Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

If I were a Muslim ...

A Reply to Sami Zaatari

By Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D.

Sami Zaatari replied to an article of mine that I had written for My article was entitled, "If I were a Muslim, I would wonder…." (here). His article can be found here and is entitled "Responding to Dallas Roark's article If I were a Muslim....."

When is a rebuttal good? Probably only when it addresses the issues. This rebuttal by Sami Zaatari does not deal always with the issues. There is an old saying, when you don’t have a real point to make, attack the character of the person. Mr. Zaatari has done that repeatedly in his rebuttal. He has slandered me, calling me a liar repeatedly, a pervert, a hypocrite, as being mentally unstable, as well as possessed by Satan. The reader can decide his character.

A rebuttal is only a rebuttal when it addresses the point in discussion.

Sami Zaatari seeks to answer my article but in the beginning he did not read the statement.

He wrote many pages attempting to show that Sura 5:51 does not mean friends but patrons or protectors. He attempts to portray Muslims as friendly people who have friends with non-Muslims. This ignores the whole issue I brought up.

My statement indicates that non-Muslims have been protectors or patrons of Muslims.

I wrote, "A non-Muslim country sought to bring freedom from tyranny in Afghanistan, freedom from tyranny in Iraq, the Kurdish Muslims are overjoyed at the prospect of freedom. In the end of the last century a non-Muslim country fought another non-Muslim country to liberate Muslims. During that time Jewish doctors treated Kosovar Muslims contrary to the sura above."

Regardless of the translation, friends, patrons, helpers, protectors, the point is that the examples above refute it. Afghanistan was devastated by the Taliban, and Iraq was devastated by Hussein. Who liberated these peoples? Non-Muslims!! Is it not interesting that Jewish doctors treated Kosovar Muslims! That is probably hard for you to accept.

Who liberated Muslim Kuwait from Saddam Hussein? Who was the patron of the Kuwaiti people? How many Muslims drove out Hussein from Kuwait?

Now it is entirely possible that you cannot accept the fact of liberation for these people. Perhaps you will argue that these are foreigners on Muslim soil, but the world is better off with Hussein gone and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. On the other hand you may feel that tyranny is better than freedom.

You indicated that the Arabic should be consulted and that I should have done that.

Can’t you trust your own people? I quoted from an orthodox Muslim translation which gave the alternative meanings and protector was one of them. (Al-Hilali & Khan) I could have quoted from other Muslims translators who used only friends, but I did not. In your haste to offer a rebuttal you ignored the issue entirely. My statement involves the issue of protectors, patrons, not friendship as you spent so much time in rebutting.

You spent 24 pages of irrelevant quotes (which I have deleted here because of the space) to discuss friendship and then you concluded:

"So there you go Mr. Dallas, so if you were Muslim you would go check the Arabic text, once doing so you would realize it does NOT say do not become friends with Christians and Jews."

My reply to you is: Read the statement correctly!!! (You can check out the 24 pages of irrelevant stuff on his website.)

You wrote: quoting (Al-Tawbah 9:23) "in a similar way, the Qur'an also tells Muslims that they should never patronize the non-Muslims against other Muslims. However, if some Muslims do wrong to some non-Muslims, it is Muslims's duty to help the non-Muslims and save them from oppression. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he himself will defend a Dhimmi living among Muslims to whom injustice is done by Muslims. But Islam also teaches that Muslims should not seek the patronage of non-Muslims against other Muslims. They should try to solve their problems among themselves."

My reply to you: This is very interesting for you to claim that "it is the Muslim’s duty to help the non-Muslim and save them from oppression." This is the problem. Muslims are not saving non-Muslims from oppression. Christians and Jews are suffering in many Muslim countries today and no Muslim is coming forth to help or protect them. The Muslims are the ones oppressing. The minority non-Muslim population has no power to fight oppression, and persecution is taking place. You give yourself away in showing that non-Muslims are not really "Friends" as you are arguing for. What is a Dhimmi that Mohammed said he would defend?

A dhimmi is a second class citizen and Islam has lots of rules against dhimmis.

A dhimmi is created quickly with the invitation to convert. Three rules: convert, die, or pay the jizya, and be a dhimmi. By definition, one who does not accept Islam becomes a dhimmi automatically, or death. It is hard to claim meaningful friendship when Muslims reduce non-Muslims to the status of dhimmitude Christians in Iraq are being threatened by Muslims to pay the tax or get out.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would think twice about the imam’s preaching to hate the Jews and Christians when many imams and Muslims have never met or seen Jews or Christians."

You wrote:

"Notice how this sad missionary lumps all Imams into one basket claiming they all preach hate towards Jews and Christians"

My Reply: One can document madrassas that do this from Pakiston, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries. Can you document a single imam who preaches love to non-Muslims? Check out the video:

You declared that "western Christians" are flocking to the UAE, Bahrain,etc. How do you know they are Christians? There are lots of westerners who are not Christians. Why do you suppose that Jews have departed Iran, Iraq and other Muslim countries? Is it because they are not loved? How about persecuted? Why are Christians persecuted in almost every Muslim country? I can’t think of one that allows real freedom of religion which includes the ability to preach on the streets about Jesus the Son of God.

Where does the hate for the Jews come from? How is the hate perpetuated from generation to generation since the time of Mohammed?

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would want to read the Qur’an to see what it says. Many Muslims memorize it in Arabic but do not understand the language. What use is the Arabic if one does not understand it? Many Muslims do not know what the Qur’an says, and are shocked to learn that it says lots of things they question. If I were a Muslim I would want to know these things.

 Why does one have to pray in Arabic? If God is all knowing, doesn’t He know other languages than Arabic?"

You wrote: "Once again this missionary exposes himself, just because there are Muslims out there who do not understand the Quran and so on this missionary goes and acts like its the end of the world! Tell me, do all Christians know the Bible? Most certainly NOT, in fact when you tell Christians that Jesus' great grandfather came as an act of incest between Judah and his daughter and law, the Christians will call you a liar, however so, I am more than happy to show you the story from the un-holy Bible."

My Reply:

Are Muslims encouraged to read the Qur’an in their native language? Christians are encouraged and that is why there are hundreds of translations of the Bible in the language of the people. Christians are not taught a language they do not understand for praying, nor reading the Bible in a language they do not understand. Certainly memorizing passages of the Bible in a language that is not theirs is useless.

You need a lot more generations between the time of Jesus and Judah. What about something like 1200 years?

What Christian called you a liar? You are freely calling me and other people liars, hypocrites, etc. Do you have a propensity to accuse your opponents, or people who reject your views, of lying? Calling someone a liar without facts stupid.

You have a problem in understanding the Bible. The Bible declares that all have sinned except Jesus, and have fallen short of the glory of God. There are no perfect people in the Old or New Testaments except Jesus. Your slander of the Bible shows your misunderstanding.

The Bible gives a true story of the people before Jesus. Why do you think the Virgin Birth of Jesus was important? There is a break in the lineage. Jesus, the Son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, but not a human father.

On the contrary side, Muslims white-wash all the terrible deeds that Mohammed was involved in. Muslims go out of the way to rationalize his sins. Remember Mohammed did pray for forgiveness.

You wrote: "unlike your fake god, our God is understanding and makes things easier for us, unlike yours who demands perfection when he knows that can never happen! How that?! Perhaps you as a Christian should ask yourself that, ask yourself why does your god seem to not understand his own creation demanding things of them which he knows he will not get."

My Response:

There are two different conceptions of God here. Your Allah is not holy. Yahweh is holy. When Moses and the people approached Sinai they were to only come so close or they would die. There is a huge difference between Yahweh and man. His holiness requires sinlessness. None of us are. Allah will accept anyone who says Mohammed is a prophet. There is no repenting. The requirements are so little.

The story of the gospel is the story about God’s love for sinful humans who have alienated themselves from Him. The fact is that God does know his creation, he knows human sinfulness, and he did something about it. God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us, make a new covenant, give us forgiveness, the gift of His Spirit, and the promise of everlasting life.

The truth is that Yahweh loves you even in your rebellion against Him.

What has Allah done for you? The message of the Apostle John, the companion of Jesus, is if you don’t have the Son, you don’t have God at all. (1 John 2:23) Even though you reject it, Yahweh loves you more than you can imagine. That is why He sent His Son to let you know that He loves you. Don’t forsake his love!!

I wrote, "If I were a Muslim I would want to investigate why the rest of the world thinks that Mohammed was a pedophile."

You wrote: "Notice this missionaries arrogant and ignorant views, when the missionary says 'THE REST OF THE WORLD' what he basically means is the west! You see folks this issue of the prophet Muhammad marrying Aisha became an argument by western missionaries, they started the absurd articles, and off course now you have some Arab Christians who join in on it which is a bit funny. The reason I say it is funny is because Arab Christians very well know that their ancestors practiced marriage at young ages, and would marry girls as soon as the reach puberty etc. In fact many in Asia still do this, so when you say 'THE REST OF THE WORLD' you are wrong, since the west is not the REST OF THE WORLD now is it?

Now indeed let us investigate, and when we do investigate this is what we find out: 1- No one objected to the marriage.2- Aishas father Abu bakr agreed to the marriage, having no objections regarding the age. 3- Aishas mother prepared her for the marriage, and had no objections what so ever. 4- The women who were present when the marriage was about to be consummated were very happy for Aisha and wished her luck in her marriage. 5- Aisha used to love the prophet Muhammad very much, and would often get jealous, obviously not the symptoms of a victim. 6- Aisha became a great scholar of Islam teaching men, obviously not the symptoms of a victim. 7- None of the Qurayshi pagans or foreign enemies of the prophet Muhammad objected to the marriage with Aisha, obviously they saw nothing wrong with it since it was something normal back then.  

So as we see, when we do investigate this we find that the Christians and western atheists have no 'REAL' case here, they are arguing from emotion, and arguing from different time contexts."

My response: Your argument about cultural acceptance is stupid. Cultural practices are often accepted internally, but rejected as wrong by external evaluators. Human sacrifice was accepted by the Aztecs. Does that make it right? Absolutely not! Child brides were accepted by all the people you quote. Does that make it ethical? Absolutely not! Female circumcision is accepted by many Muslim societies. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.! The Romans used to expose unwanted infants to die? Did that make it right? Absolutely not! Child sacrifice was offered to the god Molech in ancient times, does that make it right? Absolutely not!

Using your standard of cultural acceptance one can conclude that Mohammed made a colossal mistake in preaching monotheism to the Meccans since polytheism was the standard. "Everybody" approved of it, society accepted polytheism, pilgrims who came accepted it, and the only objector was Mohammed. He was out of line according to your standard.

You wrote, "they saw nothing wrong with it since it was something normal back then."

But even now it has not been repudiated by the Muslim world. The most recent news involved a 40 year old man who married an eleven year old girl and she did not know him before the marriage.

If you want to go beyond the cultural issue, medical science will document the fact that the physical development of a 9 year old girl is not ready for marriage and sexuality. Had she become pregnant it would have been hard on her physically.

I consulted a medical doctor who is a gynecologist-obstetrician about the implications for a 9 year old girl to be married. Here is the medical opinion:

"Concerning early teen pregnancies (<15yrs) (fifteen years or younger) I will divide the problems up into categories and list the areas of increased risk, at all times being mindful that these are ADDED risks, over and above the USUAL risks that apply to all pregnancies. ALL risks are increased save for the risk of Down's syndrome (and related genetic disorders).


1. Psychological Risks...Children having children is something long eschewed in medicine. That situation is harmful to the mother because it deprives her of her childhood. Before she can learn about life and learn to appropriately react to, to mature psychologically...she is prematurely placed in a very adult situation. Lifelong anger and resentment are very common, by my experience, and what acceptance that occurs here could best be described, not as acceptance, but rather by being beaten down and overwhelmed by these circumstances...not accepting but rather being forced to bear (no pun intended!). Parenting skills are much less nurturing and more unloving and uncaring, leaving the child's child's own emotional development in jeopardy.

2. Sexual Risks for children...menarche now occurs approximately at age 12. The physiological ability to become pregnant does not exist prior to this. The risks of sexual contact in prepubescence, say age 9 thru 11, occur as a result of low levels of estrogen. Normal as that is, vaginal trauma, such as tearing of tissue, would be common until the vulvar and vaginal areas had been forcefully dilated. Even so, infections would be very common because of the inherent weakness of this estrogen deprived tissue. Cervical cancer is much more widespread and all the more so the younger the child.

3. Pregnancy Risks...children are, by their very definition, not mature physically. Presumably because of this, and regardless of good pre-natal care...and even worse without it...there is a risk of prematurity and/or low birth weight. This can be disastrous to the newborn, placing it at much higher risk of brain damage and mental retardation. Low birth weight babies are TWENTY times more likely to die the first year of life than normal newborns.. Because bone growth is not yet complete, the risk of cephalopelvic disproportion (to big a baby to get through mother's pelvic bones) is higher, leading to prolonged labors and subsequent infant damage and wastage. Presumably because of poor nutrition, teen mothers are more likely to abort, more likely to develop preelampsia and more likely to have serious accidents.

Preeclampsia and its ultimate form, eclampsia, is a disease peculiar to pregnancy. Preeclampsia is notable by increased blood pressure and loss of protein in urine (proteinuria)...if preclampsia worsens, as it usually does, it may develop into eclampsia, which adds seizures to the symptom complex. I have seen patients die from eclampsia. The only known treatment for the disease is delivery. Untreated, there is a high risk of fetal intrauterine death. The cause of the disease is still largely unknown.

The list of problems to children by the offence of premature sex and pregnancy is longer than I have presented, but this is probably enough for now."

Conclusion: even though the culture approved it, it was certainly exploitative of the young girl as well as other girls in whatever culture you are trying to seek justification."

Now, Aisha never became pregnant and may have been spared much of the above, but the problem is that Muhammad set an example and because of him many Muslims are marrying girls at an age that is too young and many girls are suffering because they have sex and become pregnant too early.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Mohammad could have as many wives as he wanted and I would be limited to only four."

You wrote: "He was a prophet of God and the last prophet of God, as such he has extra privileges which other humans do not have, this is something simple. However so since this topic has been dealt with time and time again, I shall simply post the links where you can read on this subject:"

My Response:

I have read your posts but they do not deal with the issues. You claim Mohammed had extra privileges. What is the basis of the claim? Mohammed? There is no evidence for a prophet to come after Jesus who fulfilled the words of Moses. Only by twisting the words of Moses can you claim a position for Mohammed as a prophet. There is only one person who claimed to be a prophet in Islam, but there are many prophets in the history of Israel. The role of the prophets was to call the people back to the Torah, not introducing new practices. These prophets condemned the immorality of the people in their time. There were prophets who were killed by kings, imprisoned, persecuted, and even sawn in two because of their calling people back to the Torah. What is special about Mohammed that he should have such privileges? He is unlike any prophet in the Old Testament. Did he call the people back to the Torah? Did he call the people back to the Gospel? He twisted the Torah and the Gospel.

The model of creation was one man and one woman, in spite of the depravity of men wanting more than one wife. It was not so in the beginning. Jesus affirmed the same model of marriage. Yahweh’s creation meant that a man needed only one wife.

In your discourse on David you overlook something which is quite lacking in Mohammed-- repentance. David’s sin was pointed out to him by Nathan the prophet. Mohammed would not have allowed anyone to point out his sin. When Nathan appeared to David he repented and sought forgiveness of Yahweh. In the story of the New Testament Jesus encountered a woman caught in the act of adultery. She was forgiven by Him and the crowd left in humiliation when he asked, "Who among you is without sin?"

You claim that David got away with it. I don’t think you have read more than part of the story you are trying to use. David was not killed but his life was filled with the consequence of his sin. David experienced something that seems to be lacking in the Muslim world—forgiveness of Yahweh.. Legalism seems to prevail especially when it involves women who have been involved in sexual sins. Where is forgiveness in the Muslim world?

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder if the Qur’an were the exact words of God, why would it contain fictional stories that never happened, such as the children in the cave who slept for generations and other stories that are regarded as fictions by the rest of the world.

18:10 "When the youths took refuge in the Cave saying, 'Our lord, give us mercy from Thee, and furnish us with rectitude in our affair.'"

You wrote: "Actually, if you were a Muslim you would not question these stories and say 'hmmm why are fictional stories in the Quran.

This missionary is so bankrupt on arguments he has to come up with atheist ones! It seems Dallas has a problem with God's ability to do extradinary things, a very strange argument from a Christian who believes that God does miracles and several supernatural things, so how is this a fictional story? Maybe Answering-Islam has employed atheists????"

My Response:

You have admitted a closed mind attitude for Muslims!! You don’t question and you accept the Qur’an without qualification. However, you question everything about the Bible.

A closed mind makes you more gullible about the Qur’an, does it not? By the way, an argument by an atheist is not wrong because he is an atheist. The argument has to be right or wrong regardless of his religion or lack of it. Using your standard, no argument from a Muslim should be accepted because one is a Muslim. Slander won’t defeat an argument.

The case at point here is the story of the children in the cave. If you had any curiosity you would think seriously about some of the issues you are raising.

Christian faith is grounded in history. Islam is not. If the Qur’an had been written by anyone else it would not have mattered. The fact that Jesus appeared in the fullness of time as the Messiah and Son of God is important. The event of the crucifixion is time-bound, under the rule of Pilate. There are lots of records in history about it, pagan, Jewish, and Christian.

You need to check out history more seriously. One of your writers on your site refers to the DeVinci code as valuable history about Jesus and his relations with women. This is not only slander but it raises huge credibility issues about your site. This is like using the Wizard of Oz to describe the real world.

The story of the children of the cave is fiction. The original story circulated around the sixth century. It is a Christianization of a Jewish fable, folktale, or myth that was passed down by succeeding generations. It has no historical value. The story originally was designed to show that the children woke up and found that the Christian message that Jesus is the Son of God was still being preached. Mohammed changed the story to say that God has no Son.

The story alleges to be related to persecution in Ephesus. Escape from persecution is not something that the New Testament promises. Jesus said that his followers would be persecuted, the apostles experienced persecution, the early Christians experienced persecution,

and Christians are still being persecuted. The story is out of character for Christians who are not usually delivered from persecution for the name of Jesus.

Now, concerning your reference to the book of Revelation. Apparently you are ignorant of various kinds of literature. The book is full of symbolisms. Many think the book was written during a time of severe persecution and the message of the book had to be put in understandable symbols. Moreover, the message involves symbolism of the future, not the past. No one would read Harry Potter and think that it is history or real.

Your haste to condemn the Bible reveals your lack of understanding of various kinds of literature.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Mohammed was not forgiving to those who criticized him, who opposed him, and who wrote satirical poetry about him. If I were a Muslim I would wonder if they really deserved the death penalty. Did satire deserve death?

 Mohammed cursed his uncle, Abu Lahab, for rejecting his message. The curse is preserved in the Qur’an, (111:1-5) " Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he! His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned; he shall roast at a flaming fire, and his wife, the carrier of the firewood, upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre." (Arberry)"

You wrote: "Can you please show us your sources putting people to death?

Specifically his enemies, since I do not trust you because you Answering-Islam missionary do have a tendency of distorting stories and why enemies of the prophet Muhammad were really killed, here is an example:

This missionary has a problem when the prophet Muhammad curses some disbelievers, but has no problems when Jesus, Paul, or other disciples do the same thing!"

My Reply:

Any non-Muslim who views the death of Ka’b would regard it as murder. You quoted 002.190 YUSUFALI: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." as something I should not have omitted.

Your defense is based on the command to fight for the cause of Allah.

Sadly, the mere rejection of Mohammed is defined as a basis of fighting people who reject him.

Ka’b rejected Mohammed as a prophet and was therefore killed. Ka’b didn’t like Mohammed, and for whatever influence he had with the Quraish there was no army mounted immediately for war. Ka’b had not begun any military movements. By definition, all who reject Mohammed are automatically enemies. Mohammed really contradicted his own message

002:190 "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

Mohammed was the aggressor. You have not extracted Mohammed from the charge.

Anyone who disagrees with Islam is an enemy. The uproar over the cartoons of Mohammed can be seen in the same reference. People were killed in Muslim riots over the issue.

The history of Islam is a history of aggression. What did the Spanish do to institute a fight with Islam? What did the whole of Christian north Africa do to cause the invasion?

What did the Hindus do to be aggressors toward Islam? Muslims are always quoting the following, 002:256 "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower."

However, the truth of the matter is that Islam forces people to submit, pay the jizya or die. Islam is a peaceful religion only for Muslims. But even Muslims are fighting Muslims.

You quote a number of verses from the Old Testament about the destruction of peoples.

You have complained that various writers on Answering Islam misquote, take verses out of context, etc. You have quoted a number of verses without regard to the context. The historical context makes all the difference in the world.

The story of Abraham is that God promised him the land now known as Israel. His offspring would live there. This promise has two sides to it. The Hebrews would inherit the land when the judgment of God came on the peoples in the land because of their sins, depravity, and idolatry. Their idolatry involved prostitution, child sacrifice, and seduction of Hebrew men by hundreds and hundreds of women.

If you care to understand the background you can check out the following articles,

In conclusion, the invasion of the land of Israel was based on a promise by God to Abraham. They were never given a command to rule the world, nor a command to invade other countries. They were never given a command to destroy people of other nations who worshiped idols. Jews in other countries were not secret cell groups for the overthrowing of the government and introduction of Judaism. Jews in other countries did not attack the local polytheists or kill them for not believing in Yahweh.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder if coercing people to believe in Allah is really true belief. If I were a Muslim I would think that people ought to be free to believe in Allah or not. I would think that Allah would be insulted when people are forced to worship him. Does he not care? Or know? Forced worship is not worship at all. If I were a Muslim I would wonder about that."

You wrote: "Simple, go read the Noble Quran since it addresses this: 002.256 YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

I know for a fact that Dallas knows about this verse, but he is trying to act like he doesn’t, making a question out of nothing!"

My Reply:

Yes, I know about the verse and it is doesn’t mean a thing. Most of Islam’s history is a contradiction to it. Consider the following items drawn from Bat Ye’or

"During the first half of the seventh century AD, Islam was becoming entrenched in the desert area which we know today as Saudi Arabia. Islam's ugly side was quickly made apparent as the prophet turned against the Jews at the oasis of Khaybar, near Medina. After much destruction and bloodshed, the Jews surrendered under the terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. Subsequently, all the Jews and Christians of Arabia submitted to the Muslims under the terms of a treaty similar to the one granted at Khaybar.

It was during this early period that the concept of jihad, or holy war, began to be developed. The Muslims considered all areas controlled by Islam as the dar al-Islam, or the "territory of Islam," while all areas controlled by infidels were known as the dar al-harb, or the "abode of war." Since Muslims felt Islam was destined to control all the earth, there could be no permanent peace made with infidels.

As Islam and its holy war burst from the confines of Arabia, many peoples were forcefully confronted with it. Islam swept across the Holy Land, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa in its early years. Generally, polytheists were given the choice of conversion or death. However, Jews and Christians, or "the people of the Book" as they were known to Muslims, came under special consideration. Based upon the previous treaty at Khaybar they were called dhimmi, people who were allowed to live and even to adhere to their religions, but all this for the benefit of Islam. They were doomed to remain second-class citizens, living, it seemed, for the sole purpose of demonstrating to all, the superiority of Islam over conquered religions.

From this point on the dhimmi were always at the mercy of the Muslim rulers, and subject at all times to the whims of Muslim mobs. The dhimmi status seemed to always hang in peril. In fact, in AD 640, the status of the dhimmi was revoked throughout the whole Arabian peninsula and the remaining Jews and Christians were expelled.

Soon the dhimmi status, for what it was worth, was applied to Jews and Christians in many conquered lands of the Middle East. The dhimmi began to be more clearly defined by Muslim law and by common practice. There were several things that came to define the dhimmi status in Muslim lands.


1. Oppressive taxation

In each conquered land, the Jews and Christians were allowed to remain and cultivate the land in exchange for the payment of a tax to the local Muslim ruler. This tax was called the Kharaj. This system was designed to remind the tenants that Islam owned the land. Their national identities and histories were blotted out and soon became virtually nonexistent. They were forbidden to possess arms and thus became totally dependent upon the occupying Muslim power. In some areas, such as Morocco, this system became so oppressive that the Jews of that area were virtual serfs even as late as 1913, and were, literally, the property of their Muslim masters.

In addition to the Kharaj tax, the dhimmi were subjected to the poll tax or Jizya. This tax had to be paid in person by each subject, and it had to be paid in a public and humiliating manner. It was common for the dhimmi to be struck on the head or on the nape of the neck as he paid the tax to demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

The dhimmi were also victimized by higher commercial and travel taxes. In addition they were often victims of extortion and blackmail at the hand of their own rulers. Often, greedy rulers required them to pay an avania, or protection money. This was simply a sum of money extorted from the Jewish or Christian communities, under the threat of persecution. This practice of having to pay for their own protection soon became the norm for dhimmi communities in Muslim lands.

2. Social and legal discrimination

Dhimmi peoples were generally excluded from holding public office; were kept from many professions and high positions; or from being elevated, in any way, over Muslims. The most degrading jobs, such as cleaning the public latrines, fell to the dhimmi. Yemenite Jews, until they immigrated to Israel in 1950, were still required to clean the public latrines and remove dead animals from the city streets.

In the courtroom, the evidence of a dhimmi could never be accepted in testimony against a Muslim. Thus it was often necessary for the dhimmi to hire Muslim "witnesses" for his court appearance. The dhimmi was not allowed to raise a hand against his Muslim masters, even if raised in self defense. Such a thoughtless act would often result in the death penalty. In many Muslim lands, Jews were routinely beaten and abused in the streets. They could only beg for mercy and attempt to flee their persecutors. They did not dare defend themselves.

To further clarify their inferior status, the dhimmi were required to wear special clothing. The type of clothing varied from country to country, but always it seemed to be designed to make Jews and Christians appear inferior and foolish. In many countries the Jews were even required to go barefoot. They were also required to walk to the left of the Muslims. They were almost universally forbidden to ride horses, and even when riding donkeys, they were required to dismount upon meeting a Muslim. Jews and

Christians were often confined to special quarters, and these areas were usually shut up after dark. They were not allowed to enter certain streets of Muslim cities. This practice continued in Persia, Yemen, and North Africa until the nineteenth century. These dhimmi ghettos were frequently the scenes of awful pogroms and persecutions by infuriated Muslim mobs. At the whim of local rulers these pitiful quarters could be confiscated and emptied on short notice. Whether they lived inside or outside of these quarters, the houses of dhimmi could never be taller or more elaborate than the houses of their Muslim neighbors.

3. Religious discrimination

In Muslim lands, the construction of new churches and synagogues was generally forbidden. The restoration of certain pre-Islamic structures was permitted so long as they were not enlarged or transformed. Dhimmi places of worship were often ransacked, burned or demolished at the whim of the Muslims. This trend has continued right up through modern times. In Saudi Arabia, the government bulldozed the last Christian church in the kingdom in 1987. It was a unique 12th century structure found near the Yemen border.

Liturgical forms were strictly controlled. It was generally prohibited to ring church bells, sound shofars (ram's horns used in Jewish ceremony), publicly display crosses, icons, banners and other religious objects. Early photos taken during the middle of the nineteenth century confirm that even the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem had been stripped of both its cross and belfry.

In many Muslim lands, Jews and Christians had to bury their dead without mourning. Dhimmi graves had to be specially marked lest a Muslim should accidentally pray over the grave of an infidel. The cemeteries of dhimmi were not respected since they were considered as being from the realm of hell. Commonly they were desecrated or even destroyed completely, as occurred in Jerusalem during Jordanian rule (1948-1967). At that time the Jordanian army used Jewish gravestones from the Mount of Olives to line their latrines.

The dhimmi had to take great care to show respect to Muslim holy places. In North Africa, if Jews and Christians entered a mosque it was considered a capital offense. It was not even permitted for them to look into a mosque when passing by. Any such accusation, whether true or false, could cost the dhimmi his life. This was especially the case in all charges of blasphemy. The dhimmi communities were religiously harassed and sometimes forced to convert. For instance, in Yemen, it was required that every Jewish orphan child be converted to Islam.

Of course, marriage or sexual relations between dhimmi and Muslim women called for the death sentence, although Muslim men could marry a dhimmi woman. To the Muslim, there was something about the dhimmi that was unclean and impure. This concept affected all Muslim relations with dhimmi peoples.


Muslim concepts concerning the dhimmi may seem primitive and grossly discriminatory to the modern mind. However, these concepts are still very much alive in Muslim thinking, and are particularly evident in current ideas of jihad. The Islamic idea of world dominion has changed very little since the days of Muhammad. Involved in the Islamic concept is the complete military, religious and political domination of conquered peoples (which should ultimately include the whole world); Arabization of these peoples and nations; the absolute claim to their lands; the suppression of their historical, religious, and political traditions; and the extinguishing of their cultural and social aspirations.

It is unthinkable for Muslims that conquered peoples should rise up and throw off the yoke of Islam or that land once in the domain of Islam should ever be lost to that domain. According to Islamic thinking, once a region has been conquered for Islam, it is always Islamic and must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time."


So you still believe that Islam is a religion of peace??? As I said before, the idea of peace is about Muslims, not a relation with non-Muslims. The concept of Jihad is to subjugate and rule. If you think that Islam is a religion of peace, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Jesus as a prophet is so much more appealing in character, in ethics, in his teaching than Mohammed.

 3:45 "When the angels said, 'Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God." (Arberry)

Compare the words of Jesus and Mohammed: Jesus said, "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

Mohammed said, "Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; God knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of God shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged." (Sura 8:60, Arberry)

The Qur’an indicates that Jesus was taken into heaven directly. Mohammed died and was buried. "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise." (4:157-158, Pickthall)

You Wrote: "Christian apologetics has become so bankrupt that since they know they cannot prove Jesus is God from the Bible. They now try and turn the prophet Jesus and the prophet Muhammad against each other using the Quran! However so, let me adress one verse Dallas brings up:

Compare the words of Jesus and Mohammed: Jesus said, "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

How in the world does this verse mean do not defend yourself and fight back? This is a clear example of reading into the text, reading something that is not there. However so, the verse does not offer the conclusion that Dallas and every Christian hopes for.

In fact this is a very smart tactical strategy! Many generals in the army today would say that this is very good advice for soldiers, why? Well one thing many generals and leaders do is often say do not hate your enemies, because this will then cloud you judgment, and you wont be able to concentrate fully and will be led by your emotion and you will lose it. By not hating your enemy, you stay calm, which allows you to fight your enemy in a better way, since you will not be emotionally fired up, this will give you a major boost in the battle field, and it will make you do the right decision, by hating your enemy you will probably make haste decisions which are probably not the best option and so on.

To further debunk this missionary, let us quote what Jesus says:

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. (Luke 22:36-38)

This event takes place right before Jesus is captured by Roman soldiers after being betrayed by Judas. Note Jesus tells his disciples to go by swords, they tell him they have 2, Jesus is satisfied with this. We must now as, why is Jesus telling his disciples to get swords? What for? To use them as forks to eat their food with? To play fight with each other? No, Jesus is telling them to get swords because they will soon have to defend him; Jesus knows his time is nearly up therefore he has to equip himself and the disciples to defend themselves

So this debunks the Christian myth that Jesus never said DONT FIGHT, as we see to defend yourself is completely allowed, and for the sake of argument, just say that you are not allowed to fight back, then this would be illogical, how can you sit down and do nothing if someone came to rape your wife? Or your daughter, what would you do? Would you just sit down and smile at them saying 'I love you!' would you do that?! Such absurd teachings are illogical and cannot be from God, since God would not teach such nonsense"

My reply:

Your concept of an "enemy" is so restrictive. Raping your wife or daughter seem to be the only application you can think about.

What does it mean in the words of Jesus to love your enemies? The Greek word Agapao means an act of will, not emotion. To love an enemy is to recognize that he is a human being having needs, and Jesus said, if he is thirsty, give him water, if he is hungry, give him food. It does not mean one has to like him emotionally. Praying for him fits the same category. Prayer for an enemy is prayer for his becoming the best compassionate human possible. It is inconceivable that a Muslim would pray for his enemy. You have misapplied the whole verse to mean pacifists. It would be very immoral to do as you described and absurd. What you are proposing is nonsense.

Now, do you really think that two swords could do anything? Do you think that two people could overwhelm the number of people who came to arrest Jesus? Don’t be ridiculous.

The way of the sword is to perish by the sword.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If it did, my followers would have fought to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. No, my kingdom doesn't belong to this world."

You did not mention the verses that follow which give a different picture than your conclusion. Luke 22:49 When Jesus' disciples saw what was about to happen, they asked, "Lord, should we attack them with a sword?"

Luk 22:50 One of the disciples even struck at the high priest's servant with his sword and cut off the servant's right ear. Luk 22:51 "Enough of that!" Jesus said. Then he touched the servant's ear and healed it.

If Jesus were advocating violence why would he heal the servant’s ear and stop any fighting? Would the need of swords be for self-protection as they are commissioned to go preach the Gospel along unsafe roads? Jesus never condemned self-defense. You might check out the following articles on the issue you raised.

You indicated that the Gospels do not record Jesus claiming to be the Son of God and consequently we attack Mohammed. Please read seriously the article Who Is The Real Jesus?

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Mohammed was accepted uncritically by the Arabs in Arabia when he sponsored banditry, the killing of innocent people, claimed that Allah changed his mind about some revelations."

2:217 "They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: 'Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God's way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it — that is more heinous in God's sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.'" (Arberry)

Mohammed did not fight in the holy month at first and would not take booty from a group who did. Later, he changed his mind and justified it in the Sura above."

You wrote: "When did the prophet kill any innocent people, please produce your evidence! Where is your proof?!!!!! Let us further expose this missionary by quoting his own Bible, where his God ordered prophets to kill women and children, were they not innocent?"

My response: You avoid the question by raising a question. You seek to avoid the question by turning to the Old Testament. You can gain a better perspective than merely quoting verses by looking at the following site mentioned above (1, 2).

Those people were not innocent, but had come to the point of depravity and God judged them for their sinfulness.

As for murder in Islam we can look at what Mohammed did and then his followers in wholesale killing of non-Muslims.

He wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why women have to be covered up. Women have passions as well as men, and should not men have to cover all their bodies as well. If I were a Muslim I would think it evil to have a women carry around a portable "prison" in hot weather just because Muslim men cannot control their passions. If I were a Muslim I would think it rational that women be considered worthy of honor in comfortable dress in hot weather."

My Response: "Notice, the missionary claims he does not like women to cover up in hot weather, basically this means he wants our women to be like his women, to dress half naked when the weather is hot, revealing their whole bodies for all to see! What a pervert!"

I will reply in sections on this one.

My reply: Your slander machine is working again. Half-naked and fulled covered are the only options you can suggest. Are all Muslims as extremist as you? What about decent lovely clothing for women, instead of a black tent covering the whole body. What is wrong with seeing a woman’s face? Many of the women in many Muslim countries are completely covered.

  You wrote: "Secondly, who said that wearing a veil and covering yourself makes you very hot? This missionary assumes that when you cover yourself you have to wear a lot of clothes and so on, not really, just do not wear revealing clothes and wear the hijab, nothing pain staking in that, but since you are a pervert, you prefer women to be in shorts, with their belly and chests out, so you can stare at them and smile.

Also tell me, did Mary the mother of Jesus wear shorts and lose clothes when it got hot?! DID SHE? Did the other women do it? No, they did not, they continued to cover themselves in the hot weather, and never revealed their bodies to anyone! So go learn about the mother of your God before attacking women who dress like her."

My reply: On what authority do you declare the type of clothing that Mary wore? There is nothing mentioned in the Bible. Your slander about Mary as the mother of God is stupid.

She is the mother of the child Jesus who in human form was the Son of God. She is not the originator of God.

You wrote: "Also, it isn’t the Muslim men who cannot control their passions, but the perverted men of the west, who continuously rape women, having sex before marriage, and what ever else you can imagine."

My reply: Perhaps you don’t read news about Muslims who do terrible things.

Swedish girls are raped because they are not Muslims, but are raped by Muslims men. Australian girls have been raped and the local imam justified it as "meat exposed to dogs."

You wrote: "Also, this missionary acts like women covering themselves up is that men will simply not stare at them, WRONG. It is to honor the women, so the man sees what is inside the lady, not outside, so he judges her for whom she is, not what she looks like, something the west does not get. You have thousands of teenage girls killing themselves because of their low self esteem cause by western society, and you have thousands if not millions of other teenage girls who are ruining their health to simply look as the models they see on their magazines, this is what western society does to the women, it makes them unhappy with themselves, leading them to go and commit suicide. In Islam, it is the opposite! You are known for your knowledge, and character, not your looks or riches".

My reply: What a contradiction you have expressed here. If women are known by their knowledge how is it that so many women in Muslim countries are denied an education.

Or, if they have any education it is limited to the low grades. There are women who have been educated outside of Islam and then denied the right of practicing their knowledge in their own countries. How irrational your statement is. How can you know their minds when one cannot talk with a woman who is not his wife, or relative?

You wrote: "Also, if Muslim women want to cover up, that is their right, who in the hell are you to come tell them I think its wrong for you to be covering up, if they decide to do it, then that’s their choice and you can keep your mouth shut and walk along. And please do not reply by saying they are forced to, because you and I know that is not true, but if you want to go that low, and then please do, as I shall expose you further. Also please do not say my language is sounding rude, please do not go there and cry me a river, sometimes strong language as this must be used, yet we must not go over-board."

My reply: Why does a girl come to cover up herself? There comes a time in her life in which father and mother tell her to cover herself. Contrary to your comments above, the culture, parents, and peer pressure forces them to cover up.

You really ought to read the news. The last few days there is a shocking story of a father in Toronto, CA. who choked his 16 year old daughter because she would not cover her head. In some fanatical areas of Iraq women are being killed for not covering up. Do you suppose that they are not being forced to cover up????


Perhaps you have ignored the school in Saudi Arabia in which many young girls died because they were not allowed out of the burning building because they were not covered.

Now there is real hypocrisy!! Legalism over lives. What evil!!


When many women leave Saudi Arabia as soon as they are beyond the borders of their country, they go to the rest room on the plane and change out of their miserable clothes. When restrictions are gone they have a sense of freedom to wear what they want.

You wrote: "Also finally, Muslim men must also take caution and care in how they dress, they as women must also not wear revealing clothes and so on, some scholars even say Muslim men should not wear shorts! But something tells me that if men were to cover up and not women, you would not complain since it is obvious you are a pervert and simply want to see naked women on the streets, but that’s your agenda."

My reply: When your argument is weak, you insult. That’s ok. I understand. Do you have a phobia about the human body? Maybe so. There are Muslim men who will not allow their wives to be treated by a male doctor. They prefer their wives to suffer rather than endure the "humiliation" of knowing that a man has looked at his wife. Shame! Shame!!

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why women cannot have equal rights to men. Half a billion women are deprived of full human rights because Mohammed claimed that women were not intelligent. If I were a Muslim I would be seriously bothered by this inequity. Lots of wonderful things have been discovered, invented, and inspired by women in the West. I would wonder about all the loss to the Islamic world because women are regarded as unintelligent."

 4:34, "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women)" (Pickthall)

One may contrast this with the Christian view that "Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman." Galatians 3:28."

My Response

There shall be no need for me to reply to this, since brother Karim has written a great booklet which addresses many issues on women on Islam, his booklet can be found here:

With that being said, brother Karim also has several great articles on women in Islam which address every anti-Islamic claim:

All readers Muslim or Christian should visit all these links.

As for the position of women in the Bible, Brother Abdullah Smith has written 2 great rebuttals on the supposed equality and good position of women in the Bible:



All readers, Muslim or Christian should go on every one of these links."

My response:

You have seemingly answered the question elsewhere. You offer about 25 web sites to deal with the problem. The most important one for this issue was related to education. What kind of education is proposed for Muslim women? Education in Islam, the belief system and practices?? None of the authors quoted dealt with the Qur’an above, nor my question.

One of the problems of the Muslim world is the limitation of education to a Muslim culture. Many Muslim scholars believed that the only important information was in the Qur’an. Hence they were not interested in teaching the sciences except where it related to Muslim practices such as astronomy for determining the time of prayer for the sunrise, sunset, etc.

It is interesting to observe that scientific prizes have been won by a multitude of Jewish scholars but very few won by male Muslim scholars, and no Muslim women scholars.

I wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Muslim men feel justified in raping Swedish women when Swedish men don’t justify raping a woman on a religious basic. No Jewish or Christian scripture gives justification for raping women. If I were a Muslim this would go against a rational ethical standard."

"According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants." (

My Response Why does this missionary lump all Muslims together? If these Muslims happened to rape, and felt justified by it then they are wrong, and the majority of Muslims would agree, so exactly who is this argument addressed to?

My reply: this argument is addressed to any Muslim culture where rape of women is exploited.

November 1, 2006 Australia: Another Muslim Cleric Blames Women For Rape

"The recent comments by the "Mufti" of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, made in a sermon in Arabic, shocked the nation. He said women who did not cover themselves Islamically could be compared to uncovered meat left outside, and if cats ate the meat, then who could be blamed, the cats or the meat? He referred to the rapist Bilal Skaf, who led a group of young men who terrorised, physically brutalized and gang-raped several women in western Sydney."


Why did the Mufti not condemn the rape rather than attack the culture which was not Islamic. In recent days a Muslim father beheaded his 7 year old daughter because he thought she had been raped and brought shame to the family. The news has had a number of women rape victims trying to find justice rather than condemnation to death.


You wrote: "There are many Christians who feel justified by rape, murder, etc etc. So what? What does that prove? "

My Reply: What examples do you give for this statement. No Christian will seek to justify raping or murdering anyone. Have you lost your moral sense?  You are probably calling all Americans as Christians which is absurd. You should know better. Rape is morally wrong.

Because a woman is a second class citizen in the Muslim culture it is difficult for her to secure a conviction against men who rape her.

"Rape is about power, about violence, not about whether you were wearing your hijab or not. The rate of rape in Afghanistan (where women are all covered) is 1.3 times higher than the rape rate in the US. Statements as the one posted on your website make all educated Muslims ashamed. In addition it has no basis in Sharia."

Mufti Ebrahim Desia wrote, "It is important to understand the Fatwa in context. There are generally two types of women. Those that cover and yet have become victims of rape. That is surely no fault of the woman. That is clearly an open violation on behalf of the rapist who should be dealt with severely. Such a woman requires our help and sympathies.

"However, if a woman does not cover properly and wears revealing clothing, which seduces men, if such a woman is raped, would it be correct to excuse her? Yes, the man has violated Shari’ah and will be dealt with. The answer should be read in conjunction with the question. It does not deal with man’s power or a fully clothed woman. After all, why is a woman required to cover herself? Do you think a woman’s revealing body does have no effect on a man and she will not be partly responsible for being raped under those circumstances? Both the man and woman will be responsible. She, for her immodest dressing."

I don’t think it difficult to find many others who would concur with him. It is always the woman’s fault. Where is self-control? Where is respect for others, particularly women. Even if you claim that women flaunt their bodies this does not give a man any right to abuse her. Where is justice for women in the Muslim world?

Check out the news from Nov. 26,2007,

"Raped Saudi woman accused of adultery."

Saudi justice officials now say the woman sentenced to prison and flogging after being gang-raped is guilty of having an extramarital affair. Following the rape, the woman was arrested and sentenced to 90 lashes. She appealed and the court increased the number of lashes to 200, added a six-month jail imprisonment and barred her lawyer from representing her."

Your comments about Shamoun are irrelevant to my post. You do not develop the context and background. Moreover, you often do not distinguish between what a sinful people did and what was mandated in the ten commandments. There is a lot of what you quote that is history, and I can, along with most other readers of the Bible, say, yes, they were wrong, they sinned, and there is forgiveness with God. These things were done hundreds of years before the coming of Jesus, the Son of God, who taught us the inner meaning of the law which was to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Read what Christians are commanded,

Eph 5:1-11 "Do as God does. After all, you are his dear children. Let love be your guide. Christ loved us and offered his life for us as a sacrifice that pleases God. You are God's people, so don't let it be said that any of you are immoral or indecent or greedy. Don't use dirty or foolish or filthy words. Instead, say how thankful you are. Being greedy, indecent, or immoral is just another way of worshiping idols. You can be sure that people who behave in this way will never be part of the kingdom that belongs to Christ and to God. Don't let anyone trick you with foolish talk. God punishes everyone who disobeys him and says foolish things. So don't have anything to do with anyone like that. You used to be like people living in the dark, but now you are people of the light because you belong to the Lord. So act like people of the light and make your light shine. Be good and honest and truthful, as you try to please the Lord. Don't take part in doing those worthless things that are done in the dark. Instead, show how wrong they are. "

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why there have to be honor killings of daughters who fall in love with non-Muslims, or who are suspected of having a relationship with a non-Muslim. I would wonder if Muslim girls don’t have the right to chose their own relationships." 

March 15, 2005 — "Police in Berlin arrested three Muslim brothers in what appears to be the latest in a series of so-called "honor killings." The slaying of a 23-year-old Turkish woman, Hatun Surucu, who died of multiple bullet wounds to the head and chest, bears all the marks of an honor killing, a police psychologist said, according to BBC News....It would be the sixth honor killing in as many months among Berlin's 200,000-member Turkish community and the 45th in the past eight years. Surucu had taken her 5-year-old son and run away from her husband of eight years, a cousin with whom she was united in an arranged marriage."

My Response "Again, he shoots himself in the foot, Dallas has a problem with honor killings, yet the problem lies in his Bible since it allows it! :

Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:17)" "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)"

So the honor killings are in his Bible. All Dallas can bring is actions of people, if I wanted to do that I could write 1000 articles on it!!!! But what good does that do? NOTHING. Real arguments are based on scripture, not what the people do, Dallas's paper is nothing more than a bash at Muslims. But that is okay, it just exposes him more and more."

My response:

I am so glad that you said, "real arguments are based on scripture, not what the people do."

The reason that women are subjugated in Islam is because of the Qur’an and the hadiths. The reason that jihad is practiced in killing innocent people, or forcing them into dhimmitude is because of the Qur’an. The crux of the matter, however, is that people do what the Qur’an commands. This is why reform in the Muslim world is difficult, you can’t change the Qur’an.

You are so quick to judge and jump to unwarranted conclusions. What are honor killings in Islam. Daughters are killed because they date someone not approved by the parents. They have been killed merely for talking with a stranger. They have been killed for suspicion of rape by a relative, friend, or father, or brother. They have been killed for mere suspicion.

What does this verse in Leviticus say? It only applies to a prostitute, a whore, and in one case it was translated a temple prostitute which was connected with idolatry. There is a world of difference between honor killings and this verse. I know it will be hard for you to admit it.

The other two verses have nothing to do with women being punished by death as honor killings. Parents were to be honored but sometimes there is a rebellious son who does not honor the parents. Note that the pronoun is "he" not "she" What does cursing mean? It is to call judgement down on the parents in the name of Yahweh. It is a misuse of the name of Yahweh as well as a character trait that is disobeying the commandment, "Honor your father and mother."

He wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why the police don’t investigate honor killings in Muslim countries. If I were a Muslim I would wonder why fathers have complete control over their daughters to the point of killing them for marrying someone who is not Muslim.

"The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is an example of an honor killing in which the execution did not follow any Islamic religious court proceeding but was ordered directly by her grandfather." (

My Response "Corrupt police forces are everywhere, so what is the point of this? As usual nothing, this missionary has nothing, nothing at all!!!!"

My Response:

How convenient to dismiss this. Maybe you did not read that the killing was carried out by the order of her grandfather. Is it not strange that in Muslim countries honor killings are not investigated because the police are Muslims, and Muslim men do not see anything wrong with killing a woman who is suspected of talking to a stranger, dating someone not approved? Are Muslim men so jealous that they cannot allow their wives to talk with someone not of their family? Women are really prisoners of the man!

There is no one so blind as a person who will not see.

He wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why I have to pray 5 times a day just because Mohammed said I should.

11:114 "Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night." (Pickthall)

Compare the words of Jesus, Matthew 6:5-7, "When you pray, don't be like those show-offs who love to stand up and pray in the meeting places and on the street corners. They do this just to look good. I can assure you that they already have their reward. When you pray, go into a room alone and close the door. Pray to your Father in private. He knows what is done in private, and he will reward you. When you pray, don't talk on and on as people do who don't know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers."

My Response The missionary liar lies again, typical typical. Muslims pray 5 times a day not because the prophet Muhammad told us, but Allah told Muhammad to pray 5 times a day and pass this commandment to Muslims, so it is God telling us! Here is the hadith:

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345: Narrated Abu Dhar:

Allah's Apostle said, "While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zam-zam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' He asked, 'Is there anyone with you?' Gabriel replied, 'Yes, Muhammad I is with me.' He asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel said, 'Yes.' So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' He replied, 'He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.'

 Then he ascended with me till he reached the second heaven and he (Gabriel) said to its gatekeeper, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper said to him the same as the gatekeeper of the first heaven had said and he opened the gate. Anas said: "Abu Dhar added that the Prophet met Adam, Idris, Moses, Jesus and Abraham, he (Abu Dhar) did not mention on which heaven they were but he mentioned that he (the Prophet ) met Adarn on the nearest heaven and Abraham on the sixth heaven. Anas said, "When Gabriel along with the Prophet passed by Idris, the latter said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.' The Prophet asked, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Idris." The Prophet added, "I passed by Moses and he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Moses.' Then I passed by Jesus and he said, 'Welcome! O pious brother and pious Prophet.' I asked, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Jesus.  Then I passed by Abraham and he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' Gabriel replied, 'He is Abraham. The Prophet added, 'Then Gabriel ascended with me to a place where I heard the creaking of the pens." Ibn Hazm and Anas bin Malik said: The Prophet said, "Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers when I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, 'What has Allah enjoined on your followers?' I replied, 'He has enjoined fifty prayers on them.' Moses said, 'Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it.' (So I went back to Allah and requested for reduction) and He reduced it to half. When I passed by Moses again and informed him about it, he said, 'Go back to your Lord as your followers will not be able to bear it.' So I returned to Allah and requested for further reduction and half of it was reduced. I again passed by Moses and he said to me: 'Return to your Lord, for your followers will not be able to bear it. So I returned to Allah and He said, 'These are five prayers and they are all (equal to) fifty (in reward) for My Word does not change.' I returned to Moses and he told me to go back once again. I replied, 'Now I feel shy of asking my Lord again.' Then Gabriel took me till we '' reached Sidrat-il-Muntaha (Lote tree of; the utmost boundry) which was shrouded in colors, indescribable. Then I was admitted into Paradise where I found small (tents or) walls (made) of pearls and its earth was of musk." So note, it is ALLAH who commands us to pray 5 times a day, not the prophet Muhammad, the prophet is simply passing the message and commandment to the believers like all messengers of God do. So why does this liar have to lie and distort what Islam teaches?"

My response:

There are a number of questions about this hadith. First, it makes Allah look capricious and uncertain. You have earlier indicated that Allah knows humans and does not make demands that people cannot fulfill. For starters, Allah set out to demand 50 prayers in a day. Since that was irrational, Moses enjoined Mohammed to bargain for less. Did Moses know better than Allah? When the number was reduced to 25 even Moses thought that was too much. Where is the Allah in this story that did not make demands that humans could not fulfill? So, it was reduced to 5 and Moses knowing better than Allah that that was still too much wanted Mohammed to return and reduce it further.

The second point relates to Mohammed and his lack of desire to bargain for what was better for people. Since his shyness was used as an excuse the number stands at 5 since when was Mohammed shy in getting what he wanted, booty, wives, power, etc?

Also troubling in the story is that phrase, "my word does not change." What happened to the first word about 50 prayers. What happened to the second word about 25 prayers???

Those are the internal problems with the story, you know, the problem of consistency which you have emphasized so much.

Did that trip ever take place? I would think that if the roof of his house was opened at least one wife would have seen it. If his chest had been opened would there have been a scar?

If the brackish water of Zam-Zam had been pour into his chest was it purified before doing that?

Don’t you have any suspicion about this story?

The miracle of the resurrection had evidence in the scars of the wounds, the hands, the feet, and the sides. But there is no evidence on your claims about this. Only a questionable hadith!

He wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why I have to face Mecca when praying rather than Jerusalem as Mohammed did in the beginning. Isn’t God everywhere?"

2:144 "We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do." (Pickthall)

My Response  "No, God is not everywhere, he is not in a whore-house, he is not in the toilet, he is not in the sewers of New York alongside every rat, he is not in a drug safe house etc.  There are many reasons to why the prayer direction of the Muslims was changed to Makkah. One of the reasons was because the Kaaba at Makkah was the first place of worship made to Allah. Also, it was to test the Muslims, to see which of the Muslims would accept such a command to pray facing the Kaabah since. Also, this also throws out any attempt of fighting over where to pray to, we Muslims all pray in one direction, in the same direction, it is a unity of the Muslim nation, as one. Without this command, you would have Muslims fighting over which direction to pray to, some would say Jerusalem, some Makkah, and some would even probably say madinah".

My Reply:

If God is not everywhere how does a whore-house continue to exist. If he does not uphold the universe there would be no toilet, no rat, nor drug house. Even hell cannot exist without his power to uphold it. You need to rethink your view about God. It seems to be repulsed by body functions.

I presume you won’t look up at prayer since you would lose your eye sight??? 

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said, "What is wrong with those people who look towards the sky during the prayer?" His talk grew stern while delivering this speech and he said, "They should stop (looking towards the sky during the prayer); otherwise their eye-sight would be taken away." (Sahih Bukhari 1.717)

Do you really believe that looking at the sky will make you blind when you pray? You should check it out. Islam is supposed to be scientific and you can test this to see if it is really true. The unity of the body toward Mecca is merely a ritual like so much in Islam. Is it not a bit childish to think about fighting over which direction one prays?

You wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Islam is regarded as a peaceful religion when there is so much violence advocated in the Qur’an. Just a few examples:

4:89 "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them," (Pickthall)

8:39 "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." (Pickthall

9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Pickthall)

9:123 "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." (Pickthall)

My Response

"Why is the Bible such a peaceful book when it allows killing of women and children? There is no need for me to re-paste those barbaric verses.

Islam is indeed a peaceful religion:

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

YUSUFALI: And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

YUSUFALI: Nor will ye worship that which I worship

YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Dallas also exposes himself from one of the verses he quotes:

8:39 "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." (Pickthall)

So if they stop, you stop also.

The missionary further exposes himself, by once again not quoting in context, for instance surah 9:

9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Pickthall)

The coward was too afraid to quote the next verse; I shall do it for him:

YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

This is what the coward forgot to quote, because this refutes his whole argument! Very sad, that this man is trying to make us leave Islam for his faith, when all he shows us is lies, distortions and so on, not a very good way in trying to covert us to Christianity now is it?

As for surah 9:123, fight does not have to mean physical, it can mean by the tongue, but even if it meant physical fighting, we already know from the context of the Quran that if the people you are fighting seek peace, then you must grant it, or if they come to you for protection then you must also grant it, so therefore no matter which way you look at it you are left with no case against Islam.

As for Surah 4:89, the coward once again could not quote the next verse which reads:

YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

So if you have a treaty with someone you cannot fight them no matter what, because Allah has left no way for you to fight them by making peace between you. As for verse 89, it is referring to the enemies of Islam who wish that you become like them, they are mockers and enemies of the Islamic faith and Muslims, so as such they are dealt with, they are not simple innocent civillians as Dallas wants to make them out to be."

My response: You are so good at ignoring the obvious. Islam is not even a religion of peace among Muslims. There are Sunnis who have been killing Shia in Iraq. There are Taliban who have been killing those Muslims in power in Afghanistan. There are Muslims killing Muslims in riots over whatever. How can you claim that Islam is a religion of peace when even the Muslims are fighting among themselves? Or, Muslims are killed Christians?

There is no freedom of religion in Islam. Christians are being persecuted in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, wherever there are Muslim majorities there are persecutions of Christians and others.

You quoted "009.006 YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge"

But what if the pagan hears the "word of Allah" and decides that Mohammed is a false prophet and the word of Allah is not true? Doesn’t that automatically make him an enemy to be slain at the first chance? You did not address what happens if he does not believe.

The daily news from around the world refutes the claim of Islam to be a religion of peace.

But again, perhaps, you don’t believe that Muslims are killing non-Muslims and other Muslims.

When contradictions stare you in the face, you close your eyes.

The point you make about mockers of Islam confirms the irrationality of your argument. Anyone who disagrees becomes an enemy and therefore subject to jihad. It seems Islam cannot stand to have an opponent in good faith. Submit or else comes out of this analysis.

You wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why women in Saudi Arabia cannot have their pictures in their identity cards rather than their father’s picture, or brother or guardian. I would wonder if Muslim women were not accepted as true human beings in their own right."

RIYADH, 13 March 2005 — "Saudi women will no longer be faceless identities. As of mid-2006, it will be compulsory for every Saudi woman to have her own ID card with her face on it, terminating the age of women depending on the current family card that only carries their names....... "A Saudi woman’s passport without the approval of a male guardian would only suffice in the case when she doesn’t have any male guardian," said Turki Mohammad Al-Malafekh, the director general of Jeddah Civil Status Department." (

"Previously, Saudi women were only named, but not depicted, as dependants on their father or husband's identity card." "Women of all nationalities are still forbidden to drive in Saudi Arabia — the only country in the world with such a rule." ( "Women in Saudi Arabia who walk unaccompanied, or are in the company of a man who is neither their husband nor a close relative, are at risk of arrest on suspicion of prostitution or other "moral"offences." (

My Response  "I am not Saudi, so go ask them, and this question has nothing to do with my faith. Perhaps you can answer to why the west allows same sex marriages, even worst that Sodom and Gomorrah! "

My response:

You are not a Saudi, but you are a defensive Muslim. Islam started in Saudi Arabia.

They are the most orthodox Muslims and the strictest. What they do reflects on your faith just as you want to make every action in America, Christian or not, reflect on Christians.

Yes, I can answer why the west allows such deviant behavior that you describe.

The answer is FREEDOM. Forced behavior has no morality attached to it. The Saudi religious police enforce conformity. There is a moral issue only if one has the freedom to choose it or reject it. If there were freedom in Muslim countries there would be more deviant behavior than you can imagine. Forced worship of Allah, whether by the police, or by peer pressure of the culture, is not true worship. If Allah is not the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, then Allah would welcome forced worship.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why people should be beheaded when they leave Islam for a different religion.

March 30, 2006 — "A Christian family advocacy group is calling on President Bush to grant asylum to Abdul Rahman, the 41-year-old Afghan who faced the death penalty under Shariah law for converting from Islam to Christianity. "


My Response This has nothing to do with me, however the Bible has no problem with it:

Deuteronomy, Chapter 13 KJV 1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

My response:

You have overlooked an important part of the Old Testament. You seem to know so little about the contrast between the Old and the New that it has caused problems for you.

The life of Israel was basically under a theocracy. They were the covenant people with Yahweh. Their lives were restricted in many ways. The rules you have sought to use were to be enforced on the lives of the Hebrew people. They were restricted to the Hebrews. When godly men such as Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and later Jeremiah were in non-Hebrew cultures they were not under a theocracy and made no effort to harm idolaters, immoral people, etc.

Jesus did not set up a theocracy and his death and resurrection delivered us from the rules and regulations of the Old Testament life. The book of Romans, Galatians, etc. speak of this. Christians today should not harm idolaters, homosexuals, immoral people, cultists, etc. Other crimes like murder, theft, are punished by the government which is non-religious. I would suggest that you really read the New Testament and see what it is all about.

The conclusion is that there should be FREEDOM to change one’s religion, whether it be Muslim to Christian or Christian to Muslim, or whatever. A decision that is not a free choice is not a decision.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why the Islamic world blames the Jews for all the evils of the world. I would wonder why Muslims won’t acknowledge that the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims and most of them from Saudi Arabia."

My Response

"You mean the hijackers which are still alive and confirmed by the FBI? As for 9-11, visit this link and you be the judge of what really happened on 9-11, this site I am about to paste is by an American Christian, NOT an Arab or Muslim: Also watch this great documentary and you decide:

 "However so, note the irony, Dallas is trying to say that Muslims always blames Jews for everything, yet all we have seen him do is try and blame the Muslims for everything! And any wrong a Muslim does he tries to highlight it as something unique and different to when other people commit crimes, as I said he is mentally unstable."

My Response: Your gullibility is showing. The first web site has this headline:

"An ABC news piece that ran yesterday morning attracted attention after four Pakistanis who were being interviewed about the attitudes and life of young people in Pakistan declared Osama Bin Laden to be a creation of western intelligence and stressed that Islamic extremist attitudes towards the west were virtually non existent in their country before 9/11".

In some ways it is ironic that you refer to this site since it is all about FREEDOM. Ron Paul is a libertarian who favors little government control and has an ax to grind with the current administration. So it is quite likely that there will be distortion on his site. The same is true for the liberal media that caters to anti-Bush stories.

It seems strange that you claim that I am blaming Muslims. If the major players in the destruction of the World Trade Centers were Muslims, and no non-Muslims, what does that tell you. If the Christians of the world are persecuted in Muslim countries what does that tell you?

If the jihadist around the world are killing people who disagree with them, what does that tell you?

Oh, yes, the second web site is down. I have checked it a number of times and it is unavailable. 

He Wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Allah made a mistake in speaking of Mary as the sister of Aaron, the brother of Moses who lived centuries earlier. I would wonder if the Qur’an is a perfect book, written by Allah, why Allah did not know the difference."

19:27-30 "Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, 'Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.' Mary pointed to the child then; but they said, 'How shall we speak to one who is still in the cradle, a little child?' He said, 'Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet."

My Response There is no mistake, and there is no need for me to go over this dead argument, I shall simply post the links:

My Response:

I think that the readers of this rebuttal need to look at whether this is really a dead argument. In light of that I would point the reader to some other sites that offer a different conclusion than you do. (Will Mohammed marry Mary in paradise?)

The serious conclusion is that Mohammed was wrong and lied to cover up his mistake.

Check out these sites.

He Wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified when the rest of the world believes that he was crucified."

4:157 "and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' — yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty — no indeed;" (Arberry)

My Response Another lie, who is the rest of the world? WHO? Muslims do not believe in it, I can tell you lots of Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews believe that Jesus is a fictional made up character that never existed, the same with atheists.

Also note how weak this line of argument is, Christians are the only people who believe Jesus is God, the rest of the world does not, and? So does that mean he is not God? The inconsistency is getting amazing now!

My response: Perhaps it would have been better to say the rest of the world that is not ignorant of history, and non-Muslims. There are a few stubborn people who have made up their mind to dismiss almost any ancient fact. Atheists will deny the resurrection but not the existence of Jesus. You don’t really give any basis for your statement that Jews believe Jesus was fictional. So you do not quote any ancient documents confirming that. Nor do you give an evidence for Hindus and Sikhs.

My next question would be: do any of the supposed people you claim believe that Jesus did not exist really know anything about history? You can find all kinds of ignorant people who have ignorant opinions based on nothing to say anything that you could use. But the issue is:

what is their evidence? You have not given me any evidence for your senseless statement.

There is evidence from Jews, Pagans, and early Christians that the crucifixion took place.

I am sorry that you do not trust history. Since you don’t trust history before Mohammed, why do you trust history after Mohammed? Credibility operates in both directions. Why do you trust anything about Mohammed at all? Have you not been brain-washed by Islam?

You have a greater problem, if you will think about it, you have quoted a number of hadiths that you think are genuine. When you think that there are over 500,000 hadiths in existence and Muslim scholars think only about 2500 are really genuine then your whole credibility system falls on its face. How do you know that the 2500 are credible?

By the way, since you have so little trust of history, how do you know that Mohammed really lived? How can you trust all those Muslims who wrote hadiths that are not historical, declared so by Muslim scholars?

It is rather shocking, isn’t it, to realize that thousands of Muslims have made up fictions about the life of Mohammed. One might even imagine that the people who "remembered" parts of the Qur’an may have remembered more than what was actually "revealed," or less.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Muslims quote the Bible to prove a point they want to make but regard the Bible as corrupted when it disproves their point."

My Response I can use your own Bible against you, just as you believe the Quran is corrupted yet you still quote it to use against us and prove your points!

However so, we can use the Bible to prove points such as Jesus is not God, but a messiah and a prophet etc etc. Why? Because we have a criteria to judge it with, which is the Noble Quran, the Quran lets us see the lies and falsehood in the Bible while also allowing us to see the truth that is contained it, that which agrees with the Quran we accept, that which does not we disregard and that which we are unsure about we leave as neutral.

On the other hand, why does a Christian use the Quran to back up their belief? Several Christians say the Quran confirms the Bible etc, yet what is your criterion on this? Does the Bible say there is truth in the Quran and so on? No, so this question should be on yourself and not on the Muslim since you have no criteria to judge what is true and what isn’t from the Quran, we have this criteria to do with the Bible.

My response:

Christians refer to the Qur’an to point out the contradictions and problems in it.

Example: the Qur’an refers to the Torah and the Gospels as reliable and to be trusted.

Later, embarrassed Muslim scholars decided to declare that the Torah and Gospels have been corrupted, despite the manuscript evidence that predates Mohammed’s time.

What criteria do you have for the reliability of the Qur’an? A hadith is regarded as reliable because it has a chain of testimony attached to it. Does the Qur’an have such?

Are you accepting the Qur’an merely because someone claimed that it was a revelation and you did not know any better? The claim that the Qur’an is Mohammed’s miracle is irrational. A miracle is a direct act of God that transcends the laws of nature. Writing and talking are not such acts. There are many literary works that are more glorious than the Qur’an and they are not hailed as revelation.

He Wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why non-Muslim religions are not permitted in Muslim countries but democratic countries allow great diversity of religion. If I were a Muslim I would wonder whether Islam can compete in the marketplace of ideas."

"With the conquest of Christian regions the Christian community faced persecution, dhimmitude and death. "Brutal subordination and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph Al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of St. Theodosius, killing many more monks." Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. (Washington: Regnery Publishing Co, 2005, pp.122-123.) Many more stories of persecution can be reported.

My Response Western society is secular, not run by religious law, so therefore please do not try and give Christianity the applause for allowing freedom of religion in the west, remember they separate Church and state in the west. If we had a true Christian government, there would be no Islam allowed, no Judaism allowed, no Sikhism or any of that, they would all be imprisoned or killed. Want proof? Simply go look at Europe when Christian monarchs used to rule, they would kill anyone with different beliefs and herecy. So therefore the west is not Christian law, rather is secular law, when we did have Christianity in charge what we saw was intolerance to other faiths and so on.

As for Robert Spencer, just like you I do not trust him, you and him have a habit of distorting texts saying what they do not say and so on, so his quote is irrelevant to me.

My Response:

You need to read a little more history to get the full story. Christians did not have any political power until Constantine adopted and declared Christianity to be the state religion.

That was not something the Christians proposed. Nor, was it a good thing!!!

The state used religion for centuries, and misuse it was. It was contrary to the meaning of Christian belief. Do you know who was the great proponent of religious freedom in America was? Roger Williams, a Baptist, founded Rhode Island state, and brought religious freedom as a concept to America. Freedom to be nothing, to be a Jew, atheist, whatever, was the basic concept. This concept of Freedom is being attacked by Muslims in the US who want a Muslim state with Sharia in force.

Again, the Muslim world is afraid of competition in an open market. If the Muslim world defended freedom of religion without penalty there would be an exodus from a repressive culture.

Your reference to Spencer should concern you. Anyone who points out a problem with Islam is automatically disregarded. Why don’t you check out some of these historical references?

There are documents published by Muslim officials on dhimmitude, wars, and other issues.

Don’t just close your eyes. Please.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Muslims use the Gospel of Barnabas trying to prove Jesus to be a Muslim when the book is a known fraud written in the 15th century. I would wonder about the honesty of imams who use fraud to convince people that Islam is true."

My Response Why do Christians use forged hadiths and weak Islamic sources which have been prove to be false? So therefore Dallas has no right to attack what he himself does, and what his fellow authors on his site do as well.

My Response:

What do you offer in support of your comments? There are materials to support what I said and I would be happy to forward them to you. The Gospel of Barnabas has been republished by a Muslim society in Pakistan. What do you offer for your comments?

Now, how do you separate forged hadiths and weak Islamic sources? Are they the ones you personally hold to or is there a standard you accept?

Perhaps you should raise questions about the whole issue of hadiths. John Noss, in

Man’s Religions, indicated that there were about 600,000 hadiths circulating and this caused Muslim scholars to try to sort out which ones were authentic. Why so many? Were Muslims embarrassed by the character of Mohammed that they sought to white wash his real character by false hadiths? Why were so many willing to lie to save the character of Mohammed? Even if most of these were spurious and you reduced the number down to 40,000 or so as one collection has it, the same questions arise. Why so many fictions? Why so many lies about Mohammed?

One Muslim wrote, " To some extent I have to agree with Yasser on the issue of hadith. While there are many positive hadith that help us live our daily lives as muslims...there are also a lot of contradictory hadith(towards each other and especially regarding the Quran) which makes them in general a very unreliable code of law in which to follow. If you read about the history of hadith you will realize that there are very few actually considered 100% without fault..the rest(a vast majority) are considered either weak or just plain fabricated. Hadith are a man made text and not protected by God whereas the Quran is divine and protected from corruption by God. A muslim is one that submits to God...follows the 5 pillars to the best of his or her ability....many muslims around the world are finding it hard to follow and keep faith in hadith and also remain true to the Quran...but I for one would never call them anything other than Muslim....God does not say we must believe in hadith the same way we believe in the Quran in order to be considered Muslim...that again is a man made decree....we should not pass judgement on each other so quickly lest someone passes judgement on us. And that is what I believe."

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Muslims remember the crusades as being cruel but forget the terrible invasions that were made on the Christian world in the 7th century. I would also wonder about the terrible carnage Muslim invaders made in India at one point slaughtering 300,000 people in a few days."

My Response The crusades are a simple reminder to Christians like yourself who always try to demonize Islam; it is simply turning the table against you and exposing your double standards. But much worst than the crusades have happened, with WW1 and WW2 wars fought mainly by Christians. Worst is happening now, as Christian Bush has invaded 2 Muslim countries saying God told him to!

My response:

You have adopted the position of "victimhood" which has become part of the present culture of people who want to take advantage of other people. Your historical sense is lacking.

The Muslim acceptance of Hitler as a Christian is ludicrous. I have read of some Muslims who went to Germany to help Hitler get rid of the Jews. Even more frightening is the honor that some Muslims have given to him, and even now some Muslim regard him as a hero.

Both wars were fought to keep the world FREE from tyranny, authoritarianism, and further bloodshed. Do you really think if Hitler had been successful to rule the world that you would be free?

The real issue you have ignored. You refer to the crusades to divert attention from the terrible things that Muslim invaders did to people far removed from Arabia. There was no threat from Spain to Islam. There was no threat from North Africa, Egypt, etc. to Islam.

Rather Islam was the major threat because of the desire to conquer the world. Huge numbers were slaughtered, taken into slavery, raped, and later dhimmitude.

There has never been any kind of apology for the past as some Christians have apologized for the crusades.

Let me say frankly, there is no message in the New Testament that justifies the Crusades. There are many places in the Qur’an justifying jihad against non-Muslims.

He Wrote: "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why the Qur’an says that the Torah and the Injil were to be read, but later Muslims declared these books corrupted." 

5:46 "And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah before him and We gave to him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah before it, as a guidance and an admonition unto the godfearing."

My Response Wow, this missionary is very funny, note what I just said:

On the other hand, why does a Christian use the Quran to back up their belief? Several Christians say the Quran confirms the Bible etc, yet what is your criteria on this? Does the Bible say there is truth in the Quran and so on? No, so this question should be on yourself and not on the Muslim since you have no criteria to judge what is true and what isnt from the Quran, we have this criteria to do with the Bible.  They are like robots!!! Note this hypocrite complains when Muslims use the Bible to prove a point, yet he has no problem in using the Quran to prove a point for himself! WOW!

 As for the Quran confirming the Bible, this is a lovely Christian myth which ranks beside the other myth of Jesus being God.

My reply:

I don’t think you understand the issue. There is a contradiction between the Qur’an and later Muslim teaching about the Bible. You cannot have it both ways. It is easy to judge what is true and what is not true in the Qur’an by the facts of logic, history, and truth. Your "truth" from the Qur’an about the Bible amounts to no more than "Mohammed said." There is no corroborating truth that you offer.

Your reply to Shorrosh in your first example sets up the problem. The facts of history are on the side of the New Testament. You cannot re-write history. You quote the Qur’an to show that the crucifixion did not happen. No matter how much you rebel against history, you cannot make a fact a fiction. Deedat attempted to do that. You are attempting to do it, but pagan, Jewish, and Christian history have no reason to distort the fact as the Qur’an does. Why would the pagans affirm something they had no interest in? Why would the Jews lie about putting Jesus to death? Why would the first Christians lie about the crucifixion when they would have denied it and saved their lives?

On the other hand, why would Mohammed lie about it? There are lots of reasons to think about. Surely Yahweh knew what happened and Allah didn’t. If Mohammed had affirmed the crucifixion and resurrection his whole reason for being a prophet would be undercut. If he had believed in the crucifixion and resurrection he would never have had the many wives he had. If he really believed that Jesus was the Son of God he would have humbled himself before Him as Paul did. If he believed that Jesus was the Son of God he would not have mandated jihad against every person in the world who rejected Mohammed.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder how Islam came to be proclaimed a religion of peace when the Qur’an is filled with killing, fighting, flogging, stoning, and hating? How can I say Islam is a religion of peace when it kills its critics and apostates?"

7:157 "those who follow the Messenger, 'the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperers.'"

My Response The missionary is simply repeating himself, obviously he wants to make his article longer. The Bible is filled with killing women and children, the Quran is not. The Bible is filled with laws on flogging, stoning, executions, if that makes the Quran false then it also makes the Bible false. So inconsistency and repetition from the missionary now, his satanic spirit is running out of arguments.

My Reply:

Let’s examine your first statement about making the article longer. Did you notice that you used 20 pages to reply to my first statement that you misunderstood. You repeated one long quote at least two times.

Second, as a Christian my life is determined by the New Testament. We don’t live in a theocracy as the Hebrews did, and we regard the Messiah as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy when Jesus, the Son of God was born in Bethlehem, a historical fact.

Third, there is an advancement beyond the Old Testament in the life and teachings of Jesus. The New Testament does not proscribe flogging, stoning, or executions. Basically Islam is taking a huge step backwards into cruelty and degradation of women.

Fourth, we can let the reader judge where the satanic spirit is coming from.

He Wrote" "If I were a Muslim I would wonder why Mohammed is respected over Jesus since Mohammed did no miracles, Jesus did many, and Jesus taught people to forgive other people who offended them." 

13:7 "The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Thou art only a warner," (Arberry)

My Response All prophets are respected equally, we do not try to make one look better than the other, it is you who try to turn Jesus and Muhammad against each other using the Quran!

Also note, the verse Dallas quotes is the unbelievers speaking! So Dallas is saying the prophet Muhammad did no miracles because unbelievers said he didn’t! WOW what a strong argument. If he read the Quran carefully, he would have read: 

But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!" S. 28:48  

Note, the unbelievers used to say why doesn’t the prophet Muhammad get the same miracles of Moses, it then exposes the unbelievers by saying they even rejected the miracles of Moses! The unbelievers would say, two kinds of magic each helping each other. This means the prophet had miracles, since the unbeliever is saying TWO kinds of magic, both for Moses and Muhammad, so therefore the prophet Muhammad did have miracles but the pagans rejected it still.

The Quran itself is a miracle with prophecies and fantastic scientific miracles which no man at the time could know, especially an illiterate Arab man in the middle of the desert.

My Reply:

First, you claim to respect all prophets equally, but then you claim extra privileges for Mohammed. Where is your equality? Your claim for him as the last prophet does not make him better.

Second, on the issue of miracles you have evaded the question and the issue. From any literary point of view the Qur’an is not a miracle. However prestigious it is in the Muslim mind it is not a miracle. You have not defined a miracle, you have only claimed one. A miracle is a direct act of Yahweh which transcends the natural laws He created in nature. Many people think so many things are miraculous like the birth of a child, the awesome world of nature, etc. But these are part of God’s laws running the universe on a regular basis. For some people who think everything is a miracle reduces the concept to the non-miraculous. If everything is a miracle there are no miracles by definition.

If you will examine the miracles that Jesus did they were visible to the eyes of both enemy and friend. A man blind from birth was given his sight, a dead man was raised to life, a lame man was given his limbs in working order, lepers were cured of their leprosy and told to be examined by the priests. People could see the difference. They knew the before and after of the events. When one reads the Qur’an one has to be told by a Muslim that it is a miracle. One cannot see it by looking and the comment by Mohammed that it is a miracle does not bring the reader to see it as a miracle. It is just another book.

There is little need for me to cover the so-called scientific miracles in the Qur’an since the dispute is over the book itself. Others have done this and have come to the same conclusions: there are no scientific or prophetic miracles in the Qur’an.

For further information on the alleged miracles of science in the Qur’an, look at the following websites and see if you agree that Mohammed had "advanced" information in his revelations.

He Wrote "If I were a Muslim I would wonder whether Jesus really was the Son of God since he did so many miracles, raising the dead, healing the blind, healing the cripple, the leper. Mohammed did none of these things. If I were a Muslim I would really wonder."

2:87 We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit; (Arberry)

5:110 "When God said, 'Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird, by My leave; and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth by My leave;" (Arberry)

My Response Being the son of God simply means a servant of God, Dallas himself knows this, go ask any Jew and they will confirm this.

Each prophet is given different things, Jesus was given miracles to heal the dead and the blind etc, and this is the miracles and honor bestowed on him. The prophet Muhammad was given the mighty miracle of the Quran, the only miracle from any prophet that we still have today!

Secondly, it would have been more correct of Dallas if he stated Jesus healed the blind and dead by GOD’S HELP, God gave him the power, he did not do it on his own and never claimed he could, visit these links for a more detailed discussion of Jesus and many claims put on him by Christians:

My Response:

What a funny statement to make. "Ask any Jew!" who rejects the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and his being the Messiah which is a title that the Qur’an uses for Jesus. When did the Jews become an authority for you? Isn’t this strange?

You are ignoring the statements of the New Testament as well as the prophecies of the Old Testament. I would refer you to a recent article, Who is The Real Jesus? On Answering-Islam.

You are attributing words to me that you know are wrong. Being the Son of God is more than being a servant. Jesus not only claimed to be the Son of God but his enemies accused him of making that claim.

The Gospels declare that the voice came from heaven, "This is my own dear Son, and I am pleased with Him." Jesus said, "God's Son comes from heaven and is above all others. Everyone who comes from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all others. He speaks about what he has seen and heard, and yet no one believes him. But everyone who does believe him has shown that God is truthful. The Son was sent to speak God's message, and he has been given the full power of God's Spirit. The Father loves the Son and has given him everything. Everyone who has faith in the Son has eternal life. But no one who rejects him will ever share in that life, and God will be angry with them forever." (John 3:31-36)

No, it is not correct to say that Jesus did those things by God’s help. It is only because you refuse to see the truth that the Son of God did those things because He was and is the Son of God and had power to heal in his own right. He claimed the power to forgive, to heal, to give everlasting life, and only God can do that.

"Jesus went back to Capernaum, and a few days later people heard that he was at home. Then so many of them came to the house that there wasn't even standing room left in front of the door. Jesus was still teaching when four people came up, carrying a crippled man on a mat. But because of the crowd, they could not get him to Jesus. So they made a hole in the roof above him and let the man down in front of everyone. When Jesus saw how much faith they had, he said to the crippled man, "My friend, your sins are forgiven." Some of the teachers of the Law of Moses were sitting there. They started wondering, "Why would he say such a thing? He must think he is God! Only God can forgive sins." Right away, Jesus knew what they were thinking, and he said, "Why are you thinking such things? Is it easier for me to tell this crippled man that his sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up and pick up his mat and go on home? I will show you that the Son of Man has the right to forgive sins here on earth." So Jesus said to the man, "Get up! Pick up your mat and go on home." The man got right up. He picked up his mat and went out while everyone watched in amazement. They praised God and said, "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:1-12)

Who can forgive sins but God? If Jesus is not who He claimed to be, he is a huge fraud.

But his words were backed up with the change of the man’s condition. He got up and walked.

You wrote: "In conclusion we have seen that Dallas has brought no real arguments, or any real dilemmas for Muslim, all he has done is distort Islamic texts, take verses out context, and use a lot of inconsistent arguments which all severely backfired against him and his own Bible. At the start of the rebuttal I said Dallas wanted to look smart, as we have seen his attempt at it has severely backfired and all he has done is dig a hole for himself, a hole he has no way of going out of unless he throws his Bible away, or admits every one of his argument are wrong and takes them back."

My Response:

I will leave it to the reader to evaluate and conclude whether what you say is true or not.

Many of your arguments are ad hominem arguments, not rational ones. You have used the old debater’s ploy of attacking the person when you don’t have an answer. Intimidation is not a substitute for facts, logic, and history.