M S M Saifullah accuses me in his page http://www-hrem.msm.cam.ac.uk/~msms/lie.html of the following (and I include the whole page as downloaded from his site):
M S M Saifullah
On 9 Jun 1997, Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
> Jochen Katz
> There was also a question in my post Jochen, can't you answer it? Who
Actually this question has been answered by the pals of Jochen a few centuries ago. And Jochen will not answer this because his motive is "Inter-Faith Dialogue". But let me help Jochen and others out of this "Inter-Faith Dialogue". most of us may not have heard the word Maometis derived from Mahomet. the word Maometis means The number of the beast, i.e., 666 stuff . When the Christian polemics started a few centuries ago strong vituperative language was poured out upon Muhammad (SAW) headed by Maracci, Prideaux and others. The word Mahoun and Mahound means Muhammad, imagined in the middle ages to be a pagan God (Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary) . In Scottish this word means the devil.
A few centuries ago our Prophet (saw) was called the pagan God, the number of the beast i.e., the devil. This was the work of those Holy Ghost inspired Christians. And remember the great lies of the Crusades against the Prophet (saw) and Muslims? These Christians also said that the Prophet (saw) was a Child Molester, a Keeper of Harem and an anti-Christ. these were all done in the middle ages. One of the famous polemics who adopted this line of thought was John of Damascus.
Coming back to the modern age, we will still find christians like Jochen calling the prophet (saw) Child Molester although in a politically correct language. Go to Hyde Park Speakers' Corner on Sunday and you will find Christian fundamentalists calling Allah the Moon god and repeating the same age old polemics like the Prophet (saw) was a Child Molester, a Keeper of Harem and an anti-Christ. Basically, nothing has changed from then till today. The "Crusades" are still there although wrapped up in a deceptive way. So do not get fooled by Jochen's "Inter-Faith Dialogue" or "Christian-Muslim Understanding". All these are lies and damn lies. Being on the SRI for more than two and half years, I can testify that.
And regarding, the "Crusades" they are still here but people like Jochen
shed crocodile tears. By the way check out some of those crocodile tears
at http://www.answering-islam.org/crusades.html
I take refuge in Allah from the evil.
> do you say Muhammad was? Tell us. I've asked you this question a
> number of times. You've never answered it.
I don't know how Mr. Saifullah dares to lie so blatantly. He put this page up on the web on October 14th, 1997. He says "Jochen will not answer this because ... " But in fact, I have answered this directly to Jeremiah within the same week. Here the relevant part of my posting to the newsgroup:
Subject: Re: My Questions to Muslims [11] From: Jochen Katz <jkatz@math.gatech.edu> Date: 1997/06/14 Message-Id: <5nvr9o$f8$1@shell3.ba.best.com> Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam In article <5nfvi1$rml@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, alimhaq@nospam.hrweb.org (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes: ... } There was also a question in my post Jochen, can't you answer it? Who } do you say Muhammad was? Tell us. I've asked you this question a } number of times. You've never answered it. Isn't that crystal clear from all my postings? Apart from being a charismatic leader, a political genius, he was somebody who thought to be on a mission and mistook it for being the prophet from God. He probably thought he truly was speaking God's word, but most all false prophets are convinced they are true prophets. Very few false prophets who themselves knew to be false have ever gathered many followers. As such, he was deceived himself. Isn't that what you believe about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (founder of the Ahmadiyya), about Baha'ullah (founder of the Bahai faith), about Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) and Rev. Moon (founder of Unification Church)? Do you think they are not convinced that they are right and had a mission from God? And the growth rates of the Mormons are larger than those of Islam as far as I know (growthrate fetishists beware). Is that good enough an answer? Just last week I had a long discussin with a Bahai. It was very instructive to observe how they with similar reasons/means take the liberty to reinterpret everything in Bible AND Qur'an to suit it to their purposes. ...
In regard to all the other ad hominem attacks against me or some other people (for which I am not responsible), I see no reason to grace this with a response. Mr. Saifullah is trapped in his paranoia and the anger in his heart is darkening his ability to stay civil.
Mr. Saifullah reacts quickly, 2 days after my announcement on the newsgroup that I have created a response page, he had to update his attack a bit, trying to cover up the false accusation by making more accusations. He added to his file:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/
Apart from talking about the highly speculative sources of Islam, this book concludes in a fashion which is not too unexpected from a missionary [pp. 280]:
But it (i.e., Islam) certainly does not contain a single new or lofty religious conception, and its general tone is all too faithful a reflexion of a carnal and sensual nature of its founder (i.e., Muhammad (SAW)). To use an Oriental simile is not perhaps inappropriate in speaking of such a thoroughly local and Oriental religion as Muhammadanism. Islam therefore may aptly be compared with:
Before this paragraph Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall describes the matrimonial relations of the Prophet (SAW). This is about how Muhammad (SAW) had acquired more wives than what is prescribed legally in Islam. Sounds like the line of thought of John of Damascus!! Neither John of Damascus nor St. Clair Tisdall bothered to investigate when were the ayahs for limitation to 4 wives was revealed. Even if they knew, why would they tell the truth?
Now there is also something interesting about the Noble Companions of the Prophet (SAW).
Whether Abu Hurairah, surnamed The Liar, has spoken the truth in asserting that he heard this passage quoted by Muhammad may well be doubted. [pp. 210]
Who calls Abu Hurrairah a lair? A Christain missionary or a Muslim? And this is all there in the book recommended by Jochen. If he thinks that Muslims will sincerely believe that spreading lies against Islam are over, he is sadly mistaken.
I take refuge in Allah from the evil.
Yes, I do recommend Tisdall's book and am sad that it has been out of print for so long. It has a lot of very thoroughly researched source material. And hopefully, when some more people have time to volunteer, we might be able to put this book online. I will send a photocopy of it to any who will do the scanning and/or proofreading of this book to transform it into an online version.
I have the impression that Mr. Saifullah cannot distinguish between the factual and the interpretative or the language used. This book has an enormous wealth of factual information which makes it very valuable. That is why I recommend it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with every expression I find in the book or each detail in the conclusion of it. No book is without flaws. If I could recommend only flawless books, then I could recommend none. And I will stick with the recommendation. Being published about 1900 it is a very valuable book to this day.
Last comment: I am wondering why Mr. Saifullah is so aghast about these comments. I am reading similar things all the time from Muslims about Christians and a lot worse. That was pretty harmless in comparison to what one can find on Muslim web pages.
The Qur'an calls others liars, hypocrites and the like. Why would anyone find it even strange that some might think the same about some Muslims or even Muhammad? It isn't usually my own approach, since it doesn't further discussion, but rather shuts down a relationship in hostility. But this kind of language is not new to Muslims, and Mr. Saifullah himself uses the very same language when he speaks of me. He called me many times a liar, a deceiver, and other words. His indignation on this account is rather hollow.
And a last comment (October 18, 1997): Mr. Saifullah has quickly responded to this page, but he does not link to it. He seemingly doesn't want his Muslim readers to see the other side of the issue. Why? Any serious discussion where both are interested in the truth will make access to both sides of an issue so that the readers can judge for themselves.
Responses to Saifullah
Answering Islam Home Page