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

                              ISLAM ALLOWS TORTURE
Contrary to views expressed on the Internet, Islam does not sanction torture. There is no torture in Islam. The punishments in Islam are not torture. They are retribution for transgressing the law. Transgressors are aware of the consequences for violation. If they are brazen enough to transgress then the punishment they receive was shapened by their own hearts and heads and hands. In fact, it may be submitted that one who deliberately transgresses the law wants to be punished.

   People have their limbs amputated for one reason or another to preserve the well-being of their other parts; is this torture? Likewise to preserve the moral and social health of society incorrigible offenders are to be punished; and given a punishment that serves as a deterrent as well as a warning to other would-be violators. As Allāh tells us in His Qur’an, there is security in retaliation: “And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves”–(Qur’an 2:179).

   Interestingly, while Islam is criticized for practicing capital punishment, Malik Ghulam Farid points out that “Even the most enthusiastic protagonists of the abolition of Capital Punishment have not yet been able to suggest a suitable alternative to it. They have had to admit that a long term of imprisonment as an alternative is “horrible” and “is not an ideal substitute.” (Capital Punishment in the Twentieth Century by E. Roy Calvert, G.P. Putnam, London, 1930).”

   While Islam requires that murderers be permanently removed from society so that society may be safe, it requires that other criminals be punished only to the degree of the crime and that in some cases it is better to forgive: “And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allāh. Surely He loves not the wrongdoers”–(Qur’an 42:40). To which Muhammad Ali comments:

“A golden rule relating to forgiveness of evil is given here. The rule laid down is that evil must be requited by punishment proportionate thereto. Note that punishment which is meted out for an evil is called a sayyi‘ah or an evil, because the Arabs speak of the requital of an evil in terms of that evil; see 2:15a. Also note that the punishment must be proportionate to the evil. A very just and necessary restriction. And this beautiful maxim is given by a man whose people were in the habit of slaughtering whole tribes for the most trifling fault of one member. Again, forgiveness is not neglected, nor preached in such a manner as to make it impracticable. There is in Islam neither the one extreme of tooth for tooth or the opposite one of turning the left cheek when the right is smitten or giving away the cloak to one who has already wrongfully taken the coat of his brother; it is the golden and beautiful mean that forgiveness may be exercised, if forgiveness will mend the matter and do good to the wrongdoer himself. The object to be kept in view is to amend, whether it is attained by giving proportionate punishment or by exercising forgiveness.”

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 and social 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?

   It would seem to be “torture” to have victims and/or their family circles live with the mental torture of fear, dreading if or when the murderer, rapist, or thief might return to plague them. And even to commit crimes against others, and even worse crimes.

   While it may be argued that a transgressor who inflicts pain on anyone, even on one who retaliates against him, to glean information is torture; a victim of aggression who inflicts pain on the transgressor to glean information to ensure his safety is not torture but self-preservation.

   The transgressor has no “right” to retaliation; and is open subject to whatever action(s) his intended victim should deem necessary to secure his welfare.

   If one would give to others the right(s) he exacts for himself there will be no transgression and no retaliation and no need to torture. Islam teaches that the exacting of one’s right(s) is diametrically equal to the instituting of the right(s) of others. And to give to others the right(s) one exacts for himself is the intelligent and the civilized and the democratic approach.

Allāh, the God Who created out of love; has decreed mercy onto us; sent Messengers to guide us; requites evil with its like and rewards good up to seven-hundred-fold; and implores us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins as He instructed 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); could not be the God that “tortures.” 

*

   The site TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page notes that in the Qur’an there is torture in this world and torture in the next world:

   (1) The critic: “Torture in this world: Qur’an (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides…”

   Response: The varying degree of punishment depends on the crime committed. If mischief-makers are not dealt with severely, which should serve as a deterrent to others, then society would be at the mercy of marauders. (There are places where people live in gated communities to be safe from criminals: honest people suffer imprisonment while criminals roam free). However, while the above verse requires harsh punishment, the next verse (Qur’an 5:34) holds out the hand of mercy to the “mischief-makers” who repent before they are apprehended.Here are the two verses together: “The only punishment of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. This shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement. Except those who repent before you overpower them; so know that Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.”Such is the magnitude and the magnificence of the mercy of Allāh/Islam.

   Notably. The Bible –Judaism and Christianity– also requires dismemberment, and for the simple act of a woman trying to save her husband: “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 (genitals): Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her”–(Deut. 25:11-12).

(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 as sending viruses, where is the difficulty in cutting off the hand of the hacker(s) who is not only a nuisance but can cause people loss of money and even their jobs/businesses?).

   (2) The critic: “Qur’an (8:12) – “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.”

   Response: If you smite those who transgress against you at the necks they will never return to fight you. And if you smite them at the fingertips they will not be able to take up arms against you again. So where will you smite those who (and without justification) come to kill you? Perhaps you will let them slaughter you (and family).
Isn’t this what America and Allies have done/are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen? Though the Talibans and Yemenites (and the innocents killed along with them) did not take up arms to “smite” America and Allies, and neither did Saddam Hussein.

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

   (3) The critic: “Qur’an (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.”

Response: (Were the disbelievers not “hard against” Mohammad and Muslims and “merciful among themselves”?)     Muhammad Ali explains: “Ashidda’ is plural of shadid, which means firm, strong, powerful, as well as brave, firm of heart (LA, Q, LL). Shiddat, the root word, also signifies firmness of heart (T). The translation fierce, or vehement, adopted in English translations, is not correct here. The Muslims stood firm against the disbelievers but they were never fierce or hard in their treatment towards them.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an, highly recommended, can be viewed/downloaded online: www.muslim.org).

   Allāh instructs the Prophet Mohammad in His Qur’an 9:6:“And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.” To which Muhammad Ali comments: “This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered to kill anyone on account of his religion. “You shall give him a safe conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Muhammadanism” (Sale).” Clearly, it is not “hard”ness to protect and teach the idolater and return him home safely; it is “mercy.” Again, Allāh instructs the Prophet in Qur’an 39:53: 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” (notably, believers as well as disbelievers are servants of Allah). It is not “hard”ness to implore sinners to forgiveness of all of their sins, and moreover to implore sinners in loving, compassionate terms; it is “mercy.” In fact, it is not only “mercy” but also love. (Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise).  

   Verses of the Qur’an are to be taken in their perspective. Like other prophets who were a mercy to their people, the Prophet Mohammad was a mercy to his people, Arabs –who were the last people to receive a prophet– as well as a mercy to the entire world–(Qur’an 29:46; 32:3; 36:6; 7:158; 21:107; 34:28). Part of the Prophet’s mission was to enlighten the people to the futility and degradation of idolatry and the irrationality of polytheism. (See Polytheism and Monotheism). The Prophet’s mission was only to preach the Divine Message–(Qur’an 3:20; 10:99; 64:12); the people were free to accept or reject this Message–(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).

   The Arabs not only rejected the Divine Message, they perse-cuted Mohammad, besieged him, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued him, and made war on him. Thus, they became “hard” on Mohammad. In consequence, the Believers became “hard” against the “disbelievers” because the disbeliev-ers were “hard”er against the Believers –they are the ones who first took up the sword, and without justification, to annihilate the Believers.

   What would you do if someone comes to kill you, would you let him kill you, or be “hard” against him? Are you not “merciful” to your brothers/family and “hard” on your enemies?

   Notably, Muslims were “hard” only against those who wanted to annihilate them. Allāh requires Muslims to not even let hatred cause us to transgress; and for us to give justice even if it is against our own selves: 

   -“And let not hatred of a people — because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque — incite you to transgress. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allāh. Surely Allāh is Severe in requiting (evil)” (Qur’an 5:3)

   -“O you who believe, be upright for Allāh, bearers of witness with justice; and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty. And keep your duty to Allāh. Surely Allāh is Aware of what you do” (5:8)

   -“O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allāh, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor, Allāh has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allāh is ever Aware of what you do”–(4:135).

   That Mohammad was “hard” on the disbelievers only in repelling their wars and was “never fierce or hard” in his treat-ment of them is evidenced from the fact that he prayed for his dead enemy, saying: “if I knew that if I asked forgiveness for him more than seventy times, he would be forgiven, I would ask it for more times than that”–(Qur’an 9:84, 113. Bokhari Vol. 6, #193, 194).

   And upon his triumph at Makkah he forgave his rabid enemies of twenty-three grueling years: “It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka’ba on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said to the Quraish: How do you think I should treat you? They said: We hope for good, a noble brother and the son of a noble brother. Then he said: I say as my brother Joseph said: “No reproof be against you this day” (Rz)” No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -“No reproof be against you this day”! Such was the expanse of the mercy and benevolence of this wonderful man, Mohammad. (See Qur’an 12:92 for this saying of the prophet Joseph. Quote taken from Muhammad Ali).

   Mohammad even forgave the horrid Hind. The woman who is said to have cut open the body of his uncle, Hamza, as he lay dying on the battlefield and ripped out his liver and chewed it.  

(That four persons were executed upon the Prophet’s triumph at Makkah compared to the thousands that were forgiven is hardly any blot on Mohammad’s mercy.

Of these four individuals, as M.H. Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad, p; 411, two were Muslims guilty of murder before apostatizing; al Huwayrith for tempting the Prophet’s daughter, Zaynab; and a slave woman of Ibn Khatal for castigating the Prophet in song [which castigating may have inspired or encouraged others to militate against the Prophet].

If you believe that this slave woman should not have been executed; even in modern times people are imprisoned for way less than incitement; just ask world-famous peace activist Jaggie Singh, and anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela and his late brother-in-cause Steve Biko; as well as those Muslims jailed or held under detention under mere suspicion or without any kind of charge.

And these Twentieth-century jailers crown themselves as “civilized” and “democratic.” Imagine then the punishment[s] that would have been meted out to peace-activists and freedom-fighters if they had castigated or incited against their leaders, as was done against Mohammad.

Incidentally, Palestinian author and writer, whose lands were stolen, have been assassinated by their occupiers merely for writing about the injustice committed against them.

Moreover, America is travelling thousands of miles to Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan to kill “enemies” and even those who incite “terrorism” against her [compared to Mohammad whose enemies were on his own soil]; China sent combat tanks against demonstrators at Tiananmen Square; in 1992 demonstrators in Los Angeles were “beaten” just for protesting the building of a roadway; and people can be charged/jailed merely for uttering death threats.

   Whatever measures Mohammad took to secure the welfare of himself and followers Mohammad was fully justified. The critics of Mohammad would do the same and perhaps even more).  

   Strikingly, God and the Biblical prophets were also “hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves”:

   -The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) was “hard” on Pharaoh and his entourage and “merciful” to the Israelites. (God was also “hard on the Israelites, and even onto the innocent fourth generation, when they became rebellious and provocative against Him –much as the idolatrous Arabs became rebellious and provocative against Him through Mohammad– having them wander in the wilderness for forty years till their carcasses were wasted–(Num. 14:1-35).

   -The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) was “hard” on more than three dozen mischievous children, sending bears to tear them: “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).    

   -The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) was “hard” on Jeshurun and his children for going after false gods: “But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked…They provoked him (God) to jealousy with strange gods…And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he (God) said…I will heap MISCHIEFS 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. This must the mother of all terrorism!).

   -The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) was “hard against the disbelievers and merciful” to the Israelites; fighting for them; commanding the Israelites to do to the people whose land they were going to possess: “thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, NOR SHEW MERCY UNTO THEM”–(Deut. 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6). “And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and SMITE the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD YOUR GOD hath delivered them into your hand;” “And afterward Joshua SMOTE them” “So Joshua SMOTE all the country….as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded….because the LORD GOD of Israel FOUGHT FOR ISRAEL”–(Josh. 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Josh. chs. 10-12; Num. 21:24, 35; 31:17-18; Deut. 20:16-17; 1 Sam. 15:2-3, for slaughters by Joshua, Moses, and Saul).

   -The Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, Jesus) was “hard” even on the infant and fetus: “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)

-Moses and Joshua were “hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” –“hard” against the some thirty “ites” kingdoms they invaded, and against the little males and matron females and cattle that they slaughtered, as well as “hard” on the little virgin girls the Israelites were given as sex slaves:

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

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

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

   Notably, unlike the Arab idolaters who persecuted Mohammad, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued him and warred against him, these little males and matrons and virgin girls and cattle did not take up arms against Moses and Joshua for Moses and Joshua to be “hard” on them.

   -Jesus (the Christian’s son of God and even God as Christians say Jesus is God) was “hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” Labeling non-Jews “dogs” and “swine” and preaching in parables so these “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be saved:

   -“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26);

   -And after relating the parable of the sower to the people Jesus said to them: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;” and, afterwards, when he (Jesus) was alone with the Israelites they asked him about the meaning of the parable: “And he said unto them, Unto you (who have God) it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them (non-Jews) that are without (God), all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and NOT PERCEIVE; and hearing they may hear, and NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST AT ANY TIME THEY SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND THEIR SINS SHOULD BE FORGIVEN THEM”–(Mark 4:9-12) –the Good News Bible put it even more clearly: “You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God,” Jesus answered. “But the others, who are on the outside, hear all things by means of parables, so that, ‘They may look and look, yet NOT SEE; they may listen and listen, yet NOT UNDERSTAND. FOR IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD TURN TO GOD, AND HE WOULD FORGIVE THEM.’” In other words though the non-Jews (who may be sincere seekers of God) have the faculties of sight and hearing and can see and hear, he (Jesus) spoke in parables so that they would not understand his words        because he did not want them to accept God and have their sins forgiven.What a ghastly horribly sickening thing to do. As prophet, Jesus could not turn away anyone; this is why he indulged non-Jews; but he could avoid them, which he did, as is evident from his admonition to his disciples not to preach to non-Jews, and from his speaking in parables so that they would not   understand. This statement by Jesus also proves that Jesus did NOT come to save sinners. Jesus’ mission was wholly and solely to the Jews. (See Jesus-only for Jews). Please note: This is the Biblical (Christian’s) Jesus For the Muslim’s Jesus read the Qur’an.

-Jesus was “hard” on the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for not heeding him–(Matt, 11:20-24. And these people were not “hard” on Jesus; they only did not believe in him).

-Jesus was even “hard” on the stubborn Jews, labeling them as “serpents” and “vipers,” “evil and adulterous,” and consigning them to the greater damnation of hell–(Matt. 12:34, 39; 23:33).

-Jesus was “hard” on the bird-sellers and moneychangers: booting them out of the temple–(Matt. 21:12).

-Jesus was also “hard” on people who was not with him: “He that is not with me is against me”; (and a person can be neutral)–(Matt. 12:30. Again, these people was/is not “hard” on Jesus; they only did/do not believe in him).

-Jesus was “hard” against those against his rule, and all the way to the Resurrection, commanding that they all be slain: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (and a person can be against Jesus’ rule and yet not militate against him; and thus they would not be “hard” against him)–(Luke 19:27. Perhaps these are the verses from which the Popes took their inspiration for their murderous crusades. If these two last declarations of Jesus were to be enforced some six billion people of the world who does not accept Jesus as Divine or as vicarious atoner would have to be slaughtered. Non-Christians, and even some Christians, need to go down on their hands and knees and foreheads and thank Allāh God, that Jesus/Christianity is not over them or lording any place. For a comparison between Jesus/Christian rule and Islamic rule see “Appendix”).

   Mohammad was/is a “mercy” to the entire world–(Qur’an 7:158; 21:107; 34:28).
  And though Mohammad was “hard” on the disbelievers that does not mean he was devoid of mercy for them. When the disbelievers gave up their “hardness” against Mohammad mercy was extended to them –much like parents giving “tough love” to a destructive child to reform him; when the child reforms his behavior he is again given “soft love;” the parents have both qualities of mercy and sternness; exercising either as the situation necessitates, (the Bible/God even sanctions employing whatever methods are necessary to bring children and wife into obedience and even God scourges His sons.^A However,as shown, the Prophet Mohammad and Muslims “were never fierce or hard in their treatment towards” the disbelievers.  

   Mohammad being “hard” against the disbelievers was the direct result of the disbelievers being “hard”er on Mohammad.   Mohammad was fully justified for being “hard” against the disbelievers who wanted to annihilate him. No honest individual and critic would state otherwise.

   (4) The critic: “Qur’an (24:2) – “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you.”  Not only is the punishment for moral crime between consenting adults to be physical torture, but believers are told to suppress their natural urge for human compassion.”

   Response: Muhammad Ali wrote:“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.”¹  

   The Bible requires stoning to death for adultery and for fornication in the case of a virginal damsel–(Lev. 20:10-12; Deut. 22:22-24; John 8:3-5. The Bible also requires death for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, witchcraft, etc). Adultery is a moral crime not only between consenting adults; it has far reaching consequences in society.

   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 for unwed mothers; and if the adulterating/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.

   Adultery and fornication need to be forcefully deterred. And as the adulterers showed no compassion for those whose lives they have disrupted, why should compassion be shown to them in their punishment?

(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 anguish 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 if there was no DNA science or if no DNA test was done).

Islam is very strict where chastity of women is concerned; requiring four witness to the act; and those who bear false witnesses are to be flogged and their testimony not to be accepted again, unless they repent and act uprightly–(Qur’an 24:4-5). This requirement provides “an effectual restraint against slander and gossip, which so often bring disaster upon the heads of innocent women. Unless there is the clearest evidence of adultery against a woman, the slanderer is himself to be punished.”²

   However, since Islam requires four eye-witnesses to the act it would seem almost impossible to effect this charge of adultery/ fornication.

   (5) The critic: “Torture in the next (world): Qur’an (22:19-22) – “These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads.   Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.”  The punishment of those who merely disbelieve in Muhammad’s claims about himself is described as being horrifically brutal in many other places as well, such as Qur’an 4:56, which says that they will face a continuous cycle of torture in which their skin will be burned off only to be replaced by new skin.

   Response:Contrary to popular perception, Hell is not a torture chamber of a vengeful God. The suffering in hell are from two causes (1) injustice to others, e.g. oppression, robbery, murder, aggression (2) injustice to self, e.g. disbelief in Allah God, joining partners with God, illicit relations even though of mutual consent, hypocrisy and evil plots.

   Hell, in Islam, is a reformatory for the sinners to condition them for suitability into the higher plane of life. If earthly man in order to survive on distant planets must equip himself with specialized equipment, then similarly, man, to exist in the spiritual realm must possess certain spiritual qualities.

   To live in a cold climate we need a certain kind of clothing; to live in a hot climate we need another kind of garment; space-travellers require special clothing to function in space; likewise, to live in the Hereafter –the spiritual world– we need spiritual clothing. When we prepare to go to a cold or hot climate we can either take these protective garments with us, or we can acquire them when we reach these destinations. However, we already possess this spiritual garment that is needed for the Hereafter –this spiritual garment is the soul. Since the Hereafter is a place of purity, we need to purify this garment/soul. We can purify our soul in this world or we can do so when we get to the Hereafter.

   The soul is purified in this world through belief in Allah God, prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage to Makkah. (Those who died before Islam and those who died without knowing about Islam and followed their respective prophets/ Scriptures have purified their souls).

   If we refuse to, or neglect to purify our soul in this world, it becomes inevitable that we must undergo the process of purifying it in the Hereafter. This cleansing process is called Hell. The suffering we go through during this purifying process in Hell is not punishment from God. It is rather suffering resulting from the cleansing process –like the pain suffered from the injection to cure rabies or from undergoing chemotherapy. It is not the specialist who inflicts the pain. The specialist only applies the remedy. The suffering is the result of the healing process.

   The sins of atheism and joining partners with God are not forgiven: they must be cleansed in hell. Sins committed by an atheist or believer in God against others may or may not be forgiven, if Allāh, God, pleases.

   (6) The critic: “How Allah feels about non-Muslims naturally determines the attitude of devout Muslims.  In the Qur’an, Muhammad explicitly uses Allah’s hatred of unbelievers to motivate his people to Jihad: Qur’an (9:73):  “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

   Response:Are parents who are “harsh” with recalcitrant children have “hatred” for such children? Or are their “harsh” methods to mold those children uprightly an act of “tough love”?

Allāh created man because “I loved to be known,” as the Prophet Mohammad taught us; has decreed that His mercy precedes His anger; sent Messengers to guide us; requites evil with its like and rewards good up to seven-hundred-fold; and He implores 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). Thus it is only foolhardiness to charge that Allāh has “hatred of unbelievers.” As stated, Allāh loves us. Allāh wants to guide us. Allāh wants us to be pure. Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise.

  Mohammad’s duty was only to teach the Divine Message of the Qur’an; not enforce it: “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” “Then maybe thou wilt kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in this announcement;” “Say: Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, he is responsible for the duty imposed on him, and you are responsible for the duty imposed on you. And if you obey him, you go aright. And the Messenger’s duty is only to deliver (the message) plainly”–(Qur’an 10:99; 18:6; 24:54).

   Regarding Qur’an 18:6 in the above quote, Muhammad Ali points out: “This verse gives us an insight into the anxiety which the Holy Prophet had on account of a fallen humanity, an anxiety so great that he is spoken of here as almost killing himself with grief. His was a life of absolute devotion to the cause of humanity, his only concern being that man should rise to the true dignity for which God had made him. This anxiety was not only for those who were directly addressed by him, but, as the context

shows, it was as deep for another people, who attributed a son to the Divine Being, and whom outward finery was to mislead to such an extent as to make them strangers to spiritual truth. Reading the next verse along with this, no doubt is left that the Prophet was shown the earthly embellishments which are so great a trial for Christendom today.”

   Had the unbelievers not taken up the sword to extirpate Mohammad, Mohammad would not have had to subject them to “tough love.”

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.

   Islam strives to both liberate and captivate the mind of man–it strives to liberate us from the base and ephemeral, and to captivate us with the virtuous and eternal. There is no better source to be held captive by than Allāh, God, and His everlasting grandeur.

   It would be unreasonable 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: “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”–(Qur’an 22:39; 2:190).

   Fighting for the propagation of Islam is no where mentioned in the Qur’an: “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” “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 2:193; 22:40).

“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 direc-tions, 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.”(M. Ali, comm. #1698).

   While there is no injunction in the Qur’an or in the Tradition of the Prophet to spread Islam by the sword, there is a clear injunction to propagate Islam with the Qur’an: “So obey not the disbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it (the Qur’an)”–(Qur’an 25:52). Muslims are also required to undertake jihad on behalf of non-Muslims who are oppressed–(Qur’an 4:75). 

(Critics of Islam are notorious for using not only parts of Qur’anic verses to libel Islam they also use part(s) of hadith to denigrate the Prophet and Islam. For twenty-three grueling years Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, threatened with assassination exiled, pursued, and warred on; and all in his own land; and all because of his peaceful call to wisdom and reason. Given this virulently rabid environment in which Mohammad lived and its lethal dedication to extirpate him and his small band of followers, whatever measures Mohammad took to preserve himself and believers against such monumental and grotesque injustice Mohammad was fully justified).

(7) The critic: (Torture) “From the Hadith: Muslim (16:4131) – They were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.  Muhammad had two killers put to death, not in the way of “an eye-for-an-eye,” but in a more agonizing manner.”

   Response: There are variations to this hadith, one states the eyes were “gouged” another states the eyes were “pierced” and Bokhari states “their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron” (perhaps the heated metals were held over their eyes to effect blindness). Whichever entry is correct, the critic does not mention that “They” –some people from the tribe of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina– violated the Prophet’s benevolence and hospitality, murdered the Muslim shepherd and drove away the camels. (See Bokhari Vol. 1, #234).

   Those who meditate on murder and banditry are to be prepared to suffer consequences when caught. As stated, Mohammad and his peaceful tribe of Muslims lived in a sea of rabid hatred dedicated to their annihilation. Whatever methods Mohammad employed as punishment, and warning to the transgressors to not violate them, Mohammad was fully justified.

Regarding the Biblical teaching “an eye for an eye.” One critic of Islam on the Internet claims that Jesus Christ abrogated this law by stating: “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye RESIST NOT evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”–(Matt. 5:39. The chronic criminal would love such individuals (any wonder some people in America and elsewhere imprison themselves in gated communities while criminals roam free and ransack society). America and her Allies should follow this dictum of Jesus and let al-Qaeda have a “blast” all over their lands).

   First, Jesus was trying to reform the Jews (to whom he was wholly and solely sent) from their mutual enmity.

   Second, Jesus was saying that if you try to “resist evil,” the evil-doer being more powerful might kill you.

   Third, Jesus could not abrogate any law of the Bible, he came to uphold the law and even to the point of heaven and earth passing away as he himself declared: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;” and he commanded his followers to do what the Scribes and Pharisees bid them do: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.” And the Scribes and Pharisees followed the Mosaic law which requires an “eye for an eye” and a “tooth for a tooth” (as well as stone the adulterers, etc). (Matt. 5:17; 23:1-3).

   Other thoughtless trumpetings of Christians are Jesus’ love your enemies and forgive seventy times seven (though he ordered that his enemies be brought to him and slain and he booted his compellers –the bird sellers and money changers– out of the temple) and his “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (though he judged the Jews: ridiculed them as “generation of vipers;” “evil and adulterous generation;” “fools” and “blind guides,” and poured the righteous blood from Abel to Barachias onto their heads and consigned them to the greater damnation of hell, and lambasted the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for not accepting his miracles and reforming). Please note: this is the Christian’s Jesus. For the Muslim Jesus read the Qur’an. (The claim that Jesus loves us is colossal Christian crock. Moreover, God did not send Jesus to the White and the Black and the Brown and the Red and the Yellow: God sent Jesus only to the Jews –the “lost sheep of the House of Israel. Regarding Christian’s claim that after the make-believe resurrection Jesus changed his mind and said to preach the Gospels to the world, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din exposes in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London:

   “The concluding eleven verses of St. Mark-(16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew-(28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS (manuscripts). The fact was discovered by the first translator of the Bible into English and they made a marginal note in their version of the Bible which continued for some time. But we do not find the said note in any of the copies now published by the said society (Foreign Mission Society). Is it fair and honest to keep others in darkness as to the true value of the contents of the Bible? The reader must know thatconcluding portion of St. Mark and the verse in St. Matthew are spurious and a subsequent addition. But I am afraid the Foreign Mission would not allow the correction. It would tell against their very Mission, if they eliminate the verse from St. Matthew; they lose the only pillar that supports the structure of the Trinity. No other verse in the whole Scripture speaks of it. The said eleven verses of St. Mark are the only justification for the existence of the Foreign Mission. You, as well as I, know, my Lord, that the call to Jesus came solely and wholly from Judaism. He came only to gather the scattered sheep and would not give the children’s bread to the dogs, the world beyond the Israelites. The Foreign Mission is a mere trespass on lands forbidden by the Master. It transcends the limit marked by Jesus.Throughout his life the Gentiles and others did not concern him: they were the swine. Then came the make-believe Resurrection, and they say the Master changed his mind as to his mission and ordered it to be carried to the four corners of the world (indicating that he was unsure of his mission), but this all depends upon the questionable verses of St. Mark, and hence their retention in the Bible. St. Matthew is no authority on this point. The word “nations” there is a mistranslation and a wrong substitute for “the tribes”–the rest of the Jewish tribes scattered all over the world. This being the case, the Mission cannot afford to eliminate the verses from their version, nor will they put marginal notes, as did the old versions, to show the true nature of the verses.^a It would weaken the cause and show the futility of their status, since in carrying on evangelical work in the non-Christian world (in the non-Jewish world, the Bible/Christ is only for Jews) ^b they are acting against the express admonition of the Master. It may that reasons other than religion are at the back of it all, and goading their activities, but decency, if not religion, assuredly demands the publishing of things as they are.”(pp. 31-32). Such is Christian’s deception and desperation to snare the unschooled and the unthinking into drinking the mythical blood of Jesus Christ. Utterly disgraceful and unGodly! It is doubtful that a man of God would make forgeries in a Book of God, and even yet proclaim it to be Book of God. Christians adulterate their Word of God and then have the arrogance and the audacity to turn around and ask this very God to give them their daily bread. In fact, they not only turn around and ask God to give them their daily bread, they even pray to him to have Muslims (and others) follow them in their wickedness and blasphemy. Sadly, some Muslims do apostatize and follow them. And Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix). (^a Encyclopaedia Biblica, p. 1880, Section G., Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Appendix).
   ^b The Bible/Christ is for Jews only until the coming of the Comforter at which time Jews are to follow this Comforter who will guide them into “all truth”–(John 14:16; 16:13). Previous to this teaching of Jesus, God had decreed that kingship and prophethood would depart from the Jewish people at the advent of Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); Moses foretold that God will raise up a prophet like him (Moses) whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15, 18); and Jesus further said that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Israelites and given to another people–(Matt. 21:43). And this Shiloh, prophet like Moses and the Comforter have been shown to be the Prophet Mohammad. (See Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– Muhammad in the Bible, and Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1).

   In Deut. 18:18 of the Bible Moses made it clear that God says all those who do not follow this prophet like him that, “whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (i.e. they will have to answer to God for not following this prophet–Mohammad). And in what seems to be a reflection of this decree of God, the Prophet Mohammad is reported as having said: “he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell”–(Muslim Vol. 1, #284).

   While all prophets of God taught Islam –peace and submission to God– Islam was perfected only through the Prophet Mohammad: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion–(Qur’an 5:3). Thus, as Islam (as taught by the Prophet Mohammad) is superior to all religions, whoever needs another religion it will not be accepted: Surely the (true) religion with Allāh is Islam;” “Seek they then other than Allāh’s religion? And to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned.” “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”–(Qur’an 3:19, 83, 85). 

   The Qur’an comprises of the best teachings given to other prophets as well as teachings not given to other prophets: “We narrate to thee the best of narratives, in that We have revealed to thee this Qur’an, though before this thou wast of those unaware;” “And certainly We have set forth for men in this Qur’an similitudes of every sort that they may mind;” “We have not neglected anything in the Book;” “A Messenger from Allāh, reciting pure pages, Wherein are (all) right books”–(Qur’an (12:3; 39:27; 6:38; 98:2-3). Thus, the Qur’an comprises of, exceeds, and supersedes all other Scrip-tures.There is no wisdom in following a man who did not give ‘all truth” or in following a Book that is devoid of “all truth.”  

   (8) The critic: “Muslim (17:4196) – A married man confesses that he has adultery (four times, as required).  Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones.  According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and was dragged back.”

   Response: As the hadith shows the Prophet tried to ignore the man’s confession. And even gave him the opportunity to leave by asking him if he was “insane” (as it is not allowed to punish an insane person). What is an official of the law to do if a self-confessed criminal should come demanding punishment for his transgression? let him go free? What message would such action by the official be sending to society? Do secular authorities release prisoners because they wail from mental anguish caused by confinement; or from being attacked by other inmates?

   (9) The critic: “Bukhari (11:626) – “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.’ The Prophet added, ‘Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.‘”  Muhammad orders his men to burn alive those who do not present themselves at the mosque for prayer.”

   Response: If Mohammad had given this command who could have prevented it from being executed? No one! And there would have been several dutiful Muslims to carry out his order. The question is how many houses were burnt? Not a single one! Moreover, it is hardly believable that Mohammad would have burned any house (which might have killed innocent children) seeing that he taught that a Muslim is not to burn his enemy and not even an ant, that fire is the punishment of Allāh–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2667-2669).

   Clearly, this thought which the Prophet expressed was only to communicate the importance and benefit of the congregational prayer: that if Muslims knew the benefit they would even crawl to get to the Mosque–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #’s 589; 626; Vol. 3, #854).

   The Fajr (dawn) prayer especially is the acid test for a Believer in Allāh. As Salahhuddin Ayube (Saladin) the majestic is said to have stated, in gathering soldiers to liberate the Holy Land, that when the Mosques are filled for the morning prayer his army will be ready. It is not an easy undertaking for one to kill the sweet sleep of dawn to pray, and pray to a Master he does not and cannot see.

   Salah –the formatted Muslim five daily prayer– not only distinguishes Muslims from other religionists. This prayer is a constant reminder that Allāh is One and Only, on Whom all depend, without mother and father and son and daughter and partner and associate and does not incarnate, and is the only Presence worthy of worship –that to bow to or worship any other human or creation is to disgrace and degrade one’s self– it reminds us of our duty to be truthful and just and to keep away from shameful deeds, and that success lies in prayer to Allah.

In our bending posture (ruku) we proclaim subhana-rabbiyal-‘Azeem (Glory be to You Allāh, the Magnificent; though the English equivalent “Glory” for the Arabic “Subhan” is inadequate, as Subhan conveys the quality of perfection and free of all defects and free of all needs and wants; qualities which no human can possess) and in our prostration (sijda, the lowest position that that one can position himself/herself) we extol Suhana-rabbiyal- ‘Alaa (Glory be to You Allāh, the Most High). In effect we are declaring, respectively: “Allāh, You alone is perfect and free of all needs and wants; You are the Magnificent;” and “Allāh, You alone is perfect and free of all needs and wants; You are the Most High”).

   Even in the midst of our social intercourse when we may tend to lapse or be distracted from our duty we are called to this remembrance and declaration. And, depending on how long we make our recitation, these five prayers basically take only about an hour a day or less. (We perhaps goof off for longer than an hour). There is no better way to spend our time than in the glorification of our Creator to Whom is our eventual return.  

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can put Adam/Eve’s sin onto every person then put every person’s sin onto Jesus and then have this innocent Jesus killed for everybody’s sin.

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can have bears “tare” forty-two children for being mischievous–(2 Kings 2:22-24).    

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God ((“Jesus,” as Christians say) can terrorized Jeshurun’s children and the virgin and old man and have them eaten by beasts–(Deut. 32:15-25). This must the mother of all terrorism!

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God ((“Jesus,” as Christians say) can consign Jews to the greater damnation of Hell–(Matt. 23:14, 33).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christians God) can command that all his enemies who are against his rule be slaughtered–(Luke 19:27).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christian’s God) can send fire and sword and division into the world–(Luke 12:49, 51-53; Matt. 10:34).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but God (“Jesus,” as Christians say) can allow selling defenseless daughters into slavery and enslaving peaceful “heathen” neighbors–(Ex. 21:7; Lev. 25:44).

   -So Mohammad cannot think about burning the houses of those who do not come to pray; but Jesus (the Christian’s God) can counsel his followers to lie through their nose and agree with their adversary and send innocent people to the gallows–(Matt. 5:25).

   And clearly, to have Mohammad thinking about burning you and your house is hardly any suffering compared to be killed for someone else’s sin; to be torn by bears; to be terrorized then eaten by beasts; to be consigned to hell, be it lesser or greater; and be slain just because you are against a certain ruler; to be sent fire and sword; to be sold into slavery and enslaved; and to be railroaded into jail or to the gallows.  

   (10) The critic: “Ibn Ishaq 436 – When Muhammad wished to attack the Meccan army at Badr, his men captured two slaves who were carrying water for the caravans and brought them into his presence. They were interrogated under torture as Muhammad stood praying:  “…they brought them along and questioned them while the apostle was standing praying… The people were dismayed at their report…and so they beat them. When they were beaten soundly…”

   Response: It is unfortunate that details are not given as to why Muslims were “dismayed” at the slaves report and if the slaves changed their story and what was the result of their story.

   Were these slaves spies? Even if they were not spies it is without doubt they would have sided with their masters who were all bent to annihilate Mohammad and his followers. The mere fact that they had to be “beaten soundly” is proof that they would have sided (and even as warriors) with their masters.

   Wouldn’t you abduct any member of the enemy camp (even if you were the aggressor) for information; as well as take what-ever measures you deem necessary to glean information from him? (Unlike the enemy and modern nations who transgress and yet torture and kill their victims, Mohammad was no trans-gressor, and he lived in a virulent society that was dedicated to crushing him and his small and peaceful band of followers).

   Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes about the capture of these slaves, that the Prophet had sent some men “to the well of Badr to seek out fresh news” and

“The little group returned with two boys who, upon interrogation by Muhammad, revealed that the Quraysh army stood behind the hill on the further side. When they could not answer his questions regarding the strength of the Quraysh army, Muhammad asked how many animals they killed for food every day. The boys answered, “Nine on one day and ten on the other.” The Prophet concluded from this that their number must be between nine hundred and one thousand”–(The Life of Muhammad, p. 221).  

   It is doubtful the Prophet would have two boys, and slave boys besides, who would hardly have had any confidential infor-mation “beaten soundly.” Or that the slave boys, who had nothing to gain in allowing themselves to be punished, would have waited till they were “beaten soundly” to divulge infor-mation. The boys may have been slaves but that would not make them stupid.    

   (11)The critic: “Ibn Ishaq 734 – When Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha was accused of adultery, he launched an investigation that included the brutal interrogation of a female slave:  “So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying “’Tell the Apostle the truth.’”

   Response: Ibn Ishaq may have said that “Ali got up and gave her a violent beating,”but the hadith did not say that.
   As Burayra was not present with ‘Aishah during the trip when this “adultery” was alleged to have been committed, perhaps she was interrogated because it may have been believed that ‘Aishah confided her private matters to her.
   Bokhari, the most authentic collector of hadith, does not mention any beating of ‘Aishah’s maidservant by ‘Ali.

   Before entering the relative material of this lengthy narration, an insight into the background of this incident is probably helpful.

   In brief. It was nighttime. ‘Aishah left the army camp to answer the call of nature. On her way back to camp she realized her necklace had broken and missing. She retraced her steps to where she had gone, looking for it. Meanwhile, at the camp, the people, thinking ‘Aishah was in her “howdah” –covered carrier– placed the seat onto her camel and left. Upon her return to camp ‘Aishah decided to wait, hoping her people would miss her and return for her. A Muslim traveling behind the army escorted ‘Aishah to their people, who were resting from the midday heat. Aishah’s and the man’s togetherness and in the night gave rise to the slander that ‘Aishah had intimate relations with the man. When the news reached the Prophet he became greatly troubled. The gossip placed a strain between the Prophet and the grieving ‘Aishah. Here now is the relevant portion of the hadith, narrated by ‘Aishah:

“Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid (Allāh be pleased with them)….in order to consult with them as to the idea of divorcing his wife. Usama bin Zaid told Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) of what he knew about the innocence of his wife and of his affection he kept for her. He said, “O Allāh’s Apostle! She is your wife, and we do not know anything about her except good.” But ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, “O Allāh’s Apostle! Allāh does not impose restrictions on you; and there are plenty of women other than her. If you however, ask (her) slave girl, she will tell you the truth.” ‘Aisha added: So Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) called for Barira and said, “O Barira! Did you ever see anything which might have aroused your suspicion? (as regards ‘Aisha). Barira said, “By Allāh Who has sent you with the truth, I have never seen anything regarding ‘Aisha which I would blame her for except that she is a girl of immature age who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough of her family unprotected so that the domestic goats come and eat it.”–(Bokhari Vol. 6, #274).

As the hadith shows there was no “violent beating” or any “beating.”
   Allāh sent revelation confirming ‘Aishah’s innocence –(Qur’an 24:11-20).                 

   (12) The critic: “Ibn Ishaq 595 – Muhammad orders that a man have his tongue cut out.

   Response: (I could not find the hadith regarding this). As noted this claim is made by Ibn Ishaq. No reason is given as to why the Prophet ordered that a man have his “tongue cut out.” (Perhaps the man was suffering from gross habitual “liar-itis” or “slander-itis”). The question is was the person’s “tongue cut out”? There does not seem to be any evidence that it was. If there was, for certain the critic(s) would have referenced it.

   What is to be borne in mind is that 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).

   And as noted further on, there was especially one person, Waqidi, who was regarded “as unreliable and even as a fabriccator of reports.”
   Whatever saying of the Prophet contradicts with the teachings of the Qur’an is to be discarded: The Prophet taught only according to the Qur’an: “Say: I warn you only by revelation;” “Say:…I follow naught but that which is revealed to me, and I am but a plain warner;” “Your companion errs not, nor does he deviate.Nor does he speak out of desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed”–(21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4).

   (13) The critic: “Ibn Ishaq 764 – After amassing a powerful army, Muhammad sent his forces to take the peaceful farming community of Khaybar by surprise.  In the aftermath, he was dissatisfied with the amount of plunder and felt that the town’s treasurer, Kinana, might be holding out on him. He had the man brought to him: When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.”
(As a happy side note to the story – Kinana’s untimely death left a beautiful young widow named Saffiya, whom Muhammad was then able to “marry”).”

   Response: This is probably the most ridiculous account regarding the Jews of Khaibar that is being bandied about. These Jews were not a “peaceful farming community.”
   Safiyyah was the “daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab of Banu al Nadir” and was honored as “the lady of Banu Qurayzah and Banu al Nadir,”³ Mohammad did not raid the Banu Nadir tribe. Safiyyah’s husband, Kinana was executed as per his own agree-ment with Mohammad.

   Jews of Khaybar had proven themselves untrustworthy. While Muslims had the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah with others in the South, “But what about the north, where both Heraclius (of Rome) and Chosroes (of Persia) might attack Madinah in cooperation with the Jews of Khaybar who were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon Muhammad?” as M.H. Haykal explained, “It would be relatively easy for either emperor to remind the Jews of the fate of their co-religionists, the Banu Qurayzah, Banu al Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa, who had previously been expelled from their dwellings after blockade, fighting, and war, and to incite them to new ventures against Muhammad. For their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of Quraysh….it was not possible to reconcile them with a peace treaty like that of Hudaybiyah since the covenant of Madinah had been violated by them much to their own detriment. Were help to come to them from the side of Byzantium, their natural inclination to rise again against Muhammad could not be contained. Hence it was thought necessary to put a final end to their influence in the Arabian Peninsula, and to do so quickly without giving them the time to forge any new alliances with Ghatafan or any of the other tribe hostile to Muhammad.”⁴  

   The Jews fought strongly against the Muslims. After their defeat and surrender Jews of Khaybar –unlike the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu al Nadir who were forced to evacuate their lands altogether– “Muhammad accepted their plea and permitted them to stay on their land whose title now passed to him by right of conquest. The terms of their surrender provided that they would be given half their crops in compensation for their labor.”⁵  

   Safiyyah’s husband, Kinanah ibn al Rabi, was executed as per his own agreement with Mohammad. M. H. Haykal relates: “Kinanah al Rabi was known by the Muslims to have been the guardian of the wealth of Banu al Nadir. When the Prophet had asked Kinanah about his treasure, the latter solemnly declared that he did not know where it was hidden. Muhammad threatened him that in case the treasure was found hidden in his place he would be put to death. Kinanah agreed.” Later, Kinanah was seen in an “uninhabited house in the outskirts” where part of the treasure was discovered. He was executed as per his own words.⁶  

   Being of noble birth and to be reduced as wife of an ordinary man would have been a most humiliating experience for Safiyyah. “The Prophet granted her freedom and then married her.”⁷ By taking Safiyyah over to himself the Prophet, and King of Arabia, not only elevated her status by making her his wife but also rendered to her the supreme and invaluable service of robing her a Muslim.

   There could hardly be any doubt that Safiyyah was joyed to be in Muhammad’s arms; and welcomed it whole-heartedly. After all, the Hebraic law had sentenced her to a living hell: con-demned her to a life of “sorrow,” and subjection to her husband; and sold her daughter into bondage–(Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7). Whereas Mohammad liberated her and gave her rights that left her nothing to strive for all the way to Jannah; and immortalized her as a “mother” of the Believers –honored now by some one-and-a-half billion Muslims. And counting, as Islam, in the face of all the vociferous clamoring against it, continues inexorably to its destiny as decreed by His Highest Majesty: “They desire to put out the light of Allāh with their mouths, but Allāh will perfect His light, though the disbelievers May be averse”–(Qur’an 61:8). “He (Allāh) it is Who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with the guidance and the religion of Truth that He may make it prevail over all religions. And Allāh is enough for a witness”–(Qur’an 48:28; 9:33; 61:9).
   Talk about Safiyyah being the envy of women!

   That Safiyyah “does not have the right to accept or refuse what he (Mohammad) decides to do with her,” as Wafa Sultan charged in her book (Allah) A God who hates, is “influential” hooey! (For marriage and divorce and women’s rights see Islam-women).
Safiyyah, without doubt, found comfort and joy in Mohammad. As M.H. Haykal notes: “Safiyyah remained loyal to Mohammad throughout his life. In his last illness, when the Prophet was surrounded by his wives, Safiyyah came forward and said: “O Prophet of God, I surely wish that that from which you suffer might be in me rather than in you.” Muhammad’s wives winked at one another and the Prophet observing their reaction, said: “Go on and wink at one another! By God, I know that Safiyyah is truthful and loyal!” Safiyyah, who survived Muhammad, lived until the time of the caliphate of Mu’awiyah. She was buried at al Baqi”⁸ in Madinah.      

   (14) The critic: “Abu Dawud (10:294) – In addition to the right of men to beat their wives over disobedience, children are to be beaten as well if they don’t pray.  “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Command a boy to pray when he reaches the age of seven years. When he becomes ten years old, then beat him for prayer.”

   Response:The significance and purpose of salah is noted in item #9.

 Wife-beating: The 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 children in the best manners and education.

   That husbands and wives are garments to the other–(Qur’an 2:187) to beautify, protect, comfort, and conceal each other’s faults, this alone shows that there is no indiscriminate beating of the wife.

   Allāh says, “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 annoy-ance)”–(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 obli-gations. 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 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 arbitra-tion– 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, high-lights the wife’s stubbornness in reforming and observing her part of the marriage con-tract; all the while receiving the benefit of the contract. Under such a strain to the man this light chastisement can hardly be deemed un-just 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^8A –perhaps be-cause 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 counter-part, and have greater concern and care for her family).

   This chastisement 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 any-one 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–(Qur’an 4:128).

   That the Prophet never beat any of his wives is evidenced from this hadith in which Bokhari re-cords 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 ‘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.

Significantly, 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 she can leave before the situation reaches the third stage of chas-tisement.

Regarding this wife-beating of the Qur’an one Christian quarter on the Internet tries to use it to denigrate Islam.
   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: “Unto the woman (Eve), he (God) said: …and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”–(Gen. 3:16).
   And while  Paul commands husbands to love their wives, he demands that wives “submit” themselves to their husbands “as it is fit in the Lord”–(Col. 3:19, 18); and “As the Church is subject unto Christ,SO LET THE WIVES BE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS IN EVERY THING”– “And the wife see that SHE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND”–(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33.The man being told to love his wife does not mean she is free from bondage. People also “love” their dogs and other pets and even bequeath fortunes to them. And Paul also instructs masters to be kind to their slaves–Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). “Let the woman learn in SILENCE with ALL SUBJECTION. But I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN but to be IN SILENCE–(1Tim.2:11-12).

   Clearly, the permission to employ whatever methods are necessary to “rule” over the wife and to bring/keep her in “silence and in “all subjection’ are inherent and enshrined in these words of God and Paul.

   To take the matter further, authority for employing corporal punishment to discipline the rebellious wife who does not “desire” to be “ruled” over in “silence” and with “all subjection” may be gleaned from the Biblical verses on child-rearing, God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, then Jesus) says: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;” “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying;” “Withhold not cor-rection from the child: for if you beatest him with the rod, he shall not die, Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell”(and without doubt every “Christian” husband wants to deliver his stubborn/ rebellious wife’s “soul from hell”)–(Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14).

   Perhaps a survey of Christian women/wives of all Christian denominations can be conducted to find out how many were “beaten” into “silence” and “all subjection.”
   Surely, not all the “battered” wives in Western countries are non-Christians.

   As for Mohammad ordering beating the child to pray. This beating is not to be of a brutal nature. During school days children can be exempt from the dawn prayer, (on week-ends they can return to sleep. During this teaching period, the dawn prayer can be offered at the latter point of the schedule). Also, children should only be required to offer the obligatory/fard portion of the prayer, (and with a short recitation). This should not take more than about seven minutes. Which is hardly any suffering to the child  

   For followers of the Bible   As God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, then as Jesus) can have Jeshurun’s children eaten by beasts and bitten by poisonous serpents for going after false gods;⁹ can have mischievous children eaten by bears;¹⁰ and can have children beaten to bring them into obedience and as He Himself beats and scourges His sons into obedience and those who are not beaten are regarded as “bastards” (as noted above), why carp at Mohammad for training children to worship Allāh –the God Who is One and Only, the Eternal, Absolute, on Whom all depend; Who begets not; nor is begotten; the Incomparable; Who incarnates not; the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, and the Creator and Vanquisher of all, to Whom is our eventual return.

Clearly, by having this child worship only Allāh, Mohammad is saving him/her from Hell; which, as Jesus says, is an “everlasting fire” that “never shall be quenched”–(Matt. 18:8; Mark 9:43); and that in this “furnace of fire” there shall be “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–(Matt. 23:14, 33; 13:42).

   And, admittedly, a few whacks on the bottom (for your own benefit) is better than an eternity of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” in this “everlasting” “furnace of fire” that “never shall be quenched.” A few whacks in the ephemeral is no price to pay for the joy in the Eternal Splendor of Paradise. (May be when this “beaten” child gets into Paradise he would offer a special gratitude to Allah and the Prophet and his parents for straightening him as a kid. Especially when he sees those in Hell wailing and gnashing teeth)  

   For atheists. Atheists can deny the existence of God; atheists cannot disprove the existence of God. Allāh, God, has proven His existence through the Qur’an –its prophecies (that have already manifested), its scientific pronouncements (which have been verified), and its inimitability, are proofs of its Divineness).

Regarding the Muslim Heaven/paradise. What is to be remembered is that the verses of the Qur’an are of literal and allegorical meanings–(3:7). The descriptions of the “Garden(s)” in the Qur’an are not to be taken literally. Allāh says in 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).

   However, 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). Only the ignorant revile this blessed union as vulgar.

Whereas the Muslim Heaven/Paradise is criticized as one of sensuality, what is the Christian’s 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.

That Jesus says he is going to prepare a place and come back, see Jesus-second coming. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses Jesus already came, but was invisible; though Jesus said the people he was speaking to would see him. It must be the miracle of creation that some of those people to whom Jesus spoke are still alive and standing there waiting to see him).

In the Hindu Heaven the “emancipated soul” roams the heavens, meeting other souls and sees “all the laws of nature in operation” and “acquires perfect knowledge of all hidden things” (only to forget them afterwards). Imagine this soul –this “one ten thousandth part of the upper portion of the hair point in size”– ‘roaming’ the vast galaxies for some 3.11 trillion years. And what becomes of this soul after roaming? No one seems to know. While some say the soul returns to earth (to spend 4.32 billion years, perhaps some as sub-humans, to again ‘roam’ in heaven for another 3.11 trillion years, receiving the same knowledge, and forgetting. Repeating this cycle again and again. Ad infinitum), “All other writers teach and all the world believes that the Emancipation is that condition from which no soul returns to this world and becomes subject to births and deaths.” In the Gita 10:28, Krishna declares, “among cows I am the surabhi.” And Swami Prabhupada explains: “In Krsnaloka in the spiritual sky there are cows which can be milked at any time, and they give as much milk as one likes. Of course such cows do not exist in this material world, but there is mention of them in Krsnaloka. The Lord keeps many such cows, which are called surabhi. It is stated that the Lord is engaged in herding the surabhi cows.”

If man should live to be a million years, it is doubtful that he would tire of a life of affluence and would deem it “infinite misery;” when in fact his rat race in this world is, without doubt, driven by his desire for a life of ease and luxury.

(A survey should be carried out to determine how many individuals would prefer the Hindu heaven– to be with Krishna “herding the surabhi cows;” and to roam the heavens for 3.11 trillion years, gathering knowledge, and forgetting it– and to return to earth, possibly as sub-humans, for some four billion years dwelling in sub-standard conditions; and how many Hindus, affluent and destitute, would prefer a life in the Hindu heaven instead of life in the Muslim paradise –of splendorous Gardens, fine garments and fruits, and magnificent companions for eternity). (See also Karma & Reincarnation which are not clearly stated in the Rig Veda –and cardinal doctrines, as they delineate between Hell and Heaven, are to be clearly expressed– but whose origins are “very obscure” and “appear to have been new and strange ones, circulating among small groups of ascetics who were disinclined to make them public.” (See Heaven/Paradise).

   (15) The critic: “Abu Dawud (38:4477) – Muhammad orders that a man be beaten with “whips, sticks and sandals” merely for being drunk.  He threw dust into the face of the victim during his ordeal.  “A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him).  So they beat him with what they had in their hands.  Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals.  The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) threw some dust on his face.”

   Response: (In secular countries drunks are liable to end up in jail and perhaps fined. People who get drunk should be asked which they would prefer, to be beaten or jailed and/or fined?)

   Every country and organization has laws that followers are required to abide by. Failure to do so results in some form of discipline. Islam allows that the drunk be beaten (not brutalized) perhaps to shame him/her.

   Allāh, the All-knowing and the Wise, alarms us about the perils of intoxicants and gambling: “In both of them is a great sin and (some) advantage for men, and their sin is greater than their advantage;”“intoxicants and gambling…are only an uncleanness, the devil’s work; so shun it that you may succeed”–(Qur’an 2:219; 5:90).

   Alcohol may gladden the heart as the Psalmist says–Psalm 104:15. Alcohol also saddens the liver and loins, and dulls the head. And many have lost loved ones to this “Devil’s brew” –through drinking and drunk driving. 

   While the grapes (and other fruits) in its natural form is wholesome to us –a goodly provision– when we ferment it into intoxicants it becomes mostly harmful to us. (Apart from the fact that alcohol is beneficial as an antiseptic and preservative) it has some benefits for human consumption; but as a regular drink its harm to man way outstrips its benefit –its indulgence can lead to addiction, temporary loss of clear thinking and judgment, and various diseases. It may also lead to thievery (to support the habit).

   Alcohol does not give a “good time”!Alcohol causes loss of mind, money, and manhood. Alcohol thrusted Lot into incest with his daughters and waylaid Jesus –who Christians say is “God” and “son of God”– as “wine-bibber,” as the Bible says–(Gen. 19:30-38; Matt. 11:19); causes cirrhosis of the liver and a host of other problems as medical research has shown. (Sadly, some Muslims, against the clear injunctions of Allāh, also swallow this “corrosive”).

   Seemingly, women who drank “even a little alcohol while pregnant had a higher chance of their child having conduct disorder symptoms (aggressiveness, delinquency) as a teen.”¹¹

   People may drink to escape reality. Being intoxicated: -not knowing what you are doing or what is being done to you is not a “good time;”
-vomiting, and saying thing(s) you would not normally say is not a “good time;’
-doing thing(s) you would not normally do, and getting into situation(s) you would not normally get into is not a “good time”–there are stories of women having compromised themselves while drunk and later regretting it; not knowing whose baby you are carrying and who is carrying your baby is not a “good time”
-in a drunken or drugged state, a woman may not know if she was violated or by whom or by how many, only realizing a few weeks afterwards that she was violated upon discovering being pregnant: this is perhaps the paramount reason young girls and women should avoid environments of drugs and alcohol
-waking up and feeling as if a brick wall was slammed into your head, and with your mouth tasting like sewer is not a “good time;”
-children may make fun of the drunk, and dogs are known to have sprayed on the drunk as he lay senseless at the side of the street, these are not “good” times.

   People would not spend precious hours and even days or weeks or months in Alcoholics Anonymous to be rid of a “good time.” As stated, alcohol may also lead to theft to support the habit.  

   Contrary to some opinions, this world is not a prison to Muslims. The regimentation of five daily prayers, yearly fasting for a month, restriction from intoxicants, gambling and non-marital sex is not a “strait-jacket” for Muslims. Engaging in non-marital sex –with the possibility of your partner having another or multiple partners, and running the risk of contracting dreaded diseases such as AIDS, syphilis, and gonorrhea– could not be a “good time.”

   Gambling away your wallet, and perhaps your dependent(s) livelihood, and ending up broke and penniless, could not be a “good time”, (there are the occasional winners, but the ratio of losers to winners is staggering).

   Intoxication, gambling and non-marital sex could not then be said to be a “good time.”
   One does not need intoxicants to have a “good time.” The best of times are had in sobriety. “Everything is better sober.”

   To those who have lost a precious member to this “Devil’s brew,” may Allāh God give you patience and comfort in your loss. It is not the “last” drink that is the danger. It is the “first” drink that is the danger: the “first” drink leads to another, and to another, and to…….

   We have “alcohol free” beer, “alcohol free” champagne and “alcohol free” wine; let us also strive to make our millennium “alcohol free” driving.Or best yet, heed the wisdom of Allāh and live our lives alcohol and gambling “free.”

   (16) The critic: “Additional Notes: The life of Muhammad teaches that torture is sanctioned in cases of interrogation.  The prophet of Islam did not stop his people from beating and abusing individuals in his presence when information was needed, whether it concerned a matter of sexual impropriety or the location of wealth that could be looted.  In at least one case of the latter, he is noted to have directly ordered the torture.
Torture is also allowed when putting people to death.  Rather than prescribing quick execution of captives, there were times in which Muhammad ordered his men to make a victim’s death as slow and agonizing as possible. In one case, Muhammad’s men literally pulled apart the body of an elderly woman named Umm Qirfa by tying her limbs to camels then sent in opposite directions (Ibn Ishaq 980).”

   Response: As shown, there is no torture in Islam. Whatever punishment –which is clearly stated for infractions– a person receives is the result of his/her own action: he/she invites punishment on himself/ herself.

   Regarding Umm Qirfa. There are materials showing that Umm Qirfa warred against the Prophet. Her followers engaged in “terror” against Muslims. The Prophet did not order this killing. She was killed then news was brought to the Prophet. And if the Prophet was pleased she was killed what is the problem? It is yet to be known that soldiers/generals at war feeling remorse for those who had donned the garb of battle with the sole intention to annihilate them.

   The manner in which Umm Qirfa was killed was the method used, seemingly, by her own people. Muhammad Ali (commenting on Qur’an 16:106, speaking about Muslims accepting Islam and being tortured to recant) notes:

“Yasir and Sumayyah, husband and wife, suffered death at the hands of the disbelievers because they would not recant, the latter being put to death most cruelly, her legs being tied to two camels which were made to run in opposite directions. Their son ‘Ammar, however, was not so resolute. The cruellest persecutions were inflicted on those slaves who had become converts to Islam. Muir says: “These were seized and imprisoned, or they were exposed upon the scorching gravel of the valley to the intense glare of the midday sun. The torment was enhanced by intolerable thirst, until the wretched sufferers hardly knew what they said.” Yet even under these trying circumstances, which would have maddened even the most resolute man, there were those among these slave-converts who were as firm as a mountain; as in the case of Bilal, of whom it is recorded that “in the depth of his anguish the persecutors could force from him but one expression, Ahad! Ahad! (One! One! God)” (Muir).”

   Equally significant, (according to one source I consulted) this story about the killing of Umm Qirfa was reported by Waqidi. And Muhammad Ali notes about Waqidi:

“As regards Waqidi, all competent authorities entertain a very low opinion of his trustworthiness. The Mizan al-I‘tidal, a critical work on the lives and characters of the reporters of hadith, speaks of Waqidi as unreliable and even as a fabricator of reports”–(comm. 2382, to Qur’an 53:21).

   (17) The critic: “One of the most influential Shi’a religious leaders in Iran recently extended the validity of torture to the practice of rape of prisoners, as long as it is in defense of Islam.  Mesbah-Yazdi said that it was advisable for the rapist to “perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner.”
Mesbah-Yazdi went on to add that “If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi’ite holy city of] Karbala.”
According to the cleric, “If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus.” When asked if the rape of men and young boy was considered sodomy, he said, “No, because it is not consensual.””

    Response: Islam has punishment for sodomy–(Qur’an 4:16).
Non-consensual sex is rape!
Rape which is illegal can not give one a “spiritual reward” (and a Muslim is not even licensed to rape his wife, as Allāh created her to be mate, has put between man and woman love and compassion, and that she is a source of peace and comfort–Qur’an 7:189; 30:21; which condemns the act of marital rape, for the man who forces himself upon his wife, abuses her, causes her distress, or places her under duress, can not find peace and comfort in her; it is not love and compassion to force one’s self onto his wife). Not even consensual illegal sex gives “spiritual reward.”

   This Shi’ah Imam can say whatever he likes. Not only is there no torture in Islam, Allāh tells us to “Go not near to zina”–(Qur’an 17:32; and zina means sexual relations between people who are not married to each other); adultery/fornication carries the penalty of maximum a hundred lashes–(Qur’an 24:2-3); and rape is mischief in the land, which can carry the maximum penalty of death–(Qur’an 5:33).

   Allāh does not require Muslims to violate or compel others to accept Islam, or to “torture” and “rape” “in defense of Islam;” Allāh calls man through wisdom, reason, argument and examples: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright”–(Qur’an 16:125).
  Islam does not seek to silence voices; Islam -the religion of wisdom, argument and example- seeks to enhance mentality, 
This, “One of the most influential Shi’a religious leaders in Iran” needs to revisit Islam.

   (18) The critic: “Muslim apologists often tell a different story in the West, where general phrases are designed to strategically project the impression that they oppose torture in and of itself, thus attracting the support of a broader coalition.  (CAIR’s short-lived 2006 “Campaign against Torture” is one of the best examples of this).  The scope of their efforts, however, rarely extend beyond condemning Western countries in general (and the US in particular).
Sympathies are also tellingly limited to the alleged treatment of Muslim terror detainees.
In fact, these organizations have very little to say about ending the less ambiguous and far more brutal human rights violations practiced by Muslim governments, even though the victims there are usually Muslim as well (such as the cleric Mesbah-Yazdi’s unfortunate victims of rape).  The goal of these “anti-torture” campaigns is not an end to torture, but rather an attempt to capture the moral high ground on a controversial issue by exploiting Western attitudes – with no regard for the victims of true torture.
In summary, Islam is not fundamentally opposed to torture in certain circumstances, as long as it is the Muslim party applying it. This is a good example of the many common double standards within the religion that must be recognized and brought out in the open to facilitate an honest dialogue with Islam.”  

   Response: The scholars of history would submit that Muslim governments that are guilty of “brutal human rights violations” are/were propped up by foreign nations.
   There are no “double standards” in Islam.So long as Muslims (as well as any other) are not the aggressor/transgressor, they have every right and all rights to take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard themselves. And whereas the transgressed have the “right” to retaliate the transgressor has NO “right” to retaliate. In torturing his victim the transgressor is doubly unjust. No court of justice would give one the right to subject his victim to punishment when the victim turns on him.

   CAIR’s “Campaign against Torture” of Muslim detainees was fully justified; and should not have been “short-lived.” Injustice is the incubator of “terrorism.”

Islam does not need “apologists.” There is nothing in Islam for which Muslims need to apologize. Islam needs to be explained.

   The comparison between Mohammad and his enemies and modern nations and their enemies is as wide apart as the earth and the heavens.
   As stated, for twenty-three grueling years Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, threatened with assassination, exiled, pursued, and warred on; and all in his own land. Given this virulently rabid environment in which Mohammad lived and its lethal dedication to extirpate him and his small band of peaceful followers, whatever measures Mohammad took to preserve himself and followers Mohammad was fully justified. And so would any individual apply himself. No honest individual would state otherwise

   Unlike Mohammad who was no transgressor, no occupier, no oppressor, no compeller; no exploiter; in contrast, there are modern nations that transgress, occupy, oppress, subvert governments, and who yet torture and kill their victims and even go beyond their borders and kill/assassinate mere suspects and (perceived) enemies (killing innocents in their aggressions).

   While there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not in support of terrorism, had modern nations not transgressed against Muslims –stole Palestine and gave it to Jews and trying to control Muslim lands and oil (there is also Russia’s massacre and occupation of Chechnya and Dagestan, and China’s occupation of East Turkistan/Uighuristan)– there would be no Muslim retaliation.    No “Western” country would tolerate Muslims stealing their land and giving it to another and/or allow Muslims to control their lands and/or resources. How then can they expect Muslims to allow such travesties against us? Why should Muslims allow this? Would the West not retaliate against Muslims? Why then balk when Muslims do exactly what you would do?

   No King or Queen or President or Prime Minister or Immigration Minister or American or English or French or Canadian or Judge or doctor or lawyer or man or woman or prince or peasant would accept for himself and herself the monumental and grotesque obscenity perpetrated –and continues to be perpetrated for more than six torturous decades now– against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians.
Palestine is the moral, social, historical, and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims.

Palestine
~ Timeless~
Celestially Ours!
Vive le Palestine libre!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Azaad Philistine Zindabad!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin?

   And Muslims have every right and all rights and the Highest Authority –the Divine Authority: Qur’an 2:190; 60:8-9– to undertake the noble armed Jihad to liberate and control our lands and affairs and resources. All the way to the Resurrection if need be.

   And Muslims will prevail. Muslims are destined to be success-ful, victorious, and triumphant: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(Qur’an 20:1-2); “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers” –(Qur’an 24:55). “Surely Allāh will not fail in (His) promise;” “Allāh is the Friend of the dutiful”–(Qur’an 13:31; 45:19). Muslim history is testimony to this Divine truth.

 Those who pride themselves on military might for aggression, subjugation and exploitation need to spade through the rubble of time and dialogue with the Caesars and the Chosroes and the Pharaohs.

   As stated at the beginning, if one would give to others the right(s) he exacts for himself there will be no transgression, no retaliation, no torture, and no “terrorism.” Billions will not be blown battling “terrorism!”

   Had the enemies of Mohammad/Islam not resorted to the sword against Mohammad, Mohammad would have had no need or justification in taking up the sword in self-defense: “And fight in the way of Allāh against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allāh loves not the aggressors”–(Qur’an 2:190). “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allāh is Able to assist them”—Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allāh. And if Allāh did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allāh’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allāh will help him who helps Him. Surely Allāh is Strong, Mighty–(Qur’an 22:39-40).

   This fighting is to cease if the aggressors seek peace: “And if Allāh had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allāh allows you no way against them”–(Qur’an 4:90). “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allāh. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower”–(Qur’an 8:61).

   Allāh requires that men be given their dues and that justice be given to all: “And, O my people, give full measure and weight justly, and defraud not men of their things, and act not corruptly in the land, making mischief”–(Qur’an 11:85; 17:35).
“O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allāh, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor, Allāh has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allāh is ever Aware of what you do”–(Qur’an 4:135; 4:58; 5:8).
“Surely Allāh enjoins justice and the doing of good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids indecency and evil and rebellion. He admonishes you that you may be mindful”–(Qur’an 16:90).

   There is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah.
  Islam, which prohibits aggression, transgression, occupation, compulsion, and exploitation –lofty precepts which seem alien to modern nations or which they seem incapable of honoring– is the RELIGION OF PEACE!

*

APPENDIX

As Jesus came to uphold the law of the Old Testament so much so that heaven and earth shall pass, as he declared, but not one jot or title shall not pass till they all be fulfilled–(Matt. 5:17-18). Thus, if Jesus/Christianity was lording America or Europe or any place else. And as Christians say that Jesus is God. Thus,  if Jesus/Christianity was lording America (or any place)

-men would be able to commit incest with their daughters, as Lot–(Gen. 20:11-12; Gen. 19:30-37);

-slavery will be revived–(Lev. 25:44);

-children will be punished for their parents “whoredoms”–(Num. 14:33-34. Also Rev. 2:20-23);

-decapitation will be allowed: “And the Lord said unto Moses, take ALL THE HEADS of the people and HANG THEM UP before the Lord against the sun”–(Num. 25:4);

–disbelievers will be killed–(Deut. 13:12-16);

-the wife who tried to defend her husband by grabbing the testicles of her husband’s opponent will lose her hand–(Deut. 25:11-12);

-cannibalism will be legal–(Deut. 28:53, 57; 2 Kings 6:28-29);  

-It would be legal to terrorized, slay, poison and feed worship-pers of false gods to beasts: “They (Jeshurun and his children) have moved me (God) to jealousy with that which is not God…I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them…I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs”–(Deut. 32: 15-25); it will be legal to mutilate enemies: (The Israelites asked God “Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them” to occupy their land) “And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand…and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men…and they pursued after him (Adonibezek), and caught him and CUT OFF HIS THUMBS and his GREAT TOES. And Adonibezek said, THREE SCORE AND TEN kings, having their THUMBS and their GREAT TOES CUT OFF”–(Judges 1:1-7. Islam only allows a defensive fighting and certainly not to “go up” and kill people to occupy their lands);

-it would be legal to slay even the “infant and suckling” in war–(1 Samuel 15:2-3);

-it would be legal to take men’s wives and give them in adult-ery because of their husband’s infidelity–(2 Samuel 12:7-11);

-it would be legal to cut prisoners with “saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes”–(2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chron. 20:3);

-it would be legal to expose one’s self to others–(2 Samuel 6:14-22);

-as Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” there will be unbridled polygamy and concubinage–(1 Kings 11:3);

-Christians would be allowed to feed mischievous children to bears: “there came forth little children…and mocked him (Elisha). And he…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);

–Christians would be allowed to wash their feet in the blood of the wicked–(Psalms 58:10);

-it would be happiness to mutilate “little ones” and ravish the wives of others–(Psalm 137:9; Isaiah 13:16);

-it would be legal to kill fetus during war–(Isaiah 13:15, 18; Hosea 13:16);

-Woman would be seen and not heard and her daughter bondaged–(Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7; Ephesians 5:22-23, 33);

-wives will have to learn in silence and subjection, and to not “usurp authority over the man”–(1 Tim. 2:11-12);

-women and children will be beaten with “all gravity” to bring them into obedience and into silence and subjection–(Prov. 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14. 1 Tim. 3:4; Heb. 12:6-8. And without doubt every “Christian” husband wants to deliver his stubborn and rebellious wife’s “soul from hell”);

–daughters who commit “whoredom” will be burned–(Gen 38:24; Lev. 21:9);

-blasphemers, apostates, married damsel without the “token of virginity,” and the virginal damsel who lies with a man other than her “betrothed,” stubborn and rebellious sons, and the adulteress would all be stoned to death–(Lev. 24:11-16, 23; Deut; 13:5-16; 17:2-5; Deut. 22:20-21; 22:23-24; 21:18-21; John 8:3-5);

-the witch, one who curses his father or mother, the adulterer, homosexuals, and the man who commits bestiality would be put to death–(Ex. 22:18; Lev. 20:9; 10-12; Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:13; 15-16);

-a man who takes a “wife and her mother” both would be torched–(Lev. 20:14);

-(as only Christians honor Christ as God/son of God) Christi-ans are to bondage their fellow Christians–Ephesians 6:5; Colos-sians 3:22);

-their prophets can walk “naked and barefoot” and can lead prisoners and captives, “young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered–(Isaiah 20:2-4);

-Christians would agree with their adversaries which would include agreeing with all kinds of injustices–(Matt. 5:25; perhaps this is what the Church and Christian Europe were doing when the Nazis were holocausting Jews);

–those who do not share the Christians’ views would be labeled as being “against” them, and enemies opposed to rule would be slaughtered–(Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27; the Crusades will now be rolling out of America to secure Jerusalem for Christ’s landing; we might even get an American “Hitler” to avenge the killing of the Christian’s God/son of God);

-men and women would have to remain in their marriage regardless of how loveless and miserable or risk being guilty of “adultery;” and the divorced woman would have to wilt her (youthful and beautiful) self in single-hood or her new husband will be charged with “adultery”–(Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18);

-woman would be reduced as an object for sex, good only “to avoid fornication–(1 Cor 7:1-2); viewed as inferior to man–(1 Cor. 11:7-9); as the transgressor and betrayer of man–(1 Tim. 2:14; Gen. 3:4-12; Ezek. 16:44); as “defiler” of man–(Rev. 7:4-8; 14:3-4);

-as no one would be allowed to shovel treasures into earthly storehouses and would have to depend on God as he sends to the birds and flowers and thus no need for knowledge America will plummet like a lead-ball from the pinnacle of progress into the black-hole of backwardness–(Matt. 6:19, 25-26);

-the Geneva convention on war would have to be re-written, for it would be legal to slay all the soldiers of war as well as slay all the male and matron women and take the virgin girls as sex slaves (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus commanded): “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses…And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him, but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES….and of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000”–(Numbers 31:1-53). (See Christianity-sex slaves & prepubescent girls).

(Non-Christians should go down on their hands and knees and forehead and thank Allāh, God, that America, and nowhere else, is governed by Jesus/Christianity. They would have to high-tail it out of America or kiss the useless and unGodly crucifix or have their heads lopped off, or in the case of Jews in 1400’s Vienna face the furnace: In Vienna “hundreds of Jews were burned alive in 1421 for refusing to convert to Christianity,” Toronto Star, Sat; Sept; 8, 2007; p. AA2; Pontiff shows…by Tracy Wilkinson).

If Judaism/Moses was lording America or any place else he would do everything that Jesus would have done, as noted above, except that of the Gospels.

If Islam/Mohammad (not to be confused with Muslims though Muslims are to reflect the teachings of Islam) was lording America or any place else:

   –women and men would be observing a dress code (which probably all disciplined organizations have) –women, the Hijab and jalaba and men, (the minimum) the area between, and including, the navel and the knees and half of the chest;

–women will be given all the rights due to her and leave her nothing for which to strive;

-there would be limited polygamy to alleviate female preponderancy;

-non-Muslims would be governed by the laws of their scripture (to an extent);

-there would be no Alcohol (one does not need intoxicants to have a good time; in fact intoxicants do not give a “good time”: the best of times are had in sobriety);

-there will be no  Gambling; no pornography; no prostitution and thus no pimping;

-thieves (depending on the reason for theft and cost of item) will lose their hands (law-abiding citizens will be much safer and secure, and wouldn’t need to imprison themselves in gated communities) (see Islam-amputation, dismemberment).

-drug-lords and pushers and rapists and other “dead-weight” of society who strive to make mischief in the land and prey on the vulnerable of society run the risk of getting the maximum sentence of crucifixion;

-men will NOT be saddled with alimony payments for his ex-wife’s unmarried life;

-there will be one law for the commoner as well as for the elite (there will be no diplomatic immunity);

-adulterers and fornicators will be publicly flogged (there is no death for adultery, apostasy and blasphemy, and no honor killing in Islam. See Islam-Shari’ah). (For a woman’s testimony being half of a man’s, wife-beating, women’s movement restricted, woman’s inheritance half of a man’s see Islam-women). (For a refutation of charges against the Qur’an see Qur’an; Qur’an-comments & errors; Christian-critics; Qur’an-Satanic verses; Qur’an-evil verses).

Unlike the Christians’ Jesus who would have man in regress and dependency –as no one would be allowed to shovel treasures into earthly storehouses and would have to depend on God as he sends to the birds and flowers and thus no need for knowledge–(Matt. 6:19, 25-26)

-Mohammad, through the Blessed Qur’an, brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms, and gave us to drink of the fountain of knowledge and truth and wisdom and reason, of peace and love and hope and mercy and forgiveness, and he sent man soaring from the belly of ignorance and backwardness into the mouth of quest and progress.

-Mohammad liberated man from the irrationality of polytheism, the futility and degradation of idolatry, the humiliation of superstition, the phantasm of paganism –of Gods of the womb and dying Gods and sons of God–and took God from the bosom of nationalism and sat Him aloft on the Mount of Universalism; extols that everything in the heavens and the earth were created for our use and that the only presence greater than us is God and thus the only One worthy of worship; that one is better only by faith and deeds; to fulfill covenants and to keep oaths and not to be deceptive; to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich; not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief; not to be transgressors; not to help one another in sin and aggression; to restrain anger and forgive others; to fight on behalf of the oppressed; to be merciful and forgiving; to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression and to make peace when the enemy desires peace; to return evil with that which is better; gives freedom of conscience; rescues the orphan, ennobles the slave, extricated woman from the grave of infanticide and unchained her from the shackles of marital chatteldom and enthrones her alongside man from the cradle to paradise; instills in man morality, sobriety, and chastity, and impels him to personal, social, intellectual, and spiritual excellence.

-Mohammad embraced all the prophets of all the nations and removed the cloak of “sinfulness” hurled upon them.

-Mohammad not only preached forgiveness but he forgave his most horrid enemies.

-Mohammad not only preached love of enemies and loved his enemies, but also made them beneficiaries in his kingdom.

-Mohammad not only preached the giving of charity and gave charity, but also bought slaves their freedom, and assigned a portion of the States’ funds for the poor.

-Mohammad “disabused our minds”: he made us too cultured to deliver our souls into the hands of gods born of the womb –helpless, defenceless gods; gods who themselves sought nourishment and protection– and he hung the millstone of responsibility for our actions snugly around our own necks –that there is no “scape-goat” on which to cruise on into heaven: every person must pave his own pathway into Paradise.

–Mohammad freed us from stone-worship, star-worship, sun-worship, spirit-worship, nature-worship, hum-an-worship, and sat us high on the pinnacle of pure worship (that the only presence greater than ourselves is God; the worship) of the One True God –Who has no partner or parent, nor son or daughter; Who was not in the womb of a woman, Who was not born, nor ate, slept, drank, nor answered the calls of nature, nor died or was killed– the God Who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-present, the God Who is the Ultimate in Purity and Perfection and Who never dies– Allāh!

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

   If Europe (and elsewhere) is Islamized it will be doing Europe an invaluable service, foremost by freeing “Christians” of their paganism.

“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.” ¹² 

If  TheReligionofPeace is looking for a cause on which to immortalize his name, demonizing Allāh/Mohammad/Islam will not accomplish it for him; he will fail miserably.

   Allāh –the God Who creates out of love; has inscribed mercy on Himself; Whose mercy precedes His anger; Who forgives all sins altogether; invites us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins; Who exalts man not by his nationality but by his faith in Him and good deeds and rewards each good deed up to seven-hundred fold and requites evil with just its like; Who admonishes against corruption, mischief, aggression, treachery and transgression; allows defensive fighting only to stem aggression and persecution; gives man freedom of conscience; counsels forgiveness rather than retaliation; to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy; admonishes us to let not hatred incite us to transgress; and requires the administering of justice even if it be against one’s own self–is demon-proof.

In fact, (unless TheReligionofPeace is a bigger “devil”) Allāh is of such Purity “the devils also believe (in God), and tremble”¹³ at His Majesty and Magnificence: “Like the devil when he says to man: Disbelieve. But when he disbelieves, he (the devil) says: I am free of thee: surely I fear Allāh, the Lord of the worlds”–(Qur’an 59:16).

In the annals of modern history there is no people who have suffered more and for so long as the fearless and forbearing Palestinians have suffered and for more than six torturous decades now –which no King or Queen or Prime Minister or President or Immigration minister or MP or MPP or peasant or critic or columnist or author would accept for himself and herself.
If there is any cause on which to immortalize our names it is the cause of the Palestinians.

Those who endeavor to demonize Allāh/Mohammad/ Islam are only impaling their souls on the flames of Hell.

*

NOTES

A. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is NOT PERMITTED UNTO THEM TO SPEAK; but they are COMMANDED to be under obedience, as also saith the LAW. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at HOME: FOR IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH”–(1 Cor. 14:34-35. Today this law is violated and women are preachers in the Church). Clearly, permission to employ whatever methods are necessary to “rule” over the wife and to bring/keep her in “silence and in “all subjection’ are inherent and enshrined in these words of God and Paul.
To take the matter further, authority for employing corporal punishment to discipline the rebellious wife who does not desire to be “ruled” over in “silence” and “all subjection” may be gleaned from the Biblical verses on child-rearing. God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, then Jesus) says: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;” “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying;” “Withhold not correction from the child: for if you beatest him with the rod, he shall not die, Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell” (and without doubt every “Christian” husband wants to deliver his stubborn/rebellious wife’s “soul from hell”)–(Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14).
A Bishop is to be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with ALL GRAVITY”–(1 Tim. 3:4).
Even God beats and scourges His sons into obedience and those who are not are “bastards”: “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT, whereof all are partakers, then are ye BASTARDS, and NOT SONS”–(Hebrews 12:6-8).
Thus one can imagine what latitude the Christian husband is allowed to bring/keep his wayward wife in all subjection and for him to become a “Bishop” and even to get into heaven to sit “on the right hand of God.” A survey of wives of all Christian sects can be conducted to find out how many were “beaten” into “silence” and “all subjection.” Surely, not all the “battered” wives in Western countries are non-Christians.

1. Muhammad Ali, Qur’anic comm. 1736 (Qur’an 24:2).

2. Ibid; comm. 1738 (Qur’an 24:4).

3. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 373.

4. Ibid; pp. 366-367.

5. Ibid; pp. 370-371.

6. Ibid; p. 373.

7. Ibid; p. 373.

8. Ibid; p. 374.

8A. Al-Hakim, cited in, Mubarak Ali, The Muslim Handbook, p. 288.

9. “But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked…They provoked him (God) to jealousy with strange gods…he (God) abhorred them, because of the provoking of his (Jeshurun’s) sons, and of his daughters…I will heap mischief upon them…I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust”–(Deut. 32:15-25).

10. “there came forth little children…and mocked him (Elisha). And he…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).

11. Jennifer Walker, Best Health, magazine, March/April 2009; p. 23. Ms. Walker cites a “recent study.”

12. Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri, at a meeting in Gorakhpur, [India]. 1928. Quoted in Ahmed Deedat, Muhummed The Greatest, p. 37.

13. The Bible, James 2:19.