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

Response to
ALLĀH, LIBERTY& LOVE
BY
IRSHAD MANJI
(See also The Trouble with Islam-Irshad Manji)

On page 294 of Manji’s book, Allāh, Liberty & Love, it is stated (by the publishers?): “The New York Times has called her (Manji) “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare” while the Jakarta Post in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, has identified Irshad Manji as one of three women creating positive change in contemporary Islam.”
(I shiver to hear who the other two women are). Obviously, the person who penned this piece of praise to Manji knows as much about Islam as Manji does. Perhaps he/she and Manji can detail what “contemporary” Islam is. Mercifully, Muslims of Indonesia (and world-wide) will adhere to the injunctions of Allāh and seek knowledge and not fall prey to Manji-ism

   That Manji is “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare. This is amusing. How much of Islam Osama bin Laden knew we may never know. But considering Manji’s bumbling in Islamic matters (as we have shown in our responses to her The Trouble With Islam and Allāh, Liberty & Love), Irshad Manji is her own “worst nightmare.”
***************************************************

                              PREAMBLE
“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright”–Qur’an 16:125).
Islam –the religion of wisdom, reason, argument and examples– does not seek to silence voices: Islam seeks to enhance mentality. And the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.”¹

While there are practices by Muslims that are to be abolished immediately –such as stoning, honor killing, etc; (shown later)– Irshad Manji, in her quest to have Muslims conform to her beliefs, tramples all over the injunctions of Allāh:

   -whereas Allāh says the Prophet errs not, Manji says “Prophets (are) prone to error”

   -whereas Allāh enjoins chastity Manji espouses immorality.

 -whereas Allāh institutes the khimar/head-covering and jalaba/over-garment as a symbol of identity and distinction Manji reviles them as objects of oppression.  (Irshad Manji not only rebels against the head-covering she indirectly condemns Allāh).

   -whereas Allāh decrees that male and female guilty of lewdness (which includes homosexuality and lesbianism) are to be punished, Irshad Manji promotes that God made people homosexuals and lesbians.

   -whereas Allāh designates Muslims the “best nation,” Irshad Manji regards this as zealotry (implying that Allāh is bigoted). (More on this later).

   -whereas Allāh enjoins five daily prayers and its format which was practiced by Prophet Mohammad, the best interpreter of the Qur’an –and even animals make submission to Allāh: Qur’an 22:18–, Manji rejects the five daily prayers and format. (Perhaps Manji also reject Zakaat, Fasting and Hajj). (More on this later)

   -whereas Allāh has placed restriction on who a Muslim can marry, Manji (using the word of an Imam) encourages Muslims to marry whoever they like (and perhaps have Muslims commit adultery or fornication). (More on this later).

Allāh reveals in Qur’an 3:7: “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allåh, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.”²

   That part of the Qur’an is “allegorical” Manji wrote: “The verse ends by cautioning us that God alone knows the meaning of His words…The Sodom and Gomorrah story–-Islam’s parable of Lut–-is ambiguous. You’re certain it’s about homosexuals, but  it could be about the rape of straight men by other straight men as a display of power and control. God punished Lut’s tribe for cutting off trade routes, hoarding  wealth and dissing outsiders ….I don’t know that I’m right. According to the Qur’an, though, you can’t be sure that you’re right either.” (pp. 112-113).      .

   Response:  That Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality is clear from both the Qur’an and Bible. Allāh revealed in His Qur’an:

“And when Our messengers came to Lot, he was grieved for them, and he was unable to protect them, and said: This is a distressful day! And his people came to him, (as if) driven on towards him, and they were used to the doing of evil deeds before. He said: O my people, these are my daughters ― they are purer for you; so guard against (the punishment of) Allah and disgrace me not about my guests. Is there not among you any right-minded man? They said: Certainly thou knowest that we have no claim on thy daughters, and thou knowest what we desire….So when Our decree came to pass, We turned them upside down, and rained on them stones, as decreed, one after another”–(Qur’an 11: 77-82; also 15:67-75).

Clearly, the Sodomites and Gomorrah-ites did not want to have sex with women regardless of how “pure,” their “desire” was to have sex with men especially “new” men who in this case were Lot’s male “guests” and who happened to be Divine messengers sent to take Lot and his family to safety before God destroyed the homosexuals and their cities.
   For the Biblical account see Genesis chapter 19 verses 4-25.

Irshad Manji’s “moral courage” mantra revolves around “I” –that the individual’s choice of what he/she wants and thinks be dominant in life.

   While without doubt the individual has the right to think and choose for himself, that this “I” should be the dominant force in society is good only on paper. Any thinking individual knows that individual right/interest is superseded by societal and national right/interest. Thus in these instances “I” is superseded by “us” and “we.”

   While one is required to speak out on behalf of truth and justice, in every society “I” is also a part of “we” and of “us.”

   -let Manji demand from her society/government “I” have the right to engage in lesbian relation with a girl of thirteen years

   -let Manji demand from her society/government that people have the right to marry or have sex with anyone of any age (as opposed to restrictions against an adult having sex with someone under eighteen)

   -let Manji demand that her society/government does not have the right to dictate at what age a person can be married

   -let Manji demand that her society/government has no right to charge its citizens for what they do abroad, such as having sex with girls her government considers under-age.

   Significantly, while a person can assert “I” do NOT want to be part of culture; a person also has the right to assert “I” WANT to be part of culture.

   -Manji needs to take the “moral courage” and demand that men not give their brides dowry (or that we abolish this injunction of Allāh); after all it is not equality that men give women marriage-gifts, and even though she may have greater wealth that he has.

   -Manji needs to take the “moral courage” and demand that men not be the sole maintainer of women (and family) (or that we abolish this injunction of Allāh); after all it is not equality that men do this and women (who has wealth or work) get to keep all their wealth.

   -Manji needs to take the “moral courage” and demand that women (including Manji) be circumcised (or that we abolish this everlasting covenant with Allāh made through Ibrahim/Abraham to the Resurrection); after all it is not equality that men lose a piece and women not.

   Allāh does not require Muslims to follow leaders blindly: “They take their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allåh, and (also) the Messiah, son of Mary. And they were enjoined that they should serve one God only — there is no god but He. Be He glorified from what they set up (with Him)!” And Muhammad Ali notes, “It is related in a hadith that, when this verse was revealed, ‘Adi ibn Håtim, a convert from Christianity, asked the Holy Prophet as to the significance of this verse, for, he said, we did not worship our doctors of law and monks. The Holy Prophet’s reply was: Was it not that the people considered lawful what their priests declared to be lawful, though it was forbidden by God. Håtim replied in the affirmative. That, the Prophet said, was what the verse meant (Tr. 44:9; IJ). Muslims who accord a similar position to their pirs or saints are guilty of the same error.” (Muslims can only know if we are being mislead if we have knowledge).

   In fact, not even Allāh requires us to have blind faith in Him, this is why He calls us in several places in the Qur’an to exercise reason, and to call to belief through wisdom, reason, argument and examples–(Qur’an 16:125).

Allāh and His magnanimous Messenger have given us physical, moral, intellectual, and spiritual “courage”:

   –physical courage: help from Allah in jihad against oppression and on behalf of non-Muslims–(Qur’an 22:39-40); a small party will defeat a large party–(Qur’an 8:65-66); whether one is slain or victorious he will receive Jannah–(Qur’an 2:154; 3:168-170; 4:74); not to be weak-hearted in battle: Muslims hope from Allāh what the enemy hope not–(Qur’an 4:104).

   This physical courage was aptly illustrated by Abu Bakr Siddiqi, the first Caliph of Islam. Said the venerable Caliph: “If I do well in my job, help me. If I do wrong, redress me. truthfulness is fidelity, and lying is treason….Obey me as long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God’s command or His Prophet’s, then no obedience is incumbent upon you.” (The question is, how can Muslims know when their leaders are not obeying Allāh and His Prophet if they do not have knowledge?).

   –moral courage: stand up for justice/truth, give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents–(Qur’an 4:135; 5:8); The Prophet is reported to have said: Whoever amongst you sees an evil, let him change it with his hands; and if he is not able, then with his tongue (i.e. speak out against it); and if he is not able, then let him hate it in his heart; and that is the weakest of faith–Muslim Vol. 1, #79).

   The Prophet said to help your brother whether he is oppressed or the oppressor; the people said that they know how to help if their brother is oppressed, but how could they help if he is the oppressor? The Prophet replied, “By preventing him from oppressing others”–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #624; Vol. 9, #84).

    The Prophet said that previous nations were destroyed because they would not apply Allāh’s legal punishment against the noble, but only against the poor; that even if his beloved daughter, Fatima, should steal he would cut off her hand–(Bokhari Vol. 5, #597).

   So strong was the Prophet against favoritism that he sought the permission of a boy. It is reported that a tumbler of drink was given to the Prophet “who drank from it, while on his right side there was sitting a boy who was the youngest of those who were present, and on his left side there were old men. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) asked, O boy! Do you allow me to give (the drink) to the elder people (first)? The boy said, “I will not prefer anybody to have my share from you, O Allāh’s Apostle!” So, he gave it to the boy”–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #554. Here we have the Mighty Messenger of Allāh and King/Sultan of Arabia seeking permission from a boy. What magnanimity and integrity of character. Whereas these days we have those who profess to stand in the shadow of the Prophet trampling left, right, and centre upon the rights of others.

   –intellectual courage: “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). “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 (to any distant place) 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).

   -spiritual courage: “You are the best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allåh”–(Qur’an 3:109. Since Allāh, the Creator, designates Muslims the best nation there is none that can say otherwise. More on this later)

   -“Now surely the friends of Allåh, they have no fear nor do they grieve…. Those who believe and keep their duty. For them is good news in this world’s life and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of Allåh. That is the mighty achievement” –Qur’an 10:62-64; 2:278)

   -“And those who, when they commit an indecency or wrong their souls, remember Allåh and ask forgiveness for their sins. And who forgives sins but Allåh? And they persist not knowingly in what they do. Their reward is protection from their Lord, and Gardens wherein flow rivers, to abide in them. And excellent is the reward of the workers!”–(Qur’an 3:134-135)

   -“Say: To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: To Allåh. He has ordained mercy on Himself. He will certainly gather you on the Resurrection day — there is no doubt about it. Those who have lost their souls will not believe”–(Qur’an 6:12)

   -“your Lord has ordained mercy on Himself, (so) that if anyone of you does evil in ignorance, then turns after that and acts aright, then He is Forgiving, Merciful”–(Qur’an 6:54)

   -“I afflict with My chastisement whom I please, and My mercy encompasses all things. So I ordain it for those who keep their duty and pay the poor-rate, and those who believe in Our messages”–(Qur’an 7:156).

   -“And your Lord says: Pray to Me, I will answer you. Those who disdain My service will surely enter hell, abased”–(Qur’an 40:60).

   Allāh is so merciful He implores us in loving compassionate terms to forgive us our sins; He instructs the Prophet Mohammad to convey to us: “Say, O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–(Qur’an 39:53. Imagine Allāh, the Creator and Who needs nothing from us, imagine the expanse of His love, mercy, and compassion to address us in such noble terms. And He forgives “all” sins without having anyone killed).

   And whereas Allāh forgives or requites evil with its like Allāh rewards good up to seven hundredfold: “Whoever brings a good deed will have tenfold like it, and whoever brings an evil deed, will be recompensed only with the like of it, and they shall not be wronged”–(Qur’an 6:160); “The parable of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allåh is as the parable of a grain growing seven ears, in every ear a hundred grains. And Allåh multiplies (further) for whom He pleases. And Allåh is Ample-giving, Knowing”–(Qur’an 2:261). The Prophet is reported as saying that Allāh will forgive all the past sins of a  person who “embraces Islam sincerely” and rewards each of his good deed from tenfold to seven hundredfold and his “evil deed will be recorded as it is unless Allāh forgives;” and that if a Muslim improves his practice of Islam “his good deeds will be rewarded ten times to seven hundred times” and a “bad deed will be recorded as it is”–(Bokhari Vol. 1; chap. 32, and #40).

   As Prophet Mohammad said: “Religion (Islam) is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good things that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #38).

   As stated above, there is no stoning and honor killing in Islam. What is to be borne in mind is that 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 Mohammad followed the Torah; once the Prophet received guidance on that issue there was no going back to the old practice (this is what the Qur’an refers to when it speaks about ABROGATION; not that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another verse of the Qur’an as is the popular belief. The Qur’an/Islam abrogates the Jewish and Christian laws of stoning, death for apostasy, blasphemy; honor killing, slavery, and subjugation of women (see Christianity-subjugates women).

 Also, verses of the Qur’an are to be understood according to the background to which they were revealed; as well as verses dealing with the same subject are to be interpreted together.

   Hadiths –sayings of the Prophet Mohammad– are to be interpreted as to the time-period in which they were given, if it was before or after Qur’anic revelation on the subject. Whatever contradicts with the Qur’an is to be discarded. The Prophet Mohammad taught only according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4).

   The Qur’an supersedes the Hadith. Even during his lifetime sayings were forged in the Prophet’s 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 forbidding 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).  (Thus the safe path is, since the Prophet governed only by the Qur’an, whatever contradicts with the Qur’an is to be discarded).

What Muslims are to do are:
   -entomb and incinerate sectism. It is shameful, disgraceful, and unGodly that after 1400 years Sunnis and Shi’ahs are squabbling over who should have succeeded the Messenger of Allāh –the Caliphs did not squabble or fight each other; they cooperated with each other. Allāh tells us not to divide ourselves. We must be the biggest maroons in creation if we believe we can defy Allāh and sectify ourselves (and even kill one another) and yet expect Allāh to give us Jannah. (See Islam-sectism among Muslims)
   -abolish stoning (see Islam-stoning)
  -abolish honor killing (see Islam-honor killing)
  -abolish death for blasphemy (see Islam-blasphemy)
 -abolish death for homosexuality and lesbianism (see Islam-homosexuals & lesbians)
   -abolish death for apostasy (see Islam-apostasy).  Muslim students are to be schooled in comparative religion, proving that Islam is the only Divinely revealed religion, and is superior to all religions –there is no Karma and Reincarnation; there is no Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement: trinity was invented by the Church 300 years after Christ, and inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul and institutionalized by the Church 300 years after Jesus; see Christianity dupes people

   -end oppression and discrimination of women; the Muslim woman is not a footstool of the Muslim man (see Islam-liberated women).

   Contrary to Irshad Manji’s claim, it is not “tribal honor” that represses Muslims; it is ignorance (or negligence) of Islam that represses Muslims.

Young Muslims especially need to be wary of who they follow. These fakes may very well take you with themselves into Hell. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his comprehensive work The Religion Of Islam are two excellent sources of knowledge. You do not need to read the entire books at one sitting; two pages a day and eventually you will complete them. For these books as well as others including some on comparative religion see www.muslim.org.
   There is no “problem” with Islam; there is “problem” with Irshad Manji. See The Trouble with Islam-Irshad Manji
                                                                 *

 COMMENTS ON IRSHAD MANJI’S ALLĀH, LIBERTY & LOVE

1. Manji states: “It (ijtihad) comes from the same root as jihad, “to struggle,” but unlike violent struggle, ijtihad is about struggling to understand our world by using our minds.” (p. 2).

   Response: Manji implies that jihad is violence –a “violent” struggle; that Allāh enjoins violence.

   Jihad which means to “strive” against evil has several forms. One of which is the armed struggle against oppression/ persecution; which Muslims are required to undertake even on behalf of non-Muslims.

   If taking up arms to end evil is a “violent” struggle, then, some of the biggest names in violence would be Canada (in her War of 1812 to stem American aggression); and the Allies of World War II to end Hitler’s reign of terror. (For an explanation of jihad and ijtihad see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch;  Islam-ijtihad (reason).

2. (Manji wrote about a Muslim student asking about ijtihad).
   ”Why,” he wondered, “aren’t we taught about this Islamic tradition in our madressas?” (pp. 2-3)

   Response: Why do you need to be taught everything in madressa? Is everything you know in material knowledge taught to you in school? Seek knowledge on your own. Get “chutzpah” by following the precepts of Allāh and His Prophet Mohammad. (See Islam-ijtihad (reason).

3. Manji questions, “Why can’t I take Christians and Jews as friends? Why can’t a woman lead prayer? Why should I avoid examining the Qur’an and understanding it? Isn’t this all a recipe for corruption?” (p. 3).

   Response: If you had taken time to learn the Qur’an you would have known the background to this verse that prohibits Muslims from taking Christians and Jews as friends. Have you ever investigated the teachings of Islam to know if a woman can or cannot “lead prayer?” Who or what is preventing you from examining and understanding the Qur’an –certainly not Allāh and His messenger?  All this is not a “recipe for corruption.” All this is a recipe for ignorance.

   Not taking Christians and Jews for friends: Which is worse, not taking one as friend or to enslave him? The Bible instructs Jews and Christians to enslave their “heathen” neighbors–Lev. 25:44. It refers to non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine.”

   From its inception, Jewish and Christian powers tried to destroy Islam. Christians and Jews allied to steal Palestine, to attack Egypt (to control the Suez). Christians want to have control over Muslims’ lands and resources. Christians also fragmented Sudan.

   Allah has given guidance to all peoples. He reveals in His Qur’an that the Jews received numerous prophets –probably more than any other nation. This does not mean that a person who receives guidance could not be or become unjust.  The Muslim world –which has the ultimate in Divine Revelation– is saturated with despots.

   This injunction that Muslims are not to take Jews and Christians for friends, does not relate to social intercourse.  Allah does not forbid Muslims from having good relations with non-Muslims–(Qur’an 60:8); only that non-Muslims are not to be part of Muslims national affairs. Letting foreigners into your private matters give them an insight into your strengths and weaknesses. Non-Muslims would not allow Muslims to be a part in their private affairs.

   Regarding Qur’an 60:8-9 which state: “Allåh forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allåh loves the doers of justice. Allåh forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.” Muhammad Ali comments:

“This verse (8) and the one that follows (9), revealed as they were at a time when the relations between the Muslims and the disbelievers were most strained on account of the existence of a continual state of war between the two parties, settle conclusively that friendly relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, as such, are not prohibited. It is in the light of these verses that all the verses forbidding friendly relations with the disbelievers should be read, because here the true principle is revealed in unmistakable language, allowing friendly relations with one class of disbelievers and prohibiting such relations with those of another class.”

   Women leading prayer: see The Trouble with Islam, item #11. Also Islam-liberated women.

4. Manji states: “Hamza, a Canadian teenager with Pakistani parents, implored me in an email “not to leave Islam” because “we really need people like you.” But, he prodded, “sometimes you criticize Islam too much. Perhaps you could endorse the open-minded, forward-looking Islam more….”I embraced his challenge; it showed faith in my capacity to grow.” (pp. 6-7).

   Response: Poor pathetic Hamza.  Talk about the blind asking the woefully blind to lead him.  Please Ms. Irshad detail what is there in Islam to “criticize;” what is there in Islam that is not “open-minded, forward-looking.” Please “focus on the trouble with Islam” and detail for us what you find. (See our response to The Trouble with Islam).

5. On pages 15-17 Manji posts letters from Muslim youths fearful of relating their true feelings to their parents.

   Response: This is most unfortunate. As Muslims we need to keep in foremost remembrance that whatever we conceal and reveal are known to Allāh and whatever we say and do are recorded.

   Allāh/Islam requires us to speak truth and be honest. There is no issue that cannot be amiably resolved if we refer the matter to Allāh and His noble Messenger (the Qur’an and Sunnah). In their judgment there is no “hurt feelings” to contend with.

   Moreover, Islam requires children to be good to parents and have good relations even with pagan parents; keeping true feelings from parents is not being “good” to parents and not having “good relations” with them–(Qur’an 17:23; 29:8; 31:14-15;  56:15-18; Bokhari Vol. 3, #789; Vol. 1, #505; Vol. 8, #1; Vol. #789; Muslim Vol. 3, #4257, 4260).

   While Muslims are to honor parents and respect families this is not to compromise truth and justice:

“Surely We have revealed the Book to thee with truth that thou mayest judge between people by means of what Allåh has taught thee. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest”–(Qur’an 4:105)

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

Muslims are to learn Islam; and in matters of conflict with parents are to point out the Islamic verdict. If parents are Allāh-conscious they would have no difficulty in accepting. Even in cases where no unison is reached yet there is to be no acrimony; for Allāh will show us the truth of the matter whereby we differ:

“And be not like her who unravels her yarn, disintegrating it into pieces, after she has spun it strongly. You make your oaths to be means of deceit between you because (one) nation is more numerous than (another) nation. Allåh only tries you by this. And He will certainly make clear to you on the day of Resurrection that wherein you differed”–(Qur’an 16:92).

   “Say: O Allåh, Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen, Thou judgest between Thy servants as to that wherein they differ”–(Qur’an 39:46).

   “And in whatever you differ, the judgment thereof is with Allåh. That is Allåh, my Lord; on Him I rely, and to Him I turn”–(Qur’an 42:10. Incidentally, these verses show that there is no justification for “sectism” among Muslims. See Islam-sectism among Muslims).

Muslims are even required to keep good relations with pagan parents–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #789; Vol. 4, #407; Muslim Vol. 3, #’s 4257, 4260;

   In the matter of marriage.  While parents may see it fit to find a mate they believe suitable for their child, the final choice rests with the son or daughter.  Says the noble Messenger of Allāh:

   -“A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 67, 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100).

   -A virgin’s consent, because of bashfulness, is expressed by her silence–(Bokhari Vol. 7,  # 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100-101);

   -And that “If a man gives his daughter in marriage in spite of her disagreement, such marriage is invalid” –it notes the dissolution of such a marriage by the Prophet on behalf of a “matron” who disliked the marriage her father had arranged–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 69; Vol. 9, # 78).

   -A woman may also propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7 #’s 48, 53, 54). There is a report of a woman proposing marriage to the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 505). (See Islam-liberated women).      

6. On page 25 Manji states: “I’ve explained to my students that by “courage,” I mean speaking your truth.” But on page 33 in response to one Muslim who “disagreed with the title” of her book –The Trouble with Islam– which should have been The Trouble with MUSLIMS. Manji responded:

“Had I called my book The Trouble with Muslims, the professional lobbyists who pawn themselves off as Muslim “representatives” would have accused me of hate-mongering against an “identifiable group.” Imagine the lawsuits.”

Clearly, to tell others to have “courage” (which is to speak the truth) and for you to not speak the truth that there is Trouble with Muslims is not “moral courage.” In fact not only is your action “moral” hypocrisy but gross “moral” hypocrisy.

   And if you have proof that there is Trouble with Muslims how can you be afraid of telling it? moreover, as you wrote in your pages that the trouble is with “Muslims”? And are you not now afraid they will drown you in “lawsuits”?

7. Manji notes, one Palestinian Muslim woman wrote: “All the problems in the Middle east are because of Israel….Why can’t you say anything to help the Palestinians? I know we are the best nation that Allāh has chosen.” (p.33).

   Response: (See also item #59 and #63 about Hamas and Hezbollah). Irshad Manji seems frigid to the injustice and brutalities meted out to the Palestinians. As one (seemingly Jewish) individual agonized on the Internet, (quoting from memory): ‘If you have a heart you will cry for the Palestinians.’

   Ismail Zayid points out in his (booklet) Palestine–A Stolen Heritage (pp. 10, 11):

“Sumner Welles affirmed: “By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world, that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to Partition.”” And “James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote: “The methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal.””   (No Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” Where are the Muslim, and other just individuals, legal brains to challenge this illegally-created Zionist entity in the World Court?)

The major cause of the “plight of the Palestinians” is the monumental and grotesque obscenity perpetrated against them by America (through her diplomatic thuggery at the UN) and the United Nations –the theft of their land– to facilitate the Jewish state. If Jews only wanted a homeland they would have taken it in Uganda where the British was offering it to them. But Jews covet Arab/Muslim Palestine and have been scheming since the 1800’s to boot the Palestinians from their land:

   -Theodor Herzl wrote that Jews would have to “spirit the penniless” Arabs out of Palestine “while denying” them “employment in our own country” (??? our “own” country? How did Pales-tine become your country? Arrogance at its peak).

   -Joseph Weitz wanted an Israel “without Arabs.”

   -Chaim Weizman “promised” that ““Palestine will be as Jewish as England is English.””

   -Israel Zangwill envisioned “a land without people for a people without land” –in other words a land without Arabs for Jews who had no land.

   -Theodor Herzl envisioned the Jewish state to stretch from Turkey to Egypt:  ““The northern frontier is to be the mountains facing Cappadocia (in Turkey), the southern, the Suez.””

   -Moshe Dayan, as Chief of Staff of the Jewish army is noted as stating in 1952: ““It lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate objective of erecting the Israeli empire.”” (And this was only a meager four years after their occupation   of Palestine).   And as Jewish general, Dayan boasted after their victory in the 1967 six-day war with Egypt and Syria: ““Our fathers had reached the frontiers which was recognised in the Partition Plan. Our generations reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the six-day generation have managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present ceasefire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan – perhaps to Lebanon and perhaps to Central Syria as well.” (How is he so certain there will be new ceasefire lines? Seems like it is their plan to instigate wars and occupy more territory? Clearly, from their own declarations and actions Jews had no intention of having only a home-land; their ideal was/is to occupy/usurp all of Palestine).

   These are some of the declarations of the people who project themselves to the world as “doves of peace and examples of injured innocence,” as brilliantly penned by Ismail Zayid is his presentation Palestine–A Stolen Heritage for details see Palestine). 

   Jews are not only occupying Palestinians’ lands and yet stealing more lands they are slaughtering Palestinians to hold on to what is not theirs:

   -“We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here….You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; the Arab villages are not there either.….There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”³

   -“Not only did the Israelis refuse to allow the return of the (Palestinian) refugees to their homes, but they consummated the tragedy by seizing all their property in one of the greatest acts of plunder in modern history. The confiscation of Arab land was not confined to the holdings of the refugees but extended to the 200,000 Palestinians who remained in their homes in 1948, by a series of extraordinary laws and regulations of legalised robbery. These included “The Land Acquisition Law,” “The Abandoned Areas Ordinance, 1949,” “The Absentee Property Regulations, 1948” and others ^a. The injustices, to which the Arabs in Israel were subjected, went far beyond the expropriation of their farms and property, and included flagrant infringement upon their basic human rights and civil liberties. Derek Tozer, a British correspondent, writing in The American Mercury, stated: The official policy of the Government (of Israel) is unequivocal. Arabs, like Jews in Nazi Germany, are officially ‘Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards””^b. William Zukerman, Editor of the Jewish Newsletter, said “a more flagrant case of discrimination is hard to find even in the annals of the chauvinistic twentieth century.^c””⁴

-Ilan Pappe notes in his scholarly presentation, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the ruthless methods “employed” “to forcibly evict” the native Palestinians were “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning;” and that at the end of their “mission” which took “six months” to complete: “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800, 000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.” (pp. xii, xiii).

   -“official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse.”⁵

   -(Israel’s) “strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them”⁶ (And yet Arabs/Muslims are villainized).

   -In his book Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World (p. 9) Prof. Noam Chomsky notes the loathsome, disgusting, treatment meted out to Arab prisoners: “These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” (This, from God’s “chosen people” and the “only democracy” in the Middle-east. Fortunate for these prisoners these Jews were not the Devil’s “chosen” ones and a tyranny in the Middle-east). Emphasis added).

At the time of Partition of Palestine Jews were 34% of the population and owned less than 6% of the land. Yet the Plan allotted Jews 56% of the land including the valuable coast-land, 42% for a Palestinian state and 1% as an international sector.

   What would you do should your Government forcibly squeezes you and family into forty-four percent of your house and put a homeless family of fewer members into the remaining fifty-six percent; and give this homeless people title of ownership to this fifty-six percent of your property? And whereas members of your family do not have the right to come and live in your house, members of the homeless people born anywhere in the world has the right to live in your house –whereas a Jew born anywhere in the world has automatic citizenship to Palestine, a Palestinian born in Jaffa, his own country, is a refugee. This is the reality and injustice Palestinians face.

No one in the world –no King or Queen or Prince or pauper or President or Prime Minister or Foreign minister or doctor or lawyer or Rabbi or teacher or writer or student or peasant or American or British or French or Canadian or Russian or Jew or… – would accept such an ignominious scheme and not challenge it in every way open to him and her. Yet Palestinians are forced to accept the fate that no one in the world would accept.

Palestinians are not to suffer for Christian’s/Europe’s shame!
Those who criticize and/or condemn Hamas/Palestinians, Hezbollah (and Amal) for “jihading” to reclaim that which was stolen from Muslims are to put their dignity (if they have) where their mouths are and accept for themselves this monumental and grotesque obscenity that was perpetrated, and continues to be perpetrated for more than six torturous decades now, against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians –they must swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel they and their governments are trying to force-feed the Palestinians: they must give half of their property to the homeless and half of their country to the natives or ethnic sector for their State; they must suffer what the Palestinians have suffered and endure what the Palestinians are enduring and accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept. 

   Any Muslim who acquiesces to this foreign domination of Palestine is a traitor to himself, his people, and to Allāh and His noble Messenger; and will have to account to Allāh for his/her betrayal of this trust. Palestine is the moral, social, historical and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims:

   -Morally: Palestinians are the descendants of the natives. (Present-day Jews are not descendants of Jacob. Palestinians inhabited Canaan/Palestine eons before Abraham arrived there).

   -Socially: a country is not dissected because one sector does not wish to live with the “other”(a country forced into dividing because two races militate against each other is not the same as Jewish intent to create a state, or because they desire their own state; the Sikhs and the Gypsies of Europe should petition the UN for their respective State in India and Europe, if only to test the integrity of the UN); those who do not wish to live with the “other” must leave. If ownership to a piece of land constitutes the right to secede from the whole, or if a country is dissected because one sector does not wish to live with the “other,” or along sectist, racial, and theological lines, or for want of their own state many a country might now be standing in rumps.

-Historically: Palestinians history in Palestine predates that of Jews –Jewish sovereignty in Palestine was for a mere sixty years, two thousand years ago.

   -Spiritually: as in the Bible (noted below, by Prof. Dawud). Allāh, the God of Justice and Goodness, would not take Palestine from the believing Palestinians and give it to a stiffnecked and rebellious people, most of whom are faithless, treacherous, transgressors, on whom His curse is upon, whom He has declared to subject to severe torment to the day of Resurrection, and who have lost the kingdom of God–(Exodus 33:3; Deut. 9:7; 31:27; Isaiah 65:2-3; Matt. 21:43; 23:31-38. Qur’an 2:88-89; 2:100; 5:13; 5:81; 2:88-89; 7:167).

Regarding the Palestinians/Muslims spiritual heritage of Palestine, Professor ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– explains in his revealing book Muhammad In The Bible:
“There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept as truths. The first point is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham, his firstborn, and therefore his claim to birthright is quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between God and Abraham as well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the institution of the Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise contained in the divine words, “Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,” and especially the expression, the Seed “that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee” (Gen. xv. 4). This promise was fulfilled when Ishmael was born (Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his chief servant Eliezer would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the real and legitimate heir of Abraham’s spiritual dignity and privileges. The prerogative that “by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed,” so often repeated –though in different forms– was the heritage by birthright, and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was entitled by birthright was not the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride, but to subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, which were inhabited by some ten different nations (Gen. xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued by the descendants of Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfilment of one of the conditions contained in the Covenant.

The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed by the Almighty, that for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under Joshua. ….

….The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated   many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in this chapter by God: “Because thou didst not spare thy only begotten son, I will increase and multiply thy posterity like the stars and the sands on the seashore,” which word “multiply” was used by the Angel to Hagar in the wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that Ishmael “shall become a fruitful man” (Gen. xvi. 12. It is Muslims whose numbers are “like the stars and the sands on the seashore”–(Gen. 22:17). Now the Christians have translated the same Hebrew word, which means “fruitful” or “plentiful” from the verb para –identical with the Arabic wefera– in their versions “a wild ass”!  Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael “a wild ass” whom God styles “Fruitful” or “Plentiful”?” (pp. 30-32.  Italics/Emphasis/color added).
     Man can alter Scripture(s), man cannot alter decree of God.

Jews have a right to be in Palestine; NOT the state! As evidenced, so-called “Israel” is an illegally-created Zionist entity (and, theologically, it is an obscene blot in the heart of the Islamic sun).(See also item #59). In the annals of modern history no people has suffered so much and for so long as 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!

Jewish claim that “God gave us this land” (Palestine) is one of the three biggest crocks ever peddled under the name of God and religion –the other two crocks are that God has a son and mankind inherited sin from Adam.
   Unless U.S. President, Harry Truman, is God of the Jews and that God accomplishes His purpose through diplomatic thuggery than through righteousness, let Jews prove that God gave them Twentieth-century Palestine –no Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” God gave these alien occupying Jews nothing –ZERO, ZILCH, SQUAT, KADOODLE. 

(America can give Jews New York, California, or Texas for their homeland; more Jews live in America than in Palestine anyway. Or Britain –the instigator of the partition of PALESTINE– can give Jews England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales for their homeland. Or France can give Jews Paris, Marseilles, or Nice for their homeland. Or Canada can give Jews Ontario, Quebec, or Alberta for their homeland. Or Germany can give Jews half of the Fatherland in atonement  Or Jews can cultivate dignity and maturity and migrate to Tristan da Cunha.

   We often read from Western writers that Jews made the “desert bloom;” as if it is meant to justify the theft of Palestine. Though Palestinians made the desert bloom and for hundreds of years before Jewish presence. Let the Christian Bible commentator tell it, speaking about the discovery of “The Tell el-Amarna Letters”: “A most valuable discovery which throws light on the history of Palestine BEFORE THE HEBREW CONQUEST…They show that Palestine was inhabited by AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE AND CITY DWELLERS by 1400 B.C. and that they were HIGHLY CIVILIZED and POSSESSED MUCH WEALTH.” (Self-Pronouncing Edition, Holy Bible, Sec; The Archeology of the Bible, p. 20, emphasis added).
There is no report that the Palestinians were occupiers and thieves. Or that they engaged in intrigue and treachery and terrorism and stole another people’s land. They were “HIGHLY CIVILIZED and POSSESSED MUCH WEALTH” way long “BEFORE THE HEBREW CONQUEST”.
(Since Jews are adept at making the desert “bloom” Americans would have no qualms in relocating Jews from Palestine to Nevada).

   It is unbridled bigotry and crass political putrefaction to label Hamas, Hezbollah (and Amal) “terrorist” for trying to liberate our stolen land –Palestine.
Is Canada “terrorist” for preventing American occupation of Canada in 1812? Is Britain “terrorist” for voyaging half-way round the globe in 1982 to boot Argentina off the “disputed” Falklands Island?
Is the French Resistance “terrorist” for fighting German occupation? Is the Allies of World war II “terrorist” for heaving Germany from France?
Is America “terrorist” for forcing Cuba to dismantle its Russian missile base in 1962?

   Hamas, Hezbollah (and Amal) could hardly be “terrorist” for exercising our God-given right to boot the occupier and reclaim our land which was blatantly and arrogantly stolen. And the “Occupied” has the right to fight by whatever means and whatever methods available; man has no right to edict judgment against them: this judgment is only for Allāh.
The occupier/usurper/thief has NO “right,” “inalienable” or otherwise, to “retaliate”/defend against his victim: he being the transgressor to begin with –a mugger has no “right” to break the arm of his victim when his victim turns on him. “Right” is for the victims. Palestinians are the victims.

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

~~~Palestine~~~
Timeless! Celestially Ours!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Saladin? (Salahuddin Ayyube)

To the writer’s statement that Muslims ‘are the best nation,” Manji states: “Don’t you sound like a zealous Zionist when you insist that Allāh has “chosen” Arabs as the best nation?”

   Response: In Qur’an 3:109 Allāh says: “You are the best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allāh.” The “best nation” referred to is NOT Arabs but Muslims.

   Unlike Zionists who plume themselves to be not only God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others but also as the “most superior of all races”⁷ –a mentality that can, and does, lead to unspeakable horrors against others to satisfy this end– Muslims come from every band of the color spectrum.  And Muslims are the “best nation” only because we enjoin good and forbid evil and believe in Allāh. And as there is no hypocrisy in Islam, in order to enjoin good we must do good; and to forbid evil we are to avoid evil.

Belief in Allāh does not mean blind faith –Allāh has proven His existence through the Qur’an, see Qur’an-prophecies;  Qur’an-science. Belief in Allāh means: Allāh is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute; on Whom all depend; He begets not; nor is begotten; there is none like Him; He incarnates not; has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others;  needs no “satisfaction” to forgive sins; belief in all His Angels; Books; Prophets; Resurrection; Judgment; Heaven and Hell.
(While we are to believe in all His Scriptures, Allāh God has informed us what not to believe, such as: polytheism, idolatry, partnership with God, Trinity, sonship of God, inherited sin, vicarious atonement, karma, and reincarnation).

–Allāh, God, is One i.e. He is not One in a Trinity –whether it be the Hindu Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the Pagan Trinity of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva– nor is He One in a Duality –as in the Zoroastrian’s God of darkness and all things evil, and God of light and all things good– nor is Allāh One in a polytheism. And He is One in attributes –there is no other existence with attributes as He.

–Allāh, God, is Eternal, Absolute, i.e. He never dies nor can be killed.  As a son is the successor of his father, and as Allāh, God, is eternal He does not need a son to succeed Him.  To say that God has a son, or that He needs a son, is to say that He is not eternal (and needs someone to succeed Him). Allāh is not dependent on anyone, but all are dependent upon Him. Allāh, God, is Absolute, i.e. there was none before Him, and there is none after Him.

–Allah God begets not, i.e. being One and Only, the First and Creator of all and thus could not have a consort, He begets not. Fatherhood (begetting) requires the joining of sperm with ovum. Apart from Mary not being the consort of God, “God is a Spirit”–(John 4:24). Spirit cannot bear parental relations with mortal, who is flesh and blood.

The belief that Jesus was born through a miracle does not make him son of God. Adam and Eve had neither mother nor father; and Melchisedec had neither mother nor father nor beginning nor end–(Heb. 7:1-3).

That God can do anything is no argument (God cannot create His mother). This is not a question about God creating an item; it is a matter of God having a relation. Whereas God has the power to create an object, He could not have a mother/father as He is ‘un-born’ and is the First and the Creator of all. Mary was not the consort of God so that her son, Jesus, could be son of God. Scientists who clone animals are not fathers of these clones; clones are not children of these scientists. If Jesus is son of God because he is said to be “fatherless” and of “virgin” birth, human clones who would be “fatherless” and even of “virgin” birth would also be sons/daughters of God.

Son of God as Allāh reveals and as research has uncovered, is a remnant of Paganism–(Qur’an 9:30. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din has detailed the pagan nature of Christianity in his revealing book, The (pagan) Sources Of Christianity. See Christianity-is paganism).

–Allāh, God, is not begotten, i.e. Being the First and Creator of all and thus having no mother and father, He is not born.  A woman created by God cannot be the mother of God. God cannot be son of a woman.

–There is none like Allāh, God, i.e. being First and Last,  Evident and Immanent and one in attributes there is none like Him; being Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent He incarnates not; being Just He has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; being Beneficent and Merciful He needs no ‘blood sacrifice’ to forgive sins; and does not give to every action an equal and opposite reaction –He forgives sins altogether or He requites evil with its like; and He rewards good up to seven hundredfold–(Qur’an 39:53; 6:160; 2:261. Bokhari Vol. 1; ch. 32, #40).  (See ALLĀH).

   Manji also notes the view of a Palestinian youth: “We cannot keep blaming the Israelis for our problems. We all know that opinions in our Arab societies are determined by family loyalties instead of reason. My brother and I against my cousin; my cousin, brother and I against an external threat.” (pp. 129-130).

   Response: This Palestinian youth needs to put on his head. “Israel” may not be blamable for all your problems, but “Israel” is the nucleus of your problems. While a free Palestine may not have been free of corrupt and myopic leaders; without “Israel” Palestinians would have had all their lands and be free of the humiliating and disgraceful check-points, bulldozed properties and destroyed orchards and farms, etc;  they would not be forced to live like chickens in overcrowded coops. In fact, Palestine may even be like Kuwait or Abu Dhabi.

   And. Lest we forget! It was the Muslim Salahhuddin Ayyube, the Majestic Saladin, who brought Jews back to Jerusalem from where they were barred by their Christian brothers-in Scripture –and for centuries Muslims and Jews lived in peace and harmony until Zionism reared its ugly, despicable head; as stated, from the 1800’s Zionist Jews were scheming to kick the unsuspecting Palestinian natives from their land– and this is how Zionist Jews repay Muslims’/Arabs’ benevolence and love: with hatred, intrigue, massacre, expulsion, occupation/usurpation and more than sixty years of torture, humiliation, and barbarism– they devour the hand that fed them!

(For a list of Jewish atrocities read Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in  the Real World, Edward Said, The Question of Palestine;  Ilan Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; if you can digest intellectual, “civilized,” and “democratic” savagery. See also SHAPED BY TERRORISM, NOURISHED BY BLOOD By Barbara L of http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/). 

8. One writer points out that Muslims who transgressed the teachings of Islam are “NOT to be identified with Islam.” To which Irshad Manji wrote: “Muslims are not to be identified with Islam? That’s patently illogical….The truth is, Islam is whatever we Muslims make of it….He (Prophet Mohammad) was reportedly asked, “What is religion?” And he reportedly replied, “Religion is the way we conduct ourselves.” By that definition, how we Muslims behave is Islam.” (p. 36).

   Response: Thus, by Manji’s understanding (of the Prophet’s saying) Judaism is Semite supremacy because Jews believe they are “the most superior of all races”; and Christianity is “sodomism” because of Christian priests sodomizing boys (see Internet, ‘Christian priests guilty of sodomy’).

  Allāh says: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islåm as a religion”–(Qur’an 5:3). Islam is “peace and submission to Allāh God. And “religion” is the “way of life.” Thus the Muslim’s way of life is “Islam: And the Islamic “conduct” (or “way of life”) is clearly laid out in the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet. Anything other than this is one’s OWN religion!

   This saying of the Prophet, “Religion is the way we conduct ourselves,” means exactly that –Muslims who behave contrary to the precepts of Islam are “conducting” THEIR OWN Religion: they are NOT conducting Islam. To declare that the actions of Muslims who transgress the teaching of Islam is “Islam” is crass ignorance.

9. Interfaith marriage (pp. 42-43). Manji notes one mixed-faith couple who “goes further in reimagining family. “Now my grandson is an evangelical Christian,” she volunteers. “This is fine with my son and me. There is only one God.” (p.45). (See Women Marrying non-Muslim Men).

   Response: Whereas a person is free to hold whatever beliefs he/she chooses; and while there is “only one God,” what is paramount is one’s conception of God. It is the Divine requirement that we govern by “reason”:  

“Come now, and let us REASON together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”–(Isaiah 1:18).

    “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright”–Qur’an 16:125).

Like a person going on a journey would need to have his route clearly mapped out lest he stray from his destination. Likewise, since they make the difference between Heaven and Hell, the cardinal doctrines of a religion are to be clearly expressed lest one strays into Hell.

   (Whereas the cardinal doctrines of Islam –Unity of God, Prayer, Zakaat/Charity, Fasting, and Hajj– are clearly expressed in the Qur’an, and taught and practiced by the Prophet Mohammad). The cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Trinity, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– are NOT clearly expressed in the Bible.

   God did not reveal and Christ did not teach Trinity –to say that God incarnated Himself as Jesus Christ is to say that God went into the belly of Mary, subjected Himself through the various stages of fetal development, emerged from her vagina, and sucked her breast and even had Himself circumcised (making God son of Mary, a woman He created, and making Mary mother of God). This is blasphemy as it would make God less “clean” then Adam and Eve who were not born–(Job 4:17; 25:4).

   God or Jesus did not say that mankind inherited sin from Adam –that God puts the sin of Adam onto BABIES and in their MOTHERS’ WOMBS and worldwide for at least five thousand years now and until the Resurrection. To imprison one person for the crime of another is an injustice. To say that God put Adam’s sin onto others is to attribute injustice to God

   God or Jesus did not say that God sent Jesus to be killed for anyone’s sin –that whereas MAN is to forgive his transgressor seventy times seven and go another mile with his compeller and give the other cheek to his assailant as Jesus said, but God cannot forgive even one-seventieth or go another mile with His compeller or give the other cheek to His assailant; and that God would not only load the sin of a MAN (Adam) onto BABIES in their MOTHERS’ WOMBS and worldwide and for at least five thousand years now and until the Resurrection but that God is so devoid of mercy that He had Jesus, an innocent man, savagely beaten and killed to free us of a “sin” committed by Adam. Rather than being a demonstration of “love” for world this can be said to be a demonstration of monumental and grotesque injustice. To have someone killed is to be complicit in murder. To say that God had Jesus killed is to make God complicit in murder; and to say that God had Jesus killed for the sin of others is to attribute injustice to God.

 These cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Trinity, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– are assumed and propagated as Divine truths. Trinity was invented by the Church three hundred years after Jesus Christ, inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul and institutionalized by the Church three hundred years after Jesus. (See Christianity dupes people). Thus, while there is one God, one need to ask himself and herself, how can I go to heaven by following doctrines God did not reveal?

   To follow or teach doctrines in the name of God that God did not reveal is blasphemy. Jesus says blasphemers are heading into “eternal damnation,” the “everlasting” “furnace of fire” that “never shall be quenched” in which is “wailing and gnashing of teeth”–(Mark 3:29; 9:43; Matthew 18:8; 13:42).

While we have shown on our website (www.nogod butallah.org) based on teachings of the Bible and Christian’s scientific examination of the Shroud of Turn (the linen in which Jesus is said to have been placed after the “crucifixion) that CHRISTIANITY IS A FAKE,  Reza Aslan –a Muslim who converted to Christianity and reverted to Islam after studying the Bible and the life of Jesus– has added another dimension to the falsity of Christianity: he has shown in his scholarly presentation Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,⁸ that the Gospelic Jesus is NOT the historical Jesus; that “the gospels are not about a man known as Jesus of Nazareth who lived two thousand years ago; they are about a messiah whom the gospel writers viewed as an eternal being sitting at the right hand of God;” that “Despite two millennia of Christian apologetics, the fact is that belief in a dying and rising messiah simply did not exist in Judaism.” And

“In the entire history of Jewish thought there is not a single line of scripture that says the messiah is to suffer, die, and rise again on the third day….To the Jews, a crucified messiah was nothing less than a contradiction in terms. The very fact of Jesus’s crucifixion annulled his messianic claims.” (pp. 133-134; 165; 177-178).

  Christianity is not only a fake, Christianity is a colossal fake. In believing that Trinity/Divinity of Jesus, inherited sin and vicarious atonement will take them to heaven Christians are living on Fantasy Island.

God says to govern by reason and Jesus says “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (from falsehood)–(John 8:32). The Divine truth is Jesus was only a messenger to the Jews, he taught remission of sins through repentance, that eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law until the coming of the Comforter who will guide into “all truth” and “abide forever.” And Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud B.D. –“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 Mohammad is this Comforter; who abides “forever” through the Qur’an.

   As eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law until the coming of the Comforter (Mohammad) and as the Comforter will guide into “all truth” and “abide for ever” there is no need for Jesus –JESUS IS REDUNDANT– and the Bible, being devoid of “all truth,” the BIBLE IS OBSOLETE (see Bible corrupt & obsolete).
   In fact, Jesus became redundant the moment he preached adherence to the Mosaic Law and the Bible became obsolete 600 years after, with the advent of Mohammad, the Comforter. (See Jesus-Comforter).
   Every one who wants to go to heaven has to bend his/her knees to Allāh and the Messengership of Mohammad: There is no God but Allāh; Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh! As shown in our presentations on Mohammad: no man cometh to God but by Mohammad.

Rather than being “fine” with her grandson being “an evangelical Christian” this “mixed-faith couple” and their son should be wailing and gnashing their teeth for their grandson/son and trying to save him from Hell-fire.
Blind faith is no passport to Paradise; Reason is the door to God. 

Non-Muslims, and Muslims who have apostatized from Islam (rather than learn about Islam) have the grand opportunity, while you are alive –and no one knows when he/she will die–, to turn to Allāh and Paradise; when you die this grand opportunity evaporates like a dewdrop in Hell.
Heaven lies in following clearly-expressed Divine doctrines; not in following human inventions and assumptions.

10. Manji opines: “Islam, after all, derives directly from Judaism and Christianity. The Universal Creator…Everlasting life after death….Free will….Prophets prone to error. Muslims owe these cornerstone convictions to non-Muslims.” (p. 47).

   Response:  Where do Christianity and Judaism teach Universal Creator?  True, the Bible says God created everything but when it comes to the Biblical God being the God equally of all nations Moses and Jesus made it clear that God is the God only of the Israelites. In fact, Jesus not only refused to give the bread of the “children” to the non Jews but considers them “dogs” and “swine” and even preached in parables so these “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be converted and be saved. (See Jesus-only for Jews).

   Where does Judaism teach “Everlasting life after death”?  Though the Old Testament makes references to a future life  there are no clear expressions by “GOD” that He will resurrect the dead –as given in the Qur’an 22:5-7; 67:15; 75:1-12; 99:1-8– and there are no clear descriptions of Hell and Heaven and details of punishments,  which may be the reason why “One sect of the Jews denied the Resurrection.”⁹

   And whereas Jesus spoke of resurrection and suffering in Hell Jesus also gave no details of this form of punishment. (It is to be noted that Hell is not a “torture chamber” of a vengeful God; nor is punishment in Hell “everlasting,” as Jesus says. Punishment in Hell depends on the degree of one’s sin; while Heaven is forever –as long as Allāh wishes. (See Hell;  Heaven/Paradise).

   Where do Christianity and Judaism teach “Free Will”? Judaism and Christianity require death for apostasy–(Deut; 13:5-16); death for witchcraft–(Exodus 22:18); death for worshipping “strange gods”–(Deut. 32:15-25); and Elijah slaughtered 450 prophets of the pagan god, Baal–(1 Kings 18:18-40).

  That “Prophets prone to error.” Allāh says the Prophet errs not; and prophets are sinless because they do and say only as God instructs–(Qur’an 53:2-3; 21:25-28; Gospel of John 4:34; 5:30-31; 6:38; 7:16; 12:49. Jesus doing and saying only as God “gave” him proves that Jesus is not God and that Jesus was a Muslim –one who submits to God– and he taught Islam –submission to God. 

   That “Muslims owe these cornerstone convictions to non-Muslims”: Allāh raised messengers among all nations and gave them guidance suitable to their people and their time, and He sent Mohammad to the Arabs and the world with a “perfected” religion; and Manji mouths off that “Muslims owe these cornerstone convictions to non-Muslims.” (See Qur’an-borrowed from Bible).

11. One non-Muslim wife wrote to Manji: “My husband always says the Qur’an is the true word of God because the Qur’an itself states that it will never be altered in any way. I ask: “What if THAT line was the first to be altered.” (p. 48).

   Response: The Qur’an was memorized and written down upon its revelation; and the Angel Gabriel rehearsed it with the Prophet. And Allāh invites the disbelievers to produce a chapter like the Qur’an. (See Qur’an is perfectly preserved).

   Even if the Qur’an was “altered” no Scripture can be shown to be superior to or equal with the Qur’an. And no religion can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam. Karma & Reincarnation are not Divine doctrines; Trinity was invented by the Church 300 years after Jesus, and inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul and institutionalized by the Church 300 years after Christ. (See Christianity dupes people ).

Manmade doctrines cannot lead to heaven. Heaven lies in following Divine doctrines. The cardinal doctrines of Islam –Unity of God; Prayer; Zakaat/Charity; Fasting, and Hajj– are clearly expressed in the Qur’an and observed by the Prophet Mohammad. These doctrines are conducive to reason: Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of “reason.”

   Allāh loves us.
Allāh wants to guide us.
Allāh wants us to be pure.
Allāh wants us to have a life in Paradise.
Islam is our PASSPORT TO PARADISE

12. Manji notes one Muslim who wrote that while they are taught Islam is the religion of “peace” their history books “never refers to Jews without the word “racist” beforehand; never refers to Europeans without the word “terrorist” beforehand. They teach us at one point that this is the religion of peace, and then flip to bashing various groups, including gays.”(p. 50).

   Response: By their own pronouncement Jews are “racist”: Prof. Noam Chomsky notes in his insightful work Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, pp. 29-30:

“Zionism is thereby conceived as the doctrine that Israel must be accorded rights beyond those of any other state; it must maintain control of occupied territories, thus barring any meaningful form of self-determination for Palestinians; and it must remain a state based on the principle of discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. It is perhaps of some interest that those who declare themselves “supporters of Israel” insist on the validity of the notorious UN resolution declaring Zionism to be racist.”¹⁰

And, the Jewish, “KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes: “The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races.””¹¹ (See note for full text).
(And Hitler was pilloried for his view that Germans is the master race. If supremacy is based on race, residency, and knowledge; then Palestinians/Arabs are the “most superior of all races”; having resided in Palestine for six thousand years, is the best nation, as Allāh says in His Qur’an, and has given Muslims knowledge that brought light to the world –at a time when Jews and everyone else were running around with flint tools and torches).

It is this “racism” (and covetousness) that impelled them to dispossess Palestinians of their lands and for six torturous decades to subject the fearless and forbearing Palestinians to all sorts of degradation. (Though it would a big “beard-face” lie to say all Jews are “racists).

   That Europeans are “terrorists.” What would you label those who invade other people and enslave them, and so you can plunder their lands? Like the Europeans in the Congo where they even chained naked African women at the necks.¹² (Though it would be dishonesty to call all European “terrorists”).

   However, while Muslims may recount these “racism” and “terrorism” Muslims are not to dwell on them or transgress against them (except to reclaim our lands, which is not transgression but liberation).

   Prophet Mohammad came as a mercy to the world. We are to teach people the Divine truth: pointing out the errors of what they are following –Karma and reincarnation whose origin are not clear; Trinity was invented by the Church 300 years after Jesus Christ; inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul and institutionalized by the Church 300 years after Jesus.

   That “They teach us at one point that this is the religion of peace, and then flip to bashing various groups, including gays”: Islam IS “the religion of peace.” Islam does not call to “bashing” any group. As noted, Islam does not allow Muslims to “peep” into any person’s bedroom. Allāh/Islam enjoins punishment for certain sins, Allāh/Islam does not allow the Masjid/State into one’s bedroom.

   Recounting history and teaching scripture is not “bashing” anyone. Truth is not “bashing.” Those who want their virtue extolled and vice suppressed need to cultivate dignity and maturity.

   Regarding Muslims being labeled terrorist. The following is taken from an email:  German Muslim scholar replies on TERRORISM …
I liked the answer of this German Muslim scholar when he was asked about terrorism and Islam: He said :

Who started the first world war? not Muslims.
Who started the second world war? not Muslims.
Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia? not Muslims.
Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? not Muslims.
Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? not Muslims.
Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in south America? not Muslims.
Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% them died and were thrown in Atlantic ocean? not Muslims.
No, NOT Muslims!!!

First of all, You have to define terrorism properly…
If a non-Muslim does something bad..it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same.. he is a terrorist…
So first remove this double standard…then come to the point!!! , . . . . .

In addition to the above:
   -Who stole Palestine from Palestinians, and left tens of thousands homeless and wandering? not Muslims.
   -Who invaded Iraq twice and killed thousands? not Muslims.
   -Who savaged in Libya, Chechnya, Dagestan, and Bosnia?  not Muslims.
   -Who invaded Egypt to have control of the Suez Canal? not Muslims.
   -Who committed the first act of air piracy in the Middle-east? not Muslims. (See Noam Chomsky, Pirates And Emperors, New And Old, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 66).
  -Who overthrew the governments of Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq? not Muslims.

Incidentally, had Muslims heed the admonishing of Allāh to not sectify ourselves, to have military preparedness, and to protect one another Palestine would not have been stolen; Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia would not be under Russia’s jackboots; Bosnia, Kashmir, Uighuristan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc;  would not be bleeding; Singapore would not have been facilitated to secede from Malaysia, Sudan would not have been dismembered; and the Middle-east would not have been “treacherously” carved up by Britain, France, and Russia.

These obscenities against Muslims can be obliterated. Muslims do not suffer defeat: only setbacks. Muslims are destined to be successful, victorious, and triumphant. (See Islam-sectism among Muslims; Islam-Muslims’ destiny).

However, there is a way to end the Palestinian/Muslim-Jewish divide without any bleeding and which would not only legitimize Jewish presence in Palestine but also give them a life in Paradise.
   Like Christians, for two thousand years Jews are wandering in “darkness and misunderstanding” about their religion. This is the age of knowledge and reason. Muslims are to enlighten Jews that “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future”:

   -that the eschatological Messiah they are expecting is a MYTH: he is not coming because there is no such teaching in the Bible

   -that Jews are God’s chosen people to the exclusion of others is a MIRAGE: they do not exist; reasoning alone would dictate that God does not merit people because of their race or nationality or color or sex: factors in which they had no choice; such a God would be unjust; even human governments endeavor not to judge people on their race or color or religion

   -that Jews have a Divine right to Palestine is a big BO-BO: God’s favor does not include wrong-doers or based on wrong-doing as was/is done to Palestinians. God’s covenant was already fulfilled under Joshua; and God did not promise to fulfill His covenant twice; and moreover when this promise was for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel and their righteous descendants; and when Jews have yet to fulfill their covenant with God

   -that Jews can do whatever they like and God will be merciful to them is a STRETCH; Deuteronomy 32:43 which says: “Praise his People, O Nations: For he will avenge the blood of his servants. He will render vengeance against his adversaries and make expiation for his land and his People” does NOT refer to future nations; it refers to those nations at the time of the many “ites” kingdoms that Joshua would exterminate, so God can keep His word to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

   -that evil Jews will suffer only twelve months in Hell (which is not in the Bible) is a DREAM: more; a NIGHTMARE if this twelve months is not human terms but Divine; in which event, given that a Divine day is a thousand years, Jews are looking at 365,000 years in Hell: throw in another thousand years if it’s a leap year (ref. Qur’an 2:80, 94).

The Mosaic law was Divinely decreed to end upon the advent of the Prophet Mohammad –the truth of which the Jewish elders knew.  (See Judaism-no future).
Jews salvation lies in them bending their knees to Allāh and the Messengership of Mohammad: There is no God but Allāh, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allāh.

13. Manji comments about one Muslim female: “We’ve learned that her identity as an Arab or Muslim takes a backseat to her integrity as an individual….Identity can trap you, but integrity will set you free” (p. 51).

    Response: In Islam “identity” IS “integrity.” The Muslim identity is one of distinction: he/she is of the best nation; the nation that “enjoin good, forbid evil, and believe in Allāh.” There is no integrity higher than this.

14. One Muslim male wrote about Islam: “I don’t like a lot of the things associated with it. For example, the stoning of Homosexuals, Apostates, Adulterers. The fact that a woman can be slapped if she is disobedient. Can we reject some of the dreadful parts of Islam without angering the almighty?” (p. 55).

   Response: If this brother had invested some time and studied the Qur’an (and hadith) he would not have wasted time writing this letter (moreover to one who does not know one end of Islam from the other). This brother would have known that Allāh does not require death for any of the items he mentioned. He would also know that a Muslim is not even allowed to hate his wife much less slap her (see Islam-wife beating).

Another charge usually hurled against Muslims is that a man does not have to tell anyone why he beat his wife. The answer is: BUTT OUT AND MIND YOUR OWN BLOODY BUSINESS! STOP POKING YOUR NOSE INTO OTHER PEOPLE’S AFFAIRS! However, from the Islamic perspective, Allāh says in Qur’an 2:187 that men and women are garments to each other –to protect, comfort, beautify, and CONCEAL FAULTS from others. Thus, unless the matter is in court, the act of not telling why one has beaten his wife is the act of covering her fault(s) from others. It is doubtful any decent man would like his wife to let outsiders know his fault(s).

   Even if there were “dreadful parts” in Islam yet no religion can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam. Whereas there are no such Divine doctrines as “chosen people” to the exclusion of others; Karma and reincarnation; and Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement –nor are these doctrines conducive to reason– the doctrines of Islam –Unity of God, prayer, Zakaat/Charity, Fasting, and Hajj– are not only Divine doctrines clearly expressed in the Qur’an and observed by Prophet Mohammad, they are conducive to reason: Islam is the only sensible religion; it is the only religion whose doctrines can survive hammering on the anvil of “reason,” the factor on which God calls us to govern our belief (as already noted, Isaiah 1:18; Qur’an 16:125).

15. Manji notes about one Christian man’s son, that: “After much “prayer, study and reflection,”….the son concluded that neither the Bible nor Christ approves of apartheid.” (p. 57).

   Response: This “son:” needs to engage in more intense  “prayer, study and reflection.” His God/Son of God, Jesus, regarded non-Jews as “dogs” and swine”–(Matthew 7:6; 15:26); and he commanded his followers to “go not to the Gentiles and the Samaritans, but “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”–(Matthew 10:5-6). It may be argued that the Bible and Christ laid the foundations for “apartheid.” (Please note, this is the Christians’ Jesus; for the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an. See Jesus-only for Jews).

16. Manji seems displeased by a Muslim who wrote that Muslims are to correct each other in private. And one Muslim sister “testifies that Muslims routinely excoriate her as a kafir (unbeliever)” (p. 59).

   Response: Unless it is a matter in which others might be mislead, Muslims are to correct each other in private so as to avoid any possible embarrassment. This is called discretion.

   It is extremely grave that Muslims are calling other Muslims kafir. There are varying degrees of kufr/disbelief. To call another Muslim kafir is such a grave matter that if these Muslims who label other Muslims kafir knew the danger they would chain their tongues for fear of unintentionally calling another Muslim kafir:

Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Three things are the basis of faith: to withhold from one who confesses faith in la ilaha ill-Allah, you should not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any deed…” (Abu Dawud 15:33)”.
   And ‘Umar is reported to have said, “Whoever calls the people of la ilaha ill-Allah unbeliever (kafir) is himself nearer to unbelief (kufr).” (Muhammad, The Religion of Islam, p. 125). (For more on this see Islam-sectism among Muslims).      

17. Manji notes that Judea Pearl informed her that he had requested a Muslim scholar in America to teach her book, The Trouble With Islam, but: “The scholar told me it’s divisive,” Pearl lamented. “That’s it. That’s all. That’s why he won’t teach it. How can this be?” (p. 63).

   Response: (The Muslim scholars’ reason aside). If Judea Pearl knew Islam he would understand “how” this can be. No knowledgeable Muslim would even recommend Manji’s book (including this one, Allāh, Liberty & Love) much less teach it. Manji does not know one end of Islam from the other and is projecting herself as an authority on it. She’s liable to take Muslims behind her into Hell.

   We invite Mr. Judea Pearl to read our responses to Manji’s books (The Trouble With Islam and Allāh, Liberty & Love) and petition the Universities and Colleges (secular and Christian) to teach them to their students. (Also, for Mr. pearl to petition the publisher(s) of Manji’s books to publish our responses to these books. Not to worry, no written permission is required from us; and no royalty. It’s all fi-sabi-lillāh –in the path of Allāh).

18. Manji declares: “A universal Islamic caliphate….is the last thing I desire.” (p. 70).

   Response: (What about a “universal” Christian Papacy?). An Islamic Caliphate is democracy at its pinnacle.
“Surely Allåh commands you to make over truststo those worthy of them, and that when you judge between people, you judge with justice. Surely Allåh admonishes you with what is excellent. Surely Allåh is ever Hearing, Seeing.” (Qur’an 4:58)
“And those who respond to their Lord and keep upprayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by counselamong themselves, and who spend out ofwhat We have given them”(Qur’an 42:38).
Muhammad Ali has noted that

“legislation was not placed in the hands of the king. First of all the Qur’an, then the Prophet’s precept or practice, then the will of the people, such was the machinery that framed the law; and the law, not the king, was the supreme authority. In subordinating kingship to the law of the land and the law of the land to the will of the people, Abu Bakr laid the foundations of a truly democratic government as also of liberty and equality in the truest sense of these words.”
But, as Muhammad Ali adds:
“To the misfortune of the community of Islam, how-ever, this golden rule of government was abandoned after the reign of ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph.  Kingship again became private property, as also did the public treasury.  Democracy gave way to despotism, and thus began the disintegration and decay of the power of Islam.” (The Early Caliphate, p. 52)

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

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

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

   “There was no restriction whatever on freedom of opinion or on the expression of that opinion. Governors were made accessible to the public to the extent that they were forbidden to have guards at their doors lest there should be the least hitch for the aggrieved to approach the highest authority at any time…The position of the Caliph himself, in this wonderful democracy, was no higher than that of a commoner. He was considered the servant of the people, not the king, and as such he was open to criticism…This unrestricted freedom, in itself the highest virtue, served in the hands of mischief-mongers as the most deadly weapon to undermine the power of Islam.” (pp. 121, 122, 136, 137, 143).

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

   As noted, Islam requires that power be given only to those qualified (as opposed to those who run for office); and Muhammad Ali comments on Qur’an 42:38 which requires governance by counsel:
“In this, Islam has laid the basis of Government by parliaments, and the idea found a clear practical expression in the early days of the Caliphate, when the Khalifah had to refer every important affair to counsel. It is strange indeed that Government by parliament is now looked upon by Europeans as an institution which is quite foreign to Islam and unsuited for the Muslim people” (This must be “Europeans” arrogance or ignorance of Islam; or both).

Whereas the Islamic Caliphate is a union of material and spiritual knowledge with liberty and equal justice and Allāh has “perfected” our religion and “completed” His favors to us and has sent Prophet Mohammad to unite mankind under one set of Laws (the Qur’an), and the Prophet established this Islamic Caliphate –brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms– Irshad Manji derides this Islamic Caliphate. (And she probably expects Allāh to give her Jannah). (Notably, there is no such distinction as “secular” knowledge. All knowledge is from Allāh God, see Islam-knowledge and benefits to man).

(It is to be noted that Islamic democracy is unlike the fallible secular democracy. In secular democracy there are opposition parties, the laws are man-made; and laws usually are determined by the will of the majority –e.g. capital punishment; abortion.
In Islam, since the laws are infallible Divine injunctions, and are not based on the will of the majority, there is no need for an opposition. In the cases where secondary laws are required, owing to the progress of society, the legislation of such laws are not governed by the dictates of the majority, but are based on the principles of the Qur’an, and are formulated through consultation. Thus, under Islamic democracy there is no marginalization of any sector of society: one cannot prove his judgment/belief superior to the teaching of the Qur’an).
 The Islamic Caliphate:

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

   -admonishes against dealing unjustly with men (Qur’an 2:279, 5:8);  and not to rob them of their dues (26:183);  to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), encourages the feeding of the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190), to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allah God loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90).

   -forbids against helping one another in sin, and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (Qur’an 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).

   -teaches that all men are created equal (Qur’an 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), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allah God loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135).

   -gives freedom of religion (Qur’an 2:256; 6:105-109; 9:107-108; 10:88-100; 18:29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6); freedom of movement, thought, and expression [though freedom of expression even in modern advanced societies would seem to have its limit when it advocates anarchy, and when it proves slanderous]–(4:140; 6:68, 108; 29:52); the pursuit of knowledge, and the acquisition of wealth and property–(2:274-275, 276-282; 35:12; 53:48; 62:10); to choose only those worthy of power and to exercise justice–(4:58); to govern by consultation/counsel.–(3:158; 4:58; 42:38).
Without doubt, for the ultimate in peace and justice every country in the world is to be an Islamic Caliphate.

19. Manji notes a “manifesto” from “Akbar Ladak” in which Ladak made such references as “Islamic fanaticism” and that “Muslims define Islam, and we are all its guardians” (pp. 77-79).

   Response: There is no “fanaticism” in Islam: Islam and “fanaticism” are incompatible; it is Allāh who defines Islam and Allāh is Guardian of the Qur’an/Islam.
   While it is commendable that Brother Ladak wants to speak out on behalf of truth and justice, clearly, Brother Ladak needs to first spend less time proclaiming about “I” and learn Islam.

20. Manji wrote: “the prophet (Mohammad) shamed his society. He denounced false gods, later opposing oppressive customs such as slavery and female infanticide. A turncoat extraordinaire, Muhammad tarnished the reputation of his own noble tribe, the Quraysh.” (p. 80)

Response: Mohammad did not “shamed his society:” Mohammad called his society to the utility of reason; he preached the irrationality of polytheism and the degradation and futility of idolatry; and of the phantasm of superstition (see Polytheism and Monotheism).

The Quraish tarnished their own reputation by subjugating their intellect and worshipping objects fashioned by their own hands –things that confer no benefit and effect no harm.

That Mohammad was a “turncoat” which connotes “traitor-ship.” Mohammad brought his people from tribalism into unity; from ignorance into knowledge; from drunkenness into sobriety; from profligacy into chastity; from idolatry and polytheism into monotheism and Divine Purity; from superstition into rationalism; he liberated the woman and slave; ennobled the orphan; he gave justice to all; and catapulted backward camel-drivers into masters of science and into ‘thrones of Caesars’ –to label Mohammad a “turncoat” (moreover a “turncoat extraordinaire”) is not only libel but gross stupidity.
(This is one of the many absurdities that “the Jakarta Post in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country,” has plumed as “positive change” by Irshad Manji. Muslims need to be vigilant of whom and what they follow).

21. 21. Manji states: “Feeling the heat of few initial converts and rising resentment, the prophet (Mohammad) made a strategic decision: he diluted his message to curry favor with Meccans. For starters, Muhammad massaged the name of God. What he’d earlier referred to as “Lord” became “Allāh”–-the “familiar Allāh of the pagan Qaraysh,” writes Subhash C Inabdar in Muhammad and the Rise of Islam.” (p. 80).

   Response: (What utter rubbish! Apart from the fact that Allah revealed the Qur’an and Mohammad could not/did not change “Lord” into “Allah”). This is rather amusing, considering that Mohammad also was Arab and would have known that Allāh was God. “Allāh” and “Lord” are intermingled throughout the Qur’an.
   The first five verses revealed to the Prophet Mohammad are those of chapter 96, which instructed the Prophet: “Read in the name of thy Lord Who creates—Creates man from a clot, Read and thy Lord is most Generous, Who taught by the pen, Taught man what he knew not.”
And: “I am ALLAH, the Seeing. (This is) a Book which We have revealed to you (that you may) bring forth men, by their LORD’s permission, from utter darkness into light to the way of the Mighty, the praised One”-(Qur’an 14:1).

So what that “Mohammad” referred to Allāh as “Lord”? Are not Royal proclamations and Presidential declarations made in the status of leaders instead of their names, such as “By order of the King/Queen or His/Her Majesty….” “From the Office of the President of the United States of America….”?
   Muhammad Ali elucidates on the matter:  “Allåh, according to the most correct of the opinions respecting it, is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection (T-LL), the al being inseparable from it, not derived (Msb-LL). Al-ilåh is a different word, and Allåh is not a contraction of al-ilåh. The word Allåh is not applied to any being except the only true God, and comprises all the excellent names, and the Arabs never gave the name Allåh to any of their numerous idols. Hence, as being the proper name of the Divine Being and not having any equivalent in any other language, I have adopted the original word in this translation”–(Qur’anic comm. 1:2).

   Professor Abdul Ahad Dawud B.D. –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– notes in his revealing book Muhammad in The Bible (p. 12): “If the Christian priests and theologians knew their Scriptures in the original Hebrew instead of in translations as the Muslims read their Qur-an in its Arabic text, they would clearly see that Allah is the same ancient Semitic name of the Supreme Being who revealed and spoke to Adam and all the prophets.”

   Muslims address Allāh as Rabb (Lord) and in His ninety-nine names (Allāh has ninety-nine names and the crowing name Allāh, making a total of one hundred names).  That Mohammad “diluted his message to curry favor with Meccans” and “massaged the name of God” is sheer ignorance and stupidity.

Irshad Manji continues her diatribe about the Prophet: “Still, anger at his proselytizing only picked up speed. Enter the “satanic verses.” These are Qur’anic passages that the prophet, in his fallible human judgment, approved as divine revelations. (Though Allāh tells us the Prophet does not err and speaks only according to Divine revelation; see item #10.) He had them chronicled by his companions, only later learning that these verses deified heathen idols. Muhammad then withdrew the verses, blaming the mistake on a trick by Satan. (And what are these verses that Mohammad withdrew? Qur’an 53:19-21 are not about worship of idols as will be shown).…When we ask   that question, the story becomes more than interesting; it becomes enlightening….Ibn Ishaq, a Muslim historian, narrates the legend of what happened next, courtesy of a loving God:

“[The Angel] Gabriel came to the Apostle and said: What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring to you from God and you have said what he did not say to you.” The Apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation) for He was merciful to him; comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires…God annulled what Satan had suggested.” (pp. 80-82).

   Response:  The absurdity of Ibn Ishaq’s report is belied by the story itself. How could Ibn Ishaq know that Gabriel said those words to Mohammad? Mohammad is the only one to whom Gabriel spoke. And there is no report that Mohammad made such a confession to anyone. Even if Mohammad had ordered such a worship of these idols it is doubtful Mohammad would have told anyone about Gabriel’s remonstration to cast aspersion(s) upon himself; and even cost him followers who might question subsequent revelations as being Divine.

   Qur’an 53:19-21 have nothing to do with Mohammad assenting to worship of idols. That Satan “tricked” the Prophet into reading “satanic verses” is nonsense; the verse reads: ”And We never sent a messenger or a prophet before thee but when he desired, the devil made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allåh annuls that which the devil casts, then does Allåh establish His messages. And Allåh is Knowing, Wise”–Qur’an 22:52).

   As careful reading of the verse shows it is a when prophet “DESIRED” to do something (and Divine revelation is NOT a prophet’s desire but decree from God) then Satan would make a suggestion regarding this “desire.” After which time Allāh would give revelation. (For a full treatment of Manji’s claim see Qur’an-Satanic verses).

22. Manji spoke about “mainstream Islam.” (p. 83). Please explain what is “mainstream” Islam?

23. Manji states, “Cultures don’t take decisions–-individuals do.” (p.84).

   Response: It is individuals that make culture. Cultures do take decisions. Who or what is it that legislates the age of marriage, and the legality or illegality of matters?

24. Manji notes one Muslim girl expressing her fear of “dishonoring” her community by speaking the truth.” (p. 87).

   Response: If this Muslim girl knew Islam she would present its truth to her community and have it “fear” the judgment of Allāh for not honoring the teaching of Islam. Islam enjoined “questioning” and “reasoning.”

   As noted elsewhere Allāh requires us to govern by “reason” and the Prophet Mohammad is reported as teaching that learning is a treasure-house. Its key is questioning: (Abu Naeem) MM1-361-112 W. (i.e. Mishkat Misabih, Vol. 1, p.361, #112W); and that seeking knowledge for 1 hour, is better than keeping wake whole night: (in prayer) (Darimi) MM1-361-112 W.

   Prophet Mohammad is also noted as saying that the superiority of the scholar over the worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, #3634).

25. Manji said to her mother: ““The custom of honor existed before Islam. If we hang on to culture in the name of Islam, then we’re worshipping what man, not God, has created. Isn’t that idolatry?” Mum sighed, “It’s stupidity.”…Culture is not sacred.” (p. 88).

   Response: (Taking Islam in its secondary sense –from 7^th century Arabia– than from its primal sense –from the beginning of creation¹³). Depending on what “culture” is “culture” can be  “sacred.” (Without any disrespect, your “mum” also needs to learn Islam).

26. Manji notes from “Palestinian psychologist” Eyad Serraj”: ““Islam was introduced to move Arab beyond tribalism,” Dr. Serraj said. But Islam has not conquered Arab culture; Arab culture has conquered Islam.”” (p. 90).

   Response:  Islam did “move Arab beyond tribalism;” until Muslims digressed from the path of Islam and disgraced themselves. However, this resplendent throne of Allāh is ever available for Muslims to ascend. As the venerable Caliph, ‘Umar, reminds us: “God gave us honor and greatness through Islam, and if we seek it now in other ways than those enjoined by Islam, God will again bring us into disgrace.” (See Islam-sectism among Muslims).

27. Manji notes one university’s newspaper reported that a “Muslim chaplain on campus had justified death for apostates. Later denying that he personally holds this view.” (p. 92).

   Response: There is no death for apostasy in Islam. The Qur’an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years; during this long period, unless he received Divine Revelation in the matter, the Prophet followed the teachings of the Bible, which requires death to the adulterer, the unchaste bride, the apostate, the blasphemer, and the homosexuals; which Biblical laws were annulled by subsequent Qur’anic revelations–(Qur’an 2:106; 16:101. See Muhammad Ali’s comm. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org). Prophet Mohammad taught according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4). (See Islam-apostasy).

28. Manji wrote that Polly Toynbee “campaigns for the equality of women everywhere.” (p. 97).

   Response: Islam has given women equality with men thirteen hundred years before Polly Toynbee was born. Muslim women need to learn Islam and demand this Allāh-given right from their ignorant or arrogant menfolk. Let these “patriarchs” be aware they cannot defy Allāh and deny women the right He has given them and yet expect that Allāh will give them Jannah.

29. Manji notes that David Littman proposed “before the UN Human Rights Council” that “the grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University issue a fatwa against the crime of stoning women to death.” (p. 98).

   Response: Why do we need the grand Sheikh to issue this fatwa? Allāh issued such a decree fourteen hundred years ago. Muslims need to study the Qur’an/Islam; they themselves will refuse to “stone” to death. There is no stoning to death for any crime in Islam. (See Islam-stoning).

30. Manji notes that the UN Human Rights Council “has also nixed discussions about girls as young as nine being married off. All because Muslim diplomats have fulminated that revelations of marriage by force and of murder by rocks defame Islam.” (p. 99).

   Response: There are no Qur’anic revelations that allow “marriage by force” and “murder by rocks.”  As noted there is no “stoning” or ‘stoning” to death in Islam; these are the Jewish and Christian requirements. Women have the right to choose their husbands:

   -“A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 67, 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100);

   -A virgin’s consent, because of bashfulness, is expressed by her silence–(Bokhari Vol. 7,  #68; Vol. 9, #98, 100-101); and that “If a man gives his daughter in marriage in spite of her disagreement, such marriage is invalid”–it notes the dissolution of such a marriage by the Prophet on behalf of a “matron” who disliked the marriage her father had arranged–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 69; Vol. 9, #78).

   -A woman may also propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7 #’s 48, 53, 54). There is a report of a woman proposing marriage to the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 505).

   Regarding the marrying of nine-year old girls. Considering that people mature physically, anatomically and intellectually at different ages –and some young girls are more developed than older girls– Allāh, Wisely, has not laid down a set age for marriage. Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity do not lay down any specific age for marriage. (For more on this topic see ‘Aisha & Mohammad).

31. Manji wrote about “reviving ijtihad.” (p. 103).

   Response: The door to reasoning (ijtihad) in Islam is never closed: it is open to the Resurrection. “Ijtihad is the third source from which the laws of Islam are drawn.” The first two being the Qur’an and Sunnah (Sayings and practice of the Prophet).
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 understand;” and so on. Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind.” (Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22); 25:44).

“The 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 also states:
“The impression prevailing in the Muslim world at present that no one has the right, even in the light of the new circumstances which a thousand years of the world’s progress have brought about, to differ with the four Imams, is entirely a mistaken one.  The right to differ with the highest of men below the Prophet is a Muslims’ birthright, and to take away that right is to stifle the very existence of Islam. …In fact, the closing of the door on the free exercise of judgment, and the tendency to stifle independence of thought which took hold of the Muslim world after the third century of Hijrah, was condemned by the Prophet himself who said:  “The best of the generations is my generation, then the second and then the third; then will come a people in which there is no good”–(KU. VI, 2068)”

(The three generations referred to in the tradition) “refer to three centuries, the first century being the century of the Companions, since the last of them died at the end of the first century after the Prophet and the second and the third being those of the next two generations known as Tabi’in and taba’ Tabi’in.  As a matter of fact, we find that while independence of thought was freely exercised in the first three centuries, and even Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, the immediate followers of Abu Hanifah, did not hesitate to differ with their great leader, rigidity became the rule thereafter with only rare exceptions.  The time when independence of thought was not exercised is, therefore, denounced by the Prophet him-self, as the time of a crooked company.” (Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 97, 98, 99, 100, 115-116. Italics and emphasis added. For greater details on this topic “Ijtihad” read The Religion of Islam; see www.muslim.org).

Allah the Gracious revealed that He created everything in the heavens and the earth for our use (and whose subjection and  utility can only be achieved through knowledge). And the Prophet Mohammad, the magnanimous, taught us: ‘The superiority of the scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’
   If Muslims are not illuminated by this brilliant flame from the mighty Messenger of Allah, to explore the expanse of reason and progress, no other human being can brighten the density of our minds.

32. Manji wrote about a “Swedish Muslim man who wouldn’t shake hands with a female CEO because of Islam.” (p. 109).

   Response:  Why do you want to shake the hands of another man/woman? Go hold the hands of your own husband/wife.
(According to experts disease are more readily spread by shaking hands than by kissing. Why not advocate we greet one another with a kiss, as Paul recommends Christians greet each other with a “holy kiss”–whatever that is– Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12. Besides, you do not know where the person’s hand had been before taking yours. Same goes for the person’s lips/mouth).

Perhaps we can greet each other with a little bow (as Japanese do) which is a sign of humility, or by raising our right hand in peace (as the native Indians). And instead of the insipid “how-do-you-do” we can express the harmonious “peace” to each other or express “peace, and mercy and blessings of God be unto you” –which doubtlessly is the best greeting anyplace; for when one has peace, and mercy and blessings of God he has everything: he needs nothing more–; even to the atheist (the atheist can deny the existence of God, the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God. Allāh God has proven His existence through the Qur’an, see Qur’an-science; Apostate Prophet-Qur’an poor science).

33. Manji notes a “Belgian parliamentarian” who states about the Muslim woman’s “veil”: ““Nothing in Islam, in the Qur’an or in the Sunnah imposes this form of dress. It seems to me it’s more a political or ideological sign.” (p. 109).

   Response: Islam does not require the Muslim woman to “veil” her face (but on the contrary requires her face to be open). However, if the Muslim woman desires to “veil:” her face where is the problem. Isn’t this choice to cover her face because “I” WANT to present a demonstration of “moral courage”? (and “moral courage” against open-faced culture)?
   Go mind your own business! Isn’t your tie and suit “more a political or ideological sign” or a bondage to “culture? This “Belgian parliamentarian” and Manji “need to be deprogrammed from tribalism” and arrogance.
   You want to bare your breasts and bottom, fine; go bare your breasts and bottom. The Muslim woman wants to “veil” her face, fine, let her “veil” her face.

34. (As noted at the beginning) Allāh reveals in Qur’an 3:7: “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allåh, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.”

   That part of the Qur’an is “allegorical” Manji wrote: “The Sodom and Gomorrah story–-Islam’s parable of Lut–-is ambiguous. You’re certain it’s about homosexuals, but  it could be about the rape of straight men by other straight  men as a display of power and control. God punished Lut’s tribe for cutting off trade routes, hoarding wealth and dissing outsiders  ….I don’t know that I’m right. According to the Qur’an, though, you can’t be sure that you’re right either.” (pp. 112-113).      .

    Response: (This is Manji’s desperate and futile attempt to Scripturally legitimize homosexuality). There is no ambiguity about homosexuality and lesbianism in the Qur’an. Allāh states  in Qur’an 4:15 and 4:16, respectively: “And as for those of your women who are guilty of an indecency, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among you; so if they bear witness, confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allāh opens a way for them,” and about men: “And as for the TWO of you who are guilty of it, give them BOTH a slight punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them.”

   And the Prophet Mohammad said that both homosexual partners are to be killed–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, #4447; though this saying would have been prior to the revelation of Qur’an 4:15 requiring lashes; in which event the Prophet was following the Torah which requires death for homosexuality. Prophet Mohammad taught according to the Qur’an–Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4). (See Islam-homosexuals & lesbians).

   Allāh created man and woman to be mates of the other; not of the same. Allāh did not make homosexuality and lesbianism. He made man and woman to propagate the species. Species are not multiplied through homosexuality and lesbianism. If mankind (males and females) were to engage solely in homosexuality and lesbianism then, barring cloning and non-sexual means of conception/reproduction, in about a hundred years time mankind will be extinct.

   If God made people homosexuals and lesbians as Manji believes, according to Manji God also made people pedophiles and sadists, in which case Manji is to accept and propagate that pedophiles and sadists are not to be prosecuted.

   Significantly, unless homosexuals and lesbians engage in public (or keep a “common bawdy house”) it would seem almost impossible to enforce punishment for homosexuality and lesbianism. Seeing that four witnesses are required in a case of sexual misconduct–(Qur’an 4:15) and one is not allowed to peep into another’s house; but in fact, it is legal to poke the eyes of the peeper: “He who peeped into the house of people without their consent, it is permissible for them to put out his eyes”–(Muslim Vol 3, #5370; Bokhari Vol. 7, #807; Vol. 8, #258-259; Vol. 9, #26; 38-39).
It is clear then that whereas Allāh/Islam has prescribed punishment for homosexuality and lesbianism (and adultery and fornication) Allāh/Islam does not allow the Masjid/State into people’s bedroom.

35. Manji notes one Muslim girl was killed by her father because “she stood by her decision to reject hijab. That’s not the “Islamic” headscarf for women; it’s the headscarf mandated by pre-Islamic tribal honor, taken as a punctilious religious requirement by Islamo-tribalists, such as her dad….Under the code of tribal honor, a woman is the vessel of shame.” (p. 116).

    Response: So Islam is to be blamed because uneducated father(s) kill daughter(s) because daughter(s) “reject hijab”?
   So what that pre-Islamic women wore head-coverings before Muslim women? Jewish women also wore head-coverings before Muslim women–(Numbers 5:18; 1 Corinthians 11:5-6). In fact even Mary, the Christian’s “Mother of God” wore hijab. So why are Muslim women impaled and not hailed for wearing hijab?

   So because pre-Islamic women wore hijab/head-covering Allāh cannot have Muslim women wear hijab/head-covering? Pre-Islamic women ate meat so Muslim women cannot eat meat?

   Whereas Islam has enjoined a dress code for Muslims there is no punishment prescribed for not conforming to this dress code; much less to kill one for non-conformity.

   Pre-Islamic women headscarf may be a ”tribal honor.” But the  Muslim woman’s headscarf is of Divine “honor”: “And let them (women) wear their HEAD-COVERINGS over their bosoms”–(Qur’an 24:31). And Prophet Mohammad informed Asma who was wearing thin clothes at the time: “O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of  body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands” Abu Dawud Vol. 3, #4092.

   These garments –overcoat (jalaba) and head-cover (hijab)– are to distinguish the Muslim woman from other women, a mark of devotion and of distinction: of being the exalted nation–(Qur’an 33:59; 24:31; 2:143; 3:110). Muslim girls/women need to learn the significance and excellence of the hijab (See Hijab/head covering).
   Irshad Manji not only rebels against the hijab/head-covering, she condemns Allāh.

   That the Muslim “woman is the vessel of shame” is patent nonsense and ignorance of Islam.  Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise.
   Whereas it is one matter to choose to not wear the hijab, why would the Muslim woman desirous of Allāh’s everlasting beauty criticize, condemn and even revile the hijab?
   Muslim youths –males and females– need to be wary of whom you are following. Self-styled “experts” on Islam may take you behind them into Hell-Fire. Allah alarms us to charlatans: 

“And of men is he whose speech about the life of this
world may dazzle you, and he calls Allah to witness
 as to that which is in his heart,
yet he is the most violent of adversaries.
And when he holds authority, he makes effort in the land
to cause mischief in it and destroy tilth and offspring;
and Allah loves not mischief.”
(Qur’an 2:204-205)

“And of men is he who takes instead frivolous
discourse to lead astray from Allah’s path
without knowledge, and to make it a mockery.
For such is an abasing chastisement.”
(Qur’an 31:6)

36. Manji: “And if a woman must cover her hair, why not with a baseball cap should she choose?” (p. 117)

   Response: (As shown above Allāh instructs Muslim women to use a part of their head-covering to cover their bosoms. Lets’ see Manji cover both her hair and bosom with her baseball cap).
   Would you attend a Judicial court in a “baseball cap” or appear in the presence of Her Royal Highness wearing a “baseball cap”?” Will the Judge and Royal court allow it?

   Let’s see you attend the Police Academy and after graduation you engage in “moral courage” and tell the Director “I” don’t want to wear your “cultural” head gear “I” want to wear a “baseball cap.” What do you think, will they bow to your demand (and even present you with a Babe-Ruth-autographed “baseball cap”) or chuck you out the door?

   There are institutions that have a dress code. Likewise Allāh has enjoined a dress code for both women and men –men are to be covered between the areas, and including, the navel and knees and half of the chest, as they are during the Hajj.
  Since you will not (or will not be allowed to) stand before Justice and Royalty in whatever attire you “choose” how much higher regard should you have for the institution of Allāh and when you stand in His Court (to pray). (Under circumstances a Muslim can pray bare-headed or with a cap or other covering).
Those “email buddies” whom you “educated” that “hijab comes from a culture prior to Islam,” need to, like yourself, revisit the teachings of Islam.

   Manji continues: “Then again, why “must” she cover her hair? If you as a Muslim man worry about being aroused, why not do as the Qur’an recommends and glance down for as long as your hormones necessitate? Why does compensation have to be exclusive cargo of women and girls?” (p. 117)

    Response: (This is “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare,” and the Jakarta Post’s “positive change in contemporary Islam”).
   As shown above, women cover their hair not because men are “aroused,” but because their covering is identification, devotion, and a distinction of honor. And Allāh requires both men and women to “glance down”–(Qur’an 24:30-31). And Allāh says:

“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).
If you knew Islam you would not have asked the foolish question: “Why does compensation (in mode of dress) have to be the exclusive cargo of women and girls?” (Manji is challenging Allāh).

37. Manji wrote: “When president George W. Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq, I made a brazenly naïve assumption: that his administration would forge ties with Iraq’s most consistent tribunes of democracy–-secularists. Any committed alliance with them would have ensured that the new Iraqi constitution gave civil law more prominence than religious law. Muslim fanatics would then have been on notice that they couldn’t get away with human rights violations by using Islam as cover.” (p. 119).

 Response: (At least Manji admits Bush’s act was an “invasion”). Please detail these “human rights violations” in Islam.

38. Manji notes a letter from a 15-year-old Muslim telling her: “I can see that while you have not dismissed your heritage, you have adopted a style of Islam that allows you to connect to both Eastern and Western cultures.” Manji advises (in general): “You define your honor.” (pp. 122-123).

   Response: There is no “style” of Islam. Whether “Eastern” or “Western”; whatever in “culture” conflicts with Islam is not “Islam.” This 15 year-old really do need to think for himself and ground himself in the teachings of Islam. An invaluable base for him is to obtain a copy of Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his The Religion Of Islam also his The Early Caliphate; which can be viewed/obtained at www.muslim.org

   That “You define your honor.” Tell this to the drug-lord who believes that supplying people with narcotics because people can and want to feel like “heaven” is an “honor.” (Excessive food also can kill, as with drug overdose).

39. Manji states: “Since men have all the self-restraint of children, it’s up to women to curtail their choices. Which is why women must cover their hair and sometimes their entire bodies. They’re compensating for the inherent deficiency of men who neglect the Qur’an’s guidance that they lower their gaze in front of women. It’s also why a woman may not lead congregational prayers; men wouldn’t be able to hold themselves together at the sight of a woman’s rear. (What about homosexuals looking at the Imam’s and men’s crotch and “rear;” or lesbians looking  at women’s and the female-Imam’s mouth, bodice, and “rear”?) After all, we’re told, they’re not capable of following the Qur’an to begin with.” (p. 134).

   Response: Manji indirectly indicts Allāh as discriminating against women for her form and physiology –a form and physiology of which she has no choice: a form and physiology He gave her. This is blasphemy of the highest order.
   As already noted the head-covering and over-garments are Divine prescriptions; and are an identification and symbol of devotion and distinction. And Allāh requires BOTH men and women to lower their gaze.

   Who told you men are “not capable of following the Qur’an? Did you investigate on your own? Women can lead prayer, etc; (see Islam-women, item #19 Revelation).
   Who told you men are “not capable of following the Qur’an”? Who were the Prophet and the Caliphs? And the legions of men who have shown that Islam does not require death for any sin; that Islam does not subjugate women; and have preached against sectism; etc. Please detail what is there in the Qur’an that men are “not capable of following,” and who told you this.

40. Manji wrote: “A (Muslim) husband-to-be, notes Rana Husseini, considers virginity as “evidence of exclusive possession.” The blood of his bride’s broken hymen proves that “the ‘merchandise’ is brand new and his wife will not be able to compare his performance unfavorably to that of another man.”” (p. 137).

   Response: (Would you like your husband to “compare” your “performance”/reception to that of other women; even though he may have four wives? And what if after marriage the “virgin” decides to parlor herself, won’t she be able to “compare” her husband’s “performance” to that of her paramour[s]?)
   Doesn’t British “culture” require that the bride of the crown-prince be a “virgin?” And subjects her to physical examination to verify this? So where is the difficulty if the virginal Muslim man wishes that his bride be a virgin?

Notably, Prophet Mohammad’s first wife, Lady Khadijah, was a matron. In fact, almost all the wives of the Prophet were previously married; and Juwairiyyah, Safiyyah and Mary the Coptic, were “converts” to Islam).

Perhaps Irshad Manji will take up the “gauntlet” of “moral courage” and vociferate and advocate for the abolition of the British/Royal “culture” of requiring the bride of the crown-prince to be virgin and subjecting her to the demeaning examination. 

41. Manji notes: “Today, women in Iran fight for their equality using lessons from the American and British antislavery movements.” (p. 141).

   Response: This is pathetic. Grossly pathetic. Had these Iranian women studied the Qur’an they would know that Allāh has given them rights alongside men from the cradle all the way to Jannah.  What these women need do is band themselves together and demand these Allāh-given rights from their men-folk: let them know they cannot defy Allāh and deny them their rights and yet expect Allāh to give them Paradise. (See Islam-women).

   It is shameful and disgraceful, not to mention unGodly, that Muslim leaders –standing in the shadow of the Prophet– would violate this trust which they have undertaken to uphold. Do you not fear Allāh?  Do you not know the penalty for betraying the trust of the people? Refresh yourselves: “O you who believe, be not unfaithful to Allāh and the Messenger, nor be unfaithful to your trusts, while you know”–(Qur’an 8:27).
   Prophet Mohammad said to Abu Dharr who wanted to be a public official that “authority is a TRUST, and on the Day of Judgment it is a cause of humiliation and repentance EXCEPT FOR ONE WHO FULFILLS ITS OBLIGATIONS (and) DISCHARGES THE DUTIES ATTENDANT THEREON”–(Muslim Vol. 3, #4491).

Muslim women do not need Rana Husseini or anyone else to advocate “individual rights,” Allāh has enunciated these rights in His Qur’an. Muslim women do not even have to demand these rights: it devolves upon the Muslim men to institute and execute these rights. Else they are trapezing over the Fire.
(If Rana Husseini wants to help Muslims or to be effective she needs to directly present to her public clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that there is no death/stoning for adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, and no honor killing. Husseini, and anyone else, can take/use the materials from our site; no permission or royalty or recognition required).

42. Manji notes: “Nomani wrote about an uprising against gender segregation at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.” when “four Muslim women prayed in the men’s section of the mosque.” (p. 142).

   Response: There is no barring women from the men praying area in Islam. While women are to pray in separate rows from men, there was no barricade between them, they only formed a line behind the men: “In the lifetime of Islam’s Apostle the women used to get up when they finished their compulsory prayers with Taslim. The Prophet and the men would stay on at their places as long as Allāh will. When the Prophet got up, the men would then get up”–(Bokhari, Vol. 1, # 825).

   Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam that two hundred and forty years after the Prophet, “ropes” were used to separate men and women; the “ropes” were subsequently fortified into a “wooden barrier;” but “by and by the pardah conception grew so strong that women were altogether shut out from the mosques,” (pp. 381-382).
   While this partition is not an Islamic requirement, perhaps (some) Muslim women find this barrier a benefit/convenience in that in offers them some privacy.

43. Manji states: “Islam, shorn of tribal honor, can embrace freedom and human right.” (p. 151).

    Response: Manji implies that Islam is devoid of “freedom and human rights.” Yet Allāh/Islam establishes “freedom and human rights” 1400 years ago (see item #45).
   Muslims “moral courage” does not need to nourish from “other individuals.” Allāh/Islam has given Muslims “nourishment(s)” in all facets of life. Go study the Qur’an and hadith.

44. Manji notes that Abdul Ghaffar Khan, “a twentieth-century Muslim reformer” (according to Manji), that his “brother wed an English woman. When asked by (Mahatma) Gandhi whether his sister-in-law had converted to Islam, Ghaffar Khan replied, “Why should marriage alters one faith?” No wonder the Mahatma lauded him as a “universalist.”” (pp. 146-147, 153).

Response: If the sister-in-law had “converted” to Islam this would have made Ghaffar Khan not a “universalist”?
   As shown elsewhere Islam IS universalism. Moreover, had Ghaffar Khan or his brother (known and) explained Islam to the sister-in-law she, whether Christian or atheist or whatever, would have no choice but to accept Islam. For no religion can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam –there are no such Divine doctrines as Karma & Reincarnation: God and Jesus did not teach Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement: these doctrines are assumed and propagated as Divine truths. Trinity was invented by Christians 300 years after Jesus; inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul and institutionalized by the Church 300 years after Jesus (see Christianity dupes people). Atheists can deny the existence of God, atheists cannot disprove the existence of God: Allāh has proven His existence through His Qur’an (see Qur’an-science).

   While a person is at liberty to follow the belief of his choice; whoever desires to go to heaven, and knows about Islam/Mohammad, has to bend his/her knees to Allāh to get heaven. There is no other way. Gandhi included.  (See Mohammad-no man cometh to God but by).

45. Manji states: “Giving offense goes with the territory of fighting for diversity.” (p. 155).

   Response: Allāh/Islam establishes diversity without anyone having to fight for it. Allāh tells us

   -He created us from a single pair; raised messengers in all nations and gave them rites and ceremonies; and that all religions are for Him-(Qur’an 4:1; 16:36; 22:67; 8:39)

   -He made us into different tribes and nations and of colors and languages that we may know one another-(5:48; 30:22; 49:13)

   -we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds-(6:133);

   -every person is at liberty to follow his own inclinations-(2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6)

   -to give justice even if it be against ones’ own parents or self or kins or whether he be poor or rich-(4:58, 135; 5:8); to believe in all prophets and revelations-(3:83; 4:163-164; though He also tells us what not to believe, such as Karma and reincarnation, Trinity, Divine sonship of Allah, God incarnate, inherited sin and vicarious atonement; “chosen people” to the exclusion of others)

   -not to revile other gods-(6:108); 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  He loves those who judge in equity-(5:45-47)

   -He admonishes against dealing unjustly with men-(2:279, 5:8);  not to rob them of their dues-(26:183);  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 other-(3:133)

   -to fight on behalf of the oppressed-(4:75); because He loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice-(60:8, 16:90)

   -He forbids helping one another in sin, and to counsel one another in sin, but to counsel 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), because Allāh God loves the doer of good, and the dutiful-(2:195, 3:75)

   -that the noblest ones are those who are righteous-(49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better-(23:96), because He loves those who judge in equity, and because He is aware of what you do-(5:45, 4:135).

   If only Muslims will (put away the smokes and bottle and dice?) and invest some time in studying and acting upon these lofty and sublime directives of Allāh we will be the “best nation” which we are destined to be. 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.” (See ISLAM-SECTISM).

46. Manji wrote: “Offense is the price of diversity.” (p. 160).

   Response: While everyone has the right to express his/her views. Intelligent people do not “offend;” they enlighten.  To restate: Islam –the religion of wisdom, reason, argument and examples– does not seek to silence voices: Islam seeks to enhance mentality: “Call to the way of Thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” –(Qur’an 16:125).

47. Manji notes one Muslim student asking her: “Can Islam and free expression live together?” (p. 161).

   Response: Had this Muslim spent a few minutes a day learning the Qur’an (not just chanting for thawaab–blessings)–  he would know that Islam IS for “free expression.”
  Rather than sit in between Jum’a salah (Friday congregational prayer) twiddling thumbs and airing teeth waiting to swallow whatever crud (some) Imams throw at us, Muslims are to seek knowledge on our own. Allāh and His magnanimous Messenger expect this from us.

48. Manji: “Nobody should be forced to treat traditions as untouchable, including traditions that result in the messed-up Muslim practice of equating our human prophet with some inviolable idol. (???-mine). Monotheists are to revere one God, not one of God’s emissaries.” (p. 161).

   Response: Please detail the traditions in which Muslims equate the Prophet “with some inviolable idol.” Muslims have it drummed into our system at least twenty times a day –in our five daily prayers and the Adhan (call to prayer)– that Mohammad is not God; is not son of God; is not partner with God; is not associate of God; that he is only Messenger of God.” (Please show us the Muslim(s) who equate the Prophet with Allāh God so we could slap him on the head all the way to the Resurrection).

   (“Revere” has various shades of meaning). While Muslims are to worship only Allāh God; Allāh does call on us to “revere” (honor) the Prophet Mohammad:

   -“Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel….So those who believe in him and honour him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him―these are the successful”–(Qur’an 7:157)

   -“Surely Allåh and His angels bless the Prophet. O you who believe, call for blessings on him and salute him with a (becoming) salutation”–(Qur’an 33:56)

   -Surely We have sent thee (Mohammad) as a witness and as a bearer of good news and as a warner. That you (people) may believe in Allåh and His Messenger and may aid him and revere him. And (that) you may declare His (Allāh’s) glory, morning and evening”–(Qur’an 48:8-9).

   Tradition –sayings and doings– of Prophet Mohammad forms an integral part of Islam. And while some traditions are not “untouchable” –they are subjected to interpretations– there are those that are clearly “untouchable.” We are to take whatever the Prophet gives and avoid what he forbids–(Qur’an 59:7; Bokhari Vol. 6, #408); and to obey the Prophet–(Qur’an 3:31, 131; 4:13, 69; 8:1, 20, 24; 24:54, 56; 47:33; 57:7; 64:12).

49. Manji wrote about “Islamism” and “Islamists” and “criticism of Islamic practices.” (pp. 157-168).

   Response: You (and others) can make whatever designations you like, there are no such Islamic concepts as “Islamism” and “Islamists.” Our religion is “Islam” and followers are “Muslims,” irrespective of their actions. And please detail the teachings of Islam that you (and others) “criticize.”

50. Manji wrote about “a Turkish-American Muslim” and others producing a “Qur’an: A Reformist Translation,” “that they described as “God’s message to those who prefer reason over blind faith.”” (p. 171).

   Response: Wonder which Qur’an this Turkish Brother and his “coauthors” translated. Could not be Allāh’s; they would surely have known that Allāh’s Qur’an does NOT advocate “blind faith” (nor can they show that any of the translators advocate ‘blind faith”). Allāh’s Qur’an is of wisdom, reason, argument, and examples. We invite Manji and this “Turkish-American Muslim” and others to prove that the Qur’an teaches otherwise.

51. Manji uses the term “violent jihadists.” (p. 172).

   Response: Jihad and “violence” are contradictions (see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch).

52. Regarding Allāh’s injunction that captives of war be set free or after being ransomed–(Qur’an 47:4); Manji mouths off that this “fee” for the captives’ release “might sound like extortion.” (p. 172).

   Response: These enemies, who had the liberty to accept or reject the Divine Message –which frees them from the irrationality of polytheism and the degradation and futility of idolatry among other ills; and which sought to give them sobriety in place of drunkenness; chastity in place of profligacy; unity in place of tribalism; modesty in place of frivolity; knowledge in place of ignorance; and Paradise in place of Hell– apart from subjecting Muslims to armed defense and even death, burdened the Muslims with costs which funds could have been utilized for society’s progress. Why then should these arrogant and audacious idiots not pay for their release? –help defray the costs they needlessly heaped onto Muslims.

   Allāh does not require that captives of war be “beheaded;” Allāh says: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then, when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards (set them free) as a favour or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens”–(Qur’an 47:4). Muhammad Ali comments:

“The word athkhana occurring in this passage has been fully explained in 8:67a. This passage mentions the only case in which prisoners of war can be taken, and thus condemns the practice of slavery, according to which men could be seized anywhere and sold into slavery. Here we are told that prisoners of war can only be taken after meeting an enemy in regular battle, and even in that case they must be set free, either as a favour or after taking ransom. It was the former of these alternatives that the Holy Prophet adopted in most cases; for instance, in the case of the prisoners of the Bani Mustaliq, in which a hundred families were set at liberty, and in the case of Hawåzin, in which fully six thousand prisoners of war were released merely as an act of favour. Only in the case of the seventy prisoners taken at Badr is there mention of redemption having been taken, but this was when Islåm was very weak and the powerful enemy was determined to crush it.” (For Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an, which I recommend to Muslims and non-Muslims, see, www.muslim.org).

   Manji also dabbles in “Jizya.” She wrote: “should Muslim governments levy a tax on non-Muslims? Even at the zenith of tolerance in Islamic civilization, religious minorities had to pay a special surcharge, or jizya, to their Muslim overlords.” (p. 172).

   Response: See Islam -jizya

53. Manji notes one Muslim who was/is frustrated “with mullahs who have interpreted the Qur’an to control populations.” (p.179).

   Response: Do you not know to read and write and think? Allāh encourages us to pray for knowledge–(Qur’an 20:114), and Prophet Mohammad exhorts to go even to China (i.e. wherever we need to) to acquire knowledge). Mercifully, we do not have to go to China to gain knowledge: China/knowledge comes into our bedrooms (via Internet).

   Two sites to bring into your “bedroom” are www.muslim.org  where you can view (and perhaps download) Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an and his comprehensive work The Religion Of Islam and The Early Caliphate; and www.nogodbut allah.org that gives insight into Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Bahaiism; and shows the superiority of Islam over all religions.

   The “mullahs” are NOT the last word on religion. Any Muslim has the right to differ with any man below the Prophet; so long as his “difference” is based on reason and not opinion and does not contradict with the Qur’an (see Islam-ijtihad (reason)).

   To requote the venerable Caliph, Abu Bakr Siddique, in his inaugural speech: “If I do well in my job, help me. If I do wrong, redress me. truthfulness is fidelity, and lying is treason ….Obey me as long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God’s command or His Prophet’s, then no obedience is incumbent upon you.”
The question is, how can Muslims know when their leaders are not obeying Allāh and His Prophet if they do not have knowledge?

54. Manji wrote about “most modern Islam.” (p. 192).

   Response: Please explain what is “modern Islam” (never mind “most modern Islam”).

55. Manji notes that “Ahmadis,” “a minority sect within Islam,” are regarded as “kafirs” (disbelievers) in Pakistan and that “the Ahmadis face derision by moderate Muslims in the West and paroxysms of rage in Pakistan.” (p. 200).

   Response: Every person who professes belief in the Unity of Allāh and the Messengership of Mohammad –Laa elaaha il-Al-laah Mohammadur-rasul-Allaah– is a Muslim. There are varying degrees of being Muslim depending on how many precepts of Islam one observes –the first and paramount precept is the Unity of Allāh and Messengership of Mohammad which initiates one into Islam, and which is the “most excellent” branch of faith–(Muslim Vol. 1, #56); and is the highest form of faith placing you above all other religionists; as you have attributed to God’s absolute Purity: that He is One and Only without partners or relations and is free of all defects including that of meriting people based on their race.

   Likewise there are varying degrees of kufr/disbelief  (of being a kafir/disbeliever). However regardless of his degree of disbelief a person is yet a Muslim, unless he renounces belief in the Unity of Allāh and Messengership of Mohammad. But under no circumstance is it allowed to kill a Muslim for any item of “disbelief.”
   Muslims who label other Muslims kafirs, if they knew the gravity of their act they would chain their wretched tongues for fear lest they inadvertently call another Muslim kafir, much more to kill a Muslim. (See Islam-sectism among Muslims).

56. Manji notes one of her Muslim “reader(s)” questioning: that while the West has committed “some unfair and hypocritical deeds but what about us? What about our conception of Islam, of a “Muslim” society, of our “Muslim values”? Do we have the key to knowledge and righteousness just because we are Muslims? And what is Islam? Do we practice it the right way? What is the right way?” (p. 204).

   Response: (Without being cynical or insulting). This Muslim speaks the way Manji writes. It seems obvious this Muslim knows nothing about Islam; he’s probably never held the Qur’an and Hadith.

   Yes, Muslims have the “key to knowledge and righteousness.” Allāh raised messengers among all people and gave them guidance that was applicable to their people and for a limited period. Through the Prophet Mohammad Allāh has “completed” His favor to us and “perfected” our religion to the Resurrection and He requires us to follow this Law –the Qur’an.

   The Qur’an consists of the teachings of past Scriptures that are applicable to all time and contains teachings not met with in past Scriptures. Thus, the Qur’an consists of, exceeds, and supersedes all Scriptures. No religion can be shown to be superior to or equal with Islam.
   To know the “right way” to practice Islam learn the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Mohammad.

57. Irshad Manji states that “Islam’s self-declare moderates” are to be questioned, “As you castigate the West, do you also repudiate Islam’s own segregationists–-those who divide humanity between the kafir and everyone else?” (p. 213)

   Response: When you say “West” do you mean secularists,  those who plunder Muslims’ oil and/or for other reasons, or all nations outside of Muslims?
    Don’t Hindus consider the world to be “segregated” between Hinduism and the rest of the world? Don’t Jews consider the world to be “segregated” between Judaism and the rest of the world? Don’t Christians consider the world to be “segregated” between Christianity and the rest of the world? (in fact Christ laid the foundation for this “segregation,” see Jesus-only for Jews).  Don’t Sikhs and Bahais and others consider the world to be “segregated” between themselves and the rest of the world?   

Muslim spiritual “segregation” does not mean Muslim social isolation: this spiritual segregation does not prohibit social integration; in fact Muslim spiritual segregation requires Muslim social integration:

   -we are made into different tribes and families that we may know one another (Qur’an 49:13),

   -zakaat/charity is also for the poor and needy and wayfarer, which includes non-Muslims (Qur’an 9:60)

   -Muslims are to fight on behalf of the oppressed whether Muslims or non-Muslims (Qur’an 22:39-40).

   -Muslims are to missionize –invite people to Islam–(Qur’an 3:103).

   However, Muslim “integration” does not mean indulging in practices that are prohibited by Islam.

58. Comparing the Talibans killing people (who are probably all Muslims), Manji postulates: “If you condemn the Ku Klux Klan, then you should have no hesitation–-none, nada–-in seeing the Taliban in the same light. In fact, they’re near replicas of the knife-and-rope-packing lynch mobs that terrorized Jim Crow America.” (p. 213).

   Response: Do the Talibans kill people because of the color of the people’s skin and texture of the hair and/or because they claim they are “racially superior” than the people they kill?

   Will you equate Jews who believe they are “the most superior of all races”¹⁴ and whose “official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse?” and whose “strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them” –will you equate these Jews with “the Ku Klux Klan”?

   Will you equate Christians who kill each other in Ireland (and who kill Muslims in Central African Republic and eat the flesh of Muslim) –will you equate these Christians with “the Ku Klux Klan”?

  Will you equate Hindus who kill Muslims and destroy Masjids –will you equate these Hindus with “the Ku Klux Klan”?

   Will you equate Buddhists of Myanmar/Burma who kill and burn Muslims (and Buddhists in Sri Lanka who attack and loot Muslims) –will you equate these Buddhists with “the Ku Klux Klan”? (Incidentally, where is the Dalai Lama’s voice of “peace” against his sheep’s savagery against Muslims? Hibernating in hypocrisy?)

   To equate the Talibans with “the Ku Klux Klan” is blatant arrogance and audacity. It may even be libel.
(I’ve had Christians try to blame Islam for Muslims killing and suicide-bombing. My response: If your children transgress your precepts are you to be blamed? Do you blame Jesus Christ for Christian priests –who are vicars of Christ– sodomizing young boys? [See Internet]).

59. Manji states that “of the multiple reasons to repudiate Hamas, one must surely be that its charter accepts slavery under Islam. (It tells the slaves of Muslims that they may battle Zionists without their masters’ permission. Hamas, therefore, tolerates bondage by Muslims while clamoring for emancipation from non-Muslims).” (Brackets Manji’s). (p. 216).

   Response: Aside from the fact that there is no slavery in Islam –(see Islam-slaves/slavery). Zionists are occupiers of Hama’s land and by extension occupier of the “slaves.” Even though Hamas is misguided in his belief, the slave is a guardian of his master’s property–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #730; Vol. 7, #116; Vol. 9, #252; Muslim Vol. 3, #4496).
   As stated in item #7 Jews are not only occupying Hamas’ lands and yet stealing more lands they are slaughtering Palestinians to hold on to what is not theirs:

   To restate. Those who criticize and/or condemn Hamas/Palestinians, Hezbollah (and Amal) for “jihading” to reclaim that which was blatantly and arrogantly stolen from us are to put their dignity (if they have) where their mouths are and accept for themselves this monumental and grotesque obscenity that was perpetrated, and continues to be perpetrated for more than six torturous decades now, against the fearless and forbearing Palestinians –they must swallow this unpalatable bit of morsel they and their governments are trying to force-feed the Palestinians: they must give half of their property to the homeless and half of their country to the natives or ethnic sector for their State; they must suffer what the Palestinians have suffered and endure what the Palestinians are enduring and accept what the Palestinians are forced to accept. (See Palestine).
In the annals of modern history no people has suffered so much and for so long as 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!

60. In Qur’an 5:32 Allāh says: “whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind” (Manji’s italics). And Manji states, “For the London jihadis….”villainy in the land” describes the boot prints of U.S. soldiers in Iraqi soil. This otherwise humane Qur’anic passage gives all jihadis an escape hatch that starts with “except”….”villainy in the land” can describe actions by al-Qaeda and the Talibans.” (pp. 222-223).

   Response: As “God alone knows the meaning of His words,” as Manji states, as per Qur’an 3:7 (pp. 112-113), why then judge al-Qaeda and Taliban if they claim justification under this verse for their actions? Why not leave it to Allāh to decide?

   “Villainy in the land” (or “mischief in the land” as Muhammad Ali translates) refers to local individuals who engage in criminality; the next two verses (verses 33-34) elucidate on this; they state: “The only punishment of those who wage war against Allåh and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. This shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement. EXCEPT those who repent before you overpower them; so know that Allåh is Forgiving, Merciful”–(Qur’an 5:33-34). Muhammad Ali comments on verse 33:

“The words used here imply originally all those opponents of Islåm who waged war on the Muslims and made mischief in the land by causing loss to the life and property of innocent Muslims who fell into their hands. But it has generally been accepted as including all dacoits and murderers who cause disorder in a settled state of society. In fact, when war came to an end in Arabia and the kingdom of Islåm was established over the whole peninsula, the enemies of Islåm, being unable to oppose its authority openly, resorted to dacoity and murder to disturb the peace which was now established in the land. Hence, though it is such enemies that are primarily spoken of here, the words are general and include all cases of murder and dacoity.

The punishment described is of four kinds, which clearly shows that the punishment to be inflicted in any particular case would depend upon the circumstances of the case, as well as the time and place where the crime was committed. For instance, if murder has been committed in the course of dacoity, the punishment would include the execution of the culprit, which may take the form of crucifixion if the offence is so heinous or the culprit has caused such terror in the land that the leaving of his body on the cross is necessary as a deterrent. In other cases, the punishment may be imprisonment, where the severer punishment of cutting off of hands is deemed unnecessary. The judge would take all the circumstances into consideration and inflict such punishment as he thought necessary. A particular case dealt with under this verse was that of a tribe called ‘Urainah. Some men of this tribe came to the Prophet, and accepted Islåm. They fell ill and were sent by the Prophet to a place at a little distance from Madinah for change of climate and recovery of health. But when they regained health, they killed the very people who had served them and went off with their camels. Then they committed dacoities and violated the chastity of women, and they were severely punished (B. 4:66, and the comments on it in ‘Aini). Many other cases of this nature are recorded by IJ.

Yunfau min-al-ard˙ literally means they should be banished from the earth, but according to Imåm Abu Hanifah the meaning here is imprisonment (al-√abs), and most lexicologists accept this (Rz). LA also accepts the interpretation that they should be kept in the prison. The reason is apparent. No one can be banished from the whole of the earth unless he is kept in prison. Deportation is included if we take al-ard˙ as meaning a particular country.”

And MA comments on verse 34:
“This verse speaks of people the course of whose life has been changed before they are caught — those who repent before you overpower them. Repentance, of course, here means a changed course of life which is apparent to all. It clearly refers only to cases in which an enemy, who is guilty of crimes against life and property, becomes a Muslim before he falls into the hands of the Muslims. He should not be tried and punished for what he did when he was in the hostile camp.”
There is no “nasty side” to the Qur’an (see The Trouble with Islam-Irshad Manji, item #30).

61. In Qur’an 2:282 Allah enjoins: “O you who believe, when you contract a debt…call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women.” And Manji notes one Muslim wondering: “How am I supposed to counteract this negative image of women (that her evidence is half that of man’s) when our own doctrine seems to support the idea of submissive and deficient females.” (Bracket ours). (p. 223).

   Response: You “counteract” it by studying the Qur’an for yourself. (See Islam-liberated women, item #2).

62. Manji wrote about “moderate” Muslims that “many moderates sincerely believe that Islam is peace. What they’re saying is, “Islam means peace.” What they’re not saying is, “Just because a word means something doesn’t guarantee that reality lines up.”” (p. 228).

   Response: (And to know Manji projects herself as an authority on Islam. Allah help those Muslims  who flock behind her).
Islam is not a “word;” Islam is a complete way of life. This “way of life” was lived/practiced by the Prophet Mohammad. And this “Islam” –way of life– is enshrined in the Qur’an and emphasized by the words, denoting the practitioners of this way of life as the best nation: “You are the best nation raised up for men: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you believe in Allåh”–(Qur’an 3:109). And as there is no hypocrisy in Islam, to “enjoin good” we must practice good, and to “forbid evil” we must avoid evil.

Belief in Allāh means: Allāh is One and Only; the Eternal, Absolute; on Whom all depend; He begets not; nor is He begotten; there is none like Him; He incarnates not; has no “chosen people” to the exclusion of others;  He needs no “satisfaction” to forgive sins; belief in all His Angels; Books; Prophets; Resurrection; Judgment; Heaven and Hell.
While we are to believe in all His Scriptures, Allāh God, has informed us what not to believe, such as: polytheism, idolatry, partnership with God, Trinity, sonship of God, inherited sin, vicarious atonement, karma, and reincarnation.

63. Manji wrote about a Muslim man who wrote about a Muslim woman, Malika, who blogged that Islam’s ““duty”” is to destroy the West. Manji retorted that Malika “rants about Western intrusions” but says nothing about Sunni Muslims in Pakistan killing Shias; Afghan warlords who “gang-rape Muslim girls;” Lebanese Palestinians exist on “odd jobs” “because they’re barred from buying property, let alone become professionals;” and that Hezbollah rockets against “Israel” destroy “the homes of Arab Muslims.” And Manji suggested to the Muslim man to “Add these truths to Malika’s; then we’ll talk.” (pp. 232-233).

   Response:  (If two of your brothers are fighting and a stranger is beating your father, who will you attack, your brother or the stranger?)
   Islam’s “duty” is not to destroy the West or anyone but to enlighten the world to Divine truth. Allah forbids Muslims intentionally killing Muslims or innocents. Rape may carry the maximum penalty of death as per Qur’an 5:32.  Hezbollah needs powerful “smart” “rockets” that can outfox the “iron dome.” (It is the Divine requirement that Muslims who have armaments supply Hezbollah [and Hamas] and also teach them how to produce their own. See Islam-sectism among Muslims).

However, (not to minimize Hezbollah’s inadvertent destruction of “the homes of Arab Muslims”), briefly,
Americans, British and Canadian soldiers have been killed by “friendly fire;” in 1967 so-called “Israel” “mistaken(ly)” bombed the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding another 174;
and in 1986 American bombs in Libya “landed off-target” and even “narrowly missed” the French Embassy. (Notably, France did not give America use of her air-space to undertake its bombing raid on Libya).

   While Malika may not have “blogged” about these acts by Muslims, Where is your (Manji’s) vociferance and demands –and Manji has the luxury of the media at her disposal–  that America, Britain, France, and Russia return Palestine to Arabs and compensate them for their more than six torturous decades of suffering and degradation?
Where is your vociferance and demands that America compensate the peoples of Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq for overthrowing governments to preserve her “interest”?¹⁵
Where is your vociferance and demands that Russia get out of Chechnya and Dagestan and compensate their citizens for the crimes she has committed against them?
When you (Manji) take a stand against these, rather than condemn Malika, you will have a measure of credibility over Malika.

   In addition, Manji suggests that Malika should learn from the American who discovered that he was lied to in the invasion of Iraq and was/is “committed to sharing his royalties (from his book about the “deception that infests Washington, D.C.) with the families of Iraq war victims, whom he said he’d injured with the misinformation he’d been given–-and handed out–-while in the White House.” (p. 233).

   Response: While this is a noble and commendable act. And while Muslims are to strive to end injustice against Muslims and others, Malilka is hardly to be condemned. Especially when contrasted against Manji who has access to the media –radio, television, print– and audiences yet she is deathly silent on crimes perpetrated by various governments.

64. Manji notes from one publication that “recommends we keep asking” “What’s working, and how we can do more of it?” (pp. 240-241).

   Response: Terrorists, occupiers and oppressors can also employ this precept. In fact, China is employing this precept against the Uighur Muslims (of Uighuristan); Russia against Chechnya and Dagestan; and Jews have been employing it against Palestinians for decades: stealing more and more lands under one pretext or the other.  (We are yet to hear Manji’s voice and pen against these monstrosities).

65. Manji notes one Muslim woman complaining: “I’ve never been able to understand organized religion. It’s been hammered into my heads since childhood that being a good person isn’t enough …that hell has more women than men in it.” (p. 241).

   Response: Every believer in God has to be a follower of organized religion, as it is the Divine requirement that we live in communities –even animals and birds live in communities (Qur’an 6:38).

Why do you let it be “hammered into my head”? Do you not have a brain? As shown “organized religion” does not mean blind faith or blindly following Imams. Not even Allāh requires us to have blind faith in Him, which is why He exhorts us in His Qur’an to wisdom, knowledge, reason and argument.

That hell has more women than men: This is not exclusive to Muslim women but to women in total. (You, Manji, may very well be one of them; having no knowledge about Islam and leading others astray).  Since the Prophet saw this vision that there are more women in Hell, why crab at the Prophet for stating what was shown to him? Do you not believe he was telling the truth? Wait till you get there.

The reason more women are in hell is, “They are not thankful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do good to one of them all your life, when she seems some harshness from you, she will say, “I have never seen any good from you’”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #125). This vision of Hell should serve as a purification to “ungrateful” Muslim women –to cease being “ungrateful.” 

66. Manji notes from “an anthropologist doing research with Muslim living in the slums of Kolkata, India” who introduced Manji’s book, The Trouble With Islam Today, to some of the women, and the head of the NGO “immediately incorporated” Manji’s book into her classes on Islam.” (p. 242).

   Response This Muslim Sister (and the anthropologist, unless she wants Muslims to go astray) needs to be cautious what she follows and teaches. She may be kindling her Hell-fire with Manji’s book. This Sister needs to check our response to Manji’s book. There is no “trouble” with Islam; there is ‘trouble” with Manji. (See The Trouble with Islam-Irshad Manji).
   Perhaps this anthropologist (or some other) will introduce our site www.nogodbutallah.org to these women of Kolkota (and elsewhere) and have them “ijtihad” our responses to Manji’s books, The Trouble With Islam and Allāh, Liberty & Love.

67. Manji wrote: “As Sultan Abdulhameed notes, a remarkable fact is that the Qur’an does not recommend a format for prayer. The Qur’an insists that people should pray but consistently avoids prescribing a method for doing it.”….In The Trouble With Islam Today, I explained my choice to communicate with God in English, not Arabic, and through structured daily dialogue, not rote ritual. Knowing myself better than somebody else’s rules could know me, the practice I’ve chosen restores my intimacy with Allāh.” (p. 252).

   Response:  (This brother needs to get off the hookah and revisit the Qur’an and hadith. Hadith is an integral part of Islam; it explains certain verses of the Qur’an and Allah tells us to obey/follow the Prophet). 
Salah is the second foundation of Islam. Allāh says to establish regular Salah and He gave their five daily timings¹⁶
   Allāh says those who bow down (make ruku) and prostrate (make sujood) will receive a mighty reward–(Qur’an 9:111-112); and He calls our attention that, “Is he who worships devoutly during the hours of the night prostrating himself and standing, taking care of the Hereafter and hoping for the mercy of his Lord (like one who does not)?”–(Qur’an 39:9).

   While Allāh did not say in His Qur’an we are to first stand, recite Sura Fatihah (opening chapter of the Qur’an) and another portion of the Qur’an, then bow down, stand erect, go into prostration etc; and what to recite in these movements and positions, it is clear that the postures of salah –standing, bowing, prostrating– are stated in the Qur’an.  And it is within reason that in the logical state of motion one would first stand, then bow then go into prostration.
   The five daily prayers were enjoined at fixed times and the “format for prayer” –standing, ruku, sujood etc– were revealed by Allāh and demonstrated to Prophet Mohammad by Angel Gabriel under the instructions of Allāh–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #500; Vol. 4, #444). (See Hadith & Salah-why believe in; Arabic-why pray in?).

   “Fear of God” means to avoid evil. The other “fear of God” means to dread the result of our evil actions. Notably, Hell is not a torture chamber of a vengeful God (see Hell).
   Allāh invites us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins: “Say: O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah, surely, Allah forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–(Qur’an 39:54). Imagine Allāh, the Creator and Who needs nothing from us, imagine the expanse of His love, mercy, and compassion to address us in such noble terms. And He forgives “all” sins without having anyone killed.

68. Manji states: “No religion speaks for itself. Its practitioners speak on religion’s behalf.” (p. 255).

   Response: This must be so of other religions. Islam speaks for itself. Go study the Qur’an and Sunnah and give proofs that Islam does not “speak for itself.”

69. Manji notes one Muslim writer questioning herself: “Do I fully consider myself a Muslim?….I don’t know. A sizeable amount of being a Muslim to me is what I’ve known to be ‘truth’ through cultural practices, not what causes me to stop in my tracks and feel the presence of divinity.” (p. 255).

   Response: This is a classic example of blind faith and blindly following Imams. Do you not know to read? Do you not have access to a Qur’an and books of Hadith?
That you do not “feel the presence of divinity.” All you need do is look into yourself; Allah is closer to you than your jugular/life vein-(Qur’an 50:16). 

   As stated above, there are varying degrees of being Muslim. The first degree is the acceptance of the Unity of Allāh and Messengership of Mohammad (Laa elaaha il-Al-laah Mohammadur-rasul-Allaah) –which is the “most excellent” branch of faith–(Muslim Vol. 1, #56); and is the highest form of faith placing you above all other religionists; as you have attributed to God absolute Purity: that He is One and Only without partners or relations and is free of all defects including that of meriting people based on their race.

   The other degrees of being Muslim depend of how many of the precepts of Islam you observe (just like the more work one does the more payment he receives). (For an understanding of what belief in Allāh means see Allah).

70: Manji notes one Arab author: “I am an Arab Muslim woman intent upon living in a sound society where all members benefit from justice, regardless of rank, religion, race, or gender.” (p. 257).

   Response: Whether this Muslim Sister (and Manji) knows it or not, she is echoing the teachings of Islam. Only one verse need be entered:
“O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allåh, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor, Allåh has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allåh is ever Aware of what you do”–(Qur’an 4:135).

As the magnificent Messenger of Allāh, Mohammad, reminds us:
“What destroyed the nations preceding you, was that if a noble amongst them stole, they would forgive him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would inflict Allah’s legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut off her hand”–(Bokhari Vol. 5, # 597). Favoritism or preferential treatment has no place in Islam– (Bokhari Vol. 3, #554).

71. Manji notes that one email she received reads: “allah (non-existent) sucks. Mo the false prophet Warlord sucks. The Koran –-a Declaration of open-ended warfare against the Infidel–-sucks. Get it? Brava Wafa Sultan, Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, and Bat Ye’or. You, Manji, are NOTHING compared to them. You’re still a moon-god worshipper…” (p. 258).

   Response: Where Islam is concerned, this emailer is a classic example of uber-ignorance.  As shown on this site, all charges against Islam have been dispensed with on one page or the other.
Having no intelligent discourse to promote their beliefs, critics try to prove that Islam is false to mislead uninformed Muslims into apostatizing from Islam.
We challenge the critics -the emailer; Wafa Sultan, Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, and Bat Ye’or, and all others including Christians and atheists on the Internet– to put your dignity, if you have, where your mouth/pen is: show a religion that is superior to, or even equal with, Islam and we will follow it;  but as you critics cannot show any such religion then you follow Islam!
Put up or shut up!

72. Manji notes a presentation by “Imam Khaleel Mohammed” giving “interfaith marriage blessing.” (p. 262).

   Response: Allāh instructs us in Qur’an 2:221: “And marry not the idolatresses until they believe; and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress even though she please you. Nor give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing slave is better than an idolater, even though he please you. These invite to the Fire and Allåh invites to the Garden and to forgiveness by His will and He makes clear His messages to men that they may be mindful.”
  But Irshad Manji, using this Imam’s view, blindly encourages Muslims to marry whoever they like; possibly having Muslims commit adultery or fornication. For more on this topic see Islam-liberated women, item #5).

Whereas Manji challenges Muslims to take up the badge of “moral courage” and confront “cultures”:
   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and defend WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden for exposing  government(s) actions in the public’s name and actions against the people.
(Which governments’ actions may be likened to Imams doing what they believe to be good for the people. If governments can do what they believe to be the right thing why can’t the Imams and Al-Qaeda and the Talibans –Miss Manji?).

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and condemn and to require the Dalai Lama to condemn the Dalai Lama’s followers in Myanmar/Burma killing and burning Muslims (and Buddhists in Sri Lanka attacking and looting Muslims).

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that India give the Kashmiri’s their right to choose their future.

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that Jews get out of the Golan Heights (and Palestine).

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that Europe give the Romas a national homeland (preferably in Britain, as Britain had no qualms in promising Jews a homeland in Palestine)

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that America return every grain of sand of Palestine to Palestinians and compensate the people of Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq for overthrowing governments.

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that Russia get out of Chechnya and Dagestan and compensate their citizens for the crimes she has committed against them.

   -Manji is yet to pin on herself this badge of “moral courage” and demand that China get out of “Uighuristan” and Tibet.

   Where is Irshad Manji and her “moral courage” –hibernating in her hypocrisy?

   While Muslims are not to blindly follow our Imams, Muslims are to be wary they are not lead astray by Manji. You want to learn about Islam read Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an, his The Religion Of Islam and The Early Caliphate which can be viewed/obtained from www.muslim.org; also see www.nogodbutallah.org.
******************************************************

        NOTES

1. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 100.
2. Qur’an 3:7: “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical.^a Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.^b And none knows its interpretation save Allåh, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord.^c And none mind except men of understanding.” Muhammad Ali comments:

“7a. The verses of the Holy Book are here stated to be partly muhkam (decisive) and partly mutashåbih (allegorical). In 11:1 the whole Qur’ån is spoken of as a Book whose verses are made plain, and in 39:23 it is called kitab-an mutashåbih-an, a book, consistent in its injunctions. A little consideration will show that there is no discrepancy in the three statements; they actually explain each other. Literally, muhkam (from hakama, meaning he prevented, whence ahkama, i.e., he made a thing firm or stable) is that of which the meaning is secured from change and alteration. Mutashåbih (from shibh, meaning likeness   or resemblance) is that which is consimilar or conformable in its various parts, and mutashåbihåt are therefore things like or resembling one another, hence susceptible to different interpretations (LL). Therefore when it is stated that the whole of the Book is muhkam, the meaning is that all its verses are decisive, and when the Qur’ån is called mutashåbih (39:23), the meaning is that the whole of it is conformable in its various parts. In the verse under discussion is laid down the important principle how verses susceptible of different interpretations may be interpreted so that a decisive significance may be attached to them. The Qur’ån, we are here told, establishes certain principles in clear words which are to be taken as the basis, while there are statements made in allegorical words or susceptible to different meanings, the interpretation of which must be in consonance with the other parts and the spirit of the Book. In fact, this is true of every writing. When a certain law is laid down in a book in unmistakable words, any statement carrying a doubtful significance or one which is apparently opposed to the law so laid down must be interpreted subject to the principle enunciated. The subject is very appropriately dealt with here as a prelude to a controversy with the Christians, who attribute divinity to Jesus and uphold the doctrine of atonement by blood on the basis of certain ambiguous words or allegorical statements, without heeding the fundamental principles established by the earlier prophets.

7b. The fitnah is the misleading of the people (T, LL), or the sowing of dissension, or difference of opinion (Q, LL), by giving to one part an interpretation which is falsified by another. Ta‘wil (from aul, to return) is the final sequel or the end of a thing, or the interpretation of what is ambiguous or allegorical, such as the interpretation of dreams, etc. Kf explains ta‘wila-hu here as meaning the interpretation which they desire, and this, according to AH, is the significance; hence the addition in the translation of the words their own within brackets. They do not care to seek the real interpretation, which can only be found by referring to the principles laid down elsewhere. But the words may also signify their giving an interpretation to an ambiguous verse alone, i.e. without considering it in conjunction with other consimilar verses or the principles laid down elsewhere.

7c. These words afford a clue to the right mode of interpretation. The words it is all from our Lord signify that there is no disagreement between the various portions of the Holy Book. Hence the rule of interpretation which they follow is that they refer passages which are susceptible to various interpretations to those whose meaning is obvious or to consimilar passages, and subject particular statements to general principles. Thus reading various passages in the light of each other, they discover the true significance of ambiguous passages. Hence such people are spoken of as knowing the true interpretation of allegorical verses (B. 65: iii, 2). (For Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an see www.muslim.org).

3. Moshe Dayan, Ha-Aretz, April 4, 1969. Noted in Edward Said, The Question of Palestine, p. 14. For full quote see PALESTINE.
4. Ismail Zayid, Palestine A Stolen Heritage, p. 15. a. Peretz, Don, Israel and the Palestine Arabs, Washington 1958, pp. 95-96, 152, 172; b. American Mercury Magazine, August 1957;   c. Jewish Newsletter, June 1959. See THE END OF FAITH-SAM HARRIS item #13.
5. “as General Gur put it in May 1978, official Israeli military policy has been to attack Arab civilians en masse?” Edward Said, The Question of Palestine, p. 224.
6. “Our strategy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them.”–Israeli General, Moshe Dayan” (And yet Arabs are villainized). The Islamic Post, International Edition, January 2007; article, Zionism, The Media, and World Control, pp. A3, 7.
7. Zayid, Ismail, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, p. 33; (From a letter written by a student) Published in “Haolam Haze,” an Israeli newspaper, (issue 1594) and quoted in “Israel Imperial News,” October, 1968.

    The entire material states:  “I am a pupil in a college in Be’er Sheva. I don’t want trouble. The director of the office of education will not like my letter; therefore I am not signing my full name.

The problem: KHUZARI BOOK, which is approved by the office of education. In the introduction to the book Dr. Tzifroni writes:
“The nation of Israel is a chosen nation because of its race, its education and the climate of the land in which it was brought up. The race of the Israeli people is the most superior of all races”. I think that these sentences require no explanation.
                        Mira, Be’er Sheva.”

8. Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, is “Published in the United States by Random House.” This book is a must read for those interested in Jesus Christ. Even if you have to beg, borrow, or chisel it.
9. Muhammad Ali, comm. to Qur’an 60:13.
10. Emphasis added. As shown this UN resolution is not “notorious.” Please read this book.
11. See note #7.
12. A.J.P. Taylor, J.M. Roberts, Alan Bullock, 20TH. Century, p. 4.
13. As all Prophets were sent by the same One God, the religion from God could not be partial to any person, place or thing. The name of God’s religion should reflect our service to Him. Such is the religion of Islam –which means peace and submission (to Allah); or peace and submission to the Will of Allāh. The oldest religion or eternal law is Islam –submission to the law of Allāh God. The first human beings submitted to this law of Allāh, God, –Islam. Only this submission to Allāh, God, was not yet known as Islam. The following makes this point clear: “Then He (Allāh) 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”–(Qur’an 41:11). We ‘come willingly’ or we submit to your command –Islam. Thus, Islam –submission to the command of Allāh God– is as old as the heavens and the earth. All creations conform to the laws of Allāh God. (See  All people are Muslims).
14. See note #7.
15. As noted on the Internet.
16. Qur’an 2:43, 110, 177; 6:72; 14:31; 17:78; 22:78; 24:56; 29:45; 30:31; 31:3-5; 35:29; 42:36-39; 58:13; 73:20; five daily prayers: Qur’an 4:103-104; 11:114; 17:78; 20:130; 30:17-18; (See M. Ali comm; 619; 1457; 1934).