Answer to A. Meherally's reaction to my paper on

Islamic Terrorism

by Silas

Previously I had no intention to responding to Meherally’s "response" to my article on Islamic terrorism written about 3 years ago.

Meherally’s so called "response" is poor, and of its own merit does not deserve a reply from me. However, a close fellow Christian has asked me to write a short answer to Meherally’s work. And so I shall. I will not address every question Meherally raises, I will not respond to all of his points. A reader of average intelligence and analytical skills will be able to see the lack of actual "response content" in Meherally’s work and understand that just because someone puts something on paper is not reason in and of itself to warrant a reply.

I also point the reader to a more recent, and much more thorough, article I’ve written on Islamic terrorism and violence, titled America, Islam, Jihad, and Terrorism


I’ve gone through Meherally’s article a couple of times. I have not analyzed every paragraph in detail, but, I noticed that what Meherally calls a "response" is anything but. It is more a polemic and personal attack towards me than a response to the material in my article. Why did Meherally fail to actually address the points I raise in my article? Why did Meherally fail to examine Muhammad’s cruelties that I present?

Actually, you’ve got to feel some sympathy for Meherally. He has the unenviable task of trying to defend an evil religion – Islam, and an evil false prophet – Muhammad. This is not an easy task! Meherally knows that he cannot justify Muhammad’s brutalities to a Western audience. To a Muslim mind, almost any amount of cruelty can be justified if it is done in Allah’s name. But, people who have a sense of decent morality, know that Muhammad’s actions were barbaric and cruel. Consequently Meherally is unable to actually address the issues and chooses instead to attack me and put words in my mouth. His only method of justifying Muhammad’s evil is pointing to evil actions done by other people. But when it came down to addressing Muhammad’s sins, Meherally chose not to enter the field of battle.


I begin by encouraging the reader to take the time to thoroughly read and understand what he is reading. Meherally’s response exhibits what most Muslim apologists / polemicists exhibit: a poor effort at understanding what they read. In their haste to scribble out a "response" they fail to understand the writings they address, and the author’s reasoning. So many Muslim’s pat themselves on the back, thinking they have actually "refuted" something simply because they have barked, called the author a few names, and made some partially relevant reply. Much time could be saved if the "responder", in this case Meherally, would bother to take a breath or two, slow down, and make a sincere effort to understand what he is reading, prior to hacking away on their keyboard.


Below are the points Meherally raises that I will address.

1) Meherally objects to my statement that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature, he wrote:

After reading the above historical facts, I hope you would realize how biased is your rendering and remove the following paragraph from your article: "Not surprisingly, examination of the websites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature."

Meherally’s historical "facts", contain some errors, but what do any of his historical "facts" have to with my point of:

"Not surprisingly, examination of the websites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature."

What Meherally exhibits is a lack of basic reading and comprehension skills. Had he bothered to read and understand the article before he hastily replied I probably wouldn’t have to spoon-feed him an answer:

In my original article, I provide the readers with a detailed list of law enforcement and anti-terrorist websites that list terrorist organizations throughout the world. These include many non-Muslim terrorist groups as well. Below in green is the quote from my original article, (one that Meherally forgot to reference):


There are a fair amount of websites that document the actions and intentions of the many Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world today. As true Muslims, these people will use violence against anyone who hinders their aims or offends their religious beliefs. Here is a partial listing of a number of websites I've seen on the internet.
overview of Middle East terrorism
yearly overview
62 documented incidents - 31 by Muslims
listing of Mid-east Muslim terrorist groups
international terrorism group

If these sites are still up (they are now at least 3 years old) please go to these sites for yourself and review the names of the terrorist groups given. You will see for yourself that about half of these groups are Muslim groups.

Therefore my response to Meherally’s request:

Meherally, let me say it loud and clear: the majority of terrorist groups operating in the world today are Muslim groups. They are evil, they are inspired by fleshly and Satanic motivations, and they are manned by dedicated Muslims.

This is what I said 3 years ago, and this is what I say today. You have provided nothing to address the evidence that these evil Muslim groups are operating, killing innocent people, and doing it in accordance with their Allah’s will. The question Meherally should address to his readers is why are these groups run by devout Muslims?

The second point I will address.

2) Meherally accuses me of deliberately skipping a portion of Guillaume’s work. Below is Meherally’s statement.


If a reader was to open and start reading from  page 112 of A. Guillaume's translation of Muhammad ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one would notice that Silas has skipped an important portion of the quoted text. At the end of the Quoted Text, Silas writes, which again is a partial Truth and not the Truth: 

[Note:  two passages from the Quran are referenced:  [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193]

Silas has omitted ibn Ishaq's recorded notes about the order that the Apostle had received from Allah to fight (which happens to be the subject of Silas article) as well as the Verses of the Qur'an which ibn Ishaq had quoted. Below is the omitted text to be found on page 112 and 113. Words within { } are mine.


My answer to Meherally accusation is similar to my answer to the first point: Meherally, please practice your reading and comprehension skills. You’re quick to write a "response" yet you exhibit such a lack of understanding. What I am asking of you, and of other Muslim "responders" is not difficult. Why don’t you bother to read the entire section, think about it, and grasp my points? Let me spoon-feed this to you as well:

Meherally, read the section heading, this is what it says:


What did I then detail? I recorded the situation behind Muhammad’s turning to violence, and I presented it in chronological reference – around his time of flight to Yathrib. That was my point. Relevant to that, there was nothing omitted. Some of my articles are long and when it is unnecessary to quote excessive material, I will not quote it. I wanted to show the readership when Muhammad started to use violence. I do not criticize Muhammad for self-defense. Had you bothered to grasp what I was saying, you would not have had to make a big deal out of it. Further, in my quote, I show the reader that there is more to the quote – notice the dots trailing the end of the sentence? Or, don’t you understand that those dots signify that there is more to the quote? Below is the quote from my article.

His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]

Further, if my aim were to deceive my readership, I would not have provided them with a complete reference, including book name, author, publisher, page number, of what I was quoting.

The same is to be said w/r to the two Quranic quotes. If I wanted to deceive my readership, I would not provide the exact references for them to read. The point is that in this case they add nothing. I was simply detailing Muhammad’s chronological transition from not using violence (although he wanted to) to the time when he began to be violent.

Finally, let me address an issue Meherally raises. With respect to Muhammad’s allowance to fight, Meherally wrote:

Upon reading of this final passage one can visualize the ULTIMATE TRUTH. Although Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), had received "the order to fight" the Prophet DID NOT FIGHTand instead migrated to Medina.

Meherally does not even bother to learn his own religious history. Meherally writes that Muhammad "DID NOT FIGHT and instead migrated to Medina", implying that Muhammad shunned violence. This is not true. Muhammad did not fight because he was unable to fight. Take a look at the text.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.

The first verse which was sent down on this subject from what I have heard from Urwa b. Al-Zubayr and other learned persons was: "Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged. God is well able to help them, --- those who have been driven out of their houses without right only because they said God is our Lord. Had not God used some men to keep back others, cloister and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is constantly mentioned would have been destroyed. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is Almighty. Those who if we make them strong in the land will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity. To God belongs the end of matters [a]. The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

When God had given permission to fight and this clan of the Ansar had pledged their support to him in Islam and to help him and his followers, and the Muslims who had taken refuge with them, the apostle commanded his companions, the emigrants of his people and those Muslims who were with him in Mecca, to emigrate to Medina and to link up with their brethren the Ansar. "God will make for you brethren and houses in which you may be safe." So they went out in companies, and the apostle stayed in Mecca waiting for his Lord’s permission to leave Mecca and migrate to Medina."

Muhammad wisely chose not to fight because he knew he and his followers were weak and would be annihilated. Instead, Muhammad wisely chose to run. He now had a place of refuge north of Mecca, and off he and his followers ran. It was from that base that Muhammad began his violence.

The next point I will respond to is Meherally’s claim that I tried to deceive my readership by using a typo:

3) Here is Meherally’s statement:

A Deception ! 
After a summary of the revealed verse, author Guillaume writes on page 113: 

"Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there is no more seduction," {foot note number 2, reads (Sura 2. 198)}

Author Silas replaces the opening word of the above paragraph and quotes:

"The God sent down to him:  "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b]  {footnote [b] reads [Sura 2. 193]}.

Under the normal circumstances I would consider this to be a "typo" error. But, from my past experiences with other presentations on this web site, I have reasons to believe that the change of "Then " to " The " is a "deception". Silas wants the earlier quoted text of Sura 22: 39-41 to be "disassociated" with the revealed text to follow. Silas writes in his notes that he has not quoted the text of Sura 2: 193. I have reproduced below the text of the "non quoted verse": 
Note: Ibn Ishaq mentions the verse number to be 2. 198 since he may be referring to an Arabic musaf. In Yusuf Ali's translation the number is 2. 193. 


It was a typo, pure and simple.

Let me point out Meherally’s desperation: he is unable to actually address the points I raise, so he grasps at straws in order to scribble his "response". Let me say it plainly: Muhammad was an evil man, and there is no shortage of material to use to prove this. I do not need to use typos to make him seem any more evil than he really was. Muhammad was a cold blooded murderer, he allowed lying, he allowed stealing, he allowed female slaves to be raped, he allowed torture, murder in the night, he committed mass murder, he ordered the murder of female slaves, he was a enslaver of people, and so on. I do not need to use a typo to cast this man in the light he deserves.

4) The next point I will address concerns Muhammad’s order to his followers to murder any Jew that they are able to murder. Meherally actually chose to partially address this in my original article. Below is his work:

My response to the above...

Silas has quoted several incidents from Guillaume's book 'The Life Of Muhammad' to illustrate that Muhammad was indeed a terrorist. Above is the first incident that he has presented before his readers with the deceitful commentaries, insinuations and innuendoes. If one can prove from the above narrated first incident, without shadow of any doubt, that Silas has in reality stooped down to the lowest level in his criticism and has now opted for visible DECEPTION AND DECEIT that would qualify him as THE LIAR, then the rest of his presentation has lost its credibility and not worth depending upon.

Before I prove to you that Silas has LIED AND WHY, let me quote the text that Silas has chopped off from the paragraph quoted above, from page 369.

Here is the text quoted by Silas: 

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power."  Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.  Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother.  When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?'  Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"

 After quoting half of the paragraph Silas writes "END OF QUOTE". Below is the non quoted portion of this paragraph, written by Guillaume on page 369.

"He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa's acceptance of Islam. The other replied, 'By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?' He said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.' He exclaimed, 'By God, a religion which can bring you to this marvelous!' and he became a Muslim."

If one was to believe that the above mentioned killing did happen because of the order of Prophet Muhammad and that command was completely unjust and absolutely unwarranted for (as Silas wants us to believe), then could the person who had questioned the killer would have accepted Muhammad as the "Messenger of God" and become a Muslim? Please continue reading further and soon THE TRUTH will manifest before you and THE LIE will vanish.


Meherally states that I deceived my readership because I did not include the conversion of Huwayyisa to Islam. Somehow he believes that this conversion to Islam justifies the cold blooded murder that just occurred. People convert to religions for various reasons. Some make sense to others, some do not. People have converted to Islam or Christianity based upon dreams, feelings, emotions, deaths, births, desperate positions, and so on. The Hijazi Arabs were not known for their high standards of morality or fealty – after all, Muslims today charge those "pagan" Arabs with burying their own daughters, excessive drinking and sexual immorality, etc. Yet now, to justify a Muslim’s cold blooded murder and Muhammad’s guilt, Meherally hypocritically uses the morality of a Hijazi Arab as a virtuous measuring stick! And notice instead of actually addressing the cause of the murder, (Muhammad’s ordering of the murder of Jews), Meherally dances away from the hard facts. As I stated above, trying to address and examine Muhammad’s evil actions is quite difficult. Here, again, Meherally chooses not to face the facts, but ignore them.

Further, let me cast this conversion in a different light. Millions of people followed Adolph Hitler. They approved the persecution of the Jews. Did the fact that Hitler had millions of followers make his actions right? Just like Hitler, Muhammad ordered the persecution of Jews, and in this instance an unsuspecting Jewish shopkeeper, on good terms with the Muslims, was murdered. Huwayyisa thought his brother’s commitment to Muhammad’s orders proves that Islam is a true religion. People followed Hitler thinking his way was right, even to the point of murdering Jewish civilians. Was it right? You decide.

The Muslims that flew those planes into the NY towers, were committed just like Huwayyisa. They were willing to murder men, women, and children for Islam’s sake. And so they did. And they received the approval of millions of Muslims in America and throughout the world. Does that level of commitment make what they did right?

I say Muhammad ordered a cold blooded murder, and Islamic historians themselves document it. So, let me ask the Muslims: why are you following and trusting such an evil man? Why should anyone trust you if you give your allegiance to Muhammad? Do you really think God is going to forgive you, if you put your faith in Muhammad?

The last point I will address is



Silas has repeatedly quoted passages after passages from Guillaume's Book 'THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD' .  Below is one of the several passages from the same book that Silas would not like his readers to read. Please read it and see for yourself how it concurs with the Quranic revelation, quoted above. 


Let me say to all my readers, please read all of Guillaume’s "The Life of Muhammad". Please do. If you want an accurate picture of just how evil and deceived Muhammad was, read this book. You will find Muhammad to be no more than a mere man, with both good and bad thoughts, intentions, and actions. And you will see how as time went on, Muhammad became more and more brutal and bloodthirsty.

On the following pages, read how

675 Muhammad had a 120 year old man – Abu Afak murdered
675, 676 Muhammad has a mother of 5 children brutally murdered - Asma bint Marwan
441, 442-445   Muhammad has Kab Ashraf murdered
550-551 the 10 people Muhammad orders to be murdered after he conquers Mecca
461-on Muhammad has mass murder carried out on a tribe of Jews and then enslaves their women and children – and sold some of them to others as slaves to get money for weapons
496 see how Muhammad allowed Ali to violently beat a slave girl while Muhammad watched
511 Muhammad passes out women as slaves
499 Muhammad gives a slave woman as a gift
493 100 families enslaved by Muhammad
511 Intercourse with slave women allowed
547 see how Muhammad allowed Abu Sufyan to be forced into converting to Islam, under threat of death
616 Compulsion - People forced to follow Islam
645 Compulsion - Islam forced upon polytheists, they would not have become Muslim unless forced
669 Abu Bakr says people forced to accept Islam "until men accept it voluntarily or by force"
507, 509 Muhammad lies after Hudaybiyya and breaks the treaty
617, 618 Muhammad’s "Revelation" allowing him to lie and break his word and treaty with polytheists
665 Muhammad’s men rip an old woman in half by using camels to tear her apart
270 Muhammad’s superstition - spit three times to the left to ward off evil affects
305 dead - Muhammad taunting the dead
677, 678 Muhammad tortures men to punish them
562, 564 Muhammad’s faith - War commanded upon those that reject Islam
618 Muhammad’s faith – War Muhammad says God tells him to kill polytheists unless they convert
625 Muhammad’s faith - War - Tabuk was attacked for booty
629 Muhammad’s faith - War - Islam is to fight until they submit to Islam
629 Muhammad’s faith - War - Killing is of no consequence
642 Muhammad’s faith - War - Muhammad orders Muslims to make war on Polytheists
645 Muhammad’s faith - War- Muhammad says come to Islam in 3 days or I'll attack non-Muslims
555 Muhammad’s faith – Murder - Says Allah’s anger allowed him to kill people in Mecca
651 Muhammad’s moral failure - instructs wife beating
519 Muhammad’s moral failure - lying allowed
106 Satanic influence – Muhammad’s suicide attempts over the next years
240 Satanic influence - Muhammad betwitched by a Jew
165, 167 Satanic influence – Satan uses Muhammad’s tongue to speak his word
243 Muhammad says Satan looks like a black man
254 Muhammad’s hatred and bigotry - Allah tells Muhammad that all Jews are evil
276 Muhammad’s hatred and bigotry – Allah curses Jews to die
192 Muhammad’s lack of faith - begs for physical help from Taif
195     Muhammad’s lack of faith - begs for physical protection again

Near the end of his life Muhammad engaged in conquering and subjecting areas near Medina, in order to spread Islam’s dominion. Muhammad believed he was doing God’s will. I say Muhammad was used by Satan do spread falsehood. Jesus warned that false prophets would come and deceive many, Muhammad was one such false prophet.

Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page