A Dialogue With A Saudi Muslim

St Francis Magazine Nr. 2 Vol.
II (September 2006)
A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim

A dialogue in ten parts about
Islam, the Muslim World and the Western World
between
James M. Arlandson and Soliman H. alBut'he
This series of debates was first published on www.americanthinker.com and on

www.answeringislam.org. It is used here with permission of the author, James
Arlandson.
James Arlandson, Ph.D., teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in southern
California. He has published a book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-
Acts (Hendrickson, 1997).
St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 1

www.stfrancismagazine.info - www.interserve.org - www.arabvision.org
St Francis Magazine Nr. 2 Vol. II (September 2006)
A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim (1)
James M. Arlandson
On April 3, 2005 Mr. Soliman al-Buthe (aka AlBut’hi), a Saudi Wahabi, wrote me a
letter in order to open a dialogue. Included was An Open Letter to Congress, in which he
explained a gentler and kinder Wahabi movement that began in the eighteenth century by
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul al-Wahab, a Hanbalist scholar. Mr. al-Buthe says that Wahabism
is a fundamentalist reform movement that that seeks to return to a purer Islam. This
movement is no threat to America or the world.
After a series of email in which he said that he is in contact with Saudi scholars and that I
should respond to his ideas, we decided to correspond in the following format:
1. The basis of our dialogue is his Open Letter to Congress (in bold font). The endnotes
can be read at the links to the Letter, provided at the fourth step, just below.
2. I (JA) will ask questions and seek explanations in each section of his Open Letter to
Congress.
3. Mr. al-But’he (SaB) will respond.
4. Finally, I provide a comment, where relevant. I have also asked some scholars and
colleagues to contribute their ideas, at this stage.
JA: For links to the Letter without our comments and dialogue, the readers can go here or
here.
SaB:
We are pleased to engage in this kind of dialogue with people like you. We believe that
this kind of exchange of ideas has become a necessity in a world in which relations
among peoples are becoming manifold and getting stronger. Only values which are truly
universal -- in the sense of being acceptable to human beings as human beings -- will
come to survive.
We also believe that that kind of exchange of ideas is possible, and becomes more fruitful
if it is based on standards shared by all of humanity. We all believe in reason, in moral
values like truthfulness and honesty, in empirical facts, and in preferring what is more
beneficial and useful. With people like you we share something more: a belief in God.
It is on shared grounds like these that our dialogue should be based. We will not be able
to argue with each other if each of us takes for granted some standards that the other does
not accept. On our side, we are Arabs and Muslims with an intellectual history that is
different from yours, a history in which your European Enlightenment played no role. We
believe in reason and emphatically do not believe that one must be a product of the
Enlightenment to be rational or to scrutinize claims that are offered for belief.
Humankind has been exercising this skepticism throughout history; if Europeans did do
so prior to the Enlightenment perhaps that was because of some situation peculiar to
Western religious or intellectual history. In any event, we do not believe that Islam
should be judged by Enlightenment or any other standards that are peculiar to a certain
civilization at a particular time in its history. If one must resort to Enlightenment
standards, one should select only those in which it is sincerely believed that all rational
humans will accept.
An Open Letter From a Saudi Wahabi To Members of the 109th U.S. Congress
Author: Soliman AlBut’hi
Dated: 02/03/2005
Dear Members of the 109th U.S. Congress:
With God’s Name, Who is the Most Merciful, the Dispenser of Mercy.
Since September 11, 2001, your distinguished body on many occasions has discussed
the issue of "Wahabiism" and the threat it perceives to pose to the United States.
The desire to ensure the security of one’s nation is understood and admirable;
however, I believe (along with many of my fellow countrymen) that in pursuing this
noble objective, both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its religious teachings and
practices have been unfairly misrepresented and maligned. It is in this spirit that I
humbly submit this Open Letter to the Members of the 109th Congress.
I believe that in the interest of sound policymaking, I must provide you with our
perspective on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and our religious practices in as
concise and helpful means possible. My particular concern is that those who have
testified before the various committees have included many whose opposition to so-
called "Wahabi" doctrines is purely ideological and, more important, not grounded
in fact. This only deepens our suspicion that, in attempting to achieve your aim of
national security, Congress is being manipulated by those who seek to further their
own agendas even at the expense of the United States’ true national interest. And
the attacks are not limited to the halls of Congress; unjustified attacks on both the
Kingdom and its religion are now being published in your most prestigious media
with the purpose that long-term public opinion be turned against Kingdom, its
peoples, and religion.
I believe that people in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should engage in an honest
and candid dialogue with the citizens of the United States and their representatives.
In this spirit I have written this letter. I hope to inform its readers and clear up any
misunderstandings that they might have regarding the religious teachings in today’s
Saudi Arabia.
Although I have addressed this letter from a Saudi "Wahabi," I first must point out
that nobody in this country’s religious mainstream would refer to themselves by this
name. Indeed, such a term is often used as a pejorative and is considered offensive;
instead, we refer to ourselves simply as Muslims. In the end, I hope that this open
letter will be the start of a continuing and fruitful dialogue between our people.
JA: I start off with my own explanation and response to this section of the Open Letter.
You write that "unjustified attacks on the Kingdom and on its religion are now being
published in your most prestigious media with the purpose that long-term public opinion
be turned against Kingdom, its peoples, and religion." You indicated in your email to me
that you have read my articles online. I admit that I have critiqued Islam as a religious
system, but I do not hold a grudge against the people of Saudi Arabia.
Here is my more specific explanation as to why I critique Islam as a religious system.

First, I am a product of the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), and personally I have been
trained in it. So I am merely following my training. If Islam is to survive in the West, it
must undergo close scrutiny and analysis.
SaB: We agree; but the same must apply to Christianity and all other beliefs and
ideologies currently advocated in the West.
Second, my own religion, Christianity, has been placed under the Enlightenment and
post-Enlightenment microscope for the past four hundred years, and Christianity has
survived remarkably intact. Therefore, I still have my own religious convictions, and
your religion ultimately conflicts with mine, as we shall see below. Hence, I am
responding to Muhammad’s challenge that he has perfected religion (Sura 5:3) and that
the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) have walked in darkness until your prophet
came (Sura 5:15-16). I do not believe that his claims are true for these top ten reasons and
for simple logic. So following Enlightenment principles, I will continue my hard-hitting
critique of your religion in a fact-based way, not in a mean-spirited way.
SaB: Has it? Many people in the West, even in the US, state otherwise.
1. Your Biblical scholars admit that there are many contradictions in your New
Testament, contradictions among the four Gospels as well as within each one of
them.
2. They also tell us of the existence of factual mistakes in the Gospels. It is because
of this that only a few, called the fundamentalists, still believe that the Bible is the
word of God in the literal sense. The majority of "Christians" concede that the
Bible was written by ordinary people who were influenced by the prevailing
culture of their time. It is because of this that the West does not, as we do, take its
holy book’s statements seriously.
3. Westerners throw much doubt on the historical authenticity of the Bible. It is
certainly not the literal word of Jesus Christ. There is no Bible in the original
language of Jesus, and Westerners do not even know who made the first

translation of the four Gospels. Indeed, Westerners know almost nothing about
the writers of those gospels.
4. The central idea of what is called Christianity today is that Jesus is the son of
God. But many Westerners now admit that this concept is full of contradictions
(please see The Nicene Creed and Truth about the Trinity); in those admissions
they repeat a premise that the Qur’an posited a long time ago. It is because of this
problem that many Christians now reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God.
And it appears that it is precisely because of this situation, among other things,
that many former Christians are coming into the fold of Islam.
Here are a few examples of such contradictions:
a. You describe God as being the Father of Jesus, but if a Westerner is told
that He cannot be a father since He has no spouse (as the Qur'an argues),
some retort by saying that, since God can do any thing, why can't He
create a child without a mother? Indeed He can; He created Adam without
father or mother. But we are not talking here about God as creator; we are
talking about Him as being father, and about Jesus as being His only
begotten son according to mainstream Christianity. If, then, God a father
of Jesus He cannot be his creator, for one does not create rather; a son is
begotten by a mother and not created by her or His father.
b. Some Westerners reply by saying: "But you are taking the words father
and son literally. We don't mean them to be literal." When, however, the
same Westerners are asked to give their non-literal meaning they fall into
another contradiction. "… a spiritual in which Jesus was submissive and
obedient to God as His Heavenly Father." It is important to understand
that through this careful definition of son-ship that Christians agree with
the statements in the Qur’an that God has no partners (a physical wife or
physical son); rather, Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that the Qur'an
refers to Him as the Word of God and the Spirit of God -- in the sense of a
spiritual relationship. Son of God is a title reflecting this relationship."
(Please see Why do Christians Call Jesus the Son of God). But Word of
God in the Qur'an refers to the word "Be!," as the result of which
something comes into existence. The Qur'an emphasizes that fact that
Jesus, like any one and any thing else, was created by God, that he is not
his child, Qur'an 019: 35-36 "It befits not (the Majesty of God) that He
should take to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. When He decrees a thing,
He only says to it; Be! And it becomes".
In this sense everything is the Word of God. It is not something peculiar to

Jesus. One of our great and famous scholars put it succinctly by saying,
"Jesus is not the Be!, but it was by the Be! that he came to be"
c. Western dictionaries tell us that, "In modern English usage, the Son of
God is almost always a reference to Jesus Christ, whom Christianity holds
to be the son of the Christian God, eternally begotten of God the Father

and coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit" Does that
make any sense to you? If something is begotten, it has a beginning. How
can something be eternally beginning?
d. "The virginal conception, by excluding human fatherhood, affirms that
Jesus' only father is the heavenly Father and that the Son's being born in
time reflects his eternal birth: the Father, who begot the Son in eternity,
also begets him in time as a man." (Please see Pope John Paul II, Eternal
Son of God is also Born of Mary). Again, does this make any sense at all?
e. Jesus, the son of God, was according to your belief crucified by some
human beings. How can some one who is even half-divine be killed?
f. Also, if something has no beginning, is eternal, it cannot have an end,
even for seconds. This is a matter of logic.
5. In reviewing Bernard Lewis’s book, the Crisis of Islam, Robert Louis Wilken has
this advice for Christians and Jews:
… but as Western societies abandon traditional patterns of religious life—for

example, Sunday as a holy day—and dismantle such traditional institutions as
marriage, one wonders whether Christians (and Jews) should join the chorus of
those urging Muslims to set out on the path taken by Western Civilization since
the Enlightenment. (Please see Robert Louis Wilken, Roots of Jihad, First Things
136 (October 2003): 671.)
6. In a recent article Albert Mohler tells us about some of the things that happened to
Christianity after the Enlightenment:
As the 20th century began, this accommodation became increasingly evident as

the church acquiesced to a culture of moral individualism.
…In the wake of the Enlightenment, criticism of the Bible and the doctrines of
evangelical orthodoxy was widespread. Even the most conservative
denominations began to show evidence of decreased attention to theological
orthodoxy. … …
The theological category of sin has been replaced, in many circles, with the
psychological concept of therapy… Sex is on the loose. Shame days are over…
… Homosexuality is not condemned, even though it is clearly condemned in the
Bible. To the contrary, homosexuals get a special caucus at the denominational
assembly and their own publications and special rights. (Please see The
Disappearance of Church Discipline--How Can We Recover? Part One.)

JA: Greetings. I am finally getting back to you after a long time. I have been occupied
with posting articles on various issues.
I must admit that when I got your response (in green), I was disappointed. Your Open
Letter to Congress has nothing to do with abstract theology, so I decided to dialogue with
you. Most people want to know how to live to the fullest. They really do not care about
these doctrinal disputes or differences.
However, I now attempt to reply to your points, following your sequence of issues.
Points 1-3
Is the Bible reliable and accurate?
Your first three points call into question the reliability and authenticity of the Bible. You
say that Bible scholars admit there are many contradictions in it. You link to "Sullivan
County." I am not sure who the webmaster is, but he does not seem to be a reputable
scholar. In any case, these harsh critics of the Bible exist. This is the unpleasant part of
the Enlightenment. When or if an equally demanding Enlightenment hits Islamic
countries, the Quran will undergo such criticism (see the very next section). However, I
can find equally reputable scholars who say that the Bible is reliable and accurate.
For example, these two high-level scholars from an earlier generation, F. F. Bruce, citing
Sir Frederic Kenyon, conclude the following:
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose
authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS [manuscripts] was second to none:
"The interval then between the data of original composition and the earliest extant
evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt
that the Scripture have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been
removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New
Testament may be regarded as finally established." (Source)
These two current scholars reach the same conclusion:
The overwhelming majority of the text of the Greek New Testament is firmly established.
Where uncertainties remain, in no case is any doctrinal matter at issue. (D.A. Carson and
Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Zondervan, 2005, p. 30)
Is the Quran pure and uncorrupted?

By criticizing the Bible, you allow me to challenge the Quran. Muslims believe that it
reached earth from Allah in an uncorrupted state and remained that way. However, plain
facts contradict this belief. Here are four examples, which could be multiplied.
First, this hadith from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and editor of hadith) says that
Uthman burned different versions of the Quran.
. . . ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and
ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts
or whole copies, be burnt. (Bukhari)
It is one thing to prepare the final version (if one exists of the Quran), but burning
alternate versions? This is wrong. What was Uthman afraid of?
Second, this hadith says that the Quran was recited seven different ways:
Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him
(to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he
recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways." (Bukhari;
and see the longer hadith below this one.)
Would these seven recitations produce different version of the Quran? Other hadiths (see
the linked articles, below) reveal that four different reciters spoke the Quran in different
versions. Is this why Uthman was so anxious to burn the different versions? For more
information see this article and this one.
Third, a sound hadith from Sahih Muslim says that an entire sura (chapter), which had
over a hundred verses, is missing from the Quran.
. . . We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at
[Sura 9, which has 129 verses]. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this
which I remember out of it:" If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam,
he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam
but dust." (Muslim no. 2286; see the four hadiths above this one)
Fourth and finally, this is an interesting modern discovery: a "buried" version of the
Quran.
In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers
working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across a
remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time . . . in this case the
resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a
thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. In some
pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be
removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of

the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the
scripture will be read . . .
Since the early 1980s more than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Korans have painstakingly
been flattened, cleaned, treated, sorted, and assembled; they now sit ("preserved for
another thousand years," Puin says) in Yemen's House of Manuscripts, awaiting detailed
examination. That is something the Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow,
however. "They want to keep this thing low-profile, as we do too, although for different
reasons," Puin explains. "They don't want attention drawn to the fact that there are
Germans and others working on the Korans. They don't want it made public that there is
work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said
about the Koran's history was said a thousand years ago." (Source)
Why won’t the authorities allow its publication? What are they hiding?
Please see this webpage that has many links to articles and hadiths on the corruptibility of
the Quran. I wrote this article explaining that Muhammad borrows from the apocryphal
gospels even though he claims explicitly that he received this specific information about
events in young Mary’s life (and, by extension, in young Jesus’ life) from revelation
alone (Sura 3:44). It is true that a few New Testament authors borrow a line or two from
non-Christian Greek poets, but they never claimed that they got this specific information
only from Gabriel or only from a heightened state of ecstatic revelatory and sweaty
inspiration.
Does culture influence sacred texts?
Next, you say in point no. 2 that "the Bible was written by ordinary people who were
influenced by the prevailing culture of their time." Apparently, you believe that this is
abnormal and calls into question the reliability of the Bible, as if culture taints it. You
seem to imply that the Quran was not influenced by its prevailing seventh-century culture
in Arabia. In reply, however, by criticizing the Bible in this way, I am permitted to point
out the obvious about the Quran. The implication that the Quran has not been influenced
by culture is simply not true. For example, Sura 5:38 says that the male or female thief
should have his or her hand cut off. Ibn Kathir, a respected classical commentator, says
the following about the gruesome punishment and its cultural origins:
Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During
the time of Jahiliyyah [ignorance before Islam], this was also the punishment for the
thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. (Tafir Ibn Kathir (abridged), translated and
edited by Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2000, vol. 3, p. 172)
So it seems, after all, that the Quran does not rise above its own culture, but retains a
severe punishment.
Also, Muhammad raided Meccan caravans. He was following his culture, which engaged
in this practice all the time. The Quran in the Medinan suras that often call for war
reflects Muhammad’s Sunnah, which in turn reflects seventh-century Arabia (see Sura 8
in its entirety, which deals with the Battle of Badr, merely another raid, but on a larger
scale).
Point 4a-f
In these subpoints you ask a flurry of questions and throw in many terms and concepts.
So this section of my reply is the longest.
What does "begetting" mean?
Your challenges about this term rest on old ideas, not modern research. The Greek word
at issue (see for example John 3:16) is monogenês. Traditionally, this has been translated
as "only begotten." However, new lexical research in the twentieth century on this word
in the ancient Greek world concludes that the second half of the word (-genês) does not
refer to "beget," but to "class" or "kind." Now when we add mono- back to -genês, the
word most accurately means "one-of-a-kind" or "unique" or "in a class by itself or
himself."
In relation to the Sonship of Jesus, the most accurate meaning reads: "one-of-a-kind Son"
or "unique Son" or "the Son in a class by himself." This is why the translation called the
New International Version (NIV) has in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he
gave his one and only [monogenês] Son." The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
has for the same verse . . . "only [monogenês] Son." And the margin of the New
American Standard Bible (NASB) reads: "unique, only one of His kind" for the same
Greek word.
Thus, the notion of "begetting" is removed from the Sonship of Jesus, and so are the
complications that you raise. Jesus is the one-of-a-kind Son who is in a class all by
himself. He is not begotten, except possibly in the context of his resurrection and
exaltation after his ascension (see Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, which quote Psalm 2:7
that speaks of a coronation, an apt description of Christ’s ascension). He has lived
eternally with the Father, without beginning. This is simple. This brings us back directly
to the inspired New Testament, without having to appeal to and depend on later human
opinions.
Source: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 2000), pp. 1233-34.
See this webpage that in turn links to other articles on the issue of "begotten."
However, you seem to question the theology of some theologians and Christians
("mainstream Christians" is your wording). Perhaps you mean those in early church
Councils (e.g. Nicea in AD 325), such as Athanasius, (d. 373), or specifically Pope John
Paul II (your point no. 4d); the members of the Council of Nicea seem to have understood
monogenês as containing the idea of "begotten." Therefore, allow me to explain the term

in three steps, assuming, only for the sake of discussion, that "begotten" really is
contained in the Greek word.
First, words may take on different meanings and nuances in different contexts. For
example, the word "apology" in one context means an expression of remorse or regret, or
an admission of error. Thus, "I offer an apology for offending you." But in another
context "apology" can mean defense. "I offer an apology of my religion." These two
meanings (admission of errors vs. defense against errors) go in opposite directions. This
shows how fluid language and even one word can be, from one context to the next.
Second, this fluidity can be applied to "begotten." It can have different meanings or
nuances, depending on the context. Down here on earth, "begotten" has a temporal
meaning. A man begets a son, who has a beginning. However, in the eternal realm, where
God lives, the word takes on the quality of eternity. This means that the Father’s
begetting of the Son of God does not have a beginning. This unique relationship between
Father and Son has always existed from eternity past and will exist into eternity future,
according to the full teaching of the entire New Testament.
Third, you require me to explain the words of a much greater Christian and theologian
than myself—the late Pope John Paul II. You quote him in your point no. 4d, and ask me
if his words make sense to me. They do, and here is my explanation, tentatively.
You quote Pope John Paul II as follows:
"The virginal conception, by excluding human fatherhood, affirms that Jesus' only father
is the heavenly Father and that the Son's being born in time reflects his eternal birth: the
Father, who begot the Son in eternity, also begets him in time as a man."
If I understand this man of God, he seems to create an analogy. (Note the word "reflects,"
as in proposition A reflects or is similar to proposition B.) It compares the Father-Son
relationship in the eternal realm (heaven) and this same relationship in the temporal realm
(earth). The eternal "begetting" without beginning "reflects" the earthly "begetting" when
Jesus takes on his humanity, by the Spirit of God, in the womb of Mary. In both contexts,
the Father begets the Son. But all analogies are imperfect, so we should not take this one
too far. Essential doctrines should not be based on them. It seems merely that the Pope
discusses the Father-Son relationship in its unique and one-of-a-kind mode because it
existed in heaven before Jesus was born of Mary, and it still exists in heaven after Jesus’
ascension back into heaven after his resurrection.
These two realms (heaven and earth) resolve the alleged contradictions that you raise in
the word "begetting." On earth it has a beginning. In heaven it does not have a beginning,
but it is eternal, in the unique and eternal Father-Son relationship, according to the full
teaching of the New Testament.
But please note: This quick comment on the late Pope’s ideas is only tentative, not
authoritative.
However, I believe that the idea of "begetting" is excluded from monogenês, so for me
the complexities do not exist. Jesus is the eternal Son of God without beginning. He has
always existed alongside the Father, sharing the same substance, essence, and being.
See my article on the Trinity here, which links to many other articles.
Does the Quran have a mysterious mother?
Now let’s throw a challenge about the Quran at you and your fellow scholars. By
criticizing Christian doctrine (which is not part of your original Open Letter to Congress),
you allow me to challenge Islamic doctrine. What happens if we take a literal reading of
some passages about Allah and the Quran? Does the Quran have a mysterious mother? I
have edited this excerpt from two colleagues at answeringislam.org.
Incidentally, the Saudi authorities have blocked this Christian site from entering the
internet in your country. This is odd. If Islam is so awesome and it contains the Final and
Best Revelation, then what is your government hiding from your fellow citizens? It seems
that they would remain within Islam no matter what this Christian website teaches. The
Truth of Islam would keep them in.
In any case, Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz write about the assertion in the Quran that
Allah must have a wife or consort in order to produce a son or an offspring. They begin:
The Holy Bible often calls Jesus the Son of God and states that God is his Father, titles or
expressions denoting a purely spiritual relationship between God and Christ. These terms
have absolutely no sexual or carnal overtones whatsoever, i.e. they do not imply that God
had sex with a woman (specifically Mary) who then gave birth to Jesus his Son.
The Quran, however, assumes that the only way for God to be the Father of Jesus (or of
anyone else) is through sexual procreation, that God can only become a Father by having
a wife with whom he has sex. This is the main argument of the Quran against believing
that God has a Son.
The Quran emphatically states:
And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely
attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly
exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and
the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created
everything, and He is the Knower of all things. S. 6:100-101 Shakir
...
The argument looks like this, in modus tollens form [denying the consequent or the
"then" clause in premise one]:

(1) If Allah has a son, then he must have (had sex with) a consort or wife.
(2) Allah does not have a consort (i.e. this is impossible for whatever reason).
(3) Therefore the claim that Allah has a son is refuted.
Now let’s apply the same unsound logic to the Quran and its mysterious mother.
Shamoun and Katz continue:
There are several places where the Quran makes mention of the "mother of the book"
(omm al-kitab), and in one place the Quran even claims that this is where it originated:
God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book
(ommu alkitabi). S. 13:39 Y. Ali
Verily, we have made it an Arabic Qur'an; haply ye will have some sense. And it is in the
Mother of the Book (ommi alkitabi) with Us,- high and wise. S. 43:3-4 Palmer
The mother of the book which contains the Quran is with God, an important point for our
discussion as we shall shortly see. In another place it is said that the Quran’s clear verses
are actually "the mother of the book":
He it is who has revealed to thee the Book, of which there are some verses that are
decisive, they are the mother of the Book (ommu alkitabi); and others ambiguous; but as
for those in whose hearts is perversity, they follow what is ambiguous, and do crave for
sedition, craving for (their own) interpretation of it; but none know the interpretation of it
except God. But those who are well grounded in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; it is all
from our Lord; but none will remember save those who possess minds. S. 3:7 Palmer
Hence, the Quran originates from the mother of the book and its clear verses are the
mother of the book, which means that the Quran has at least two mothers!
Now if the logic of the Quran is true, then this means that the mother of the book has a
spouse with whom she has sex. After all, how can she be a mother, or have any children,
if she has no husband, no spouse? We can even reword Sura 6:101 in the following
manner:
Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could She (this unknown
mysterious woman) be the Quran’s mother if she has no consort…?
But since this mysterious woman does have offspring [the Quran], then she must have a
husband, and here is where the real problem lies for Muslims: Since the Quran is believed
to be the word of Allah, which makes him the source of the Quran, then this means that
Allah is its father and the husband of the Quran’s mother! And since Muslims believe
that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, then this means that its mother is also
uncreated. The Quran cannot exist before its mother which means that if the Quran is
eternal then so is its mother, also implying that Allah has always been married! After all,

whose wife could the Quran’s mother be if Allah is the only other entity that existed
before creation?
Again, note the logic behind this:
(4) If the Quran has a mother, then the Quran must be an offspring.
(5) But if the Quran is an offspring, then it must have a mother and a father.
(6) If it has a mother and a father, then they must have had sex to produce the offspring.
(7) Suras 13:39, 43:3-4, and 3:7 say that the Quran indeed has a mother.
(8) Therefore, its mother and father must have had sex.
(9) Hence, the best candidate for the father and the mother of the Quran is Allah and an
eternal mysterious mother with whom he had sex.
The readers should be able to see from our brief critique and examination why the
Quran’s claim that God cannot have children is seriously flawed. If God can have
children only through sexual intercourse, by having a wife, then the Quran is in grave
trouble [because of] this fallacious logic . . .
The Muslim will obviously contend that the expressions "mother of," "son of" are not
being used in a physical, sexual sense, but in a purely metaphorical or spiritual sense, at
least in these specific citations. The Muslim may argue that sexual activity is not
necessary to be a child or parent in the sense intended by these various Quranic
references. These terms can carry a broader range of meaning than merely the physical,
carnal one and the context must therefore determine the specific application.
But this explanation only proves that the Quran is wrong and its reasoning is invalid.
After all, if it is possible for someone to be a parent or child in a way that doesn’t require
sexual procreation, then this means it is also possible for God to be a spiritual parent
without having to engage in sex or needing a physical wife. This basically means that it
doesn’t follow from the Quran's premises that God must have a wife or engage in sexual
activity in order to be a father or have a son; and since he has no sexual relations and has
no wife he cannot, therefore, be a parent.
The Quran’s argument against God’s Fatherhood or Christ’s Sonship is flat out wrong . . .
Here is the correct understanding, in a logically valid chain argument, which the Quran
completely misses:
(10) If God is Spirit (John 4:24), then he did not have to have sex with a consort or a wife
to be a Father.
(11) If Father God did not have to have sex with a consort or wife, then he has a
nonphysical, spiritual, and eternal relationship with his offspring.
(12) The Word of God says that God is Spirit.
(13) Therefore, he has a nonphysical, spiritual, and eternal relationship with his
offspring—the Son of God, the blessed and holy Lord Jesus. (Source)

Here is my concluding comment on the entire excerpt. This is what happens when we
take things too literally. The Quran does not literally have a mother who had sexual
relations with Allah; in the same way the eternal Father was not required to have sex to
"beget" the eternal Son of God. Therefore, we should not take our sacred texts too
literally.
Why do millions of Africans leave Islam and convert to Christianity?
You write in point no. 4 that the complexities about the Sonship of Christ may drive
some Christians "into the fold of Islam." In reply, however, this may be true for some
people, but I do not believe that most ordinary people are concerned about abstract
doctrines. Instead, they want to know how to live in peace, and this is what Islam is all
about, isn’t it?
This desire to live life without harassment may explain why six million African Muslims
are leaving Islam and converting to Christianity each year.
Islam is a burdensome, severe, and harsh religion. The following legal decrees, policies,
and practices demonstrate Islam’s excesses. They go outside of mere verbal assertions
and mental beliefs and high-minded theology. Every one of them comes from the Quran
itself, followed by chapter and verse.
• Anyone who accuses someone else of sexual sin must bring four witnesses; if not,
the accuser gets eighty lashes (24:4);
• Husbands are a degree above their wives in status (2:228); reliable hadiths say
that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women due only because of their
"harshness and ingratitude," not because of their numerical majority around the
globe;
• A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female (4:11);
• A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony because she may "forget"
(2:282). Reliable hadiths say this law is based on the "deficiency of a woman’s
mind";
• A man may divorce his wife merely if he says "I divorce you" three times (2:229).
This verse is baffling because it does not say explicitly "three times." But Islamic
law interprets it in this way.
• A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they
have sex, and then this second man divorces her (2:230);
• Muhammad has special marriage privileges (as many women as he desires),
which only he enjoys (33:50);
• A Muslim man may be polygamous with up to four wives (4:3);
• Muhammad gets twenty percent from his seventy-four raids and wars in ten years
in Medina (8:1, 41);
• Muhammad bought off converts (9:60);
• Husbands may hit their wife or wives (4:34);
• Mature men may marry and consummate their marriage with prepubescent girls
(65:4);

• Slavery is endorsed: Muhammad himself traded in slaves and owned black slaves;
and Muslim men may have sex with slave-girls (4:24; 47:4; 23:5-6; 70:29-30);
• Sexual sinners must be whipped a hundred times (24:2), and sound hadiths say
adulterers and homosexuals must be executed;
• Critics of Islam and Muslims may be killed (33:59-61);
• The Quran endorses and celebrates the massacre of Jewish men and pubescent
boys and the enslavement of the women and children (33:25-27);
• Jihadists buy status in this life and in the afterlife (4:74; 4:95-96; 9:38-44, 86-87,
and 111; 61:10-11);
• Polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula had to convert or die (9:5);
• Muhammad is the first to lunch his own Crusade long before western Europeans
responded with their own (9:29).
This list is all about physical acts here on earth, not about abstract doctrines like
"begetting." These acts and legal decrees can be measured and evaluated with our own
eyes and sound reason, and how do they come out? Not very well, to say the least.
Further, it may be fairly asked: Did Jesus and his Apostles and the New Testament
authors say or do these things? Not even close. Therefore, if a Christian wants to enter
into "the fold of Islam," then that is his prerogative. But maybe this list will tell him that
abstract doctrines per se do not harm or maim or kill people. But the implementation of
this list does exactly that.
If you or the readers suspect that these verses have been taken out of context, you and
they may click on the following articles that in turn have long and several supporting
articles behind each item on the list:
Why I don’t convert to Islam

Top ten reasons why Islam is not the religion of peace
Top ten reasons why Islamic law is bad for all societies
Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women.
Does the Old Testament command some severe punishments? Yes, but go here to find
out why they no longer apply in the New Testament.
Can someone even half-divine be killed?
Finally, you ask this question as if the answer is self-evident (point no. 4e). Indeed, this is
easy to answer, but not in a way that satisfies certain Muslims. I see nothing in divinity
that precludes the Ultimate Sacrifice, if and only if the Deity willingly and voluntarily
lays down his life.
Jesus himself says that he did not come to earth to be served and pampered:
. . . The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a
ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
In these next two verses he says that he willingly lays down his life.
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.18
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it
down and authority to take it up again (John 10:17-18)
Christianity does not put God so far up in heaven that he lives in a silver box or golden
cage, isolated. It is risky to assert that God cannot do something. Limiting the limitless
Deity is misguided. I believe that the Son of God freely choosing to step down in time
and space is the most blessed doctrine in all of Christian theology. He did this out of his
good will and his powerful love. I would never give up this miracle and historical reality.
It benefits humanity greatly.
Thus, for me, there is nothing inherent in God’s nature that blocks him from stepping
down into time and space, showing us a better way and redeeming us and offering us the
gift of eternal life with him. Nothing inherent in his nature? If someone has a prior belief
that God could not do this, then what is his starting point for his belief? The Quran? But
the New Testament says that the Incarnation happened. So we have two sacred texts that
have competing doctrines.
How do we break the deadlock? For me, the answer is not found in abstract theology, but
in practical matters down here on earth. And the long list of policies taken from the
Quran in the previous section and the four linked articles (that support the list) resolve the
conflict and answer the debate. If Islam and its foundation—the Quran—are harsh and
excessive in practical matters, then why should I listen to the Quran in abstract doctrines?
I don’t listen to it.
Points 5 and 6
Is the Enlightenment perfect?
These two points indicate that there is a negative or a downside to the Enlightenment.
You quote Robert Louis Wilken’s book review of Bernard Lewis’ Crisis of Islam. Maybe
Islamic countries should avoid the Enlightenment, he says. In reply, no one says that the
Enlightenment does not bring a backlash. The movement was huge and diverse. It has a
sting in it, perhaps many stings. But I believe that the benefits outweigh the liabilities,
especially in politics and plain, everyday life. The above list (see "Why do millions leave
Islam?") explains how the Enlightenment can help Islam, in practical areas. We do not
need revelations in a holy book that was too deeply influenced by its seventh-century
Arab culture in its laws and policies. We can use sound reason to figure out how to divide
an inheritance between a male and female, or why husbands should never hit their
wives—at any time or in any circumstance, or why marrying and having sex with
prepubescent girls is wrong at all times.
Does Islam deal effectively with sexual sinners?

Next, you quote Dr. Albert Mohler, who laments a lack of church discipline and the
aggressive homosexual agenda in America.
In reply, though I do not know Dr. Mohler, I have heard him on the radio. He is allowed
to preach righteousness to society and influence public policy, especially church policy.
But I can guarantee you that he would not advocate executing homosexuals. But the
prophet of Islam did this.
First, the Sunan Abu Dawud says that Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam
and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals:
. . . "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to
whom it is done" (no. 4447).
The next one below no. 4447 says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should
be stoned to death:
"Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be
stoned to death" (no. 4448).
Third and finally, in the hadith collection Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that
brings together other hadith collections, your prophet prescribes the punishments of being
burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on guilty homosexuals:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who
does what Lot’s people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that
Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr
[Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Trans. James
Robson, Prescribed Punishments, vol. 1, p. 765)
For more information on Islam’s and Christianity’s policies on homosexuality, go to this

article.
I do not deny that the West has not reached moral perfection. The West indeed has its
share of problems. However, you seem to believe that without the Enlightenment of any
kind and with Islam’s guidance in a society, problems vanish away. But this webpage has
further links to homosexual activity in Saudi Arabia, the land of the two Holy Mosques
(in Mecca and Medina).
To cite only one specific example from the previous webpage, on April 7, 2005, it was
reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for "gay
conduct."
On or about March 26, a Jeddah court, meeting in a closed session in which defense
attorneys were excluded, sentenced 31 of the men to prison for six months to one year,
and to 200 lashes each, for unreported offenses. Four other men received two years’
imprisonment and 2,000 lashes. Police released more than 70 of the men not long after
their initial arrest; reports in the Saudi press suggested that personal contacts with the
government had intervened on their behalf. However, on April 3, police summoned the
70 men back to a local police station and informed them that they had been sentenced to
one year’s imprisonment.
Is whipping and executing and imprisoning sinners in order to force and impose external
righteousness the best policy? "If only we could catch and punish more sinners, then we
could teach them a lesson! Then the others will straighten up! We could eliminate the
problem! In fact, let’s kill them after a judge orders their execution!" This seems to be the
yearning of many Muslims whose ideas I read online or in print media. However, people
need to change from the inside out. Forcing holiness on to people does not work in the
long run and for everybody.
Conclusion
Mr. Al-Buthe, please consider this. You may believe that Saudi Arabia does not want nor
need all of the Enlightenment (even Islam’s own version—today—not a thousand years
ago), but the long list of practical policies (see "Why do millions leave Islam?" above)
tells me two things:
(1) The Quran absorbed too much of its culture. If it improved on seventh-century
Arabia, then it did not go far enough for a religion that claims universality.
(2) When a religion (church or mosque) becomes the government, it tends to oppress
people. It is better to let people live in freedom, even if they abuse it. That is the lesson of
history in the West. I admit that the West has gone too far in decadence, but if we cannot
strike the perfect balance between freedom and limitations, then surely you agree that
freedom is better than repression, don’t you? Then the citizens of your country can
breathe the fresh air of liberty without being harassed by religious police that stalk your
country.

Open Letter to Congress (continued):
History
Muslims believe that Islam is God’s final revelation to all of mankind sent via the
Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet was born in 570 CE in Mecca in what is now
Saudi Arabia. This message of Islam was sent as a continuation of the message sent
to all God’s Prophets and Messengers. The essence of that message is to worship
God alone and do good to one’s fellow man. It is a message that should resonate
strongly with Christians, for indeed the Bible reports that Jesus himself said,
"Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." At the time that Islam was
revealed, the Arabs were steeped in paganism, idolatry, and infanticide. As one of
the companions of Muhammad had explained to the Christian ruler of Abyssinia:
"We were a people in a state of ignorance and immorality, worshipping idols and
eating the flesh of dead animals; committing all sorts of abomination and shameful
deeds; breaking the ties of kinship; treating guests badly; and the strong among us
exploited the weak."
The companion then described what God had commanded His Prophet and
Muslims to "to worship Allah alone and to renounce the stones and the idols which
we and our ancestors used to worship besides Allah. He commanded us to speak the
truth, to honor our promises, to be kind to our relations; to be helpful to our
neighbors; to cease all forbidden acts, to abstain from bloodshed; to avoid
obscenities and false witness; not to appropriate an orphan's property nor slander
chaste women; He ordered us to worship God alone and not to associate anything
with him; to uphold prayer; to give alms and fast in the month of Ramadan." This
message of Islam spread throughout Arabia and then throughout the world, has
been embraced by people of all cultures and societies, and has brought forth one of
the great civilizations of human history.
JA: I will skip over the second paragraph that discusses Islam’s transformation of the
Arabian Peninsula and instead ask two questions about the first paragraph in this section.
1. You say that Islam is the final revelation for humankind. Does it ultimately complete
and fulfill Christianity (Sura 5:15-16)?
SaB:
Yes, indeed it does. But the Christianity that it completes and fulfills is the true Message
with which Jesus came. The verses you quoted state that the first thing that Islam does to
that message is to present it as it truly was.
2. Since Islam is the continuation of religions, is it the will of Allah that Islam must
spread around the world (Suras 61:9, 48:28, 9:33)?
SaB:
Yes, indeed;
a. Islam sees itself, as does contemporary Christianity, as the only means by which
mankind can be saved. As such, all Muslims are inspired by concern for their brothers in
humanity to spread this soul-saving message.
b. The requirement that Muslims spread their faith through argumentation and reason is
what God asserts in Qur'an 061:009 "He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the
guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however
much polytheists may be averse." This is what is happening in the world today; it is a
simple fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, including in the U.S.A.
c. We believe that Islam speaks for itself, that our charity and kindness and peace will
bring people to Islam. It is in fact forbidden even to attempt to force anyone to Islam. The
Qur’an tells us that there is no compulsion in religion. Why? Because Islam is based on a
faith that can only reside in the heart, and it is futile to force one to have that kind of
faith, Recent events have "forced" people to learn more about our religion, and this is the
reason you and others have questions, which is good. But the perpetrators who caused
those events were not acting as Muslims. Their actions are completely forbidden.
d. You believe as I do that our Creator is wise, generous and all-knowing. It is He, we all
believe, who is providing us with every thing that we need for the maintenance of our
biological life. But the Creator knows that it is more in virtue of our souls than our
bodies, that we are the human beings we are. He would not therefore neglect to provide
us with what we need for the welfare of our souls. This is why He has been sending
messengers to us to convey messages from Him that give us guidance on how to lead a
life acceptable to Him, and leading such a life makes us happy. When God sends a
message He must ensure that it be available to all who are interested in it and that it be
understood by them. Where is this message now? Muslims are the only people who even
claim that they are in possession of such a message. They have historical evidence that
the Qur’an that they are now reading is the same precise words that were revealed to the
Prophet Muhammad. Neither the Jews nor the Christians can make such a claim, a fact
that some biblical scholars admit.
JA: My comments on this part of our dialogue come in five numbered points.
(1) You write in answer to my first question on Islam fulfilling Christianity:
Yes, indeed it does. But the Christianity that it completes and fulfills is the true Message
with which Jesus came. The verses you quoted [Sura 5:15-16] state that the first thing
that Islam does to that message is to present it as it truly was.
Does Islam present the message of Jesus "as it truly was"? This implies that the Quran
corrects the New Testament, a common belief among Muslims. As we shall see in my
fifth point and in the Conclusion, below, the Quran itself is in need of correction—in fact,
the list, below, demonstrates this.
In your second paragraph of your Open Letter, you list some positive things that the
Quran commands, such as speaking the truth, honoring promises, being kind to relations,
being helpful to neighbors, abstaining from bloodshed, avoiding obscenities and false
witness, neither appropriating an orphan's property nor slandering chaste women, and so
on.
I acknowledge that many items on your list help society. Those positive commands are
good, but they are all found in Christian ethics, so the Quran does not bring anything new
in this regard. They are not areas of disagreement between us. However, one of the main
reasons why I have written my articles is to expose all of Islam to unsuspecting
Westerners and others. To withhold valuable information that clarifies all aspects of "the
final revelation" is wrong. But this is what I find Muslims frequently doing, as I read
their articles online or in the print media—leaving out the unpleasant and violent parts of
Muhammad’s Sunnah and his Quran.
I do not believe that Islam completes and fulfills Christianity. I have produced the
following list in Part Two, but since that part is so long and deals too often with abstract
doctrines, I repeat the list here. I do not want the readers to miss it.
• Anyone who accuses someone else of sexual sin must bring four witnesses; if not,
the accuser gets eighty lashes (24:4);
• Husbands are a degree above their wives in status (2:228); reliable hadiths say
that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women due only because of their
"harshness and ingratitude," not because of their numerical majority around the
globe;
• A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female (4:11);
• A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony because she may "forget"
(2:282). Reliable hadiths say this law is based on the "deficiency of a woman’s
mind";
• A man may divorce his wife merely if he says "I divorce you" three times (2:229).
This verse is baffling because it does not say explicitly "three times." But Islamic
law interprets it in this way.
• A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they
have sex, and then this second man divorces her (2:230);
• Muhammad has special marriage privileges (as many women as he desires),
which only he enjoys (33:50);
• A Muslim man may be polygamous with up to four wives (4:3);
• Muhammad gets twenty percent from his seventy-four raids and wars in ten years
in Medina (8:1, 41);
• Muhammad bought off converts (9:60);
• Husbands may hit their wife or wives (4:34);
• Mature men may marry and consummate their marriage with prepubescent girls
(65:4);

• Slavery is endorsed: Muhammad himself traded in slaves and owned black slaves;
and Muslim men may have sex with slave-girls (4:24; 47:4; 23:5-6; 70:29-30);
• Sexual sinners must be whipped a hundred times (24:2), and sound hadiths say
adulterers and homosexuals must be executed;
• Critics of Islam and Muslims may be killed (33:59-61);
• The Quran endorses and celebrates the massacre of Jewish men and pubescent
boys and the enslavement of the women and children (33:25-27);
• Jihadists buy status in this life and in the afterlife (4:74; 4:95-96; 9:38-44, 86-87,
and 111; 61:10-11);
• Polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula had to convert or die (9:5);
• Muhammad is the first to lunch his own Crusade long before western Europeans
responded with their own (9:29).
This list balances out your positive one in the second paragraph of your Open Letter. It is
one thing for the Quran to preach those positive rules to seventh-century Arabs, who (you
believe) needed them. But you also say that the Quran is God’s final revelation to all of
humanity, even though other holy books teach right social behavior. So do we really need
the Quran when it is filled with such dubious and violent verses that Muslim missionaries
would like to implement around the globe?
Your prophet suffers from the disadvantage of coming six hundred years after Jesus, who
showed us a better way and ushered in a new era of salvation, an era that does not
oppress people and force holiness and religious conformity on them from the outside in.
Therefore, objectively speaking, if Islam and the Quran complete and fulfill Christianity
and the New Testament, then the later religion (Islam) and text (the Quran) have dragged
my religion and sacred text backwards by at least two thousands of years, before Jesus
came.
One of the first strategies that Muslim apologists use to reply to such excesses in the
Quran is to remind Christians about the severe commands in the Old Testament.
However, we Christians benefit from this older sacred text, but we also believe that Jesus
Christ fulfilled it, so we no longer have to live under the Old Law.
If you or the readers suspect that these verses have been taken out of context, you and
they may click on the following articles that in turn have long and several supporting
articles behind each item on the list:
Why I don’t convert to Islam

Top ten reasons why Islam is not the religion of peace
Top ten reasons why Islamic law is bad for all societies
Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women.
This article provides more evidence that Islam does not improve on Christianity.
(2) You say in Point a:

Islam sees itself, as does contemporary Christianity, as the only means by which mankind
can be saved. As such, all Muslims are inspired by concern for their brothers in humanity
to spread this soul-saving message.
I asked this question in Part Two of our dialogue: Did Jesus and his Apostles and the
New Testament authors say or do these things on that list in my previous point, above?
Not even close. The question and answer still stand. This is why I doubt seriously that
Islam and the Quran are "the final revelation" for humanity.
For the vast differences between Jesus and Muhammad, taken from the New Testament
and the Quran, please read this list.
(3) This is my comment on your Point b that says:
what God asserts in Qur'an 061:009 "He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the
guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however
much polytheists may be averse." This is what is happening in the world today; it is a
simple fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, including in the U.S.A.
It is interesting that the translation of Sura 61:9 that you choose reads "conqueror" in the
context of Islam prevailing over every religion. This apt translation catches the path of
Muhammad who either went out on or sent out seventy-four raids, assassination hit
squads, skirmishes, and full-scale wars, such as the conquest of Mecca in early AD 630.
The Meccan polytheists were "averse" (a word in Sura 61:9) to this conquest, but they
were so worn down by your prophet’s raids, conflicts, and battles that they surrendered,
but not before Khalid al-Walid killed about two dozen who "resisted" (according to his
own report).
Whereas Islam may be spread by reason and argumentation (our dialogue proves this),
the path of Muhammad says that Islam is also spread by violent means, and this
information should not be withheld.
Next, you repeat the common belief that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the
world. But this belief is simply untrue. (In the West Mormonism may be the fastest.)
Regardless, Islam is growing fast in the West, but this is not surprising. The West has
been already saturated with Christianity, culturally (not Biblically). So if a new religion
sprouts up (at least new to the West in its own countries), then it appears to be the fastest
growing.
Here is an analogy that may clarify matters, though the numbers and the years are made
up. Let us imagine that in 1975, fifty million Americans purchased cars made in America.
But foreign car manufacturers sold their cars in the American market in that same year.
Let us pretend that one million Americans bought the foreign cars. In 1976, ten million
new and additional customers bought American-made cars, but two million new and
additional customers chose the foreign models. What are the increases? The foreign
manufacturers doubled their growth, but the American cars, by comparison, did not do as
well. Yet the American cars still dominate the domestic market. Thus, in the same way,
Islam may be (or may not be) the fastest growing religion in the West, but Islam has a
long way to go. Here is the point: the phrase "fastest growing religion" in a Western
context can be misleading.
In the rest of the world, the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion is untrue. In
many nations, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds. China is rapidly becoming
more Christian, seeing the conversion of millions each year. In a few decades Sub-
Saharan Africa will be mostly Christian. India is being blessed with large Christian
meetings.
Some examples follow:
Six million African Muslims are leaving Islam and converting to Christianity each year.
This is one large outdoor meeting in Africa, led by one German evangelist. Only slightly
smaller Christian meetings happen often in this continent.
In Pakistan, one Christian woman evangelist hosted a capacity crowd in a football

stadium that holds 100,000 spectators.
This book spells out the growth of Christianity in China: Jesus in Beijing: How
Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power.
(4) For your Point c, you say:
c. We believe that Islam speaks for itself, that our charity and kindness and peace will
bring people to Islam. It is in fact forbidden even to attempt to force anyone to Islam. The
Qur’an tells us that there is no compulsion in religion. Why? Because Islam is based on a
faith that can only reside in the heart, and it is futile to force one to have that kind of
faith, Recent events have "forced" people to learn more about our religion, and this is the
reason you and others have questions, which is good. But the perpetrators who caused
those events were not acting as Muslims. Their actions are completely forbidden.
First, you quote from Sura 2:256. This entire sura is generally regarded as one of the
earliest after Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. He wanted to be
accepted by all peoples, particularly Jews, so the verse reflects this desire (the sura has
many passages discussing Jewish Scriptures and beliefs). But there is an unpleasant verse
in Sura 9 (and there are many). This sura is the last one to be revealed in its entirety, and
many Muslims believe that it abrogates or cancels earlier verses that seem to promote
only tolerance. Verse five unveils Muhammad’s violent policy against polytheists. They
either convert or die or leave.

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. (Pickthall)
So there is compulsion in Islam, after all, which contradicts the earlier Sura 2:256.
Second, you say that "events" (presumably acts of violence, especially on September 11)
are completely forbidden in Islam. However, your prophet commissions his followers to
wage war on Jews and Christians or the People of the Book or Scripture (= Bible).
Sura 9:29 says:
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which
has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who
acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among people of the Scripture (Jews
and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued (Hilali and Khan, insertions in parentheses are theirs)
This verse that commands battle is all about theology and practice. It says nothing
explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. Muhammad launched his Tabuk
Crusade in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an
army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his huge number of
jihadists returned home (so says Western scholarship), but not before imposing a jizya tax
on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert to
Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the "privilege" of living
under Islam.
Mr. al-Buthi, the direct connection between terrorist acts today and many violent verses
in the Quran is unclear to me. However, I understand how violent radicals appeal to these
and many other such verses, especially in Sura 9, to justify their attacks.
(5) For your Point d, you write:
d. You believe as I do that our Creator is wise, generous and all-knowing. It is He, we all
believe, who is providing us with every thing that we need for the maintenance of our
biological life. But the Creator knows that it is more in virtue of our souls than our
bodies, that we are the human beings we are. He would not therefore neglect to provide
us with what we need for the welfare of our souls. This is why He has been sending
messengers to us to convey messages from Him that give us guidance on how to lead a
life acceptable to Him, and leading such a life makes us happy. When God sends a
message He must ensure that it be available to all who are interested in it and that it be
understood by them. Where is this message now? Muslims are the only people who even
claim that they are in possession of such a message. They have historical evidence that
the Qur’an that they are now reading is the same precise words that were revealed to the
Prophet Muhammad. Neither the Jews nor the Christians can make such a claim, a fact
that some biblical scholars admit.
If I understand this point correctly, you essentially claim four things. For clarity I label
them with letters. (A) You say that the Creator looks out for the welfare of our souls, so
he would send us a message that provides guidance; (B) "Muslims are the only people
who even claim they are in possession of such a message"; (C) "historical evidence"
indicates that "the Quran that [Muslims] are now reading is the same precise words that
were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad"; and (D) "neither the Jews or Christians can
make such a claim" . . . .
(A) As for your first claim, I have no quarrel that the Creator cares for our souls, but
based on the list in my first reply, I don’t believe that the Quran contains entirely that
caring and loving message, which "makes us happy" (your words). Let me boil it down in
modus tollens (denying the "then" clause), in an if-then argument:
To judge from the list of practical policies and legal decrees taken from the Quran itself
in part (1) of my reply, above:
(1) If the Quran is God’s final message to us, then he must want to abuse us physically,
and he hates us.
(2) But God does not want to abuse us physically, and he loves us.
(3) Therefore, the Quran is not God’s final message to us.
(B) You say that Muslims are the only people who believe that they have a message of
love and welfare. Though I am neither a Sikh nor a Latter-Day Saint (Mormon), these
two religions have holy books that appear long after the Quran. Nanak, founder of
Sikhism, and his successors have the Guru Granth Sahib. And Joseph Smith has the Book
of Mormons, believed to be brought down by an angel, as well as the Pearl of Great
Price and the Doctrine of Covenants. They believe that God cares for them so much that
he sent them their messages or holy books. Also, Christians believe that the New
Testament offers the true message of God in a way that the Quran does not. Thus,
Muslims are not the "only people who even claim that they are in possession of such a
message" of love and welfare from God.
(C) Does "historical evidence" say that the Quran today really is "the same precise words
that were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad"? I already cited four reasons in Part Two
why this is not true, though Muslims are taught this from childhood. I repeat some of the
reasons here since our multipart dialogue is so long.
Starting off, this hadith (or sacred tradition) from Bukhari (a highly reliable collector and
editor of hadith) says that Uthman ordered that different versions of the Quran be burned,
throughout the Islamic empire.
. . . ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and
ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts
or whole copies, be burnt. (Bukhari)

It is one thing to prepare the final version (if one exists of the Quran), but burning
alternate versions? He destroyed a rich textual history that the New Testament enjoys.
Now scholars cannot cross-check these fragments and manuscripts to establish whether
the present-day Quran is the right one.
Next, this is an interesting modern discovery: a "buried" version of the Quran, found in
1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana’a, in Yemen.
Since the early 1980s more than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Korans have painstakingly
been flattened, cleaned, treated, sorted, and assembled; they now sit ("preserved for
another thousand years," Puin says) in Yemen's House of Manuscripts, awaiting detailed
examination. That is something the Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow,
however. "They want to keep this thing low-profile, as we do too, although for different
reasons," Puin explains. "They don't want attention drawn to the fact that there are
Germans and others working on the Korans. They don't want it made public that there is
work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said
about the Koran's history was said a thousand years ago." (Source)
I asked in Part Two: "Why won’t the authorities allow its publication? What are they
hiding?" These questions still stand.
The third and final example comes from the reliable hadith collection Sahih Muslim,
which says that an entire sura, having over a hundred verses, is missing from the Quran.
. . . We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at
[Sura 9, which has 129 verses]. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this
which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam,
he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam
but dust." (Muslim no. 2286; see the four hadiths above this one)
Please see this webpage that has many links to articles and hadiths on the corruption of
the Quran.
(D) As for the fourth sub-point, you again challenge the reliability of the New Testament.
(I forego a discussion on the Old Testament, though its manuscript traditions are first
rate.) It must be admitted—and no reputable scholar attempts to hide the fact—that the
manuscripts that make up the New Testament have traveled through time. Therefore, they
have received some light bumps and bruises, so to speak (and so do all ancient texts,
including the Quran). However, there are thousands of manuscripts, ranging from
fragments to partial and to complete books or sections and the entire New Testament.
This means that qualified scholars can cross-check and compare them and eliminate any
scribal and incidental errors. Thus, these slight historical, textual "wounds" have not
altered the essential message of the Four Gospel and the rest of the New Testament. This
means, in turn, that the following assessment of these scholars reflects textual reality. I
again quote from Part Two, which has more information:

The New Testament manuscripts far outnumber other manuscript traditions of ancient
texts, and the chronological gap between the New Testament manuscripts and the events
themselves and original writings is much, much shorter. This short article has a
comparative Table.
Reform
As with all civilizations, there are periods of flowering and also decay. Two
centuries ago, when America was in its infancy, the peoples of Arabia had fallen
back into the paganism, ignorance, superstition, illiteracy, and societal oppression –
conditions that were quite similar to the pre-Islamic days. At that time a religious
scholar, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab (d. 1762), began the task of religious and
societal reform. His main message was that God alone should be worshipped and
that Muslims should return to the teachings and practice of the Prophet
Muhammad. He was joined in this task by Muhammad Ibn Sa‘ud (d. 1765); with
these events, the essential concepts underlying the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was
born.
The modern Saudi state was actually formed some one hundred years after
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s death. The leading scholars of the Muslim world
agreed to the custodianship of the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina by the Saudi
state and to the soundness of the religious doctrines on which this state is based. For
this reason "Wahhabism" is not a sect outside of main body of Islam; rather, it is
merely a reform movement that has been recognized by the majority of Muslims.
JA: I have two questions:
1. You briefly recount the origins of your reform movement. What did the Wahhabi
reform movement do to the Shi’ites and their shrines in Kerbala in 1802?
SaB:
The "monotheists" were responsible for the destruction of the domes (graves) in Kerbala
and Najaf. They took this action because the domes constituted "shirk" and thus were
contrary to sharia, not because they belonged to the Shiites. The monotheists also
destroyed many similar symbols of shirk at a number of different sites on the Arabian
Peninsula.

2. You say that "the essential concepts underlying the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were
born" with the Wahhabi reforms. What are the historical reasons for the image of a sword
sitting on the flag of Saudi Arabia?
SaB:
First, the flag is officially described as, "Flag, green background, with in white letters the
Muslim creed in Arabic: ’There is no god but God: Muhammad is the Messenger of
God.’ Emblem, a date palm, representing vitality and growth, and two crossed swords,
symbolizing justice and strength rooted in faith."
Second, there is no mention of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab or his particular movement
in the Saudi flag or our national symbols. Although some in the West are fixated on this
one scholar, we view him as simply one scholar from among a constellation of scholars
who helped us to understand our religion.
Third, the sword symbolizes the steadfast character of us as a people, justice, strength
and unity. It is not about anger or being a "Wahhabi".
JA:
I have only two comments on this part.
(1) One of the purposes of your Open Letter is to show that Wahhabism is kinder and
gentler than popular opinion (wrongly) believes. In fact, you do not like the label. You
are simply Sunni Muslims who adhere strictly to the Quran and the proper teachings of
Islam, especially in the Sunnah.
However, destroying shrines belies your efforts to present a better version of your Islamic
monotheism. Let’s assume that some Muslim devotees who appeared at the shrines
indeed practiced some form of shirk (associating anything with Allah). Then religious
freedom is still better than repression, regardless of what an ancient sharia rule may
decree, written centuries ago.
Next, you say that the destruction of the shrines was "not because they belonged to the
Shiites." However, James Wynbrandt in A Brief History of Saudi Arabia (Checkmark
Books, 2004), p. 135, says that humans, the Shi’ites, were slaughtered along with the
destruction of their shrines.
With peace prevailing along the border between the Hijaz and Najd, in 1801-02 . . . [In]
March 1802 . . . Karbala’s citizens were slaughtered and its sacred places destroyed,
including the great dome of Husayn.
Normally, it would be only fair to point out early American abuses (read about the Trail
of Tears, here, in which the government forcibly removed an Indian tribe in the early
nineteenth century). But this short news report in 2001 connects the Saudi government to
the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. So the intolerance

continues to today, throughout the Islamic world, not just in or near Saudi Arabia.
Here is the hard-learned lesson of history in the West. A few Christian reformers in the
sixteenth century sometimes destroyed things in their zeal, but now this is generally
viewed as misguided. If a Christian performed a ritual that a zealous reformer did not
like, such as praying to or burning incense before a statue of a saint, then the reformer
should have let freedom reign, however much he may have disliked the ritual. He should
not have destroyed the statue nor harass the devotee. The ritual does not harm anyone
else physically or materially. The zealous reformer may proclaim by words alone his
version of Christianity and godly purity, but he should not destroy things or whip or
imprison people for (perceived) violations of religious rituals or theology.
Further, after the early puritans crossed the Atlantic and reached the shores of America in
the seventeenth century, they were sometimes intolerant. They physically punished
people who sinned. They forced external holiness and conformity on to people.
Eventually, however, the Founders of our nation took a more tolerant path in the
eighteenth century. People are now allowed to worship as they want. Thus, the Founders
progressed. They showed wisdom. They were right.
If Saudi Arabia is compatible with modernity, as you say in your Open Letter, then is not
religious freedom essential? Is this not true, no matter how distasteful the rituals
performed by another Muslim or a member of another religion may be, according to a
strict Muslim purist?
If you distrust the West about its "hard-learned lesson" on religious freedom, then do not
be surprised if the West distrusts your Open Letter to a western government when the
Letter says that Saudi Arabia is compatible with modernity.
Fortunately, this report says that the Saudi government may be relaxing its opposition to
Sufism after September 11. But before that date:
When the al-Saud family that would later come to rule Saudi Arabia took over Hejaz
[western region] in the 1920s, the Wahhabis banned mawlids [celebrations of birth and
life of Muhammad] as a form of heresy and destroyed the historic shrines of Khadija,
Fatima and the prophet's companions, fearing they would lead to idolatry and polytheism.
The article shows a photo of Salman al-Odah, a strict and popular Saudi cleric (according
to the report), accepting an invitation from Sufi cleric Abdallah Fadaaq. Expanding
tolerance is a positive development. But will this expansion include other Muslim sects
and even other religions?
(2) As for the Islamic confession of faith (the Shahadah) and the sword sitting on your
flag, I thought of this hadith from Sahih Bukhari. It says that the prophet of Islam has
been ordered to fight (= the sword on the flag?) until people acknowledge that Allah is
the right deity and Muhammad is his messenger (= the Shahadah on the flag?). The
people must also give the messenger their money. If they do these things, then their lives
and property are kept safe.
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they
testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's
Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform
that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then
their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)
Does this hadith and its parallel, plus Suras 9:5 and 9:29 (quoted above), capture the
essence of the words and the sword on the flag?
Conclusion
Mr. al-Buthi, let’s step back and look at the big picture seen in the overarching mission of
Jesus and Muhammad. I choose this topic to conclude with, because you believe that
Islam presents the message of Jesus as it "truly was."
You assert in your Open Letter to Congress that Muhammad was called to lead people
towards a new law that superceded the paganism of Arabia in the seventh century.
Implied in this belief is that he was another lawgiver, like Moses (except your prophet’s
laws are fuller and more complete). He intended to establish a new order here on earth. In
contrast, it is often believed among Muslims that Jesus was a spiritual leader whose
kingdom was not of this earth. He was not a new lawgiver. He was "heavenly minded."
In reply, however, the more I study Islam, the happier I am that Jesus never made specific
pronouncements, such as "Cut off the hands of thieves! Divide the inheritance to give
men a double portion over that of women! Women’s testimony counts half of men’s!
Whip sexual sinners one hundred times! Husbands may hit their wife or wives! Crucify
highway robbers! Cut off the alternate hand and foot of highway robbers! I shall fight
you until you acknowledge me as Lord, pray my way, and give me a ‘charity’ tax! My
harsh decrees will make you happy, in the end! If only you could see this!"
His silence on such legal decrees and violent policies does not imply that we should
interpret his message in dubious ways, for that would violate his entire ministry. He
honored and gave dignity to people, especially to sinners. But he loved them too much to
leave them unchanged from the inside out. Rather, his silence means that we can use our
sound reason to figure things out, such as how to divide an inheritance, or why women’s
testimony counts equally as men’s testimony.
Nor, especially, do we need revelations in a culture-bound holy book that command that
we should carry out these harsh decrees and laws.
Mr. al-Buthi, you and millions of Muslims believe that the Quran is the final revelation to
all of humanity, but I disagree.

For me, down-to-earth reality in the messages and practices of Jesus and Muhammad
breaks the deadlock between the competing abstract claims and doctrines of Christianity
and Islam.
Some of Christ’s positive pronouncements and policies have been explored here and
here; as noted, for Christians he fulfills the severe commands in the Old Testament, so
Muslim apologists no longer need to cite them to score polemical points.

By way of reminder, Soliman al-Buthe (or al-Buthi) wrote an Open Letter to Congress in
2005. Then he initiated a dialogue with me, so we decided on this sequence.
1. In 2005, I commented and asked questions about the Open Letter (in blue).
2. In that same year, months later, Mr. al-Buthe answered my questions and challenged
me on various issues (in green). He sought the advice of Saudi scholars, as well.
3. Finally, in 2006, I reply to his challenges and questions (in black). Sometimes I embed
this part in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.
2005 Open Letter to Congress (continued):
Compatibility with Modernity
Like all developing nations, Saudi Arabia faces many challenges. We have social,
economic, and political issues that need to be addressed. Our religious teachings,
however, are not against modernity, progress, or development. Rather, this religious
movement has led to a general renaissance in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic
world as a whole. In just 70 years, Saudi Arabia has developed a nationwide
education system consisting of eight universities, 100 colleges, and 26,000 schools
that provide free education to over 5,000,000 students. The teacher-student ratio of
1:12.5 is among the lowest in the world, with over one quarter of the annual state
budget allocated to education. There are currently 320 hospitals in the Kingdom
consisting of 46,048 beds. In the face of these facts it is difficult to understand how
our religious beliefs could possibly be inherently anti-progress and anti-modernity.
Although we have much to improve, the achievements of the Kingdom thus far
demonstrate that a modern society can be built upon core teachings and that
progress is not hindered by an adherence to Islamic law.
JA: My sincere congratulations on the development of your schools, colleges, and

universities, and especially the number of hospitals. This seems positive.
1. Do you know which percentage of students specialize in religious education, such as

Islamic Studies, at the universities? Is it thirty percent?
SaB:
I have not been able to find any official statistics on this matter. We do not teach purely
religious studies in the narrow sense of the word even in our "Islamic universities."
These universities offer courses on all the social sciences, on computer science, on
foreign languages like English, and so on. Remember, however, that we are not a secular
country. Because our religion forms the basis of our life, we teach it in schools and offer
courses on it even to students who specialize in disciplines like medicine and

engineering.
If you are asking this question because you believe in the myth of the linkage between
terrorism and Islamic studies, we refer you to the recent article "The Myth of the
Madrassa" written by Peter Bergen and Swati Pabdey. (Please see The Myth of the
Madrassa.)
JA: The reason I ask about the percentage of students who choose Islamic Studies or
other religious majors is the high unemployment and crime rates in your country. John R.
Bradbury worked as a journalist in Saudi Arabia for more than two years, writing for
various western publications. In his book, Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in
Crisis, he provides statistics for the rise. He writes:
The statistics available are breathtaking. A 2003 report by the Saudi Arabian Monetary
Agency, for example, said that crime among young jobless Saudis rose 320 percent
between 1990 and 1996, and is expected to increase an additional 136 percent by 2005.
More than 60 percent of Saudis are under 21, and the kingdom’s population growth rate
is roughly 4 percent—one of the highest in the world . . . . (p. 142)
Thus, the crime rate increases, despite the harsh punishments your legal system regularly
metes out, such as chopping off heads. Bradbury recounts some episodes of public
beheadings. In 2003, for example, more than 50 took place for everyone to see (p. 144).
Academic programs covering economics and the social sciences may help the problem of
crime. I read, above, and elsewhere that you have such programs, so this is good.
We have invited a friend and colleague, originally from Saudi Arabia, to review my
response. He adds this to our dialogue:
The Saudi Government will allow westerners who are converts to attend the Islamic
University in Mecca or Medina to earn a degree for Islamic studies. The only reason they
allow them to do so is to help them become Imams and to use them to convert others to
Islam. They would have never allowed any westerner who is not Muslim to attend these
Islamic universities because they are in holy places / cities and only Muslims are allowed
access to these places.
These days, from my conversations with my family and friends, the Saudi government is
not allowing any non-Saudis to attend their universities, period. They may have some
very few exceptions - but never for medicine or engineering. This process is part of what
the government of Saudi Arabia calls the Saudization. Also, non-Saudis, even if they are
Muslims, are not allowed to own any property (e.g. land or homes) or businesses. They
must have the property or the business in a Saudi partner’s name, who is called a sponsor.
The point that this Saudi is making, I believe, is that his nation closes the door on an even
exchange of ideas, to help solve his nation’s problems. America and other free societies
invite and give permission to hundreds of thousands of students from all countries,
cultures and religions to come and study in their universities, often even providing grants
and scholarships for them. It allows fair partnership in businesses with foreigners. Why is
Saudi Arabia closing itself off from the free and even exchange of ideas and partnership
in business?
As for the Madrassas and violence, please click on this report, which balances out your
positive link.
JA: 2. One of the hallmarks of modernity and progress is women’s freedom. Why are not
Saudi women allowed to drive cars and to vote?
SaB:
What is modernity? And what is freedom?
Take "modernity," a very vague term. Your references suggest that it merely is the state
of being modern.
But what does it mean to be modern?
Apparently "modernity" means whatever happens to be currently popular in the West.

The West is modern in many disparate ways. To be "modern" in this sense would require
every non-Western society to abandon its culture and live in a constant state of imitation
of changing Western norms. We are emphatically against this wholesale adoption of
Western modernity as it relates to a promiscuous freedom. We believe that we have much
that is good by any rational and moral standards, and we are therefore keen not only to
preserve it but also to invite others to it. But at the same time we believe that there is
much worldly good in the West, and we are keen to derive benefits from that good. This
applies especially to science and technology and anything that helps us to advance in
these respects. We do not, however, share Westerners’ current beliefs -- religious
orsecular – and strongly oppose many of the West’s prevailing values.
Thus we think that there is a significant difference between "modernity" in general and
religious/moral modernity. We have shopping malls of chrome and glass and the latest
technology; we all use mobile phones which are actually more advanced than those in the
West; we drive cars, eat in restaurants, drive through fast food outlets, get our cash from
ATMs, and all have computers, satellite televisions, and Bluetooth-enabled devices.
Thus we reject the notion that we must do something simply because it happens to be
Westerners’ current prevailing cultural prejudice. We are simply not impressed by being
told that something is one of the hallmarks of modernity as the West does in the
following examples. We evaluate things by being true or false, useful or harmful, suitable
or not suitable, and not just because the West counts them among the hallmarks of your
modernity.

JA: I am confused about something. You say in your Open Letter, which you initiated to
the American Congress, that Saudi Arabia is compatible with modernity (your word).
Then, when I bring up the word "modernity," you talk about "cultural prejudice" and the
"wholesale adoption of Western modernity as it relates to a promiscuous freedom." No
one said anything about adopting the extremes or the vices in the West. I agree that the
West has gone too far in that regard. But can you not see that Saudi Arabia has let the
pendulum swing too far to the other extreme—to the far side of repression, such as
executing or flogging or imprisoning sexual sinners (read about this excess here and
here)?
SaB: One of the primary aims of Islam is the welfare of the family. Being good to one’s
parents is mentioned in the Qur’an as second only to worshipping God:
Qur’an 004:36-38 "And worship God. Ascribe no thing as partner to Him. (Show)
kindness to parents, and to near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and into the
neighbor who is of kin (to you) and the neighbor who is not of kin and the fellow traveler
and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! God loves not such
as are proud and boastful, who hoard their wealth and enjoin avarice on others, and hide
that which God has bestowed upon them of His bounty. For disbelievers We prepare a
shameful doom; and (also) those who spend their wealth in order to be seen of men, and
believe not in God nor the Last Day. Whoever takes Satan for a comrade, a bad comrade
has he."
To protect the family Islam prohibits all kinds of extra-marital sexual relations and has
severe punishment for those who commit adultery and fornication. As a consequence,
free mixing between men and women is not encouraged. Today some of our learned men
thought that it would be advisable for women not to drive cars as this would tempt
women to mix easily with men and vice versa. Thus the prohibition on women driving
was seen as a precautionary matter; none of the learned men said that it was religiously
forbidden for women to drive cars (please see Karen Hughes Driving Saudi Arabia – U.S.
Relationship). The issue of women driving was never seen in our society as depriving
women of a right; this is evidenced by the fact that few Saudi women even want to drive.
In the end, this question is all a matter of what is beneficial and what is not in the light of
the principles in which Muslim men and women believe.
JA: You report that the reason for prohibiting women from driving cars is to separate the
sexes because they may commit sexual sin and be severely punished. In Part Two I have
already noted that homosexuality takes place in your country, so how does one fix that
problem? By forbidding men from driving? I am not being facetious. It seems that the
reason offered by the religious scholars for prohibiting women does not work entirely. It
is a sad fact that humans will commit sexual sin, no matter how much they are smothered
by rules and religious police.
Bradbury reports in his book (cited above) that the separation of the sexes creates the
(unintended) backlash of men seeking comfort and sexual gratification from other men,
and women from other women.

So malls in Jeddah, as well as in Riyadh and Dammam, have predictably become the
preferred haunts of another group: male seeking sex with other males. Unlike the boys
and girls seeking to mix, they do not have to hide their intentions. Indeed, they stroll
certain of the malls and supermarkets openly making passes at each other. They are
dressed in variations on Western fashion that would, in America, be considered
outrageously queer, but in Saudi Arabia raise eyebrows only among those who insist on
"Islamic"—that is, Bedouin—dress at all times. These young men openly cruise, often
exchanging comments in loud voices with their friends when a desirable object comes
into view. (p. 154)
Additionally, Bradbury reports that gay websites have exploded:
The number of gay-themed Saudi websites especially has exploded in recent years. Some
of these sites are blocked by those responsible for censoring the Internet, but software to
avoid the blocks is easily purchased in local markets. Most sites exist for one reason only:
to facilitate meet-ups. Even gay pornography is freely available to anyone who has a
satellite dish in their bedroom, which is to say all middle-class Saudi boys. (p. 155).
He goes on to report that lesbians also seek their own encounters and can easily do so
because of the segregation of the sexes (pp. 162-65).
To return to the specific issue of driving, why do women have to be restricted from this
privilege completely? Why not permit the women who want to drive to enjoy this
privilege at least one day a week? There is a middle ground somewhere.
Next, it may be true that "few Saudi women even want to drive." But here are the few.
This news report by Faiza Saleh Ambah offers these few a voice. Did Karen Hughes meet
with them?
Inside a rented hall on the outskirts of the Saudi capital, women slip on T-shirts over their
silk and cotton blouses. "Yes to the empowerment of women," it reads. Nov. 6, 1990, is
printed in red under tire tracks.
About 20 women have gathered privately here for their annual reunion to mark their
defiance 15 years ago of this conservative kingdom's ban on female drivers.
Spurred by the Gulf War and the sight of female American GIs driving in Saudi Arabia,
the group took to the road. They traveled the streets of Riyadh before being surrounded
by curious onlookers and stopped by traffic cops, who took them into custody. They were
released only after their male guardians signed statements that they would not drive
again.
The women, many of whom are professors, had been prepared for a reprimand from the
government, even some jail time. But it was the reaction of their students, their extended
families, and many acquaintances that surprised them.

After the protest, thousands of leaflets with their names and their husbands' names - with
"whores" and "pimps" scrawled next to them - circulated around the city. They were
suspended from jobs, had passports confiscated, and were told not to speak to the press.
Overnight, they became pariahs.
About a year after the protest, they returned to work and received their passports. But
they were kept under surveillance and passed over for promotions.
But now, due to the courage of one member of Saudi Arabia's consultative Shura
Council, a new reform-minded king, and a society forced into open debate following
violence linked to Muslim extremists, the subject is once again taking center stage.
And the women have decided to break their silence.
The report continues by saying that most Saudi women view driving as an imitation of
the decadent West. Again, this opinion lets the pendulum swing too far to the other
extreme of suppression.
Here is a very short excerpt from an interview with a member of the Saudi Shura Council
Muhammad Aal Zulfa, which aired on Al-'Arabiya TV on June 8, 2005. He would let his
wife and daughter drive.
To wrap up this part of my reply, humans of both sexes need freedom. This article says
that Bahrain, an island and independent state that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a
bridge, provides a "breathing lung" for Saudis because this Islamic island allows people
to do as they want. The words "breathing lung" mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates
people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.
Surely there is a middle path between decadence and repression of freedom.
SaB: As to voting, it was never the practice in our society to resort to voting for choosing
our leaders. Over the years we have been very contented with the manner in which our
leaders have been chosen. Now that voting has been adopted on a limited level, no one
here is saying that there is something in Islam which allows men but not women to vote;
indeed, many of our officials are saying that this restriction was only a matter of
convenience because of the additional infrastructure that would be required. Many
believe that this restriction will be lifted in the future, and perhaps in the very near future.
(How many years were American women denied the right to vote? How many years were
American Blacks denied the right to vote?)
JA: My comment here is brief, coming in three parts.
First, I am encouraged about your statement that there is nothing in Islam which "allows
men but not women to vote." But I am unclear about the "infrastructure that would be
required." I hope it gets ready for the next elections.
Second, it is true that for many decades America did not allow women to vote, but we
have corrected the problem at the beginning of the twentieth century, passing the
Nineteenth Amendment in 1919, which opened the door to this basic right. Our nation
was one of the first. France did not open the voting booth to women until after the Second
World War.
Third, it is true, sadly, that black Americans were disenfranchised. But we have corrected
the problem with the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The world awaits Saudi Arabia to
correct its own problems. This is why, as noted in my first point in this section, that I am
encouraged by your words: "Many believe that this restriction will be lifted in the future,
and perhaps in the very near future." I hope such freedom happens soon, in the near
future.
I believe, from a simple study of history, that it is impossible to smother freedom in the
human heart. Eventually freedom will break out of any cage. Therefore, it is better, don’t
you think, to go with the flow of freedom without adopting the extreme of promiscuity
and licentiousness?
JA 3. One of the hallmarks of modernity and progress is an appreciation of science.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz became Chancellor of the Islamic University of Medina in
1968. In 1974, he was appointed president of the Directorate of Religious Research,
Islamic Legal Rulings, Islamic Propagation, and Guidance. This prominent cleric, when
he was Vice-Chancellor of the Islamic University of Medina, published an article in two
newspapers in 1966. In them he claimed that the Qur’an proves that the sun orbits around
the earth and not that the earth orbits around the sun.
First, do you know whether he published this article? Second, does his view reflect the
view of many conservative Saudis?
SaB: First, Islam has no problem with science; it was in the Muslim world that science
first flourished, and it was upon that basis that Europeans built their science.
Second, the Sheikh did not mention anything about orbiting. He was only criticizing the
belief that the sun is stationary because there is a verse in the Qur’an which says that it
"runs." We now know that the whole solar system moves around the Galaxy and that the
Galaxy itself is traveling through space. Sheikh Abd-Aziz Ibn Baz was not a scientist,
and he did not claim the doctrinal infallibility of a pope; he was simply expressing a view
in which he honestly believed. Although he was a great religious teacher, Islam
recognizes that no man can have the infallibility popes still today claim. Accordingly, Ibn
Baz could not force his view on all Muslims – he didn't even think about trying to start an
inquisition against the many who differed with him. In the face of Ibn Baz’s statement,
what should we Muslims have done – prevented him from expressing a view simply
because we believed it erroneous?
Addressing the Western theologians’ problems with science, many Christian scholars
today emphatically oppose Darwinism and believe that creationism should be taught in
school. (Indeed, your President Bush advocates teaching "Intelligent Design" – a poor
cousin of creationism – in public schools!) How should those people be answered?
Third, our Sheikhs are only learned Islamic scholars; they are not popes whose words on
religious topics become part of the religion. The Islamic religion is based on two sources
only: the Qur’an and the Sunna (words and deeds of the Prophet).
Fourth, George Washington is said to have been one of those who believed that the earth
is flat (please see Flat Earth Society & The Flat Out Truth). But famous Muslim scholars
like Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiya who lived centuries before him knew that the earth is
spherical.
JA: My comments come in three numbered points. I omit a discussion of your third reply,
though I allude to it in my point no. two and my discussion of Christianity today.
(1) For your first point you say:
First, Islam has no problem with science; it was in the Muslim world that science first
flourished, and it was upon that basis that Europeans built their science.
This is a common belief in the Muslim world, and even some Westerners perpetuate it.
But it needs to be balanced out.
Alvin J. Schmidt, in The Great Divide (Regina Orthodox Press, 2004), pp. 200-01,
summarizes his findings in Chapter 8, which covers science. He corrects two popular
misconceptions: the West is heavily indebted to Islam; and the church always stood in the
way of scientific advancement.
Starting off, he concedes that some noteworthy natural philosophers (pre-scientists) lived
in the Islamic empire. But they stand on the shoulders of Greeks, who were not
completely wrong about some things.
Although Islam produced some noteworthy natural philosophers among the Arabs
[Avicenna (980-1037); Averroes (1126-1198); Jabir Ibn Hayyan (c. 760-815); al-Kindi
(813-880); and al-Razi, (c. 865-925)], they never attained the intellectual stature of the
Greeks . . . In the words of one historian of science, "The legacy of the Islamic world in
medicine and natural science is the legacy of Greece, increased by many additions,
mostly practical" . . . .
Then Schmidt points out that the science we know today began in the thirteenth century,
long after science stalled under Islam. Also, it was the church that was a major patron of
scientific learning.
It also needs to be noted that although Islam’s natural philosophers produced some
noteworthy works in physiology and medicine from about the ninth through the 11th
century, Islamic medicine and science came to a standstill, about 1100 . . . . It was
Christianity, not Islam, which provided the necessary presupposition, the motivation, and
the men who launched modern science. Thus, from the 13th century on, Islam’s influence
in science, if one can call it science [because the inductive method, on which science so
heavily depends, rises in the 13th century], in contrast to Christianity’s influence, has
been conspicuously lagging. In support of this claim, Lindberg in his The Beginning of
Western Science (1992), says that in regard to the study of nature, "the church was one of
the major patrons—perhaps the major patron—of scientific learning."
Schmidt ends with a short list of groundbreaking western discoveries fostered by

Christianity, and bypassing Islam that seems to have bogged down in an exclusive search
for religious truth and that seems largely to have ignored scientific truth. Western science
was not built on the basis of Islamic "science," a misnomer in the first place, because, as
noted, science did not really begin until the thirteenth century. Before then, it may be
called a "proto-science," which is built on Greek "proto-science."
Finally, it is well to remember that Muslims discovered no scientific laws, such as

Kepler’s three laws in astronomy, Newton’s law of gravity, Pascal’s law of liquid
measure, Ohm’s law in the field of electricity, Boyle’s law in chemistry, Kelvin’s
absolute zero, Faraday’s electromagnetic induction, Dalton’s atomic weight, Lavoisier’s
law of conservation of energy, or Mendel’s law pertaining to heredity. Nor did any
Muslim discover bacteria, introduce chloroform, inoculate against disease, discover
circulation of the blood, introduce antiseptics, or encourage the dissecting of human
cadavers. These and other great moments in science were by-products of Christianity’s
influence, all outside of the context of any Islamic influence and motivation . . . .
Finally, the next scholar, after quoting Westerners who put down their own western
intellectual history and who exalt Islamic intellectual history to high heaven, clarifies
matters. He says that Muslims translated insignificant ancient texts and that Christendom
already had the important ones. He says in the fourth paragraph, below, that Islam was
caught up in Neoplatonism, a poor reflection of Plato, and what philosophy did exist in
Islam rose higher than the Quran. So Islamic philosophers Avicenna and Averroes
believed.
So the great rescue of Greek philosophy by translation into Arabic turns out to mean no
rescue of Plato and the transmission of Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek
texts of Aristotle, either directly or more often via Syriac or Hebrew, to a Christendom
that already had the Greek texts and had already translated most of them into Latin, with
almost all of the work of translation from any of these languages into any other having
been done by Christians and Jews and none of it by Muslims.
But if Islamic scholars did not actually translate ancient Greece’s natural philosophy from
Greek into Arabic and from Arabic into Latin, did not actually rescue Plato and Aristotle
from oblivion, and did not actually ignite the Renaissance with them, didn’t they create a
vibrant and superior philosophy?

Were not Avicenna and Averroes great? Great they were, and philosophers too, but not
exactly Islamic ones.
Islamic philosophy is a misnomer; at least, what we in the West think of as Islamic

philosophy is. It is not Islamic in the sense of being rooted in Islam or even in the weaker
sense of being melded to it. It is based rather on those vaunted translations from Greek
and has a higher allegiance to Neoplatonism than to Islam. It considered philosophy the
highest expression of truth, available only to the wisest, and Islam a lower expression
suitable for the masses. It believed that the Koran is temporal, not eternal, and that God
knows only universals, not particulars. In short, it was in opposition to what we and most
Muslims think of as Islam. (Source, emphasis original; this article also cites Westerners
putting down their own tradition and exalting Islam. But the article also balances out the
picture)
(2) In your second point you write:
Second, the Sheikh did not mention anything about orbiting. He was only criticizing the
belief that the sun is stationary because there is a verse in the Qur’an which says that it
"runs." We now know that the whole solar system moves around the Galaxy and that the
Galaxy itself is traveling through space. Sheikh Abd-Aziz Ibn Baz was not a scientist,
and he did not claim the doctrinal infallibility of a pope; he was simply expressing a view
in which he honestly believed.
I have not read Sheikh Ibn Baz’s article, but this is an excerpt taken from Sandra Mackey,
The Saudis: Inside the Desert Kingdom, updated edition (Norton, 2002), p. 98. Her book
is generally sympathetic of your country.
In an essay written to refute the heresy of the theory of the solar system taught at Riyadh
University, [Ibn] Baz said:
Hence I say the Holy Koran, the Prophet’s teaching, the majority of Islamic scientists,
and the actual fact prove that the sun is running in its orbit, as Almighty God ordained,
and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind and made a bed
and cradle for them, fixed down firmly by mountains, lest it shake.
This quotation does discuss the sun orbiting. It also says that the earth is fixed, so it is
difficult to understand how your explanation of the sun and its system moving in the
galaxy works, unless the moving solar system leaves the stationary earth behind.
Perhaps the Sheikh was referring to a revelation in the Quran that says that the sun sets in
a muddy spring. One of God’s servants of long ago actually witnessed this, says the
Islamic holy book. Sura (Chapter) 18:86 says:
. . . When he reached the setting-place of the sun, he [Dhu’l-Qarneyn] found it setting in a

muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We [Allah] said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either
punish or show them kindness. (Pickthall)
This researcher quotes the hadiths and commentators:
. . . All the scholars such as the Baydawi, Jalalan, and Zamakhshari confirm it. The
Zamakhshari remarks in his book, "the Kash-shaf",
"Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad’s close companions) was with Muhammad during the
sunset. Muhammad asked him: ‘Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sets?’ He
answered: ‘God and His apostle know better.’ Muhammad said: ‘It sets in a spring of
slimy water"’ (3rd Edition, Volume 2 p. 743, 1987).
In his book, "The Lights of Revelation" (p. 399), the Baydawi indicates,
"The sun sets in a slimy spring; that is, a well which contains mud. Some of the readers
of the Qur’an read it, ‘...a hot spring’, thus the spring combines the two descriptions. It
was said that Ibn ’Abbas found Mu’awiya reading it (as) hot. He told him, ‘It is muddy.’
Mu’awiya sent to Ka’b al-Ahbar and asked him, ‘Where does the sun set?’ He said in
water and mud and there were some people. So he agreed with the statement of ibn al-
’Abbas. And there was a man who composed a few verses of poetry about the setting of
the sun in the slimy spring."
The Jalalan (p. 251) says that the setting of the sun is in a well which contains a murky
mud. We found the same interpretation and text in the Tabari’s commentaries (p. 339) as
well as in "Concise Interpretation of the Tabari" (p. 19 of part 2) in which he remarks that
the well in which the sun sets "contains lime and murky mud". (Source)
Thus, this revelation in Sura 18:86 does not describe a one-time miracle (cf. Joshua
10:12-15). It seems to be treated as a scientific fact, as if the sun settles in slimy mud
every day, which can be witnessed with our own eyes, after we walk to where the sun
sets. Also, this goes far out and beyond your and your colleagues’ explanation that the
solar system moves around in our galaxy.
Still under your point two, you write:
. . . Although [Sheikh Abd-Aziz Ibn Baz] was a great religious teacher, Islam recognizes
that no man can have the infallibility popes still today claim. Accordingly, Ibn Baz could
not force his view on all Muslims – he didn't even think about trying to start an
inquisition against the many who differed with him. In the face of Ibn Baz’s statement,
what should we Muslims have done – prevented him from expressing a view simply
because we believed it erroneous?
Specifically, you write that Ibn Baz "did not even think about trying to start an inquisition
against many who differed with him." If I understand this comment, you may be
implying that the popes started inquisitions, and this is worse than Ibn Baz’s beliefs. In
reply, this is a common and mistaken strategy chosen by Muslim missionaries. They
frequently reference misguided and violent events hundreds of years ago, and even a
thousand years ago, that the church committed. However, Christians today do not engage
in any inquisitions. Christians today do not see this entire era of church history as
authoritative, as if we should bring forward all of its policies and practices in such
matters. The church has reformed. That is, no Protestant pastor or Catholic priest today
says we should attack Christians or atheists for holding views contrary to the Bible or
church teachings, particularly not in scientific disputes. However, Islam persecutes and
harasses nonconformist scholars often enough, today, not only a thousand or more years
ago. Thus, no one demands, as you say in your last sentence in the excerpt, that Muslims
should have prevented the Sheikh, highly positioned at an accredited university, from
expressing his conservative views among many strict Quran-believing Muslims or
anyone else.
In any case, I am pleased to read your reply that says Saudi universities disagree with the
Sheikh, who was highly positioned at an accredited and reputable university, and call his
view erroneous. But the real problem lies with the Quran itself.
Your final comment in your second point says:
Addressing the Western theologians’ problems with science, many Christian scholars
today emphatically oppose Darwinism and believe that creationism should be taught in
school. (Indeed, your President Bush advocates teaching "Intelligent Design" – a poor
cousin of creationism – in public schools!) How should those people be answered?
I confess that your comment here disappoints me. This is one subject on which Christians
and Muslims could work together. In any case, you call Intelligent Design "a poor cousin
of creationism." Does this imply that creationism is the privileged first-born son? Do you
prefer strict creationism? It seems that Intelligent Design can only help Islamic theology
in the world of modern science, unless you hold to a literal six-day creation.
Next, maybe a few Christian scholars want creationism taught in public schools, but most
such scholars prefer that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution, both as
theories. This Jewish scholar, for example, who rejects Intelligent Design, says that it
should still be taught in our schools:
Of the many reasons why intelligent design – an argument I reject – ought to be taught
alongside evolution in our public schools, perhaps none is more compelling than the
ignorance and demagoguery which is evident in our current national debate over the
issue. Below are four myths you frequently come across while reading the political
literature on the subject, followed by the facts. (Source)
Personally, I do not worry about the issue of teaching Intelligent Design in the public
schools, one way or the other.
For more challenges to science in the Quran, please go to this webpage. I especially
recommend this scholar. The Saudi Christian adds: "It should be mentioned that all of the
so-called scientific evidence in the Quran is based on visible evidence we can see with
our own eyes, not on divine knowledge." This lengthy review of a debate between the
scholar previously linked and a well-known Muslim speaker brings out this fact in more
detail.
(3) Finally, your fourth point says:
Fourth, George Washington is said to have been one of those who believed that the earth
is flat, but famous Muslim scholars like Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiya who lived centuries
before him knew that the earth is spherical.
In reply, it may be true that these two Muslim scholars knew that the earth is spherical,
but this was widely known, long before Islam came on the scene.
It was widely known [before Aristotle’s time in the fourth century BC] that the earth was
spherical, for example from the shadow of the earth which is cast upon the surface of the
moon during lunar eclipses . . . (Peter Whitfield, Landmarks in Western Science,
Routledge, 1999, p. 33).
In fact, at least one Greek natural philosopher understood that the sun is the center of the
cosmos.
A particular fame however is attached to one of [the Hellenistic scientists], Aristarchus of

Samos (flourished 280 BC), for his suggestion that the Sun and not the earth was the
centre of cosmos . . . But in proposing a moving earth, Aristarchus was violating all
accepted wisdom, and indeed the evidence of our own senses. (Whitfield, p. 42)
As noted in my (long) first reply in this section, the Medieval church followed Aristotle
too closely as he envisioned a geocentric universe. But other Greeks knew better, and
eventually Copernicus in the sixteenth century broke away from the received tradition
and supported a solar-centered universe.
Also, there is a difference between George Washington and Sheikh Ibn Baz. The former
was a general and the first President, who lived in the eighteenth century. The latter was
an Islamic scholar, highly placed at a university and the religious hierarchy, who lived in
the twentieth century and who had access to reports (if only auditory) about humans
landing on the moon. He benefited from advances in astronomy and rocket science in a
way that President Washington could not—assuming that he really did believe that the
earth was flat.
Finally, you link to information about the Flat Earth Society. We live in a free country, so
people may put up any website or form any society that they want, without fear of
harassment. But this society is not part of an accredited university or college or research
lab recognized by anyone of reputation, nor is it a member of any respectable scientific
community or organization. On the other hand, Sheikh Ibn Baz, as noted, was deeply
entrenched in the religious establishment and in an accredited university in Saudi Arabia.

See this quick biography about Ibn Baz, and this short entry on Salafi / Wahhabi
literalism.
Summary
Mr. al-Buthi, I again quote two paragraphs from Bradbury’s book, cited above.
This one describes the astronomical rise in crimes in the land of the Two Holy Mosques,
where Islamic punishments are carried out physically and swiftly:
The statistics available are breathtaking. A 2003 report by the Saudi Arabian Monetary
Agency, for example said that crime among young jobless Saudis rose 320 percent
between 1990 and 1996, and is expected to increase an additional 136 percent by 2005.
More than 60 percent of Saudis are under 21, and the kingdom’s population growth rate
is roughly 4 percent—one of the highest in the world . . . . (p. 142)
The next quotation describes how segregating the sexes leads to increased homosexual
encounters:
So malls in Jeddah, as well as in Riyadh and Dammam, have predictably become the
preferred haunts of another group: male seeking sex with other males. Unlike the boys
and girls seeking to mix, they do not have to hide their intentions. Indeed, they stroll
certain of the malls and supermarkets openly making passes at each other. They are
dressed in variations on Western fashion that would, in America, be considered
outrageously queer, but in Saudi Arabia raise eyebrows only among those who insist on
"Islamic"—that is, Bedouin—dress at all times. These young men openly cruise, often
exchanging comments in loud voices with their friends when a desirable object comes
into view. (p. 154)
What about the US?
As for crime, this line graph on a short page at the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that
violent crimes (e.g. homicide, rape, assaults, robbery) in America have decreased
dramatically since 1994 to 2003. Next, this line graph, also found at the BJS, depicts a
dramatic drop in property crime (burglary, theft, and car theft) from 1994, though the rate
has leveled off since 2002.
But what is the point of placing these two line graphs here? To boast that America has
reached sinless perfection and has no room for improvement? No. Maybe the crime rate
will increase (God forbid) in the next decade (or go down). The point is this: though
many factors contribute to a drop in crime rates (or their rise), it is possible to see such a
decrease without Islamic law. Other, less brutal, methods can be applied in order to lower
crime and enhance the quality of life.
As for the homosexual agenda, it is true that it is strong and vocal. But we have a political
system that permits them to express themselves. They enjoy the right to form coalitions.
How has repression stopped gays in Saudi Arabia? The authorities may have silenced
their political voice (so far), but their practice? Repression has not stopped this, and never
will.
I frequently read Muslim missionary outreach websites that assert that Islam cures
society’s ills and is much better than freedom in the West. We need Islamic law for our
own good, even if we do not realize this or even if sharia is harsh and brutal. But this
quick comparison of crime and of sexual preferences in Saudi Arabia and the US
demonstrates that Islamic law is not necessarily superior. It does not solve problems as
much as the outreach websites claim—not even close.
Mr. Al-Buthi, if you believe that I am picking on your country and bringing up issues that
are none of my business, then please note that you say that your country is compatible
with modernity. Also, you initiated the dialogue, so you opened the door.
To repeat, I am not saying that America has reached moral perfection. Instead, I am
challenging the widespread belief that Islamic countries, even Saudi Arabia, are pure.

Soliman al-Buthe (or al-Buthi) wrote an Open Letter to Congress in 2005. Then he
initiated a dialogue with me, so we decided on this sequence.
Fundamentalism Defined
Religious fundamentalism is not unique to Saudi Arabia; it is a worldwide

phenomenon. Just as many Christians are turning to their religion for guidance in
the modern world, likewise so do many Muslims. Although the distinction has been
lost, Islamic fundamentalism no more equates with extremism or violence than does
Christian or Jewish fundamentalism. The fundamentalist lives his life within the
strictures of his religious laws, whereas the extremist transgresses them. If Christian
fundamentalism is tolerated at the highest echelons of the US government, then it is
hypocritical to attack that the fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia. Unlike some of the
fundamentalist movements in the Christian world, Saudi fundamentalism is not
based on a dispensationalist theology that seeks Armageddon, nor does it involve
attacks on Jesus or Moses – both of whom Muslims revere and love.
Today, millions of non-Muslims reside in the Kingdom where they live unmolested
and are rewarded handsomely for the many services they provide. In stark contrast
to the frequent claim that "Wahhabis" deny "non-Wahhabis" equality and justice,
the government of Saudi Arabia affords all citizens their rights under the law.
JA: I have seven questions or concerns:
1. One of the hallmarks of modernity is religious freedom. Does the Saudi government
permit the Shi’ite minority in your country to publicly and openly commemorate Ashura,
by which they honor the martyrdom of Hussein, Muhammad’s grandson?
2. Mosques flourish openly and publicly here in America. Why are not Christian
churches allowed to flourish openly and publicly in Saudi Arabia?
SaB:

First, There is no, and there can be no absolute freedom of anything anywhere in the
world. We all set limits to human freedom; the only difference is about the extent and
nature of the limits. This depends on the nature of the political system. A secular political
system does not allow religion to encroach upon what it deems to be the prerogative of
secularism. Here are a few examples:
a. "From military psychological-operations teams and CIA covert operatives to

openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of
dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself."
(Please see Hearts, Minds and Dollars, David E Kaplan).
b. "[Former Alabama Chief Justice] Moore was suspended for refusing to remove
the Ten Commandments monument after a federal court mandated him to have it
taken down. He faces several judicial ethics violation charges in a trial before the
Alabama Court of the Judiciary on November 12." (please see Justices won't hear
10 Commandments appeals) [He was subsequently removed from office and is
now threatening to run for governor of his state.]
c. "When France's 577-member National Assembly approved the head-scarf ban last
month, only 36 legislators voted against it. The margin was just as one-sided
when the Senate gave it final approval Wednesday, 276-20. Top French officials,
including President Jacques Chirac, have said the ban will help preserve France's
secular national character. Even Germany's Green Party, for 20 years the best line
of defense for immigrant communities there, is backing a head-scarf ban."(please
see Matthew Schofield, Europe Battles Islam’s Rise, Via Headscarves).
d. A day after a special meeting between Australian Prime Minister John Howard
and Muslim leaders, Muslims who do not respect secularism and law were told
Wednesday, August 24, to leave the country. (please see Anti-Secularism
Muslims Told to Leave Australia)
JA:
You write in your Open Letter that "in stark contrast to the frequent claim that
‘Wahhabis’ deny ‘non-Wahhabis’ equality and justice, the government of Saudi Arabia
affords all citizens their rights under the law." These words prompted my question about
the religious freedom of the Shi’ites and their ritual of honoring Hussein’s death. Though
you do not answer my question directly and specifically about their rights, you refer to
the vague concept of "absolute freedom" and its limitations. Then you cite four examples
(a-d) where freedom does not exist absolutely in the West.
To begin my comment on your four examples measured against "absolute freedom," one
reporter, John R. Bradbury, describes the repression of the Shi’ites from 1916-1928. They
were "brutally suppressed by the Wahhabi forces backing Ibn Saud. It was an orgy of
mass killing of mostly innocent victims, women and children. A staggering 7,000 people
in Najran alone may have been put to the sword." Then in April 2000 "government-
backed religious police stormed a major Ismaeli [a sect of Shia Islam] mosque, seized
many of its religious texts, and arrested three clerics." Bradbury goes on to describe a
secret meeting in the Eastern Province in which both Saudi and foreign Shi’ites met to

mourn Hussein’s death. "In the past, hundreds were ‘caught’ observing such religious
rites . . . They were arrested, and the foreigners among them were deported while Saudi
Shiites faced jail terms and torture" (Source: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside of Kingdom in
Crisis; see Bradbury’s chapter "Shia Fear," pp. 73-85).
In light of these examples of violent repression of Shia Muslims who may not agree with
hyper-strict interpretation of Islam, we are now ready to contrast them with freedom in
the West, even if it does not attain an "absolute freedom" (whatever that means).
In your first example (a), you cite a report that says the CIA tries "to influence not only
Muslim societies, but Islam itself." These reports about the mammoth CIA circulate
around the domestic and world media. Millions in the Arab world believe that the CIA
and Mossad (Israel’s secret service) planned the attack on September 11. If "Islam itself"
is influenced by this agency, then how strong is this religion?
Further, Islamic lobbying organizations try to influence policy in the USA, the European
Community, the United Nations, and elsewhere. The lobbies are given that freedom. So
why should not non-Islamic organizations try to influence Islamic institutions and
governments? One mark of freedom is that people of different convictions are allowed to
(try to) influence people of other convictions. That is the competition of ideas.
In fact, your very letter to Congress is an attempt to influence the American perception of
Wahhabi Islam. Why should Americans not try to influence Muslim convictions?
All of this is, however, a completely different issue from suppressing and oppressing
people from celebrating their religious festivals like Saudi Arabia does to its Shiite
minority. If Saudi Arabia would seek to convince the Shiites by verbal persuasion that
they are wrong and Wahhabi Islam is true, nobody would object. What is reprehensible is
that they are oppressed and threatened, even killed, when they try to celebrate their
religious festivals.
Your second example (b) is about Judge Moore who wanted to place the Ten
Commandments on government property. His opponents argued (right or wrong) that this
placement favored one religion over all the others, so this denied the equality of all
religions. Moore’s actions, so his opponents argue, also violated the First Amendment’s
"Establishment" clause (see below). It says that Congress (extended to include all levels
of government, according to a broad interpretation) shall not establish any religion. Thus,
Moore’s opponents wanted to protect all religions. The government should not favor one
religion over another. Whether Moore or his opponents are right or wrong about their
interpretation of the Constitution is open to debate. But how does any of this compare
with the denial—brutal repression—of a simple Shi’ite ritual, which the Wahhabis
interpret as shirk (associating anyone or anything with Allah) and therefore un-Islamic? If
Moore were to hold a public ritual honoring a Christian martyr, then he would not have
been attacked or arrested.

Any religious ritual that someone does in this nation is legally protected, provided the
ritual does not harm anyone else physically or materially. Even Satanists may march
down the street peaceably or open a "church" or shop peddling their beliefs and practices.
Christians may pray for them and preach the gospel to them, but these concerned
Christians should not harass or threaten them with violence, nor, especially, should the
government do this.
In your example c, you cite France’s ban on the Muslim head-scarf worn in public
schools. Germany’s Green Party supports the ban, as well. The French government also
banned open displays of large religious symbols, such as the cross. Though I do not like
the ban (because the scarf or other symbols harm no one materially or physically), the
students are minors. No student is allowed to wear whatever he or she wants at school.
But if a Muslim girl willingly wears a scarf out in the open public off of school property,
then she is free to do this. However, viewing France’s policy from a distance, I believe it
is misguided, unless the government concluded that other students felt threatened by
Muslim youth, as seen later in the 2005 riots, which were surprisingly organized. But the
policy of denying mere symbols is quite different from the Saudi government’s violent
suppression of a harmless ritual honoring a Muslim "saint," done in public by adults in a
minority sect.
In your fourth example (d) you link to a news article that reports that the Administration
of Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard says that there will not be two sets of law, a
free one and shariah. The article shows that the context of these remarks came shortly
after the London bombings in July 2005. The Administration was defending freedom,
even religious freedom, so that Muslims may worship as they want, peaceably. Shariah
denies complete religious freedom. For example, hard-line Muslims in Australia were
seeking to suppress freedom of speech that criticizes Islam. But the Administration wants
to preserve it, and the way to do this is to deny oppressive shariah.
To wrap up this section, you bring up "absolute freedom" and the limits on it. Then you
cite four examples of western limits. But the differences between these limitations do not
rise (or sink) to the level of the violent suppression of a Shi’ite ritual. The West starts any
discussion about freedom from a long history of tolerance, learned from earlier centuries
of bitter intolerance. Does Saudi Arabia have the same starting place? Does any other
Islamic nation? Personally, I hope that Afghanistan and Iraq will enjoy such freedom.
Second, When the West allows mosques and other places of worship to be built and give
Muslims and adherents of other religions some freedom, Westerners do not do this as a
favor to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country; rather, they do it because it is
something that the Western political system demands. Westerners believe that this is
good for the country.
Third, Saudi Arabia, and all the rest of the Arabian Peninsular constitute a special case
according to the Islamic religion. There are relatively more churches in some Islamic
countries like the Sudan than there are in some Western countries.

Fourth, This question is as valid as asking why the Vatican does not open its city to
allow the propagation of Satanism, Atheism, or any other idea that is anathema to the
ideas of the people of that community.
Fifth, remember that our society and culture is not secular, it is religious. It therefore
takes religious matters very seriously.
JA: In your second major point in this section you assert that western political systems
"demand" that mosques be built. I do not speak for all western political systems, but this
word does not fit an American context (and I am confident that it does not fit in other
western nations). The First Amendment to the American Constitution reads in its entirety,
as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances. (Source)
Thus, nothing in this Amendment comes close to a "demand." Modernity must allow
freedom of religion, including the right of "the people peaceably to assemble," even if
they are Shi’ites celebrating Ashura.
In your third major point you seem to say that Saudi Arabia is a special religious case or
exception. Then you cite Sudan as an example of allowing more churches there than in
some western countries, relatively speaking.
In reply, the sacred exceptionalism of Arabia presumably comes from the prophet of
Islam himself. This hadith from Sahih Muslim says:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula
and will not leave any but Muslim. (Muslim 4366; see a hadith in Bukhari that says Umar
expelled the Jews and Christians from the Hijaz or western Arabia.)
However, Jews and Christians lived in the Peninsula for centuries before Muhammad
came, but his military power forced them out. This happened in the seventh century, but
now this violence and intolerance is no longer compatible with modernity. What would
happen if Israel were to claim that the Temple Mount is a sacred exception and precinct?
Could not the government correctly argue that the mosque on the Temple of the Jews is
the ultimate symbol of Islamic imperialism? Let us imagine that Israel asked Muslim
governments willingly to dismantle the al-Aqsa mosque and move it near the Mount, not
on it. Or maybe Israel would inform Muslim governments that it would move the mosque
unilaterally, as Muhammad and Umar expelled Jews and Christians unilaterally. But back
to reality. The Israeli government does not demand this. But what if Saudi Arabia
allowed Christianity and Judaism to return to their historic home in the Peninsula
(perhaps excluding the Hijaz)? If Judaism is unacceptable, then what about Christianity?
At the very least, the authorities should permit visiting Christians to carry Bibles and
wear crosses and attend specially located churches without fear of arrest. What is the
harm in all of this, if it is done outside of mosques and outside of Mecca and Medina?
Most important, the authorities should no longer block the internet from non-Muslim
religious sites, like answering-islam.org. Are certain parts of the worldwide web sacred
exceptions?
Now what about Sudan? Is it really the best example of Arab tolerance? This summary
from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies says that violence erupted in 1983
because radical Muslims pressured the government to impose Islamic law on the entire
nation. The summary says:
Jihadist government is waging [genocide] against non-Muslim blacks.
• Sudan (population 35 million) is divided into Arab, Islamic north, and

black, non-Muslim south (Christians and animists);
• In 1983, the growing radical Islamic movement successfully pressured the
government to impose Islamic law on the whole country, prompting a
rebellion by the non-Muslim South;
• In 1989, the jihadists took power through a military coup led by General
Omar el-Bashir;
• The national Islamic government has declared jihad against the people of
the South, to be totally eradicated or brought under the banner of Arabism
and Islamism.
Next, in your fourth point you say that the Vatican would not allow the propagation of
Satanism and atheism in its city. In reply, however, Christianity and Judaism are not
equivalent to Satanism or atheism, and neither is Shia Islam. Moreover, I quickly
researched a World Atlas, and Saudi Arabia covers 1,960,582 square kilometers, whereas
the Vatican is only 0.44 sq. km. Surely there is room for other religions in Saudi Arabia
in regions other than the Hijaz and cities other than Mecca and Medina. How about on
the worldwide web?
Finally, in your fifth point, it is legitimate to take a religion seriously, and Saudi Arabia
does this. But sometimes I have the feeling that Muslim governments that suppress
freedom of religion are actually frightened of other ones. But if Islam is the Best
Religion, then it should be easily able compete in the marketplace of ideas, in a free and
open debate. The power and winsomeness of the Final and Superior Revelation would
keep Muslims in and draw members of other religions to it, freely and voluntarily and
without harassment if Muslims were to leave Islam.
3. You compare Islamic fundamentalists with Christian ones, both of whom want to
return to the origins of their religions, to their respective founders and sacred texts. What
are the differences between the life of Jesus and of Muhammad and between the New
Testament and the Qur’an, in terms of the violence or absence of violence inhering in
their lives and sacred books?
SaB:
First, we believe that all true Prophets of God from Adam to Jesus and Muhammad were
exemplary human beings. God sent them to teach people by word of mouth and example
how to live a life that He loves. None of them therefore advocated any kind of violence or
aggression against innocent people. Muhammad in particular was very clear on this point;
he instructed that God sent him as a mercy to humanity and he warned us against
expressing ourselves violently.
Second, as to sacred books, although Islam advocates peace it is not a pacifist religion.
God knows that some people will not only reject the truth but will stand against it and
commit acts of aggression against those who uphold it. Such people must be physically
stopped even if it means fighting and killing them. (For a brief account of this matter
read, Islam, a Peaceful but not Pacifist Religion, in Saudis and Terror By Dr. Jaafar
Sheikh Idris: Cross-Cultural Views, Ghainaa Publications, 1426 H / 2005. pp. 247-60,
www.ghainaa.com). This concept is not foreign to Christians or to Americans; indeed, all
societies recognize the right of self-defense as well as the right of the state to defend its
constituents and interests. Like St. Augustine’s notion of a ‘Just War’ in Christian
theology, Islamic law constrains and regulates the circumstances under which Muslims
are permitted to wage war and the manner in which warfare is conducted.
JA: Much (not all) of what you write in your first and second points agrees with Christian
ethics and the acceptable rules of war. However, I have written my articles to expose all
of Islam to the uninformed public. It is wrong to leave out the unpleasant parts in the
origins of your religion, which are too often applied to today’s world. For example, in the
last sentence after my comments here, you write (below): "Long before current notions of
environmentalism and organizations such as the United Nations, Muhammad told his
followers not to cut down [sic, trees?] in warfare." But this is simply untrue, for some of
the Islamic rules of war are questionable by today’s standards, before or after the United
Nations was founded.
Here follows a list of rules taken from the Quran and the sound hadith collections of
Bukhari and Muslim. The article linked at the end of the list provides the historical
contexts for each one. Except for the first point, I select a translation (Hilali and Khan)
that is supported by the Saudi royal family. All of the parenthetical comments are theirs.
(1) Women captives are sometimes forced to marry their Muslim masters, regardless of
the marital status of the women. That is, the captors are allowed to have sex with the
enslaved, married or not, in most cases. The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:
4:24 And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have
fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning
of the Quran, vol. 1, p. 319).
Maududi, a highly respected Sunni commentator, says in his comment on the verse that it
is lawful for Muslims to marry women prisoners of war even when the prisoners’
husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives?
Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry the women, but two
other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken
(note 44). But why is any of this a debate in the first place?
The next hadith casually talks about disrobing a captured woman, but Muhammad takes
her for himself. "Give me that girl!" he shouts at a Muslim raider returning from a raid.
Why does he want her?
. . . When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met
me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said:
She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her. The
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca, and
surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at
Mecca. (Muslim 4345; see two other hadiths (and there are many) about Muslim captors
having sex with women captives, here and here)
(2) Muhammad gets twenty percent from his raids, and his jihadists get eighty. Does this
explain, to a large degree, why he went out on or sent out so many raids? The Quran in
Sura 8:41 says:
8:41 And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of
it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger
(Muhammad SAW)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if
you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad
SAW) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces
met (the battle of Badr)
The following hadith, though specifically talking about the conquest of the Jewish tribe
of Nadir, explains what the prophet of Islam does with the spoils, part of which was
plowed back into preparations for further jihad:
It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by
Banu [tribe] Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no
expedition was undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were
particularly meant for the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the
annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what
remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad. (Muslim 4347)
(3) Fruit trees may be destroyed. The Quran in Sura 59:5 says:
59:5 What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm-trees (of the enemy), or you left them
standing on their stems, it was by Leave of Allâh, and in order that He might disgrace the
Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
This hadith supports the revelation’s "legality":

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Allah's Apostle had the date-palm trees of Bani Al-Nadir burnt and cut down at a place
called Al-Buwaira. Allah then revealed: "What you cut down of the date-palm trees (of
the enemy) or you left them standing on their stems. It was by Allah's Permission." (59.5)
(Bukhari; see a parallel hadith in Bukhari here)
This revelation in the Quran and support in the hadith contradicts your earlier assertion
that Islam forbids cutting down trees. However, if modern Islam has improved on
original Islam, then this is a welcome change. If this is so, then I hope the change is
broadcast far and wide.
(4) Three options are forced on the People of the Book: (1) Fight and die; (2) convert; (3)
keep their religion, but pay a tax, the jizyah. Muslims argue that it was no more than a
"protection" for the "privilege" of living under Islam (read: not be attacked again). The
Quran in Sura 9:29 says:
9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor
forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who
acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews
and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued.
(5) Some sound hadiths say that Muhammad disapproved of killing women and children.
But in several traditions, pagan women and children may be killed at night in war.
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether
it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing
their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and
children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of
Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari; Hima)
Sahih Muslim agrees:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace
be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed
during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Muslim 4321, and read the one below)
To conclude, this short list of rules of jihad has been taken from this article, which
provides more rules and the historical context of each one. It also has a section on jihad in
Islamic law. One law says that old men and Christian monks may be killed (click on the
article and scroll down to "Classical legal opinions," no. six).
Third, Many Westerners often quote, out of context, some Qur’anic verses relating to
Jihad and fighting. In doing so they appear to want to give the impression that, unlike
Christianity and Judaism, Islam is an aggressive religion. As Muslims we do believe that
your present sacred books contain some of God’s words; we do not, however, believe (as
your fundamentalists do) that every word in them is the word of God. There are many
verses in various books of these books of the Bible that are held out as sacred seem far
worse than any quote that might be taken out of context from the Qur’an. Here are some
examples:
Numbers 31: 1-18 "The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the
Israelites…. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the
Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the
Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps….’ (Moses ordered) ’Now kill all the
boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl
who has never slept with a man.’"
Luke 19:27 (Jesus said) "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
them - bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Compare this with the following Qur’anic verses and sayings of Prophet
Muhammad:
Qur'an 002:190-193 "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but
begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not, aggressors. And slay them wherever you find
them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is
worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until
they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the
reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight
them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let
there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."
Qur'an 008:59-61 "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip
(God's purpose). Lo! They cannot escape. Make ready for them all you can of (armed)
force and of horses tethered, that thereby you may dismay the enemy of God and your
enemy, and others beside them whom you know not. God knows them. Whatsoever you
spend in the way of God it will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. And
if they incline to peace, incline you also to it, and trust in God. Lo! He is the Hearer, the
Knower.
Qur'an 005:8 5:7-10 "Remember God's grace upon you and His covenant by which He
bound you when you said: We hear and we obey; and keep your duty to God. God knows
what is in the breasts (of men). O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for God in
equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Be just: that
is next to piety, and fear God. Lo! God is informed of what you do. God has promised
those who believe and do good works: Theirs will be forgiveness and immense reward.
And they who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of Hell."
The Prophet teaches Muslim soldiers the ethics of war: to avoid killing non-combatants,
women, children, and the elderly. Long before current notions of environmentalism and
organizations such as the United Nations, Muhammad told his followers not to cut down
in warfare.
My comment on this section comes in two long parts.
The first part is subdivided into a list. You cite Numbers 31:1-18. This is a common
strategy of Muslim missionaries. They refer to severe verses in the Old Testament and
assume that they should be carried out today. This is a misinterpretation of the older
sacred text.
Islam does in fact command and initiate wars against peaceful people. At the time of the
revolt of Arab tribes during Abu Bakr’s caliphate and during Umar’s conquests of
peaceful peoples outside of the Arabian Peninsula, the Caliphs subdued tribes and cities
and peoples who wanted to be free of Islam or who never attacked it to begin with.
Further, the differences between the wars in the Old Testament and in the Quran and
early Islam are profound. Here are at least six, which I edit from a previous article, linked
below the list. In this list, "God" means the Deity of the Bible, and "Allah" means the
deity of the Quran.
(1) The historical span of time
The Old Testament books covers around 1,400 hundred years before Christ, and God did
not send out leaders to wage war in most of these years. For example, the Book of Judges
alone says that ancient Hebrews enjoyed many decades of peace between each judge who
was raised up in order to fight off aggression, sometimes as long as eighty years, longer
than Muhammad’s twenty-two years of being a warner and messenger (Judges 3:11, 30-
31; 5:31; 8:28, to cite only these examples).
In Islam, Muhammad lived in Medina for only ten years (AD 622-632). In this brief time,
he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They
range from small assassination hit squads to eliminate anyone who insulted him, to an
Islamic Crusade during which Muhammad led a large number of jihadists against
Byzantine Christians (See no. four, below).
(2) Hope of conversion
In the Old Testament, sometimes God commands all the inhabitants of a region or town
to be wiped out entirely, like Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:29). The Quran
also approves of this destruction (Suras 7:80-84; 11:77-83; 15:61-77; 26:165-173; 27:54-
58; 29:28-30). This is the big lesson of the Genesis passage. If God had found even only
ten righteous in those cities, then he would not have destroyed them. But he did destroy
them, so Sodom and Gomorrah did not have even ten righteous, except Lot and his
family, who were forewarned and escaped.
In contrast, Allah never commanded Muhammad to wipe out all the inhabitants of a
region or town in Arabia at first. Rather, Allah and his prophet killed some and let others
live. Later, however, he forces them to convert or die (Sura 9:1-6). Evidently, the pagans
of Arabia were not beyond hope, but some people in the ancient world were, long before
Christianity or Islam arrived on the world stage.
So what is the difference between over 1,000 years BC (Old Testament wars) and 600
years AD (Islamic wars)? Jesus Christ came with the message of good news, and the
church penetrated into Arabia. Christianity may have "softened up" the pagans in Arabia,
which could not have happened one or more millennia before Jesus came.
(3) The enemy
In the Bible God orders warfare only against specific Canaanites who were too far gone
in their decadence. Let us assume, contrary to fact, that a nation neighboring Israel was
made up of ethical monotheists. Would God decree that a war should be waged against
them? To reason deductively, Deuteronomy 20:10-15 says explicitly not to attack nearby
pagans outside of Canaan. Also, Jonah preached to Nineveh, hundreds of miles away, and
the inhabitants of this city were neither degraded Canaanites nor monotheists. So how
much more would God not attack a nation if it were made up of monotheists?
In contrast, Allah commands warfare against monotheists (Sura 9:29, quoted above, point
no. four in the list of rules of jihad). Muhammad embarked on an Islamic Crusade against
the Byzantines in AD 630. They never showed up, according to the best of western
scholarship, so he believed a false rumor that they were mustering a large army to invade
Arabia. But along the way he extracted agreements and "protection" money from Arab
Christians (and Jews) so that they would not be attacked again. Allah ordained wars of
conquest in order to spread Islam by military force.
For a history of the conflict between Muslims and Jews during the lifetime of
Muhammad, see this article.
(4) Geography
God told the ancient Hebrews to cleanse the land of Canaan, but not to do this to
surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 20:10-15). God did not ordain the conquest of large
regions far beyond Israel, in order to spread the Hebrew religion. Little Israel was at
times about twice the size of New Jersey (one of the smallest states in the US), or other
times roughly the same size as this American state. How does this limited conquest
compare to the gigantic Assyrian, Babylonian, or Egyptian Empires in the ancient world?
How does it compare to the Islamic Empire within only a few decades after the death of
Muhammad in AD 632?
On the other hand, Muslims could claim that Allah told Muhammad to cleanse only
Arabia of polytheists (though this is a huge land mass, much larger than New Jersey), but
the prophet of Islam and his successors expand beyond this large region to conquer vast
territories.

Thus, ancient Israel had a completely different calling that is related specifically to their
land, which is small geographically. Islam waged war on peoples of distant lands, far
beyond Arabia, and it still seeks worldwide religious and political conquest, if it could.
(5) Descriptive vs. prescriptive
From our point of view today, the Old Testament wars in the ancient world are merely
descriptive; but the Quran prescribes or commands wars today.
Sam Shamoun writes:
The wars and violence found within the OT are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are
describing events as they occurred, commandments God had given a specific people for a
specific purpose. These instructions are not prescriptions for followers today, which is
unlike the Quran. The Islamic injunctions are binding on all Muslims for all times,
making it mandatory that all the faithful wage war against the infidels till the end of the
age. (Source)
(6) A Christian perspective
For Christians, this debate over wars in the Old Testament and in the Quran is academic,
because they believe that the first coming of Jesus Christ (600 years before Muhammad)
ushered in a new era of salvation, a way to God that excels the one offered in the Old
Testament, and much better than the one offered in the Quran.
Christians honor the Old Testament, regard it as inspired, and receive great benefit from
it. But at the same time they acknowledge that it was written for its own times. They also
believe that Christ fulfilled it, and hence they must rise above such commands as animal
sacrifices, diet restrictions, and wars over geopolitical holy sites like Jerusalem. (What
the Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders did is not foundational to
Christianity; only Christ is.) With that said, no Christian should ever believe that the God
of the Old Testament and the New Testament are different. They are not. The same God
who purified the specific land of Canaan through Joshua by military warfare is now
purifying the whole world through Jesus (the Hebrew name is Joshua) only by spiritual
warfare, that is, only by preaching the gospel and praying.
For more information on how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, click on this article.
This edited list is taken from this article.
As for the second part of my comments, you say that Westerners quote the Quran out of
context, but you have done this to Luke 19:27. Jesus was telling a parable. It is true that
he said the words, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them
- bring them here and kill them in front of me." But you omitted the fact that he actually
put those words in the mouth of an anonymous king. I explain all of this in the article
Torture in the Quran and Early Islam. I wrote:
In . . . [this] parable, Jesus says that a nobleman went off to become king of another land
(Luke 19:11-27). But his future subjects hated him and did not want him to be king, so
they sent a delegation to inform him of this. But the nobleman went anyway, and he
returned as the new king of that land. After he settled his investments done by his
servants while he was away, he called his enemies to stand before him and commanded
his servants to kill them in front of him. This parable is discussing the end times and
judgment.
Every freshman [first-year] Bible student is taught to determine the genre or kind of
Scripture passage that he is analyzing. If it is a parable, then the students must not take
the details literally. In this case, both parables [Luke 12:35-48 and 19:11-27] relate the
events at the end time, during God’s judgment (note the key theme of "return"). Islam
and Christianity agree that disobedient unbelievers will be punished for their actions, in
the Last Day. In these parables, Jesus is simply using the stereotypical king that had
evolved over the centuries (see Daniel 2:5), so that the original listeners could catch the
degree of sinfulness of the disobedient persons’ affront to God. The details of a parable
must not be overinterpreted, but the essentials are what matter. And the essential message
is this: The severity of the punishments in the literary world of the two parables indicates
the severity of the punishments at Judgment. But the punishments in the parables about
the Last Day are not to be carried out down here on earth, here and now. They are left in
God’s hands in heaven when he calls for the ending of the world.
However, down here on earth, can any Muslim polemicist point out a passage in the
Gospels that clearly and literally and physically shows Jesus cutting people into pieces or
summarily executing someone in real life?

me on various issues (in green). He sought the advice of Saudi religious scholars, as well.
this in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.
This part completes the seven questions and concerns found in Part Five.
JA: 4. You write [in your Open Letter quoted in Part Five] that Christian fundamentalism
is tolerated at "the highest echelons of the US government." Does this refer to President
Bush?
SaB: Yes, and I am only repeating what some of Western religious leaders and churches
say about him:
"The Church Report magazine is pleased to announce the 50 Most Influential Christians
in America. (Please see The 50 Most Influential Christians in America.)
"The staff of The Church Report is pleased to name President George W. Bush as this
year’s most influential Christian. Whether battling terrorism, securing funds for the Faith-
Based Initiative Program or comforting injured soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital,
President Bush exemplifies the qualities of being a Christian and a leader. Even when
faced with difficult decisions that may not always be the most popular ones at the time,
the President stands firm in his faith and strong in his convictions."
Just recently the news media carried the story that Bush said that God instructed him to
bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq.
JA: The link you provide says nothing about "fundamentalism." President Bush is a
Methodist. The denomination is liberal. It is true that the President takes his faith
seriously (perhaps more so than some of his critics on the Religious Left), but this does
not mean that he is a fundamentalist.
As for the report that God told Bush to "bomb Afghanistan" and "invade Iraq," the source
of this report is a Palestinian who may be motivated to make the President look bad. In
any case, the White House denies that the President made the comment. The American
news media are made up mostly of left-of-center reporters and writers. (Ninety percent of
them voted for democratic President Clinton in 1996.) They despise President Bush
("despise" is not too strong a word). If his alleged statement were true, the media would
have taken advantage of it, but it was not a concern over here in the US. Bush has said
repeatedly that he wants only to spread democracy and to clean up the breeding grounds
of terrorism.
JA 5. You say that "Saudi fundamentalism is not based on a dispensationalist theology

that seeks Armageddon." Would you please explain these two hadiths (Muhammad’s
words and deeds outside of the Qur’an) that say Christ will return and break the Cross
and that the last hour will not come until Muslims fight and kill Jews?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, ". . . [S]urely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst
you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the
pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims) . . . Abu Huraira
added: And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them [Christians]."
(4.159) (Bukhari 4:657; see Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)
Muslim records this saying of Muhammad:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last
hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims
would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone
or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and
kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Muslim no.
6985)
SaB:
We interpret these sayings in the light of Islamic teachings about what the Qur’an refers
to as "People of the Book," i.e., Jews and Christians. Islam never advocated their
indiscriminate killing; in fact, Islam specifically permits Muslims to eat their food and
marry their women. (Qur’an, 5:5) It is a well-known historical fact (which many
orthodox Jews admit) that the Jews were never treated better or with more tolerance
anywhere in the world than during the days of the Muslim Empire. (Perhaps it is
noteworthy that the Holocaust was a peculiarly Western, even Christian, event that has
had enormous repercussions in the East.) It was because of Muslims’ tolerance that many
Jews came to accept Islam, and be amongst the best of Muslims. Those ahadith quoted
above are generally understood to be about particular, specific Jews who commit acts of
aggression against Muslims.
JA: My comment here comes in four numbered points.
(1) First, you say that Muslims may marry "their women," meaning Christian and Jewish
women. It is equally true that Christian or Jewish men are not permitted by sharia
(Islamic law) to marry Muslim women. So the marriages go in only one direction, which

puts Muslim men in control, according to traditional Islam. Please see my article on
Muslim-Christian marriages, here.
Second, you say that Islam never advocates the indiscriminant killing of Jews and
Christians. In reply, however, the Quran endorses the mass execution of Qurayza men
and pubescent boys and the mass enslavement of the women and children, after the Battle
of the Trench in AD 627. Sura 33:25-26 says:
33:25 And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not obtain any
advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and Allah is Strong, Mighty. 26
And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their
fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another
part. (Shakir)
What could be more "indiscriminant" than killing a whole tribe, that is, every one of the
boys and men? For Muhammad’s troubled relations with the Jews of Medina, see this
article. For his massacre of the Qurayza Jews of Medina, go here. I have read Muslim
explanations for the massacre, but they do not hold up, in my opinion.
(2) You write, "It is a well-known historical fact (which many orthodox Jews admit) that
the Jews were never treated better or with more tolerance anywhere in the world than
during the days of the Muslim Empire." In reply, no one should deny simple facts.
Sometimes a Muslim ruler was kind to Jews (and Christians), but the full story is that
sometimes a ruler was oppressive. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, says
that the Jews suffered or prospered under specific Ottoman rulers.
Three summary conclusions are drawn by [Joseph] Hacker [a present-day scholar]: (i)
Strong anti-Ottoman feelings prevailed in some Byzantine Jewish circles in the first
decades after the fall of Constantinople. These feelings were openly expressed by people
living under Latin rule and to some extent even in Istanbul; (ii) Mehmed II’s policies
toward non-Muslims made possible the substantial economic and social development of
the Jewish communities in the empire, and especially in the capital – Istanbul. These
communities were protected by him against popular hatred, and especially from blood
libels. However, this policy was not continued by Bayezid II and there is evidence that
under his rule the Jews suffered severe restrictions in their religious life; (iii) The friendly
policies of Mehmed on the one hand, and the good reception by Bayezid II of Spanish
Jewry on the other, cause the Jewish writers of the sixteenth century to overlook both the
destruction which Byzantine Jewry suffered during the Ottoman conquests and the later
outbursts of oppression under both Bayezid II and Selim I. (Source)
Next, Bostom reports on the indiscriminant killing of Jews and others in Palestine and the
wholesale destruction of churches, synagogues, and towns, during the Caliphate of Umar
(r. 634-644):
The entire Gaza region up to Cesarea was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634,
which included the slaughter of four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants.
Villages in the Negev were also pillaged, and towns such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa,
Cesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated. In his sermon on the Day of the
Epiphany 636, Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, bewailed the destruction of the
churches and monasteries, the sacked towns and villages, and the fields laid waste by the
invaders. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague wrought
by this wanton destruction.
The Muslim historian Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.) maintained that 30,000 Samaritans and
20,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone just prior to the Arab Muslim conquest; afterward,
all evidence of them disappears. Archaeological data confirms the lasting devastation
wrought by these initial jihad conquests, particularly the widespread destruction of
synagogues and churches from the Byzantine era, whose remnants are still being
unearthed. The total number of towns was reduced from fifty-eight to seventeen in the
red sand hills and swamps of the western coastal plain (i.e., the Sharon). (Source)
A Saudi Christian adds: "If it is true that Islam tolerated the Jews and treated them better,
then why are not there any Jews left in Arabia after Islam began?"
In citing these two articles, my goal is to balance out your positive picture with hard
reality. Please see Robert Spencer’s book The Myth of Islamic Tolerance.
(3) Five quick responses to your bringing up the holocaust: First, yes, it is true that the
holocaust occurred in the West. But the leaders of Turkey committed genocide against
the Armenians. Clearly, Hitler caused more deaths, but the Armenian genocide is an
atrocity, also. Second, your use of the word "West" is too broad, and "Christian" is
wrong. Hitler and his Nazi regime did not speak, for example, for the German Confessing
Church which opposed him. (See their Barmen Declaration which opposed the "Reich
Church.") Some members of the Confessing Church were imprisoned and killed. Third,
Hitler and his leaders were pagans (of sorts) or atheists, not Christians. Even if they were
to claim Christianity, their version does not fit the New Testament’s definition of the
term. Fourth, it is the Allies, also members of the West, who provided the liberation and
the remedy toward the end of the Second World War. Finally, it seems that some
Muslims would like to carry out genocide today.
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says that Israel must be "wiped off the
map."
Next, one of Ahmadinejad’s advisors says that the "Holocaust issue will result in the
destruction of Israel."
On June 9, 2006, the reformist online daily Rooz reported that during a visit with students
at Gilan University in Rasht, Iran, Mohammad Ali Ramin, advisor to Iranian president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, discussed historical accusations against the Jews and questioned
the Holocaust.

"Claiming that the Holocaust was the principal reason why Palestine was occupied while
Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel
exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East,' he said
adding, 'So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'
(Source)
The Saudi friend reminds us of these verses: "Compare that to what Psalm 83:1-5 says
about Israel." The verses promise protection of his chosen people.
But what about today in Saudi Arabia? Here are some of the topics preached in main
mosques:
Friday Sermons in Saudi Mosques: Review and Analysis
• Part I - 'The Christians and the Jews are "Infidels," "Enemies of Allah"'
• Part II - 'Jews - The Descendants of Pigs and Apes'
• Part III - 'It is Impossible to Make Peace With the Jews'
• Part IV - 'Muslims Must Educate Their Children to Jihad… and to Hatred
of Jews and Christians'
• Part V - 'The Palestinian Struggle Must be An Islamic Jihad'
• Part VI - 'Muslim Women's Rights are a Western Ploy to Destroy Islam'
• APPENDIX - About Al-Minbar
(Source; this link also has further ones to various sermons in the footnotes.)
Whether these preachers of hatred, regression, and bigotry are Wahhabi or not is
irrelevant to me. The bedrock fact is this: these are the views of religious leaders who
preach in main mosques throughout Saudi Arabia. None of this comes from obscure,
violent radicals hidden away in a mountain range.
The Saudi friend adds:
When I used to go to the mosque on Fridays, it was no more than a rally speech that
ignited hatred in you towards those who do not believe in Allah, including the Christians
and the Jews. In fact, historically, the Friday prayer was used by Muhammad and his
followers as a means to encourage his followers to fight by reminding them of their
earthly and heavenly rewards, a tradition that is still being carried out to this day in many
mosques, especially in Saudi Arabia, including their Holy Mosque in Mecca. And in
Ramadan, there is a tradition called, "The conclusion of the Quran prayer," which takes
place on the 27th or the 28th day of the month, which by then the Imam would have read
the entire Quran (usually starting with Chapter one on the 1st day of the month and
continuing throughout, to the last chapter on the 27th day). After the Imam concludes the
Quran, he begins a prayer, in which he calls the Christians and the Jews the enemies of
Allah and asks Allah to destroy them by the hands of the Muslims. This is normally done
in Ramadan – the so called "Holy Month."

(4) These hadiths that say that stones and trees will cry out that Jews are hiding behind
them, so they should be killed, are used often by radicals to drum up hatred of the Jews
generally, not only of specific Jews who commit aggression against Muslims. I have too
often heard the explanation from Muslim apologists (defenders) that if early Islam or the
Quran says to fight, then it is always the fault of their opponents, who are always the
aggressors. It seems that Islam can do no wrong even though plain reason says that it has
sometimes been aggressive. In any case, the following radical leaders (not just obscure
crackpots) do not make such fine distinctions.
The following [is an excerpt] from a television program with Sheikh Yousef Al-
Qaradhawi, aired on Qatar TV on February 25, 2006. Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi is head of the
European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Association of
Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and the spiritual guide of many other Islamist organizations
across the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Everything will be on our side and against Jews on [Judgment Day]; at that time, even
the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: 'Oh servant of Allah,
oh Muslim, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' (Source)
The next example repeats the first, but from a Palestinian:
The following [is an excerpt] from this week's official Friday sermon on Palestinian
Authority (PA) TV [on May 17, 2005]. The preacher is Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, a paid
employee of the PA.
The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and
trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about
the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off
every Jew." (Source)
Finally, on May 4, 2005, Egyptian cleric Sheik Mahmoud Al-Masri says this about Jews
generally.
The Prophet said, as reported in the book of Al-Muslim: "Judgment day will not come
until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill the Jews, and then the Jews will
hide behind stones and trees, and Allah will make the stones and trees speak, saying: 'Oh
Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him', except for the
Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews." Since the Jews believe the Prophet
Muhammad, they have planted Gharqad trees throughout Palestine. (Source)
These three "Jew haters" do not come from Saudi Arabia, but they represent a deep
prejudice against Jews among many Arabs, including Saudis. For example, this is a series
of broadcasts on Saudi IQRA TV, about an especially wicked Jew in Muhammad’s day.
TV programs like this only reinforce "Jew hatred." Next, one Saudi journalist is baffled
by the extent of the "tremendous" hatred of Jews in his home country. Finally, these
quick interviews with "the man on the street" aired on IQRA TV. Every one of them
despises Jews and would not even shake their hand. The Jews are the "eternal enemies,"
say two Muslims. Saudis or not, the fact that these interviews were aired on IQRA TV
fuels the fire of hatred in your country. But what about free speech? It could be said that
IQRA TV is following this principle. In reply, are opposite views expressed? How much
time does IQRA TV give to them?
Mr. al-Buthi, will widespread and vocal "Jew hatred" ever stop in the Arab Muslim
world? I really hope so.
JA: 6. This online booklet, "The Day of Wrath," was written by Sheikh Safar Ibn Abd al-
Rahman al-Halawi, head of the department of theology at Umm al-Qura University in
Mecca. This booklet has a lengthy discussion of End Time prophecies. (Is it true that he
was arrested in 1994, not for his booklet, but for his opposition to the Saudi government
when it supported the South in Yemen’s civil war?) How do you match this booklet by a
popular preacher and department chair of theology at a Saudi University with your
assertion that Wahhabism does not seek Armageddon or is unconcerned with End Time
prophecies?
SaB:
First, All Muslims, not only Saudis, believe in the prophetic texts that include prophecies
(also mentioned in the Bible) regarding events expected to happen in future. However,
Muslims are ordered by the sharia not seek the creation of circumstances that materialize
these prophecies; rather, we are told to believe and deal with the prophecies as they are
fulfilled (please see Mixing Prophecy and Politics).
Second, Dr. Safar al-Hawali was not speaking as a Wahhabi; indeed, he himself would
deny that label. No one in Saudi Arabia would call himself that. Dr. al-Hawali was
simply expressing his own personal view, a view with which some scholars even in Saudi
Arabia differed.
JA: I appreciate your assertion that Muslims do "not seek the creation of circumstances
that materialize these prophecies; rather, we are told to believe and deal with the
prophecies as they are fulfilled." This is precisely what prophecy-believing Christians do,
contrary to what your linked article says. It may be true that some Christians become
extreme in their beliefs, but they do not represent the mainstream. All religions have the
overzealous.
Those Christians aside, I have kept track of some End Time prophecy teachers, and they
do not want to bring about the end of the world. However, they indeed support Israel in
practical ways, such as donations to various organizations. Why? They believe that a
large army will line up to attack the Jewish State of Israel. Many of these Bible prophecy
teachers now believe that Islamic nations may be involved in the final battle. After
reading the quotations of "Jew hatred" in the previous section, above, who can blame
them for their belief? It seems that the "Jew hatred" of many Muslim leaders gives the
"End Time" Christians cause for concern.
However, these Christians do not believe that they can speed up the Last Day, when
Christ returns. This is an interview of David Brog by Ed Lasky, two Jews, not Christians,
who are enquiring into Christian Evangelical support for Israel.
David Brog is the author of the book Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the
Jewish State. He attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School, served as an
executive at America Online, and practiced corporate law. He has recently been the Chief
of Staff for Senator Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania).
Lasky asks Brog about the motives of these Christians. Do the motives include, at least in
part, the belief that they can speed up the Second Coming? Brog replies:
Christians do believe that the return of Jews to their ancestral land is a "sign of the
times," i.e. a sign that the Second Coming may be drawing near. Yet this does not mean
that Christians believe that they can speed the Second Coming by accelerating the pace of
this return. Christian theology is clear that man cannot speed the Second Coming. Even
Jesus said, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but
My Father only." If one cannot speed the Second Coming, then Christian beliefs about
the end times cannot serve as a motive for supporting Israel – there would be no cause
and effect. One has to look elsewhere for Christian motives, namely to the many clear
promises in Genesis.
This point is easily demonstrated through the analogy you reference above. Christians
believe that another "sign of the times" is the growing moral decay of society. In other
words, society’s abandonment of traditional morality and embrace vice and sin it is a sign
that the Second Coming is drawing near. If Christians truly believed that they could
speed the Second Coming by encouraging the various signs of the times, then Christians
would be out there accelerating America’s moral decay by opening brothels and casinos.
Instead (and to the chagrin of many liberals), evangelicals are actively fighting all aspects
of what they view as the moral decay in society, from pornography to abortion to gay
marriage. This evangelical moral activism simply doesn’t make sense if their action in
the world is motivated by the desire to incubate the various signs of the times. (Source)
Brog, who is not a Christian, it must be emphasized, is one hundred percent correct. No
practical effort will speed up the Second Coming. In fact, these prophecy-believing
Christians often say that prophetic events are now happening rapidly. This means that the
believers do not need to do anything to hasten them. At the same time, however, they
work hard at supporting Israel in practical ways because of the blessing of Abraham
(Genesis 12:3), which says that all nations will be blessed by God’s promise of support
for his nation, and because of the imminent danger it always faces. In supporting Israel,
these Christians believe that they are following God, according to the Bible.
They certainly do not want to cause or get involved in a nuclear conflagration, as Dr. al-
Hawali seems to say in his radical pamphlet. He has extreme views, which are not
adequately researched in the first place, regardless of his specific religious affiliation. He
is also a scholar at a Saudi University, which means his prejudices have some influence.
JA: 7. You say that Muslims revere and love Jesus. Would you please provide a fuller
description of the Islamic Jesus? Do you know whether it matches up with the description
in the Four Gospels?
SaB:
First, I do not think the Four Gospels are consistent with one another!
Second, If the Biblical books are not historically authentic, their description of Jesus is
entitled to no credence.
JA: The belief that the Gospels are historically inauthentic is widespread among
Muslims, but it is factually erroneous. I have already presented some evidence of their
historical authenticity in Part Two (scroll down to "Is the Bible reliable and accurate?")
and in Part Three (scroll down to Point D).
The New Testament manuscripts far outnumber other manuscript traditions of ancient
non-Christian books. And the chronological gap between the New Testament manuscripts
and the events themselves and original writings is much, much shorter. This short article
has a Comparative Table of New Testament and non-Christian manuscripts.
In the link to Part Two, above, I also challenge the incorruptibility and absolute historical
purity of the Quran (scroll down to "Is the Quran pure and uncorrupted?"). It is beyond
belief, swerving over into childlike naïveté, to assume without checking the facts that the
Quran came out of the ancient world perfectly preserved after its journey through history.
This report says that 15,000 sheets of some Qurans were discovered in 1972. But the
Muslim authorities will not allow their publication. What are they afraid of?
Third, the Qur’an differs with Christianity on its most central belief about Jesus, i.e., his
being the son of God. The Qur’an not only states that this belief is wrong and harmful, it
gives rational and religious arguments for the fact that it is impossible for God to have a
child.
JA: First, it is unclear to me why the Christian belief in the Son of God is "harmful."
Surely this doctrine does not, by itself and of necessity, translate into physical and
material harm in some way, does it? I would not say that tauhid (strict oneness) causes
"harm" by itself and of necessity. Perhaps you mean "harm" in the afterlife. However,
since I am unclear on what you mean by the word in this context, I pass to the next issue.
Second, one of the main "arguments" that the Quran puts forward against Jesus being the
Son of God is the mere assertion that God must have a wife or consort to beget a child.
This has already been answered in Part Two, under the section "Does the Quran have a
mysterious mother?" This Quranic assertion seems to be culture bound. That is,
Muhammad seems to be reacting against seventh-century Arab polytheism, which says
that the gods have children because of marriage or sex. Both notions, one in the Quran
and the other in Arab polytheism, are rejected by Christian theology.
Fourth, the Qur’an tells us that Jesus was not killed, but that he left Jerusalem alive and
that he will come back as a follower of Muhammad. The Qur’an does not say that Divine
Prophets cannot be killed; indeed, many of them were. Their violent deaths are simply
matters of fact.
JA: I must be honest here. This is a strange and farfetched belief. The Quran says that
Jesus was made to appear to be crucified, but he was not actually crucified, according to
Sura 4:157, which reads:
4:157 That they [the Jews] said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the
Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to
appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain)
knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Yusuf Ali)
What is so interesting about this verse is the epistemology behind it. (Epistemology
studies how we acquire our knowledge.) The relevant phrase says about those who are
full of doubts about Muhammad’s declaration of the non-crucifixion: the doubters are
"with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow." Muhammad lived six
hundred years after Jesus. The prophet of Islam was no scholar or historian or researcher.
Therefore, how is he so certain ("of a surety") about his belief that Christ was not actually
crucified? A revelation or historical evidence? How are Muslims so certain that Jesus
"left Jerusalem alive"? A revelation in the Quran or historical evidence? Incidentally, the
Quran does not explicitly say that Jesus left Jerusalem alive, but since we are now in the
world of imagination, this alternative to the crucifixion is as good as any.
However, even the harshest critics of the New Testament do not deny that Christ was
crucified. They may doubt his bodily resurrection or his miracles, such as walking on
water, but his crucifixion? None of them doubt this.
For more criticism of this "revelation" in the Quran, please see this article. I have a short
section on the topic in this article. It advances the idea that Muhammad may have picked
up his belief in the mere appearance (not reality) of the crucifixion from Docetism, which
had been circulating along the trade routes in the greater Mediterranean world for
centuries. Docetism comes from the Greek word meaning "to seem" or "to appear."
Fifth, we do not only love Jesus, we believe that one cannot be a Muslim if one doesn’t.
Six, The Qur'an tells us that Jesus' birth was miraculous, for he had no father. That is why
he is always referred to in Islam as "Son of Mary." The Qur’an tells us that he spoke
while still a baby, that he could, with God's will and permission, heal the blind and the
leper and raise the dead, which acts Jesus used to stress the fact that he was only a servant
of God.
JA: Much of your allusion to Sura 3:49 agrees with the New Testament, except for Jesus
speaking as a baby. This comes from the apocryphal gospels. See my article here, which
shows that Muhammad claims revelations about events in young Mary’s life (see Sura
3:44) and, by extension, in the life of baby Jesus. But the evidence says that the Quran
gets this specific information from non-canonical gospels. It is true that a few New
Testament authors quote a line or two from non-Christian Greek poets, but the authors do
not claim that they got this specific information only from Gabriel or only from a
heightened state of ecstatic inspiration. Nor, especially, do they claim that they knew,
whether by inspiration or Gabriel or other means, anything about the childhood of the
Greek poets whom they cite.
Seven, The Qur'an also tells us about dialogue between Jesus and God in the Hereafter
Qur'an 5:116-118 "And when God says: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to mankind:
Take me and my mother for two gods beside God? He says: Be glorified It was not mine
to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You knew it. You know what
is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your mind. Lo! You, only You are the Knower
of Things Hidden. I spoke to them only that which You commanded me, (saying):
Worship God, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among
them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all
things. If You punish them, lo! they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (lo! they
are Your slaves). Lo! You, only You are the Mighty, the Wise."
Qur'an 5:119-120 "God says: This is a day in which their truthfulness profits the
truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure for
ever, God taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph. To God
belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatsoever is therein, and He is
Able to do all things."
Please see We Believe in Jesus by Soliman H. Albuthi.
JA: I have read your article. Again, Muhammad lived six hundred years after Jesus. So
how does the prophet of Islam receive this specific knowledge about Jesus? From
historical research, down here on earth? From fragments of knowledge and stories
circulating over the trade routes for centuries? From a revelation? I prefer the teaching of
the New Testament. These authors were apostles who knew Jesus up close and personal,
or they came under the authority of the apostolic community. They had clear and direct
knowledge of the events in Christ’s life.
And now it becomes clear why polemical Muslims must discredit the New Testament,
which has passed the test of the severest of criticisms from western scholars. I again
quote from these two reputable ones:
But this historical authenticity does not deter polemical and missionary Muslims. Why
not? The Quran and the New Testament contradict each other on essential doctrines about
Christ. So they believe that the Quran—it must be believed!—corrects the New
Testament, even though the New Testament is much, much closer to the life of Christ
than the Quran is.
In a certain sense, I am glad that Muslims love Jesus. And your article shows respect for
him. However, since Islam came six hundred years after him, the Quran and the hadith
are confused about him, as revealed in the following list, taken from the Conclusion of a
long article. In most cases, each point (or two or three) alternates between one Islamic
doctrine and an opposite one or an outright contradiction (note the first two, for example).
Sam Shamoun concludes from his research:
1. The Quran denies that Jesus is God or the Son of God.

2. At the same time the Quran applies specific titles and functions to Jesus
which clearly show that he is more than human, strongly supporting his
Divinity and prehuman existence.
3. The Quran says that those objects that are wrongly worshiped by others
are unable to create, therefore disqualifying them from being worthy of
such adoration and devotion.
4. Jesus, on the other hand, creates in the same way that Allah creates which
shows that he is worthy of the very worship and praise due to Allah.
5. The Quran denies that Allah has granted immortality to anyone.
6. Yet the Quran says that Jesus ascended into heaven without dying, and
was neither killed nor crucified, meaning that for over 2,000 years he has
remained alive!
7. The Quran suggests, with the Islamic narrations making this point explicit,
that Jesus will return to the earth as a sign that the last hour is at hand.
8. It also teaches that all the Jews and Christians will believe in Jesus before
he dies, which will presumably take place after his second coming.
9. But at the same time the Quran says that Jesus died already, which must
have obviously happened prior to his ascension into heaven.
10. Still others believe that specific verses, namely Suras 3:55 and 5:117,
teach that Jesus' earthly sojourn was terminated, was completed without
dying when Allah took Jesus alive to be with himself, to be in the very
presence of Allah.
11. This means that Jesus will not return since the period of his stay on earth
has come to an end, thereby implying that there is no need for him to come
back again.
12. But if Jesus was taken physically alive into heaven because his earthly
mission was completed, which implies that he will not to return, then this
contradicts the Quran's teaching that every person must taste death.
13. Not only is the Quran confused and contradictory with itself, even the so-
called sound narrations are contradicting it, especially in relation to Jesus
being taken alive to be with Allah himself. The hadiths deny that Jesus
was taken to be with Allah since they claim that he was taken into the
second heaven instead.

14. Furthermore, as we already mentioned, the narrations also speak of Christ

returning which means that Jesus' earthly period wasn't complete but had
to be extended to a future date. (Source)
This list of contradictions in the Quran and hadith concerning Christ should surprise no
one. Muhammad’s information came from "revelations" or various, incomplete beliefs
about Christianity circulating around the trade routes, or an unclear knowledge of the
New Testament itself. Muhammad was not a scholar, so we should not imagine him
poring over dusty papyri or other manuscripts, for hours. He learned scraps of ideas.
Also, his later followers added to the confusion and contradictions in their reports about
his words and deeds, collected afterwards, as they related traditions about Christ.
Mr. al-Buthi, your article on Muslims believing in an Islamic Jesus is based on the Quran.
This means that the article has presuppositions that are not founded on the best source for
the life of Christ: the New Testament. For my part, I’ll stay with it. It is historically
reliable, authentic, and closer to his life. I have never seen any solid reason to prefer the
Quranic version of Jesus over the report of those who saw him and lived with him.
The Saudi friend adds:
All of these contradictions and confusion in Islam and its teachings demonstrate that in
no way do this religion and its teachings have any divine nature. Further, why would God
wait some 600 years after the time of Christ to correct any wrong teachings by the
Apostles of Christ? Next, the Quran quotes from the Bible at the time of Muhammad.
This means that it approves of the teaching of the Gospel up to that time, fourteen
hundred years ago. Ironically, when the Quran quotes from the New Testament, it uses a
parable of our Lord Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Mark (cf. Sura 48:29 and Mark 4:26-
28). Therefore, if the Gospels are not reliable, then why quote from them to begin with?
And where is the true Gospel that Islam claims to have existed? Who is better than God
himself to point out this Gospel and show it to Muhammad, if he was indeed was a
prophet of God?

Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim (7)
2. Months later in that same year, Mr. al-Buthe answered my questions and challenged
Misconceptions on Jihad
The scholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been among the most vocal
opponents of religious extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world. Long before
September 11, 2001, our scholars had warned against the dangers of extremism and
spoken decisively against the spreading of civil strife and violence in the name of
"jihad." All Muslim terrorism is both created by and reflects an ignorance of the
tenets of Islam and a false belief in the meaning and rules of jihad. This can only be
corrected by the scholars of Islam, and it is counter-productive for the United States
to claim that it is fighting terrorism while targeting those most able to correct the
ignorance in which such terrorism is born.
Jihad does not equate with terrorism or the spreading of civil strife; rather, jihad is
a concept with which most of your citizens would agree if correctly understood. In
Islamic belief, the greatest jihad is the struggle that each soul must wage against
itself to live a pure and good life. At the same time, Islam empowers its adherents to
defend their lives, property, and honor from attack. When injustice is present, Islam
not only tolerates fighting, it is required. When, however, a Muslim is required to
fight, his behavior is constrained by a detailed code of conduct that prohibits attacks
on innocent civilians, the harming of the environment, the destruction of places of
worship, and the harassment of priests and non-combatants. That said, Muslims do
not seek war with our enemies. However we recognize, as does the West, that
sometimes war is unavoidable. The rules of engagement in Islam are well defined
and Islam views the peaceful resolution of disagreement and conflict as being
preferable to war.
JA (2005): It is true that some scholars hold these views on jihad, such as the seeming
moderates at this Saudi website http://fatwa-online.com/. But it is also true that other
Saudi scholars see jihad as offensive, not defensive. The views of peaceful Saudis do not
potentially harm the non-Islamic world, but the views of the radicals lash out and harm
people.
SaB (2005): First, we know of no scholar who has interpreted "jihad" to be preemptive in
the sense of waging war against innocent people simply just because they are not
Muslims. Such an interpretation would be a clear violation of God's equally clear
command:
Qur'an 002:190-193 "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but
begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not, aggressors. And slay them wherever you find
them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is
worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until
they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the
reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight
them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let
there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."
Those who said that jihad is not only defensive meant that one need not wait until a
promised attack occurs, and then only to fight back. Thus Muslims are allowed only seek
out and attack those whom they discover to be preparing to attack them. This is why they
termed this kind of jihad, jihad at-talab (i.e., "seeking out or going after").
Second, Isn’t it the fact that the West (and especially the United States) that is lashing out
and harming people all over the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims, by employing
President Bush’s concept of "preemptive war"?
JA (2006): We have invited a colleague and friend, formerly of Saudi Arabia, to

comment on our dialogue. He adds:
Please see what Osama bin Laden had said in an interview regarding fighting and his
fatwa against Americans, Christians & Jews – and see the kind of verses he is using to
support that, here.
Furthermore, this statement of yours disagrees with the historical facts: "we know of no
scholar who has interpreted "jihad" to be preemptive in the sense of waging war against
innocent people simply just because they are not Muslims." The truth? Within a hundred
years after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, the Muslim armies conquered a huge part of
the world from India to Spain. Did all those countries attack Arabia and Islam so that
Muslims were forced to simply defend themselves? Or was it not the initiative of the
Caliph to start those wars and conquer further countries? Muslims all over the world are
proud of this historical period and the great advance of Islam. They call it "opening these
countries for Islam." It allegedly brings justice, so that conquered peoples may get to
know and accept the message of Islam. Again, the crucial term is "innocent" (your word).
Muhammad (supposedly) sent letters to the various emperors. They did not accept Islam;
therefore they were no longer innocent. They had to be warned, but then Muslims were
free to attack those countries.
Next, you state that Muslims are not allowed to wage war "against innocent people
simply just because they are not Muslims." If I understand these words, they imply that
President Bush wages war just because a nation is made up of Muslims. The reply to this
follows, after I quote some other of your words in this section. You state that "Muslims
are allowed only [to] seek out and attack those whom they discover to be preparing to
attack them" . . . .
In reply, this somewhat describes the US position before the invasion of Iraq and the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein, if we factor in our allies. (1) Hussein violated numerous
United Nations Resolutions after the Gulf War. (2) Hussein violated the "no-fly" zone
repeatedly. (3) His military fired on our jets during patrols many times, in violation of the
terms of surrender signed in the Gulf War. (4) We had obligations to protect countries in
the Gulf region, and his actions were aggressive. (5) Evidence is now surfacing from
countless pages of documents (most are untranslated so far) and actual discoveries that
Hussein in fact had weapons of mass destruction and sought to improve the use of this
weaponry (he used them against his own citizens). (6) Evidence is now surfacing that
Saddam had contacts with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. (7) Bush said in speeches leading up
to the invasion that he would not wait until the threat becomes imminent, but would take
action as a dangerous regime threatens its neighbors and our allies. (8) It is true that
Hussein’s capabilities could not reach us directly, but they could wreak damage on our
allies or aid and abet non-conventional militants to attack us. The Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, located around the other side of the globe from the US, proves this. It
provided the environment for militants to launch their attacks. Thus, Bush did not invade
Afghanistan or Iraq just because the majority of their citizens are Muslims.
As for harming and lashing out, Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
during his reign of terror. Now people can live in peace, except when Sunnis and other
factions, some of whom are called to jihad in Saudi Arabia, detonate car bombs.
Finally, the world is now threatened by Iran. Does Iran threaten Saudi Arabia? It remains
to be seen whether President Bush and his Administration will make a "preemptive"
strike on its nuclear facilities. However, for now, negotiations continue apace, but for
how long?
SaB (2005): Third, Westerners and particularly many Americans seem to be utterly
unrealistic in their thinking that they can do what they want with people around the world
in defense of what their politicians deem to be America’s national interest and then
expect universal love and trust from the people of the world.
JA (2006): Here is my view on worldwide love and trust. I don’t seek these things. I first
care about doing the right thing. If this wins me love and trust, then great. If not, then so
be it.
What about the American contribution to the world (or doing what it wants with people
around the world, to paraphrase your words)? The timeframe is after the First World War
(1914-1918), when America finally grows in its international influence, until the present
day. This beginning point is crucial, because we were not well established on the
international stage before then. Here is a list of names that I come up with at the moment:
Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin (Khrushchev, Brezhnev and other dictators up to Gorbachev),
Benito Mussolini, General Hideki Tojo, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il
Sung, his son Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and an assortment of Eastern European dictators.
These persons have at least three characteristics in common: (1) Hyper-control

(authoritarianism or totalitarianism) over their citizens; (2) the cause of deaths and misery
on a wide scale (e.g. by economic mismanagement, starvation, wars, direct murders en
masse); Stalin was responsible for 24 million deaths and Mao for 50 to 75 million; (3)
opposition by America and its allies, in one way or another or to one degree or another.
To cite a few specific examples, it is true that we had to be allies with Stalin to fight
Hitler, and President Roosevelt looked the other way as Stalin took over Eastern Europe,
but we eventually fought his puppet regime in Korea. President Truman provided the
Berlin airlift which caused the survival of a free Berlin, as an island in unfree communist
East Germany. Does anyone of a sound mind doubt that China would conquer Taiwan if
the US gave the green light or looked the other way or (God forbid) did not exist? Thus,
our opposition to these fascists is mixed, but at least we have been trying since 1918 to
the present.
Based on this list of dictators and American (and allied) opposition to them, I believe that
America (and its allies) has benefited the world more than harmed it, though my country
is far from perfect. South Korea, Germany, and Japan all breathe the fresh air of freedom
and democracy, and so do many Eastern European countries today. At least in part,
America (and its allies) helped them achieve this God-given right. Incidentally, Korea did
not have oil, but we sacrificed our men (around 38,000) to give the bottom half of the
Peninsula freedom and prosperity. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld describes
(scroll down towards the end) a nighttime satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. The
North is entirely dark except Pyongyang, the showcase city, but the South glows with
prosperity.
So how does all of this relate to Islamic nations?
First, Saddam Hussein should be added to the Horrible Hall of Fame, and we and our
allies fought and overthrew him. President Bush wants to spread freedom around that part
of the globe, as the Iraqis carve out their own version of democracy.
Second, these regimes listed above have some other features in common. They killed
dissenters and critics, and they refused to permit their citizens to leave the official
ideology, on pain of death or imprisonment.
Third, is there a religious-political ideology that began with an authoritarian leader who
passed on his rulership to authoritarian successors? Did these men lash out and harm and
wage aggressive wars on peaceful peoples who did not attack them in the slightest? Is
there a religious-political ideology that kills critics and apostates, today? Is there a
religious-political ideology that exercises absolute control over and imposes harsh and
brutal laws on its citizens?
It seems, therefore, that imperfect America and its imperfect allies have helped,
imperfectly or successfully, people enjoy freedom, so they can live as they want within
justice and modern laws that do not directly come from the seventh century. But we have
a long way to go.
Our Saudi friend and colleague adds:
Why do many of the Muslim leaders remain in power for decades? Why are their people
longing for freedom? Why do their people leave and immigrate to other countries,
especially to Europe, America and Australia, if they are living in a peaceful and
democratic condition in their own land? Why do Muslim countries have the worst human
rights conditions in the world?
SaB (2005): Fourth, I am one of those who believe that both our and Western interests
can be served by, among other things, peaceful dialogue. That is why I wrote to you. The
sense I have, however, is that you believe that all the blame is on our side, and that no
good can be achieved unless we reject our religion and toe the Western line.
Fifth, there is no such thing as Wahhabism; this is a name which the enemies of Sheikh
Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab gave to his teachings to claim that he was advocating
something other than Islam. And this is precisely what the Western – and particularly
American – propaganda machines are spewing forth.
JA (2006): I am glad you wrote me and we are dialoguing. As for the blame being on the
Muslim side unless Muslims reject their religion, they are "free" to keep their religion,
until they leave it. Then they may be tortured, imprisoned, or executed. Moreover, in Part
Three I asked:
Since Islam is the continuation of religions, is it the will of Allah that Islam must spread
around the world?
And you answered:
a. Islam sees itself, as does contemporary Christianity, as the only means by which
mankind can be saved. As such, all Muslims are inspired by concern for their brothers in
humanity to spread this soul-saving message.
You added below that short excerpt (a):
what God asserts in Qur'an 061:009 . . . .
You and "all Muslims" want Islam to spread around the world, hopefully converting as
many as possible, especially adherents to polytheistic religions. In Part 8, you will say
that Christians are polytheists. Islam must win out.

Toe the Western line? Islamic countries are too often breeding grounds for terrorism
today, and this lashes out and harms people all over the globe, in small, secret ways.
Granted, Wahhabism—or whatever label you choose—may not cause all of the terrorism,
but it certainly cannot be exempt from any questions in this regard.
JA (2005) 1. You say that the purpose of jihad is to establish justice where injustice
prevails. Do you believe that Arab Muslims (or any Muslims) are establishing justice in
the Sudan?
SaB (2005): First, we have never claimed that everything that everything [sic] a Muslim
or group of Muslims does reflects Islamic values and teachings. By the same token, I
doubt that Christians would believe it fair for them to be held to such a standard.
Second, and to the immediate point, the war in Darfur is not a religious war, for all
Sudanese Darfurians are Muslims. Moreover, the war has nothing to do with color since
all participants are black. It has nothing to do with racial discrimination since. Sudanese
tell us that Darfurians from all tribes are to be found in the government, in the army, in
the police force, among business people etc. What, then, is the problem? It is an old
problem between settlers and grazers that has unfortunately taken a political twist, only
then to be exploited by foreign powers. We hope that it will soon be solved.
JA (2006): It is true that one group of Muslims does not reflect all Islamic values and
teachings. But in your second paragraph of your Open Letter, above, you speak of
"Islam" and "a Muslim" and "Muslims" generally. Further, I never said anything about
Darfur, a region in western Sudan. I asked about Sudan generally. I have already linked
to a report by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Since its summary is brief, I
repeat it here.
Jihadist government [in Sudan] is waging [genocide] against non-Muslim blacks.
• Sudan (population 35 million) is divided into Arab, Islamic north, and

black, non-Muslim south (Christians and animists);
• In 1983, the growing radical Islamic movement successfully pressured the
government to impose Islamic law on the whole country, prompting a
rebellion by the non-Muslim South;
• In 1989, the jihadists took power through a military coup led by General
Omar el-Bashir;
• The national Islamic government has declared jihad against the people of
the South, to be totally eradicated or brought under the banner of Arabism
and Islamism.
So it is a fact that war is being waged by northerners (Arab Muslims) on southerners

(black non-Muslims). And Darfur is in equal trouble from Islam.
JA (2005) 2. Sayyid Abdul A’La Maulana [sic, Maududi] in his commentary on the
Qur’an (e.g. Sura 8, vol. 2, p. 156, note 50) frequently argues for the distinction between
Dar-al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief). Do you believe that
the non-Muslim world, for example, America, lives in the second Abode? Do you believe
therefore that it also lives in Dar-al-Harb (Abode of War)?
SaB (2006): The abode of war, as the name indicates, is the abode of people with whom
Muslims are in a state of war. It does not seem to make any sense to describe a country as
an abode of war when there are diplomatic, business, and cultural relations with that
country.
JA (2006): This sounds reasonable in theory, even though Maududi says that non-Islamic
lands are in the Abode of unbelief and therefore are vulnerable to war, whether in an
actual state of war or not. However, if you say that your version of Islam has improved
on or rejects this religious-political philosophy, then so much the better. But I omit a
discussion of the reality or practice.
I suggest that Mr. alButhi start reading the commentaries of his own people regarding this
issue. The Quran clearly states in Sura 21:105 that the land shall be inherited by the
righteous. This in fact was a direct quote from Psalm 37:29, yet the Quran manipulated
the true meaning of this verse in the Psalms. When we read the Quran Commentary
regarding this verse, we find that these commentators state that the land is the one under
the rule of the unbelievers, and that Allah promised the Muslims to gain it by any mean.
Does not this mean war against the unbelievers in order to gain the land? Please see these
links to the Arabic commentaries on this verse: Ibn Kathir, Tabari, Qurtubi.
JA (2005) 3. Please explain Sura 9:29, which reads as follows:
Fight [q-t-l] against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that
which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and those who
acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of Scripture (Jews
and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued. (Hilali and Khan, parenthetical notes are original)
The verb jihad is not used, but the other verb for fighting, qatala (q-t-l), is used. What is
the difference between jihad and qital?
SaB (2005): Jihad is a general term; it does include war. There general meaning,
however, is much broader, and jihad may be carried out without war ("strive against them
(by preaching) with the utmost endeavor, with it (the Qur'an))", Sura Al-Isra [Sura 17].
This verse well illustrates the Westerners’ misinterpretation of jihad as "holy war."
JA (2006): Sura 17 was revealed in Mecca. This historical context demonstrates that
Muhammad had no military power to strive for his religion in a violent way. He had to
take the path of peace and tolerance at that time. If only that were the complete story of
Islam! Then came the Hijrah or emigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. His ten
years in Medina tell the fuller story. He waged military jihad, sending out or going out on
seventy-four raids, assassination hit squads, confrontations, skirmishes, or full-scale wars.
Thus, the (peaceful) Meccan suras are often used to misinterpret or whitewash jihad. The
(violence-filled) Medinan suras balance out the positive picture of Islam (see my point
three in the very next section).
SaB (2005): And here is our interpretation of "jihad";
First, If this verse is taken in isolation from other verses and teachings of Prophet
Muhammad, and if it is taken out its historical context with no regard to Muslims’
practice, then it might be understood to mean that Muslims are ordered to fight all people
of scripture.
Second, we know that, according to Qur’an, Muslims can have all kinds of relationships
with non-Muslims. They can make peace treaties with them; they can take some of them
as allies; they can intermarry; they can allow them to live as individuals among them, and
so on.
Third, since the main message of all true Prophets is to guide people to the right path to
God, prophets generally have started by inviting the people in a peaceful and nice way to
the truth, after which they have expended great effort to explain the right path to them
and use different means of persuasion in order to secure acceptance of the message. Our
Prophet tells us that one gets the best of rewards by being given by God the honor of
guiding even a single person to the truth. The reward that one gets in this case, the
Prophet tells us, is greater than that of fighting enemies and killing them or being killed
by them.
JA (2006): My numbered reply corresponds to your three points.
(1) The historical context of Sura 9:29? Muhammad launched his Tabuk "Crusade" in
late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that a huge army
was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his large number of jihadists
or qitalists returned home (so says Western scholarship), but not before imposing a jizya
tax on northern Christians and Jews. They had three options: (1) fight and die; (2) convert
to Islam; (3) or submit and pay the second-class-citizen jizya tax for the "privilege" of
living under Islam. Thus, Sura 9:29 commands battle for theology and practice. It says
nothing explicit about a real and physical harm done to Islam. However, if you claim that
Islam today has moved past such violent verses in the Quran, then I hope this
improvement on the prophet and his book will be broadcast far and wide, especially to al-
Qaeda and its kind.
Also, I believe that we may get distracted by the term "jihad" when we should instead
focus on "qital." This word has no ambiguity, and Muhammad commanded it on peaceful
people.

(2) You say that Muslims may make peace treaties with non-Muslims. It is true that
Muhammad signed the Treaty of Hudaibiyah (AD 628) when he was weak (due to his
failed pilgrimage to the Kabah without Meccan permission), but the treaty did not last
long. In addition, it must be stated that the Quran warns against alliances and treaties with
non-Muslims. These famous verses in Sura 9 free Muhammad from all treaty obligations
with polytheists unless they become Muslims. If polytheists have been faithful to their
treaty, then he must wait until its terms have expired. Then they may be attacked, after
sacred months have passed by.
9:1 Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) to
those of the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of
Allâh), with whom you made a treaty . . . 3 And a declaration from Allâh and His
Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of
Islâmic calendar) that Allâh is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikûn (see 2:105)
and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikûn) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn
away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allâh. And give
tidings (O Muhammad SAW) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. 4 Except
those of the Mushrikûn with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently
failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them
to the end of their term. Surely Allâh loves Al- Mattaqûn (the pious - see 2:2). 5 Then
when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar)
have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see 2:105) wherever you find them, and capture
them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent
and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free.
Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Hilali and Khan)
It is on verses like these that Islamic law is built, and the treaties may be temporary, as
Islam defines it.
Look at what Muhammad did after he signed a treaty how he soon negated it. For more
information on this, please read this article (see the section on Entering Mecca).
You say that Muslims may marry Christians and Jews, but this needs to be clarified.
Christian or Jewish men are not permitted by sharia (Islamic law) to marry Muslim
women. So the marriages go in only one direction, which puts Muslim men in control,
according to traditional Islam, especially the Islam of Saudi Arabia. Please see my article
on Muslim-Christian marriages, here.
Further, Islam allows non-Muslims as "individuals" (not as authorities?) to live among

Muslims. In reply, they are known as dhimmis. They are second-class citizens who have
to pay a special tax. I have heard the explanation that this tax gives them various
exemptions, such as not fighting in wars, but the dhimmis are still treated as subservient.
Too often Islam is excessively controlling and imposes violent laws that oppress people,

so why would dhimmis want to live under it, if these conquered peoples were not
deprived of a choice?
(3) It may be true that Allah grants rewards to his Muslims if they bring people to the
truth by peaceful means, but this is not the whole story. The prophet of Islam grants
military jihadists or qitalists extra earthly and heavenly status and rewards for fighting in
military jihad or qital. Three passages provide the evidence.
First, Sura 4 was revealed over a three-year period in the middle of Muhammad’s career
(AD 625-627). He is not quite as secure as he will be when he conquers Mecca in AD
630. For now, he needs to recruit jihadists or qitalists for his raids, conflicts, and wars.
One way to get them to join up is to promise earthly or heavenly rewards.
4:74 Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the
Cause of Allâh, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh, and is killed or gets victory, We
shall bestow on him a great reward. (Hilali and Khan)
Second, this verse in Sura 4 teaches that Allah has created at least a two-tier system in his
Muslim ummah or community: (A) Those who "strive hard and fight in the Cause of
Allah with their wealth and their lives" and (B) those who sit at home. The disabled are in
a separate category.
4:95. Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are
disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the
Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who
strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto
each, Allâh has promised good (Paradise), but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard
and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; (Hilali and Khan)
At the end of Muhammad’s life, he reinforces this two-caste system: see Sura 9:38-39,
41, 44, 86, 87.
Finally, as seen in 4:74, an economic bargain is offered to jihadists or qitalists in the next
verse. Allah purchases their lives in exchange for Islamic paradise. Sura 9 is the last sura
to be revealed in its entirety.
9:111 Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the
price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others)
and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and
the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then
rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. (Hilali and
Khan)
This "revelation" is completely wrong about the Bible’s command to fight in bloody wars
in order to bring heavenly rewards. Moses ordered wars that were time-specific (more
than 3,000 years ago), location-specific (holy land), and purpose-specific. But Moses or
Joshua or the judges did not promise heaven, automatically, for the express act of dying
in wars. Certainly Jesus did not order bloody jihads or qitals.
All of these passages use win-win-win logic from Islam’s point of view. If a jihadist or
qitalist dies fighting, then he gets Islamic paradise. If he wins and lives, then he gets
material spoils. If he is defeated but escapes with his life, then he gets to fight another
day.

This part concludes the discussion begun in Part Seven. The Open Letter to Congress
defining jihad is repeated here.
Open Letter to Congress (repeated):
Misconceptions on Jihad
The scholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been among the most vocal
opponents of religious extremism and terrorism in the Muslim world. Long before
September 11, 2001, our scholars had warned against the dangers of extremism and
spoken decisively against the spreading of civil strife and violence in the name of
"jihad." All Muslim terrorism is both created by and reflects an ignorance of the
tenets of Islam and a false belief in the meaning and rules of jihad. This can only be
corrected by the scholars of Islam, and it is counter-productive for the United States
to claim that it is fighting terrorism while targeting those most able to correct the
ignorance in which such terrorism is born.
Jihad does not equate with terrorism or the spreading of civil strife; rather, jihad is
a concept with which most of your citizens would agree if correctly understood. In
Islamic belief, the greatest jihad is the struggle that each soul must wage against
itself to live a pure and good life. At the same time, Islam empowers its adherents to
defend their lives, property, and honor from attack. When injustice is present, Islam
not only tolerates fighting, it is required. When, however, a Muslim is required to
fight, his behavior is constrained by a detailed code of conduct that prohibits attacks
on innocent civilians, the harming of the environment, the destruction of places of
worship, and the harassment of priests and non-combatants. That said, Muslims do
not seek war with our enemies. However we recognize, as does the West, that
sometimes war is unavoidable. The rules of engagement in Islam are well defined
and Islam views the peaceful resolution of disagreement and conflict as being
preferable to war.
JA (2005):
4. My concern is that Saudi scholars say one thing in English, but they say another in
Arabic. For example, this website, which is still named after bin Baz, has English and
Arabic sections. Once I click on the English version of the site, I find only words of
peace. But once I click on the following two links, I find him espousing a more
aggressive definition of Jihad. At this link I find the title, "The Value of Jihad and the
Mujahadeen." And this link has the title "The Requirement to Be Hostile to Jews and
Mushrikun" (this last word means those who associate another deity with Allah). In your
letter (endnote 2, below), you criticize former Israeli UN ambassador Dore Gold’s book,
Hatred’s Kingdom (Regnery, 2003), but those are the translations of the titles that he
gives (p. 288, endnotes 22 and 24). Do you believe he mistranslates the titles? Here
follow two questions based on my point no. 4:
A. Can you explain why we do not have access to the English translations of more
aggressive views on jihad?
SaB (2005):
First, Muslims scholars are not obliged to translate their works to other languages just as
Western scholars are not expected to translate their works into the major languages of the
world.
Second, I have no specific explanation regarding differences in translation between

Arabic and English texts in Sheikh Bin Baz web site; however, they might be simple
mistakes. Nevertheless, I think that the very fact that the text was posted in Arabic will
allow Westerners to discover the Sheikh’s views; they are very clear and published
widely in the internet and other media.
JA (2006): First, I may not have made my Question A clear. I intended to point out the
two faces of the websites: peace in English and qital or jihad in Arabic. Second, I doubt
whether the difference in subject matter in English and Arabic are "simple mistakes." My
hunch is that the two faces are deliberate. Also, their viewpoints may be available on the
web for all to see, but many Westerners cannot read Arabic. This would not normally be
a concern for them, except that these two-faced websites are not about flower festivals,
but about war and violence waged on infidels, who include many Westerners, and others
around the globe.
JA (2005): B. Bin Baz seems to believe that Christians belong to the mushrikun? Does
this reflect the view of mainstream Wahhabism?
SaB (2005):
First, Christians do not belong to the Mushrikeen as a group that is given this name. This
said, the epithet of "Mushrik" does apply to many of them. This is like saying, for
example, that someone is a democrat, but he is not a member of the Democratic Party.
This should come as no surprise if one understands what is meant by "shirk," which is the
foot of "Mushrik." A mushrik is one who worships something else besides God. One may
be a mushrik even if he or she believes in the existence of only one Creator.
In the "times of ignorance," the Arabs, who were the first to be invited to Islam by
Prophet Muhammad, never believed in more than one Creator; there are hardly any
people who do so. But the Arabs of the times of ignorance nevertheless may fairly be
described as mushrikeen or polytheists because they worshipped idols which they took to
be intermediaries between them and the one God. Christians likewise believe in the
existence of one Creator, but they worship Jesus as a son of that Creator; this leads to
their being labeled as polytheists in the Islamic sense.

JA (2006): We have invited a friend and colleague, originally from Saudi Arabia, to
comment on our dialogue. He adds:
If that was the case, why then does the Quran in Sura 10:94 ask Muhammad and Muslims
to consult with the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) – if the Christians were idol
worshipers (Mushrikeen)? Did Muhammad not know that?
SaB (2005):
Second, What Shk. Bin Baz believes, that the Oneness of God, should be the belief of all
Muslims since it is what the Qur'an clearly affirms:
Qur'an 005:72-74 "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! God is the Messiah, son of
Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel worship God, my Lord and your
Lord. Lo! Whoever ascribes partners to God, for him God has forbidden Paradise. His
abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say:
Lo! God is the third of three; when there is no God except the One God. If they desist not
from so saying, a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. Will they not
rather repent to God and seek forgiveness of Him? For God is Forgiving and Merciful."
JA (2006): Contrasting your answer at the beginning of your first point and at the end of
it is interesting. At the beginning you write:
First, Christians do not belong to the Mushrikeen as a group that is given this name. This
said, the epithet of "Mushrik" does apply to many of them. This is like saying, for
example, that someone is a democrat, but he is not a member of the Democratic Party.
But at the end you write:
Christians likewise believe in the existence of one Creator, but they worship Jesus as a
son of that Creator; this leads to their being labeled as polytheists in the Islamic sense.
I am happy that you are open about this. Now we Christians know where we stand with
Wahhabism (or you choose the label). Clarity is better than confusion. It must be noted,
however, that your prophet was no theologian, so he misrepresents Christian belief in
Sura 5:72-74. We are monotheists, but our monotheism is very special. We believe that
for eternity past, before God created the heavens and the earth, he lived in perfect triune
community and fellowship. He never lived in isolation or loneliness, all by himself. Now
he calls us to join this community in heaven, to be with him, either after we die or after
the Last Day (whichever comes first). For me, this is an indispensable and precious
doctrine and promise that I could never give up. I have already written an article on the
subject.
See the addendum, below, which translates a fatwa by bin Baz on jihad. It is not only
defensive.

JA (2005):
5. This website quotes from many Friday sermons in Mosques throughout Saudi Arabia
in September 2002, one year after 9/11. The sermons do not express a high view of
Christians and Jews and women. Do you know whether these sermons reflect the views
of mainstream Wahhabism?
6. These scholars on Saudi television in February 2005 seem to have an aggressive view
of jihad. Do you believe that they reflect mainstream Wahhabism?
SaB (2005):
First, I repeat, no one here would call himself a "Wahhabi."
Second, Preachers are not necessarily scholars and in many cases they speak from the
standpoint of their personal opinions. Many Muslim scholars have disagreed with such
personal opinions.
Third, while the statements of such preachers may indeed be somewhat strange, they
pale by comparison to the sayings of some of the West’s most popular preachers today:
Sue Lindsey, Associated Press Writer, Tue Aug 23, 12:21 PM ET:
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad
for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
At the end of his tour, Graham stood in front of the camera and said: "As soon as I get
back (home) I'm going to share what I've seen here. Khartoum should be hit with the full
force of American military strikes. Why not? These people are just as evil as Saddam
Hussein." (Please see Sudan: Christian Right might inflame war, observers fear;
AFRICANEWS, May 2001 - source).
Is it fair to suggest that these preachers’ statements represent Christianity and all
Christians?
JA (2006):
First, this is a series of broadcasts on Saudi IQRA TV, about an especially wicked Jew in
Muhammad’s day. National TV programs like this only reinforce "Jew hatred."
Second, these quick interviews with "the man on the street" aired on IQRA TV. Every
one of them despises Jews and would not even shake their hand. The Jews are the
"eternal enemies," say two Muslims. Saudis or not, Wahhabis or not, these interviews
were aired on IQRA TV and fuel the fire of "Jew hatred" in your country.

But what about free speech? It could be said that IQRA TV is following this principle. In
reply, are opposite views expressed? How much air time does IQRA TV give to them?
As for Pat Robertson, he has apologized for his misguided remarks. Have the numerous
preachers of hate apologized? They preach at main mosques all over Saudi Arabia.
Incidentally, Robertson did not live in the first century, so he was no founder of
Christianity. But Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ordered the assassinations of his
enemies. He "succeeded." Some victims were women who merely mocked him with
poems or with a few spoken words. Thus, Robertson’s words "pale by comparison" to
Muhammad’s real-life, violent actions.
Now, Franklin Graham. A student in one of my classes was a missionary to Sudan,

working in a medical clinic. He told me privately after class that he saw non-Muslim
Sudanese women who were maimed so they could not have children. Their breasts were
cut off, to cite only one of his examples. "Who did this to them?" I asked. "Muslims,"
came the reply. Maybe Graham saw the same things or worse after his tour.
Finally, you write in your Open Letter to Congress, above:
When, however, a Muslim is required to fight, his behavior is constrained by a detailed

code of conduct that prohibits attacks on innocent civilians, the harming of the
environment, the destruction of places of worship, and the harassment of priests and non-
combatants.
I have already written in Part Five that Islam indeed violates these rules, at least the Islam
ordained by Muhammad. Since our multipart dialogue is so long, the following list is
reduced from Part Five, and the translation is done by Hilali and Khan, except for the first
one.
(1) Women captives are sometimes forced to "marry" their Muslim masters, regardless of
the marital status of the women. That is, the captors are allowed to have sex with the
enslaved, married or not, in most cases. The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:
4:24 And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have
fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning
of the Quran, vol. 1, p. 319).
Maududi, a highly respected Sunni commentator, says in his comment on the verse that it
is lawful for Muslims to marry women prisoners of war even when the prisoners’
husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives?
Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry the women, but two
other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken
(note 44). But why is any of this a debate in the first place?

The next hadith casually talks about disrobing a captured woman, but Muhammad takes
her for himself. "Give me that girl!" he shouts at a Muslim raider returning from a raid.
Why does he want her?
. . . When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met
me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said:
She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her. The
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca, and
surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at
Mecca. (Muslim 4345; see two other hadiths (and there are many) about Muslim captors
having sex with women captives, here and here)
(2) Fruit trees may be destroyed. The Quran in Sura 59:5 says:
59:5 What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm-trees (of the enemy), or you left them
standing on their stems, it was by Leave of Allâh, and in order that He might disgrace the
Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
This revelation in the Quran contradicts your assertion that Islam forbids harming the
environment. However, if modern Islam has improved on original Islam found in the
Quran and the Sunnah, then this is a welcome change. If this is so, then I hope the change
is broadcast far and wide.
(3) Some hadiths say that Muhammad disapproved of killing women and children. But in
several sound traditions, pagan women and children may be killed at night in war.
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether
it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing
their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and
children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of
Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Bukhari; Hima)
Sahih Muslim agrees:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace
be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed
during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Muslim 4321, and read the one below)
This short list of rules of jihad or qital has been taken from this article, which provides
more rules and the historical context of each one. It also has a section on jihad in Islamic
law. One law says that old men and Christian monks may be killed (click on the article
and scroll down to "Classical legal opinions," no. six).

The purpose here is to balance out your positive picture and to expose all of original
Islam. It is wrong to withhold the unpleasant and violent parts that too often are applied
to the modern world inside or outside of Islam.
I know that you wrote your Open Letter to explain that "Wahhabi" is a misnomer and
your version of Islam is the purest and peaceful. However, when it comes to violence, it
is irrelevant to me whether it emanates from Wahhabis or some other Muslims—or you
choose the label for your version of Islam besides "Muslims," which many other sects
claim for themselves.
To conclude, this part of your Open Letter, above, says:
All Muslim terrorism is both created by and reflects an ignorance of the tenets of Islam
and a false belief in the meaning and rules of jihad. This can only be corrected by the
scholars of Islam . . . .
Perhaps it would be good to ask here for concrete examples how these modern scholars
have indeed corrected the violent version of Islam. And who are the scholars that the
people must listen to? You said, above, that the preachers of hate merely express personal
opinions, but then you say that they need to listen to the scholars. Are the preachers
listening to them, and why should they? If even the preachers do not listen to them, on
what basis can we expect that the common Saudi Muslim on the street would listen to
them? The question in the end is: Who has the authority to bring correction in Islam?
Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that Islamic scholars can correct the ignorance and false
belief. As noted, if modern Islam has improved on original Islam (found in the Quran and
the Sunnah), then this is a welcome change. I hope it is broadcast far and wide.
Addendum
Our friend and colleague has translated parts of a fatwa by bin Baz, a major sheikh and
the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, i.e. the highest religious authority of your country. It is
clear that jihad is not only defensive.
Translation:
Jihad is not for defense only
Many modern writers are confused in regards to the issue of Jihad. And many of them
have dealt with his topic without any knowledge, and thought that jihad was decreed only
to defend Islam and the followers of Islam, and that jihad was not ordained for Muslims
to attack their enemies’ land, and either to invite them to accept Islam or to fight them
until Allah’s word and his religion prevail. Since this was the case, I thought of covering
this topic in my lecture tonight which I titled: Jihad is not for defense only.

… Since Muhammad’s message was for the whole inhabitants of the earth of the jinn and
humans, and since Allah sent him with a sharia (law) which is suitable for all people
during his time and after his time, until the day of resurrection…
… And since all messengers before Muhammad were sent as mercy to their people, to
teach them and guide them, and to eliminate unjust laws and corruption, and to
implement in its place the law of justice. In the same way Allah sent Muhammad – saw –
too to destroy the corrupt systems of society, crooked values, and injustice,; and to
replace them with a righteous system and just commandments…
… When the Messenger was in Mecca for thirteen years….there were no commands to
fight his people because the Muslims were few and their enemies were more powerful
and outnumbered them. So it was wise for Allah to prevent his messenger and the
Muslims from physical jihad by hand, and only allowed them spiritual jihad by words….
(Sura 25:52)
… And when the messenger immigrated to Madina, Allah ordered him to cleanse it from
corruption and corrupted people, and to build it with righteous people…and Allah gave
permission to him and his companions to fight in Jihad as it was revealed in (Sura 22:39).
In this verse Allah permitted them to fight in jihad because they were being treated
unjustly; then Allah ordered and commanded Jihad in (Sura 2:216), and Allah made it a
duty and revealed many other verses in this regard and ordered it in his great book (the
Quran) and through his prophet, so it was first permitted and allowed; then it became a
sufficient duty as said by scholars.
… As for Sura 2:190 some said this verse was a command to Muhammad to fight only
those who fought him, and to cease fighting those who did not fight him; other said about
this verse. There is nothing in this verse which indicates this meaning; rather it has a
command to fight those who are fighting him – meaning those who deserve to be fought
against…etc.
… And the later interpretation is clearer in regards to the meaning of the verse. This is
why Allah said in few verses later (Sura 2:193), so it was known by this verse that the
meaning is for Muhammad to fight the infidels and not just those who are fighting against
him only. It meant the infidels as a whole until the religion (Islam) should be only for
Allah, and there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors, and the
oppression is the Shirk.
Then Allah revealed the Sword Verse in Sura 9 (9:5). And the former scholars (may
Allah’s mercy be up on them) said this verse abrogated all of the previous verses which
contained forgiveness and no fighting against the infidels. They said the Sword Verse is
the verse of fighting, the verse of jihad, the verse which calls out to roll up our sleeves
and to fight the enemies of Allah with our money and body, until they repent of their
Shirk and perform the prayer and give the Zakat (alms), so if they did then they have
sealed (protected) their blood and their monies by the truth of Islam.

This is what we know about this verse from all of the people of knowledge of the
commentators and non-commentators, all of them said this verse has abrogated what
came before it of those verses that contained commands for forgiveness or fighting only
those who fight against us…and similar to it are Sura 8:39 … and Sura 9:36 and Sura
9:29, as Allah commanded fighting against the People of the Book and did not command
to cease fighting against them unless they pay the poll tax with willing submission, and
feel themselves subdued. And Allah did not say until they give us the poll tax and then
stop fighting us, but rather Allah said they pay the poll tax with willing submission, and
feel themselves subdued.
… And in Sura 9:5 and 9:11 it is clear that Muslims should not stop fighting against the
infidels until they repent of their shirk and accept Allah’s religion (Islam). Those are the
ones that Muslims should cease fighting against, but as for the People of the Book,
cessation of fighting does not take place until they pay the poll tax with submission; only
then do we cease fighting against them even if they did not become Muslims.
Some scholars stated that the Sword Verse did not abrogate the previous verses, but
rather the times will change, so when Muslims are strong and gain control and power,
then they can use the Sword Verse and apply its meaning in fighting all the infidels until
they enter into Allah’s religion (Islam) or pay the poll tax in general or only by the
People of the Book. But if the Muslims become weak and are unable to fight all of the
infidels, then there is no problem for them to fight as they can, and to cease fighting as
they see fit. And the ruler should be the one who makes such a call, if he wills he can
fight, or not to fight, or to fight some and not the others based on their strength, ability
and the best interest of Muslims, and not based on their own desires or choosing. But he
must evaluate the condition of the Muslim people and the state of their power and
strength. If the Muslims were weak, then he can use the Meccan verses…, but when they
become strong then they should fight based on their strength…just as the prophet did in
Mecca and in Medina.
And if the Muslims gain power, control, strength and weapons that allows them to fight
all of the infidels, then they should declare an all-out battle (Harb) against all of them,
and declare jihad against all of them, just as the companions of the prophet did during the
reign of Al Sadiq (Abu Bakr), Umar, and Uthman, and as the messenger of Allah did
after the Sword Verse was revealed when he marched to Tabuk to fight the Romans.
And this is what Ibn Taimiah said: "There is no abrogation but different situations. As the
Muslims were weak in the beginning so they were ordered to only fight those who fought
them. But when they became stronger after the Hijra, they were ordered to go after those
who fought them and to not fight those who did not fight them. But when Islam became
very strong and the followers of Islam became stronger, and Muslims spread all over and
people accepted Islam in scores, they were commanded to fight all of the infidels, to
negate all treaties and not to stop fighting except against the People of the Book, provided
they paid the poll tax with submission, and feel themselves subdued.

… As for those who say that the fighting is for defense only, their claim is something
which none of the former scholars ascribe to. ...
But some of the brethren wrote articles to respond to this claim. They stated that what is
known about the messenger of Allah after his immigration to Medina; fighting was made
lawful to him, period; then jihad was made a commandment to him and he was ordered to
fight those who fight him and cease from those who did not fight him. Then Allah
revealed to him more verses which ordered him to fight in jihad without any exception,
and not to cease from fighting anyone until he or she accepts Islam or pay the poll tax if
he or she is qualified for it, as noted previously. This is what is known and accepted
among scholars or people of knowledge.
… Those who claim that jihad is only for defense rely on verses that cannot be used to
substantiate their claim.
These people use three verses to support their claim:
The first is Sura 2:190
The answer to that is that this verse does not mean that fighting is for defense, but rather
it is a command for fighting to those who are capable of fighting, and leave behind those
who are not capable, such as women and children and the like. That is why Allah sent a
few verse down Sura 2:193, clearly refuting their claim about Sura 2:190. And even if
what they said is true, this verse has been abrogated by the Sword Verse anyway.
The second verse they use to support their claim is Sura 2:256.
This claim is not valid either; as this verse was specifically mentioned of the People of
the Book and the like, as they will not be forced to enter into Islam if they choose to pay
the poll tax. This is one interpretation of the meaning of this verse. The second
interpretation states that this verse also was abrogated by the Sword Verse…. And if they
refuse Islam and pay the poll tax, then they must be fought as noted in the previous
glorious verses.
The third verse they use to support this claim is Sura 4:90.
This was true when the Muslims were weak until they immigrated to Medina. Then it was
abrogated by the Sword Verse. Also it can be interpreted that it applies only when
Muslims are weak, but once they are strong, then it is not valid as it was stated in the
other verses.
All of this shows that their claim is completely invalid.
End of translation
This link goes to the writings of Abdul Wahhaab.

this portion in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.
Peace in the Middle East
The just resolution of the Palestinian issue is pivotal to solving many of the
problems we witness today. The scholars of Saudi Arabia have always been
concerned with the issue, and the Kingdom’s rulers have long sought to resolve the
matter; Crown Prince Abdullah’s 2002 peace offer is the latest example. Once the
Palestinian issue is solved, the many other issues that separate the United States
from the Islamic world will fade away.
JA (2005): Here is a link to Crown Prince Abdullah’s proposal, with further links to UN
Resolutions 242 and 338. Does this link accurately summarize the Prince’s proposal?
1. The Prince’s proposal says that Israel must withdraw to its 1967 borders. But here is
my assessment not only the [sic] of the Prince’s proposal but also of the Arab world’s
proposals, which follows a sequence. First, the Arabs attack Israel in three wars (1948-
49, 1967, 1973). Second, Israel beats back their attackers and acquires new territory.
Third and finally, the Arabs run to the United Nations to get the Israelis to withdraw from
the acquired territories.
For example, after the 1967 war, UN Res. 242 seems to say that Israel should withdraw
from all territories acquired by that war. After the 1973 war, UN Res. 338 says that Israel,
Egypt and Syria should cease all hostilities and implement Res. 242. Also, the Israel-
Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979 required Israel to give up most of the Sinai Peninsula, which
they won during the 1967 war.
2. Does my brief analysis of the big picture seem accurate to you?
3. If the Arab States that launched three wars against Israel had victoriously acquired
territories, would Crown Prince Abdullah and other Arab leaders ask the Arab States to
give up the acquired territories, as they ask the Israelis to give up theirs?

4. As to theology and geopolitics, why do Muslims claim Jerusalem as their city even
though Muhammad never visited it in a down-to-earth way (Sura 17:1 and 60)? Do you
agree that Jews have a better claim to the city since they lived there long before Islam
came on the scene? Or does Islam take priority over history?
SaB (2005):
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is one created by the superpowers and will continue to be a
subject for discussion and debate within and among all of the sides to the conflict.
Westerners unfortunately often ignore and neglect critical historical facts underlying the
conflict. The West, and particularly the United States, has shown unwavering,
overwhelming bias in support of Israel and against the Palestinians. Not until the
historical facts are learned and the "facts on the ground" are understood can one
understand the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Such an examination also will
probably give some insight into why young men and women are willing to sacrifice their
lives in an attempt to liberate their land.
It is not difficult for Americans to get a more balanced view of the conflict; indeed, there
are hundreds of Israeli pro-Palestinian groups, numerous anti-Zionist Israeli
organizations, and scores if not hundreds of culturally diverse NGOs around the world
who recognize and speak out against Israeli policy. Please see:
• Israeli State Terrorism; http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/

• Yesh Gvul – Israeli Refusenik Soldiers; http://www.yeshgvul.org/
• Jewish Voices for Peace; http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
• Bat Shalom: Feminist Center for Peace in the Middle East;
http://www.batshalom.org/
• MIFTAH: The Palestinian Initiative of Global Dialogue..; http://www.miftah.org/
• B'Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights;
http://www.btselem.org/
• Not In My Name; http://www.nimn.org/
• Oznik; http://oznik.com/
• Ta’ayush; http://www.taayush.org/
• Palestine Media Center; http://www.palestine-pmc.com/
• Weekly Report of Human Rights Violations;
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3099.shtml
• Combatant Letter 2002 - Israeli Soldier (IDF) Refusniks;
http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp
• Palestine Media Watch; http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/index.asp
• Courage to Refuse - Israeli Refusers Support Site;
http://www.couragetorefuse.org/English/default.asp
• Partners for Peace; http://www.partnersforpeace.org/
• Peace Now!: Israeli Peace Organization;
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/he/homepage.asp
• Physicians for Human Rights; http://www.phrusa.org/

• Electronic Intifada; http://electronicintifada.net/new.shtml

• Rescue Mideast Policy; http://www.rescuemideastpolicy.com/index.html
• Global Exchange for Palestinian Rights;
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/palestine/
• Gush Shalom: Israeli Peace Bloc; http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html
• Gush Shalom: Presentation of Ehud Barak’s Generous Offers of Peace;
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
• The Other Israel; http://otherisrael.home.igc.org/
• International Action Center; http://www.iacenter.org/
• Amnesty International: The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel;
http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng
• Jews Against the Occupation; http://www.jatonyc.org/
• Jews Against the Occupation: UN Resolutions against Israel;
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html
• Jewish Virtual Library: US Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical to Israel;
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes
• Jews for Justice in the Middle East; http://www.cactus48.com
• United Nations Maps Related to Palestine;
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/vMaps
• Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel; http://www.jppi.org/
• UNRWA: UN Relief and Works for Palestine Refugees;
http://www.un.org/unrwa/index.html
• Jews Not Zionists; http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
• Palestine Monitor: Palestinians Killed Fact Sheet;
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/Palestinian_killed_fact_sheet.htm
• Palestine: Permanent Observer Mission to the UN (includes all the UN resolutions
against Israel); http://palestine-un.org/
• Historical Chronology: Israeli Massacres Against Palestinians;
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/jew/israeli_massacres.htm
By the same token, there are no Arab/Muslim "anti-Arab" or "anti-Muslim" groups.

(There are two fraudulent groups that lurk under assumed Arab names, but they’ve long
been established as neo-conservative fronts for propaganda.)
There appears to be a willing blindness in the United States to the plight of the
Palestinians. Recent research establishes that the American media pays far more attention
to losses suffered by Israelis than by Palestinians (Israel and Palestine, Choosing Sides). I
strongly believe that no reconciliation is possible between the West and the East until the
West at least addresses the wrongs inflicted by its unstinting support for the persecution
of the Palestinians. Without justice there can be no peace, and the road to peace runs
through Jerusalem, not Baghdad.
JA (2006): I divide my response into five sections that address your main ideas.
1. Unanswered questions

In my first and second points, written in 2005, I was responding to the part of your Open
Letter that refers to Crown Prince Abdullah’s 2002 peace offer. It requires Israel to
withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, which denies its rightful ownership over a united
Jerusalem. Then I outlined UN Resolutions that demand that Israel always give up
territory that it wins after being attacked. Israel does indeed give up most of it, as seen in
the Israel-Egypt Treaty of Peace of 1979 and Israel’s surrender of the Sinai Peninsula.
Anwar Sadat was "rewarded" with assassination. The recent election victory of the
Terrorist Party of Hamas proves that peace is not at hand and that too many Palestinians
do not want peace. Hamas is not their answer.
Further, in my first and second questions, I sketched out the brief history of the conflict
since Israel became a legal nation in 1948. (1) Israel is aggressively attacked. (2) It wins
back its historic land, which it owned before Islam arrived on the world stage and before
the Palestinians gradually, over the centuries, drifted from East of the Jordan River
(modern Jordan) into Israel. (3) The defeated Arabs run to the UN, demanding this
institution to force Israel to give back its historic lands, which it regained after defeating
aggressive Muslims.
In my third question I asked whether the Arabs would return the lands if they won the
three wars of 1948-1949, 1967, and 1973.
In my fourth point, I ask why Islam claims a hold on Jerusalem, even though Muhammad
never visited it in a down-to-earth way except in an alleged "revelation" or "vision" or
"night journey" in one night. See this article written by myself on the topic of Islam’s
weak claim to Jerusalem.
Instead of answering my questions directly, you create a long list of links that are anti-
Israel, showing how wrong it always is and how right the Palestinians always are. This
list does not educate me on the historical facts.
2. A list of other facts
Here is a list of facts that your links may omit. It comes from an article by Dennis Prager,
syndicated radio talk show host and author. He writes:
For the many readers who have requested a brief synopsis of the moral arguments in the
Arab-Israeli conflict, I offer the following list of numerical data.
Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament: over 700

Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0
Number of Arab leaders who visited Jerusalem when it was under Arab rule (1948 to
1967): 1
Number of Arab refugees who fled the land that became Israel: approximately 600,000
Number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries: approximately 600,000
Number of U.N. agencies that deal only with Palestinian refugees: 1

Number of U.N. agencies that deal with all the other refugees in the world: 1
Number of Jewish states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 3
Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0
Number of terrorist attacks by Israelis or Jews since 1967: 1

Number of terrorist attacks by Arabs or Muslims since 1967: thousands
Percentage of Jews who have praised the Jewish terrorist: approximately 1

Percentage of Palestinians who have praised Islamic terrorists: approximately 90
Number of Jewish countries: 1

Number of Jewish democracies: 1
Number of Arab countries: 19
Number of Arab democracies: 0 [I add: Maybe Iraq will develop into a full-fledged
democracy] . . .
Number of Christian or Jewish prayer services allowed in Saudi Arabia: 0
Number of Muslim prayer services allowed in Israel: unlimited
Number of Arabs Israel allows to live in Arab settlements in Israel: 1,250,000

Number of Jews Palestinian Authority allows to live in Jewish settlements in Palestinian
Authority: 0
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning an Arab

country for human rights violations: 0
Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for
human rights violations: 26
Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and
1991: 175
Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97
Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4
Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16
Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0
Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322

Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Arab countries voted with the United States in 2002:
16.6
Percentage of U.N. votes in which Israel voted with the United States in 2002: 92.6

....
These numbers reveal four things. First, Israel stands virtually alone in the world, except
for US support. Second, the United Nations is filled with non- and anti-democratic states.
Third, it is also occupied by anti-American and anti-Jewish left-of-center and hard leftist
western states. Fourth, Israel is outnumbered by anti-Jewish and anti-Israel Islamic
nations. Therefore, many of us in America, usually right-of center, mistrust the UN,
except when it feeds the hungry or passes a resolution that says a nation is being
harassed. But what good is a resolution? What good is its "army"?
The following additional facts are relevant, as well.
(1) Thousands of Arab Muslims live in Israel, peacefully.

(2) The Israeli government does not destroy their homes.
(3) Arab Muslims are elected to the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament).
(4) Arab Christians living in the Palestinians Territories do not become human bombs
because of the alleged Israeli "oppression."
(5) Arab Christians live under Muslim oppression in towns like Bethlehem.
(6) Wherever Islam comes, it must rule. If it once ruled over a city or region, such as
Jerusalem after Umar’s conquest in AD 638, then Muslims must take it over again, if lost.
Is this belief not the source of problems? Is it not viewed as a great humiliation in the
Arab world that Allah would permit the Jews to return to their historic capital and land?
Is it possible that Allah wills that the Jews should return?
3. Hamas as oppressors
The fifth point needs to be elaborated. This following excerpt from Hamas: Politics,
Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt (Yale UP, 2006),
reports that Hamas, in conjunction with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY),
intimidates the Christian population in Bethlehem. Hamas is the "muscle," and WAMY is
the money.
. . . But the Palestinian Christian community is as much a target of Hamas’ efforts to

Islamize society . . . In Bethlehem, where about a quarter of the local population (some
40,000 people) is composed of Palestinian Christians, Hamas actively seeks to
marginalize and intimidate the Christian population and further radicalize the Muslim
population. To this end, the Saudi world Assembly of Youth (WAMY) funded a Koranic
memorization program run by the Bethlehem branch of Hamas’ al-Islah Charity Society.
In a letter asking that WAMY’s funding for this program continue, the al-Islah charity
makes a point of noting that a considerable percentage of Christians live in an area "with
their customs and traditions, the exposure to which has significant influence on society."
The charity asks for continued funding for the program, which is intended to "correct" the
behavior of Muslim youth "which is growing lax." (p. 118)
The excerpt says that the customs and traditions of the Bethlehem Christians have "a
significant influence on society." Personally, I hope they bring peace and sanity to that
part of the world. However, Levitt goes on to describe how radicalized Muslims in
Bethlehem subject Christians to extortion and unwarranted arrest of businessmen to
coerce bribes. Perhaps Hamas regards this as a kind of jizya tax for second-class
dhimmis.
So does Hamas behave like "oppressors" and "bullies"? You seem to believe that Israel
behaves in this way. Is your contempt also directed at Muslims like Hamas?
4. Questions about fairness
You write in your Open Letter:
The just resolution of the Palestinian issue is pivotal to solving many of the problems we
witness today. The scholars of Saudi Arabia have always been concerned with the issue .
..
It is unclear (to me, at least) why the little country of Israel, surrounded by an entire
ocean of hate—millions of Arabs (and Persians, for that matter)—gets them so stirred up,
when they are not directly affected by such matters.
I do not understand why Muslims, even scholars in Saudi Arabia, will not let go of a land
that is not theirs to begin with and that belonged to the Jews long before Islam began a
thousand miles to the south.
Should Israel return to its pre-1967 borders, which would deny them a united Jerusalem?
In reply, should Saudi Arabia allow Jews and Christians to return to their historic home in
the Peninsula, before the Hijrah in AD 622 (Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina)?
Before Islam came, Jews thrived in Medina and elsewhere, and the Christians thrived in
the south and north in the Peninsula, in present-day Saudi Arabia. Now they are nowhere
to be found because the few Christians who are left or who have moved to the land of the
Two Holy Mosques are hiding in their homes.
If Saudi Arabia is unwilling to permit this "right of return" to Christians and Jews, then
on what basis does it demand that Israel give the Palestinians the pre-1967 borders? In
that case why cannot Jews and Christians demand that Saudi Arabia give back their land
that it conquered on the Peninsula, by AD 644, the end of Umar’s Caliphate?
Are Jews and Christians so unclean that they are not permitted to enter the city limits of
Mecca (I omit a discussion of the precinct of the Kabah shrine itself)? This seems like
prejudice of the worst kind. What if the Israeli government forced all gentiles from
Jerusalem or their entire Holy Land, as Muhammad and Umar did to Jews and Christians
in Arabia, and Saudis still do today, particularly in Mecca? Saudi Arabia is much larger
than little Israel. However, since Israel is compatible with modernity, it does not make
these demands.

Further, I do not understand why Jordan (the historic home of the Palestinians) does not
relinquish a part of its huge country to them, so they can build their own nation.
However, I prefer to live in the real world, so I will not wait for Jordan’s offer.
Regardless of the specific geography and the fight over small territories (Israel is no
bigger than New Jersey, one of the smallest states in the US), why do not the Palestinians
build their own country as prosperously and successfully as Israel has done? Where have
all the billions of dollars in financial aid from western and Islamic governments
disappeared? Corruption in the Palestinian Authority and Fatah? Will Hamas remain
uncorrupted (if it ever were)? Maybe if the Palestinians focused on solving their own
internal problems and lack of economic development, they would not have time to worry
so much about Israeli "oppression." Does anyone of a sound mind, which has not been
clouded by bitterness, believe that the Israeli government would randomly attack a
peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state, just for sport or a matter of policy?
Though it may be difficult to believe, Israel wants to live in peace. Israeli fathers and
mothers would like their children to grow up to be professionals, not human bombs.
Israel has time and again offered to give up most of its territories or in fact has given
them up. It completely turned over Gaza to the Palestinians. It gave up south Lebanon in
2000. But every time it capitulates for peace, it gets slapped in the face or gets Qassam
rockets fired in its direction. But it simply cannot give up Jerusalem united, its historic
capital.
Other nations squabbled over borders as the nations were being established. For example,
Mexico and the US fought a war in the middle of the nineteenth century. The US paid
compensation to the Mexican government. But do Mexicans strap on bombs and blow
themselves up in a US shopping mall or on crowded busses? China raped Tibet. Does any
Tibetan strap on a bomb and kill innocent Chinese? The list of border disputes and
conflicts is endless. Why do only Muslims kill innocents, believing that they as "human
bomb martyrs" will go to Islamic heaven? If Islam as a religion is not to be blamed
entirely, can it be excused entirely?
Why does Islam alone control the privilege of dictating terms and calling this or that
piece of land holy? That question applies especially to Saudi Arabia. Why do only a few
people in the West ever question Islam’s pushy geopolitical and religious demands? It is
high time we did this. We Westerners should stop the self-loathing and understand that
Islam is also imperialistic, up to right now. It does not suffer from self-loathing.
Further, why are Islamic nations obsessed with a piece of real estate, the land of the Jews,
when Muslims have vast lands of their own and the Kabah? Muhammad never visited
Jerusalem, and the name of the city never appears in the Quran, even in the so-called
"Night Journey," which no one can verify independently outside of a "revelation" that
somehow materially benefits Islam. This "revelation" has stirred up too much trouble.
Finally, you say that "the road to peace runs through Jerusalem, not Baghdad." In reply,
Jerusalem and Baghdad aside, the road to peace leads through the human heart. Too
much hatred of Jews preoccupies the Arab world. This hatred has produced blindness and
needless obsession.
5. The Media on Israel
After your long list of links, you say that the Western news media "pays far more
attention to losses suffered by Israelis than by Palestinians." This is so untrue. All I ever
hear from the media is how oppressive Israel is and helpless the Palestinians are.
Consider the latest incursion in the Gaza Strip. I heard that the Israeli military planned to
rescue a soldier, but I had not heard on television or radio news about Qassam rockets
that the Palestinians had launched into Israel on a (near) daily basis—after Israel
dismantled the settlements in Gaza. If the Kuwaitis fired rockets into Saudi Arabia, or
Saudi Shi’ites did this to a Saudi Sunni community, would the Sunni government of
Saudi Arabia sit idly by? In the same way, these Palestinian rocket launches are acts of
aggression, even war. I repeat: these rockets were launched after Israel withdrew
completely from Gaza. Note how the Palestinians did not wave good-bye to the
withdrawing Israelis and then turn around and say, "Let’s roll up our sleeves and build a
prosperous Gaza!" No, the real problem, according to the Palestinians, is the existence of
a Jewish state in the Middle East. The same goes for the leader of Hezbollah who calls it
a tumor in the body of Islam—note how he assumes that the land belongs to Islam.
Consider the tragedy at Qana in south Lebanon, where children died from an Israeli
missile strike in the middle of the night. Curiously, the Red Crescent was not notified
until 7:00 in the morning. The building did not collapse until many hours after the strike.
Next, why does Hezbollah use humans as shields? Why does it fire its rockets or other
weapons from populated neighborhoods? According to legal scholars, indiscriminant
attacks, such as using badly aimed weapons, are against international law. Israel (and the
US) works hard at avoiding civilian casualties. They have developed precision-guided
weapons. Do Hamas and Hezbollah works as hard? No. Do the mainstream news media
report this and other suspicious facts? No.
Israel tries to destroy the military potential of Hezbollah, its rockets, and their launching
pads. Because Hezbollah places them mostly in civilian neighborhoods, it is very hard to
avoid civilian deaths. And consider this: Hezbollah launches its rockets almost
exclusively into civilian neighborhoods in Israel. They are aimed randomly, whereas
Israel tries hard to pinpoint their targets. Hezbollah does not even target the Israeli
military; they only try to create terror by killing civilians. Where is the outcry against
this? And the Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers are the same. Their targets are
nearly always only civilian. Why are the news reports and worldwide condemnation so
unevenly distributed? So your assertion that the news media pay more attention to the
losses suffered by Israelis than by Palestinians and Muslim organizations and peoples is
inaccurate.
The worldwide media are made up mostly of left-of-center reporters, journalists, writers,
and editors. This means that they focus on the plight of the poor v. the rich, the weak v.
the strong, the powerless v. the powerful, and the marginal v. the privileged. The media’s

concern is not so much for the truth or facts. In the eyes of the media, the Palestinians are
poor, weak, powerless, and marginal. The media’s leftward stance means, in turn, that
they favor the Palestinians over the Israeli "oppressors" and "bullies."
However, the media wrongly overlook the fact that little Israel struggles for its existence
in an ocean of hatred, including the President of Iran, who says that Israel needs to be
"wiped off the map." If you were an Israeli (and you could keep your Islam in Israel),
would you believe that you were threatened? What if Iran said this about Saudi Arabia
and then said it was seeking nuclear technology (read: nuclear weapons)?
Moreover, does a national Israeli TV network broadcast programs like this one seen on
national IQRA TV in Saudi Arabia? The link has interviews with "the man on the street."
Every one of them despises Jews and would not even shake their hand. The Jews are the
"eternal enemies," say two Muslims. Saudis or not, Wahhabis or not, these interviews
were aired on Saudi national TV and fuel the fire of "Jew hatred" in your country. For
now, the above link has a further one that is broadcast in Arabic. Please inform MEMRI
if there is a mistranslation, as you assert generally in Part Ten about this organization that
actually provides a valuable service.
I repeat the question: Does Israel broadcast such venom and hatred on national TV? No.
It is compatible with modernity.
Maybe such Arab TV programs stir up hatred in ordinary Muslims who really do not care
about Jerusalem or Israel or the Palestinians. Maybe average Muslims would like to live
in peace and prosperity, which are too often denied in Islamic nations, especially when
shariah (Islamic law)—brutal and excessive by its very nature—is followed closely and
applied literally.

this portion in our 2005 dialogue. I too receive help from colleagues.
Charities
Claims that Saudi charities either deliberately or inadvertently fund al-Qaeda

ignore the fundamental tenet of charitable giving in Islam. "Zakat," or charity, is
one of the five pillars of Islam; it requires the giving of 2½ percent one’s assets that
have been held for one year to be to a narrow class of needy persons. Due to its
importance to the faith, Muslims and Muslim leaders strictly enforce where their
charitable donations go.
Rather than work with Saudi and other Muslim charities to ensure transparency,
accountability, and best practices, the United States has imposed counter-productive
measures on Saudis beyond that which even their own citizens would tolerate. These
measures include ending collection boxes for the needy, consolidating all charities
and charity bank accounts into a single agency, the implementing rules that
encourage if not require legitimate charities to consider going underground.
Furthermore, the common United States practice of freezing charities’ and
charitable officials’ bank accounts based upon secret evidence only serves to
reinforce the image of ending faith-based giving rather than truly rooting out the
evils of terror finance.
JA (2005): Dore Gold in his book Hatred’s Kingdom proposes this sequence of events
that to an outsider makes sense (pp. 197-203):
1. On October 21-22, 2000 Crown Prince Abdullah addressed an Arab summit, in which
he proposed the following for the children of Palestinian martyrs:
I would like also to announce that the people of Saudi Arabia, headed by the custodian of
the Two Holy Mosques, shall undertake to sponsor and support one thousand Palestinian
families of the martyred and wounded in the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
Is this the beginning of the al-Quds fund?

SaB (2005): Mr. Dore Gold intentionally misleads his readers in that he claims Saudi
Arabia "sponsors" the families. He implies that the Kingdom agrees with and supports the
suicide bombers themselves; this is not the case. Saudi Arabia and most other countries
know that, under Israel’s illegal use of "collective punishment," the Israeli war machine
will devastate the entire family in retaliation for a bomber’s actions. To Israel, it is not
enough that the family loses a son or daughter; the Israeli government instantly and
without recourse or trial assumes the entire family to be responsible and proceeds to raze
their house within hours. Thus if twelve members of a family are living under one roof,
all will become homeless. When the home is destroyed, the family has nothing. Saudi
Arabia sees its obligation under Islam to take care of the innocent poor and needy; the
family having just lost a home without insurance to back them up becomes needy. Saudi
Arabia thus properly steps in to help in such cases.
We truly believe that, no matter the cause, we support the needy and poor.
JA (2006): First, we have some confusion. The link to the excerpted words of Crown
Prince Abdullah shows that they are not translated by Dore Gold, but by an Arab website
that seeks to introduce non-Muslims to Islam.
Second, you write that Israel will "devastate the entire family" (your emphasis). In reply,
thousands of Palestinian Muslims live within Israel, but their homes are not devastated.
Generally, they do not commit acts of terrorism. They live in a free and prosperous
nation, so they can become free and prosperous. Also, Israel put up a fence to respond to
the Intifada, and the acts of terrorism dropped dramatically. Israel therefore did not
randomly destroy Palestinian homes. Does anyone of a sound mind really believe that
Israel would destroy homes of peaceful Palestinians as a matter of policy or sport?
Third, in the well-researched and scholarly Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in
the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt (Yale UP, 2006), the author explains Israel’s
position on destroying the homes of terrorists. Among the radical Palestinians, terrorism
is a family affair. Some children look forward to the day when they can strap on bombs to
fight for the cause. However, as this excerpt reveals, they need proper training.
An Israeli Security Agency (ISA) report in 2004 identified a 64 percent increase in the
number of minors involved in terrorism compared to 2003. Gaza psychologist Fadl Abu
Hein has lamented, "Martyrdom has become an ambition for our children. If they had a
proper education in a normal environment, they won’t have looked for a value in death."
Because they see Palestinian children as legitimate tools in their fight against Israel,
Hamas leaders openly discuss how children should be trained and incorporated into the
group. On May 26, 2002, Salah Shehadah, a founder of the Hamas military wing, stated
in an interview on the Islam Online website that children should be properly trained prior
to the execution of terrorist attacks, and that they should be enlisted in a special branch of
the military arm of the organization. (p. 110)

Israel would like to send a message that families should not support their own children in
terrorism. Levitt goes on to list some of the family members who blew themselves up or
committed other violent acts (p. 123).
And this fact should also be repeated. Thousands of Palestinian Muslims live in Israel,
peacefully. The Israeli government does not destroy their homes simply because they are
Palestinians. Rather, there must be a cause and effect, as follows. First, the young
terrorist strikes (after leaving a videotaped message and receiving great honor from his
family). That’s the cause. Then Israel responds. That’s the effect. One could assert that
the first cause is Israeli "oppression," but this has already been answered in Part Nine.
The Palestinians should get on with the business of building, as Israel has done, a
prosperous society with all of the aid money that they receive from the western
governments and the charities you extol, below.
The bottom line on destroying the homes that encourage and breed terrorism: Israel itself
should decide on how it must survive as an island in a sea of Islamic nations that hate it.
Many would like to see it destroyed completely.
JA (2005) 2. On April 11, 2002, Saudi Arabia held a telethon and raised 109 million
dollars for "Palestinian martyrs." Saudi spokesman Adal al-Jubeir denies that the money
was supporting suicide bombers or terrorist organizations like Hamas. Even if we
assume, only for the sake of argument that the money was not going to a slush fund to
support Hamas or suicide bombers, is it not clear that this money at least supports the
effects or aftermath of suicide bombings, and it therefore supports its origins?
SaB (2005): The problem here is the style of your question: you have already assumed
that, "for the sake of argument" (therefore placing the burden of proof upon me), a "slush
fund" was created, implying a cover-up. How does one prove a negative? It seems that
your argument is that evil will come from covert monies are connected to Saudi Arabia
because nothing good can come from our people. In fact, the funds you mention were
directed toward the families who suffered substantial loss and had no means to get back
on their feet. If those families have no way of meeting their living expenses, we
recognize that other members of their family may become angry and even more hostile
towards the Israeli government. We try and support innocent children and families in part
in order to avoid this perpetual cycle. We want small children to have food, and the
elderly to have shelter. It is the West that concludes that assistance to the needy and
homeless has to equate to support for the bombers themselves. Saudi Arabia does not
support the bombers; rather, it supports the victims. It is part of Islam that we give
charity.
JA (2006): Again, we have a misunderstanding. My hypothetical scenario assumes that

money does not go to terrorist organizations or to slush funds. So the assumption, for a
moment, supports your claim that the money goes only to poor and deprived Palestinian
families. Next, I am convinced that the best way to avoid the cycle of violence is for the
Palestinians to lay aside their hostility and their bitterness at losing Jerusalem and
portions of the historic homeland of the Jews—see Part Nine and the list of facts gathered

by Dennis Prager. And the Palestinians should instead develop their economy and preach
from the mosques and teach in the schools the message of love and reconciliation instead
of hatred and the twisted love of death and martyrdom. Many people in many societies
are oppressed, but they do not become human bombs.
SaB (2005): As for the funds actually raised for the purposes discussed above, their
collection and distribution was completely transparent. The United States government has
accepted this purpose. It is only people like Gold who wish to ignore those facts in order
to perpetuate his hatred of the Kingdom (that he has never visited).
JA (2006): It is not clear, as you assert in your long paragraph above your immediate one
here, that "Saudi Arabia does not support the bombers; rather, it supports the victims."
Moreover, it is not clear that the US government has accepted this purpose and
transparency.
First, a long publication by Freedom House on the ideology of hate from Saudi Arabia
says that in 2004 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shut down the Saudi
Haramain charity organization because it channeled money directly to al-Qaeda. Saudi
authorities agreed on shutting it down, as well (here is the quick synopsis of the long
report). Did action like this prompt these words in your Open Letter? "Claims that Saudi
charities either deliberately or inadvertently fund al-Qaeda ignore the fundamental tenet
of charitable giving in Islam." In reply, the point is not so much the motive of zakat or
charity, but the direction or recipient of the charities.
Second, as to my point about Saudi spokesman Adal al-Jubeir, Levitt in his book (cited
above) reports that in 2002 Saudi Arabia promised to crack down on support for Hamas.
However, Adal al-Jubeir admits that money still goes to the "political wing" (as opposed
to the militant wing) of Hamas (p. 191). What happens to the money after it goes to the
political wing? Can anyone prove that it is not transferred, at least in part, to the militant
wing?
Third, Levitt further says Saudi Arabia produces mixed results on fundraising for Hamas:
A 2004 Council on Foreign Relations report on terror financing notes Saudi progress in
the war on terror financing, but adds that "in Saudi Arabia, whose people and
organization may contribute as much as 60 percent of Hamas’ budget, the government
still does recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, notwithstanding important recent
steps, such as the announced cessation of official efforts to raise money for the families
of Palestinian suicide bombers." (p. 193).
If Saudi Arabia has not declared Hamas a terrorist organization, then why would the
Saudi donors not give to it? So the question is—why has Saudi Arabia not declared it a
terrorist organization?
SaB (2005): A final point on the Palestinian issue: Have you personally ever visited the
West Bank or Gaza? Have you spent even one minute living the life of a Palestinian in
occupied Palestine. I know Americans who have – and who have returned from that
ordeal with a festering hatred in their hearts for their government’s blind support of
continued Israeli oppression. I would be happy to put you in touch with any number of
them at your request.
JA 2006): It is a pity that Americans have come back from Gaza with "festering hatred in
their hearts." The road to peace goes through the human heart, but hatred will block
peace. If I were to meet these Americans, I would tell them to get the hate purged out. I
would tell them to go back to Gaza and preach on the streets that the Palestinians should
spend the billions they receive in financial aid from western and Islamic governments on
building a prosperous society, as Israel has done. The Palestinians should also get the
hatred purged out. It does them no good. It is a cause of violence.
Assuming they would not get murdered by radical Palestinians, these Americans should
preach everywhere in the Palestinian Territories that mosques and schools should
promote peace and reconciliation, not the virtue of martyrdom and a death cult. These
Americans should tell the Palestinian authorities that they should produce TV programs
that say that Jews are not descended from apes and pigs. Jews are humans too. These
Americans should tell the Palestinian authorities to fire or sack, for example, Sheikh
Ibrahim Mudeiris, who appears on national Palestinian TV spewing "Jew hatred" and his
prediction that Islam will rule the world, even America, and rid the world of Jews.
Most pro-Palestinian American protesters are hard leftists, and they value gay rights.
They should march through the streets of Gaza asking the new Hamas government to
allow gays to live in peace. Truthfully, the protesters may get killed for this. But they
could do this freely in Israel. Next, they should march through the streets of Gaza and
inform the Palestinians that Israel is not their oppressor. In the big picture, Israel is
surrounded by nations that wish and work for its annihilation. It is Israel that constantly
feels threatened. If I could meet these misguided protesters, I would tell them that the
Jews lived in their homeland and capital for centuries before Islam arrived on the world
stage and the Palestinian Arabs gradually, over the centuries, moved into Israel’s land.
As I noted in Part Nine,
Other nations squabbled over borders as the nations were being established. For example,
Mexico and the US fought a war in the middle of the nineteenth century. The US paid
compensation to the Mexican government. But do Mexicans strap on bombs and blow
themselves up in a US shopping mall or a crowded subway? China raped Tibet. Does any
Tibetan strap on a bomb and kill innocent Chinese? The list of border disputes and
conflicts is endless. Why do only Muslims kill innocents, believing that they as "martyrs"
will go to Islamic heaven? If Islam as a religion is not to be blamed entirely, can it be
excused entirely?
JA (2005) 3. This article says that the Qur’an itself guarantees Islamic heaven for martyrs
in military holy wars (jihad or qital), especially Sura 61:10-12. Where does this article go
wrong? Do you see how these verses in the Qur’an may inspire human bombs?
SaB (2005): First, is it possible that these words were poorly translated? We in the
Arabic world are constantly annoyed when we see poor translations of the Qur’an,
knowing that the worst of them are grabbed by MEMRI to "sell" to the US public as
evidence of evil intent.
Second, the Qur’an promises heaven for those who are martyrs and who have died in
defense of their people. It promises eternal hell for those who commit suicide. There is
nothing unclear about this in the Qur’an, at least in its original Arabic. It is up to
Westerners to understand that, just as the Bible was mistranslated (thus the debate at the
Council of Nicea centuries after the death of Jesus), the Qur’an is constantly
mistranslated these days.
Third, It is common knowledge among Muslims that those who die in the way of God
are promised paradise. But in Islam we don't talk about "guarantees." No Muslim says
about himself or any one else that they will definitely go to paradise. This is so because
one can never be sure that he has fulfilled all the conditions of a righteous deed so that
God will accept it. We can only say in a general sense that a person who fights sincerely
and rightly in the way of God will surely go to paradise.
Fourth, Can these verses inspire human bombs? Yes they can if a person sees what he or
she is doing as a good example of fighting for the sake of truth. Many of your soldiers are
killing themselves and many innocent people for what they are told by their politicians is
a defense of freedom or the national interest of their country. (Has anyone in the West
considered the morality of "collateral damage" during the "Shock and Awe" campaign in
Iraq?)
JA (2006): My four points correspond to yours.
First, you retreat to the "bad translation" position concerning the invaluable organization
MEMRI. If you observe any specific mistranslations, then notify this superb organization.
I am sure it will enquire further into your suggestions. That said, this plea of a "bad
translation" is often the default position of anyone who is uncomfortable with an idea.
Translating can sometimes be difficult, but in most instances it is straightforward. For
example, it is not the case that the words "we enthusiastically work for Israel’s
annihilation" in one language can be accurately translated as "we love Israel" in another
language. Also, your reference to Nicea eludes me. The Bible was intact long before then.
The New Testament was written in Greek, and many theologians at Nicea could read and
speak it. So how is there a mistranslation?
In your second point, you once again retreat to the "bad translation" defense. I have no
fewer than eighteen translations of the Quran at home, most of which are translated by
Muslims. Throughout our dialogue, I have mostly used Hilali and Khan’s translation,
supported by the Saudi Royal family. I notice that you use it in your online articles. Plus,
my linked article describes your position in your third point perfectly. The article says, as
you do, that martyrs get a "fast track" to heaven. In your third point you merely shift the
vocabulary from "guarantee" (my word) to "promise." Next, you say that the Quran
promises hell for anyone who commits suicide. That’s fair enough. But your third and
fourth points, examined next, clarify things more fully.
Third, you say that Muslims who die in the way of God are "promised paradise." What
does "the way of God" mean? In the Quran the "Cause / Way of Allah" usually refers to
jihad or qital. Your last sentence in your third point supports this interpretation: "We can
only say in a general sense that a person who fights sincerely and rightly in the way of
God will surely go to paradise" (emphasis added). Then you say that "one can never be
sure that [a Muslim] has fulfilled all the conditions of a righteous deed so that God will
accept it." So we have two groups of Muslims in your explanation: (1) those who do
righteous deeds. They can never be sure that their deeds are good enough. (2) Those who
fight sincerely. They will "surely go to paradise." In reply, however, all of this seems
strange and backwards. It would be better, would it not, if jihadists or qitalists would not
be promised paradise (but be promised hell), whereas the doers of good deeds (without
violence) would be promised paradise.
Fourth, our soldiers are in a fight for freedom, liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from a
religious tyranny and a secular tyranny. They do not fight to be promised paradise. We
Christians believe that Christ’s "martyrdom" secures our entrance into heaven. We do not
have to fight and die or get involved in a (twisted) quest for martyrdom and death.
As for the collateral damage in "shock and awe," Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld explains
his views before liberating Iraq, and he admits that this was a difficult decision. But
Saddam was killing a lot more people (usually Shi’ites) than the Iraq War has by now—a
lot more. We have developed technology to avoid civilian casualties. It seems that Sunni
factions, some of whom come from Saudi Arabia, are deliberately targeting civilians in
Shi’ite sections of Iraq, particularly their mosques.
JA (2005) 4. In endnote 2, below, [sic, World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and
Muslim World League (MWL)] you list Muslim organizations. What is the essence of the
goals of these organizations? Do you believe it is to further Islam around the world
generally and around North America specifically?
SaB (2005) It is unlawful for us to "further Islam" by unlawful means.
Whenever we hear the West insist that we want to force Islam on others, whether in the
US or not, we can’t understand why the West does not understand the even most basic
outline of Islam! The acceptable way for one to come to Islam is on his own, by seeing
what we are like in truth and without pressure.
The goal of organizations "furthering" Islam is, quite simply, to correct the constant and
increasing misunderstandings the West perpetuates (often intentionally), to serve the
Muslim communities, to speak the truth, and to show others Islam. If one becomes
interested in Islam, he will himself come to these Islamic organizations to learn more out
of his own curiosity and free will. This is the same process that Christian organizations,

including millions of missionaries sent out by churches, have used for centuries as they
have attempted to propagate Christianity all over the world.
JA (2006): There is nothing wrong with a religion preaching its message peacefully. No
one said anything about "unlawful means." The point to my question no. 4 is to get a
clear declaration from you that Muslims are missionaries. In any case, this peaceful
proclamation is why Saudi Arabia should open the doors to Christians and Jews, so they
can return to their historic homes in the Arabian Peninsula. Christians simply want to
preach their message, which you so eloquently describe as the method of Islam.
However, the full story must be told. In Part Three (see my four numbered points below
the long list of Quranic legal decrees), I cite Suras 9:5 and 9:29. They command battle
against polytheists and Jews and Christians. You explain in Part Eight, (see my question
4B) that Christians are polytheists, so apparently radicals can apply both Quranic verses
to them. These verses and many others make Christians and Jews nervous about the
intent of missionary Muslims. What are the true intentions of WAMY and MWL? Are
they peaceful? Or are they merely peaceful on the outside, but on the inside they can
hardly wait to establish shariah? Too often the sword speaks for dawa (the call to Islam).
In the New Testament Jesus does not tell his followers to commit violence and force
people to convert at the edge of a sword. He did not kill apostates.
JA (2005) 5. Why are not Christian organizations allowed to operate so freely and
publicly in Saudi Arabia? Does it not seem fair that they would be permitted to do so?
SaB (2005): Can I ask why there are no synagogues at the Vatican? Why is there no
mosque next door to the Papal palace?
Churches are allowed in all Muslim countries except ours; they are excluded from Saudi
Arabia because this country is the home of Islam. Saudi Arabia is more than a nation, a
state, or a Kingdom – it is the centre of the entire Islamic world. Just like the Vatican it is
sacrosanct in this way. We have never demanded that mosques be built in the Vatican, or
in atheist China or Cuba for example; it is equally wrong for Westerners to focus on the
building of a church or synagogue in the Holy Places. However, people here are free to
worship unhindered in their own homes – and they do so.
JA (2006): Here are some repeated points from elsewhere in our dialogue, especially Part
Five, but other ones are new. (1) There is in fact a synagogue and a mosque in Rome. The
mosque, not surprisingly, was funded by Saudi Arabia. The Vatican approved of its
construction. (2) Saudi Arabia is 1,960,582 square kilometers (not counting the rest of the
Peninsula and the Gulf States), but the Vatican is 0.44 sq. km. Surely there is room for
even a few churches outside of Mecca and Medina and perhaps outside of the Hijaz. (3)
At the very least visiting Christians and Jews should be able to wear their symbols and
religious adornments and carry their holy books without being harassed or arrested in
Saudi Arabia. (4) In Saudi Arabia people are free to worship in their homes? Truthfully,
however, Christians and Saudi Shiite Muslims secretly hold their ceremonies in their
homes, but they are not free. Under a wide range of circumstances, sometimes they get
arrested, imprisoned and tortured. (5) Saudi authorities should stop blocking websites like
answering-islam.org. Is the worldwide web in Saudi Arabia sacrosanct from religious
liberty? (6) You say that Islam never demands that mosques be built in China or Cuba.
"Demand" does not fit our dialogue. And there are mosques in China. A Muslim leader in
the Muslim World League asked permission from the Cuban authorities to build a
mosque in support of the small Muslim community there. Did he "demand" it? (7) When
religious authorities of one religion suppress freedom of other religions, they testify
against their own religion. It is an admission of weakness. Your version of Islam, so pure
and strict and therefore safeguarded by Allah, should be able to stand on its own two feet
without scaring away other religions by force, persecution, imprisonment, and torture.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to remind the American people and their representatives
that for more than 70 years there has been a peaceful and mutually beneficial
relationship between our two countries. In the words of former President Ronald
Reagan, "the friendship and cooperation between our governments and peoples are
precious jewels whose value we should never underestimate." I believe that the
Muslim world in general and people of Saudi Arabia people in particular genuinely
desire to overcome the current tension and retain this precious jewel. The Muslims,
and in particular their religious leadership, want only to develop and reform their
societies; they do not seek a perpetual war of civilizations or World War IV. Rather,
we seek peaceful coexistence and an exchange that is mutually beneficial to both
Muslim and non-Muslims alike.
Such a future can only be built on understanding and trust. In that spirit, we invite
the members of the 109th Congress of the United States of America to an honest and
open dialogue. Instead of attempting to form an opinion based on the testimony of
others, invite the Islamic scholars of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to stand before
your distinguished body and address your every concern directly. Instead of rushing
into a hasty judgment on this nation and these people who have been your friend
and ally for over 70 years, I suggest to the members of Congress themselves visit the
Kingdom and observe first hand our religious systems and our way of life. True
peace can only be based upon understanding.
JA (2005): You ask that Saudi scholars stand before Congress and address its every
concern. If that does not happen, then I hope our dialogue addresses the concerns that
many Americans, besides myself, have in regards to Wahhabism and Islamic
fundamentalism.
SaB (2005): I hope too.

JA (2005): In your email to me, you say that you have discussed your letter with Saudi
religious scholars and theologians. I hope that they join with you in answering these
questions and concerns.
SaB (2005):
In conclusion, we have done our best to answer your questions in the best way we could,
I again reiterate that we seek peaceful coexistence (please see How We Can Coexist) and
an exchange that is mutually beneficial to both Muslim and non-Muslims alike. We do
not believe it imperative that our civilizations should be enemies to each other; rather, we
hope and aspire to build a friendship and future based on understanding and the mutual
recognition of difference.
It is understandable that many of our practices and beliefs seem strange to those in the
West, just as the practices of many Westerners seem strange to us. While many Saudi
people have benefited from an exposure to Western civilization and formed more
nuanced views as a result, likewise we believe that the West might benefit from
investigating in an open-minded, unbiased manner our civilization and our religious
systems.
I will conclude with Prince Charles, Heir to the British Monarchy, in public speech at
Oxford University stated:
"If there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam, there is also
much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilization owe to the Islamic world.
It is a failure, which stems, I think, from the straight-jacket of history, which we have
inherited. The medieval Islamic World, from Asia to the shores of the Atlantic, was a
world where scholars and men of learning flourished. But because we have tended to see
Islam as the enemy of the West, as an alien culture, society, and system of belief, we
have tended to ignore or erase its great reliance to our own history."(Please see History of
Science and Civilization as taught by many education systems).
In this spirit, we invite you to visit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and observe our way of
life first hand.
JA (2006): It has been an honor to dialogue with you.
In the big picture, you wrote your Open Letter to Congress to explain that Wahhabis are
just Muslims who follow a strict interpretation of the Quran. This may be true, but over a
billion followers of Islam lay claim to the title of "Muslim." So we need to make
distinctions. Whatever label is selected, I hope that peace and religious liberty can
become a reality behind the word, in Saudi Arabia.
With all due respect to the future king of England, I must say that he is no theologian or
historian. The West is not in a "strait-jacket of history." See this timeline of Islamic
imperialism, for example.
Thank you for your invitation to Saudi Arabia. Cross-cultural communication can only
help. The worldwide web promotes dialogue, if not in person, then in spirit.
This concludes our dialogue.
Soliman H. alBut'he
October 2005
Email: soliman.albuthe@gmail.com
James M. Arlandson
Email: jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com


A Dialogue With A Saudi Muslim - James M. Arlandson

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Dialogue With A Saudi Muslim - James M. Arlandson

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

St Francis Magazine Nr. 2 Vol.

James M. Arlandson and Soliman H. alBut'he

This series of debates was first published on www.americanthinker.com and on

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 1

A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim (1)

3. Mr. al-But’he (SaB) will respond.

Author: Soliman AlBut’hi

Dear Members of the 109th U.S. Congress:

Here is my more specific explanation as to why I critique Islam as a religious system.

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 4

Here are a few examples of such contradictions:

In this sense everything is the Word of God. It is not something peculiar to

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 5

… but as Western societies abandon traditional patterns of religious life—for

As the 20th century began, this accommodation became increasingly evident as

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 6

A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim (2)

Is the Bible reliable and accurate?

These two current scholars reach the same conclusion:

Is the Quran pure and uncorrupted?

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 7

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 8

Does culture influence sacred texts?

What does "begetting" mean?

Source: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 2000), pp. 1233-34.

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 10

You quote Pope John Paul II as follows:

Does the Quran have a mysterious mother?

The Quran emphatically states:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 12

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 13

Again, note the logic behind this:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 14

Why do millions of Africans leave Islam and convert to Christianity?

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 15

Why I don’t convert to Islam

Can someone even half-divine be killed?

Is the Enlightenment perfect?

Does Islam deal effectively with sexual sinners?

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 17

For more information on Islam’s and Christianity’s policies on homosexuality, go to this

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 19

A Dialogue with a Saudi Muslim (3)

Open Letter to Congress (continued):

(1) You write in answer to my first question on Islam fulfilling Christianity:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 22

Why I don’t convert to Islam

(2) You say in Point a:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 23

(3) This is my comment on your Point b that says:

Some examples follow:

In Pakistan, one Christian woman evangelist hosted a capacity crowd in a football

(4) For your Point c, you say:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 25

Sura 9:29 says:

(5) For your Point d, you write:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 27

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 28

Open Letter to Congress (continued):

JA: I have two questions:

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 29

I have only two comments on this part.