Responding to Christianity's Critics

Allah, and Why I am not a Muslim: Another Look

It just so happens that Hasan took issue with my initial article, to which he then wrote a partial rebuttal and this led to our engaging in a brief discussion on his blog. Eventually, it seemed fit that I dedicate another post on the subject of the Muslim deity and Islam in order to deal with the questions that were brought up in the course of our comments to one another. I strongly recommend for the reader to have at least viewed my original article before reading this one and encourage them to read Hasan’s partial response to it in order to have the best understanding possible of the matters being discussed because I may not necessarily explain things to the extent that one who has read neither of these will need.

To begin with, Hasan sees the problem I had brought out with the term ‘slave’ and so he tries to mitigate this by claiming that Allah does not call Muslims his slaves but rather his servants. He says:

You are quoting one of the ‘many’ translations found… Here is from the one I follow, plus you have left out the most important part [...] Allah is asking His ‘servants’ to take Him only as their protector, I don’t have to tell you the difference between a servant and a slave.

There are many different problems that we can mention right at the start, the least of which is that most Muslims are adamant that they are in fact the slaves of Allah. One need only to enter the term in a search engine to find numerous websites which seek to show how the Muslim can be a proper slave of Allah. Moreover, what is interesting about this is the complete lack of any debate to the contrary. Why is it that this term seems to be agreed upon by most Muslims? Where are the middle eastern scholars who disagree with the phrase ‘slave of Allah’ and would rather substitute this with ‘servant of Allah’? Even when searching for the phrase ‘Muslims are not the slaves of Allah’ we receive no hits but rather more of the same agreed upon belief that Muslims are in fact Allah’s slaves. It is then more than obvious that Hasan introduces such a distinction only as a means of trying to avoid the ramifications of my point.

Yet it is more than apparent that such an arbitrary distinction fails to make his point for four reasons: ( 1 ) because Allah does in fact refer to his people as slaves; ( 2 ) because real debate on the matter of this distinction is not present in historical Islam nor even present-day Islam; ( 3 ) because Islam does not actually subscribe to a distinction between ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ when these are used in respect to the property of Allah; ( 4 ) because even if such a real distinction were present, the ramifications of my argument would still apply and contrary to what Hasan sought to prevent, the Muslim deity would still come up significantly short, in comparison to Yahweh. Yet let us speak more on the subject of some of these points.

( 1 ) I had said that Allah does indeed call his people his slaves and Hasan claimed that I was mistaken on this account. Therefore, let us simply examine the use of the word ‘abd within the Qur’an.

How the word ‘Ibada and its variants are used in the Qur’an?

-In 2:178, the word ‘abd has been used to mean slave or servant as an opposite of free person

-In 2:221 and 24:32, the word ‘abd has been used to mean ‘male’ slave or servant as an opposite of a ‘female’ slave or servant
-In 16:75, the word ‘abd has been used to mean ‘a slave’ {owned by someone, who has no power over anything}

-In 2:23, 8:41, 17:1, 18:1, 25:1 53:10, 57:9, 72:19 Allah has called the Prophet Muhammad (a.s.), His ‘abd

-In 4:172, the word ‘abd-Allah has been used for Al-Maseeh (a.s.)

-In 18:65-82, an account of one of Allah’s ‘abd and the Prophet Musa (a.s.) is given

-In 19:2, the Prophet Zakariya (a.s.) has been called ‘abd

-In 19:30 and 43:59, the Prophet Isa (a.s.) has been called ‘abd
-In 38:17, the Prophet Dawood (a.s.) has been called ‘abd —The Qur’anic Teachings (click the link for more examples)

Now, it is either through deceit or plain ignorance that Hasan made the claim that Allah does not in fact call Muslims his slaves. It is telling that the quotes above are concerning prophets. In Islam, the greatest position a human can achieve is that of being a prophet of Allah and so for Allah to bless these greatest of men merely with the title of slave speaks volumes.

( 3 ) This then leads us to the third point. In the example above we saw that ‘abd could refer to a slave or a servant but either way, the contexts made it quite clear that the individual spoken of was not a free man. In our English language, there is a difference between being a servant and a slave. While any man could be considered the servant of a King, the servant differs from the slave in that he is a free man. Yet in the Qur’an’s use of the word, ‘abd is in opposition to a free man and as such it does not designate ‘servant’ in our sense of the word. To translate ‘abd as servant is not wrong per se, but the manner in which it has been used in Islamic scripture plainly shows that ‘slave’ and ‘servant’ are interchangeable as it regards the property of Allah and that in the understanding of the Qur’an, they both denote an individual who is not free. As such, the best English equivalent which at present captures the full scope of understanding that the 7th century Muslim (and even present-day Muslims) would have possessed when coming across the word ‘abd, is indeed the word ‘slave’. When the Muslim translator uses the word ‘servant’ they really do mean ‘slave’, but it is merely that the former sounds better than the latter when presenting Islam to an English speaking audience.

( 2 ) This is why there is no uproar caused by translations which use ‘servant’ instead of ‘slave’ for they both can mean the same thing and while using one instead of the other might make a certain demographic view the Qur’an in a better light, it does stave off reproaches by fellow Muslims seeing as the two words can be used to express the same idea and are in fact meant to by the translators (similar to how some modern-day translations substitute the word ‘God’ for ‘Allah’ though this is not without it’s share of controversy).

( 4 ) Yet let us suppose that, regarding Allah’s property, the Qur’an did in fact subscribe to a distinction between the words slave and servant (which as a side note would suddenly open up a whole new can of worms in the form of two theologically divergent, yet seemingly equally valid, Qur’ans), would this save Islam from the ramifications of the argument? No, seeing as the parent-child relationship is still far more excellent in love then that of the Master-servant relationship. His attempt would still result in Muslims giving to Allah, and Allah giving to Muslims something which is completely substandard. Therefore, the argument stills stands.

It seems your study of Islam is premitive. Praying (i.e. showing love towards Allah) is only a small part of attributing towards Goodness. The greater good is helping humanity, doing charity, caring for others selflessly. Islamic traditions have it that a prostitute was blessed with heaven only because once she helped a limping dog who was thirsty and hungry for two days. If you read Qura’an you will see Allah commands us to do most of the service towards humanity. It is Islam which exalted the status of women, pre-Islam, Arab Jews and Christians burried their new born daughters alive. — Hasan

There are two things that I would like to address with the above. The first being the example of the prostitute, and then second being that charge that Jews and Christians used to bury their women in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Now, I think that with the matter of the prostitute, Hasan sought to present Allah as wholly loving and I must admit that admitting a prostitute into heaven merely for giving a limping dog water to drink is rather nice and is certainly a story one would tell to arouse a warm, fuzzy feeling in themselves and their listener but would such an action be just? See, I have argued in another post that Islam has an inherent problem with the balance of justice, mercy and forgiveness that Allah allots to his creatures and this example by Hasan serves to once more bring the matter to the forefront.

Notice that in the example the woman is let into heaven only because of that single good deed that she committed. Muslims claim that one’s good deeds must outweight one’s bad deeds in order to enter heaven. Therefore, while the individual who committed 49.9999999% good deeds would not enter heaven, the individual who committed 50.000001% good deeds would (how good in fact are you if you have only committed 50.000001% good deeds in your life and what real difference is there between the two individuals mentioned? This subject is actually fairly fascinating when one begins to think of actual concrete examples and what these say about Allah, but I digress) in fact save themselves from hell. Yet in Hasan’s example, it is merely that single deed which saves the woman from hell and so we ought to ask ourselves, given that the Qur’an claims that heaven is gained through a balance of good deeds versus bad deeds, how is it that the prostitute could at all find herself in heaven? Where is the sense of justice in that? Now a likely rejoinder would be that that one single act was filled with such kindness and love that it outweighed all her other sins yet this still leaves us with a problem. According to Islam, individuals who have done far more for the world, in a far greater manner, for a far greater number of persons, with the same if not far greater emphasis in love and kindness will find themselves in hell. If one act of giving a mere dog water to drink can save one’s soul, on what basis can Allah justly consign these other individuals to hell?

If we read Hasan’s words carefully it is that single act and only that single act which saved that prostitute and so how can Allah send these others to hell and still claim to be just? Why then should Muslims at all bother to engage in da’wah if Allah is so merciful that a single act of kindness will lead one to heaven? Haven’t we all at least committed one true act of kindness, and if this is not enough to warrant heaven for us then why was it enough for a prostitute (who in retrospect has probably committed far greater sins than the majority of us)? Where is the justice? Clearly, as I had mentioned in my other post, Islam has a drastic problem with the issue of forgiving sin. Part of this stems from the fact that as with utilitarianism, it turns morality into a game of numbers and such an approach just doesn’t work. It comes off as extremely juvenile and when one begins to try to crunch the actual numbers, the whole system unravels and is exposed for the sham that it is. The emperor has no clothes.

As it regards the second argument I need but say that this is untrue. Even his own Islamic history documents this as being the polytheists of Muhammad’s day and not the Christians or Jews who were the one’s that were burying their women. Could Hasan give us the theological reasons for why these Christians or Jews would do so (especially seeing as the Judeo-Christian scriptures do not advocate anything of the sort)? And perhaps more importantly, why it is that these same groups in various other lands did not engage in the same practise? Yet even this answer is not thorough enough for it is an oft-repeated myth that pre-Islamic Arabia was such a devilish place where the Arabs used to bury their women yet this isn’t a particularly honest picture.

Before the advent of Islam, the pagan Arab women generally enjoyed a respectable status in society; many of them including Khadija – the first wife of the prophet of Islam, had the right to engage in business and choose or dismiss their husbands in a matrilineal fashion; they took part in most activities of war and peace including public worship. [...] Arab pagan poetry was mostly concerned with the beauty and grace of their women, and the glory of their tribal values in peace and war. And it was only in one predator tribe of Mecca that the evil custom of burying alive of the daughters prevailed. — Dr. Younus Shaikh

While Muslims will readily tell you that Khadija was a fairly rich woman and managed her father’s business interests etc. they also will readily forget this and the things that this fact actually informs us  of (e.g. the status of women in pre-Islamic times etc.) when speaking of how much Islam improved Arabia. While I do not mean to say that Islam did not bring some good things to Arabia, it would not do to pretend as if all that which Islam brought with it were improvements or good.

You missed my point entirely, if the Christian God was all knowing and a ‘supreme planner’, why is he acting like a clumsy parent, not to mention a clumsy planner too. When it comes to the character of God, I for once believe He is the all knowing and supreme in his planning, He does not ‘change’ / ‘regret’ what He has created, everything that He has created has a purpose. — Hasan

It had been argued that God’s punishment on Adam, creation and Eve in particular was not loving. I countered this opinion and showed how the argument actually only applied to Islam to which Hasan replied with the above. I do not particularly know what Hasan means by clumsy parent, but I at least can answer the objection from the fact that God regretted having created mankind. Let us at this time understand that the Bible oftentimes uses anthropomorphic language to describe God:

The anthropomorphism of the Israelites was an attempt to express the nonrational aspects of religious experience (the mysterium tremendum, “aweful majesty,” discussed by Rudolf Otto) in terms of the rational, and the early expressions of it were not as “crude” as so-called enlightened man would have one think. The human characteristics of Israel’s God were always exalted, while the gods of their Near Eastern neighbors shared the vices of men. Whereas the representation of God in Israel never went beyond anthropomorphism, the gods of the other religions assumed forms of animals, trees, stars, or even a mixture of elements. Anthropomorphic concepts were “absolutely necessary if the God of Israel was to remain a God of the individual Israelite as well as of the people as a whole…. For the average worshipper…it is very essential that his god be a divinity who can sympathize with his human feelings and emotions, a being whom he can love and fear alternately, and to whom he can transfer the holiest emotions connected with memories of father and mother and friend” — W. F. Albright (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., p. 202)

These descriptions need not be taken literally but neither should they be easily discounted seeing as they reveal very real truths about God (his person and character). The fact that the sin of mankind caused God to ‘regret’ having created man actually highlights something very important: that God is a moral agent. Regret (among other things) is what makes us moral characters and it does not necessarily denote an inferiority in being, knowledge nor purpose.

For example, I may very well know that in the coming days, months, years, I will come across articles in the news that will upset me very much and highlight how the human race as a whole repeatedly fails to live up to the standard that God calls us towards but the fact that I know this beforehand should not cause me to become indifferent when, inevitably, these things come to my attention. In fact, to be indifferent based on some prior knowledge, or whatever else, would be wholly wrong and immoral. It is the duty of a moral agent to be outraged by evil, to feel sadness at loss, and to weep with the broken—the claim that it is better for God to somehow remain aloof and not empathize with the feelings of his creation is preposterous and moreover, nefarious. I cannot claim to be loving and remain unaffected by human suffering, by evil etc. Rather it is those whom are most affected by this and who “mourn with those who mourn” that we honour most—Christ, Mother Teresa, and various others humanitarian figures who have been hurt by the brokenness of this world and thereby have been driven to change it. That our sins cause regret in God is rather a testament to his holiness, righteousness and love.

A Muslim may vaguely admit that the Muslim deity “defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing” (Psalm 68:5), but they certainly do not know what these words really mean. The Muslim does not understand, in fact cannot understand, the God who’s heart is overwhelmed with compassion for his people (Hosea 11:8), the God who is so enamored with his children that he sings over them (Zephaniah 3:17), the God who loves without first being loved (1 John 4:9-10). All these things are incomprehensible to the Muslim because they are accustomed to a deity who exemplifies none of these. This is why the Muslim is so shocked by a God who behaves like a truly moral agent for most Muslims believe Allah to be amoral:

His holiness has nothing to do with him having to die for the sins of humanity. No one has claimed that the Christian god is not holy. In fact, a holy god would not belittle himself, and die for the sins of his own creation, when he can easily forgive them since he is all powerful, and is not bound by any morals that human beings must operate under. — Ruwayda Mustafa (emphasis mine)

Once more, Islam gives lip-service to the ideals we know to be true and good yet actually repudiates these in its philosophy by not embodying these in God. The Muslim says: “Sure, there is no more excellent relationship than that of the parent-child dynamic, but when it comes to God it is the master-slave relationship which is better. Sure to be affected by what happens in the world is wonderful and absolutely right while to do the opposite would be wholly depraved, but for God it is better if he remains indifferent and aloof. Sure being bound to morals is what makes an individual righteous but God couldn’t possibly be bound by anything much less morals so to be amoral is better”. Notice how Islam repudiates all these blessings by not grounding them in God? If it is unfit to his perfection that he should exhibit moral agency, that he should exhibit the highest form of love etc. then what at all is the worth of these things? Let me try to state this in a different manner: “if God were not good then what at all would be the worth of goodness?” Sure we would perhaps still be able to choose goodness yet we could have no coherent rational reason to prefer it over evil and as such goodness would not be ‘good’ in the full sense of the word. Goodness therefore would become merely the arbitrary opinion of the will and of no transcendental value—the same holds true for moral agency, the love in a family etc.

While I do not wish to spend too much time on the following point, I should mention that Allah does indeed change what he creates:

The Holy Prophet said: ‘The believer will be given such and such strength in Paradise for sexual intercourse. It was questioned: O prophet of Allah! can he do that? He said: “He will be given the strength of one hundred persons. — Mishkat al-Masabih Book IV, Chapter XLII, Paradise and Hell, Hadith Number 24 (emphasis mine)

Hasan knows quite well that the above is the case yet in his argument he is quick to deny that the Muslim deity takes it upon himself to change what he has called into being. Now, the fact that God could change what he has created isn’t a problem in itself and doesn’t actually say all that much for better or worse. I only highlight it to show either the complete ignorance that Hasan possesses of his own religion or the deception that he is employing in his argumentation.

It is simple logic, do you need Allah to ‘dictate’ how much He loves his creation? Allah has no ‘regrets’ whatsoever, if He wanted, all the non-believers will perish in a moment. But that is not happening, what does that tell you? If a child hates his mother and goes far away from her, the mother still loves her child and hopes he will someday come back to her, while a human mother might at a certain point regret giving birth to such a child, God does not, God has let man free to decide his own fate. — Hasan.

The above is a response to my objection that Allah does not in fact love everyone. What should first be noted is that Hasan’s response is not based on the Qur’an at all, he does not cite even a single surah for the fact that there are none to be found in the entire Muslim holy book to such an effect. It shouldn’t escape the reader that Hasan is saying things about his deity that they have never said (either implicitly or explicitly) for themselves. Allah is quite specific in those individuals whom he does not love and has dictated a list that includes all non-Muslims. Furthermore, the example which Hasan uses is in itself blasphemous. The only relationship that Allah has with his creation in the Qur’an is that of a master-slave dynamic. In fact, the Qur’an repudiates the idea that Allah could be seen as a parent (Surat Al-Mā’idah 5:18) and nowhere actually calls himself the Father, Mother or Parent of any of his creations! The above is pure fabrication when it comes to Islam and actually finds its source in the Judeo-Christian understanding of God! If one were to follow the link and read the section entitled “Tafsir Jalalayn”, they’d understand that even the Muslim commentators understood Surah 5:18 as a direct rejection of the very Judeo-Christian conception of God which Hasan would now wish to espouse. I stress that the reader have read my original article to understand why the point of who Allah loves, when Allah begins to love, and how Allah loves is so damaging to the Muslim position. As anyone can see, the author is unable to vindicate the Muslim deity on the basis of Islam and thus has to use the biblical understanding of God to make up for the failings of Islam.

What you are forgetting is the same will apply to Christian God too, natural disasters kill thousands of ‘Christians’, is that fair? Natural disasters are brought upon nations who go too far in their rebellion. If you can justify the ‘murder’ of the Christians by their own Lord I am sure I can too. Besides, you didn’t answer my questions about deformities in Chiristian families. — Ibid.

Hasan seems to misunderstand the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. According to Christianity, the world is not as it should be and due to the sin of Adam and Eve, nature and humanity was drastically changed. With this change came all the ails and disasters that the world suffers from today—this was not what God had intended for the world but rather the result of the free will he gave to his creation. In using their wills to rebel against God Adam and Eve broke away from the source of all goodness and life and inevitably welcomed evil and death. This is the reason for the suffering that we are faced with today, not because of God, but wholly because of man. Yet even these God manages to use for his purpose. That is, even though we have ruined the idyllic world we had been bestowed, God, in his sovereign wisdom, has chosen to reconcile creation to himself through this very ruin. Such that even the evil we have brought into this world can be used to accomplish some good in the overall context of salvation history. Hence why even Christians suffer misfortune because, while God never intended that these should happen, he is able to use even these for realization of his redemptive plan (Romans 8:28). According to Christianity, it isn’t God who brought about natural disasters, deformities, disabilities and the like, but rather mankind. Yet in Islam, this picture is completely reversed. In Islam, it is the Muslim deity who actively  brought about natural disasters to consume creation even after he claimed to have forgiven them. Furthermore, it was always his intention that the whole of creation should suffer in the manner that it does—there was no initial deviance from the plan that brought about our miserable condition.

In Christianity, we bear the burden of sin and hence why misfortunes such as earthquakes or being born unhealthy arise. Not because God had at some point wished for this to happen but rather because at some point man had chosen to break with his Creator. Therefore, deformities do indeed happen because all are sinners and bear the burden of sin within themselves. Sin is prevalent in our nature and the effects of sin manifest themselves in the world through many different ways, one of these being physical deformities. In Islam however, there was no drastic change to our constitution and it is not sin which brings about that children are born with deformities (either mental or physical) but rather it is the active will of Allah who makes this happen.

It now occurs to me that my words can be easily mistaken to imply that, for instance, birth-deformities are due to the sins of the individual themselves and that is false. In fact, Christ repudiated such an idea (John 9:1-3). What I mean by ‘burden of sin’ is our general fallen state due to the sin of Adam. Just as a parent passes down their biological traits to their children, so has Adam passed down his sin nature to his descendants. Everyone possesses this sin nature and this is precisely why neither I nor you dear reader can say that they have never sinned—in fact, we find it so much harder to do good than to sin. Sinning comes naturally to us while we have to strive very hard to be free from it. Now to return to the point: given that we are all the descendants of Adam, it follows that we have all inherited this sin nature and with sin comes imperfection. It is the case that this imperfection sometimes also manifests itself in the form of birth deformities. This is not because God actively wills for children to be born deformed, but rather because imperfection has become part of the human condition and hence the possibility for cells to replicate imperfectly and for deformities to happen. Imperfection has also become part of the general creation and this is mainly why disease, and natural disasters occur—once again not because God desired that these should be part of the world he created but rather because when man first transgressed his law, they allowed imperfection into the world.

Now Muslims do see the evil and injustice in the above; hence why they will try to soften this fact by claiming that this is a test from God. Yet this makes little to no sense. For example, if I wished to test one’s resolve to stay away from drugs (for our example, let us suppose that the drug in question is one of the more addictive ones) I could go so far as to place the individual in a position where they would be forced to make the choice whether to imbibe the drug or not, but never would I make them addicted to it a priori (perhaps by incorporating it within their meals without their knowledge) and then test them to see how long they could function without this foreign substance. Another way of putting this is that I could never in good conscience allow an individual to experience the effects of a drug (i.e. becoming intoxicated) in order to test their resolve seeing as, for one thing, this would be unfair. The Muslim deity clearly does the latter, in that he does not allow deformity to happen, rather he actively brings it about (for there is no such thing as an original sin which drastically changed the constitution of humans and which could therefore lead to physical and/or mental deformity without the active participation of the Muslim deity within the Islamic world-view). The Muslim deity has orchestrated circumstances so that from birth, some innocent individuals already experience the effects of certain evils (such as being born disabled, deformed, etc.). While it is the case that there is the possibility that granting all this, some individuals may truly come to love Allah and this is certainly well and good. Yet, for those who would resent him because of this fact, no charge could be laid against them for the injustice lies squarely with Allah. The test is unfair when one is set up to fail from the very beginning.

Another example would be that of homosexuality. In general, Muslims believe that Allah does not cause people to be born homosexuals in part because to then blame them for succumbing to the very desires he embedded within them would be unjust. Yet According to Islam, Allah regularly causes individuals to be born with extreme deformities for no other reason than to test them and yet if they resent him for this injustice the Muslim deity still considers himself to be in a position to judge these very people. Evidently, the problem with Islam is that if the Muslim is at all to be consistent, they would realize that Allah is also the originator of evil and regularly punishes people for what often stems from the very evil that he brought into being.

In light of the above, all which the rational individual can say of the Muslim deity is to echo the words of the Old Testament, “You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Daniel 5:27).

8 responses

  1. A very brief post, I will definitely get back to you on this one, sorry I haven’t been posting much lately but I will get it together and rejoin this argument.


    November 13, 2011 at 11:10 PM

    • No worries. I haven’t been very active either to be honest. Real life is rather hectic. In any case, I’ll await your response.

      November 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM

  2. islam is my deen

    i have this urge to write this too you are very narrow minded. And for your information Allah is the most omni benevolent. By scanning through your blog someone would mistake you for an athiest. And while your there understand that islam condemns homosexuality hence why adam and eve were the first people on earth which portrays that 1 man and 1 woman not homosexuality. But it seems like im talking to a wall you seem obnoxious.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    • Greetings,

      I’m glad that you have decided to respond by way of a comment and would encourage you to continue doing so in the future. Now to be perfectly honest, you have presented me with nothing but unsupported claims. Allah is not omni-benevolent—in fact his love is really quite limited. He hates all non-Muslims and calls them “the worst of creatures” in Surah 98:6 and never once says that he loves non-Muslims. There is more that could be said on the subject but I will simply direct you to this article.

      God bless,


      February 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

  3. Islam is my deen

    i dont feel like i need to support you with claims i’m not insecure about my religion

    its like educating the mind without educating the heart which is no education at all

    and if you educated yourself you would understand that Muslims believe in the old Bible. Not the new bible due to the fact that it has been distorted by others opinions and interpretations

    btw are you an athiest or christian?

    February 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM

    • Greetings again,

      To be honest, I’m having trouble making any sense of your comments to me but all in the hope of better understanding one another, I’ll continue this little discussion of ours. Now, you say that you don’t need to support your claims at all and this certainly won’t do. In a discussion, one simply cannot go off and make completely unsupported claims and think themselves to have given a cogent argument—I’m sorry but things simply don’t work that way. This has nothing to do with being insecure or anything of the sort, but rather due to honesty and intellectual credibility. It is a tad frustrating to see that you’re quite happy with providing baseless arguments simply for the sake of finding something to say.

      To answer your question, I’m a Christian (and am somewhat surprised that this wasn’t immediately clear from the article).

      The rest of your comment is not worth responding to. I would hope that your next reply will actually deal with the above blog post (for I am quite willing to discuss things which are in fact on-topic) instead of whatever it is that we have been caught up in so far.

      God bless.

      February 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

  4. islam is my deen

    watch this you should reach your conclusion on that context of jihad

    [link removed]

    February 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM

    • Greetings again. I’m going to remove the video in your comment because it simply has nothing to do with the above post. Where at all do you see me talking about jihad in the above? Once again, can you please focus on what I have written?

      February 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.