years ago Thomas Arnold notes in his book The Preaching of Islam what may very well be a timeless observation, Mr. Arnold notes: “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 ISLM, or to the bad feeling stirred up by the TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR of the latter towards the Musalmans.” (p.77. Emphasis added).
Significantly, regarding the usual charge that Islam/Muslims forced Islam at the point of the sword Mr. Arnold points out that “of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them.”(p.80. Emphasis added)
68. Nonie Darwish states that while she was on her visit in so-called “Israel”: “Israel is not perfect, but it has passed a test of amazing endurance, surviving and thriving in a sea of hatred, violence, and terror.” (p. 238).
Response: As stated elsewhere you (and your Arab supporters) need to remove those “colored glasses” set astride your nose. For centuries Arabs and Jews lived in “harmony and mutual respect” until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head. It was Jews who plotted and (with American Christian aid) stole Palestine from Palestinians –throwing the entire region into “a sea of hatred, violence, and terror,” how then the Arabs are the enemies of Jews? It was not Arabs that stole from Jews? It is not Arabs who are ‘enemies” of Jews; it is Jews (and Christians) who are “enemies” of Arabs! Muslims have no difficulty accepting Jews; just not the state!
While Islam teaches peace and forgiveness; Islam also teaches us to be wise, not stupid! Sure Muslims will forgive and make peace with Jews. First they have to return our homes and land. There can be no peace without justice; and there will be no justice so long as there are those dedicated to living off the blood of others. The occupier is not to be left in “peace” to enjoy the fruits of Palestine! Whatever “hatred, violence, and terror” there is in the Palestinians-Jewish divide it is the direct result of Jews coveting Arab lands and American (Christian) evil. And as stated elsewhere, unless and until every grain of sand of Palestine is returned to Muslims and unless and until America stop running around like a “wild ass of man” trying to control Muslim lands and oil Muslims have all rights and every right and the Highest Authority –the Divine Authority– to undertake the noble armed Jihad against America (not civilians) and against the Jewish occupiers of Palestine. All the way to the Resurrection if need be. And Muslims will prevail. Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant! And whether we live or die Jannah/Paradise is ours to inherit: “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,Rejoicing in what Allāh has given them out of His grace, and they rejoice for the sake of those who, (being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they have no fear, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice for Allāh’s favour and (His) grace, and that Allāh wastes not the reward of the believers”–(Qur’an 2:154; 3:169-171). “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). Allaho Akbar!
*(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).
69. ND: “Islam should symbolize generosity and aiding the needy….Our (Jewish) cousins needed protection after World War II; we were obligated to give it to them. We had a golden opportunity to show the world that Islam is truly a religion of peace, compassion, and tolerance by doing the right thing” (which was to accept the Partition of Palestine) (pp. 239-240)
Response: Islam is “generosity and aiding the needy” and “truly a religion of peace, compassion, and tolerance” (but you wouldn’t know). Even though we gave “Our (Jewish) cousins” the “golden opportunity” by bringing them back to Jerusalem from where your Christian fathers had banned them “Our (Jewish) cousins” were scheming way long before World War II to boot (and maybe even engage in the “monstrous mission to annihilate”) your Palestinian brothers and sisters and have it all for themselves. If the Jews wanted only “protection” they would have taken their homeland in Uganda where the British was offering them. But Jews coveted and wanted Palestine. As noted in item #1 the methods “employed” by Jews “to forcibly evict” the native Palestinians were “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning.” Here are a few more “golden” gems from your Jewish idols:
“…after the [Second World] war the question of the land of Israel and the question of the Jews would be raised beyond the framework of “development”; amongst ourselves. It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country…..If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable..… the only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least Western Eretz Israel, without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point!….there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe.….And only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all. There is no other way out.”72 –Joseph Weitz.
Theodor Herzl wrote that Jews would have to “spirit the penniless” Arabs out of Palestine “while denying” them “employment in our own country”73 (??? our “own” country? How did Palestine become your country? Arrogance at its peak).
Chaim Weizman “promised” that ““Palestine will be as Jewish as England is English.””74
Israel Zangwill envisioned “a land without people for a people without land”75–in other words a land without Arabs for Jews who had no land.
Theodor Herzl envisioned the Jewish state to stretch from Turkey to Egypt: ““The northern frontier is to be the mountains facing Cappadocia (in Turkey), the southern, the Suez.””76
Moshe Dayan, as Chief of Staff of the Jewish army is noted as stating in 1952: ““It lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate objective of erecting the Israeli empire.””77 (And this was only a meager four years after their occupation of Palestine). General, Dayan boasted after their victory in the 1967 six-day war with Egypt and Syria: ““Our fathers had reached the frontiers which was recognised in the Partition Plan. Our generations reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the six-day generation have managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present ceasefire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan –perhaps to Lebanon and perhaps to Central Syria as well.”78 (How is he so certain there will be new ceasefire lines? Seems like it is their plan to instigate wars and occupy more territory. Clearly, from their own declarations and actions Jews had no intention of having only a homeland; their ideal was/is to occupy/usurp all of Palestine. And even beyond.
These are some of the declarations of the people who project themselves to the world as “doves of peace and examples of injured innocence.”79 This is the mentality that Nonie Darwish and some Arabs and Muslims are supporting and want other Arabs and Muslims to join them. Their Jewish idols must be having a ball at their naiveté. (A Toronto Star report in 2012 shows Jews forcibly preventing Palestinian farmers from going to their farms to work. Perhaps these Palestinians are forcibly barred from their farms so that after a while Jews can claim them as abandoned lands and confiscate/usurp them. Could such an action be described as any other but a monumental shame and disgrace; not to mention illegal? Will Nonie Darwish [and her ilk] put her [their] mouth and pen against this gruesome obscenity? Or is her [their] mouth “muzzled by the food it eats”?)
70. ND. “I support Israel because it is not a threat to Arab nations. No one in his right mind would think that Israel would want to occupy Damascus, Cairo, or Baghdad.” (pp. 240-241)
Response: Those who schemed to boot you off your lands and massacred to realize this end and continues to usurp more lands; whose “official” “military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse”and whose “strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them” coupled to their stated declarations in item #69 above is not a “threat”? You need a cerebral check, lady! Here’s a little quiz for you, Ms. Darwish: which “country” in the world is not demarcated by borders? You got it!
As to your “No one in his right mind would think that Israel would want to occupy Damascus, Cairo, or Baghdad,” Jewish expansionist intentions noted in item #69 above belies your ignorant claim. Here are a few more venomous squawks from the dainty little “dove”: In his booklet Palestine–A Stolen Heritage Ismail Zayid notes under the headings:
“The New Fascism: Zionism in its own words”
-“If Hussein can’t accept our peace conditions, let the Jordanians look for a new king. And if the Jordanians can’t stand our peace conditions let them look for another country.” (17 July 1967).”
-“We have to prove to the Arabs not only that we can occupy Cairo and Damascus, but also that we can remain indefinitely in our present frontiers.” (L’Orient, 1 May 1969, AFP).”
-With one charge, we can reach Damascus and Amman.” (Daily Star, 13 May 1969, AP).”
-“We are not after more territory, it is just that we cannot stop,” (L’Express, 19-25 May 1969).”80
“THE NEW HERRENVOLK” (Master race)
-“The Achilles of the Arab coalition is the Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian State ought to be set up there, with its southern frontier on the river Litani, We would sign a treaty of alliance with this state. Thus when we have broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Transjordan; after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt dared to make war with us, we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. We should thus end the war and would have put paid to Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our ancestors.” (Ben Gurion’s Diary 21.5.1947).” (Notably, it is so-called “Israel” that provoked the civil war in Lebanon–see Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, International Terrorism In The Real World, pp. 46-47. Isn’t this a war crime?).
-“Our forefathers had reached the frontiers which were recognised in the Partition Plan. Our generation reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the Six-Day generation have managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present ceasefire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan –perhaps to Lebanon and perhaps to Central Syria as well.” (General Dayan, quoted in The Times 25.6.1969).”
-“The Americans have given us weapons so that we should use them when necessary…in an extreme case it is permitted to the civilised world to take control, by force, of the oil sources.” (Gen. Yithak Rabin, in Ha’aretz 20.7.1973).”
-“Israel is now a military superpower…For the Americans there is nothing more important than a strong Israel. All the forces of European countries are weaker than we are. Israel can conquer in one week the area from Khartoum to Baghdad and Algeria.” (Gen Arik Sharon, quoted in Yediot Aharanot 26.7.1973).”81
The dainty little Jewish dove of 1948 has sprouted into a rabid hawk with vicious talons.
To scheme to kick Palestinians off their lands, massacre old men and women and children and newly born, to provoke them to smash them, to attack them en masse, to believe you are the “most superior of all races” –which would justify the license to commit any act against another– and to have rabid expansionist ambitions is not a “threat?” Sensible people will see this as not only a “threat” BUT AS A VENOMOUS, IMMINENT, AND OMINOUS “threat.” A “threat” THAT IS TO BE OBLITERATED AT ANY AND AT EVERY AND AT ALL AND AT WHATEVER COSTS.
71. ND states that Radical Islam” wants to “win” America “by force, just as they captured Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, and much of the Near East in the seventh century.” (p. 243).
Response: There are many verses in the Qur’an showing that Islam does not require Muslims to “force” Islam on anyone. Allāh says (even though one’s concept of God may be blasphemous) “All religions are for Him;” and it could not be otherwise seeing as He revealed that He raised up prophets among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies. (While there is no terrorism and/or “radicalism” in Islam and this is not in support of terrorism), if “Radical Islam has declared war on America and the West” this is probably so because of the injustice that America and the West have committed against Muslims –Stealing Palestine, invading Iraq and Afghanistan killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocents, coveting Muslim’s land and oil and wanting to control them. Have America and the West return Palestine to Arabs/Muslims and stop wanting to control Muslims land and oil and it is doubtful that they will have any problem with “Radical Islam.”
Regarding your charge that Muslims forced religion by the sword (and this is the Christian’s way, as evidenced by her history), this piece of ancient tripe has already been trashed.
72. Nonie Darwish wrote that “moderate Muslims need to reach out to other religions and build interfaith dialogue based on mutual respect with the Christian and Jewish communities. They need to show the positive side of Islam.” (p. 252).
Response: There is no such person as a “moderate” Muslim or “fundamentalist” Muslim; there is no “fundamental” Islam and “moderate” Islam. Muslims are to meditate on the verses of the Qur’an (and Hadith) as Allāh requires, they will find no “discrepancies” to give them these preposterous prefixes (the allegorical verses are no justification for division: Allāh, as He says, will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ). Also there is no “jihadist” and “Islamist.” One who undertakes the noble armed struggle against injustice is a mujahid (plural mujahiddeen); our religion is Islam and a follower of Islam is a Muslim.
Islam has no negative side. Islam has NO side. The Divinely crafted system is perfect! It could not be otherwise. Islam does not forbid good relations with Jews and Christians or anyone else; it only forbids good relations with those who fight us for our religion and drive us from our homes/lands and those who help them in this.
As to interfaith dialogue. What is your goal for interfaith dialogue? Allāh allows every person the right of choice to his belief. As appended to in these pages Christianity as taught by the Church has no Divine or prophetic or logical foundation, and Judaism’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others also has no Divine or prophetic or logical foundation. And neither Christianity nor Judaism has anything to foster material progress. Significantly, the Bible is now OBSOLETE. Allāh has already taught us about Judaism and Christianity. If Jews and Christians want to know about Islam they can read the Qur’an (and we recommend Muhammad Ali’s translation: www.muslim.org) and /or speak to an Imam.
Jewish-Muslim interfaith dialogue only seeks to neutralize Muslims on the issue of Palestine. It is said that Muslims are required to not discuss politics/Palestine (though in Islam there is no separation of Mosque and State). What Muslims need to do is ask these “interfaith” Jews who want Palestine off the “dialogue” table how many of them send money to so-called “Israel.”
73. ND reading a statement by “Israeli military intelligence expert” on her father, “Lieutenant Colonel Hafaz,” which states in part: “Unlike many of his counterparts in military HQ in Cairo who were plotting the destruction of the Jewish state in an ennobled jihad (“holy war”) Lieutenant Colonel Hafaz respected the Jews –their strengths as well as their weaknesses.” (p. 256).
Response: Wonder if this “Israeli military intelligence expert” ever wrote about the Jews “plotting the destruction of the” Palestinians or of their expansionist dreams to erect “Eretz Israel.” Arabs are not plotting “the destruction of the Jewish state;” only to reclaim that which was stolen from them. Removing a tent placed by a foreigner on your lawn is not “the destruction” of the squatter’s property.
As a martyr in the cause of Allah –truth and justice– your father’s soul is already in “rest” and bliss (he has no need to depend on anyone, or wonder “if” Jesus will go to heaven and prepare a place for him and come back; no uncertain trip to heaven and back), and the Word of Allāh is true. And being a shaheed/martyr, your father is perhaps in the highest heaven. (See item #68 for the martyrs of Islam).