I am afraid you missed the point about quoting external sources. The only sources that I rely on are the hadith, the Ibn Hisham’s Sira and the Quran. All other books are based on these sources. If they are not: then they are the authors opinion and therefore unreliable. When I quote Muir I quote him as a historian. I am not interested in his opinion. Of course he is a Christian and he is writing within the Christian perspective. But when he is giving the historic facts; that has nothing to do with his bias. On the other hand when you quoted the Oxford History of Islam you quoted John Esposito as an authority. I do not accept the authority of Muir. I am not interested in his opinion. And by the same token I am not interested in Esposito’s opinions or anyone else’s. Historic facts are different from opinions. Let me explain.

When I say Muhammad was a pedophile I am giving my opinion. No one should take this as a fact unless I demonstrate this claim by showing factual evidence. All we have of course are those hadithes that point out to the Prophet’s sexual relationships with a 9 year-old girl. If Esposito or one of the contributors of Oxford History of Islam can back their claims with hadith or Sira I have no problem with that otherwise opinions are just that.

You argued that I have to rely on translations of Hadith and Quran that hinders my understanding of these books. That is not true. Although I read the hadith in English, I read the entire Quran in Arabic several times going back and forth between the translation and the original and did not go to the next verse unless I fully understood it in Arabic. If I had to rely solely on English version perhaps my enlightenment would never have happened. The English translations are sanitized and they are much softer. It is impossible to fathom the depth of violence of the Quran just by reading a translation of it.

In defense of your claim that Quran does not say the Earth is flat, you wrote: “No sane interpreter of the Quran would (or has) ever accused the Prophet Muhammad of thinking this. . The sheer absurdity of this claim being passed off as “rational thinking” should be a big red flag to all of you that Ali is misinterpreting the words of the Quran and hadith.”

Well as I recall there was this Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Baz the highest religious figure in the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia], and head of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice as well as the president of the Islamic University in Medina who in 1969, declared that the earth was flat. So at least one person who speaks perfect Arabic “misunderstood” the “clear” book of Quran. And by all account he was not insane other than being a Muslim. He had stated that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So convinced was he that he wrote a paper accusing Riyadh University of heresy because of its teachings on the solar system. In it, he claimed that God had made the Earth immovable, and had "fixed it down firmly with mountains in case the Earth shakes." He was obliged to revise both claims after a Saudi astronaut flew in a space shuttle and broadcast back to the kingdom television images providing evidence to the contrary. Such antediluvian opinions did not disqualify Bin Baz from becoming the President of Scientific Research, Da'wa, and Guidance Directorates, a position he has held since 1976 and one that gives him the rank of minister.

You said meanings of the words in Arabic cannot be translated properly in English and that Jihad means struggling against evil. I quote you a verse containing Qetal (fight) please translate them for us.

Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know. (2:216)

"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Jannah. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.'' (9:111)

"....And fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).'' (9:36)

Now please go to this Islamic site where you can read a whole collection of verses and hadith on Jihad. Please write to them and tell them they are mistaken and cc your email to us.

You wrote: “That is why your buddies who claimed to write a Sura in the “style” of the Quran failed. They did not write it in Arabic. That is like saying I can write better than Shakespeare and then I write something in Polish. That is absurd. Show me those imposters writing the verses in Arabic, and I would be happy to refer it to ANY professor of the Arabic language for his opinion on whether those fake verses can match up to the Quran. I will leave this as an open challenge, because you will never find an expert in the Arabic language agree that those so called verses in the style of the Quran would ever be more beautiful than the real thing.”

You continued by saying. “but his undoing lies in the fact that he recognizes absolutely NO GOOD in Islam, and that is where the vast majority of people just won’t agree with him. Even if we were 50% evil, that means we are 50% good—but he doesn’t point out ANY of the good, does he? That’s why he is biased, and that’s why his credibility is shot.”

If I prove that Quran contains no good that does not mean that Muslims are not good. Muslims are humans just like everyone else, no better and no worse than others. However once they hearken to the evil teachings of Muhammad they can be extremely evil. Quran is bad and those who follow the teachings of the Quran do bad things. Moreover suppose we find some good in the Quran, it is no proof that this book if from God. You can find good thins in almost any book. I can show you a lot of good things in Hitler’s speeches. Muhammad claimed that Quran is the word of God, if he was right not even one error or evil verse should be found there. Now you want me to close my eyes and with a microscope search for the good teachings even if most of that book is wrong and evil?

You wrote: “As for the accuracy of the Quran, Bernard Lewis, the eminent historian, claims that “there is no argument about the accuracy and authenticity of the Canon.” Good luck trying to say that Lewis is an apologist. Ali, I suggest you don’t even bother, since I have even seen some of your forum visitors speak of him with admiration."

Bernard Lewis did not read the following article so he did not know that there is argument about the authenticity of the Quran.

Moreover Bernard Lewis was a human and he can be mistaken. Gandhi also said some good things about Muhammad. I love Gandhi but he was mistaken.

After writing half a page extolling the Quran and calling it a miracle you wrote, “Arab Christians also acknowledge it as the supreme example of the Arabic language.”

You wrote: “Although some claim that the Prophet Muhammad got his ideas from the Bible, it doesn’t resemble the Bible at all in content or writing style".

That is because he was illiterate and he often forgot the correct version of the Biblical stories that he had heard in his childhood. That is why his version contains many gross errors, like confusing Maria the mother or Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron.

You wrote: “The point is that in each hadith, we must not dwell exclusively on the situation per se, but we must also search for the deeper meaning behind each situation. What is the meaning or moral of the story?

Rape and captives in Islam:

On this subject you wrote: “it is absolutely, utterly, and totally ridiculous, preposterous, and absurd to think that Muslims can lawfully force themselves on a woman in a sexual manner. That claim is just so unbelievable, I am actually having a hard time accepting that I am writing about this. No Muslim can force himself on a woman. Period….”

What you wrote about the prohibition to rape the captives is just denial. We quoted the Quran and the hadith to prove our case. But you quote a John Renard a Catholic who like other Westerners wants to be politically correct and disculpate Islam from the blame. Facts speak otherwise. You keep quoting second hand sources. Those are opinions. They cannot be more accurate than the Quran and Hadith. Muslims who rape and do other perversities do not read John Renard, Bernard Lewis or Gandhi for their guidance. They read the Quran and the Hadith. They listen to their Mullahs to explain the religion to them not to Western apologists. A Pakistani Mullah gave a fatwa that it is okay for Pakistani soldiers to rape the Bangali women when the former attacked Bangladesh in 1971. 250,000 Bangali women were thus raped and 3,000,000 Bangalis mostly the educated class were massacred.

It is interesting to note that even your source john Brand who claims that killing and raping are not justifiable in Islam admits that horrors were perpetrated “in the very name of Islam”. Why is that so? Isn’t it possible that those Muslims that perpetrated those horrors understood the Quran differently? He added, “Nothing can excuse those who engage in such atrocities, whatever their express motivation, whatever their avowed religious affiliation.” How about the verses of the Quran that explicitly call the Muslims to hate the Christians and Jews, not befriend them but humiliate them and impose a penalty tax on them and kill the kairs? Aren’t these verses good excuses?

Miracles:

Dear Wissam. If really God has to resort to magic and sensationalism to impress people, He surely is a miserable god. If miracles are proof they are proof for those who witness them. They are just hearsay for the rest and therefore useless.

The miracle of splitting the moon took place in Mecca but as we know after 13 years of preaching and producing the biggest miracle ever only a hundred or so embraced Islam. This goes to say that if the story of that miracle is right it really did not work. The advancement of Islam started after the Prophet became a highway robber and a marauding chieftain. That seems to be a much more effective miracle.

Now I hope you know that the moon you see in Mecca is the same one the Chinese, the Europeans, the Indians or the Americans see. Can you show me any reference to this most amazing event in the annals of any nation?

Anyway despite all the logical absurdities, I personally have some reservation to reject the miracle of splitting the Moon as reported in the Hadith. It actually could be true. The reason I say this is because my own great grand father who was a very saintly man one day split the Sun. Everybody saw that miracle. This amazing wonder is not recorded in any historic book for the same reasons that the splitting of the Moon at the time of the Prophet is not. If you think I am lying, please disprove me. You have no way to disprove me. If the miracle of my great grand father that everyone witnessed is no proof for you, despite the fact that you agree that God can play all sorts of sorcery, just because YOU did not see it, why should I believe in Muhammad’s alleged miracles when I did not see them?

As for the Jews, please understand that those stories in the Bible are fables. No serious scholar takes them for real.

I am sure you know that Muslims or the Semitic religions are not the only ones who believe in miracles. The Indian religions and the Native Americans have tales that are also fantastic in nature. Now of course as a Muslim you do not believe in these religions. Please tell me why should I accept what you call miracles and reject the wonderments of these other religions?

The Spirit World, the Jinn, and the Unseen.

You start your argument on Jinn by: “If you believe in any religion, you believe in the unseen”.

Well that is the whole point. When you start believing in hocus pocus you lose your rational ability and become vulnerable to be duped by unscrupulous power hungry charlatans who claim to have contact with the unseen.

You try to prove the existence of the Jinn because as you say “more people are turning to religion and new age spirituality movements’. First of all that is a false premise! The fact is that more people are turning AWAY from this hocus pocus business and turning towards reason and science for the explanation of the unknown phenomena. Secondly the truth cannot be determined by the consensus of the majority. There was a time that everyone believed that the Earth is stationary and the Sun is revolving around it. This was never true even though everyone believed in it. So even though many people still believe in hocus-pocus, hocus-pocus remains hocus-pocus. Therefore this kind of reasoning is flawed.

You went on to count a story of a haunted house as the proof of the existence of Jinns. I am amongst the few rationalists who accept the existence of a non-material (call its “spiritual”) dimension, parallel to this universe. I think this is an area that needs to be studies further. But just because an area of science is not yet explored that does not justify the religionists to come with their most ridiculous and unscientific explanations. When Copernicus explained the movement of the plants around the Sun, Newton had not yet discovered the law of gravity. So Copernicus thought that angels move the planets around the Sun. Copernicus was a great scientist but he was still a religious man believing in the religious absurdities. If Newton were as religious as Copernicus he probably would not have cared to find the real answer to this “strange” phenomenon. Today no one believes angels are responsible for pushing the planets around the Sun. Today’s science explains the mystery that baffled Copernicus and his contemporaries.

Today we do not know much about “haunted houses” and other phenomena that we categorize as “occult”. All these phenomena will be explained in time when we discover new physical laws and may be worlds that are not made of matter but fall within the purview of science. Speculation about these subjects prior to understanding them is fit for the gullible folks with a lot of imagination and little rational ability.

There is a difference between things that we do not know and things that we know are absurd. The stories of Muhammad about Jinns fall within the second category. At one time Muhammad claimed that he fought with Satan while he was prying and said if he could grab him he would tie him to a column in a mosque so every one could see him. What a ridiculous story! As he himself claims somewhere else, Satan is made of spirit. How in the world can you tie a spirit to a column and make him visible? If spirits can go through the walls, can ropes hold them in place? In another place he asks his companion not to bring bones for him to clean his anus because the Jinns find food on them. Now if Jinns are made of spirits why they need food made of matter? There is no consistency in the stories of Muhammad. He just wanted to fool his audience. That is all. In another occasion he claimed to have visited the town of the Jinns and they all converted to Islam. Well this may explain why those Jinns are so evil and why they constantly terrorize people. After eradicating Islam in this world I will try to visit the town of the Jinns and make them leave Islam too. I bet this will stop them from haunting houses and terrorizing people.

You wrote, “But interestingly enough, I find that you ‘believe’ in souls. Tell me Ali, what is your direct, scientific evidence that we have souls? What does they look like? Where are your scientific journals proving that we have souls? Why should I ‘believe’ in something that clearly defies science?”

As a matter of fact I do not “believe” in souls. I do believe that there are phenomena that does not fall within the purview of the known science. These areas must be further studied. I have had dreams that have come true and my parents dream about me whenever I am in some sort of distress even though they live half a world apart from me. I cannot dismiss all that because that would be closing my eyes to the evidence but I cannot accept the ridiculous statements of a charlatan who has a history of lying and deceiving people. There is an ample evidence to be convinced that there is a reality beyond the material world sensed by us. This is not illogical. Now even science speaks of antimatter of which we know very little. Therefore I am not going to sit and speculate about it. What is not rational is to let ourselves be taken by unscrupulous swindlers who pretend to have answers to these unexplainable phenomena and make you believe in their spoof.

You wrote: "If you believe we have souls that are unseen, what do you suppose is the source of our souls? The Big Bang? Are you telling me that souls are made of physical elements? Are souls solid, liquid, or gas?”

No I do not believe that soul is made of matter. I believe that soul is the function of the matter. Take the example of life. Life is not made of matter either but it is a function of the matter. This subject cannot be discussed in this debate. I will write an article explaining it in more detail when I find time for it.

Refuting to have blind faith you wrote: ”I would not doubt the words of the Prophet Muhammad, because he was known to be honest (named Al-Amin, “The Truthful,” by people in Mecca even before his Prophethood) by a great many people, especially the ones around him, who knew him best”

Said who? This is the most preposterous claim of the Muslims. The only people who make such claim are his followers. The rest of the humanity knows that he was an impostor, a liar, and a storyteller. Do we have any other source except the hadithes written by Muslims to substantiate this claim? No, he killed all of his opponents. All those who refused accepting him, who doubted in his honesty, were assassinated and exterminated by him. Your claim that Muhammad was honest is worthless to me. Of course you believe he was honest. The followers of Ron Hobart think he was honest too. The Moonies believe Sun Myun Moon was honest. Those who gave their lives defending David Koresh thought he was honest. So on so forth. The followers of all cults believe that their guru is honest. That is no proof to any rational person. Some western historians have echoed the same claim based on Islamic sources. All that amounts to no proof. We can establish Muhammad was a liar just by reading the Quran and scrutinizing his own words. When we see that he is talking nonsense, we can be certain that he was lying. And the Quran is full of nonsense.

You wrote, “Furthermore, the very fact that the Prophet instructs us to learn as much as we can from as many sources as possible, as well as the Quranic command to think and use our reasoning to apprehend God’s purpose in creation, shows me that the God encourages thinking.”

For the sake of heaven! What thinking? Look at the state of the Muslims. Can you show me one nation as ignorant as Muslims? Doesn’t this prove that Islam is an impediment to thinking and real learning? Why you try to fool yourself with these cheap clichés? Are Muslims allowed to think anything that goes against the Quran? What kind of thinking is that? It is like erecting a wall of ignorance around yourself and saying we are free to roam around this precinct. In this very letter you showed the kind of “thinking” that Muslims are capable of. You have no problem accepting any unreasonable irrational claim because Muhammad said so and because you believe that Muhammad was honest. That is not thinking. It’s believing! Thinking required doubting. But Muslims are not allowed to doubt. They are encouraged to have faith in illogical and ridiculous. Questioning the Islamic dogma is a taboo that can cost one’s life. Please stop fooling yourself with this preposterous claim that Muslims are encouraged to think. They are not encouraged to think. They are encouraged to obey and to believe blindly. They are called Muslims because they submit their intelligence, independence, freedom and self to a fictitious deity called Allah. How can you be a submitter and a thinker at the same time? If you think it means you do not submit and if you submit it means that you relinquish thinking and follow blindly.

You wrote: “Islam came to eradicate superstitions, such as the practices of drinking the blood of your enemies in order to make you a better warrior.”

That is a bogus statement. Islam is the very source of superstitions. Apart from the idea of Jinns that is superstition and you believe in it because Quran says so; apart from the most obvious superstition of the splitting the moon; Quran is full of other superstitions like cursing your enemies. What logic is in this? Why God has to listen to a creature of his to harm another creature? Is God really so petite? Isn’t this invoking the curse of God, practiced so often by Muhammad a stupid superstition? Forget about the immorality of that, just think, if you are capable of, and ponder on its stupidity. Why should god want to hurt someone just because that person disbelieve in Him? Why should God be so desperate to be known? If he is so desperate and really wants to hurt someone who does not believe in him why he needs someone else to make this petition? Doesn’t he know better? Was Muhammad wiser than God to tell him how to run his world and what to do with his creatures? If cursing had any effect why Muhammad’s enemies were not harmed by it and why it took him to go after them and personally kill them? Hitler or any despot with superior military might could do the same thing. Looks like that the sword of Muhammad’s brainless followers were more effective than his Allah.

That is a bogus statement of course. What is the punishment of those Muslims who after thinking decide to leave Islam? Muslims are not allowed to think against the Islamic dogma. They are not allowed to think against the Quran. If you limit a person’s thinking, that is not thinking. All Muslims are allowed to do is to interpret the verses of the Quran and discuss with each other about that book. Beyond that no thought is allowed. This is called exercise in ignorance. There is a vast human knowledge beyond the Quran that contradict it, but Muslims are not allowed to touch it, discuss it or think about it. This is not thinking.

You wrote: “If anything, it encourages it, [Thinking] because it knows that the ultimate source of truth, and the final destination of your contemplative journey, will be God, the source of all knowledge."

This is a dogma not thinking? What if my thinking rejects the existence of such deity? What if I come to the conclusion that the above is a false claim? You have accepted a priory a certain precepts through blind faith, therefore your rational reasoning is already limited. It is like wearing a certain colored glass that filters some of the lights. It is oblivious that your perception of reality would be limited when you view the world only through that glass. The only real form of thinking is free thinking—free from all preconceived assumptions and beliefs. Only when you learn to doubt everything you can start thinking, other than that your thinking is impaired and it is not thinking.

You wrote: “Although you might not respect our beliefs, the simple fact that the idea of Islam has transcended both geography and time, both the minds of individuals and the minds of entire empires, proves that it is a legitimate source of guidance.”

That is false logic. The fact that Islam has lasted so far is because it used force to subdue any critical thinking. Today that thanks to the Internet that power is taken away from the Muslims; the destruction of Islam is inevitable. As a Muslim you certainly do not believe in Hinduism. But by your own logic you have to admit that Hinduism is a more legitimate religion than Islam because it is thrice older than Islam. The truth of a belief can only be determined by its concordance with logic. Islam is not concordant with logic. The fact that it has lasted for 1400 years is because it nipped in the bud any voice of dissent.

You wrote: “No one will agree with you if you say that Islam has not helped to cultivate the very idea of what a civilization should be. There have just been too many contributions to the fields of art, science, law, government, religion, philosophy—the list goes on and on.”

This is absolutely a false statement. First of all “Islamic civilization” is an oxymoron. Islam is an anti civilization cult. It is the epitome of barbarity par excellence. Islam crippled the art, clipped the wings of the poets, prohibited music, banned paintings, restricted philosophy, interdicted democracy and imposed a loutish legislation that reduced civilized societies into barbarians. We Iranians wrote the first Charter of Human Rights and now under the influence of Islam we stone the single mothers, we chop the hands of the petty thief; we abuse our young girls as young as 9 years old by licensing marriage at such tender age. This is all the result of the Islamic “culture”. You may call it culture but to me it is barbarity.

You wrote: “ we have the proof of our creator right in front of us. Our minds are there to apprehend the objects and events around and inside of us as further proof of an intelligent creation.”

This is a different subject that requires another discussion. Here we are not discussing the existence of God. Let us suppose that there is a God who created this universe. This does in no way prove that Muhammad, that murderer, liar, pedophile man was his messenger. Let us discuss things one by one. We are not discussing about God for now. Let us pretend that He exists. My claim for now is that Muhammad was an impostor for the simple reason that he was a vile, ignominious, contemptible person. Everything he did was abhorrent. And also because his book contains absurdities that reveal the fact that he was a stupid man with no contact with any super power.

In praise of Muhammad you wrote, “In his conflicts he was never guided by lust for treasure or land.”

The very hadithes that depict his life belie this statement. We have hadithes that show Muhammad invaded innocent people just for the lust of their wealth, lands, and women. We have hadithes that count how he tortured a Jew who had hidden the treasures of the Khaibar with red iron rod to make him reveal the whereabouts of that hidden treasure until he died. We have hadithes that say Muhammad’s army raided cities killed the men and he raped the women whom they captured in those raids after killing their loved ones. Safiyha and Rayhana were the women who he raped after killing their male relatives. So stop lying to yourself about the virtues of Muhammad. That man you call a prophet was no prophet at all but a shameless conman of no moral values. He was a narcissist. His morality was as much developed as the morality of a five years old child. He had no conscience whatsoever. He could kill so heartlessly, because he had no conscience. He was as evil as Hitler or other famous narcissists.

You tried to refute my claim that Muhammad was a schizophrenic and wrote: “A schizopreenic is usually (broadly) understood to be a person in psychosis, that hallucinates and hears voices to the point of literally being unable to continue his or her life.”

Well, Muhammad fits into that description. He heard voices of angels, Jinns and other shadowy figures. So he was hallucinating. Didn’t he try to commit suicide? Isn’t this another proof that he was not sane? Wasn’t he obsessed with religion and God? This is another clue that he was a schizophrenic. But schizophrenia per se is not such a bad thing. Today with medications schizophrenics can lead a normal life and some of them are very intelligent people. Schizophrenics can also be kind hearted warm people. However, apart from schizophrenia Muhammad was also a narcissist. It is this combination that made of him such an evil character. He was a man obsessed with megalomaniac self-aggrandizing ideas who was also hallucinating. That is what made him such a monster. He actually believed in his lies. So in a twisted way there is some truth to his “reputation” of honesty. This man was so sick that he could not differentiate the reality from fantasy. So technically we cannot say he was lying because he actually believed in his hallucinations and considered them to be real.

You wrote: “This man signed treaties and was a fully functioning human being, Ali. By all accounts he was a great general and even greater diplomat. His closest companions certainly did not accuse of him of being some out-of-control maniac that heard and saw random things.”

Hitler was also a functioning man. So were Stalin and Saddam Hussein. But these people were/are insane. A lot of insane individuals occupy very sensitive positions. Many of our leaders and politicians were/are insane. Intellectually they are advanced. They know how to manipulate and how to take advantage of the gullibility of the masses but emotionally they have not evolved. Muhammad’s mother was a careless woman who abandoned her only child to be raised by a Bedouin woman. This tells us a lot about the emotional statement of Amina (Mo's mother). Muhammad had a very turbulent childhood. He changed five foster parents before the age of 12. This man was emotionally a wreck. He never forgave his mother. 50 years after her death he visits her tomb, cried profusely but did not pray for her. What does that say about his state of the mind? And yes people of his time also said that he was a lunatic. He confessed to that charge in the Quran.

As the proof of the sanity of Muhammad you made the example of the faith of Umar and said, “no scholar would say he was insane”. I am also not making such claim. Umar was not insane but he was gullible. In one occasion he kissed the Black Stone in Kaaba and said, I know you are just a stone and have no power over anything. Had I not seen the Prophet kissing you I would not have kissed you. It is clear that he gave up his own rational thinking and believed in Muhammad who was superstitious and insane. The whole Muslims are not insane either, but they follow blindly an insane man.

You asked: “so tell me Ali, how could Muhammad have such a following if he was irrational and hallucinatory, like all schizophrenics are?”

I answer your question with a rhetoric question: How could so many intelligent Germans follow an insane man such as Hitler? How about Iranians falling under the sway of Khomeini or Soviets hailing Stalin? Perhaps a sociologist can answer that question better. But when intelligent people give up analytical thinking and like you believe in someone blindly and accept the most irrational fibs such as “splitting the moon” and “Jinns”, this is what happens. When you find the answer to your irrational belief in Muhammad's whoppers you will find the answer to your above question.

You write: “ The Prophet Muhammad was a predictable man: he valued truth, justice, and other virtues of God, not unlike what Jesus taught. Schizophrenics, on the other hand, are not even close to being predictable.”

Well Muhammad was unpredictable. Perhaps you have forgotten or don’t know the story of his “Satanic Verses” or his suicidal tendencies.

You wrote: “you are using Christian biased writers to support your claims of the Prophet’s insanity, which are clearly what you use to support your propaganda against the prophet.”

You wrote: “Furthermore, If he was insane then how did he govern the entire city of Medina so well (or even at all?). How could an insane person have such aptitude for military strategy? How could an insane person negotiate contracts and treaties?”

I think you are confusing intellectual insanity with emotional insanity. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Polpot or Napoleon were not intellectually insane. They had superior intelligence. Their insanity was emotional. Some Schizophrenics are very intelligent and most narcissists are highly intelligent.

You wrote: “It is interesting to note that the arguments that attempt to discredit the Prophet have not changed for countless centuries.”

Why should they? If they were made up they would have changed. None of those charges have been answered yet.

You wrote: “Michael H. Hart, the noted historian, ranks Muhammad as the number ONE most influential person in history”

First of all look that you are the one who constantly are quoting third parties to back your claims. I base all my claims on the Quran and Hadith and the approved history of Islam such as Sirat. Sometimes I quote reputed Islamic scholars as a secondary backing of my proof. Secondly I do not disagree that Muhammad was very influential in the history. My contention is that his influence was extremely detrimental. He stifled the civilization and choked the intellectual development of his followers. I have no doubt that if it were not for Islam with men like Razi, Ibn Sina, Farabi, Kayyam, Birouni and others Iran would have ushered humanity into the Renascence followed by Enlightenment five hundred years before Europe. What would be of the world today if we had the Renascence 900 years ago? What would be of the world if we had our Industrial Revolution 700 years ago? But those great men were called heretics, they were shunned and their philosophical booked destroyed. Look at Iran now! It is one of the most backward countries of the world. That is what Islam has done to us.

So dear Wissam, don’t fool yourself with this “number one most influential person in history” tale. Incidentally many of those influential people were evil people and their influence was pernicious. No one can question the influence of Changeez Khan, Hitler or Stalin. Marx had tremendous influence in the 19^th and the 20^th century politics. But it was mostly devastation, misery and death. Marx was not insane at all. He was superbly intelligent and emotionally balanced. But his theories were wicked, mostly based on hate and therefore his influence was devastating.

That is absolutely a false statement. Did Jesus invade those who disbelieved in him? Did he kill anyone? Did he rape a 9-year-old child or rape women captured in raids? Comparing Muhammad to Jesses is a gross insult to human intelligence. Jesus is a mythological personage. Most of the stories attributed to him drive from Mitraism a Persian religion dominant in Europe prior to the advent of Christianity. But if we accept the counts of the New Testament as our source of information about Jesus we find a holy person, sanctified from most vices, divine in every aspect, unblemished and pure. But what we learn about Muhammad from the very Islamic sources is anything but. Muhammad was the embodiment of evil. He was an abomination. A disgrace to human race! How can one compare Muhammad with Jesus?

You wrote: “As far as your claims that the Prophet was some kind of sex maniac, let us see what noted British author Geoffrey Parrinder, wrote in his book…”

It is amazing that you accuse me of using third party sources. Wake up Wissam. Who cares what others say. Did Geoffrey Parrinder saw Muhammad? Where did he get his information about Muhammad? Why should I listen to him or to anyone else when I can go to the source and find out the truth on my own? The facts that I tell you are based on the Quran and the Hadith. Anything that contradicts those sources is opinion not fact.

On this subject you quoted few verses of the Quran that prohibit lying and a hadith where some kind of lying is permitted. The point is what Muhammad said and what he did where two different things. This man was a moral relativist. His whole story of prophethood was a lie. However here we are not talking about Muhammad but Muslims.

You quoted a hadith that says lying in war is permissible and wrote: “Second, lying and deception when on the battlefield is almost a necessity so one can gain a strategic advantage. All governments, including our own, launch “disinformation” campaigns to preserve their strategic advantage. It is often a matter of life and death, or as we say now, ‘national security.”

This is precisely the point. Islam is not a religion trying to elevate the moral standard amongst the people, teach them ethics and values but it is a political movement with the ambition to dominate the world using religious sentiment as a tool of domination. Because Islam is not a religion but a political force, it has to play the political game of deceit, misinformation and lies in its struggle for power. Islam has divided the planet into Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam; Muslims are encouraged to lie, in Dar al Harb to gain “strategic advancement”.

I hope it clear to every one that when Muslims claim that they love America, or any other kafir land they are lying. They are trying to deceive you. Your country to them is Dar al Harb (the house of war) and as such they are encouraged to lie to you and deceive you in order to strengthen their foot holes and one day when the time is ripe launch their Jihad on you. Wake up people! The Muslims among you have no allegiance to your country even when they are born from you. Their allegiance is to Islam and Islam is not a religion, as you know it but a political force of imperialism that wants to take over the word and dominate your lives. John Walker Lynd may have been a misguided youth but all Muslims are misguided and all of them would betray their country and kill their own people for this cult. We Iranians had a man called Salman who was alive in the time of Muhammad. He converted to Islam, he betrayed his own country, spied for the Muslims and joined them in invading Iran and shoulder-to-shoulder with the enemy murdered his own countrymen to make this religion dominate his own country. If Muslims ever win, John Walker and his ilk that are now called traitors will be hailed as heroes just as the Iranian traitor, Salman Parsi is now a hero!

Imam Jafar Sadiq (Ironically Sadiq means truthful) said: "Associate your opponents only outwardly and oppose them inwardly." (Ft. #1, Usool al Kafi, p.244) Jafar is the Imam of the Shiits but this hypocrisy holds true for all the Muslims.

Actually there is a term for the Islamic deceit. It is called Taquia. The Prophet himself practiced it in signing treaties with his opponents. As Mr. Nasr is confessing here, it is admissible to lie to and deceive your opponents. Perhaps that explains why neither Saddam Hussein nor Yasser Arafat could be trusted for their words. Anyone relying on a treaty signed by Muslims would be a fool.

Mr. Nasr, in your letter you briefly went over the story of the genocide of the Jews and explained the reasons why Muhammad besieged, banished, massacred the Jews of Medina, enslaved their wives and confiscated their belonging. All I can see in you is a man with total lack of moral values. A man so blinded that cannot distinguish between good and evil. How can a human being not cringe and even defend the treason and tyranny of Muhammad against the Jews? You say that the Bani Qurayza was forced to surrender without condition (That is of course because Muhammad cut the water to their quarter—very nice for someone claiming to be the messenger of the merciful God). But then Muhammad chooses Sa’d ibn Mo’adh to pass the verdict. Of course you did not mention the fact that this old man had personal vendetta with the Bani Qurayza. And you did not mention that when he said that the men of Bani Qurayza should be put to death and their wives and children taken as slaves Muhammad praised him saying he was inspired by God. Now tell me Mr. Executive Director of Human Rights, was what Muhammad did right? What is the definition of Human Rights for you Sir? What an amazing tile you have given yourself!

We know that Allah sent several revelations in every occasion when his beloved prophet was in need of them. For example he sent a revelation to exonerate him from abiding to his own oath when he promised not to sleep with Maryah the maid of one of his wives. There was also a revelation telling him that his adoption with Zeid is null and he can marry with his own daughter in law. Even there was a revelation for his wives to cover themselves when young men looked at them. Muhammad’s God was so concerned of his Prophet’s well being that even Aisha s noted sarcastically “Thy God is oft ready to come to thy succor”. Why Allah did not send any revelation on such important matter? Didn’t the lives of 600 to 900 Jews worth as much as Muhammad having sex with Mariah? Why instead of Allah Muhammad had to seek the judgment of a man who hated the Bani Qurayza? How convenient hah?

Dear Mr. Executive Director of Human Rights! There is something inherently evil in your value system. I am ashamed to call myself human when people like you call themselves defenders of Human Rights. By not seeing the obvious evil in what Muhammad did with the Jews of Medina you have demonstrated that you have no moral fiber. How can you defend the actions of a man who pulls down the pants of the young boys to see whether they have grown hair over their genitals to determine whether they have reached manhood in order to decapitate them? What was the fault of these boys? Where is your humanity Mr. Director of Human Rights? Please do not disgrace this title.

You have done nothing and you will do nothing because you are not here to defend the Human Rights but the rights of the Muslims to kill, to murder, to lie. Your job is to defend the right of the executioners of Amina and not her life.

You wrote: “When you bring up names like Jose Padilla you are painting all of us as terrorists.”

No Sir. When you defend Muhammad’s terrorist actions against the Jews, it is you who paint yourself as terrorist. You are not a follower of terrorist Jose Padilla but you are the follower of the terrorist Muhammad. As long as you follow a terrorist and you condone and defend his terrorist acts you are a potential terrorist. What can we say of a man who holds a mass murderer and an assassin as his leader? Now of course most Muslims are not aware that their prophet was a terrorist. Many of them are in denial. But you know and you defend his crimes.

You wrote: “If you wish to bring up an example of what a Muslims should be like, why don’t you mention the first four Caliphs, who were companions of the Prophet?”

Oh dear! It seems that you are completely lost! Do you know that it was Ali who massacred those 600 to 900 men of Bani Qurayza? What kind of human being can have such heart? Do you know that this man massacred 4000 of Islamic dissidents khawarej when they sat on the ground with no weapons in protest? What about Omar? This man was not as ruthless as Ali. But he was a bigot to the core. Wasn’t he the man who cleansed Arabia from the Jews and the Christians acting on the last will of Muhammad? Who said the “rightly guided Khalifs” were symbol of mercy? They were power hungry tyrants. Three of them were murdered because of the discontent and as the result of their oppression. The history of Islam is a history of power, deceit, assassination and tyranny. It is 1400 years of shame.

You wrote: “ The Prophet himself was a role model to both men and women from all cultures.”

Yes! And that is the whole problem. When a billon people take a crazy man like Muhammad as their role model you cannot expect better from the Muslims. That is why when Muslims try to follow their prophet to the full extent, they become terrorists. Is there a day that some Muslims are not in the news for some terrorist activity?

You brought the example of the ambassador of Italy to SA who accepted Islam. First of all this is no proof that Islam is a real religion. People do stupid things and one should not judge the validity of a religion by the understanding of others. I have written about a prominent psychologist who has become a devotee of John de Ruiter, a totally insane person who has orgies with his followers. This man swears that de Ruiter is very sane. Should we believe him because he is a doctor psychologist? Even educated people do crazy things. The absurdity of Islam is clear from its sacred writings. No amount of famous followers would make this religion a true one. Especially when we know that Saudis pay prominent people to convert to Islam because they consider it the best investment in their propaganda campaign.

i think you have slain the goliath! good job. i can see the confusion mr. wissam is in from his rebuttals. i do not know why he insists on the sources of your arguments since i see that you are directly quoting from the quran. this guy seems to believe the oxford history on islam rather than the quran itself. i for one lost my faith only upon reading the " word of the almighty god". keep up the good work. we should get rid of all the religions and start with the most virulent of them all- islam.

Ali Sina' Responds to Wissam Nasr's message of Aug:24

Rape and captives in Islam:

Miracles:

The Spirit World, the Jinn, and the Unseen.