In the Name of Allāh
The Beneficent, The Merciful.
Peace and blessings on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
*
Revealingly.
Whereas the critics of Islam try to find fault with Islam;
the critics cannot prove, and can never prove, a religion superior to Islam. Because ISLAM IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER RELIGIONS
*

     ALI SINA CHALLENGES & MOHAMMAD
(See also Allāh vs. Historians – Jesus not killed on cross)

Ali Sina has challenged Muslims to refute his charges against the Prophet Mohammad. And has offered a sum of $50,000 US to anyone who can refute his charges.

(Truth is, Muslims do not have to refute any charges by Ali Sina [or anyone]. Let Ali Sina prove a religion superior to or equal with Islam And as Ali Sina cannot prove a religion superior to or equal with Islam –and no one can prove a religion superior to or equal with Islam– Ali Sina’s charges crumble into a heap of rubbish). 

Like other “experts” on Islam who endeavors to tell Muslims the “truth” about our religion Ali Sina is vast on text and void on substance –another zeppelin of hot air. Muslims are not to be overwhelmed by the critic’s mountains of material or be dazzled by their literature. Muslims are to know there is no charge against Allāh, Islam, the Qur’an, and Prophet Mohammad that is not refutable; in fact, many charges against Muslims have also been refuted.

Many of Ali Sina’s charges are echoes from other critics that we have already refuted.  Regarding the charge that Mohammad wrote the Qur’an. As Mohammad was human then other humans can write the Qur’an as well. But as Allāh says to those who doubt that the Qur’an is Divine revelation for them to “produce a chapter like it”–Qur’an 2:23; 10:38; 11:13; 17:88; 52:33-34). (See MOHAMMAD-WROTE THE QUR’AN).  

   Before we get to Ali Sina’s charges against the Prophet Mohammad, there are two critical points about Islam that are to be kept in mind:
   (1) The Qur’an was revealed over a period of about twenty-three years. Unless and until he received Divine revelation in a matter the Prophet followed the Torah which requires honor killing, death for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, parental abuse, and adultery.¹ Also sayings of the Prophet Mohammad are to be understood as to the time frame in which they were given –whether it was before or after revelation on the topic. As the Prophet governed only according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4) –whatever saying of his contradicts with the Qur’an is to be discarded.  The Qur’an supersedes all other sources. of guidance.
   (2) Even in the lifetime of the Prophet sayings were forged in his name. 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. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Prophet is reported as having said that whatever sayings of his contradict with the Qur’an is to be discarded. As noted, the Prophet taught only according to the Qur’an. Forgeries may also have been made by the opponents of the Prophet to denigrate him.

   Hazrat Ali also noted that there are those who heard from the Prophet “but his memory was not good and when he repeated the traditions he could not repeat them correctly;” then there were those who heard from the Prophet and remembered correctly “but they did not know that that order was later repealed and abrogated. Conversely, some people heard the Prophet forbid-ding his followers from a certain action, but did not know that the Apostle of God later gave permission for the same;” and highly significant Hazrat Ali explains that:

“Orders of our Holy Prophet (AS) are of two kinds. Some are meant for special persons while others are for all Muslims.
There were many persons who could not fully understand the significance of what the prophet had said. They could remember all right, but could not grasp the true relevance of these traditions and began interpreting them as they desired. (Hazrat points out that whereas he invariably had the Prophet explained his teachings, the companions of the Prophet did not “dare” themselves to ask questions and often waited till visiting Arabs asked questions, “they then listened how Hazrat (the Prophet) replied and tried to remember those traditions as much as they could.” And that “These are various reasons which caused so many spurious and false traditions to come into circulation” –(Nahjul Balagha, sermon 215, pp. 386-388). Muslims who have apostatized (instead of learning about Islam) have the grand opportunity, while you are alive, to return to Allāh; when you die –and no one knows the time of his/her death– there is no second chance: this grand opportunity evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell.

*

                   On his website Ali Sina states:
“If you (Muslims) do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay $50,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who can disprove the following accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist	a misogynist	a rapist
a pedophile	a lecher	a torturer
a mass murderer	a cult leader	an assassin
a terrorist	a madman	a looter”

(See our challenge to Ali Sina at the end of this presentation).

1. Mohammad a narcissist:  In support of this claim, Ali Sina quotes Qur’an 33:56, 48:9, 68:4, and 33:46 in which Allāh and His Angels praise and send blessings on the Prophet; for Muslims to honor and assist the Prophet; that the Prophet is of exalted character; and is a light-giving sun, respectively.

   Response: If David confers praise on Marcus, Marcus could hardly be label a “narcissist.” God says that Jesus is the Messiah; if Jesus tells people he is the Messiah Jesus could hardly be branded a “narcissist.” God said to Nathan: “Go and tell my servant David….I will be his father, and he shall be my son”–(2 Samuel 7:4, 5, 14). If David told people he is “son of God” this wouldn’t make David a “narcissist.”

   That Muslims are to honor and assist Mohammad. If the king or president of a country assigned Robert to oversee the land and instructed his subjects to honor and assist Robert and Robert refreshed his people of the king’s/president’s instructions this does not make Robert a narcissist.

   That Mohammad is of “exalted character” (best exemplar). Mohammad liberated man from the degradation and futility of idolatry, the irrationality of polytheism, and the phantasm of superstition; took the stars from the grasp of the astrologer and sat them firmly into the laps of the astronomer; freed the slave, liberated woman and gave her rights that left her nothing for which to strive; ennobled the orphan; brought man from drunkenness to sobriety, from profligacy to chastity, from tribalism into brotherhood, from savagery into scholars of learning, and from camel drivers into “thrones of Caesars” (while the world was yet running around with flint tools and torches); and after twenty years of monumental and grotesque persecution and war on him he forgave his most rabid enemies.upon his triumph at Makkah–no inquisition; no incrimination; no confession; no rancor; only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -“No reproof be against you this day”!  
   If Mohammad is not deserving of the title “exalted character” then no one can ever be. (See ISLAM-RELIGION OF THE SWORD).

    Ali Sina continues: “Ibn Sa’d reports Muhammad saying:  “Among all the people of the world God chose the Arabs.  From among the Arabs he chose the Kinana. From Kinana he chose the Quraish (the tribe of Muhammad).  From the Quraish he chose Bani Hashim (his clan).  And from Bani Hashim he chose me.”

   Response: Among all women Allāh chose Mary to give birth to Jesus, the Messiah. Should Mary had said that from among all the women of the world Allāh chose the people of Jacob, and among all the of Jacob he chose Judah and among all the people of Judah he chose me; Mary could hardly have been labeled a “narcissist.” 

   Ali Sina notes further, the Prophet Mohammad as saying: “The very first thing that Allâh Almighty ever created was my soul.  First of all things, the Lord created my mind; I am from Allâh, and the believers are from me; Just as Allâh created me noble, he also gave me noble characters; Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe. Compare that to the words of Jesus, who when someone called him “good master,” he objected and said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone.” Only a pathological narcissist can be so cut off from reality to claim the universe was created because of him.”

   Response: A woman who is crowned beauty queen of the world, if she tells people she is the most beautiful woman in the world, this does make her a “narcissist.” She is only expressing the title that was conferred onto her.  
   A person who is knighted by the Queen of England, if he expresses that he is chosen by the Queen to be “sir,” this does not make him a” narcissist” –“pathological” or other.
   Barack Obama expressing to the world that he is President of America does not make him a “narcissist.” 
   Mohammad said there is no fasting superior to that of Prophet David–(Bokhari Vol. 8, # 294). Again, Mohammad said that the most beloved pray and fast to Allah are those of David–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #231). If Mohammad was a “narcissist” he would not praise David above himself.  

   Mohammad saying that he was the first “soul” and “mind.” How do you know that he was not? –you will have to ask Allāh when you meet him on the other side. 
   That Mohammad was the first soul created. It is said that the first thing a novelist knows or ascertains is the ending of his novel, and works towards the ending. A builder of a house would know before hand the size of his house, the number of windows, etc. Reason would dictate that Allāh knowing how many prophets he would be sending also knew their names and in what order he would be sending them. Thus in order that each people would know about the prophet in succession Allāh would have first created the prophet that He would send last. Thus, Mohammad being the last and final prophet from God, Mohammad was correct in sating that Allāh created his soul first. In fact, it may be stated that in the matter of creation and finality of prophethood, Mohammad was/is, respectively, the First and the Last –Alpha and Omega.

(Even Jesus, the Christian’s son of God and even their “God” alludes that Mohammad was the Alpha and Omega. Jesus says: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he (Jesus) that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven”–(John 3:13).  
   If Jesus is the “Son of God” who came down from heaven and the son of man was yet in heaven (to come), who is this son of man? Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– has shown in his book Muhammad In The Bible that “Son of Man” is the Prophet Mohammad. See JESUS-SON OF MAN (BARNASHA)).

   Mohammad saying he is from Allāh –and Jesus also claimed he “proceedeth forth and came from God”–(John 8:42– and Muslims are from him does not make Mohammad a “narcissist.” In fact, all Divine prophets are from Allāh. And as followers of Moses, Jesus, and Krishna are from Moses and Jesus and Krishna, respectively –each group stemming from its leader– Muslims are from Mohammad. 
   Comparing Jesus’ saying that only God is good to Mohammad’s sayings. Mohammad never claimed that he is/was good; he represented himself only as a servant and Messenger of Allāh. However, Jesus preached that God gave him power to lay down his life and take it up again–(John 10:17-18); which can be said to be ultimate in “narcissism.” (Incidentally, it is rather strange that Jesus had power to lay down his life and take it up again yet he was afraid of the Jews and rebuked them for trying to kill him, and refrained from walking openly amongst them; and he even prayed to great drops of sweat to avoid laying down his “life” See Jesus-inherited sin to ascension).

   That Mohammad said Allāh said: “Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.” (And how do you know Allāh did not say this to Mohammad? You can verify it when you meet Him).
   The Prophet is reported as saying: “I have been sent with the SHORTEST expressions bearing the WIDEST meanings” –(Bokhari Vol 4, #220; Vol. 9, #141, 378).  

(Perhaps an example of this “shortest” expression with a “widest” meaning can be gleaned from the poet who wrote, because of the bee the butterfly will die. When elaborated, it is known that the bee makes wax, the wax is made into candles, the candle is lit into a flame, the moth is attracted to flame and flies into it and is burned/ killed). 

   Regarding this saying: “Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.” As noted in Islam Allāh said He created man because He loved to be known. Allah created us to serve Him–(Qur’an 51:56), to have mercy on us–(Qur’an 11:119); and He created life and death as a trial, as to which of us in best in deeds–(Qur’an 67:2). To let us know His purpose for creating us, Allāh raised prophets among all people; and gave them one common message: There is no God but Me; So serve Me–(Qur’an 21:25; 10:47. Thus, God is known by a name according to the language of the people).
   The prophets before Mohammad were tribal prophets and their laws were restricted to their respective people and for a limited  time. The Prophet Mohammad was sent to the Arabs, who were yet to receive a prophet, and to the world to unite all mankind under one Divine Law which is applicable to the Resurrection. Through the Prophet Mohammad Allāh has “completed” His favor to man and “perfected” man’s religion–(Qur’an 5:3).
   As Allāh’s purpose was to create, guide, have mercy on and to  try man, and as His purpose was fulfilled through the Prophet Mohammad it is reasonable to conclude that but for Allāh wishing to be known; and His completing His favor to man and perfecting man’s religion through Mohammad Allāh would not have created the “universe.” And as Mohammad was the end to this Divine purpose (the last of the Prophets and Unifier of mankind under one Divine Law) then Allāh created the universe because of Mohammad.

(As Mumtaz Mahal might have related that her husband, Shah Jahnan, said to her: “Were it not for you, [O Mumtaz] I would not have” built the Taj Mahal.” 
   Or as someone might have jested that the stone-cutter said: “Were it not for you [O majesty] I would not have chiseled the Kohinoor diamond from India”).

Thus, far from being “a pathological narcissist” “cut off from reality to claim the universe was created because of him,” Mohammad spoke the truth. What needs to be done is to meditate and expand on his statements. 

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

3. Mohammad a mass murderer: see  MOHAMMAD-JEWS & RAIDING PARTIES.

4. Mohammad a terrorist: Ali Sina wrote: “In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina, he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed.  As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians.”

   Response: Were Britain and the Allies prepared to give Germany “the chance to prepare himself or be armed”? Is America and Allies giving al-Qaeda and Talibans “the chance to prepare himself or be armed”? 
   Isn’t a good offence against the enemy the best defence? Mohammad’s duty was only to preach the Divine Message not enforce it–(Qur’an 2:272;  3:20;  5:95, 102; 10:99; 13:40;  16:82; 24:54;  29:18; 46:35; 64:12). Had the Idolaters not stupidly resort to force against Mohammad they would not be subjected to “gazwas.” For more on this see MOHAMMAD-JEWS & RAIDING PARTIES).
   And isn’t this what America is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen? “raiding” and even “assassinating”? and these people, many of whom are “civilians,” are thousands of miles away from America compared to Mohammad’s “assassin” and persecutors who are on the same soil with Mohammad. 
    Moreover, China massacred peaceful protesters at Tiananmen Square; people protesting building of a roadway in LA were charged. Why then carp at Mohammad who was the target of annihilation just for preaching?  
   That “all Muhammad’s victims were civilians.” This must be the ultimate in dishonesty and crockery. These were the very “civilians” that donned the garb of militancy to extirpate Mohammad and Muslims.

5. Muhammad: A Misogynist: Ali Sina wrote: “Muhammad insulted women and worsened their situation in Arabia who before Islam had more rights and freedoms. Muhammad took away the rights that the tribal societies of Arabia had granted their women. Consequently Muslim women are abused. They have fewer rights than slaves and animals. They are the property of men, be it their fathers, brothers, husbands or sons. In no society and in no moment of history, women were/are as denigrate and belittled as they are in Islam.”
   Response: As shown in the following pages Ali Sina’s charge is utter rubbish.  

Status of Arab Women before Islam: Ali Sina wrote that pre-Islamic women “had more rights before Islam than after it.” 
   Response:  That Khadijah (and perhaps other women) before Islam had business does not mean that pre-Islamic women were better off than Muslim women. Are there no Muslim women who has their own businesses?  Muslim women also can propose marriage to a man see ISLAM-WOMEN.

Pre-Islam women did not have “more rights before Islam”:
   -it is not “more rights” where a man can desert you by saying to you “thou art to me as the back of my mother”–(Qur’an 33:4.  M. Ali comm.)
   -it is not “more rights” to have your conjugal rights suspended indefinitely by the oath of your husband not to have relations with you–(Qur’an 2:226. M. Ali comm.)
   -it is not “more rights” to be inherited against your will–(Qur’an 4:19)
-it is not “more rights” to become the property of your deceased husband’s son–(Qur’an 4:22).

   That “Hind the wife of Abu Sufyan” commandeered an army does not mean that pre-Islamic women were more liberated than Muslim women. (Perhaps the men were using the women, as the head is the one that gets killed first). 
   “Aisha, wife of the Prophet, commanded an army against the killers of the caliph ‘Uthman. (If Islam was misogynistic and subjugated women how is that ‘Aisha who knew the Qur’an and Islam took to riding camel and leading an army? Certainly she would know that if she was opposing the teachings of Islam, moreover as wife of the Prophet, that she was making herself fuel for the Fire).
   In fact the Prophet taught that the best of women are those who ride camels–.Bokhari Vol. 7, #19). 

   Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam: “A study of the Tradition literature shows that, notwithstanding her rightful position in the home, as the bringer up of children and manager of the household, woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community.”
Women took part in “congregational prayers,” “join(ed) the soldiers in the field of battle”–“carrying of provisions, taking care of the sick and wounded, removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield, or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.”  
   “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field, served the male guests at a feast and carried on business, they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them.  A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (pp. 628-629).  

   The noble Messenger of Allah is the foremost interpreter of the Qur’an; and he did not consign woman into solitary confinement. There is no “misogyny” in Islam. Whatever contradicts the Qur’an is to be discarded. Allāh will not discriminate against Woman because of her gender –a factor she had no control over; a form and physiology He gave her. 
  Mohammad taught us to give reverence to the womb that bore us–(Qur’an 4:1). Some “misogynist.”
  Mohammad taught us that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers  (not at the feet of fathers). Some “misogynist.”
   Mohammad taught us that a mother has three degrees of excellence over a father –she having carried us, given birth to and nursed us–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2). Some “misogynist.”
   Mohammad taught us that women has rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). Some “misogynist.” 
  And perhaps the classic. the Prophet Mohammad taught: “The man shall have a double reward who has a slave-girl and he trains her in the best manner and he gives her the best education, then he sets her free and MARRIES her”–(Bokhari Vol. 4 #655; & 3:720). Some “misogynist.”

   Ali Sina notes that the Muslim general Khalid ibn Walid in order to defeat the enemy, Salma: “Khalid realized that the only way to defeat his opponent was to kill her. He called her to discuss and as the two generals got close, Khalid injured the camel of Salma and when the wounded camel fell to the ground, he jumped on top of Salma and slew her with his sword. Islam’s victory is always gained through treachery.”

   Response: Didn’t the Allies of World War engaged in trickery to defeat the Germans? –go investigate the slaughter at Dieppe; and the Allies breaking German codes and feeding them false info. Wasn’t the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies and had Weapons of Mass Destruction –that lead to the slaughter of tens of thousands, including innocents, not to mention the 500,000 babies that died because of sanctions– worse than “treachery”?
   In war, opponents engage in strategy, treachery, deception, and whatever cunning they could devise to vanquish the other. Today, we have nations flying thousands of miles from their borders to kill even mere suspects and those who advocate against them. Compared to Mohammad who was threatened with annihilation in his own compound.
   Mohammad was no oppressor, no occupier, no transgressor, and no aggressor. Mohammad’s duty was only to preach the Divine Message of the Qur’an. The idolatrous Arabs were free to accept or reject this Message. But they not only reject they were all intent to extirpate Mohammad and Muslims. Whatever measures Mohammad/Muslims took to preserve themselves they were fully justified. No honest historian or critic would say otherwise or accept any less for himself and herself.

   That “Islam’s victory is always gained through treachery.” Please give examples of these acts of Muslim “treachery.” 
   Islam requires Muslims to make peace with the enemy even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allāh is sufficient for thee”–Qur’an 8:61-62). 
   When the Prophet heard that the Romans were planning for war he undertook the expedition to Tabuk. But upon finding the Romans not prepared for war he returned without attacking them. If Muslims were given to “treachery” it is doubtful they would not have wiped out the enemy when no “treachery” was required. (For the Prophet’s Tabuk expedition see Muhammad Ali’s comm. to Qur’an 9:29–www.muslim.org).
   Whereas Ali Sina demonizes Khalid ibn Walid for engaging in “treachery” to save his life against an enemy dedicated to annihilating him for no just cause, Ali Sina angelizes Jews who engaged in “treachery” to kill Mohammad for no just cause 

   Ali Sina: “The most glaring example of women’s lofty status before Islam is the fact that during the time of Muhammad, or perhaps just before he announced his prophethood, a woman, called Sijah, had claimed to be a prophetess and had gained many followers. Today a Muslim woman cannot be even Imam.  When in 2005, Dr. Amina Wadud, announced that she would be leading a congregation of Muslim men and women in Friday prayer, the entire Muslim world was up in arms. They condemned her and some even threatened to bomb the hall that she had chosen for conducting the prayer. No mosque allowed her to perform that prayer.” 

   Response: So what that a woman had claimed to be a “prophetess” and gained many followers? What proof and benefit did she offer her followers?  Only people who are dense enough to worship idols –objects fashioned by their own hands and which can confer no benefit or effect any harm– would be expected to blindly follow anyone without proof and benefit. 
   On Amina Wadud. The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said: “We do not assign the authority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it”–(Bokhari, Vol. 9, # 263). The Prophet is reported to have told Abdur-Rahman bin Samura not to “seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it.  If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better”–(Bokhari, Vol. 9, # 260). And, “Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise”–(Ibid. Vol. 9 # 264). 
   While Islam does not espouse such actions as threatening and bombing. Based upon these sayings of the Prophet on leadership, if Amina Wadud is an educated and devout Muslim why then would she seek leadership?  (The prophet is also noted as having said that whoever wants to be honored let him build his house in the Fire).

   Ali Sina notes ‘Umar complaining to the Prophet: “We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, [Muslims of Medina] we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women.” 
   And all the Prophet did was “smiled.” 
   And Ali Sina said: “The above Hadith is self-explanatory. The Meccans were more bigoted than the rest of the Arabs….As it appears, Umar and Muhammad were particularly more close-mined and more misogynists than the rest of the Meccans. These two men were the bigots of the bigots. While the rest of the Meccans did not have any problem listening to the pep talks of their women or accepting them as trade partners, these two men thought emancipation of women is gross, an indecency that must be corrected.”

  Response: Note well, while Umar complained the prophet only “smiled.” And according to Ali Sina this smiling of the Prophet is “misogyny.”
   So because Pagan women rode, fought, and talked freely they were more liberated than women of Islam?
   1920’s Canadian woman could ride, fight and talk freely, yet she was struggling to be recognized as a “person.”  
   1960’s American women could ride, fight, talk, inherit property and even hit the bottle freely with men, yet they were burning their brassieres for equality with their “male chauvinist pigs.”

   As noted. Whereas ‘Umar complained about women having the “upper hand” over men, The Prophet only “smiled.” That ‘Umar and the Prophet did not restrict women from voicing their views is noted in the following incident, (note well the woman’s tone and the mighty Caliph’s humble response): 
   “Once when ‘Umar delivered a sermon against the practice of settling large sums as dower-money, it was a woman who stood up and objected saying: “O son of Khattab! How dare you deprive us when God says in the Qur’an that even a heap of gold may be settled on the wife as dower?”  Far from resenting this, ‘Umar appreciated this courage of conviction and complimented the objector, saying: “The women of Madinah have more understanding than ‘Umar.”” Further, ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls.” ((pp. 119-120).

This is what the Muslim women of today need to do: they need to learn Islam and assert themselves and demand from their arrogant and/or ignorant leaders their Allāh-given rights. Rather than dwell in ignorance and post nude photo(s) of themselves on the Internet (as one Egyptian young woman² did) in protest against ISLAM and SHARI’AH.  This sister who posted nude picture of herself on the Internet needs to know she is undressing herself for the Fire.
Women who are wearing jeans under their over-garment in revolt against Islam must know that they are dressing themselves for the Fire. There is nothing in Islam to protest against –Islam regards womanhood as the symbol of purity; and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
   Whereas choosing to not wear the hijab (and jalaba) is one matter, why would the Muslim woman desirous of Allāh’s everlasting grandeur revile (and even militate against) the hijab? Revolt against the hijab is revolt against Islam; revolt against Islam is revolt against Allāh; revolt against Allāh is the Sureway to Hell-fire.
These Muslims as well as those who have apostatized from Islam have the grand opportunity while you are alive to repent and to return to Allāh. When you die, and as no one knows the time of his/her death the sooner you repent the better, there is no second chance: this grand opportunity evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell.

   It is Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism that require women to be in “silence with all subjection” (see CHRISTIANITY-WOMEN; Hinduism & women).

Hijab Was Suggested by Umar and Accepted by Allāh. Ali Sina states: “Muhammad, fearing younger men casting eyes on his young and beautiful wives and “molesting” them, ordered them to veil themselves. Of course he made his wish to come as a revelation” And Ali Sina quotes Qur’an 33:59 enjoining the over-garment on women.” 

    Response: And why did “God make coats of skins, and clothed” Adam and Eve? There was no other humans to see them –(Genesis 3:21).
   Notably, Islam does not require Muslim women to cover their faces. If “Mohammad” imposed the veil because he feared his wives being molested, why are Christian nuns covering themselves? The Bible also requires that women cover their heads–(Num. 5:18; 1 Cor. 11:5-6. Mary, the Christian’s “Mother of God,” as Christians depict, wore hijab).
(While the non-Muslim men may make eyes at the wives of the Prophet and “molest” them) it is intriguing that Mohammad feared “younger” Muslim men “casting eyes on his young and  beautiful wives and “molesting” them when Muslim men, young and old, revered Mohammad more than they revered their fathers and even their selves; and moreover, when they know the  wives of the Prophet were chaste women dedicated to serving Allah.
   That Mohammad “made his wish to come as a revelation.” If Mohammad wrote the Qur’an then other humans also can produce the Qur’an and even better. The challenge to you is as Allah says, “produce a chapter like it”–(Qur’an 2:23; 10:38; 11:13; 17:88; 52:33-34). (See MOHAMMAD-WROTE THE QUR’AN)   As stated at the beginning, one of the functions of the Qur’an is to give guidance in matters arising in the community. And this, the matter of the Hijab, is one of those instances (as well as the jalaba -over-garment- in the next topic).  

   Ali Sina continued (regarding Qur’an 33:59 enjoining the over-garment on women). “Umar explained that the above verse was revealed upon his insistence.” And he (Sina) comments: “It seems odd that the maker of this universe should need the advice of one of his creatures to ordain laws for mankind. Umar, foolishly boasts that God agreed with him. However, not all the companions of Muhammad were as foolhardy as Umar. Abdulah ibn Sarh who was a scribe of Muhammad was cleverer.  He left Muhammad and Islam after he noticed that God changed his revelations and agreed with him after he suggested better verses.”

   Response: It is incredible that Mohammad would consent to ibn Sarh changing verses of the Qur’an. With all the ingenuity ascribed to Mohammad as him writing the Qur’an and deceived the world that it was the Word of Allah, you would think he’d be smart enough to know what consequences such pandering to the whims of a scribe might entail.
   Mohammad was constantly surrounded by several of his companions. It is highly unlikely that ibn Sarh was alone with Mohammad and that no one else knew about these changes, and not only on one verse. It is rather strange ibn Sarh would leave Islam because of these changes and would not alarm the other scribes and companions of the Prophet, and neither informed the Quraish, who in all likelihood would not miss such a grand opportunity to expose Mohammad as a fraud, and broadcast it to all. 
   Significantly, the Angel Gabriel rehearsed the Qur’an with the Prophet Mohammad on a yearly basis–(Bokhari Vol. 4, # 819),  it is doubtful that Gabriel also pandered to the whims of ibn Sarh.

   (The following is a long continuous statement by Ali Sina with each segment requiring a response; thus, to avoid separating Ali Sina’s charges we have injected our response in red between these charges). Ali Sina: “What interests us at this moment is the fact that women prior to Islam did not wear this veil of shame that they are forced to wear today. (Response: So Mary, the mother of Jesus and mother of God as Christians say Jesus is God, who is covered like the Muslim woman wore a “veil of shame?” Islam does not “force” women or anyone else to do anything. Muslims are free to follow the injunctions of Allāh or not –those who refuse or reject will have to account for their defiance. Citizens of a country are not forced to obey the law –when they transgress they face magistracy).

   “It was because of Muhammad’s insecurities, who as an old man hoarding a harem of young and beautiful women, and fearful of younger and more virile men casting eyes on his wives that the order of veiling was issued. The fears of this old man that younger men may lust after his wives are reflected in these verses that are conveniently placed in the mouth of Allah.  Q.33:30: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah. (Response: Public officials who are guilty of wrong-doing/scandal either resign or are removed from office. The wives of the Prophet were of high estimation and were to reflect morality and decorum. Thus their punishment  is to be more than meted out to ordinary women. Do you not expect the Queen and First Lady to be of high moral standard? And if they should be involved in wrong-doing/scandal would it not be more shameful/disgraceful than if an ordinary woman should be so guilty?) 

“(Qur’an 33)31.  But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance. (Response: Jesus promised the meek (which includes women) that they will inherit the earth–(Matthew 5:5); Manu promised “paradise” for “35,000,000 years” to the Hindu woman who immolates herself on her husband’s funeral pyre–(see Hinduism & women). Thus, Allāh, Who is the Creator of the earth and the heavens can surely give the dutiful Muslim woman “reward twice” and a “generous Sustenance.”  

“Muhammad often reminded his wives to behave in a way as not to attract the attention of other men and cover themselves to not become desired by strangers. (Qur’an 33)32.  O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. (Response: Isn’t it a fact that the first step to illicit relations is amoral/seductive speech.  And isn’t it a fact that the primal instinct in man is to pursue the (attractive) female? Don’t wise parents instruct their daughters to be wary of the guiles of lurid men).

“(Qur’an 33)33.  And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. Here we can see clearly, that women prior to Islam, or in the “Times of Ignorance”, as Muhammad disparagingly referred to it, could go out of their houses unveiled, in “dazzling display”.  Today a woman, displaying a flock of hair or an arm inside her family car could be dragged out and beaten by Islamic moral police in some Islamic countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. Few Islamic countries allow women go out of their houses unveiled, let alone in “dazzling display” Response: So you prefer or not care that your wife go on “dazzling display” in a bikini or thong or topless (and even bottomless as some place may allow), whereas Mohammad prefer his wives to be fully clad. Where then is the problem? Is the nun’s head-cover a symbol of her “servitude”? The nudist might view all clothing, including the bikini and thong, as a symbol of “servitude” or repression.   Judges, lawyers, and people of certain organizations as well public servants, such as the police and army, have dress codes. 
   So Muslim women prefer to follow the code of the Prophet and his wives. Why then ridicule Muslim women for their choice of uniform? 
   It is not presumptuous to say that decent husbands require or expect their wives to behave decorously, and prefer that they stay at home rather than wander the streets like loose women.    Even in the Bible God chastened the Israelite women for going about in “dazzling display”:

“Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a SCAB the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their SECRET PARTS”–Isaiah 3:16-17. Notably, some Bibles omit the words “the Lord will discover their SECRET PARTS”).

   (Our response to Ali Sina continues): Chapter 33 of the Qur’an was revealed in the fourth year of the Hijrah. It is hardly credible then that Mohammad would have to invent verses to protect his young wives seeing that the wives of the Prophet were already off-limits to remarry –as they are the “mothers” of Muslims– as early as verse 6 (33:6 and emphasized in 33:53). In any event, as already shown Mohammad could not be the author of the Qur’an. And if Mohammad was a “lecher” and “voluptuary” and wrote the Qur’an it is incredible that he would prohibit himself from taking more wives (and even nubiles which old men relish): “It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this”–(Qur’an 33:52. Please see Muhammad Ali’s comm. www.muslim.org). 
   And if Mohammad wrote the Qur’an it is strange that Mohammad would remonstrate himself for ignoring the blind man, ibn Makhtum–(Qur’an 80:1-3).

     Good parents endeavor to raise children with the best of conduct and manners and mode of dress and speech from early childhood as possible and as far into maturity as they can.   
    Islam is the religion that gives man guidance in all aspects of life –moral, social, intellectual and spiritual. It teaches us how to eat sleep, wear, pray and even how to clean (as the Prophet taught that cleanliness is half of faith) and other items that are needed for our beneficial way of living.
   And regarding Ali Sina’s claim that Mohammad wrote these verses. To repeat, Allāh said to those who doubt that the Qur’an is Divine Revelation for them to produce a chapter like it.

Jahiliyah: That Mohammad referred to pre-Islamic days as “Times of Ignorance.” 
   Response: This is no “disparaging” remark. Pre-Islamic men and women may have had fine garments and buildings and erected monuments. But surely it is moral, social, and spiritual “darkness” or “ignorance” to:
   -worship idols –objects fashioned by your own hands; objects that can confer no benefit and effect no harm
   -worship objects of nature and human(s) as God
   -be steeped in drunkenness and profligacy
   -bury daughters alive
   -be deserted by your husband saying to you “thou art to me as the back of my mother”–(Qur’an 33:4.  M. Ali comm.)
   -have your conjugal rights suspended indefinitely by the oath of your husband not to have relations with you–(Qur’an 2:226. M. Ali comm.)
   -inherit woman against her will–(Qur’an 4:19).
   -become the property of your deceased husband’s son–(Qur’an 4:22). 
   -be steeped in superstition –to believe that an eclipse is caused because of someone having died; that if a killed man is not avenged a worm come out of his head or other stories–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #153- 156; Vol. 7, #653. See also Muhammad Ali’s comm. to Qur’an 5:103 for some practices of the idolaters).

 Men Are Maintainers of Women and Superior to Them. Ali Sina: “Muhammad, not only took away the women’s freedom of dress, he made them subservient to men and dependant on them. He wrote: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded.” (Qur’an 4:34). 
   And Ali Sina opines: “The above verse reduces woman into the livestock of man giving him the authority to maintain her as if she were his donkey or camel. Sadly, Khadija did not live long enough to remind her beloved husband that when he married her, she was the maintainer of him who spent out of her property. In another place he expressly states that men have a degree of advantage over women: “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them.”

   Response: Do you consider divorced women who are maintained (and even for life) by their ex-husbands alimony payments –do you consider that this “reduces woman into the livestock of man giving him the authority to maintain her as if she were his donkey or camel” and that these men are “superior” to women? Go tell it to these women.
  As shown elsewhere, the Muslim woman can earn (and has absolute control over her earnings) own and inherit, she has moral and spiritual equality with man, and has rights as those against her. On top of these benefits she is yet to be maintained by man. Surely, it is poor cerebration to label such a lofty position as subservience. (More like pampered and spoiled). 
    That man has a degree of superiority over woman. Since every ship (and country and organization) requires a captain, husbands, by virtue of them being the maintainers of their wives, are given a degree of superiority (in home affairs)–(Qur’an 2:228). (Though he has this degree of superiority, the wise husband would follow his wife’s judgment if it is superior to his). Don’t these captains of ships and organizations etc; “have a degree (of advantage) over” the others?

Men Can Beat Their Wives: See ISLAM-WIFE-BEATING.

   Ali Sina notes: “The husband does not have to explain to anyone why he beats his wife. “Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.” [Muslim 11:2142]

   Response: This is so because a husband and wife’s private matters are not be publicized. Allāh says in Qur’an 2:187 that men and women are garments to each other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and conceal faults. The act of not telling why one has beaten his wife is the act of covering her faults from others. It is doubtful that any decent man would like his wife to let outsiders know his  private matters or faults. 
   (Unless the wife takes the matter to court). Why do you want a man to explain why he beat his wife? Butt out and mind your own business.  

   Ali Sina notes the Prophet Mohammad as saying:  “If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.”

   Response: (Women have rights as those against her–Qur’an 2:228). People “bow down” to monarchy (some of whom might be evil), they stand up in court for judges (which may be equated with bowing down), they stand for national anthem (of which Islam’s adhan; call to prayer, is the best), they “bow down” even to useless statues: and these do not give even a farthing to those who “bow down” to them. Whereas the Muslim husband who is mandated to provide all amenities to his wife (even though she may have a mountain-load of wealth and more than he has) and for life (if they remained married), yet this husband is begrudged this “non-existent” honor from his wife for this life-long provision he has given to her? (While a wife also may work, she can, at any stage and for any reason, quit her job and decide to stay home. A husband cannot quit his job and intend for his wife to maintain him. The burden of support lies on the husband).

   Marriage is a sacred contract in which the obligations of both parties are declared. The only superiority a man has over his wife is one degree, and that in home affairs only; by virtue of him being the maintainer of the family–(Qur’an 2:228; 4:34). 
   This hadith may only be in reference to the important position of the husband. Significantly, in his Qur’an, Allāh has laid more stress on honor to mothers than to fathers; woman has three degrees of excellence over man –she having carried man for nine months, endured pain giving birth to him and nursed him–; she is the gateway to Paradise as the Prophet taught; she has mutual rights with man; has material, moral and spiritual equality with man; is friend and protector of man; is his garment as he is hers; and Allāh has put love and compassion between them and that she is a source of peace and comfort. 
   (Incidentally, it is Christianity, which Ali Sina plumes ahead of Islam, that “command(s) women to prostrate themselves before their husbands”:

“WIVES, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORD” “As the Church is subject unto Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS IN EVERY THING” (and as Christians say Jesus is God, wives are to worship their husbands as they worship God)– “And the wife see that SHE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND”–(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33).

   Ali Sina: “In a hadith Aisha narrated, one night Muhammad left her home after he thought she is asleep. She secretly followed her and when he came back and saw she was panting, he inquired where she had gone. [Poor man was extremely paranoid whether his wives were cheating]. He told her if she concealed what she was doing the “Subtle and the Aware” [ghosts] would inform him. Aisha says that when I confessed that I had followed him, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

   Response: Clearly, this striking could hardly be taken as one of beating or to cause injury to ‘Aisha even though it caused her  pain; it is obviously a reflexive action when two people are talking and one is somewhat disappointed by the other. 
   The rest of the story confirms this: and then he, the Prophet said: Did you think Allāh and His Apostle will deal unjustly with you. This answer clearly shows that the prophet was disappointed that ‘Aisha believed he would sneak away to another of his wives when it was her turn to be with him, and thus may have gestured in disbelief with his hand and caught her on the chest. 
   In continuing the Hadith, the Prophet informed ‘Aisha that Gabriel came to him with Divine instructions to go and pray for the “inhabitants of Baqi’” and explained his reason for not waking her. The narration ended with ‘Aisha saying: “I said: Messenger of Allāh, how should I pray for them (how should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allāh have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.”    
   Clearly, any person with a shred of intelligence can discern that this hadith is not a case of “wife-beating” or of “domestic violence.” 
   That the Prophet never beat any of his wives is evidenced from this hadith in which Bokhari records a long narration in which ‘Umar’s wife told him that his daughter, Hafsa, “argues with Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) so much that he remains angry for a full day.” Whereupon ‘Umar went to Hafsa who admitted, “we argue with him.”  To which her father advised her “Don’t be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of the love of Allah’s Apostle (peace be on him) for her (i.e. ‘Aisha).” (Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 435). 
   It is doubtful that ‘Aisha and Hafsa would have “argued” with the Prophet and to the extent that “he remains angry for a full day” if he was “beating” them.

Women’s Deficiencies.  Ali Sina: “A hadith reports one meeting that Muhammad had with women where he called them “deficient in intelligence and religion”:
”Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, [this money would go to him as the viceroy of God on Earth and he would distribute it to those whose favor he was seeking or to make the show of generosity] as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
The above is a flagrant case of misogyny where Muhammad commits the travesty of first taking the rights of the women away and then condemning them for not having those rights.  Not only he injures, but he adds insult to the injury by blaming the victim.”

   Response: Allāh created man and woman physically different.  Seems Allāh also created man and woman mentally different.   

The Toronto Star Thursday, December 12, 2013 (p. L6) notes in the article Men, Women are wired differently, from the Washington Post, reports that “Women’s and men’s brains are wired differently, in ways that seem to match the stereotypes.” The test conducted at the University of Pennsylvania “focused on two regions: the cortex, involved in thought, perception and language; and the cerebellum, which co-ordinates movement.” The findings were that while females were more connected to one side of the brain males were more connected to the opposite side. In males, these differences seem to “promote coordinated movement, which males can generally do faster in tests.”  While in females it “might reflect a superior ability to process emotions and understand others’ intentions.”  

Thus men also have “deficiency.” This “deficiency” in men and women are not to be viewed as discriminatory. Men and women were created differently and for their own purpose.  The Prophet Mohammad pointing out this “deficiency” in women is not a “blaming” or derogatory expression. Something that is factual cannot be charged as being “blaming” or derogatory.or misogynistic. The Prophet (and Caliphs) would not utter words degrading to Woman seeing Allāh has conferred honor upon her, and for us to “Speak what is best”–(Qur’an 17:53). We are not even allowed to revile false gods–(Qur’an 6:108).

   That women will go to hell is not because of their mental and religious deficiency –conditions of which they had no choice– but because of their actions: their cursing and ingratitude. (Rather than blindly trying to denigrate Mohammad the intelligent approach would be for Ali  Sina to carry out a survey to determine how many women “curse frequently” and are “ungrateful” to their husbands compared to how many men “curse frequently” and are ungrateful to their wives). While Ali Sina carps at Mohammad for stating truth, Christianity, which Ali Sina tries to foist above Islam, views woman as good only to avoid fornication; as defiler of man; and devoid of witnessing ability; (see CHRISTIANITY-WOMEN).

  Mohammad did not “take away” any rights from women. As shown in this presentation Mohammad “gave” rights to women.
   That men and women have mental, moral and spiritual equality are cemented in these verses:

“And whoever does good deeds, whether male or FEMALE, and he (or she) is a believer –these will enter the Garden, and they will NOT be dealt with a whit unjustly”–Qur’an 4:124)
   “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allāh much and the women who remember­–Allāh has prepared for THEM FORGIVENESS AND A MIGHTY REWARD”–(Qur’an 33:35).

Any wonder then that even in the face of our adversity and suffering Muslims still laugh and smile: “And you hope from Allāh what they hope not”–(Qur’an 4:104).

That the witness of a woman is half that of a man’s see WOMAN’S TESTIMONY-HALF OF MAN’S).

Women Are Created For Men. Ali Sina: “The Quran says: “And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves, spouses, that you may repose in them.” 
The Arabic text makes it clear that “for you” is masculine, meaning the verse is addressing men and “them” is in feminine gender. (In fact Allah in the Quran never addresses women directly. He always speaks to the Prophet or the male believers. Women are always referred to in third person.) What this verse is conveying is that women are created FOR men and are for their enjoyment.” 

   Response: Allāh only addressed the Prophet directly in the Qur’an. Muslims/men and Believers –which consists of both men and women– are addressed through the Prophet).
   That “women are created FOR men and are for their enjoyment.” When the man enjoys the woman doesn’t the woman enjoy the man? The verse says Allāh created “spouses;” thus it could hardly be claimed that women is not addressed here. Clearly Allāh did not create a man to be a “spouse” of a man. 
   Muslim scholars can make whatever derogatory comment they like against women Allāh belies them when He tells us that He 
   -created man from a single soul and made woman from the same–(Qur’an 4:1; 7:189, this verse establishes that from the beginning women have equality with men); 
  -has put love and compassion between them–(30:21); 
  -has established marriages between men and women–(25:54; 16:72; 24:32); 
   -has enjoined honor unto women–(4:1); 
   -has made men and women garments to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and to cover each other’s faults; this alone shows that there is no indiscriminate beating of the wife–(2:187.   A Muslim is not even allowed to hate his wife much less beat her–(Muslim Vol. 2, #3469). 
  -has given women rights similar to those against her–(2:228); 
  -has made women and men protectors of one another–(9:71). 
  -has given women rights to inheritance, and full control over her earnings–(4:7, 11, 177; 4:32); 
  -has given women moral and spiritual equality with men–(3:194, 197; 24:30, 31, 55; 33:35; 49:13; 57:12, 18, 19);

    Woman is so highly enthroned in Islam that the Prophet Mohammad tells us that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers. And Allāh has listed honor to parents, especially to mothers, after worship of Him–(Qur’an 6:152; 17:23; 31:14).
   Muslims scholars who denigrate and subjugate Muslim women need to speak/write less and revisit Islam. They may be kindling their Hell-fire with their tongues and hands.

   It is Christianity, which Ali Sina seems to be promoting over Islam, that teaches “Women are created for Men” –an object of sex good only for avoiding “fornication”:

“he (man) is the IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD: but the WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN. For the man is NOT of the woman; but the WOMAN OF THE MAN”–(1 Cor. 11:7-8), and “Neither was the man created for the woman; BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN–(1 Cor. 11:9), “It is GOOD for a MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let everyman have his own wife”–(1 Cor 7:1-2).

Women Who Refuse Sex Will Be Cursed by Angels. Ali Sina notes three sayings of the Prophet to the effect:”If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” 
   And he (Ali Sina) states: “It is hard to determine why Muhammad was so concerned about this issue. Perhaps it helps to remember that he was an old man when his numerous wives were mostly teenagers or in their early twenties. His teeth must have been decaying and his mouth had a foul smell.  As I have shown in Understanding Muhammad, he emitted a foul smell that he tried to mask with abundance of perfume. He was also impotent.  It is natural to assume that his young wives were not that much desirous to share their bed with an old, smelly and impotent man like him.  Is it possible that Muhammad concocted these stories to intimidate his young wives not to reject his sexual advances, when he wanted to “fondle” them? Or do you think Allah is also a pimp?” 

   Response This is intelligent criticism? (That Mohammad’s teeth “MUST HAVE” been decaying and his mouth had a “foul” smell thus it is natural to “ASSUME” that his young wives were not that much desirous to share their bed with him. Perhaps Mohammad “MUST HAVE” been so virile and vigorous that his young wives did not care that his teeth “MUST HAVE” been decaying and had a “foul” smell).
Even Mohammad’s practice and teaching on grooming is subject of ridicule. The Prophet taught that cleanliness is half of faith–(Muslim Vol. 1, #432); that one should bathe, clean teeth and use perfume if available–(Bokhari Vol, 2, #5, Muslim Vol. 2, #1841); to use hair oil and perfume–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #8); and that the best perfume is musk–(Abu Dawud Vol. 2, #3152).
   The Prophet not only perfumed he avoided onions and garlic because he conversed with Angels–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #814; Vol. 9, #458;  Muslim Vol. 1, #1146).
   Thus, the Prophet used perfume and avoided garlic not because he “MUST HAVE” “foul” smell but because he conversed with Angels. And he conversed with Angels until shortly before his death when the verse of the Qur’an was revealed: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion”–(Qur’an 5:3). As Muhammad Ali commented: “The very subject-matter of the verse shows that it must have been revealed towards the close of the Holy Prophet’s life, and hence it is held by all authorities that no precept was revealed after this. The Prophet died eighty-one or eighty-two days after its revelation (Rz).”

Interestingly, whereas Ali Sina opines that Mohammad was “impotent,” Ibn Warraq states in his book Why I am not a Muslim p.307:  “Muhammad himself had a particularly active sex life, which for many Christian historians was but licentious self-indulgence.” And considering that Mohammad’s many marriages occur between the ages of 54-60, for Mohammad to have a “particularly active sex life Mohammad’s “impotence” “MUST HAVE” been very vigorous and virile. These critics of Mohammad need to have a pow-wow and decide on a unanimous strategy on how to denigrate Mohammad.
   That Christian historians viewed Mohammad’s sex life as “licentious self-indulgence.” These Christians not only need to read their Bible about “licentious self-indulgence” they are to wail and gnash their teeth over the lie, falsehood and blasphemy they follow. See the many topics on Christianity and Jesus. For a comment on Ibn Warraq’s book see Why I am not a Muslim-Ibn Warraq).

   How do you know Mohammad was “impotent?” Because he was in his sixties? Abraham was 86 and 100 when he fathered Ishmael and Isaac, respectively–(Genesis 16:16; 21:5 and Adam fathered children when he was 130 years and older–(Genesis 4:25; 5:1-5).  
   Mohammad died at the age of sixty-two. He fathered his son, Ibrahim, with his wife, Mariyah/Mary, the Coptic, when he was past sixty years: “When Mariyah gave birth to Ibrahim, the event brought to Muhammad, a man past sixty years of age, great joy…”–(M. Husayn Haykal. The Life of Muhammad, p. 433). Thus, unless it struck him overnight, Mohammad was not impotent. In fact, Mohammad may have been more potent in his 60’s than Ali Sina was/is in his 20’s.

   That “Is it possible that Muhammad concocted these stories (as angels cursing women for withholding sex from their husbands)  to intimidate his young wives not to reject his sexual advances, when he wanted to “fondle” them? Or do you think Allah is also a pimp?”

   Response: Marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant between a man and woman. Each has duties, rights and obligations. Carnal relations is perhaps the paramount physical purpose of marriage. Unless she is of ill-health or other consideration, why would the wife deny or refuse the husband his intimate pleasure?  How would you respond if your wife, without just cause, refuse or restrict you?

   Ali Sina continued: “According to the Prophet of Allah, a man’s sexual urges are such an emergency that his wife must leave her food burn in the oven rather than leave him alone in bed with an erection. The prophet of Allah said: When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, let her come to him though she is occupied at the oven.” “Imagine kids coming home:
–   Mom, we are home and hungry.
–  Oh, I am sorry, but the dinner is burnt.
–  Ah agaaaaain?
–  Yes my dear. Daddy had an emergency, which mommy had to attend to.
–  But Mom, you said the same also yesterday.
–  I know my sweet heart. Daddy lately spends a lot of time on the Internet.”

    Response: (If “mommy” knows daddy has a regular time when daddy desires her mommy should smarten up and make dinner early; or turn off the oven so dinner won’t burn. Some may say “mommy” is fortunate that after spending “lots of time on the Internet” “daddy” goes to “mommy” and not take up with some dame on chat line). Never heard the saying “dinner can wait; hormones can’t”? And since woman has rights as that against her–(Qur’an 2:228), then when a woman calls her husband to satisfy her desire, let him come to her though he is occupied at the barn. (Give the “kids” a Joe Louis and send them to watch uncle Chuck Barris and the Gong Show till dinner is ready).

Women are Pudenda?!! Ali Sina: “As if all these derogatory remarks about women were not enough, Muhammad even compared them to pudenda. What is ‘awrat? .The Encyclopedia of Islam defines ‘awrat as pudendum, that is “the external genitals, especially of the female. [Latin pudendum (literally) a thing to be ashamed of]”

   Response: Allāh God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) created this part –the pudenda– of the woman; and man have pleasure on this part and came into existence through this part (in fact even God as Christians say Jesus is God, even the Christians God came through this part). Thus, only “Latin” and the man of gross ignorance and/or arrogance would consider this part “a thing to be ashamed of.”

   (Ali Sina): “According to the following Hadith, women not only have ten ‘awrat, but the woman herself is perceived as ‘awrah: “The woman is ‘awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her.”

   Response: Webster define pudendum as “the external genital organs of a human being and esp. of a woman.” 
   (Unless it is applicable to women that Ali Sina knows) it is preposterous to claim that the Prophet says that women have ten “external genital organs.”
Aurat/aurah means private part(s). Islam considers the entire woman’s body as private. Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to paradise. These are nothing to be “ashamed” of.  
   As noted above it is Christianity that views woman as a “pudenda” –an object of sex good only for avoiding “fornication”: “It is GOOD for a MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let everyman have his own wife”–(1 Cor 7:1-2).
   That “When she (woman) goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her.” Isn’t it the fact that a hedonist welcomes the sight of an attractive woman and tries to seduce her? 

   Ali Sina: “Women are discouraged from going outside the house, even to pray in the mosque. “A woman is closest to God’s face, if she is found in the core of her house. And the prayer of the woman in the house is better than her prayer in the mosque.”
This is a far cry from the time when Arabs respected women, listened to their advices and followed them as leaders and prophetesses. Gradually, as the new generations were indoctrinated with the teachings of the new revelation they became scornful of women and eventually Muslim women lost their rights in the society, along with their dignity.”

   Response:  The operative word is “BETTER” -it is better for her to pray at home, NOT that she is forbidden to go to the Masjid. While Islam does not forbid a woman from going to the Masjid to pray, if Allāh and/or His Prophet gave her a higher reward to pray in her house –and saving her time and effort of travel– how is this a “discouragement” or detriment?  If your employer gives you higher pay for less work or the same work wouldn’t you accept it; or would you balk and say it is a “discouragement” from doing more work?  It is doubtful that a person who is given the option to work from home and e-mail his/her assignment to the office would consider this a loss of “dignity” rather than an advantage and a gain on time.   
   Whereas Muslims may be guilty of dis-“respect” of their women, as shown further on Women took part in all kinds of societal work, and have rights alongside man from birth all the way to Jannah/Paradise. (See Islam-women).

Women Have Less Legal Rights. Ali Sina: “The “deficiency of women” in intelligence affects their legal rights as well. And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witness as you approve of, that if one woman errs the other will remind her.” (See Woman’s inheritance-half of man’s).

 Women Inherit Less. Ali Sina: “Muslim apologists claim that prior to Islam women had no rights at all and received no inheritance. This is not so. Khadija received her wealth through inheritance. When Muhammad decided that women should receive half of the inheritance of what their blood brothers receive, women did not celebrate with joy. 
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females. 
As a matter of fact many, including one of his own wives complained that this arrangement is unfair to women. 
Umme Salmah (RA) said: “O Messenger of Allâh! The men wage Jihad [can collect booty] whereas we (women) do not and we receive half the inheritance.” (i.e. blood-brothers receive double the share of blood sisters). Thereafter the verse “And do not covet…..” was revealed.” 
 And in no wise covet those things in which Allah Hath bestowed His gifts More freely on some of you than on others: To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn. 
If they complained, it is clear that their rights had been taken away from them. This suffices as proof that women prior to Islam had more rights to inheritance than what Muhammad allotted to them.”

   Response. This suffices crud! As shown in preceding pages Islam liberated woman and gave her rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Jannah. That women inherit less than men see Woman’s Inheritance-half of man’s.

   That “Umme Salmah (RA) said: “O Messenger of Allâh! The men wage Jihad [can collect booty] whereas we (women) do not and we receive half the inheritance.” (i.e. blood-brothers receive double the share of blood sisters).”
   Response: Woman, regardless if she has a mountain of money or not or have more than the man, is “maintained” by man; she  does not have to fight and risk her life and be maimed or disfigured or killed; have full and total control of her earnings, and even receive half inheritance; and yet she complains? Is this sound intelligence? (Notably, when Allāh offered the wives of the Prophet a choice between the ephemeral and affluence in lieu of eternity and simplicity they had the wisdom to choose the latter–Qur’an 33:28-29).

Muhammad’s Opinion of Women. Ali Sina: “The Prophet of Allah had such a low regard for women that he compared them to tilth or farmland and said you can enter your tilth from wherever you like (ana she’tom). 
Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…

   Response: It is perhaps helpful to know that this verse was revealed to dispel a Jewish superstition. Jews used to believe that if a man had sexual intercourse with his wife from the posterior position and had a child born from that union the child would be squint-eyed:

“Jews used to say: “If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.” So this verse was revealed: “Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when and how you will”–Bokhari Vol. 6 #51. Thus, this verse is not about anal sex as some wrongly believe –children are not born from anal sex.
This shows that a man may have marital relations whenever he wills and however [position] he wills; that are also agreeable to his wife; as women have rights as those against her, and as Allāh has put love and compassion and mercy between them, and as she is a source of peace and comfort. And it is not love and compassion and mercy and comfort to force one’s self onto the wife abuse her, cause her distress or place her under duress. See Islam-women).
Muhammad Ali comments on this verse, Qur’an 2:223: “The comparison of the woman to the tilth is simply to show that it is she who brings up the children and through whom is made the character of the man, and to show that the real object of conjugal relations is not simply the satisfaction of carnal desires.”

   Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines tilth as “cultivation of the soil,” “cultivated land.” Have you ever seen a farmer prepare his soil/land for cultivation? He cleans it of debris, tills it, fertilizes it, even drops to his knees taking the soil and feeling it caressingly, waters it then seeds it. Thus a Muslim wife is to be nurtured with gentleness and affection.    

   Ali Sina: “The Prophet said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.”
   Response:  (It may be argued that since man and woman are the only humans then obviously the Prophet’s statement is indisputable). While, doubtlessly, men have betrayed women. The biggest names in betrayal seem to be women: Lot’s two daughters betrayed their father into giving them “seed”–(Gen. 19:30-38); Tamar betrayed her father-in-law, Judah, by disguising as a “harlot” to commit adultery with her–(Gen. 38:11-18); Delilah betrayed Samson, selling him out to the Philistines for “pieces of silver”–(Judges 16:5-21); Bathsheba betrayed her husband, Uriah, bedding down with David, Jesus’ grandfather–(2 Samuel 11:2-5); and Mata Hari is said to have betrayed France to Germany. (Notably, Judas was no “betrayer” of Christ. According to the Gospels Judas was fulfilling scriptures. Fulfilling scriptures is not “betrayal;” it is honor).

   While the Prophet may have said this (and this could be one of the many forgeries in his name) he is also reported as saying that a virtuous wife is the most valuable asset and that paradise lies at the feet of mothers. 
   However, whereas Ali Sina tries to denigrate the Prophet for this saying, this “affliction” dates back to creation and is elucidated by Christians. The Bible says that after the “serpent beguiled” Eve into eating from the forbidden tree and she fed it to Adam, because of their transgression God said to them:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life…In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground”–(Genesis 3:16-19).    

   So right from the beginning the woman was an “affliction” to man. She brought/caused distress to him. If he had not “listened” to her they would probably still be lazing in the “Garden of Eden” enjoying its fruits.
   In consonance with this teaching of the Bible, St.(?) Paul states: “Adam was NOT deceived BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION”–(1Tim. 2:14). And Christian Fathers confirm that “woman” is the “gate-way” to evil:

““Do you know,” says Tertullian, when addressing Women, “that you are each Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt, of necessity, must live too. You are the devil’s gate-way; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the Divine Law; you destroyed as easily God’s image.”… She is “the organ of the devil,” “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” “the poisonous asp,” “the malice of the dragon.” These are some of the blessings that Woman received from persons of exalted position in the Church, such as St. Bernard, St. Anthony, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, and St. Paul.”³      

   That woman is an “affliction” till the end of Time is enshrined in the Bible (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus decreed for woman): “Behold, everyone that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee (Jerusalem), saying, As is the mother, SO IS HER DAUGHTER”–(Ezekiel 16:44). Thus, as Eve/ woman was/is the “transgressor” then her every daughter born till the Resurrection will also be a transgressor –a betrayer and distress or an “affliction” to man. (See Christianity-women). 
   Why then crab at Mohammad about that which manifested at the beginning of creation, is enshrined in the Bible, and enunciated by Builders of the Church who precede Mohammad by hundreds of years?

   Ali Sina: “In another place he (Mohammad) compares women to a crooked rib. Woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone you would benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her.”

   Response: This saying of the Prophet is not a derogatory statement. What is meant is that women who are comfortable or accustomed to doing things one way should not be forced to adopt another method –such forcing is likely to result in contention.Or, that, as he also said,  and which would seem to be an explanation of the former saying, that if one is displeased with one trait of his wife, he should be pleased with another that is good (rather than try to change her and risk having a dispute)–(Muslim Vol. 2, #3469). Rather than being derogatory, this saying of the Prophet is sage advice.

   Ali Sina: “In another hadith he said: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.”

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

Women on Top. Ali Sina: “Prior to Islam, in non-Arab countries, such as in Persia and Byzantine, women had more rights than in Arab countries. In fact in Iran women could become Queens and monarchs. What did Muhammad think of that?  When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

    Response: Has anyone researched history to prove or disprove this? It seems obvious that this remark could not apply to the Woman of Islam; considering that the Qur’an is our Constitution, and a Muslim leader is required to govern according to the Qur’an, and that the Qur’an gives success: “O man, We have not revealed the Qur’an to thee that thou mayest be unsuccessful”–(Qur’an 20:1-2). Thus, as the Qur’an gives success it would not matter who is ruler.
   As already pointed out pre-Islamic women did not have more rights before Islam. 
   Whatever the reason for this saying of the Prophet it cannot be misogynistic. Considering that Islam teaches honoring the womb that bore us–(Qur’an 4:1); woman has rights as those against her –(Qur’an 2:228); men an d women are garments to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and conceal faults–(Qur’an 2:187); men and women are friends and protectors of the other–(Qur’an 9:71); Paradise lies at the feet of mothers, a mother has three degrees of excellence over a father–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2); and the Prophet also extolled the educating even of slave-girls–(Bukhari Vol.; 3 # 720).

   Islam does not “explicitly forbids” any profession to women.      Muhammad Ali points out in his The Religion of Islam, (pp. 628-629) that “woman took interest in all the national activities of the Muslim community”–joining “in congregational prayers”– (Bukhari 10:162, 164); joining “the soldiers in the field of battle, to perform a large number of duties, such as the carrying of provisions,” “taking care of the sick and the wounded,” “removing the wounded and the slain from the battlefield,” “or taking part in actual fighting when necessary.” “Women also helped their husbands in the labour of the field,” “served the male guests at a feast,” and “carried on business,” “they could sell to and purchase from men, and men could sell to and purchase from them.” “A woman was appointed by the Caliph ‘Umar as superintendent of the market of Madinah.” (Bukhari, 56:66, 67, 68; 56:62, 63, 65; F.B. III, p. 228; Bukhari, 67:108, 78; 11:40; 34:67, respectively). 
   “A woman is also spoken of as acting as an Imam, while men followed her, though it was in her own house”–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1, #592. The Religion of Islam, p.385).

   The Prophet’s wife, ‘Aisha, who probably knew the Qur’an more than any other, lead the funeral prayer–(Muslim Vol. 2, #  2124-2125). And she lead an army against the assassins of the Caliph ‘Uthman, as noted by Muhammad Ali in his The Early Caliphate. Also, regarding ‘Aisha’s opposition to ‘Ali and leading this army, Muhammad Ali notes that if “she had any design on the Caliphate…” It could not be suggested that ‘Aisha “had any design” –i.e. any intention on being ruler– on the Caliphate if woman was excluded from being “head of state.” (p. 182). (‘Aisha leading this army highlights two other freedom that Islam confers upon woman (1) she can be commander of the armed forces, (2) if she can ride a camel/horse, she can drive an automobile).

   Perhaps the above positions held by women may be claimed to be exceptions, but it does highlight that all professions were open to the Woman of Islam. The reason why some positions such as head of state, leader of the armed forces, imam and judge are not delegated to women can be explained. 
   Unlike other subordinate positions, leadership is a full time responsibility to the community. If Woman is exempt from these positions (at least in her child-bearing years), it is not because Allāh God or Islam discriminates against her on account of her sex; it is only because of her nature. For it is Woman who experiences menstruation, which is a time of ceremonial impurity and perhaps of pain; pregnancy and its discomforts and restrictions; childbirth and post-natal care; and caring for the child; all of which would leave her absent for these vital services to society. Perhaps it is for the above reasons also that Woman is not appointed the role of prophethood, though Allāh did give revelation to Moses’ mother–(Qur’an 20:38-39; 28:7).

   It is Judaism and Christianity that bar women from leadership position (see Christianity-women).

Female Infanticide. Ali Sina: “One argument that Muslim apologists bring up as proof that Muhammad liberated women is the Quran’s injunction of not burying female infants alive.  They want you to believe this odious act was a common practice of the Arabs that was stopped only after Islam. However, this myth can be dismissed with a simple logic. If this practice was so common, how could Arabs afford to have several wives and how did their race survive at all?”

   Response: Don’t some people today practice infanticide –have amniocentesis and abort daughters, or even kill them after birth? Does this mean that every daughter was killed?
   The Arabs preferred sons because sons became warriors and brought in booty. However, it would be foolish to cerebrate that all Arabs buried their daughters or that every daughter was buried. If Islam/Mohammad saved one daughter from infanticide it is enough. (Did pre-Islamic Arabs practiced polygamy so that they had “several wives”?)

   Ali Sina: “Women in Islam lost a great deal, including the right to travel alone.”
   Response:  As shown, women in Islam have lost no “deal” but rather gained mega “deals” from the cradle to Jannah. 
   That Muslim women lost the “right to travel alone.” The Muslim woman’s movement is restricted only to the degree of her personal safety. When we hear about women in modern “free” society –Britain, Germany, Canada, the U.S., and also in India– having to band together in “marches” to take back their neighborhood from rapist(s) and girls being preyed upon, one can greatly appreciate the wisdom of Islam that women not travel about (in certain unfamiliar areas) unescorted, by a male companion of her immediate family.

Even the Canadian government recognizes the danger to women traveling alone. The Toronto Star, Tuesday, February 28, 2012, p. A 10, carried the article by Richard J. Brennan, “National Affairs Writer,” titled: “Don’t forget to pack a fake husband, federal guide tells    female travellers” which states that “Foreign Affairs Canada” encourages single women traveling by themselves abroad to wear a “fake wedding ring” and carry a picture of an “imaginary” husband (married women are to carry a picture of their husband) to ward off unwanted male attention. The travel guide is said to note that “women face greater obstacles (than men) when travelling alone””And the Toronto Star Saturday, November 3, 2012 in the article Top 10 safety tips for women travellers by Evelyn Hannon, notes the vulnerability of women traveling alone.
   Even in local schools (and colleges) girls are molested, and perhaps raped and forced to perform oral sex on boys. (This difficulty can be eliminated in a well-secured all-female school).

   Muslim women can go out by themselves to take care of their needs:  “O women! You have been allowed by Allah to go out for your needs”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 164).  She can go to the cemetery–(Bokhari Vol. 2, #’s 368, 372; Abu Dawud Vol. 2, # 3161). There is no teaching against her offering the funeral prayer.

   Significantly, the above statement by the Prophet that women are permitted to go out for their needs. What is to be considered is the background to which this statement was made. At the time of the Prophet’s marriage to Saudah –when this permission was given, before the Hijrah (the Prophets migration from Makkah to Madinah)– Islam was still besieged by the enemy; and thus, not safe for Muslim women, who were subjected to annoyance by the enemy, to be traveling alone. While this permission may still have had some restrictions, after the triumph of Islam (and in places of peace and security) this restriction would seem to be lifted. For women to obtain an education is definitely a “need.”
   While there is probably no environment that is completely safe for a woman (or man), Islam has given severe punishment for violating a woman; which crime may fall under ‘mischief in the land’ and carries up to the maximum penalty of death–(ref; Qur’an 5:33). 

God and Daughters? Indeed a Division Most Unfair!  Ali Sina: “Muhammad had such a low esteem of women that he thought it is not befitting for God to have daughters when ordinary man can boast having sons. In verse 53:19-22, after dismissing the claim that God has any daughters as the Quraish used to think, he says appallingly: WHAT!… For you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!”
   Suppose God had only daughters and no sons: Would it really be an unfair division? Should God be embarrassed for not having sons?  Ironically the fate played a joke on Muhammad, whose sons all died at infancy and he was left with only daughters.  One can only imagine how much embarrassment he must have felt for not having sons.  A man with such sense of inferiority and such a colossal ego had nothing but daughters, which he thought was “a division most unfair”.  
(Note that the verse refers to God in third person pronoun. This is not an error in translation. The Arabic word is lahoo, which means “for him”. Muhammad often forgot that the Quran is supposed to be the word of God and should be written in first person pronoun.)
The fact that Arabs worshipped goddesses is proof that they respected women enough to attribute them the roles of deities.  According to Muhammad, all denizens of the celestial assembly, including angles are male. The only female inhabitants of paradise are the houris who are celestial whores, created for the enjoyment of men.  In fact few women are allowed in Paradise  Muhammad said, most of them will end up in hell.”

   Response: That “Muhammad often forgot that the Quran is supposed to be the word of God and should be written in first person pronoun.”  See Why I am not a Muslim, item #81, Two speakers in the Qur’an).
   That “few women are allowed in Paradise Muhammad said, most of them will end up in hell.” We will have to wait till Judgment Day to know if most women will end up in Hell as Mohammad says, won’t we?  
   That “Muhammad had such a low esteem of women” is balderdash! (As you say Mohammad wrote the Qur’an), Mohammad saved daughters from being buried alive; he gave woman rights as those against her; made womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood the gateway to Paradise; liberated her from being inherited by her husband’s heir, and from being denied her conjugal rights; he made her a garment to man as he is a garment to her; and made her friend and protector of man; and gives equality with man in moral and spiritual matters all the way to Jannah. And what might be said to be the ultimate service to woman, the Prophet exhorts that the man who treats his daughters equally will inherit Paradise: “If anyone has a female child, and does not bury her alive, or slight her, or prefer his children (i.e. the male ones) to her, Allāh will bring him into Paradise”–(Abu Dawud Vol. 3, #5127).     

   Arabs “worshipped goddesses” not because they honored women but because they “called the angels daughters of Allāh” through whom they expected to gain intercession: “And how many angels are in the heavens, whose intercession avails naught except after Allåh gives permission to whom He pleases and chooses. Surely those who believe not in the Hereafter name the angels with female names”–Qur’an 53:26-27) (See Qur’an-Satanic verses).
   Christians also depict angels as feminine, though they regard woman as “transgressor” and “defiler” of man, etc; see Christianity-women). Perhaps the Arabs got the idea that angels were feminine from the Christians. Had the Arabs “worshipped” women (from whom “goddesses” come) they would not have buried daughters alive.  (See next topic).

   That Allāh says “For you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!”
   Response:  The Arabs regarded daughters as inferior; yet they ascribe daughters, whom they considered inferior, to Allāh the Creator: “And they ascribe daughters to Allāh. Glory be to Him! And for themselves is what they desire! And when the birth of a daughter is announced to one of them, his face becomes black and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people because of the evil of what is announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in the dust….And they ascribe to Allāh what they (themselves) hate, and their tongues relate the lie that for them is good”–(Qur’an 16:57-59, 62).  
   It is not only  “a division most unfair” to attribute daughters (or sons) to Allāh God, it is stupid. Fatherhood requires the joining of sperm and ovum and as Allāh God has no consort He cannot have daughter or son. (See Muhammad Ali’s comm. to the above verses, his translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org)

   Regarding Ali Sina’s: “Ironically the fate played a joke on Muhammad, whose sons all died at infancy and he was left with only daughters. One can only imagine how much embarrassment he must have felt for not having sons.  A man with such sense of inferiority and such a colossal ego had nothing but daughters, which he thought was “a division most unfair”.  

   Response: (So now Mohammad is ridiculed because his sons died in infancy). As shown above, it is not Mohammad who thought “daughters” were “inferior,” it was the Arabs –some viewed daughters so inferior they buried these daughters alive. As shown elsewhere in this presentation Allāh/Islam/ Mohammad requires not only honor to women but teaches that Paradise lies at the feet of mothers, the educating even of slave girls, and that a mother has three degrees of excellence over a father (doctrines not taught by any other religion/scripture). 

More Disparaging Remarks about Women. Ali Sina: “In one hadith Muhammad equates women to dog and ass and says: [A man’s] prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog.” (Muslim Vol. 1, #1032).

   Response If any of these three objects pass in the space between the worshipper and where his prostration will fall (which is a mere thirty inches gap) the worshipper would be distracted or temporarily interrupted as this is the area where his vision is. 
   It seems clear that this hadith is referring to prayer offered outside a Masjid or building. Probably by a Muslim at work in an open area or a traveler.  
   The hadith specifies a “black” dog, and as shown in APPENDIX the black dog was a ferocious breed which might attack people. As for the ass, it may be because it is prone to defecate and urinate or flicking its tail or because of its size. Regarding the woman, since a Muslim woman would be conservatively attired and knows that it is not permitted to pass in the space where the worshipper’s prostration will fall, it is clear that the “woman” in this hadith refers to a non-Muslim and who might be lightly clad (as perhaps the non-Muslim women of that time were), causing him to have carnal thoughts.. (Notably, the Prophet prayed while his wife slept in his prayer area, as ‘Aisha pointed out in rebuke to those who tried to denigrate woman over this saying of the Prophet–Muslim Vol. 1, #1035-1042).
   (Apart from ‘Aisha’s testimony). Foregoing materials on the lofty status of woman in Islam –such as that she was created from the same essence as man, is to be honored; has rights as those against her; is a garment to man as he is to her– highlight the sheer lunacy of the charge that the Prophet “equates women to dog and ass.”

   Ali Sina: “In another place he interpreted a dream that he had of a black woman to an “epidemic”. (Bokhari Vol. 9, # 161-163).  
   Response: Bear in mind this is a “DREAM.” So what that a black woman is “interpreted” as an “epidemic”? 
   The Prophet interpreted milk to mean “knowledge”–(Bokhari Vol. 9, # 134); and a flowing spring as reward for “good deeds”–Ibid; #145). For more on dreams see Bokhari Vol. 9, chapter 87).  And the prophet Joseph interpreted his dream of eleven stars and the sun and moon to mean his brothers and father–(Ibid; # 119 ch. 6; Qur’an 12:4-6, 100-101); that one man “pressing wine” and birds eating bread from one’s head to mean serving wine to his lord and being crucified, respectively–(Qur’an 12:36, 41); and that seven lean cows swallowing seven fat ones meant seven years of famine–(Qur’an 12:43-49).   

A Good Wife.  Ali Sina: “Man’s only duty to his wife is to maintain her. He has to provide for her food, shelter and clothing, i.e. meet her physical needs, much like one has to take care of his livestock.  Her emotional, psychological and sexual needs should not be of his concern.  As far as Islam is concerned those needs simply do not exist because women are not really fully humans.”

   Response: What utter rubbish! Are the non-Muslim wives who receive only half the living expenses from their husbands considered the man’s “livestock”? If you think so go tell these women.
   Islam regards woman as “fully humans” from her very creation; seeing that she and man were created from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1); she has rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228); she has rights to earn, inherit, and sole control over her earning–(Qur’an 4:32;  7, 177  4); and she has moral and spiritual equality with man–(Qur’an 33:35). (Show which other religion/scripture has given woman such lofty positions. In fact whereas Islam liberated Woman nearly fifteen hundred years ago and gave her rights alongside man from birth all the way to Jannah, 1920’s Canadian Woman was yet struggling to be recognized as a “person,” and 1960’s American Woman was burning her brassiere for equality with her “male chauvinist pig”).  
   Further, since husbands and wives are garments to the other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and conceal fault(s)– are friends and protectors of the other; and are instilled with love and compassion, and men are maintainers of women (and to maintain means to keep well to one’s means in all facets of life), Ali Sina’s  charge the Muslim wife’s “emotional, psychological and sexual needs should not be of” her husband’s “concern” is patent ignorance or arrogance. Or both. (While a woman who has income should not expect her husband to also provide her with non-essentials such as cosmetics; if the husband’s income is way higher than his wife’s, only the miserly husband would not make gifts to his wife).

    (As before we have injected our response between Ali Sina’s charges). Ali Sina: “Muhammad, not only had a score of women in his harem when he was an old impotent man, he even prohibited his young wives to remarry after his death.  This man was so possessive that could not bear the thought of another man touching his wives even after his death.” (Response:As noted elsewhere Mohammad fathered a son when he was past sixty years, thus Mohammad was not “impotent.” Mohammad is the moral, social, spiritual, and intellectual leader of Muslims and is closer to Muslims than we are to ourselves and be she old or young Mohammad’s wives are the “Mothers” of Muslims–(Qur’an 33:6). It is doubtful a man would marry his “godmother” mush less his spiritual mother).

   “He sanctioned polygyny and allowed men to marry four wives (Q 4:3)) and as many slave girls as they please. Some scholars believe that this verse does not limit the number of wives but rather the verse should be understood as a man can marry any number of wives, two, three, four, etc.”  (Response: While Islam strives to prevent the moral decay of society by allowing multiple wives, polygamy in Islam is not the rule but the exception. See Islam-polygamy).  

   “Therefore men are allowed to lust after other women when they are married but: The virtuous wife, [is one who] if her husband bids her, she obeys him; if he looks at her, she pleases him; if he gives her an oath; she fulfils it, and if he is absent from her, she guards herself and his property.[35] Isn’t this how one would describe a good dog?” (Response: Men are not allowed to lust after other women. Allāh exhorts to us to lower our gaze and control sexual passion–(Qur’an 24:30-31; 33:35). And as woman has rights as those against her husband is also to be pleasing and virtuous. Allāh requires both to keep their duty to Him and to each other). 

   “Now let us see what other virtues a good woman must have: The best women are those who have the prettiest faces and the cheapest dowry.” (Response: As the saying the goes, ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.’ Thus, the prettiest face would be the face that the man admires most. The woman with the ‘cheapest dowry’ means the woman of simplicity. If twin sisters should appeal equally to a man, unless he is shake stupid or Rockefeller rich it is doubtful that he would choose the extravagant sister (requiring mountain-size dowry) instead of the conservative sister (requiring mole-hill size dowry). A Muslim marriage is based on faith, then love, physical attraction and compatibility. It is doubtful that a marriage welded along these lines would easily rupture). 

   “The good wife is out of this world because she helps free you to concentrate on the life to come. She does that by doing her house duties (instead of the husband having to do them), and by satisfying the husband sexually so protecting him from sexual temptation.” (Response: Whether Muslim or non-Muslim doesn’t every devoted husband expect such from his wife?  Islam does not require a man to spend all his time to “concentrate on the life to come.” A Muslim is required to have time for God, his family, his society, and himself. The wife does the house work because the man is out earning to maintain the family. In the case of the Prophet Mohammad, he not only helped his wives with the house work, mend, and cobbled his own shoes, he also helped manually in building a community.
    Mohammad was Statesman, Administrator, Imam, Preacher, General, warrior. How many men of Mohammad’s status help his wife in “doing her house duties”? Mohammad did more than “concentrate on the life to come.” Mohammad brought the world to our feet –which was evident after a mere hundred years after his death when Muslims followed his instructions and became rulers of the world– and eternity to arms. Notably, this throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend (see Islam-Muslims’ destiny; Islam-sectism).

   “When a prophet is so contemptuous of women, so disdainful of their faith, so derisive of their intelligence, so abusive of their rights and so condescending of their status, can we expect more from his followers?  Muslim women will never be free, as long as they look up at Muhammad as their spiritual guide.  If they do not want to believe me, they must believe their own messenger who said:  Allah’s Apostle said, “Many amongst men reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asia, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran.” (Response: This refers to spiritual perfection. Mary was so highly devoted to God she was chosen among all women to give birth to the Messiah. Asia, the wife of Pharaoh, had such faith in God that she defied the most powerful man in whose hands her life was wrapped and embraced God–(Qur’an 3:41-42; 66:11). So which other women can you show that have reached this level of spiritual perfection? And explain how this statement by the Prophet is misogynistic.

   As shown in preceding pages the charge that Mohammad was “so contemptuous of women, so disdainful of their faith, so derisive of their intelligence, so abusive of their rights and so condescending of their status” is uber-hogwash. Mohammad not only liberated Woman from the bog of degradation in which Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism had her mired and gave her rights all the way into Heavenly grandeur, Mohammad esteemed womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. Notably, Judaism and Christianity may not be applying the laws of the Bible but their Scripture/God demands it and heaven lies in following Scripture/God)

Conclusion: Ali Sina concludes that “we have enough evidence to convict Muhammad of misogyny, abuse of women’s rights and denigrating half of humanity. [39] Because of this travesty (misogyny) Muslim women were abused and were not allowed to flourish to the full extent of their potential. They became subject to humiliation, discrimination, rape, honor killing, and all sorts of physical, emotional and sexual abuses without being able to fight back for their rights. As a result, the entire Muslim world languished and lagged behind, as half of its population was barred from emancipation and could not participate and contribute to the society. Women were denied education as it was deemed to be unnecessary.” (Blah! Blah! Blah!) 

   Response:  That Mohammad is “convicted” of such charges is, as shown in preceding pages, utter twaddle! And “Muslims are oppressed and humiliated and suffer economic and….stagnation not because of the teachings of Islam; but because of our neglect of the teachings of Islam. (See Islam-sectism among Muslims).  Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out

“There is one thing that is remarkable in the history of material science in relation to Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, as long as religion kept its hold on its adherents, Europe made no progress in any way, but when the Western mind became emancipated from canonical rule and Church thralldom, civilization came in leaps and bounds in every form. On the other hand, Islam, at its very advent, gave a tremendous impetus to science and culture. In its various departments, modern civilization owes its salient factors to Islam, but unfortunately, in modern days –notably in the last two centuries– our mundane prosperity and success began to prove too intoxicating to keep our steps sober and steady; we ceased from treading in the footprints of our ancestors, and turned our backs on Muslim principles of life.”
“The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think independently for themselves on Islamic lines.”⁴   

   The venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.”⁵ 
   Islam has declared war on ignorance. The Prophet Mohammad declared through Divine Revelation: “Allah has made subservient to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth”–(Qur’an 31:20; 45:13). One could not make subservient “whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth” without knowledge.
   The Prophet Mohammad charged Muslims to ‘seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave,’ to go to China if need be–(Baihaqi) Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p. 361, #111 W); and that ‘the superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is like the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars’–(Abu Dawud Vol. 3, p.1034, # 3634).   
   Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate that ‘Umar, “When as a Caliph he made education compulsory in Arabia, it was made so for both boys and girls”–(p. 120).  And the Prophet advised the educating even of slave-girls–(Bokhari Vol.; 3 #720. Vol 4 #655. The noble Messenger of Allāh did not consign woman into solitary confinement). 
   It is to be noted. While knowledge may be grouped into two classes –material knowledge which provides nutrients for the body, and religious or spiritual knowledge which provides nutrients for the soul– in Islam there is no such concept as “secular” knowledge: all knowledge is from Allah God: “Read in the name of thy Lord who creates…Who taught by the pen, Taught man what he knew not;” “I, Allāh, am the Seer. A Book which We have revealed to thee that thou mayest bring forth men, by their Lord’s permission, from darkness into light, to the way of the Mighty, the Praised One”–(Qur’an 96:1-5; 14:1). As stated, this throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend.

6. Mohammad a lecher: Ali Sina states: “ I accuse Muhammad of lewdness, impropriety, indecency, lustfulness and promiscuity and as such consider him unfit for the station and rank that he claimed for himself.  Far from being “the best of the creation”, Muhammad was lewd- a pervert.”    

   Response: If Mohammad was a “lecher” and guilty of “lewd-ness, impropriety, indecency, lustfulness and promiscuity” and wrote the Qur’an it is incredible that he would have had only thirteen wives (or nineteen or more depending on which writer you fancy) or prohibit himself from taking more wives (especially nubiles which old men relish): “It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this”–(Qur’an 33:52. Please see Muhammad Ali’s comm. www. muslim.org).

Mariyah The Coptic Sex Slave of the Prophet.  Mary was not a “Sex Slave” of Mohammad. Mariyah or Mary the Coptic was a gift to the Prophet Mohammad from the ruler of Egypt. As noted, Muhammad Husayn Haykal states in his book The Life of Muhammad: “The Coptic Archbishop of Egypt…accorded to Muhammad’s messenger a good reception and sent with him a gift to the Prophet consisting of two slave girls…The two slave girls were Mariyah, whom Muhammad took in marriage and who gave birth to Ibrahim, and Sirin, who was given in marriage to Hassan ibn Thabit.” (p. 376).  
Unlike captives of war who were Divinely decreed in the Bible to be mates of their captors, that Mohammad did not marry all his “wives” is nonsense. Allāh admonishes us to not even commit acts –such as amoral speech and touching– that lead to zina (adultery and fornication), that such a deed is obscene and leads to evil–(Qur’an 17:32), and that the punishment for zina is a hundred lashes and even Hell–(Qur’an 24:2; 25:68-69). It is doubtful that Mohammad would not only contradict these injunctions (and subject himself to flogging and Hell) but in so doing would give his enemies fuel to burn his kingdom to the ground. 
   Regarding the so-called sex scandal involving Mariyah and Mohammad see Hafsa scandal).

7. Muhammad: A Cult Leader. Ali Sina wrote: “People generally are biased towards a belief system that has this many followers. They believe that the sheer size of Islam qualifies it as a religion. But is Islam really a religion?
Some say all religions start as a cult until, with the passage of time, they gradually gain acceptance and the status of religion. However, there are certain characteristics that distinguish cults from religions. Dr. Janja Lalich and Dr. Michael D. Langone have created a list that describes cults fairly well.[1][1] The more a group or a doctrine has these characteristics the more it follows that it should be defined and labeled as a cult.  The following is that list, which I have compared Islam to point by point.”  

(Response: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15^th Edition, defines “cult” as “a system of religious beliefs or practices, or formal religious veneration of a deity or saint.” Thus, while there is no veneration of saints in Islam, every religion that venerates a “deity”/God is a “cult.”)  We will now examine Ali Sina’s experts.

Ali Sina i.  “The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.  
Muslims are extremely zealous about their faith and have an unquestioning commitment to their prophet, whose book, the Qur’an, for them is Truth and Law.”

  Response: Don’t all religionists “have an unquestioning commitment to their prophet, whose book” for them is Truth and Law”? Ask Christians and Jews and Hindus. Even secularists “have an unquestioning commitment to their” leaders and laws.  
   Muslims are “extremely zealous” (passionate) about our faith because we love our Creator, Allāh, and our Prophet, more than we love our own selves –surely He who gave us breath and sustenance, and he who brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms and will be our intercessor to Allāh’s Everlasting Grandeur are deserving of our “zealousness.” 
   That for Muslims the Qur’an “is Truth and Law.” Prove that the Qur’an is not “Truth.” There is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah, (See Islam-Shari’ah).

Ali Sina ii.   “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.  
Muslims are forbidden to question and doubt the basic tenets of their faith, and dissent is punishable by death.”   

   Response: This is bunkum! While Muslims are counseled to not ask frivolous questions –such as who made God– which no one could answer Muslims can ask questions on any matter that is edifying. The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that Learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning–(Abu Naeem, Mishkat Misabih, 1-361-112 W).
(Except Judaism’s teaching on the Unity of God), unlike other religions “the basic tenets of” Islam are conducive to reason thus there is no point to Muslims questioning them. There is no blind faith in Islam. Allāh calls man to wisdom, reason and arguments –Qur’an 16:125). The Qur’an is pregnant with exhortations to man to use his reasoning faculties. For blind faith Ali Sina needs to look to Christianity (which he is struggling to promote over Islam) whose cardinal doctrines –Trinity, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason. (See Christianity-lies, evil, hate). 
   That “dissent is punishable by death.” Islam does NOT decree death for dissent/apostasy It is Judaism and Christianity that require “death” for dissent/apostasy. (See Islam-apostasy).

Ali Sina iii. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).  
Five times during the day Muslims stop whatever they are doing and stand for a repetitive and ritualistic prayer and chant the Qur’an. In addition, for one whole month in the year they must fast and abstain from drinking or eating, from dawn to dusk, a practice that can be particularly taxing in summertime.”  

   Response:The military and perhaps other organizations have certain daily regular routines and recitals of prayers or codes of conduct/honor. Repetition and rituals help build character and discipline; ask the military officer or soldier. The Muslim’s five daily prayers are like the regimentation of employment –working eight hours a day five days a week, fifty weeks a year for some fifty years of life. Muslims pray at dawn (10 mins.), noonday (15 mins.), late afternoon (10 mins.), sunset (15 mins.) and at night-time (25 mins.). While some non-Muslims also pray during the day, what do others do at these times –sleep, drink, work, entertain or engage in illegal acts? There is nothing more spiritually beneficial for humans than to intersperse his day with prostrations –the highest expressive form of glorification– to his Creator. And to Whom is our return.
   Fasting. Jews, Christians, and Hindus also fast. Fasting helps to cleanse the system –perhaps there are those who skip lunch to control weight, and for other reason(s). The benefits of fasting are fourfold –physiological, physical, moral and spiritual. If the Muslim’s fast is “particularly taxing in summertime” why are you griping about it? (Notably, in long summer days Muslims who find the fast a hardship can make certain expiation in lieu of fasting or can limit the hours of fasting to that of a regular day. For more on prayer and fasting see Islam).   

Ali Sina iv. “The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel, for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth.  
Every detail of the life of a Muslim is prescribed. He is told what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted (halal), what food to eat, how to dress, and what rituals to follow in order to pray. A Muslim is not allowed to date, and marriages are arranged.  Corporal punishment, including torture for disobedience to the authorities, is enjoined, both for children and adults.”

   Response: Judaism and Christianity also regulate what food is forbidden and what is permitted. To some extent even secular governments regulate what citizens are allowed to eat and not eat (isn’t this one of the purpose of the Food and Drug Administration Act?) People are prosecuted for smoking in certain areas and for smoking marijuana; for consuming intoxicants in public……
   Perhaps every religion has its mode of dress and method ofpraying. The military and other organizations (and even the Judiciary) have a dress code (ask the Judge, Pope, orthodox Jews and Christians, perhaps even the Swami has his special dress)

   Dating: While Muslims are not allowed to date they are allowed chaperoned meetings to ascertain compatibility.  Muslims are allowed to choose their marriage partners. Islam teaches that when a man and woman are alone there is a third party with them –the Devil– inciting them to sin. In dating the girl may end up pregnant and unwed (among other consequences). Female chastity is such a sensitive virtue that the Bible prescribes capital punishment for the virgin-less bride: “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you”–(Deut. 22:20-21). 

   Corporal punishment: While Islam requires beating the drunk, and the child to pray (and this beating is not to be brutal), and flogging the homosexual and adulterers there is no torture in Islam.
   Judaism and Christianity require capital punishment for parental abuse and “rebellion” against parents–(Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18-21); and for adultery:–(Lev. 20:10-12; Deut. 22:22; John 8:3-5). Judaism and Christianity also require beating the child and wife into obedience (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus commands):

“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 beaten 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). One can imagine the 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.” (See Christianity-women).

   Hinduism requires capital punishment for adult misconduct: ““Should a wife out of her family pride desert her husband and misconduct herself, let the king condemn her to be devoured by dogs before all men and women. Similarly should a husband forsake his wife and misconduct himself with other women, let the king cause that sinner to be burnt alive publicly on a red hot iron-bed”–(Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Light Of Truth, p. 199). (See Hinduism & women).

Ali Sina v. “The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members. For example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity.  
Muslims claim special status for their prophet, while they vilify all other religions.  They can become extremely violent if their prophet is slighted. They regard themselves as superior to all others, and when in a non-Muslim country, they constantly lobby for concessions and preferential treatments like the special privilege of having a special room set aside in publicly funded schools so that Muslim students can pray there. They are frequently granted exceptions unavailable to members of other religions.  Recently in Ontario, Canada, they tried to make Islamic law (Sharia) recognized and binding, so they could bypass Canadian law.  They were defeated, thanks largely to the tireless opposition of ex-Muslims.”

   Response: Don’t all religion claim a special status for their prophets or leaders? Some even regard their holy men as “God(s)”. Muslims do not vilify other religions: Muslims point out the errors in other religions. Enlightening a person is not vilification, it is knowledge. While Islam does not allow Muslims to become “violent” when our Prophet is “slighted,” it is understandable why they do so. (See Mohammad movie, Muslim outrage).
   Don’t Jews and Christians and Hindus “regard themselves as superior to all others”? If they do not why then are they following these religions? Muslims are “superior” to all others spiritually in that Islam teaches the universality of God, and we believe in all His Angels, Books –though Allāh tells us what not to believe that are propagated under His name such as Trinity, Divine sonship, inherited sin, vicarious atonement, Karma, and reincarnation– and all His prophets. (See Islam is superior to all other religions).  

   That Muslims “constantly lobby for concessions and preferential treatments like the special privilege of having a special room set aside in publicly funded schools so that Muslim students can pray there. They are frequently granted exceptions unavailable to members of other religions.” What are these concessions that Muslims lobby for? How many other religionists pray five times a day, that they need, and are denied, this concession?
   America overthrew Muslim government (Iran), invades Muslim Iraq (twice) and kills thousands of innocents (and without giving compensation) and installs military base(s); are killing Muslims in Afghanistan so she can have a share of the Afghans some trillion dollars worth of yet-to-be tapped riches and to secure her gas pipe-line interest; is killing suspected “terrorist” and innocents in Yemen and Pakistan and Ali Sina bellyaches about Muslims getting “a special room” to pray –like throwing a bone to a dog. This man is in dire need of a sense of perception. 
   That Shari’ah was defeated by “the tireless opposition of ex-Muslims.” No wonder they are “ex-Muslims.” They know nothing about Islam and know even less about that which they now follow. As shown in our various presentations, there is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah. (While these ex-Muslims are alive they have the grand opportunity to return to Allāh; when they die –and no one knows when he/she will die– this grand opportunity evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell). 

Ali Sina vi“The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. 
Muslims have a very strong us-versus-them mentality. They call all non-Muslims, regardless of faith, kafir, an expressly derogatory term, which means one who blasphemes God. For them, the world is forever divided into Dar al Salam (House of Peace) and Dar al Harb (House of War). The non-Muslim countries are the House of War. It is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad on the House of War, to fight, kill and subdue non-Muslims and convert that land into the House of Peace.  Peace, according to Islam can only be attained by subduing non-Muslims and making them subordinate to Islamic rule. The idea is not so much to convert everyone to Islam, but to make Islam dominant. The non-Muslims can continue practicing their religion, but only as dhimmis, a term which means protected and is only applied to Christians and Jews. The Christians and the Jews (the people of the Book) will be protected, provided they pay the protection tax, known as the jizyah and feel themselves humiliated and subdued, as stated in the Qur’an.[2][2] If they fail to pay the jizyah, they can be exiled or put to death. This is how the Mafia operates. If you own a business, you could be harassed or even killed, unless you pay them a protection fee to be left alone. As for those unbelievers who are not protected, i.e. the pagans, the atheist, the animists, etc., they have either to convert or be killed.”

   Response: Even Jesus who is said to be Son of God and even “God” had/has this “very strong us-versus-them mentality”: “He that is not with me is against me”–(Matthew 12:30. Does this mantra sound familiar today? think U.S. President George Bush).Why then crab at Muslims when the son of God (and even God as Christians say Jesus is God) instituted this division? 
   The Bible and Christians regard all non-believers in God/” Jesus” as “heathens.” In fact, Jesus not only regard those not with him as being against him he viewed the non-Jews as “dogs” and ‘swine” (thus shutting them out from being with him, making them his enemies); and on top of this he ordered that his enemies who are against his rule to be slain. Thus Jesus forced people into being his enemies then calls for their murder–(Luke 19:27). Clearly, for Jesus (and Christians) “the world is forever divided into Dar al Salam (House of Peace) and Dar al Harb (House of War).” And Ali Sina crabs at Muslims, who are mere mortals

   For Jihad see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch.

For dhimmis and Jizyah see BAT YE’OR AND DHIMMIS/MUSLIMS.  Briefly, the Prophet Mohammad says: “Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise”–(Ibid. Vol. 9 # 264). And as dhimmis are under the rule of Muslims Muslims are obligated to “look after them in an honest manner.”
   That “those unbelievers who are not protected, i.e. the pagans, the atheist, the animists, etc., they have either to convert or be killed.” As shown this is sheer bunkum. Islam teaches that there is no compulsion in religion –everyone is free to choose his faith. Mohammad’s duty was only to preach the Divine Message of the Qur’an, not enforce it.

Ali Sina vii.  “The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
For Muslims, all actions of Muhammad constitute law.  He cannot be held accountable for his actions. He was entitled to marry or have sex out of marriage with as many women as he wished. He could raid civilians, kill unarmed men, loot their properties and take their women and children as slaves and even rape them.  He could assassinate his critics and torture them to make them reveal where they had hidden their treasures.  He could have sex with children. He could lie and deceive his opponents. He could massacre his prisoners of war in cold-blood. None of that bothers his followers. At first they deny all of the above charges vehemently, accusing you of maligning their prophet, but once the evidence is presented, they suddenly change tactic and defend him, justifying his evil deeds, the very deeds they outrageously denied. For Muslims, Muhammad’s actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong. As the result, if a crime was committed by Muhammad, that crime becomes a holy deed and is emulated by his followers unquestioningly. Muslims are capable of committing the most atrocious acts of indecency and savagery with clear conscience, because it is sunnah (performed by Muhammad).”

   Response: Don’t Jews consider all actions by Moses to “constitute law?” Don’t Christians consider all actions by Jesus (whom they say is God) to “constitute law”? Doesn’t Hindus consider all actions by Rama and Krishna to “constitute law”? Ask them.
   That Mohammad “was entitled to marry or have sex out of marriage with as many women as he wished.” Aside from the injunctions that forbid zina (fornication/adultery)–(Qur’an 17:32;  24:2), only two statements need be entered to obliterate Ali Sina’s ignorant rant that Mohammad could marry many women “as he wished” and “have sex out of marriage”: “It is NOT ALLOWED to thee to TAKE WIVES after this”–(Qur’an 33:52). “And MARRY those among you who are single, and those who are fit among your male slaves and your FEMALE SLAVES”–(Qur’an 24:32).
That Mohammad “could raid civilians, kill unarmed men, loot their properties and take their women and children as slaves and even rape them.” Mohammad did not “raid civilians.” Mohammad fought those who forced him into exile and pursued him to annihilate him as well as those who engaged in treachery against him; their properties became the spoils of war (you would do the same, or worse, as Mohammad did and take the spoils of war). (See Mohammad-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple).
Regarding the women and children who were the victims of war, the Bible dictates that they become possessions of the victors (see Mohammad-Jews & raiding parties; Mohammad-Rayhana; Mohammad-Safiyyah).
That Mohammad “could assassinate his critics and torture them to make them reveal where they had hidden their treasures” (See Mohammad-Safiyyah; and item #11, Ali Sina’s charge. (Today man is assassinating and torturing even though he is the transgressor and occupier and oppressor and wants to lord over the wealth/lands of others. Which Mohammad was not). 

Muhammad: an assassination.
   That Mohammad “could have sex with children.” See ‘Aisha & Mohammad.
That Mohammad “could lie and deceive his opponents.” See Islam-and lying.
  That Mohammad “could massacre his prisoners of war in cold-blood.” See Mohammad-killed opponents; Mohammad-Jews & raiding parties.

   That “Muhammad’s actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong,” is utter rubbish! Apart from the fact, as already shown, that Islam teaches there is no compulsion in religion and that Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Divine Message, it hardly needs any elaborate submission to obliterate Ali Sina’s twaddle against Mohammad. Mohammad/ Islam teaches: 

   -that Allāh God made us into different tribes, colors and tongues so we may know one another–(Qur’an 30:22; 49:13)
   -Allāh sent messengers to all people and gave them acts of devotion and that all religions are for Allāh–(Qur’an 10:47; 35:24; 22:34, 67;  8:39)

   -stresses the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (16:91-92); to speak justly (6:153); to be righteous (2:277-278; 6:152-154); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47).

   -to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), encourages the feeding of the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190), not to help one another in sin and aggression (5:2), to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75; 22:39-40); because Allah God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90).

   -forbids against helping one another in sin; and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); to avoid letting hatred of a people incite transgression (5:2); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90,  8:61); because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75).

   -that we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2), to  return evil with that which is better (23:96), because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135). 
   And Mohammad not only lived the Qur’an, he lived it so well that even his enemies honored him as Al-Amin–the Trustworthy.    But the critics are so bridled by bigotry and hate they cannot see the truth even as it sits on the tip of their noses.

If a grade-school novice as I should state that “Muhammad’s actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong,” it would be overlooked and even snickered at. But coming from supposed academics (and one who obviously has scrutinized the Qur’an) one is hard pressed to not wonder which end Ali Sina was sitting on when he penned such stupidity about Mohammad/Islam. Or what he must have been smoking. Locoweed, perhaps.
   Rather than seek knowledge about Islam and not content with dwelling in their ignorance of Islam critics don the crown of “experts on Islam” and embark on the Hellish path of trying to lead the unschooled astray. How lucidly and precisely Allāh God conveys: “And when it is said to them, What is it that your Lord has revealed? they say, Stories of the ancients! That they may bear their burdens in full on the day of Resurrection, and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge. Ah! evil is what they bear”–(Qur’an 16:25). 

Ali Sina 8.  “The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).  
In Islam, the ends always justify the means.  For example, killing is bad, but if it is done to promote Islam, it is good. Suicide is prohibited, but suicide bombing that will cause the death of non-Muslims is a holy act. Stealing from fellow Muslims is prohibited and the thief’s hand will be chopped, but looting non-believers was practiced by Muhammad and so is considered acceptable by Muslims. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is taboo, but rape of the women of unbelievers is okay.  The goal, which is the establishment of the reign of Allâh on Earth, is regarded to be so lofty that everything else becomes secondary.  In the history of Islam, we read that people murdered their own fathers or waged war against them. Such actions are praised as the sign of faith and devotion of the believer. Lying in Islam is prohibited, except when it is said to deceive the non-Muslims and advance the interests of Islam.”

   Response: That “In Islam the ends always justify the means” is balderdash. This claim is belied by materials in item #7 above. To restate a few, Allāh says:  not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (Qur’an 26:183); not to let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135); not to be transgressors (2:190), not to help one another in sin; and not to counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90,  8:61); because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75).
There is no sex outside of marriage. Islam not only prescribes flogging for adultery–(Qur’an 24:2), Allāh admonishes against even engaging in acts, such amorous speech and touching, that leads to fornication and adultery: “Go not near to zina: surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way”–(Qur’an 17:32. zina means sexual intercourse between people who are not married to each other). There is no concubinage in Islam. (See Islam-concubinage; Mohammad-Rayhana). 

That Islam allows “lying” “to deceive the non-Muslims and advance the interests of Islam.” See Islam-and lying.   (This claim by Ali Sina is hilarious, considering there are modern nations who not only lie and deceive but transgress to advance evil. And there is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah). 
   As for “suicide bombers”: (While there is no terrorism in Islam and this is not in support of terrorism) had Muslim’s land not been stolen or be under occupation it is doubtful there would be “suicide bombers.” Whether the dispossessed and occupied are “suicide bombers” or martyrs this judgment is only for Allāh.

Ali Sina 9. “The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.  
Muslims’ thoughts tend to be overridden with guilt. If a Muslim does something contrary to what is permitted, other Muslims are required to remind him or her of the Sharia law and demand compliance. In most Islamic countries, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is the state that makes sure the individuals follow the religious law. In March 2002 Saudi Arabia ‘s religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress.[3][3] As a  result fifteen girls were burned alive.”  

   Response: If a family is doing something contrary to the law wouldn’t you correct him?  The schoolgirls in Saudi Arabia did not perish because of the teachings of Islam but because of the stupidity of the overseers or their ignorance of the teachings of Islam. Islam not only allows a person to eat forbidden food under compulsion but also to deny Allāh to save his/her life –and to deny Allāh is the gravest of sins–(Qur’an 2:173; 5:3; 16:115; 16:106).  

Ali Sina 10.  “Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.  
Muslim converts are encouraged to cut their ties with family and friends if they are not Muslims. I have received countless heart-rending stories from non-Muslim parents whose children converted to Islam with whom they have lost touch completely. Occasionally, they may receive a call or a cold visit, but the visit may be so restricted, so bereft of any love from their children and their Muslim spouses that the outcome further saddens the already heartbroken parents. The purpose of these visits is usually to ask the parents to convert to Islam. They leave, as soon resistance is encountered.”

   Response: Converts to Islam may act like this but they have no assent from Islam for it. Allāh says: “And thy Lord has decreed that you serve none but Him, and do good to parents. And if either or both of them reach old age with thee, say not “Fie” to them, nor chide them, and speak to them a generous word;” “And We have enjoined on man concerning his parents –his mother bears him with faintings upon faintings and his weaning takes two years– saying:  Give thanks to Me and to thy parents. To Me is the eventual coming”–(Qur’an 17:23; 31:14. Not only Muslim mothers carry, deliver, and suckle their children).
   And the Prophet Mohammad taught to keep good relation and do kind acts even to Pagan parents–Bokhari Vol. 4, #407; Abu Dawud Vol. 2, #1664).  
   The Prophet also taught that “Allāh has forbidden you to be undutiful to your mothers,” and that one who can and does not take care of his parents in their old age will not have Paradise–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #591; Muslim Vol. 4, #6189-61-91; these sayings of the Prophet seem to echo Qur’an  17:23; 31:14 noted above).  

Converts to Islam –more correctly, reverts to Islam as all are born Muslims see All people are Muslims– are to take a stint in comparative religion and inform their parents and family circles that there are no such Divine doctrines as Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement; and Karma and reincarnation. If these parents and family members really want to go to heaven and are governed by reason –and it is the Divine requirement that we govern by reason: Isaiah 1:18; Qur’an 16:125– these parents and family members will have no option but to accept Islam. On this site we have shown  that Islam is superior to all other religions and have commented on prophecies alleged to be about Jesus (Jesus-foretold); and also show that Jesus’ second coming and Armageddon are Christian’s imaginations based on “Indo-Iranian” mythology. 

Whereas God sent Jesus-only for Jews –so much so that Jesus regarded non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” undeserving of the “Children’s” bread and preached in parables so that the “dogs” and “swine” would not understands and be saved– Christians tailored Jesus to suit the Bible. Whereas God made David a material king, Christians make Jesus a spiritual king; and to effect this Christians consigned Jesus to the bed of celibacy, crowned him with Divinity, made him scapegoat for non-existent inherited sin, and consecrated him ruler of future-world.
The Divine truth is: Jesus was a prophet of God sent only to seek and save the “lost sheep of the HOUSE OF  ISRAEL” and “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLĀH; MOHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLĀH!”

Ali Sina 11.  “The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Muslims’ main goal is to promote Islam. This practice of promoting Islam is called da’wa. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring new converts, starting with their own family and friends. Expanding Islam is the main obsession of every Muslim.”

   Response: Doesn’t Christianity want to drown the world in the mythical blood of Jesus? (To eat his body and drink his blood SPIRITUAL CANNIBALISM).
   Muslims bringing Islam to the world would be doing the world an invaluable service –liberating it from theological lies, falsehood, and blasphemy and have them secure a place in Paradise. (Islam is not to be confused with the un-Islamic practices of Muslims).  

Ali Sina  12.  “The group is preoccupied with making money.
Raising funds for jihad is one of the main objectives of all Muslims. Today this is done through what are known as Islamic “charities.” However, during the time of Muhammad, and throughout the course of Islam, raising money for jihad was done principally by looting.  Islam’s main goal is to establish itself as the pre-eminent earthly power.”

    Response: What about the traders and dealers on Wall Street, and other houses of trading?  What about the capitalists and even drug dealers and pimps? And how many billions does the papacy has (and Jesus says not to shovel treasure in earthly storehouses but in heavenly ones; and that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven). Whereas Islam teaches not to neglect the spiritual for the material (and to be miserly), it does not forbid Muslims from acquiring wealth.
Ali Sina has no clue what Jihad is, see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch.
Mohammad and looting see Mohammad-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple.
  Islam does not have to “establish itself as the pre-eminent earthly power.” Islam –submission to the will/law of Allāh God – IS “the pre-eminent earthly power.” Islam is primeval, eternal, and the nature in which Allāh has created man: “Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it was a vapour, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly. (They submitted to His command–Islam)-(Qur’an 41:11); “Seek they then other than Allåh’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 Islåm, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”-(Qur’an 3:83, 85); “So set thy face for religion, being upright, the nature made by Allåh in which He has created men. There is no altering Allåh’s creation. That is the right religion — but most people know not—(Qur’an 30:30).
The atheist can deny the existence of God, the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God (Allāh has proven His existence through the Qur’an). Christians Jews and others can reject Mohammad, Christians Jews and others cannot refute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim.

Ali Sina 13. “Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.  
Muslims’ main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, listen to the sermons, etc. So enwrapped do they become in their thinking about how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc. that they are left with very little time for thinking of anything else. In fact, they are even told what to think and what not to think.”  

   Response: Isn’t a person studying for a doctorate or some form of higher education “enwrapped” in his duties? And after he graduates don’t these duties become automatic, or almost automatic? After Muslims have learnt “how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc” they do not have to be “enwrapped” and “left with very little time for thinking of anything else.” 
   That Muslims are “even told what to think and what not to think” is literary crud. Allāh requires us to govern by reason; and He likens those who do not use their mental faculties to cattle. Muhammad Ali notes:

“Reasoning or the exercise of judgment, in theological as well as in legal matters, plays a very important part in the religion of Islam, and the value of reason is expressly recognized in the Qur’an, which is full of exhortations like the following: “Do you not reflect?”…. “Have you no sense?”  “There are signs in this for a people who reflect;”  “There are signs in this for a people who under-stand;” and so on. Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind.”
“The exercise of judgment (ijtihad) is recognized in Tradition as the means by which a decision may be arrived at when there is no direction in the Qur’an or Tradition.”
“The work had begun, as already shown, in the Prophet’s lifetime, since it was impossible to refer every case to him.  After the Prophet’s death, the principle of Ijtihad obtained a wider prevalence, and as new areas were added to the material and spiritual realm of Islam, the need of resorting to the exercise of judgment became greater.”
“Decisions were given and laws made and promulgated subject only to the one condition that they were neither contrary to the Qur’an nor to the practice of the Prophet”–(Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 97, 98, 99, 100. (Emphasis added. For greater details on this topic “Ijtihad” read The Religion of Islam. See also Why I am not a Muslim, #56 and 131).

Ali Sina 14. “Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.  
Muslims are taught to shun kafirs and are encouraged to socialize only with fellow Muslims. The Qur’an prohibits taking friends from among unbelievers (Q.3:28), calls them najis (filthy, impure) (Q.9:28), and orders harshness towards them (Q.9:123). According to Muhammad, the unbelievers are the vilest animals in the sight of God. (Q.8:55).”  

   Response: If by “socialize” you mean engaging in intoxicants, gambling, illicit relations, and partying perhaps there are non-Muslims who do not take part or encourage their children to take part in such “socializing.”  The Prophet Mohammad is a mercy to the world. Thus, while Muslims are to avoid un-Islamic behavior Muslims are to have good relations with non-Muslims and teach them the Divine Message.
That the “Qur’an prohibits taking friends from among unbelievers (Q.3:28),” see Qur’an-evil verses.
   That the Qur’an “calls them najis (filthy, impure) (Q.9:28), see Qur’an-evil verses also Christians-Copts persecuted, filthy.

   That “the unbelievers are the vilest animals in the sight of God. (Q.8:55).”  This verse reads: “Surely the vilest of beasts in Allåh’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.” And in Qur’an 8::23 Allāh says: “Surely the vilest of beasts, in Allåh’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not.”  Clearly, one who has the faculties of reasoning and does not use it has rendered himself lower than the beast who has the excuse of not having this faculty of reasoning. And given the teachings of the Qur’an which are based on reason and examples one has no justification for not accepting Islam. Thus in the face of this the rejecters of Allāh are the “vilest” of creatures.

   That Allāh “orders harshness towards them (disbelievers) (Q.9:123).” Whether you are the transgressor or not, what would you do if someone persecutes you, besieges you, forces you into exile, pursues you, and dons the garb of war to extirpate you? Would you be “harsh” against him or would you wave palm branches at him and sing hosanna, hosanna?  Mohammad “orders harshness towards them (disbelievers)” because they were not only “harsh” against Mohammad they were hell-bent to annihilate Mohammad and Muslims. Mohammad was “harsh” against them to stop their persecutions.  
   Go tell America (and Allies) they are not to “order harshness” against al-Qaeda and Talibans (though Talibans did not transgress against America). For more on Mohammad being harsh against the disbelievers see Qur’an-evil verses, item #40).

   Uniquely, whereas Ali Sina fights to demonize Mohammad for being harsh against rabid foes who were determined to exterminate him and his followers, Christianity (which Ali Sina is struggling to enthrone above Islam) had bears eat forty-two children only for teasing a man about his bald head; savaged worshippers of false God; slaughters men women and even little boys and takes the little virgin girls as sex slaves; and even gore the fetus, (and as Christian say Jesus is God this is what Jesus commanded):     
   -“And he (Elisha) went up from thence to Bethel…there came forth LITTLE CHILDREN…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).

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

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

 –“thou shalt smite every male thereof:  But the women, and the little ones…shalt thou take unto thyself;” “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” –(Deut.20:12-17; Num. 31:17-18).

  -“Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them (fetus) shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. Their bows shall also dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children” –(Isaiah 13:15-18).

   -“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up” –(Hosea 13:16)

Ali Sina 15.  “The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.  
The thought of leaving Islam is something so unbearable for true Muslims they can’t even entertain it. Despite the fact that millions of Muslims have left Islam in recent years, hardcore Muslims remain adamant in believing nobody ever really leaves Islam, that such claims are all fabrications and part of the conspiracy to shake the faith of believers. Emails I have received from Muslims share one common theme.  They all warn me of hellfire in the afterlife.  Between the fear of hell and fear of reprisal, Muslims are trapped in a web of terror of their own making. 
   Islam was not created to teach humans spirituality, nor make them enlightened. The spiritual message in Islam is secondary or virtually nonexistent. Piety in Islam means emulating Muhammad, a man who was far from pious. Rituals like prayers and fasting are mere window dressings to lure the foolhardy inside, to give Islam the appearance of sacredness and spirituality.”

   Response:  The millions of Muslims who left Islam, unless they left for benefit rather than for belief, know nothing about Islam and know even less about that which they embraced. Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would leave Islam. To leave Islam for any other religion is like giving up the superior of an item and taking the inferior.

No religion can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam. Most of all Christianity. In fact, even Hinduism is superior to Christianity. Whereas both Hinduism and Christianity desecrate Godhood –putting God into the belly of woman and bringing Him out her vagina: and thus making woman “Mother of God” and God son of a woman He created– while the Hindu doctrine of Karma–to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction– only renders God devoid of mercy and forgiveness, as He has no choice but to punish every evil (an equal and opposite reaction), the Christian heinous doctrines of inherited sin –that God puts Adam’s sin onto very person– attributes injustice to God; and vicarious atonement –that God made Jesus scapegoat to die for everyone’s “inherited sin”– makes God complicit in murder (and even murder of an innocent man).

   Muslims who believe that no one ever leaves Islam are correct. Religiously, a person can call himself whatever he likes, but every person was born a Muslim and will die a Muslim (see All people are Muslims). Moreover, there are no such Divine designations as Christians, Jews, Hindus…(They are human-conferred terms).
That “Between the fear of hell and fear of reprisal, Muslims are trapped in a web of terror of their own making.” If you transgress the law of the land and is caught are you not subject to prosecution and punishment? Hell is not a torture chamber of a vengeful God. Hell is a purifying process –a natural sequence– for our transgression. (See Hell). It would be a monumental injustice for mass murderers and those under diplomatic immunity and others who escape human justice to not answer for their crimes.

   Notably, the mercy and forgiveness of Allāh preponderates chastisement in Hell –“Allāh’s compassion and mercy are cited 192 times in the Koran (correctly Qur’an) as against 17 references to his wrath and vengeance.”⁶ In fact, Allāh is so merciful and forgiving He 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). Ali Sina can ransack and tumble other Scriptures till the Resurrection he will never find in any of them an exhortation to equal this profound and sublime invitation from Allāh welcoming sinners to repentance, forgiveness, and eternal bliss–Jannah!  
   Imagine the expanse of love and mercy and compassion of Allāh the Creator Who needs nothing from us to implore us in such loving, compassionate, sublime, and endearing terms to forgive us our sins. And without need for some “satisfaction” (as Christianity had God spill the blood of the innocent Jesus in order to appease Himself for putting Adam’s sin onto others). 
   After all it is the nature of Allāh to forgive: “When Allāh finished His creation, He wrote over His Throne:‘My mercy precedes My anger’”–Bokhari Vol. 4, #416; Vol. 9, #’s 501; 518; 545; Muslim Vol. 4, #6626). “Say: To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: To Allåh. He has ordained mercy on Himself.–(Qur’an 6:12, 54).
    Allāh is not a tyrant! Allāh is not a vengeful God! Muslims need to move away from the mindset of constantly preaching Hell-Fire, and to extol the love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness of Allāh.

Allāh loves us.
Allāh wants to guide us.
Allāh wants us to be pure.
Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise.
And Jannah/Paradise is for male and female:

   -“Surely the owners of the Garden are on that day in a happy occupation. They and their wives are in shades, reclining on raised couches”–(Qur’an 36:56).
   -“Enter the Garden, you and your wives, being made happy” –(Qur’an 43:70).
   -“And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in faith –We unite them with their offspring and We shall deprive them of naught of their work. Every man is pledged for his work”–(Qur’an 52:21).
   -“And whoever does good deeds, whether male or FEMALE, and he (or she) is a believer –these will enter the Garden, and they will NOT be dealt with a whit unjustly”–Qur’an 4:124)
   -“Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allāh much and the women who remember­ –Allāh has prepared for THEM FORGIVENESS AND A MIGHTY REWARD”–(Qur’an 33:35).
   Any wonder then that even in the face of our adversity and suffering Muslims still laugh and smile: “And you hope from Allāh what they hope not”–(Qur’an 4:104).
                  Māshā-Allāh! Alhamdo-lillāh! Allāho Akbar!

   That “Islam was not created to teach humans spirituality, nor make them enlightened. The spiritual message in Islam is secondary or virtually non-existent. Piety in Islam means emulating Muhammad, a man who was far from pious.” Materials in this presentation have exposed the folly of  Ali Sina’s charges.
   That “Rituals like prayers and fasting are mere window dressings to lure the foolhardy inside, to give Islam the appearance of sacredness and spirituality.” This also has been exposed for its ignorance.  “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.” “And whoever purifies himself, purifies himself only for his own good”. “We have truly shown him (man) the way; he may be thankful or unthankful.” “And pointed out to him (man) the two conspicuous ways (of good and evil)?-(Qur’an 16:125; 35:18; 76:3; 90:10)

Ali Sina using “Dr. Janja Lalich and Dr. Michael D. Langone” “list that describes cults fairly well” can charge that Islam was/is “cult,” but our presentation has shown that whereas Islam honors a Diety –Allāh– Islam is no “cult.” Not only is there no compulsion or blind faith in Islam, Islam is the “perfect” and complete way of life. Islam is democracy, civility, intelligence.   
   Muslims who have apostatized need to invest some time and learn Islam.  They are blindly following others into Hell-Fire!

8. Mohammad a madman, Ali Sina did not give any reason for this charge (could not find any on his site).    If Mohammad was a “madman,” this “madman” has presented the world with a Book –the Qur’an– unrivaled in the history of religions and demonstrated the highest act of mercy to enemies that is yet to be equaled by the sanest person in creation. The world sorely needs this “madman.” (See Danish cartoons & Christian critics).

9. Muhammad: A Rapist. Ali Sina wrote: “Muhammad allowed his men to rape the women captured in raids. However, after capturing the women, Muslims faced a dilemma.  They wanted to have sex with them but also wanted to return them for ransom and therefore did not want to make them pregnant.  Some of these women were already married.  Their husbands had managed to escape when taken by surprise and were still alive.  The raiders considered the possibility of coitus interruptus (withdrawing from intercourse prior to ejaculation).  Unsure of the best course of action, they went to Muhammad for counsel. Bukhari reports: Abu Saeed said: “We went out with Allâh’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.  So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allâh’s Apostle who is present among us?”  We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” [4][1]
Notice that Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war.  Instead, he indicates that when Allâh intends to create anything, nothing can prevent it.  In other words, not even the absence of semen can prevent it.  So Muhammad is telling his men that coitus interruptus would be futile and ill-advised because it would be an attempt to thwart the irresistible will of Allâh. Muhammad does not say a word against the forced insemination of these captive females. In fact, by criticizing coitus interruptus, in effect he supported forced insemination.
In the Qur’an, Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.”

   Response: Mohammad did not raid the Bani Mustaliq. As Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes in his book The Life of Muhammad (p. 328): “The news reached Muhammad that the Banu al Mustaliq…were mobilizing for war in the vicinity of Makkah and inciting the Arab tribes around them to assassinate Muhammad.” Today nations fly thousands of miles from their borders to pre-empt their “enemies” from attacking them and even assassinate those who “incite” against them. Whereas Mohammad’s enemies were in his own yard. What would you do?  

   That “Muhammad does not forbid raping women captured in war.” It has already been shown that the Bible (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) decrees that female captives become companions of their male captors–(Deut.20:12-14; Num. 31:17-18). In fact, because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, God even says he would give David’s wives to David’s neighbors to have sex with them: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold…I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun”–(2 Samuel 12:11). 
   If Mohammad allowed his followers to have sex with their captives Mohammad was only following the Bible –as he did on other matters such as apostasy and homosexuality– until he received revelation from Allāh in the matter.
   Again, since it was allowed for Solomon and his son to have hundreds of “concubines,” since it was allowed for Abraham to have sexual relations with his “handmaid” (as Christians claim that Hagar was a bondswoman) and to even father a son, Ishmael, with her, and allowed for Jacob to have sexual relations with Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, respectively, and even had sons with them that became Tribes of Israel, since Judah can commit adultery with his daughter-in-law, Tamarr, and David can commit adultery with Bathsheba and be prophet, where is the problem if Mohammad allowed his men to have sex with their “slave women?”

   Mohammad and coitus-interruptus. Onanism –named after Onan– is the Christian’s term for coitus-interruptus. According to the Bible God “slew” Judah’s eldest son, Er, because he was “wicked.” As Er did not have any offspring, Judah instructed his second son, Onan, to “Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” But Onan was averse to the idea; so “when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it (his seed) on the ground (coitus interruptus).”
   This act of coitus interruptus must have displeased God to such an extent that God “slew” Onan: “And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also”–(Gen. 38:1-10). 
   Why then carp at, and try to ridicule, Mohammad (regardless of his reason) for suggesting that his followers refrain from this practice which seemed so heinous to God that He killed Onan for doing it? Ali Sina is to sing Hosanna! Hosanna! –“Save, we pray”– to Mohammad. (Matt. 21:9; Psalm 118:25-26).   

   As noted, before he received revelation in a matter the Prophet followed the Torah/Bible. It hardly requires much to obliterate this piece of ignorance that “Muhammad’s god made it legal to have intercourse with slave women, the so-called “right hand possessions,” even if they were married before their capture.” 
   Allāh enjoins:
   –“And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, MARRY such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then (marry) only one or that which YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS”–(Qur’an 4:3)
   -“And MARRY those among you who are single, and those who are fit among your male slaves and your FEMALE SLAVES” –(Qur’an 24:32). 
   And Prophet Mohammad taught: “The man shall have a double reward who has a slave-girl and he trains her in the best manner and he gives her the best education, then he sets her free and MARRIES her”–(Bokhari Vol. 4 #655; & 3:720). (For more on this and an explanation of those whom your “right-hands possess” see Qur’an-evil verses item #9).

Juwairiya: See Mohammad-Juwairiyyah.
Safiyyah: See Mohammad-Safiyyah.
Rayhana: See Mohammad-Rayhana.

   Ali Sina notes from Ibn Ishaq that the Prophet Mohammad had Kinana, the husband of Safiyyah, and some people of the ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe, tortured. For the story of Kinana see Mohammad-Safiyyah.

   Ali Sina also notes the incident of some men from the tribe of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina whom the Prophet had cured; these men later killed the shepherd and stole the camels. The prophet had these men caught and had their one hand and one foot cut off and blinded. Ali Sina states: “These Arabs had committed murder and theft and had to be punished, but why this much torture?  Wasn’t Muhammad doing exactly the same things? Where did Muhammad get his camels?  Weren’t they stolen?  Didn’t he raid and kill people to loot them?
This double standard is what has characterized the Muslim world since its inception.  The concept of the Golden Rule and fairness is absent in the psyche of the Muslims.  They demand all privileges in non-Muslim countries, while they deny the basic human rights to non-Muslims in countries where they are the majority.  They sincerely believe this is how things should be.”

   Response: (See also Islam-and torture). In modern times mere suspects are “water-boarded,” and subjected to other gruesome “torture” as those of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
These men of ‘Ukl and ‘Uraina were not tortured. They were guilty of murder and theft. Such crimes are to be deterred severely. If not society would be over-run by violent criminals. Even in modern societies criminals return from imprisonment and commit gruesome crimes. 
   Whereas Ali Sina crabs at Mohammad, in the Bible God had an innocent man, as Christians say, savagely beaten and crucified; He ordered that a thief be executed for stealing a man–(Exodus 21:16); and, as already detailed, had children eaten by bears for teasing a man about his bald head; and sent snakes against worshippers of false God. And Jesus declares those not with him are against him (though a person can be neutral), and commanded that his enemies who are against his rule be slaughtered (though they might not militate against him). (Perhaps these are the verses of Jesus that gave birth to the murderous crusades and the Holocaust). (Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27). (Notably, Islam does not put the stamp of Divine approval. on all the teachings of the Bible). 

   If Mohammad raided and looted others of their camels Mohammad was fully justified, These were the people that persecuted him, tried to assassinate him, besieged him, forced him into exile, pursued him, and made war on him. (See Mohammad-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple).
   However, Mohammad did not do “exactly the same things” as the people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina did. Mohammad through his wealthy wife, Khadijah, had camels long before he became Prophet. And his followers some of whom were wealthy, like Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, had camels, along with those who embraced him.

   Regarding Ali Sina’s postulation that “This double standard is what has characterized the Muslim world since its inception.  The concept of the Golden Rule and fairness is absent in the psyche of the Muslims.  They demand all privileges in non-Muslim countries, while they deny the basic human rights to non-Muslims in countries where they are the majority.  They sincerely believe this is how things should be.”

  Response: As already shown, this is utter ignorance and twaddle. What are these “all privileges” that Muslims have demanded “in non-Muslim countries”? (As detailed further on Britain, France, Russia, America, Italy, Serbia, rather than make “demands” from Muslims carried out monumental injustices against Muslims).   
   That non-Muslims enjoy(ed) rights under Muslim rule, here are  two citations. Thomas Arnold notes in his book The Preaching Of Islam that under the “security of life and property” Christians “enjoyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliphate;” “Christians frequently held high posts at court;” “the Christians frequently amassed great wealth and were much honoured in the house of the great;” “In trade and commerce, the Christians also attained considerable affluence;” and “non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy.” (pp. 63-65). Muslims also “permitted the Copts to erect churches in the new capital of Cairo.”
   In fact, Muslims were so tolerant of Christians that Muslims even prevented Christians from persecuting one another, as noted by Mr. Arnold:

“In the fifth century, Barsauma, a NESTORIAN BISHOP, had persuaded the Persian king to set on foot a FIERCE PERSECUTION OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, by representing Nestorius as a friend of the Persians and his doctrines as approximating to their own: as many as 7,800 of the orthodox clergy, with an enormous number of laymen, are said to have been BUTCHERED DURING THIS PERSECUTION. Another PERSECUTION was instituted against the ORTHODOX by Khusrau II, after the invasion of Persia by Heraclius, at the instigation of a JACOBITE, who persuaded the King that the Orthodox would always be favourably inclined towards the Byzantines. But the principle of Muslim toleration forbade such acts of injustice as these: on the contrary, it seems to have been their endeavour to deal fairly by all their Christian subjects; e.g. after the conquest of Egypt, the JACOBITES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPULSION OF THE BYZANTINE TO ROB THE ORTHODOX OF THEIR CHURCHES, but later they were RESTORED BY THE MUHAMMADANS TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS when these had made good their claim to possess them.In view of the toleration thus extended to their subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, THE COMMON HYPOTHESIS OF THE SWORD AS THE FACTOR OF CONVERSION SEEMS HARDLY SATISFACTORY, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution.” (Ibid. pp. 64-69, emphasis added).  

Christian suffering seemed to have been the result of their intrigue against the State. Decrees to exclude non-Muslims from public offices depended on the prevailing situation. Mr. Arnold notes: “The last of these was prompted by the discovery of an attempt on the part of the CHRISTIANS TO BURN THE CITY OF CAIRO.”⁷ Regarding the harsh rule of Harun al-Rashid, as Mr. Arnold points out, “these decrees were the outcome, not so much of any purely religious feeling, as of the political circumstances of the time. The Christians under Muhammadan rule have often had to suffer for the BAD FAITH KEPT BY FOREIGN CHRISTIAN POWERS in their relations with Muhammadan princes, and on this occasion it was the TREACHERY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR, NICEPHORUS, that caused the CHRISTIAN NAME TO STINK in the nostrils of Harun. Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to DISTRUST OF THEIR LOYALTY,EXCITED BY THEINTRIGUES AND INTERFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN FOREIGNERS AND THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM,OR TO THE BAD FEELING STIRRED UP BY THE TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE LATTER TOWARDS THE MUSALMANS.”⁸ (This is perhaps true today also).

11. Muhammad: an assassination. Ali Sina wrote: “What most people don’t know is that assassination was Muhammad’s way of dealing with his opponents. Today’s Muslim assassins are merely following their prophet’s example.” 
   And Ali Sina notes that the Prophet had three people –two men and one woman– killed because they composed poems in praise of the Makkans against Mohammad (in their fight against him).”

   Response: (Even in modern times “civilized” people carry out assassinations of those who are either critical of them or who stand against their “interest” or for some other reason. Islam does not require Muslims to kill/assassinate anyone for blasphemy, apostasy, etc).   
   From the beginning of his ministry the Prophet was a target of annihilation attempts. For twenty-three grueling years Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, under threat of the assassin’s blade, forced into exile, pursued, and warred upon.   
   There was tacit warfare by some of his opponents. By intriguing against his life and openly reviling the Prophet these opponents identified themselves as “enemy combatants” and were subjected to reprisals

Even today and in “civilized” society during times of tension “free speech,” which may even express the truth, may be viewed as an incitement to unrest against the State, and be subjected to reprisals. People are targeted for opposing authority. People who are mere suspects are routed and even tortured or killed. In fact, 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. 
   Palestinian author and writer, whose lands were stolen, have been assassinated by their occupiers merely for writing about the injustice committed against them.
   America is traveling 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.

   Unlike rogue leaders, the Prophet Mohammad was no tyrant, no occupier, no oppressor, and no exploiter. Had the enemies of Mohammad not become physical, Mohammad would not have retaliated. (See Mohammad-killed opponents; Mohammad-Jews & raiding parties).
   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.    

12. Muhammad: A Looter. Ali Sina makes several claims which we will itemize and answer:
   (i) Ali Sina: “Stealing and Looting in Islam is not prohibited, unless it is done against the non-Muslims. Then it is lawful.”
   Response: A few brief statements will suffice to obliterate this obscenity against Islam. Allāh says not to rob men their dues (Qur’an 26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self, parents, kins, or whether he be poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8); not to act corruptly in the earth or make mischief (26:183); not to transgress, or aid in sin and aggression (2:190; 5:2). Clearly, Islam cannot then be indicted as sanctioning “Stealing and Looting” against anyone. (See Mohammad-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple). (More on this later).

   (ii) Ali Sina: “After Muhammad married Khadijah, a wealthy woman of Mecca, he stopped working. Actually he had never worked until the age of twenty five when he made one trip to Damascus as a trustee of Khadijah selling her goods and buying what she had ordered.  This was the extent of the work that Muhammad did in his entire life. 
He would not even take care of the children. He used to withdraw to a cave near Mecca, taking provisions for several days and not come back until his food lasted. He would then come home for more supplies and head back to his cave.
Khadijah was left to take care of her own three children from her two previous marriages and also the six children that she made with Muhammad. As the result, her business suffered and, the family was reduced to poverty. By the time she died, nothing of her wealth was left and when Muhammad migrated to Medina, he had to rely on the generosity of the Medinans, including the Jews whom he exterminated later, for his sustenance.” 
   Response: From a youth until prior to his marriage to Khadijah Mohammad was a “herdsman” as Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes in his book  The Life of Muhammad. 
   That Mohammad never worked, spent days in a cave, and did not care the children. Aside from the fact that Khadijah’s children from her previous marriages must have already been grown and Mohammad’s two sons with Khadijah died in infancy. Hadith literature shows that Mohammad cooked, cleaned, and cobbled his own shoes. And Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad that the Prophet spent only the month of Ramadan in the cave, and that he “participated in the public life of Makkah.” (This doesn’t seem to be a husband/father who neglected his children). Whatever the case was, if Mohammad’s wife, Khadija, supported Mohammad while he did nothing and she did not complain about his meditation and lack of caring for their children why are you griping at Mohammad about it? (Are there no husband in modern times who are supported by their wives? If you believe a wife should not support her husband go tell it to the women-libbers).
   It is far-fetched that Khadijah’s “business suffered and, the family was reduced to poverty” because Mohammad was not around, considering that with her wealth she could have hired servants (which she may not have to because she must have had slaves).

   When he moved to Madinah Mohammad had to rely on the Madinans because he and his followers were forced to leave their homes and properties behind. (Even in modern times refugees depend on their host countries for survival. In fact, compared to Mohammad relying on his host, there are modern nations that plunder others of their resources).   
   Mohammad did not “exterminate” Jews. Had Jews not proved treacherous against Mohammad, Mohammad would have had no cause to defend himself against them. As already shown, Jews were “exterminated” according to the dictates of the Torah, and by the judgment of the very person they had chosen to arbitrate between them and Mohammad.   
   And if Khadijah died in “poverty” she must have spent her wealth in Islam and was happy to do so for she gave Mohammad  peace, love, comfort, and trust to her end and moreso in the time he most needed it –upon his receiving the first Divine revelation from Allāh– (and she will be with Mohammad in Paradise –the best of all wealth). (Notably, Salahuddin Ayube –Saladin– spent his wealth in the way Allāh and died a pauper). There is no better cause in which to spend wealth than in the cause of Allāh –truth and justice. So you want to take your wealth with you?

   (iii) Ali Sina “His (Mohammad) followers also were poor. They were either slaves or the disaffected Meccan youths. His followers of Medina were mostly laborers and journeymen, serving the Jews and not very well off.  Despite this humble beginning, a few years later, Muhammad became the wealthiest man in Arabia owning a great number of camels, herds, slaves, wives and properties. How did he accumulate this much wealth in such short time? Through  looting and pillaging.”
   Response: Mohammad’s Makkan followers may have been poor but Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes that the Madinites were not bandits; they, like the Makkans, “had other sources of income” and took part in “agriculture and trade.” (There were at least two among Muslims who were said to be very wealthy, Abu Bakr and Umar. Muslim women contributed their gold jewelry to the cause of Islam).  
   Mohammad did not become wealthy through “looting and pillaging.” The idolaters and Jews played the stock market of “war” with Mohammad and lost.

    (iv) AIi Sina: “He (Mohammad) first started raiding the Meccans’ merchant caravans. Then he moved on to expel and massacre the Jews of Medina and other places in Arabia and looted their belongings.  Eventually he decreed that every person who believes in him should pay tithes and those who don’t should pay a larger amount as jizyah (protection fee) or prepare to die.  They were “warned”, submit of die, very much like the mafia operated.
   Response: Mohammad’s raiding caravans has already been dealt with. For dhimmis and Jizyah see Bat Ye’or-Eurabia & Muslims item #2. The charge that Islam warned non-Muslims to “submit of die” has already been demolished. There is no “submit or die” in Islam.

   (v) Ali Sina: “Several verses of the Quran exhort Muslims to raid the unbelievers promising booty in this world and heavenly rewards in the other. Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men’s hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path.  [al-Fath 48:20]  And that which Allah gave as spoil unto His messenger from them, ye urged not any horse or riding-camel for the sake thereof, but Allah giveth His messenger lordship over whom He will. Allah is Able to do all things. [al-Hashr 59:6]  Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.  [al-Anfal 8:69].  
   These verses were stated to goad the believers to take part in the wars. They also tell us about the caliber of the people who converted to Islam. Muhammad convinced them that God has instructed them to attack innocent people, take them by surprise, kill them and loot their wives and properties as booty?”  
Response: As you claim that the Qur’an is Mohammad’s production, Allāh has posted to you the challenge to produce a chapter like it; Go ahead put your dignity where your pen is, and call on all your helpers including those Muslims who must have blindly followed you and apostatized from Islam.
That Allāh promised much booty etc. The opponents of the Prophet believed they would crush the Muslims. But Allāh the All-Powerful had defeat ready for them. Thus, these verses were not “to goad the believers to take part in the wars,” they were assurances of Muslim triumph. Muslims do not need to be “goaded” into the service of Allāh; whether we live or die in the service of Allāh Paradise is ours! Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant. (See Islam-Muslims’ destiny).

   (vi) Ali Sina: “The oppressive cultic atmosphere that reigned in Medina did not allow the early Muslims to question the morality of such acts. That is how cults control brainwash the believers. After exterminating the Jews, who owned most businesses in Medina, Muslims had lost their works. They had no source of income except through highway robbery and looting.  Some of them might have wondered how could a messenger of God act like a common marauding gangster. For such people Muhammad had his usual answer: It is God’s will.
   Response: There was/is no “oppressive cultic atmosphere” in Islam; Islam gave man the freedom of choice and calls man to reason. There is no im”morality” to fight in self-defense against those who first take up the sword to annihilate you. Again, Muslims did not “exterminate” Jews; Jews were executed for treachery and war against Mohammad, and according to the dictates of the Torah –according to “God’s will.” (See Mohammad-Jews & raiding parties).
   How could Muslims have “lost their works” and have “no source of income” when the Jews businesses and farms were in their possessions? Isn’t this how Muslims became wealthy, as you state?

   (vii) Ali Sina notes the Prophet Mohammad as saying “I have been conferred upon five (things) which were not granted to anyone before me (and these are): Every apostle was sent particularly to his own people, whereas I have been sent to all the red and the black the spoils of war have been made lawful for me, and these were never made lawful to anyone before me, and the earth has been made sacred and pure and  mosque for me, so whenever the time of prayer comes for any one of you he should pray whenever he is, and I have been supported by awe (by which the enemy is overwhelmed) from the distance (which one takes) one month to cover and I have been granted intercession. Sahih Muslim 4:1058.   
Supported by awe means by terror! In another hadith he was more specific. He said: “I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), Bukhari 4:52:220  The claim that Muhammad has been victorious by awe and terror is also stated in Bukhari 1:7:331.  
   Response: Spoils of war was made lawful for the Prophet because he was persecuted, besieged, targeted for assassination, forced into exile, pursued, and warred on. (Biblical soldiers also were given “loot”/”spoils of war.” Even America took “loot”/”spoils of war.”  See further on). 
   That Mohammad was made victorious by “terror.” Terror  can be effected either by the overwhelming majority of the opponents and/or by the superiority of their armaments. In the case of the Prophet whose numbers were few –at the Battle of Badr, the first battle fought, Muslims numbered a meager 313 to  the Quraish’s 1,000. Allāh making the Prophet “victorious” from “terror” only means that Allāh casts terror into the hearts of the enemies: “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”–(Qur’an 3:150; 8:12; 59:2, 13). Allāh made the enemy fearful of the Muslim forces thus enabling the Prophet to be “victorious” over them.
   Notably, in the Bible God not only cast “terror” into the enemies, His hand was also against them (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus did): 
   -“For indeed the HAND OF THE LORD was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed” –(Deut. 2:15);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   (viii).(Ali Sina notes the saying of the Prophet: “Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils.”  And that the Prophet “gave the spoils” to the victor. Bukhari 4:53:370. This is how Islam spread. By raiding, pillaging and looting. What is the difference between Muhammad and his followers and a bunch of thieves?”  
   Response: Which war pilot or soldier is given the badge of distinction? the coward/deserter or the one of valor? If Harris does the work who should receive the payment? It would be blatant injustice for Harris to do the work and to give the payment to Sina. So where is the problem that Mohammad gave the property of the slain enemy to the victor?
   Bear in my mind that Mohammad was only fighting a defensive war against rabid enemies who wanted to annihilate him for preaching the Divine Message. And all Mohammad sought was to liberate them from the futility and degradation of idolatry; the irrationality of polytheism; the phantasm of superstition; the debasement of drunkenness and profligacy; and the stagnation of tribalism and ignorance (of knowledge). The critics of Mohammad can speak or write or concoct whatever formulations they like, no one can erase this indelible truth.  
   That Islam spread “By raiding, pillaging and looting,” this is dealt with further on.

   Booty. Allāh reveals in His Qur’an 8:41:  “And know that whatever you acquire in war, a fifth of it is for Allåh and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer…” Muhammad Ali comments:

“Regarding the one-fifth spoken of here, the most generally accepted opinion is that it is to be divided again into five parts, the Prophet, the near of kin, the orphans, the poor, and the wayfarer being equal sharers. The near of kin included all individuals belonging to the tribes of Bani Håshim and Bani ‘Abd al-Muttalib, to whom zakåt money was not allowed. The poor among them were thus paid from this source of income. As to the Prophet’s twenty-fifth, it appears that it was also used for the benefit of the Muslims. The words of one of his sayings are: wa-l-khumsu mardud-un f i-kum, i.e. the fifth (too) is given back to you. That the Prophet led a life of the utmost simplicity is admitted on all hands. The remaining four-fifths of the ghanimah were divided among those who took part in the battle, as they were not otherwise paid for their services, but there is no order to this effect in the Qur’ån itself. It may be further noted that this arrangement was simply an exigency. The war was forced on the Muslims all of a sudden when the State had not yet been formed in the proper sense of the word; there was no army at all, nor a treasury from which to pay it; and just as they were required to carry it on on the basis of voluntary gifts, so they were allowed a share in the war acquisitions. If the State pays its soldiers as it pays its civil servants, the war acquisitions would all go to the State treasury, just as income from zakåt or tribute went to the State treasury. It is nowhere laid down that the Muslim State shall not maintain a regular army.”

   That Allāh is included in this share simply means that a part of this one fifth is to be spent missionizing the Message of Allah. “And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And these are they who are successful”–Qur’an 3:104).
   The Bible (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) deals in booty, Israelite soldiers even received little virgin girls as booty:

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

   The Veda also deals in booty. The Rig Veda states, (Quotes are taken from Ralph T. H. Griffith, Hymns Of The RgVeda, Volumes I and II. First Published in 1889, and Published 1987 by Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi. Reference to quotes such as, I. VII. 4-5. Vol. 1, p. 10, indicates that the quote is taken from Book I, Hymn VII, verses 4-5, of Volume 1, page 10). (emphasis added):
   -“Help us, O Indra, in the frays, yea, frays, where thousand spoils are gained, With awful aids, O awful One. In mighty battle we invoke Indra, Indra in lesser fight, The Friend who bends his bolt at fiends.” (I. VII. 4-5. Vol. 1, p. 10).

   -“Save us, our Charioteer, from harm, O Indra, soon, very soon, make us win spoil of cattle.” “Call we on Maghavan, auspicious Indra, best Hero in this fight where spoil is gathered. The strong who listens, who gives aid in battles, who slays the Vrtras, wins and gathers riches.” (III. XXXI. 20, 22.  Vol. 1, p. 371).

   -“Indra, for our assistance bring that most effectual power of thine, Which conquers men for us, and wins the spoil, invincible in fight.” “For, Mightiest Vrtra-slayer, thee, fierce, foremost among many, folk Whose grass is trimmed invite to battle where the spoil is won. Indra, do thou protect our car that mingles foremost in the fights, That bears its part in every fray, invincible and seeking spoil.” (V. XXXV. 1, 6-7. Vol. 1, pp. 531-532).

   -“Drive thou away our enemies, O Maghavan: make riches easy to be won. Be thou our good Protector in the strife for spoil: Cherisher of our friends be thou.” (VII. XXXII. 25. Vol. 2, p. 37)

   -“O Soma Pavamana, find wealth for us not to be assailed, Wealth which the foeman may not win. Send riches hither with thy stream in thousands, both of steeds and kine (cows), Send spoil of war and high renown.” (IX. LXIII. 11-12. Vol. 2, p. 335).

   -The Hindu Gods also come in for a share of the “spoil” of war: “May we get booty from our foe in battle, presenting to the Gods their share for glory” (I. LXXIII. 5. Vol. 1, p. 105). (See Swami Dayananda Saraswati (on the Qur’an) item #76).

   Even America took her share of war “booty.” After the World War II defeat of Germany, the U.S. (as noted on the Internet) collected “military and scientific booty;” scooping up some 1600 German scientists and their families (and doctors and engineers) for American usage. America most likely owes her rocket and space program to these brilliant German minds. 
   Unlike Mohammad who was fighting for his life and survival of his people, modern man even travels to distant lands for “booty” –to live like on the blood of others: and to secure their “interest.”
   -Britain, France, and Russia treacherously dissected the post-Ottoman Middle East
-America stole Palestine –through diplomatic thuggery in the United Nations –and gave it to Jews
-Serbia engaged in ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and rape of thousands of women and young girls
-Sudan “pressured” into dissecting herself
-America and Britain overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government to control its oil
 -America and Allies aggressed against Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein to control its oil and erect military base(s)
   -Britain and France cahooted with Jews and attacked Egypt so Britain could have control of Egypt’s Suez Canal
   -Russia genociding in Chechnya and Dagestan
   -France genocided in Algeria
   -Italy savaged Libya
 -America is now in Afghanistan to secure her gas pipeline “interest” and to share in Afghanistan’s some trillion dollars worth of untapped riches.
  -(As noted on the Internet), the U.S. is said to have overthrown the governments of some fourteen countries to safeguard her “interest” –Hawaii; Cuba; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Nicaragua; Honduras; Iran (already noted); Guatemala; South Vietnam; Chile; Grenada; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq.
 -and Colonialism’s monumental and grotesque and indelible stain of shame and disgrace of chaining the African woman naked at the necks, and plundering the “vast resources” of the Congo.⁹  

   Professor Abdul Ahad Dawud –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– notes in his revealing work, Muhammad in the Bible:

“it is worthy of note that all the blood shed in the wars of  Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allah. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving.” (p. 261).

Even if Mohammad was not fighting a defensive war and his “raiding” was for “booty,” his “raiding” would be like a dewdrop in Hell in contrast to modern man running around the world like a “wild ass of a man”¹⁰ to live like a parasite –a blood-sucking tick leeching off the backsides of the vulnerable.  

Rather than squander what precious little moments he has on earth trying to find non-existent flaws in Mohammad/ Islam, Ali Sina needs to invest this invaluable time on needful causes such as trying to save the Albinos of Tanzania from ending up in superstitious people’s dinner plate; and the return of Palestine to the Palestinians –an injustice which no king or queen or president or prime minister or doctor or lawyer or parliamentarian or prince or peasant or American or British or French or Canadian or anyone or any Ali Sina would accept for himself and herself.
In the annals of modern registry no people has suffered such a monumental and grotesque injustice and for so long –more six torturous decades now– as the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer. If there is any cause on which to immortalize our names it is the cause of the Palestinians.      

For the sake of argument. So Mohammad attacked caravans for loot. So after the first attack the Makkans who were wealthy and could provide a legion of well-equipped guards allowed a group of poorly equipped raiders to loot them; then these Makkans deserved to be plundered. 
   Mohammad’s mission was only to preach the Divine Message. Had the rejecters of Faith not taken up the sword to silence Mohammad their property would not have ended up as “booty.”  Thus it is because of the Idolaters own stupidity –and the Jews treachery– that they lost their wealth and even lives.

   That “Islam spread. By raiding, pillaging and looting.” (See Islam-Religion of the sword). Only a few statements need be entered to demolish this piece of timeless twaddle: “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”¹¹

Thomas Arnold points out in his The Preaching of Islam that, “of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestanism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them” (p.80).

“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch,  writing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes:  “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.” (Ibid. p. 54)   

Ismail and Lois Lamya al-Faruqui points out in their Cultural Atlas of Islam:  “And yet, if the Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were Hellenes, Persians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.” (pp. 197-198) 

   Islam which teaches to deal justly (Qur’an 2:279, 5:8); not to rob men their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self, parents, kins, or whether he be poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8), encourages feeding the needy and the poor, free the captives, help those in debt, care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or make mischief (26:183); not to transgress, or aid in sin and aggression (2:190; 5:2),  to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allāh loves the  just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90) –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

Islam which reaches the keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (16:91-92); to speak justly (6:153); to be righteous (2:277-278; 6:152-154); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47) –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

-Islam which requires the feeding of the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177) –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

-Islam which forbids against taking a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90,  8:61);  because Allah God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75) –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

-Islam which reveals that all men are created equal (95:4),  that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), that we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to  return evil with that which is better (23:96) –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

   Islam the religion of such noble injunctions –cannot be the religion that allows “raiding, pillaging and looting.”  Nor could Mohammad who followed such a Book be said to have engaged in “raiding, pillaging and looting.”

“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

While Muslims would have become wealthy –and did become wealthy from applying the teachings of Islam which exhorts the seeking of knowledge– and whereas without doubt Muslims gained wealth from booty –which was due to the stupidity of the Idolaters and the treachery of the Jews– to charge that Muslims duty is to loot other people and that “Islam spread” by “raiding, pillaging and looting” is, as proven, blatant bigoted bunkum!

*

                                         To Ali Sina:
Now that we have answered your challenges against the Prophet Mohammad, either you refute our submissions, or remove your site as you pledge to do, and “publicly announce that Islam is a true religion;” and send us 50,000 dollars US –International Money Order, please– as you vowed; make it payable to the Government of Turkey; they will use it on the Syrian refugees.

*

                               MOHAMMAD & DOGS
Ali Sina also tries to malign the Prophet Mohammad for giving instructions to kill dogs. However one hadith clarifies which dog is to be killed. The hadith notes that when attention was brought to the Prophet that Muslims were killing dogs indiscriminately the Prophet forbade this killing and said that only a certain type of dog is to be killed: “It is your duty to kill the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil”–(Muslim Vol. 3, #3813). 
   The explanation to the hadith states: “The hadith gives us an idea why the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) commanded to kill dogs. There must have been an excess of stray dogs and thus the danger of rabies in the city of Medina and its suburbs. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), therefore ordered to kill them. Later on when it was found that his Companions were killing them indiscriminately, he forbade them to do so and told them that only the ferocious beasts which were a source of danger to life should be killed. The word “devil” in the hadith clarifies the point. Here devil stands for ferocious. See also Kitab-al-Taharah, p.166, note 486” (i.e. Vol. 1, note 486). 
   And Kitab-al-Taharah, p.166, note 486” states in part: “Islam has declared the dog to be an unclean beast because its saliva has the germs of rabies in it. The writer of the article on “dog” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “It [rabies] is more common in dogs than in any other animal” (Vol. VII, p. 497). The dog is also responsible for the spread of “Canine Plague”. The virus causing this disease is airborne and affects the other dogs very quickly.”

   The Prophet did not forbid the keeping of dogs. Dogs could be trained for hunting and guarding–(Muslim Vol. 3, #3812). In fact, the Prophet taught that a person who gave dog to drink will enter Paradise–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #174, Vol. 3, #551, 646).

   While Ali Sina tries to denigrate Mohammad for killing the “devil” dog. There are videos on the Internet showing wild dogs running rampant in Russia and even riding on subways. Also there are videos showing dogs attacking humans in Russia, London, and the U.S. And one shows a group of dogs attacking another dog, killing it. (There are feral dogs –dogs that were domesticated and abandoned– running wild in packs in the U.S. causing fear among people).
   It is not surprising then that America, Britain, and Canada have, in part(s) of the country, banned or restricted certain breeds of dogs –as many as “75 breeds” according to the Internet. Obviously these laws were instituted to make the community safe from “potentially dangerous” or “violent” dogs.
   Which Mohammad did for his community –which had no dart guns or pepper spray or animal nets or medicine to put them to “sleep” or rabies vaccine.

*

                                                    NOTES
1. The Qur’an abrogates these laws of the Bible –Judaism and Christianity. This is what the Qur’an refers to when it speaks of abrogation–Qur’an 2:106– it does not mean, as erroneously believe, that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another verse. See Muhammad Ali’s comm. to Qur’an 2:106: www. muslim.org)

2. The Toronto Star, Thursday December 19, 2013, Nude photo leads to life on the run, p. A1. reported that a young Egyptian woman posted online a picture of herself wearing “only stockings and shoes.”

3. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 73.

4. For full quote see Christianity-enemy to knowledge.

5. Noted in Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 100. When we turn away from Allāh Allāh withholds his bounties; this is how we become disgraced. In effect we disgrace ourselves.

6. Smith Huston, The Illustrated World’s Religions, p. 157.

7. Arnold, Thomas, The Preaching of Islam, p.76. f/n. Emphasis added.

 8  Ibid. pp. 76-77. Mr. Arnold also notes from Muir. Emphasis added.

9.A.J.P. Taylor, J.M. Roberts, Alan Bullock, 20TH. Century, p. 4.

10. Genesis 16:12, The Torah, The Five Books of Moses, pub.1962,  The Jewish Publication Society of America.

11. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London 1923, p. 8.  Quoted in Prof. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Muhammed The Prophet of Islam, p. 32.

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