Do the Authentic Teachings of Islam Result in Terrorism?

Examining one Muslim's Challenge

[Part 1] [Part 2]

Sam Shamoun

We resume our analysis of Abualrub’s challenge to Craig Winn by now focusing our attention on the Islamic traditions.

Again, in order to make it easier for our readers to follow along the different components of our rebuttal we have broken it down to the following sections:

  1. The View of Islamic Narrations and the Sira Literature
  2. The View of Some Muslim Scholars
  3. Concluding Analysis

We will then follow it up with our open challenge to Abualrub.

1. The View of Islamic Narrations and the Sira Literature

There are explicit statements in the ahadith that prohibit the killing of women and children:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257)

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258)

As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a narration in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly quoted:

Narrated Rabah ibn Rabi':
When we were with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2663)

HOWEVER, there are certain other narrations that permit the killing of women and children, specifically during Muslim raids where they attack unsuspecting victims at night:

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." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)

I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than pagans! The above narration is repeated in several, different hadith collections:


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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)

Keep in mind that the subheading is not part of the narration, it is added by the collector of the hadiths. In other words, the statement regarding the killing of women and children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear implication and meaning of these narrations.

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)

Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664)

One Muslim apparently was so troubled by this concession on the part of Muhammad that he claimed that the killing of women and children was abrogated!

Al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah said that he asked the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the polytheists whose settlements were attacked at night when some of their offspring and women were smitten. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: They are of them. ‘Amr b. Dinar used to say: They are regarded in the same way as their parents.

Al-Zuhri said: Thereafter the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited to kill women and children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2666)

Not all Muslims share al-Zuhri’s conviction. The English translator makes the following comments regarding the above narration:

2018. This tradition allows to kill women and children of the infidels IN THE BATTLE. The other traditions indicate that it is prohibited to kill women and children in the battle. These CONTRADICTORY traditions have been reconciled by saying that the tradition of al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah has been abrogated. The other interpretation is that it is allowable to kill women and children when the settlements of the infidels are attacked AT NIGHT, as they cannot be distinguished from the fighting men in the dark. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, p. 739; capital emphasis ours)

Ahmad Hasan’s explanation is no excuse and provides absolute no comfort for the women and children who were killed, or for their surviving families. A true God-inspired prophet would be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the unnecessary killing of women and children.

Nearly all cultures have the honor codex that in wars the women and children are to be spared, i.e. the fight only goes against the men of a group or nation. The very fact that Muhammad is asked this question shows that the questioner had doubts in his mind about it. Maybe Muhammad had ordered such a raid or attack, and the Muslim wanted to be sure that Muhammad knew the consequences if they went ahead with it. It was going against his conscience, but if Muhammad would order it anyway, knowing of the parameters, then he would obey. The answer of Muhammad shows that these women and children were of little concern to him. The advantage gained by a surprise attack in the night was more important to him, even if it meant the killing of women and children.

We see it every day in the media that politicians say one thing today and another thing tomorrow, whatever is expedient at the time. Sometimes they speak of principles and may even follow them for a while and another time they only look how to get an advantage. Looking for "one clear principle and teaching" in Muhammad’s life assumes that he is consistent because he is a prophet of God. When Muhammad says at one time to spare women and children and at another time discounts that principle and values the tactical advantage above the lives of innocent people then this does not mean that one tradition is correct and the other is wrong, but it simply shows that Muhammad acts like all politicians, looking how he can get all he can get, sometimes by talking about high principles and another time discarding them. It shows that he was not acting in obedience to a moral God with clear and unchanging principles, but that he was acting as most politicians and military leaders do to gain or to keep or extend his power.

Furthermore, Islamic sources provide many examples where Muslims deliberately and brutally killed women and children. Noted Islamic commentator and historian Al-Tabari mentioned one:

In this year a raiding party led by Zayd b. Harithah set out against Umm Qirfah in the month of Ramadan. During it, Umm Qirfah (Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr) suffered a cruel death. He tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman.

Her story is as follows. According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq – ‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi al-Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there, and Zayd was carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b. ‘Amr, one of the Banu Sa‘d b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b. Fazarah]. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds, the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya‘muri killed Mas‘adah b. Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a very old woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah’ daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah’s daughter and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah to the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah’s daughter belonged to Salamah b. ‘Amr b. al-Akwa‘, who had taken her - she was a member of a distinguished family among her people: the Arabs used to say, "Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfah, you could have done no more." The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 95-97)

Al-Tabari also mentioned that Muhammad had the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah beheaded:

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)

Another source tells us how they determined whether a person had reached puberty:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

Not only were the young boys of the tribe beheaded, but the Muslims also beheaded one of their women:

According to Ibn Ishaq, the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah took place in the month of Dhu al-Qa‘dah or in the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah. Al-Waqidi, however, said that the Messenger of God attacked them a few days before the end of Dhu al-Qa‘dah. He asserted that the Messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Banu Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and ‘Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence. He asserts that the woman whom the Prophet killed that day was named Bunanah, the wife of al-Hakam al-Qurazi- it was she who had killed Khallad b. Suwayd by throwing a milestone on him. The Messenger of God called for her and beheaded her in retaliation for Khallad b. Suwayd. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 40-41)

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665)

It doesn’t stop here. When Muhammad conquered Mecca he ordered the murder of a couple of singers solely because they had made fun of him in song!

Also among them was ‘Abdallah b. Khatal, a member of the Banu Taym b. Ghalib. The Messenger of God ordered that he should be killed only for the following reason: He was a Muslim, and the Messenger of God sent him to collect alms, sending with him one of the Ansar. With him went a mawla of his, also a Muslim, to serve him. He halted at a resting place and commanded the mawla to slaughter him a goat and make him a meal; then he went to sleep. When he woke up, the mawla had done nothing for him; so he attacked him and killed him. He had two singing girls, Fartana and another with her. The two used to sing satire about the Messenger of God; so the latter commanded that the two of them should be killed along with him…

Also among them were ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl and Sarah, a mawla of one of the sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib. She was one of those who used to molest the Messenger of God in Mecca…

‘Abdallah b. Khatal was killed by Sa‘id b. Hurayth al-Makhzumi and Abu Barzah al-Aslami: the two shared in his blood. Miqyas b. Subabah was killed by Numaylah b. ‘Abdallah, a man of his own clan…

As for Ibn Khatal’s two singing girls, one was killed and the other fled. The Messenger of God later was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so. [As for Sarah, he was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so.] She lived until someone in the time of ‘Umar b. al-Khattab caused his horse to trample her at al-Abtah and killed her. Al-Huwayrith b. Nuqaydh was killed by ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.

According to al-Waqidi: The Messenger of God commanded that six men and four women should be killed. Of the men, [al-Waqidi] mentioned those whom Ibn Ishaq named. The women he mentioned were Hind bt. ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, who became a Muslim and swore allegiance; Sarah, the mawla of ‘Amr b. Hashim b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib b. ‘Abd Manaf, who was killed on that day; Quraybah, who was killed on that day; and Fartana, who lived until the caliphate of ‘Uthman. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 179-181)

One Muslim biographer wrote:

Quraysh, resigned to its fate, felt reassured by Muhammad's general pardon. They watched the Muslims go about their city with great surprise, not without a measure of fear and caution. Seventeen Makkans were excepted from Muhammad's general amnesty and were ordered executed even if found clutching to the coverings of the Ka'bah. Some of them went into hiding and others ran away from the city altogether. They all stood convicted of atrocious crimes they had committed. One of these men was `Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, and there spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. Another convict was `Abdullah ibn Khatal who converted to Islam, killed one of his clients, apostatized, and commanded his two slave women, one of whom was called Fartana, to castigate Muhammad in song. Both save women were indicted and ordered executed with their master. Another was `Ikrimah- ibn Abu Jahl, the most persistent enemy, who could not accept the Muslim conquest of Makkah and put up strong resistance in the face of Khalid ibn al Walid on the southern front.

Pardon Extended to the Convicts

As soon as he entered Makkah, Muhammad ordered that no blood should be shed and that only the seventeen people would receive their just punishment. While some of the seventeen condemned hid, others ran away from Makkah with their families. As the situation settled down and the news of the Prophet's clemency and all embracing forgiveness became fully known and appreciated by all, some companions dared to think that even the condemned could also be forgiven. `Uthman ibn `Affan, brother-in-nursing of Ibn Abu al Sarh, approached the Prophet in this regard and sought an order for the safe passage of his protege. Muhammad was silent for a long time sunk in thought, but he then consented to grant forgiveness. Umm Hakim, daughter of al Harith ibn Hisham and the wife of `Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl who ran away to Yaman, converted to Islam and sought pardon for her husband directly from Muhammad. She was granted it. She then went to Yaman and returned with her husband. Muhammad also forgave Safwan ibn Umayyah who accompanied `Ikrimah on his escape toward the sea and thence to Yaman. Both had been caught just before their ship was to sail. Muhammad also forgave Hind, wife of Abu Sufyan, who chewed the liver of Hamzah, uncle of the Prophet, after his martyrdom at the Battle of Uhud. Indeed, most of the men condemned to death had been forgiven. Only four were executed al Huwayrith who tempted Zaynab, the Prophet's daughter, when she returned from Makkah to Madinah; two Muslims guilty of murder in Madinah who escaped to Makkah and apostatized; and one of the slave women of Ibn Khatal who used to castigate the Prophet in song. The other slave woman ran away, but was brought back and later forgiven. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], pp. 410-411: online edition)

The same biographer mentions the following murders:

Muslims Kill Abu ‘Afk and Asma

Before the victory of Badr the Muslims used to fear the Madinese non-Muslims, for they were still too weak to return any aggression inflicted upon them. But when they returned victorious from Badr, Salim ibn ‘Umayr took upon himself the job of getting rid of Abu ‘Afk, a tribesman of Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf. The latter was a poet who composed verses disparaging Muhammad and the Muslims and inciting his own tribe to rise against them. Even after Badr, Abu ‘Afk still composed and disseminated abusive verse. Salim attacked Abu ‘Afk in his sleep in his own yard and killed him. Likewise, ‘Asma’, daughter of Marwan, of the tribe of Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, used to insult Islam and the Prophet by encouraging bad feeling against the Muslims. The Battle of Badr did not make her reconsider. One day, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Awf attacked her during the night while she was surrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing. ‘Umayr was weak of sight and had to grope for her. After removing the child from his victim, he killed her; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. When her relatives returned from the funeral, they asked him whether he had killed her. "Indeed so," said ‘Umayr, "You may fight me if you wish. By Him Who dominates my soul, if you should deny that she composed her abusive poetry, I would fight you until either you or I fall." It was this courage of ‘Umayr that caused the Banu Khutmah, the tribe of ‘Asma’s husband, to turn to Islam. Having converted to Islam but fearing persecution at the hand of their fellow tribesmen, some of them had hidden their conversion. Henceforth, they no longer did so. (Ibid., p. 243; online edition)

These stories are found in Ibn Ishaq’s biography on Muhammad, one of the earliest sources on Islam which was subsequently edited by another Muslim named Ibn Hisham:


Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan.  He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

"Long have I lived but never have I seen
                        An assembly or collection of people
                        More faithful to their undertaking
                        And their allies when called upon
                        Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
                        Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
                        A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
                        "Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.
                        Had you believed in glory or kingship
                        You would have followed Tubba

The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?"  Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad!  [Muhammad]
                        By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
                        A "hanif" gave you a thrust in the night saying
                        "Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!"
                        Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
                        Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad), translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 675)


When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"  Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.  In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!"  When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan.  She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting."  That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader", and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit.  The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam." (Ibid., p. 676)

Sunan Abu Dawud provides a couple of more examples of women being killed for disparaging Muhammad:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348)

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349)

The preceding sources show that the assertion that Islam prohibits the killing of women and children cannot be conclusively proven from the data. The Islamic source material is contradictory at best since one set of traditions prohibits the murder of women and children, whereas another set condones and permits it.

Now Abualrub may contend that women like Asma or the young boys of the Banu Qurayzah were not innocent. They were guilty of crimes committed against Muhammad and therefore deserved to die. The problem with this assertion is that it assumes that Muhammad was a true prophet and that it is therefore justifiable to kill those who disagree or speak out against God’s prophet, in this case Muhammad.

The fact is that these Jews had legitimate disagreements with his prophetic aspirations since he contradicted just about everything that both the Hebrew prophets and the NT apostles taught and confirmed about God, Christ, salvation, ethics etc.

After all, even Muhammad told the Jews if they couldn’t find a prophecy about him in their Scriptures then they were not obligated to follow him:

The apostle wrote to the Jews of Khaybar according to what a freedman of the family of Zayd b. Thabit told me from ‘Ikrima or from Sa‘id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘In the name of God the compassionate the merciful from Muhammad the apostle of God friend and brother of Moses WHO CONFIRMS WHAT MOSES BROUGHT. God says to you O scripture folk, and you will find it in your scripture "Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those with him are severe against the unbelievers, merciful among themselves. Thou seest them bowing, falling prostrate seeking bounty and acceptance from God. The mark of their prostrations is on their foreheads. That is their likeness in the Torah and in the Gospel like a seed which sends forth its shoot and strengthens it and it becomes thick and rises straight upon its stalk delighting the sowers that He may anger the unbelievers with them. God has promised those who believe and do well forgiveness and a great reward." I adjure you by God, AND BY WHAT HE HAS SENT DOWN TO YOU, by the manna and quails He gave as food to your tribes before you, and by His drying up the sea for your fathers when He delivered them from Pharaoh and his works, that you tell me, DO YOU FIND IN WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU that you should believe in Muhammad? IF YOU DO NOT FIND THAT IN YOUR SCRIPTURE THEN THERE IS NO COMPULSION UPON YOU. "The right path has become plainly distinguished from error" so I call you to God and His Prophet’ (313). (Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p. 256; capital emphasis ours)

A number of them came in to the apostle and he said to them, ‘Surely you know that I am an apostle from God to you.’ They replied that they did not know it and would not bear witness to him. So god sent down concerning their words: ‘But God testifies concerning what He has sent down to thee. With His knowledge did He send it down and the angels bear witness. And God is sufficient as a witness.’ (Ibid., p. 265; bold emphasis ours)

Mahmud b. Sayhan and Nu’man b. Ada’ and Bahri and ‘Uzayr and Sallam came to him and said: ‘Is it true, Muhammad, that what you have brought is the truth from God? For our part we cannot see that it is arranged as the Torah is.’ He answered, ‘You know quite well that it is from God; you will find it written IN THE TORAH WHICH YOU HAVE. If men and jinn came together to produce its like they could not.’ Finhas and ‘Abdullah b. Suriya and Ibn Saluba and Kinana b. al-Raba‘ and Ashya‘ and Ka’b b. al-Asad and Shamwil and Jabal were there and they said: ‘Did neither men nor jinn tell you this, Muhammad?’ He said: ‘You know well that it is from God and that I am the apostle of God. You will find it written IN THE TORAH YOU HAVE.’ They said: ‘When God sends an apostle He does for him what he wishes, so bring down a book to us from heaven that we may read it and know what it is, otherwise we will produce one like the one you bring.’ So God sent down concerning their words: ‘Say, Though men and jinn should meet to produce the like of this Quran they would not produce its like though one helped the other.’ (324).

Huyayy, Ka’b, Abu Rafi‘, Ashya‘, and Shamwil said to ‘Abdullah b. Sallam when he became a Muslim, ‘There is no prophecy among the Arabs, but your master is a king.’ Then they went to the apostle and asked him about Dhu’l-Qarnayn and he told them what God had sent him about him from what he had already narrated to Quraysh. They were of those who ordered Quraysh to ask the apostle about him when they sent al-Nadr and ‘Uqba to them. (Ibid., pp. 269-270; bold, underline and capital emphasis ours)

Notice that Muhammad claimed to confirm the revelation given to Moses, and acknowledged that the Jews of his time had that revelation in their possession in order to verify his assertions. Since we know what that Torah looked like and even have the revelation which was available during Muhammad’s time in our possession, this means that we can test his claims to see if God’s true Word verifies the Quran.

Unfortunately for Muhammad and Abualrub, all the biblical evidence shows that not only are there no prophecies of him in God’s true Word but the Holy Scriptures expose him as a false prophet. Muhammad failed every biblical test for true prophethood.

And on that basis both the Jews and Christians were/are correct for rejecting and exposing him, while Muhammad had no right to impose his religion upon them or to censure them.

Abualrub may simply cop-out by taking the easy route of denying the historicity of these episodes, especially that of Asma bint Marwan, something Muslims typically do when they can’t handle the evidence (*, *).

A major problem with this often repeated lame response is that it fails to explain why would Muslim historians, scholars, expositors etc., pass on or concoct such stories when these anecdotes portray Muhammad in such a negative light? Reputable historians, apologists, polemicists and students of Islam correctly reason that these are reliable traditions precisely because no Muslim scholar would dare create such negative portrayals and depictions of his/her prophet, nor would he/she want to preserve such narrations especially if they originated from non-Muslim circles.

We therefore have good grounds to assume that these vicious and cold-blooded murders are genuine events in the life of Muhammad and his followers.

Deeds speak louder than words. It seems that at times Muhammad spoke about sparing women and children (whether out of principle or with having in mind to sell them as slaves is another issue). But Muslims who physically attack the unbelievers can point to several incidents in the life of Muhammad, and have all the precedent they need, to kill women and children in their attacks and feel that they follow the example of Muhammad faithfully. The Sunnah is made up of the words and deeds of Muhammad. Muhammad endorsed the killing of women and children in several instances, and thus established this as part of his Sunnah.

2. The View of Some Muslim Scholars

Since Abualrub has proven that he is not a scholar of Islam we decided to turn to some statements made by individuals who are considered to be scholars.

We turn to Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law In Arabic English Text, Commentary And Appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, Beltsville Maryland, revised edition 1994). It is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page volume contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by "the great 13th century hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Imam Nawawi, and others. Keep in mind that this work was not written with a Western audience in mind since Imam Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was precise, and accurate, one that taught true Islamic values, specifically for a Muslim audience. All bold, capital and underline emphasis is ours.

Here is what this scholarly Shafi’i manual of Islamic law says about Jihad:

O9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male OR FEMALE, old or YOUNG) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims… A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).


O9.4 Those called (O: to perform jihad when it is a command obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (p. 601)


O9.10 It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children UNLESS they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks. (p. 603)

Hence, not only can women and children participate in Jihad, but Muslims are also permitted to kill those women and children who fight against Muslims. We shall shortly see what Islam considers fighting to be.

The manual further says regarding the making of truces:

Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of the region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says,

"So do not be fainthearted and all for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran 47:35).

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel[sic], or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. IF the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: o11); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims UNTIL IT EXPIRES.) (p. 605)

One of the Salafi Muslims’ favorite scholars and heroes is Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who has been dubbed Shaykh-ul-Islam. This supposed Muslim scholar had this to say about Jihad:

"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight WITH WORDS (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare)." (Ibn Taymiyyah, in Rudolph Peters, "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam", [Princeton, NJ.: Markus Wiener, 1996], p. 49 – as cited by Andrew G. Bostom, "Khaled Abou El Fadl: Reformer or Revisionist?", source; underline and capital emphasis ours)

The same quote can be found in the following site, but this time with some additional context:

"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for woman and children and they constitute property for Muslims." (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad, p. 28; online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)

According to this Shaykh, to speak against Islam and Muslims is considered a form of fighting and anyone engaging in this type of warfare can be killed! Thus, any man, woman or child who has made comments and/or written articles or books disagreeing with Muhammad and Islam, or has publicly exposed and called into question Muhammad’s actions, is an enemy that can be killed. Their blood is lawful for a Muslim to shed without impunity!

That is why Muslims can put a bounty on Salman Rushdie, threaten religious and political leaders such as Franklin Graham or Jerry Falwell, and/or assassinate film producers like Theo Van Gogh without regrets or shame.

This accounts for Muslims on the Internet wishing that they could behead apologists and polemicists such as Ali Sina of, Dr. Robert Morey of, and myself:

DoctorMaybe Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:54 pm      Post subject: Damn persecutors

Is it justifiable to behead infidels like Ali Sina, Sam Shamoun, Daneil Pipes,etc?

Should we Muslims take revenge of the Crusades? (Source)


DoctorMaybe Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:59 am      Post subject: Persecutors and critics

There are many infidels in this forum who bring their problems over here and respectfully share it with the believers. Though they are annoying, they have taken time to consult us and NOT GO PUBLIC. Then, there are the persecutors. For example, a pagan idiot who comes here with different usernames. Other pagan persecutors include, Shamoun, Daniel Pipes, Robert Morey, Christian Prince, Ali Sina.

Allah has told us to fight and kill those who persecute us. Clearly, those infidels are persecuting us with their literature(just like the few Arab poets during the time of the beloved Prophet). Why don't the "Western Muslims" take these pagans out?

I, personally, would like to see Ali sina, Sam Shamoun and Robert Morey beheaded.

Don't you? (Source)


DoctorMaybe Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:09 pm      Post subject: Enough is enough

The news of Holy Quran being disrespected by American infidels at Guantanamo Bay is the limit. Allah willing, if I see anyone, in person disrespecting my religion, I WILL MAKE SURE HE NEVER SPEAKS LIKE THAT AGAIN. I WILL KILL THE INFIDEL.



YankeesFan Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 9:44 pm    Post subject: re: Enough is enough

What can one do? The people responsible for these atrocities are not within reach. The guilty parties are protected behind their badges, and lack the guts to do this in front of a free Muslim Citizen. And All Sinner and Sammy are probably one and the same. No Muslim Apostate would knowingly distort the truth. His distortion will prove to himself the invalidity of his stance. So I really doubt All Sinner was ever a Muslim, but regardless, I wish I could get my hands around his neck in a dark ally in Brooklyn.

DoctorMaybe Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 5:19 pm    Post subject: re: Enough is enough

George Galloway blew the US senate members away with his speech. Man, I really wish I could do the same.

I have tolerated each and every insult from people like Ali Sina, bushbadee, sam shamoun and other infidels, about Islam and my beloved Prophet. Turning the other cheek will not help. This persecution must stop.


YankeesFan Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 1:09 am      Post subject: re: Enough is enough

May Allah reward you for your intentions.   (Source)

Furthermore, note carefully the reason Ibn Taymiyya gave for some scholars stating that women and children should not be killed: they are nothing more than property for the Muslims to do with them as they see fit!

In other words, the reason for sparing them has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, that human life is precious and sacred because humanity bears the divine image of its Creator (cf. Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:4-6). Since Islam views them as nothing more than property, chattel, they have no real value in the eyes of Muslim terrorists and Jihadists.

That is why the Quran allows for the raping of married women taken captive by the Muslims:

Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And all married women EXCEPT THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise. S. 4:23-24 Shakir

It makes economic sense to spare the women and children since their Muslim overlords could either sell them into slavery or, in the case of the women, enjoy them sexually.

In some cases Muslims even had sex with and raped young boys. According to historian Philip K. Hitti, such sexual perversions were rampant in Islam:

"The servants were almost all slaves recruited from non-Muslim peoples and captured by force, taken prisoners in time of war or purchased in time of peace. The white slaves (Mamluk) were mainly Greeks and Slavs, Armenians and Berbers. Certain slaves were eunuchs (khisyan) attached to the service of the harem. Others termed ghilman, who might also be eunuchs, were the recipients of special favour from their masters, wore rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion. We read that ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid, but it was evidently al-Amin who, following the Persian precedent, established in the Arabic world the Ghilman institution for the practice of unnatural sexual relations. A judge under al-Mamun used four hundred such youths. Poets like abu-Nuwas did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their composition to beardless young boys." (Hitti, History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Present, revised tenth edition, new preface by Walid Khalidi [Palgrave Macmillan, 2002; ISBN: 0-333-63142-0 paperback], p. 341; bold emphasis ours)

Hitti also said in relation to the collapse of the Abbasid Empire:

Then there were the social and moral forces of disintegration. The blood of the conquering element became in course of centuries diluted with that of the conquered, with a subsequent loss of their dominating position and qualities. With the decay of the Arab national life, Arab stamina and morale broke down. Gradually the empire developed into an empire of the conquered. The large harems, made possible by the countless number of eunuchs, the girl and THE BOY SLAVES (ghilman), who contributed most to the degradation of womenhood AND DEGENERATION OF MANHOOD; the unlimited concubines and the number of half-brothers and half-sisters in the imperial household with their unavoidable jealousies and intrigues; the luxurious scale of high living with the emphasis on wine and song - all these and other similar forces sapped the vitality of family life and inevitably produced the persistently feeble heirs to the throne. The position of these feeble heirs was rendered still more feeble by their interminable disputes over a right of succession which was never definitely determined. (Ibid., 485; bold and underlined emphasis ours)

Hence, there was a higher incentive for these Muslim perverts to keep their young captive boys alive!

Regarding Abualrub’s comments on homicide bombings he surely must have been aware that not all of his so-called Muslim scholars condemn these murderous acts since they find a legitimate Islamic basis for it. The following is taken from the Memri website and are excerpts from a counter-terrorism conference of religious scholars in Sharm Al-Sheikh, Egypt, which aired on Iqra TV on August 22, 2005. All capital and underline emphasis ours:

Sheik Al-Qaradhawi and other Islamic Scholars Debate Suicide Operations in a Counter-Terrorism Conference Held in Sharm Al-Sheik

Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman, Egyptian professor of Islamic law: According to another opinion, a person who blows himself up is committing suicide. This opinion is based on sources that categorically forbid self-killing. The Koran says: "Do not kill yourself, surely Allah is ever merciful to you." There are also such sources in the Sunna and in the general consensus of scholars. Not text in Islamic religious law that permits a person to kill himself. Even in the case of Jihad, which is the pinnacle of religious duties, Islam does not permit a person to kill himself.

What Islamic religious law does permit is for a person to wage Jihad, facing one of two options, victory or martyrdom. He may risk being killed by someone else, but not kill himself.


Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Dr. Said Ramadhan (Al-Bouti) stressed the legitimacy of defense, saying it is a legitimate right in Palestine and Iraq. I think that saying it is a legitimate right is not enough, because a right is something that can be relinquished. This is a duty. All scholars say that defending an occupied homeland is an individual duty applying to every Muslim. Reducing this duty to "a right," which can be relinquished is a kind of depreciation.

We must stress this point, and emphasize that is it the rights of those defending their homeland. It is not only a right, but also their duty. I am amazed by what Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman said.

This has nothing to do with suicide. This man does not want to commit suicide, but rather to cause great damage to the enemy, and this is the only method he can use to cause such damage. Since this method did not exist in the past, we cannot find rulings about it in the ancient jurisprudence. We may find rulings about plunging into the enemy and risking one's life, even in cases of certain death? so be it. The truth is that we should refrain from raising this issue, because doubting it is like joining the Zionists and Americans in condemning our brothers in Hamas, the Jihad, the Islamic factions, and the resistance factions in Iraq. It is as if we are joining them.

We all condemn violence or terrorism, although, to tell the truth, I personally don't like the word "terrorism". I always say "violence". I have written a book called Islam and Violence. But since this word is so widespread, I use it. We all condemn the (terrorist) operations. We condemned them before we came to this conference. We condemned the bombings in London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Egypt. We condemned them as individuals and institutions. This is something everyone agrees on. We cannot say we pat these misguided boys on the back, but we do want to listen to them. They have gone astray, so we want to treat them in a way that will set them straight, and bring them closer to us. We don't want to be like prosecutors, demanding their execution. We want to treat them the way clerics treat their students, the way fathers treat their sons.


Professor 'Abla Kahlawi Al-Azhar University, Egypt: We must be united, in condemning this behavior, this terrorism or violence, call it what you will. We must declare loud and clear that resisting the aggression, and resisting the enemy is a legitimate right, and that a fighter who risks his life has that right. When he perishes along with his enemy, this is a resounding cry of truth, through which the martyr declares: "This was mine and it has been plundered, let the whole world see." This is how a Muslim should act when he defends what is his, and I don't accept anything else.


Iraqi Cleric, Ahmad Al-Qubeisi: Does any Islamic government have the right to prevent individuals from resisting the occupiers? This is what happens. There are young people thought it was bad that the Americans are occupying the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. So they started the resistance, which might have been exaggerated, but this was an operational error. In principle, these are people who are trying to drive out the occupier, which is deemed legitimate by all earthly and divine laws. People are in dispute over the methods. Listen to what happens worldwide, things you may have forgotten:

The officer who killed 400 children in the Bahr Al-Baqr elementary school in Egypt many years ago - they said he was depressed and pardoned him.


The arch-killer who murdered in the Al-Aqsa Mosque many years ago, in the days of Itzhak Rabin, 38 people in the middle of prayer, they said he was depressed and was pardoned.


The pilot who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and killed 700,000 got a medal. Rustum and the Americans killed 700 prisoners in an Afghan prison no one demanded they be held accountable. My question is: Why can’t you show some mercy and say that these mujahideen are depressed, and pardon them? Thank you.

Sudanese minister of religious endowment, 'Issam Ahmad Al-Bashir: The mujahideen are not depressed. Their faces shine.

Qubeisi: But you are accusing them of heresy, here. If you had to choose between depression and heresy, which would you choose?


Saudi scholar, Abd Al-Muhsen Al-'Abikan: The suicide operations that are called "martyrdom operations" are forbidden by Islamic law. Those who carry them out, committing suicide, cannot be called martyrs, and their actions cannot be called martyrdom. It was forbidden even in cases of Jihad by a number of prominent Muslim scholars.


Al-Bashir: We have agreed that resisting the occupier IS A SACRED RIGHT AND AN OBLIGATORY DUTY, APPROVED BY ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS LAW and by (international) conventions. It has nothing to do with forbidden terrorism. Moreover, IT IS LEGITIMATE. As proposed by Sheik Al-Bouti, we emphasize this point in this concluding statement.


Al-Bashir: YES.


Al-Bashir: YES. I've already said that. It is an obligatory duty and a legitimate right. Someone who carries out this duty cannot be said to have committed suicide. (Source)

This same Sheikh Qaradawi who was quoted above has gone on to publicly support Palestinian homicide bombings:

Suicide bombings

Qaradawi strongly supports Palestinian suicide bombing attacks, including against civilians and claim there are legitimate form of resistance. Qaradawi also claims that hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. In this respect, he is very much in tune with what the vast majority of people in the Arab world believe.

Defending suicide bombing against Israeli civilians Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:

At the press conference held by the organizations sponsoring Qaradawi's visit to London, Qaradawi reiterated his view that "martyrdom operations" are a justified from of "resistance" to Israeli occupation. In the past, Qaradawi has justified such actions on the basis that all Israel civilians are potential soldiers since Israel is a "militarized society."

Due to this, Qaradawi has been accused in support of terrorism by Jewish groups and a group of liberal Muslims.

On the other hand, on March 20, 2005, Qaradawi issued a condemnation of a suicide car-bombing that had occurred in Doha, Qatar the day before. One Briton, Jon Adams was killed. Qaradawi issued a statement that said "Such crimes are committed by insane persons who have no religious affiliation and play well into the hands of the enemies." and "I urge all Qataris to stand united in facing such an epidemic and uproot it to nip the infection in the bud, otherwise it will spread like wildfire. I, in the name of all scholars in Qatar, denounce such a horrendous crime and pray that it would be the last and implore God to protect this secure country." (Source; see also this report)

Here are the credentials of the Sheikh as posted by Wikipedia for those wanting to know what are this man’s credentials to speak on such matters:

Qaradawi was born in Egypt, and attended the Al-Azhar Theological Seminary before moving to Qatar. His father died when he was two, and so he was taken care of by his uncle. His parents urged him to either run a grocery store or to become a carpenter. Instead he memorized the entire Qur'an by age ten. Qaradawi followed Hasan al-Banna during his youth and was imprisoned first under the monarchy in 1949, then three times after the Tyrant and the Scholar, poetic Islamic plays expressing a message through theme. Other works such as Fiqh-al-Zakat (Laws of the Obligatory Charity) are Islamic law treatises which go into precise details.

He has worked in the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments, been the Dean of the Islamic Department at the Faculties of Shariah and Education in Qatar, and been chairman of the Islamic Scientific Councils of Algerian Universities and Institutions.

Qaradawi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has turned down offers to be the Muslim Brotherhood leader various times. Qaradawi is the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

As further support that Islam condones the murder of women and children just think about the law of apostasy. In Islam, if a person decides to apostatize then that individual must either revert or be killed. This includes any sane man, woman or child who has reached the age of rationality.

In support of this position note what the following Salafi website says in answer to a questioner whose wife abandoned Islam. You will see that Abualrub’s "brothers" do no hesitate to say that women apostates are to be killed, that they must be put to death if possible:


Praise be to Allaah. 

Undoubtedly if this is the case, she has chosen kufr over eemaan. She does not want to stay a Muslim and she is insulting Islam and its symbols, and going against its teachings. In this case she is a kaafir and an apostate, so it is not permissible for him to stay married to her, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives"

[al-Mumtahanah 60:10]

i.e., if he has a kaafir wife, it is not permissible for him to stay married to her. He has to advise her and establish proof against her, then leave her. If he is in a place where there is an Islamic government and sharee’ah law, then he has to refer her case to the Muslim qaadi, for him to ask her to repent. If she does not repent then the ruling of Allaah should be carried out on her, which is execution, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion [leaves Islam], execute him."

But if that is not possible and there is no Islamic rule or sharee’ah law in his country, then at least he should separate from her completely; it is not permissible for him to live with her after she has clearly stated her kufr.

Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen (

(Question #7328: His wife has left Islam)

Such statements should truly shock any open-minded, rational human being.

3. Concluding Analysis

Our examination has led us to discover that there isn’t a single, explicit Quranic reference which prohibits the killing of women and children. The language of the Quran strongly supports the position that even the women and children of the unbelievers are to be targeted in jihad.

The Quran uses inclusive language when commanding Muslims to attack infidels, the people of the Book etc. The Quran doesn’t qualify such statements by saying to attack or fight only their men, or by expressly prohibiting any attacks on the women and children.

There are certain references where Muhammad curses women and children, and where a supposed unnamed servant of Allah killed a young boy on the suspicions that he may have turned out to be an evildoer (cf. 3:61; 18:74, 80).

The Islamic narrations and Sira literature provide ample evidence supporting the unjust killing of women and children, i.e. women poetesses and singers are brutally murdered, young boys are beheaded, old men and women are brutally massacred etc.

When we turned our attention to the Muslim scholars we found some of them condoning and justifying homicide bombings and the brutal killing of women and children.

Basically, our investigation has led us to conclude that Islam does permit and condone the brutal murdering of women and children, as well as the bombing of innocent civilians and noncombatants.

In light of the foregoing we now issue the following challenges to Abualrub.


Since Abualrub is against the homicide bombings and the bloody terrorist acts and murders done in the name of Islam, we invite him to post a disclaimer on his website for all to read. We challenge Abularub to publicly condemn Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization by name on his website, saying that they are not real Muslims and that they do not represent real Islam.

In the meantime, we invite him to set up a radio debate between him and myself on the Mike Gallagher Show on the issue of whether Islamic terrorism is the natural result and outcome of the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran. He can even arrange for us to debate the topic of Muhammad’s prophethood, whether he was a true or false prophet, on the Gallagher show. Either topic is fine by us. He can even invite his friend Nadir "Mike" Ahmed (*) to help since I would love nothing more than to refute both of them at the same time by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

We will inform our readers whether Abualrub agrees to accept either one of our challenges, i.e. whether he publicly denounces Muslim terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden BY NAME and/or agrees to face me on the Mike Gallagher show on one of the suggested topics.

Recommended Articles and Links

Recommended Books

We highly recommend the following series of books that are authored or edited by Robert Spencer:

As well as Ibn Warraq’s books on Islam:

Why I Am Not a Muslim
The Origin of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out

Another book worth reading is Serge Trifkovic’s The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World.

All the above books can be purchased on Amazon or Barnes & Nobles.

And we encourage our readers to either purchase a copy of Craig Winn’s book, The Prophet of Doom, or simply read it for free online.

Responses to Jalal Abualrub
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page