Answering a Muslim Apologist

August 29, 2014 | 22 comments

Catholic apologists keep very busy clearing up common misconceptions about the Faith: explaining how the Church’s teaching, practice, and history are misunderstood—or willfully misrepresented—by its opponents.

Islam, too, has its apologists. They also claim that many critiques of the Muslim religion are based on ignorance or animus, and insist that the record must be set straight.

One such apologist is Princeton University Muslim chaplain Sohaib Sultan, whose recent piece in Time, “ISIS Is Ignoring Islam’s Teachings on Yazidis and Christians,” would seem to be something that every Catholic, and indeed every free person, should welcome. Sultan condemns the Islamic State (formerly ISIS) and other Islamic jihadists, and asserts that their violent actions have nothing to do with true Islam. Is he correct? Are those who connect Islam with violence as grossly mistaken as those who claim that Catholics are cannibals for eating Jesus’ body, or that we worship Mary as a goddess?

Unfortunately, too often the assertions of Muslim apologists do not inspire confidence that they’re actually engaged in an effort to dispel falsehoods with truth. Sultan’s piece is a textbook example of the difference between defending one’s faith and whitewashing it; between engaging the evidence against one’s position and blithely waving it aside or even denying it exists.

"Until Religion Is All for Allah"

For example, he claims that “when the Quran allows (and, sometimes, even encourages) Muslims to engage in just fighting and resistance, it is in order to deter those who wage wars without just cause and those who engage in religious persecution.” Here and throughout his article, however, his use of Quranic passages is selective and out of context. He doesn’t mention, for example, the exhortation to Muslims to fight not just until “persecution is no more,” but also until “religion is all for Allah” (8:39). He mentions only in passing, without quotation, the Quran’s call to Muslims to fight against the “People of the Book” (primarily Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians) until they “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29)— i.e., until they submit to Muslim hegemony.

Claiming that true Islam does not support the demolition of churches and synagogues, Sultan quotes the Quran inveighing against the destruction of houses of worship: “For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques — in which God’s name is abundantly extolled would surely have been destroyed” (22:39–22:40). This would seem to be a blanket prohibition against the destruction of churches; proof that jihadists who commit that act do so in defiance of their religion.

Unfortunately, though, this is not all that the Quran says. The Quran many times reaffirms that its message is the same as that of the Torah and the Gospels, and calls on Jews and Christians to note that and accept it as divine revelation. Allah tells Muhammad: “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it” (5:48), after affirming that in the Gospel was “guidance and light, confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous” (5:46). Those who do not accept the new revelation are castigated and threatened with punishment: “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures” (98:6).

So while “God’s name is abundantly extolled” in the churches and synagogues of those who acknowledge Muhammad and the Quran, the same cannot be said of the churches and synagogues of “they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture.” This is how the Islamic State, in destroying churches and other houses of worship in Iraq and Syria, can justify its actions on solid Islamic grounds. But Sultan does not address this— thereby rendering his piece powerless to refute the actions of the Islamic State, however comforting his arguments may sound to uninformed non-Muslims.

The omissions continue. Sultan quotes the Quran saying about various religious groups that “God will decide between them on Resurrection Day” (22:17), arguing that since God will judge all in the next world, the Islamic State should not act as the executor of divine wrath in this world. Yet the Quran also says: “And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers” (3:56). If the unbelievers are to be punished in this world as well as in the next, how is the Islamic State departing from Quranic orthodoxy by bringing them that punishment?

No Compulsion in Religion?

Sultan also claims that “ISIS insistence that Christians either ‘convert, leave, or die’ defies the Quranic command: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion’ (2:256).” Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote this to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. But Sultan does not mention—even to refute it—the quite different understanding that many Muslim authorities have of this verse. According to an early Muslim scholar, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Quran 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Those who offer 2:256 to claim there is no Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers omit or fail to recognize that the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims. For non-Muslims brought to heel by jihad, the choice (as laid out by Muhammad himself) is conversion, death, or subjugation (dhimmitude). The twentieth-century Muslim Brotherhood theorist and Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutb accordingly denies that 2:256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (8:39; 2:193). “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs,” he says. Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security”—peace and security meaning, for Qutb, subordinate status for non-believers in an “Islamic social order.”

In this light, the Quranic idea that there is “no compulsion in religion” fits together without any trouble with the exhortation to fight until “religion is for Allah.” Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad.

And indeed, Sultan acknowledges that the Islamic State demanded jizya payments from the Christians in Mosul, in accord with 9:29, but he waves this away with the assertion that this verse’s “application is vague and it can very well be argued that such an imposition was only intended to manage troublesome and treacherous religious minorities.” Yet the Quran’s command to subjugate the People of the Book and make them pay this tax is nowhere restricted to those People of the Book who are “troublesome and treacherous”; it is, in fact, not restricted at all. Nor was its application vague in the great caliphates of history. Islamic authorities frequently emphasized, long before the advent of the Islamic State, that the purpose of the jizya was to signify and enforce the subjugation of non-Muslims, but of such examples Sultan makes no mention.

A Dubious Document

Instead, he invokes an ancient document, purportedly from Muhammad, granting generous treatment to the Christians under Muslim rule. Known as the Achtiname, it was supposed to have been written by Muhammad around 628 to the monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Unfortunately, it is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Instead it bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery from the depredations of zealous Muslims, who completed their conquest of Christian Egypt in 642. Modern scholars doubt its authenticity, and the prevailing opinion among Muslims is likewise dubious.

Citing the Achitiname against the Quran to prove that to follow Islam actually means to tolerate other faiths, then, is like citing the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” to prove that real Christians must believe Jesus was married.

Honest Catholic apologists strive to dispel clouds of myth and falsehood with the light of fact and reason. Muslim apologists like Sohaib Sultan, when they try to whitewash their religion’s role in present-day atrocities, do the opposite: they pile on myths and half-truths to obscure or distract from Islam’s plain prescriptions. 

• • • •

Much confusion on matters like this would be dispelled if non-Muslims understood how Muslims view religious authority. In a future post, I will explain how Muslims view Quranic verses and prooftexts, where the closest thing to a Muslim magisterium can be found, and how to best to weigh arguments when someone quotes the Quran to say “X” but a Muslim apologist or a journalist quotes it to say “Y.”

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both...

Comments by Members

#1  Peter Theroux - Washington, District Of Columbia

Anyone familiar with early Islamic conquests, especially Muhammad's behavior in Khaybar (seizing land and women, plundering, mass beheadings) would find ISIS's actions far more in line with Muhammad's than with what this chaplain alleges.

August 29, 2014 at 3:06 pm PST
#2  Mark Jeffords - Ceres, California

Robert, in your opinion, is Sultan being deliberately deceitful, or is he ignorant of his own religion? Thank you.

August 29, 2014 at 7:04 pm PST
#3  Danusha Goska - PATERSON, New Jersey

In an essay in today's American Thinker, I talk about how speech on Islam is obscured by predictable PC tactics. One such tactic relies on misinformation about Catholicism. Sometimes that misinformation comes from Protestants -- some not all Protestants. One such charge is that the Catholic Church killed 95 million victims during the Inquisition.

Here is a link to the American Thinker piece on speech about Islam:

August 30, 2014 at 6:38 am PST
#4  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng


The beheadings and killing of women and children done by the prophet Mohammed (saw) as you stated has never occurred.
Not really sure where you got your information from, but this is what happend.

Battle of Khyber

Jews Army:
Muslim Army:

Khyber was a locality at a distance of about 96 Kms from Madina. It consisted of eight (or ten) popular and very strong forts where the Jews lived and also gave refuge to the enemies of Islam. They had become an active center of conspiracies against Islam. In the 7th Hijrah, our Holy Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) got information about the conspiracy being hatched by the Jews against Muslims in connivance with other hostile elements of Islam. He(sawaw) decided to take on the challenge.

In a consultative meeting, it was decided by the Muslims to take on the enemy outside Madina. A force of 1,400 muslim fighters (History of Muslims of the World by K.A.Hameed) set out of Madina to protect themselves and their homeland against a Jewish force of more than 14,000 fighters (Allama Tabrisi). Before the start of the battle, the Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) took ill. Imam Ali(a.s.) was also not able to participate in this battle in the beginning due to a illness in his eyes.

The battle started with the siege of the forts at Khyber. The siege continued for a period of about one month. Some individual battles were followed by a general assault from both sides for three continuous days but a decisive result could not be achieved. This was mainly due to the fact that the Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) was not commanding the military moves himself as well as because Imam Ali(a.s.) was not taking part in the battle. The so called “Mujahideen-e-Islam” who always complained of not being given sufficient chance to show their skills were in charge and no victory was in sight.

In Tarikh Abul Fada (Vol1 page 187) it is stated that “Due to the illness of Prophet Mohammad(sawaw), Hazrat Abu Bakr took the banner and went to fight but returned unsuccessful and then Hazrat Umar took the banner and fought even harder but he as well returned unsuccessfully. Thereafter, Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) was informed of this situation”. It is quite clear that the Prophet(sawaw) never awarded the banner to any of the two, they took it by themselves and went to fight and returned unsuccessful.

After five days of general battle, Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) declared that “Tomorrow I will award the Standard of the Islamic forces to a man who loves Allah(swt) and his Prophet(saw) and Allah(swt) and his Prophet(saw) love him. He is the one who attacks forcefully and does not run away from the battlefield and he will not return until Allah(swt) grants victory on his hand”. Every Sahabi was waiting and wishing to be awarded this honor.

The next day Prophet Mohammad(sawaw) called for Imam Ali(a.s.). People said that Ali(a.s.) was suffering from a disease in his eyes but the Prophet(sawaw) insisted on him being called and when he arrived, the Prophet(saw) applied his saliva on the eyes of Imam Ali(a.s.) which cured him instantly and then he prayed to Allah(swt) and awarded him the standard of Islam.

Imam Ali(a.s.) led the Islamic forces to the strongest fort of Khyber named QAMOOS and when they came near, the battle was started by the Jews. One of their strongest man, Haris, attacked and martyred two Muslims after which Imam Ali(a.s.) took on Haris and killed him instantly. He was followed by the strongest man among the Jews - Marhab.

After this, general battle started. The Muslim forces fought with a lot of courage under the leadership of Imam Ali(a.s.). Upon realizing that they were losing the battle, the Jews started running towards the fort and closed the huge iron gate of the fort from inside. This was the gate which used to be opened and closed by 40 strong men. Imam Ali(a.s.) alone lifted and broke the gate in one strong jolt. He then used the same gate to make a bridge on a trench so that the Islamic forces could enter the fort and conquer it.

The remaining frightful Jews cried of mercy and Imam Ali(a.s.) ordered to stop the battle and declare peace for them who had surrendered.

The prophet (pbuh) said, "The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger."

The prophet said: "Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty and it is not withdrawn from anything but it makes it defective."

Just by reading those two statements made by the prophet, does he sound like the murderer you make him out to be ?

Now let's read what the people who actually took the time to study the prophet has to say about him.

Nepolean Bonaparte – Quoted in Christian Cherfils BONAPARTE ET ISLAM (PARIS  1914)
“I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.”
M.K.Gandhi, YOUNG INDIA, 1924
"...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." YOUNG INDIA, 1924
Lamartine - Histoire de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77:
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... the forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay  - History of the Saracen Empire, London, 1870, p. 54:
"It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran...The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. 'I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God', is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion."
Rev. Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92:
"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports."
Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4:
"It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
Montgomery Watt, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52:
"His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad."
James A. Michener, 'Islam: The Misunderstood Religion' in Reader's Digest (American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70:
"Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.
"Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God's word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded 'Read'. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God."
"In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, 'An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human-being.'
"At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: 'If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.'"
Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33:
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level."
Sarojini Naidu, the famous Indian poetess says – S. Naidu, Ideals of Islam, Speeches and Writings, Madaras, 1918
“It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for, in the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and king kneel side by side and proclaim: 'God Alone is Great'... “
Thomas Caryle – Heros and Heros Worship
“how one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades?”
“…The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammed) are disgraceful to ourselves only…How one man single-handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades….A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world; the world’s Maker had ordered so."
Stanley Lane-Poole – Table Talk of the Prophet
“He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...”
George Bernard Shaw - The Genuine Islam Vol.No.8, 1936.
“I believe if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring much needed peace and happiness.
I have studied him - the man and in my opinion is far from being an anti–Christ. He must be called the Savior of Humanity.
I have prophesied about the faith of Mohammad that it would be acceptable the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

August 30, 2014 at 1:06 pm PST
#5  Ishaq e - h, New South Wales


Love your cut & paste, particularly with your text/Hadith selection.

However in short, you've erroneously pasted/paraphrased certain parts from the Hadith to your likening and aptness. However, why haven’t you precipitously boosted your summary on Mohammed’s last 10 years reign (622-32) in which subjugation of non-Muslims was practiced and sanctioned (which still happens today) and conquest of non-Muslim land was raided/conquered by violence and deceit (likewise, which still happens today). There’s no walloping from this.

Evidently, there was over 80 battles in which Mohammad oversaw, fought, killed and decreed bloodshed e.g. Just one incident e.g. Battle of trenches, all 600-700 males of the tribe (Banu Qurayza) were beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery. Source: “Sirat-a-Rasul” (page 464-66) by Ibn Ishaq, and Sunan Abu-Dawud-Book 38, No. 4390 (and in Sahi Bukhari reporting too)

And importantly, after 1400 years on and who's still beheading people on a weekly basis in imitation? Who’s selling/kidnapping women into slavery. And forcing the “Shahada” on non-Muslims?
I’ll let you answer that.

Imitation of the Prophet’s action/deeds has had deadly consequences (in the past and still continuing)... It all marries up. Look around the world at the religious inspired atrocities (almost every week) yet alone the 1400 years of carnage. It’s not a coincidence.

In my opinion, the weekly/monthly broadcast of suicide bombings should only be the last straw to convince humanity of the sheer psychosis of Islam… yet you hear no/limited condemnation from the leaders.

Where’s the global protest?

Think about it, a religious inspired Muslim/s blowing themselves up in order to kill others.
Its suicide + murder in the same breath with the indoctrination of the sensual afterlife as an objective – all for your Deity. It’s a sad indictment on humanity, very sad that this still is happening.

Another point, is on the question of ‘Moderate or Radical Islam’… who’s right in interpretation? The Doctrine of Abrogation illustrates that within 23 years of Mohammad’s so-called revelation theologians/scholars throughout history are hard press to know what verses or chapters are actually abrogated or nulled. The non-consensus is palpable. E.g. Meccan verses vs. Median verses... Which do we really follow?

For such a contentious book, isn’t this principle of ‘Abrogation’ simply a man-made concept?

Purportedly, the Quran is meant to be the word of a Deific nature (according to Muslims)… yet in its contents it’s disorderly and without chronicle order throughout the 114 chapters. And more importantly, from a reader’s perspective it’s perceptibly unoriginal, unaspiring, and plagiarized on many levels with numerous distortions. History can’t deny the multitudes of falsehood found in the 114 chapters of the Quran.

Yet despondently, you kill over this book, even to this day? Even a suicide bomber in preparation.

I can keep going on with this thread to counteract with hundreds of Hadith verses and scholars/historians, whether on inconsistences, Islamic doctrines, Mohammad’s morality or from his 1st revelation in 612AD in which he pondered suicide assuming he was possessed according to Sahih Hadith of Bukhari, 2, Volume 9, number 111.

However I believe Muslims in general are doing the most damage to themselves with all the misinformation/deception and religiously inspired atrocities around the world. The World is slowly waking up.

Lastly, in the case of hypocrisy and justice, why is it almost impossible to live in an Islamic land as a Christian, particularly when it comes to evangelizing.

Yet conversely, Muslims can flock to the West into the millions without any full scale discrimination against them e.g. build Mosques, live freely and propagate…. Something that Christians aren’t offered in Islamic land, and in most cases these Christians were the original inhabitants of the land prior to the 7th century, until Islamic conquest

The legacy (of Islam and Mohammed) speaks for itself.

Enough said.

August 31, 2014 at 6:06 am PST
#6  Don Davenport - Denver, Colorado

@Aasiyah Sattar - You can spray perfume on a turd (or in this case Islam) but you won't convince everyone its a rose.

August 31, 2014 at 7:04 am PST
#7  Michael Spoula - Libertyville, Illinois

I read the article with great interest. I made some comments in the forum along the lines that are stated in the article and the moderator promptly charged me with an infraction. Who knows but maybe I was too passionate. Muslims scare me and I make no bones about that. Their holy book is a roadmap of what ISIS would like for the whole world. I feel great sorrow for my Christian brothers and sisters that have been driven away from home and hearth or perhaps even have been martyred for their faith. We must remember that in spite of Islam's apparent victories that they are only temporary. Scripture tells us that Jesus has already won the victory and that at Jesus' name every knee must bend and every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

August 31, 2014 at 10:25 am PST
#8  Usulor Kenneth - Lagos, Lagos


So you want us to go in search of mirror in order to see the watch on our wrists? Or may be a telescope to see the scorching and dazzling noonday sun? Oh! You ought to be ashamed and shut up whenever your belligerent Islam is mentioned. Islam and its adherents are one of the greatest enemies of the human race in this our time. Just think of the countries or part of countries where Islam or muslims are the majority and you will see violence, man's inhumanity to man and wars at their height. Continue to quote deceived men and women but that cannot even make Islam true. Everyday you people continue to whitewash the crimes of Islam and brainwash outsiders that Islam is the religion of peace.
Yes there may be a contrast between a religion and its adherents whereby the adherents are living contrary to what the religion teaches. But in the case of Islam it is what it teaches that its adherents are living out. In fact any muslim that is not belligerent at heart is not a "good" muslim. Although there are muslims who are truely good. But going by the teaching of Islam and the lives of muslims those people are bad. Islam is a colosal falsehood that has entrapped billions of men and women mostly through violent conquests. Just think of what is happening in Iraq today. Islam is not from God at all, it was from the brain of Mohammed, a deception of the devil - the father of lies.

September 1, 2014 at 3:04 am PST
#9  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng


I thank you for your acknowledgment of my "copy & paste " technique, clearly proving that I research evidence that's has truth in it and not like most people, who sucks things out of their arse.
But I'd like to also warn you that not everything you decide to read or like me "copy & paste" is infact authentic and true, and like all the Islamophobes here, look for the websites created by non muslim's to misinform all the ignorant people who is so intrigued in using it as ammunition.
Because the principles of Islam are so great, haters of Islam find it difficult to attack Islam directly so they resort to attacking Prophet Mohammad by bringing up fabricated stories from unreliable history books such as Ibn IssHaaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (Biography of Allah's Messenger), Al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra, and Al-Tabari's Tarikh Al-Tabari.

Ibn IssHaaq wrote a history book, not a Hadith book. Such history books at his time did not pay attention to tracing the chain of transmitters for their stories.

Ibn IssHaaq (born in 704 - died in 770) is unreliable for several reasons:

- Stories he narrated did not have proper chain of transmitters.

- He was Shiite. Shia lie a lot and justify it using Taqiya doctrine.

- He made favorable statements about Jewish tribes which were hostile to the Muslims.

- He accepted Jews as sources for transmitted stories.

Imam Malik, the founder of one of the 4 Sunni Mazhabs (Schools of Thought) called Ibn IssHaq a liar. Some Muslim scholars claim Ibn Ishaq included verses in his book that he knew were not authentic.

You've proven that you read what you want to read, and not understand what was written. Any idiot can explain, that when the prophet was first visited in a cave by a angel, his obvious response to it was disbelief, wondering if it truly happened or was he loosing his mind. If you had been approached by something supernatural let's say a alien, since American's are known for UFO sightings, what emotion would you use to define what u felt at that exact moment.

You speak about beheadings, let's now question when did beheadings begin and by whom. Beheading with a sword or axe goes back a very long way in history, because like hanging, it was a cheap and practical method of execution in early times when a sword or an axe was always readily available.
The Greeks and the Romans considered beheading a less dishonourable and less painful form of execution than other methods in use at the time. The Roman Empire used beheading for its own citizens whilst crucifying others.
Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century, but now is confined to Saudi Arabia, and Iran. One man was reportedly beheaded in Iran in 2003 – the first for many years. It remains a lawful method in Qatar and Yemen, although no executions by this method have been reported.
Beheading continued in Britain up to 1747 and was the standard method in Norway (abolished 1905), Sweden (up to 1903) and Denmark (last in 1892) and was used for some classes of prisoners in France (up until the introduction of the guillotine in 1792) and in Germany up to 1938.  (Copy & pasted :-) ) doesn't seem too long ago does it ?
But yet when muslims do it, suddenly its inhumane, but millions of non muslims have been killed in that manner for centuries, and teaching it to your child in a history class, is far less gruesome ironically.

Trying to defrentiate between which verses were written in Mecca and which were written in Medina, to us muslims doesn't matter, the quraan is as it should be, and those who want to find reasons to change it, is not considered muslims. Its been discovered that Islam is the most staunch and largest practicing religion on earth, and unlike christianity, it hasn't been changed and edited to a point where the holy bible, is now known to be the best "novel" written. Islam has not changed in 1450 years and will never be changed to what suits men best. Those who have come to this realization, has now discovered a new method in trying to alter it, by infiltrating the religion from the inside, so those who pretend to be muslims, with their new ways and views, is to us, not muslims. Their is no division in Islam, the media might show you differently but as we muslims know, there are muslims and there are non muslims, nothing more .For example the Shia, who doesn't believe in the last prophet, but looks like us, pray when its prayer time and fast during the month of ramadaan. For reasons is unknown, they can pretend as much as their like, but no prayer or many years of consecutive fasting will ever make them muslims. But as ignorant as they make everyone else to be, we muslims know that the foundation of Islam is to believe in the Oneness of Allah, and that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the last and final messenger. That is our Shahadah, and if you can't say that you cannot become a muslim. So the Shia may fool the world with their suicide bombings and killings in the name of islam, but those who know what Islam is and what is consists of won't be that easily fooled. Suicide is suicide and murder is murder, you cannot sugar coat that even though you screamed Gods name at the top of your voice, its a one way ticket to hell, just like any other religion. So you my friend is as gullible as the rest of the world who find satisfaction that muslims are now doing everything against their religious beliefs. Where were suicide bombings 15 years ago before the 911? Ahh 911 another ignorant act by American government who failed to clear up their tracks and eventually was caught out by their own American investigators who aired every evident act that they failed to blue print before blaming the muslims. If you knew what Islam is or what muslims daily life consists of the statement of "forcing the shahadah" on non muslims would be hilarious to you as it is to me right now. Do you know muslims pray 5 times a day, actually 6 times a day, we have a prayer for every single act that we have to do, for example, dressing, looking into the mirror, combing our hair, greeting another muslim, seeing the moon, amongst ten others. Islamic country's like Mecca, holds religious buildings and history of the origin of Islam and is infact known as the holy city, situated in the center of the earth, bringing muslims from various countries together in one place, at prescribed times to spend their days in complete worship and praising of God, reason why non muslims are not allowed is you would find nothing that would interest you there, alcohol and brothels are non existant, women are fully covered and don't associate with men who are not family members, and having you to be clean and pure 24/7 so worshiping can be done, is undoubtedly your sense of a holiday destination. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and it consists of christians, so does Gaza, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and many other countries. What you fail to know is that muslims never fled to western countries, they were always there, you only found the need to acknowledge it from the time the world started Islamophobia. Here's the proof.
The Shah Jahan Mosque, built in 1889 by Dr Gottleib Wilhelm Leitner, was the first mosque to be built in the UK and Northern Europe. The mosque is situated on Oriental Road in Woking, about three quarters of a mile from the railway station and town centre.
Europe: Sicily
The Emirate of Sicily, located in the south of Italy, was a part of the larger Islamic Empire from the ninth to the eleventh centuries, under a variety of rulers. Under Muslim administration, Sicily flourished: its population doubled, people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds co-existed harmoniously, agriculture prospered, exports increased, and irrigation systems improve.
Europe: Scholarship and Inventions
  In the West, many Muslim scholars were given Latin names such as Avicenna (Ibn Sina, c. 980 – 1037), Rhazes (ar-Razi, c. 841-926), and Averroes (ibn Rushd, c. 1126-1198); their works, as translated in Latin, became widely available. For instance, Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine set the standard for medicine and was in use in

Europe: The Seeds of Renaissance
  Islam encourages the gathering of knowledge and the use of reasoning. In the Qur’an, God repeatedly urges humans to use their intellect and thinking skills so that they may differentiate between truth and falsehood.[1] Furthermore, Islam is a universal religion – not for a few chosen people or tribes, but for all people and

Europe: Spain
  After a coup overturned the Umayyad rule in Damascus in 750 A.D. and the victors massacred the royal Umayyad family, Abdul Rahman, the lone surviving relative of the caliph, escaped. He traveled south to North Africa, narrowly escaping his pursuers, and eventually entered Muslim Spain, a pro-Umayyad constituency which at the time was beset

So realistically speaking how can you force Islam onto someone who needs to practice that every single day, unless the muslim plans on staying with that person 24/7. Saying you a muslim is one thing, but in order to be a muslim all of the above is lawful on you, and should be done.
So your conclusion of the unauthentic hadeeths which are fabricated concludes what your knowledge of Islam truly is.

September 3, 2014 at 5:05 pm PST
#10  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng


I've never heard such mambo jumbo bull ****, mirror to see your watch really? Although you would need a telescope to find your I.Q though.
How contradicting can you possibly be "Although there are muslims who are truely good", then 5 seconds later, "But going by the teaching of Islam and the lives of muslims those people are bad." What are muslims if they don't go according to what Islam teaches? Umm if there's no Islamic teachings there's no muslims..
Then 10 seconds later..
" Islam is not from God at all, it was from the brain of Mohammed"
I'm overshadowed by your bipolar sickness. White wash crimes of Islam ? Do you not watch t.v ? There's a reason why muslims are widely hated, because we now consume 24 hours of the news. You know what belligerent, is you trying to seem intelligent

September 3, 2014 at 5:40 pm PST
#11  Ishaq e - h, New South Wales

Your thread is prodigiously comical… When can I laugh!

Your claims that;
- “Shia lie a lot and justify it using Taqiya doctrine”. You apply Taqiya on Shia only?

- “Islam has not changed in 1450 years” lol. Taqiya again.

And that - “”Where were suicide bombings 15 years ago before the 911?” Taqiya again.

NOTE: It seems that the concept of Taqiya and Islam per se (i.e. Shia/Sunni) go hand in hand. It’s homogeneous.

Without wasting my time on debunking your thread, let’s just summarized it by saying that is utterly muddled with falsehood, deceit and propagandists miscellany.
Nothing’s changed in 1400 years… and sadly nothing is changing any time soon.

Addendum: Source: which source do I use? E.g. Sahih Bukhari one of the Kutub al-Sittah of Sunni Islam was written over 200 years after the event in 854AD in which not all Muslims scholars agree or have unanimity on its substances too – therefore not universally trustworthy as a source, likewise the Quran, full of fables and plagiarized material, with a non-chronicle tone / unthrusting magniloquence.

Just cut down the misinformation/deception and importantly the religiously inspired atrocities around the world.

P.S. Pray for this week’s upcoming suicide bomber. He/she surely needs our prayers.

September 3, 2014 at 6:18 pm PST
#12  Gavri Gadol - Helmond, Noord Brabant

My take is; we have to be careful not to put all Muslims on the same pile. There are different expressions of the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, even by some Sunni movements. There are different movements, philosophies and different adherence to the teachings of Islam. And we have to keep in mind that those Muslims that 'divert' from the strict Salafi Islam, that are also being subjected to persecution and genocide much like Christians, Yazidi and other religions, they are also being termed infidels or apostates.

But then again I'm weary to Islam and anyone that converts to this faith. (no, I am not an 'Islamphobe'). As it's easy, especially for new converts to radicalize or start to adhere to the strict Salafi movement.
So I want to discourage anyone to convert to this faith. And pray for those that are contemplating to convert or that have already converted.
What IS (Islamic State/ISIS) is doing is a continuation of the deeds and teaching of Muhammad and the Quran.

Another thing, maybe someone can confirm this; I read many years ago that after the death of Muhammad a Caliph burned copies/versions of the Quran that he disapproved of. I read that there were about 4 versions of the Quran circulating and the possibility is that the 'true' version of the Quran was destroyed. But then again it is asserted that Muhammad himself thought that he was possessed by the devil when he was hiding in a cave, before the Quran was 'dictated' to him by the angel Gabriel.(I read that the alleged Prophet, Muhammad was illiterate and that someone else wrote down the Quran, so a human being dictated the Quran so we are not sure was 'revealed' to the alleged Prophet, Muhammad; the founder of Islam).

I want to say that I like the article by Peter Spencer and to responses to Ms. Aasiyah's assertion/responses to posts.

So putting all these things together I have a big question mark about Islam and what has been happening all over the world by militant Muslims/Jihadists, the past centuries since the advent of Islam and and most resently in Iraq and Syria by IS.
What these Muslims, especially by Islamic State is a continuation of Muslim teachings regarding jihad.
Maybe Robert Spencer can post more articles on this site refuting the assertions/apologetics by Muslim apologists and adherends to this by co-religionists. Especially their quotations from non Muslim and 'Christian' sources.


September 4, 2014 at 11:23 am PST
#13  Mathew Wes - Nairobi, Central

Reading the Quran, one can't help but question the character of God or Allah. He sounds angry, full of vengeance and intollerant to any man who doesn't worship him. Compare that to Christ who says 'I came for the lost sheep...' I think Islam compounds the problem of God with such a portrayal.

September 6, 2014 at 4:28 pm PST
#14  Richard Sequeira - Mumbai, Maharashtra

ISIS , Al Qaeda , Boko Haram, Hamas , Al Shabab , Taliban , are from Satan and the Devil in their thought word and deed.
Jesus said " Those who live by the sword will die by the sword " Similarly those who live by bullets and bombs will die by bullets and bombs . That is how ISIS will die . ISIS is not Muslim but Satanist and Anti Christian and also Anti Muslim . About two weeks ago, they demolished a Sunni Mosque that was built over the Tomb of the Prophet Jonah. They have demolished over 8 Sunni Shrines and many Shia Shrines , they have burnt many churches some over 1800 years old . They are nothing but terrorist who are Muslim in name and Satan in game . They have destroyed `1800 year old churches in Iraq and Syria and killed 1000s of Muslims . They are so terrible that a terrible terrorist organization like Al Qaeda has banned them . They are the lowest of the low . Any moderate Muslim in Iraq, Syria , the world will agree to that . Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Koran . It is mentioned that He was born through the will of God . through the power of the Holy Spirit through virgin birth, That He is a sinless human being , That He is alive in the present , That in His name the sick are healed , The Demons cast out and the dead come back to life , He is called Word of God and the Spirit of God . Who can be the Spirit of God ? Except Gods Son ? Would the Word of God ever lie ? Never ! Jesus Himself said " God is my Father , He sent me to give the Good News to the World . He said he is the way the truth and the life .He is Jesus the Christ the ONLY SON of God what these ISIS terrorist and their likes are destroying is what belongs to Jesus Christ and they are doing this by being the instruments of the Anti Christ and Satan . It is truly shameful that Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi who claims to be a PhD in Islamic studies does not know the truth about Jesus Christ and Christianity , and Mohamed and Islam . All He wants to be is the Caliph of the Islamic Caliphate that he and his fanatical followers have declared in Iraq and Syria , the Islamic State of Iraq Syria . Can you imagine what will happen if they get entrenched in this area in Syria and Iraq, then in the Arab world and then MENA . It already makes the Al Qaeda and Taliban look like small and insignificant groups. We must pray that with the help of God they are defeated and that all the fighters who are fighting them Muslims , Christian and Jews win this war against terrorism that is affecting the whole world.
Jesus said In John 10:10 . I came to give you life and life in abundance. The others who came before me were liars , thieves and murders . Jesus was talking about Satan and his followers . That is who Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi and his followers are liars, thieves, murders , rapist, and Satanist. They DO NOT worship God in Spirit and in Truth , but Satan and his lies . They will die the same way and they have lived with the sword and the gun , and also others like them in MENA .

September 8, 2014 at 1:10 am PST
#15  Usulor Kenneth - Lagos, Lagos

It is probable that the so-called "prophet" Mohammed had a revelation. But the truth is that, that revelation, if it ever occured, was not from God at all. It was from the Devil, the father of lies, in fulfillment of the words of the Holy Ghost in St. Paul which says "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them (i.e God shall allow them) the operation of error, to believe lying." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10. For how can "God who at sundary times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, LAST OF ALL, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world" (Heb 1:1-2), I ask, how can he after his Son, the LAST OF ALL, make another revelation through another sinful man which not only claims to supersede that of his Son but is also diametrically opposed to that of the Son? If God had said (more than 500 years earlier) that "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be save" other than the man Jesus Christ, how can the same God afterwards give either another name or system of salvation which at the same time is contrary to Jesus Christ?

Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, ISIS and in fact all belligerent muslims are simply the ones who are faithfull to Koran and Mohammed. There is no need brainwashing the truth. Their plan now is to islamise the whole world through gun and bomb threats.
May God save us from Islam and its adherents.

September 8, 2014 at 3:36 am PST
#16  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng


Not really sure how I managed to tickle you, but I'm glad you laughing.
So, I’ve noticed that you tend to flaunt the word Taqiyya in places not even needed. Somewhat reminds me of my best friends mom, who used the word LOL totally out context, she once sent a message saying someone died and ended it with LOL. Let me educate you. You think Taqiyya is to lie to non-Muslims in order protect Islam I ***ume ? It has NOTHING do with lying for the sake of Allah and who the fudge would lie for the sake of Allah? It’s like me saying, “I will eat pork and drink alcohol for the sake of Allah,” . I will explain Al-Taqiyya to you as simply as possible.
First of all, Al-Taqiyya literally means “to prevent” or “to conceal.” It has nothing to do with lying about what is within Islam to protect its “meaning.” I cannot use the concept of Al- Taqiyya to conceal the real meaning of Islam. That’s haram! The principle of Al-Taqiyya is that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. In other words, WE MUSLIMS are permitted to CONCEAL or HIDE our religious BELIEFS if our LIFE or another’s IS THREATENED. Do I need to dumb it down any more than I already have?
Sumayyah bint Khabbab was threatened by Abu Jahl to take one of the idols as her God or else he’d kill her. He continuously asked her who her God was and she continued to say it was Allah(SWT). Since her life was threatened she could have used the concept of al-taqiyya. She could have lied about her beliefs of not being a Muslim to prevent her death BUT STILL BE A MUSLIM. Instead, she was a very faithful and pious woman; she refused to listen to Abu Jahl. He lost patience and killed her.

Before I pray for a suicide bomber, who is destined to go to Hell, ill pray that someday you be blessed with some intelligence. That will be my daily prayer for you

You have no knowledge of Islam or the contents of the Quraan, so your opinions to me is comical. Either way you have the right to your own opinions.
Ever heard the statement : Smiling at a lie, while you know the truth. Difference here is I'm rolling on the floor laughing my *** off.

September 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm PST
#17  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng

@ Mathew

Let's not start comparing the contents of the bible to the Quraan. You'll be fighting a loosing battle.
But just for a matter of interest :

Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end.
The "history" has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed." "Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone!
Out of this another incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the "Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly - men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or "meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy 2:19)

Do still want to compare ?

September 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm PST
#18  Gavri Gadol - Helmond, Noord Brabant

I think it depends what movement of Islam you are following. e.g. If you are Sunni, Shia or Sufi. It depends on the interpretation of the Quran and the hadith that is followed or dismissed. As it is in Christianity. The interpretation of the Bible is very different although there is a unity within Christianity in following Jesus Christ and a unity between Christians and Jews in regards to the Old Testament. And there is a difference between the Old and the New Testament, Torah and Ingil. The Bible and the Quran cannot be compared.
But there seems to be a problem in regards to the interpretation and practice of Muslims of the Quran and Hadith.
The thing is that there is a unity between Christians of different Churches as regards to the problems in the Quran.
The thing is that the actions of ISIS and other Jihadist militants is justified by the Quran and the Hadith and acts of Muhammad the founder of Islam.
But I'll leave this to those that know more about Islam and the Quran. (ex-Muslims can know as much about Islam as those who practice Islam and those who propagate it or defend it (Muslim apologists)

So, I'll leave correction and explaination to those of the article and commentators.

Shalom! Salaam! Pax Christi!

September 11, 2014 at 8:56 am PST
#19  Gavri Gadol - Helmond, Noord Brabant

The actions of Al Qaeda on 9-11 is justified by the actions of Muhammad the founder of Islam and the Quran and hadith.

If I am wrong, correct me or explain.

September 11, 2014 at 9:02 am PST
#20  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng

@ Gavri Gadol

Islam is islam, those who choose to divide it by sunni, shia and whatever they have made the world to believe that divides us is ********. Shia's are NOT MUSLIMS, the only division we have in Islam is the different traditions we are born onto. But the religion has no division. Killings and wars and extremist beheadings, suicide bombings and every other immoral act against humanity is not what Islam instructs , teaches or preached. Every Muslim around the world pray the exact same way, uttering the same prayers or verses of the Quraan at the exact time, our Quraan is the same, no matter which corner of the world you chose to go to. Muslims does not associate or come into contact with Shia's, to us they a group of murderers and everything our Quraan has warned us against. The Qur'an was originally revealed in the Arabic Language. No translation of Qura'n can be a hundred percent accurate, nor it can be used as a replacement of the Qur'an text. Every Quraan which has been translated is to provide a mostly acceptable interpretation and understanding or basically a summary of what the Quraan contains, but every muslim knows that there is no guarantee that's it's 100% authentic and/or accurate. The Quraan being in arabic has a uniqueness where no word or sentence can be translated exactly to the arabic text, thus it is unable to be edited or changed and infact can not be tampered with by the hands of man, as it has been before with other scriptures which had been passed down. There is no different interpretations of the Quraan, you choose to believe that there is. You claim christianity has unity ? Never has christians been united to defend their religion. Christianity may be the largest religion in the world today, but 5% of christians actually practice their religion. Islam however is the largest "practicing" religion in the world. No use comparing there. There is no such thing as Jihaadist in Islam, amazingly non-muslims have found pleasure in labeling things in my religion that doesn't even exist, and amusingly use it so frequently like they even know what it means. Jihaadist???..gets me everytime. Islamophobia and whatever other childish name calling that associated with muslims haters, just seems so hilarious to us muslims because we baffled as to wtf does that even mean.. Now let me give you something to think about. Let's just shove the hatred you have for muslims in a corner for a cupler seconds, and see if you find some logic in what I'm about to say..Conveniently months before the 9/11 Britain banned a muslim girl from school for a head scarf which ended in law suits and was shown across the globe, then the rest of the world found a new trend, and the hijaab was mocked at. Muslim women wearing hijaab in public were assaulted and pulled from one side of the road to the other by british men who felt it was their right to mishandle them for their amusement, while the british women would find some way to try to petition against it, finding it disgusting to look at as well as to complain as to why muslim couldn't wear modernized clothes being in a Westonised country. When all else failed they called muslim women oppressed. Dressing english women in hijaab and flaunting the fact that muslim men oppressed these women, then having them on tv telling the world how oppressed the truly are, and unhappy they were got much more attention then the other circus acts that was tried. Some of these muslim women badly assaulted,bruised and a few even hospitalized for their entertainment was unspoken of on the media but muslims across the globe were fully informed, fear in the muslims had now being installed. But yet christian nuns in their attire was never mocked, yet has much resemblance to the hijaab. Thousands of websites contributing to why muslims shouldn't wear hijaab or the alarms of why it shouldn't be allowed in westonised countries was now been vocalized and discussions between non muslims from all over the world came into play, with much negativity. Yet realistically 1450 years ago, God had commanded the prophet Mohamed to instruct his wife to cover herself, and create a veil when men folk was in the presence of the prophet . The bible too speaks of veiling of women .So it wasn't a problem for 1400 years and for the past 4 years people are now rebelling against it .Then the 9/11 occurred and muslims were no longer mocked but now hated. Do you see where I'm going ?? A plan somewhere, somehow, originated with the intention of getting every non muslim to the point of hating muslims, which was invented by some intelligent person, who is quietly smiling at his blue print going according to plan just as he wished it would. I would give you names but truthfully solves nothing. So whether you believe in what I tell you or you wish to not see furher then what's infront of you is totally up to you. Muslims will never be divided when it comes to Islam. Our religion is the only staunch religion in the world and no matter how much mockery or assaulting we have to endure we would never change our beliefs for the sake of the freedom to be left alone to live our lives. So the "blue printer" as I would name him, have discovered this at some point in his life, now that every other religion could be altered. No laws or government can take away what we believe in, so if you can't change our minds, next best thing is getting rid of the population as a whole. But he needed to make it so subtle and in his lawful right to kill, so he enforce hatred, that way the world would agree that the less muslims that exists the better it is. Inventing groups who pretend to be muslims which will show the world that this religion which believes and thrives in peace is actually not what they portrait to be. Let's create a diversion and divide the world, and when the whole head scarf went according to plan, 9/11 hit. Then the extremist and suicide bombers originated and showed that hey muslims are retaliating, and the world watched in awe, hatred growing by the minute. So mass murders of muslims would never get the world to disagree, because now muslims have killed Americans, with this much heartache . Islam was growing rapidly and killing muslims had to be at an extent of a large scale of muslims dying at a time. Let's create war, go into muslim countries, now that the world had seen muslims as killers, and kill any muslim in sight, from children to women who are defenseless, and have a good enough reason as to why, women would increase muslims by giving birth, and the kids would grow into men and women and increase the muslim population. The world stood in agreement. But let's make this interesting and find idiots willing to die for their country, which wouldn't be hard, and give our audience some reassurance that we still not murdering for no reason. Let's create a army of so called muslims who is going to fight back, "which is initially our guys who initially signed up for the military, knowing that they prepared to die for the country". The extremist came into play. We'll call them Al Qaeda, sounds islamic enough, causing anarchy and killing Americans and with the video's it will be so believable, nothing can change the mindset of the audience glued to the t.v set. The world watched, blaming Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 attacks, but the poor man was just chilling in his dilapidated flat on the floor chewing on his curry. How was he now to prove his innocence against the American government .But no one ever asked the most basic question, why the twin tower and not the white house ? If you wanted to damage a government building or kill the president, knowing you would be able to override the security of the pentagon or twin towers , surely what is the White House ?? If you planned to do something that drastic wouldn't you have done it right first time around ? Why kill random innocent American people who wasn't worth anything to you, knowing what the American military is capable of and the repocussions of such an idiotic attack ? To get attention ?? Some mentally challenged person with a death wish for himself and his people could have done such a mindless act. But no person in their right mind would have done that for attention. Even after that not have an army assembled or army trucks or any form of protection after that ?? Even though the president made a public announcement of knowing who the culprit behinds the attacks are and claiming that he had been trained by the American military and that extreme measures is taken to find him. Trained by American intelligence and not have some sense of intelligence is what is mind boggling. And till today President Obama has not found the reason behind the 9\11 attacks, but found Osama killed him and threw him in the ocean, where his chilling with sponge bob and patrick. But still not one American or any other individual sat down and thought this through. Played as puppets, my reason behind calling everyone glued to the tv "MEDIA PUPPETS". Muslims were the only race on this earth that questioned this whole occurrence but who would have taken the time to listen ?? Now that all feared Islamic Presidents and Dictators were captured and killed or sentenced to the lethal injections, let's start a rampage and go on a killing spree. That way we know muslims are too tamed to fight back and there is no one who would be able to assemble a ruthless muslim army to fight back. Its been four years and how many muslims have been killed, women raped and children shot at point blank range ? The world either looks to the Americans for approval or feared them. Nothing now matters, websites would increase the hatred where the world could come together and compare how much hatred there is, and if hatred seizes there's always something that would entice the media puppets to keep them on that level of anger. Then our backup is the Media to give the picture perfect moments of our Islamist extremist increase the heart rate, thus ending with the same results. Let's end it off with infiltrating Islam from the inside, since we can't get through it. Shia's was born. And ask yourself where the hell does all this funding come from ?? Whose sitting on billions of dollars to be dishing out to Obama ? When the president has been owing the world bank trillions of dollars from the beginning of his presidency.

Gaza and Iraq one example.
Army tanks placed behind the walls that inclosed Gaza, bombing everything insight, and still muslims never reacted. Yet how many muslim countries exist in the world today ? How many muslims exist today ? How was it not possible to get an army together to fight back, Gaza was blown to shreds over a month. People of Gaza had no defense, no military army or even weapons, and when muslims across the world started protesting and my country's president to even publicly announce, basically begging to seize fire after 2 and a half weeks of bombings and 1500 palestinian deaths, out of the blue a group of muslim extremist emerged of not more then fifteen men,decided to fight back, extremist found tunnels. Most of which were killed and 5 Jews militants killed or so they say. Photo's of babies killed , youngest being a cupler days old was posted all over social networks and still the world never reacted. We as muslims bowed down in prayer, not one muslim had been with dried eyes at this time. Had it been any other religion, I guarantee our reaction would have been the same. Now we were in our Islamic rights as muslims for Jihaad, protecting a nation who never had the slightest idea that they would be woken up by bombs, missiles and tanks that had been launched every 15 seconds. Streets were filled with dead bodies, buildings destroyed, and no where to run. Yet the world never shouted Jihaad then. This is how much hatred has been installed into every single person who let their judgment be clouded and their minds controlled. No one looked at it as an inhumane act, they called it ethnic cleansing, when in fact it was the worst genocide ever viewed. To me it was a religious war on muslims, can't even called it war when the one side had no defence or fought back. So where and when does it end ? Osma was found and killed was that not suppose to be the end of it,no weapons of mass destruction has still been found till this day yet it was the reasoning behind 9\11 attacks ? Four years later and killing muslims is still seen as a justified act. So tell me where and when did the Quraan come as a instruction manual for muslims to kill making it a religious act ? Again I say 1400 years in existence and Islamic killings to this extent has never occurred before, neither has a muslim killed for the sake of Islam, muslims wern't even looked at, we were invisible in streets, mocked in silence or openly laughed at, even then we went on being a nation that lived in solitude, we were never spoken of on the media or even recognized. Unless it was the fasting month and our christmas, we had the media wish us well for that period. Today there's so called muslims screaming verses from the Quraan before murdering or bombing themselves to shreds ?? The Quraanic verses has never been so well copied and pasted over websites and played on tv where the world now actually knows what the quraan looks like on the inside. Misinterpreting every verse to their own wording wanting to satisfy their reasons as to why muslims killed. The world then started blaming the Quraan for the horrific teachings it contains, each person with their own version of what verses translated to, and even though in defence I ask, if the quraan states that muslims are going to be the ruling nation, why have muslims become so delayed that 1400 years later each of the muslims or some of the muslims stumbled across this verses and instruction from God? Yet the prophet being arabic speaking memorised the Quraan, knowing what it was about never instructed his followers that God had commanded this ? I sit and wonder if God had created all humans with the same amount of brain cells or did he run short in some regions of the world. Billions of people come to this conclusion, maybe someone said it and the rest just echoed, but has the whole world lost their common sense or right of opinion ? Or even your humane right to judge whether there is any truth to what is shown. Telling me about the Quraan and hadeeth and the reason behind Islamophobia has the same effect on me as the word Jihaadist.

September 21, 2014 at 4:47 am PST
#21  Gavri Gadol - Helmond, Noord Brabant


Hi there, it is unfortunate that there is a decline of faithfulness to religions, among all religions, also Islam. Secularisation is widespread all over the world among all world religions and phylosofies. Religious growth is for a great part due to births, in the 'modern' world couples have few or no children, religious people tend to have more than a couple and in some religions many children.
As people of faith we have to pinpoint the positive in all religions among us, by all religious traditions. Interreligious dialogue is also important and so sow peace among us people of faith and this will spread over the secular world.

I find it strange though that you follow the trend of the secular world to use the word 'phobe' to describe people who question or critique a lifestile or religion or to people who voice their opinion about something from their own religious prospective.
One such word that is popular/fashionable now is 'homophobe'. I don't think that there are many people who are afraid of homosexuals, maybe those who were molested or raped by a homosexual might develop that phobia. Like e.g. phobia for spiders.
I think also that people who experience religious persecution may also develop a phobia for Islam.
I haven't, so why am I being termed an Islamophobe? I don't call people Cristianophobe or Catholicophobe Religiophobe.

I don't want to discuss grammar with you, like the Anglisised word for Jihadi. E.g. the word Democrasy is the Anglisised version of the word Democracia in it's original language, yet it's accepted even by you. (or you can think of any word in English that has it's origine in Latin, Greek or other language).

We should stick to the topic and I would like to hear a refutation to the article. Why do you disagree with it?

I agree 100% with what Robert Spencer wrote in this article and with what he wrote is his books.

All the best,

p.s. I comment to a few statements by you, time is short to discuss everything you said.

October 3, 2014 at 7:08 am PST
#22  Aasiyah Sattar - Johannesburg, Gauteng

You confuse the confused and made the issue more confusing. I tend to stress upon the word Islamaphobe's finding humor in those who have created it without definition, so no I don't use it to the advantage of installing hatred or showing the amount of the hate, but for a chuckle now and then when its needed. Keeps me away from becoming angry and saying things out of anger which will be later regretted. I'm not sure where gays and lesbians go with that or what you wish to prove but it doesn't even fit in your comment or what you want to ask which to me is irrelevant to the max. Anyway I've commented on numerous post which have been written regarding the article, no offense but I really don have the strength in repeating myself. You should know by now what my disagreements are and what I've debated on, but if you have a specific question for me, I will gladly answer.

October 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.