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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

BASIC READING AND UNDERSTANDING

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

RESPONSE

Below are the points Meherally raises that I will address.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore my response to Meherally’s request:

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

The second point I will address.

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Here is Meherally’s statement:

Response

It was a typo, pure and simple.

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

The last point I will address is

5)

Response

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

On the following pages, read how

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

Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page