Humanity vs. Muhammad bin
Nov. 16, 2003
This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are
Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah
Plaintiff: Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)
Defense Attorney: Raheel
Shahzad (Any one else is welcome to join)
Courtroom: Public Opinion
Nov. 16, 2003
Dear Mr. Sina,
Since you said that you are already
familiar with my writings, I was hoping that this time you
will start presenting your refutation to my claim that Islam
is false and Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a
mentally disturbed man and a charlatan
I did not start since in your email
you were busy so I was taking a cue from you as to when you would ask
to start. My apologies if I misunderstood. But nonetheless, I was
prepared for your charges even before you posted this, because at
least i know the theme of your articles :)
you did not take that initiative, allow me to present my
charges one by one and invite you to refute them.
Through this debate I will assume
the role of the prosecutor and you will be representing the
Since you have allowed me the role of
defense counsel, I think then this would mean we employ the same style
as one would employ in a courtroom. Which basically means that
evidence, hearsay, assumptions, leading the witness, etc (as matters
of legal discourse) may have a place in this debate too and their use
or misuse may be pointed out by either party. I think this is only
fair because some discipline needs to be used to keep both sides
Let us start with the Character of
Muhammad. In my view, one who claims to be a messenger of God
must be endowed with spiritual qualities such as love,
compassion, honesty, self-restraint, etc. Muhammad could not
be a messenger of God because he was lecherous, immoral and
unethical man, bereft of human qualities. He was a ruthless
mass murderer, a lustful sex maniac, a shameless pedophile,
and a cunning assassin, a marauding chieftain, a schizophrenic
narcissist, a pathetic liar and many other vile qualities that
disqualify him to be a decent human being let alone a
messenger of God
OK so as a starting point, you have
leveled some charges against a human being. And this distinction is
very important for you and me to assert because we have to judge the
individual through our assumed moral code. It seems only fair that the
charges if brought upon a human being, need then to be defended
through the notions of all things human. That Muhammad was a human
being is not in dispute at all. He was born and then died. That's a
strong indicator of him at least conforming to the most basic premise
of being a human. The divine connection then is a special
characteristic placed upon this human being. And this divine
connection is the crux of a large part of our case.
Hence if it is not in dispute that he was
a human first then I would like to present the definitions of Human
(from dictionary.com), which at least may assist the defense in
guiding the arguments.
- Of, relating to, or characteristic of
humans: the course of human events; the human race.
- Having or showing those positive
aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans
from other animals: an act of human kindness.
- Subject to or indicative of the
weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a
mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
- Having the form of a human.
- Made up of humans: formed a human
bridge across the ice.
So why is the definition of human
necessary here at all? In my estimation because what we understand a
human to be is guided through our moral code today. And recognizing
that we are talking about a human being is central to the issue as we
move ahead in this. One of the interesting definitions above is the
third one (indicative of the weaknesses or imperfections and
my view, one who claims to be a messenger of God must be
endowed with spiritual qualities such as love, compassion,
honesty, self-restraint, etc
So the first assumption you have already
thrown into the case is your own ideal of what a messenger's human
standing and qualities should be. This assumption is not created by
you in a vacuum, but is to me a product of your deeper appreciation
that a God (or at least your interpretation of God) exists. The second
assumption you have declared in the statement is that God is good, and
possesses the qualities you have listed above. I am not saying that
the assumptions are illogical or need to be thrown out, but you have
setup a context for God and Messenger through your own interpretation
what qualities are positive and God is the embodiment of these
qualities. I can also then extend from this that the God you have
interpreted is the antithesis of evil and God is not capable of either
allowing evil to persist or the plan for our existence was devoid of
evil. This also then means to me that evil is not of God creation, but
a human created entity as a result of resistance to the good God.
Further, that Satan then has no real existence because God is good,
and evil is a human product, and anything that is evil or something
that does not conform to your and my definition of "good"
cannot be from the God. You used the words "must be endowed"
and that to me means that the premise of what God should be doing is
already established. You then state "spiritual qualities"
which further establishes that you actually have a belief system that
recognizes that there is something called "spirit". Hence,
now we are making the connection between Muhammad and spirituality. I
am not sure whose definition of spirituality we need to establish
here. I can infer that "spiritual qualities such as love,
compassion, honesty, self-restraint" is desirable. What is not
clear to me is that does spirituality as you stated have only these
qualities or spirituality extends beyond the listing of human elements
stated by you.
But regardless, let me briefly tackle the
words you have used to establish the "law" that has been
A) Love - What kind of love are you
including here? Is it different based on times, or is it a constant?
And is it for other humans, or does it include all things of world and
of the other dimension? And does this love include love only of
human-approved items or love for anything desired by a human is
included? Can love include sex? And if a man claims (and feels) to
have fallen in love with another man's wife, is this acceptable as
morally upstanding by us? If such claim is made, is it reasonable to
accept that there is no lust involved, or is declaration of love for
another man's wife an automatic negation of love (as it would then
this would mean that a moral code is being broken, not because the
love is any less desirable, but because the legality of the woman's
status as already married is the real issue).
B) Compassion - Most of the things
about love mentioned above are applicable here, with one addition. Is
the intensity of compassion an important element, or should compassion
also have a barometer of its strength?
C) Honesty - Is honesty desirable
in all instances or can there be exceptions?
D) Self-Restraint - Is this
restraint from innate evil acts to perform acts that the heart
desires, or is this restraint from the acts, which may confound people
of past and future? Or both?
The reason I expanded on this is because
establishing a law is first needed in absolute clear terms, for then
only can the breaking of this law be defined and then the defendant
charged, and then if the absolute clear law as stated is found to be
broken, then yes guilt can be established. However, if the law itself
is open to interpretation, then the juries will never agree on
establishment of guilt because there is no absolute law to begin with.
As an example, many laws in USA are either overturned or repealed
because of the problem of being either not conforming to a common
logic, or being too vague. Many people walk away free without
conviction because the law itself is not clearly defined. So the
premise is, without an establishment of a clear law, it cannot be
other objection of Muhammad's claim to prophethood is the
absurdity and inanity of the Quran. It is inconceivable that
the author of this magnificent universe be the same person who
wrote that asinine book. Is it possible that God be so
ignorant of simple scientific, logical, mathematical,
historical and even grammatical facts as the author of the
Qruan seems to be?
Now we move from the qualities as you
listed above (which i can combine to mean human traits of personality)
to the realm of intelligence and knowledge. Your objection is based
upon the premise that intelligence is a prerequisite for a divine
Being in relation to humans, and that the humans should be capable of
understanding divinity from the worldly perspective and divinity needs
to be manifested with total clarity. Absurdity and Inanity also needs
to be then in terms of violation of intelligence. But the problem with
this premise is that intelligence also is then a relative term. And
intelligence is difficult to quantify because it may differ for people
based on the subject matter at hand. I may be very intelligent about
matters relating to computers for example, and have no clue about
medical science. I may be absolutely stupid about chemistry too
regardless of how many books I read about it. So intelligence has to
be established as to applying to which aspect. I think it is safe to
say that you are talking about intelligence in the realms of
"logic". Logic being a set of mutually exclusive sets of
perceptions, where the commingling of two different perceptions
produces no answer, hence the brain refuses to process it.
For example: 1) John and Mary traveled to
Bermuda on a Boat 2) A boat can not move if more than one person is
occupying it. Contradiction within the statement defying logic. Hence
the two statements in combination are absurd. There cannot be any way
of using 1 and 2 as written together above without actually the author
stating something additional, or for logic to succeed, some
assumptions will have to be used. Because on surface, the above two
statements defy logic if said together.
So on this point, your objection really is
two-fold: a) The Quran as a collection of sentences is absurd defying
logic and b) since it defies logic, the author must be a human because
the ability to defy logic can only be achieved by a human. God then is
either required to conform to the logic of each human at the same time
and with clarity, or else He has no right to say anything.
As for the collection of sentences of
Quran in totality (verses), that is not the focus of this section of
debate so I will come to that in a later part. But the extension
certainly applies to then the charge leveled against a human called
Muhammad. Hence, the law we are establishing then has to include the
violation of intelligence, in addition to what I have said so far
about the violations of the personality code.
Let us take one subject at a time.
I really am trying to do that. I hope I am
not veering off too far way.
I am taking each sentence you wrote and
carefully answering to the best of my ability given some of the
us talk about Muhammad the assassin to begin with.
I accuse Muhammad of being an
assassin, a man that has to be despised and scorned and
therefore unworthy of assuming such a lofty task of becoming
the emissary of God amongst men. After you read those stories
I want you to advocate for his innocence and prove that all
these charges are false.
Ok so let's address the assassinations
then, and then in a later part I will elaborate. And I do want to
remind you that the law being established is expanding or either we
then have to split the law into separate portions, which then would
have their own problems of not being mutually exclusive.
Assassin, from what I understand came from
the word "Hashishin" (some order of Muslims who killed at
the orders of some Sheikh back in 17th century and the sheikh
prescribed hashish for some reason. not entirely clear). So
assassination is a fairly recent definition. And assassination means
- One who murders by surprise attack,
especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
Now this definition does not address
anything about the virtue or vice of the one being murdered. Neither
is the cause being tackled as being one of justice or other. There's
also the absent the idea of guilt or crime of the person being
murdered in this definition. So pretty much, it can be boiled down to
just mean murder. But I think that poses a logical problem for me, if
it means only murder by surprise. Is there any room for this act being
justified ever? Or it's just that the murder has to happen with the
one who is being murdered be informed by a telegraph or email
beforehand? Also, is there any way that the assassination be a
desirable result? For example, if murder by surprise is assassination
and which should be classified as an absolute law that at any time can
be applied to any period of history or future, then the party
committing it can be classified as guilty. So, if a battalion of US
soldiers enter someone's backyard in Iraq and kill the inhabitants of
the house, regardless of the vices of those killed, will the US
soldiers be called assassins? But if you do not consider them
assassins because they are fighting for a perceived just cause
according to the interpretation of the US stance on nuclear weapons,
then why are some others called assassins who may be fighting their
own cause? So if the reason or cause for the murder by surprise is not
known exactly, then it's assassination. Otherwise it's something else,
which can be stamped as morally upstanding by those who are
interpreting the cause in the first place.
By this logic, Muhammad cannot be charged
with assassination because his purpose was very well stated. Whether I
or you disagree with his stated reason is not the issue here so far. I
am not prepared to label my client as an assassin because you have
used a word to define the law being broken as
"assassination", which by definition only means murder by
surprise. But I have tried to demonstrate that this definition is too
loose because murder by surprise can also be used as a meaningful
tactic in wartime by countries today. Hence, if the purpose of the
surprise murder is stated clearly, then it cannot be classified as a
crime of assassination. I think your disagreement with the cause that
my client was pursuing is leading you to label him as an assassin. But
in light of what I have stated for the jury, your label is unfair and
unnecessary. My client can be guilty of the law we establish first,
and if you want to accuse him and find guilty of assassination, you
have to state your position as to what an act of assassination is
supposed to encompass. If you mean that he murdered and we forget the
word assassin, then murdering also has similar issues of not being
very clearly defined. But I’m trying to add more here in interest of
I do however want to state clearly here
that the word "assassin" has a certain connotation, which I
think is unfair to my client.
list is long. I am not going to ask you to read all of them.
However, I insist that you read at least four of those stories
of assassinations, verify the authenticity of the sources and
then defend your client Muhammad and prove his innocence.
:) Yes I know the list can be
overwhelming. But I have done a lot of research as the defense
counsel, and based on rules of this debate, I can only tackle one
issue at a time, which I think is desired by you too.
You have pointed out that I verify the
authenticity of the sources, which I think is an unfair demand. This
does not mean that I have not tried to verify or have rejected them,
I'm only saying that your accusation is based on your insistence that
I use the same source to defend my client as you find appealing to
your own position. This also does not mean that I have some hidden
revolutionary new source that no one knows about, but if we are
establishing a law that was broken within the realm of logic and this
world, then you are limiting my sources by excluding some of the most
important sources that I may want to use, namely commonsense and logic
itself. If you as the prosecutor are allowed the liberty to use any
source as you deem befitting, then I should be at least given the fair
chance of stating whether I believe in the source or not, and whether
it conforms to my own stated position or not. Because unless you
establish some common source that we both can refer to and absolutely
agree on its usefulness for both sides, I will be overwhelmed in
defending the client. Even the Supreme Court of USA has established
points of references for every case it hears. If it had to decipher
each and every source of law that ever existed or exists today, it
will go nuts just trying to pour over all the material.
Hence rules of evidence need to be
established at least to have some sanity surrounding this debate. Past
cases adjudicated one way or another is not evidence to me, they are
just cases which may or may not have any application today. Opinions
or hearsay are also not evidence. Stated Positions or Prejudiced
slants are also not evidence. So unless there's some common
understanding of evidence, it's pretty much a free for all kind of
case, where guilt is assumed before adjudication.
I propose that we limit our use of the
material that can be referenced to establish the law and then argue
over guilt or innocence.
I would like to mention that my job is not
really to prove innocence, my exercise is to demonstrate that the
guilt cannot be proven or established beyond any doubt. Proving
innocence is practically impossible given the limitations of passage
of time, but if a human being is accused of a crime, then at least he
needs to be defended against the establishment of guilt.
Hence to conclude this part of my
response, I should summarize my opening statements:
- Your accusations have many built-in
- Your standards of norms and
intelligence are not entirely clear based on accusations
- Your use of the word
"assassin" is difficult to establish and is inherently
judgmental in favor of the one who got killed
- The sources of evidence need to be
clear and limited in scope.
- "Innocence until proven guilty
beyond doubt" is my current stated position
I will continue in my next response about
the specific cases of "assassinations", address the issues
of accusations of pedophilia and marriages of Muhammad, and about the
Quran. Let me remind you and the readers that when you take into
account that the faith basis of millions of people is at stake here, I
think this task is a noble cause both for you and I think for me. I
also ask the readers to please keep an open mind about both sides of
the issue, and not let your own preset feelings about matters of faith
guide your logic.
I am only but an individual trying to make
sense of my faith and those who hold a different point of view.
Nov. 16, 2003
Dear Mr. Shahzad,
I accused your defendant Muhammad of being
an assassin and from the several
cases available I presented just four.
You did not deny the charges and the
authenticity of my exhibits. That is of course hard to deny since these
cases are reported in basically all original Islamic sources such as
Ibn Is-haq’s Sirat Rasoulallah, al Waqidi, al Tabari and several
sahih (authentic, verified) hadiths.
Since the evidence is undeniable, instead
you tried to redefine the notion of human being and assassination.
In your defense you stated that Muhammad
was just a human and explained to us what human means. I agree with
those premises. You emphasized that as a human, Muhammad was subject
to weakness or imperfections and fragility. I agree with that too.
However none of those justifies assassinations. All criminals are
humans and the same rule of human weakness applied to them too. Is
that an excuse to acquit them all? Hardly so!
I doubt any jury in his right mind would
acquit a criminal on the ground that he or she is just a fallible
human being. We are all fallible human beings but not all of us are
assassins. You would have had a better chance to plead innocence by
reason of insanity for your client.
Then you moved on to redefine the concept
of good and evil and stated that my notion of good and how I envision
God are subjective.
You spoke of human love being relative and
asked whether when we speak of love we should not also take morality
You wondered whether compassion needs a
barometer of strength.
You questioned the desirability of honesty
in all cases and wondered whether there can be exceptions when being
dishonest is more desirable.
And about Self-Restraint
this restraint from innate evil acts to perform acts that the
heart desires, or is this restraint from the acts, which may
confound people of past and future? Or both?”
These questions are irrelevant to the
that the reason you present these questions is because you are not
sure that the right and wrong as seen by humans are actually so. In
other words you try to question the validity of human notion of good
and evil. And based on such premise you claimed that since we cannot
be certain that what appears to be good is actually good and what
appears to be bad is actually bad then we cannot say assassination is
bad because it could be good. And concluded: “without an
establishment of a clear law, it cannot be really broken.”
I do not think that good and bad are so
relative that we can’t know whether assassinating someone on the
ground that he or she disagrees with us is a good thing or not.
May be good and evil for us humans are
relative. But our intelligence, no matter how imperfect and relative
it may be, is the only tool we have to tell apart good from bad. It is
absurd to say that assassination could be a good thing because we are
fallible humans and can’t know the difference between good and bad.
Love and compassions are also human
qualities. Morality is another subject that we can talk about in
another occasion. The point is that a human being who is bereft of
these qualities does not qualify to be called with that name. We call
such person, “monster” not human.
And as for your question about honesty,
the answer is that honesty is always desirable and dishonesty is
always undesirable. There are no exceptions.
What you are advocating here is moral
relativism. In other words you say evil is justifiable when
doing good is not expedient. This is absurd, because it licenses any
person to do evil at any time that it suites him.
I am not shocked at all of your
philosophy. You are expounding the Islamic philosophy very eloquently.
As a confirmation of your statement and to show that Islam is indeed a
moral relativist religion that allows dishonesty, assassination and
other vices any time that it suites its followers, I will quote a
statement by Iman Ghazali the most eminent Islamic scholar ever.
When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by
telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the
goal is permissible " (Ref:
Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller,
translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller , Amana publications, 1997,
section r8.2, page 745).
I disagree with moral relativism. I am a
follower of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule states: "Do not
do to others what you do not want to be done to you".
I do not want to be assassinated and hence
I do not assassinate others.
I do not want another person invade my
town kill me, loot my belonging, enslave my children and sleep with my
wife. So I do not do such things to others.
I do not enjoy being second class citizen,
being subdued and humiliated and pay penalty for my right to believe
in the religion of my choice, hence I do not do this to others.
I do not like to have a tutelary who can
beat me if I fail to obey. Therefore I do not treat my wife in this
I do not like to be dealt with
dishonestly, be lied to and cheated. Therefore I think dishonesty is
evil and there are no exceptions to this rule.
Continuing with the same line of moral
relativism, you argued that the human intelligence is also
relative and it cannot comprehend the divine wisdom.
then is either required to conform to the logic of each human
at the same time and with clarity, or else He has no right to
My response is also the same. Human
intelligence may be imperfect but that is all we have. Our limited
intelligence is the only parameter or tool we have to distinguish the
right from the wrong and evil from the good.
Otherwise, how would we tell apart a
charlatan and an impostor from a true messenger of God? There are
thousands of impostors who lay claim to prohethood each year. How do
we know they are not telling the truth and Muhammad was? We have to
use our intelligence. Yes, the same imperfect and fallible
intelligence. If the actions and words of these self-proclaimed prophets defy our intelligence then we know that they are impostors.
It would be unfair for God to send a messenger that says and does
things contrary to our intelligence. As Galileo said, if God did not
want us to use our intelligence, why he would gave it to us?
By weighing up the Quran and the deeds of
Muhammad with our human intelligence, we can safely determine that he
did not qualify to be a messenger of God. Unless you are of the
opinion that God is so pathetic that would choose a pervert criminal
psychopath thug to guide us to the right path.
On the main subject of our
discussion, namely assassination, you explained the root and the
meaning of the word (which I find unnecessary because it makes your
long responses, longer)
definition [of assassination] does not address anything about
the virtue or vice of the one being murdered.”
also the absent the idea of guilt or crime of the person being
murdered in this definition.”
I am afraid you are confusing the issue.
We are not talking about the virtue and vice of the victim but the
virtue and vice of the assassin. The question that you have to answer
is whether assassination is a virtuous act befitting of a messenger of
God or is it an evil deed. The guilt or innocence of people should be
determined by a court of law, not whimsically by anyone who just feels
he has to assassinate someone because this person is bad mouthing him.
Then you equated assassination with murder
there any room for this act [assassination/ murder] being
justified ever? Or it's just that the murder has to happen
with the one who is being murdered be informed by a telegraph
or email beforehand?”
Here you are not questioning the
immorality of assassination but whether the assassin should inform his
victim of his intentions. I think you miss the whole point. I am not
trying to convince you but the jury (our readers). And the jury needs
no more convincing.
I am going to quote you verbatim your own
statement. I think your own words incriminate your client (and his
followers) more convincingly than anything I can say.
is there any way that
the assassination be a desirable result? For example,
if murder by surprise is assassination and which should be
classified as an absolute law that at any time can be applied
to any period of history or future, then the party committing
it can be classified as guilty. So, if a battalion of US
soldiers enter someone's backyard in Iraq and kill the
inhabitants of the house, regardless of the vices of those
killed, will the US soldiers be called assassins? But if you
do not consider them assassins because they are fighting for a
perceived just cause according to the interpretation of the US
stance on nuclear weapons, then why are some others called
assassins who may be fighting their own cause? So if the
reason or cause for the murder by surprise is not known
exactly, then it's assassination. Otherwise it's something
else, which can be stamped as morally upstanding by those who
are interpreting the cause in the first place.
this logic, Muhammad cannot be charged with assassination
because his purpose was very well stated. Whether I or
you disagree with his stated reason is not the issue here so
far. I am not prepared to label my client as an assassin
because you have used a word to define the law being broken as
"assassination", which by definition only means
murder by surprise. But I have tried to demonstrate that this
definition is too loose because murder by surprise can also be
used as a meaningful tactic in wartime by countries today.
Hence, if the purpose of the surprise murder is stated
clearly, then it cannot be classified as a crime of
assassination. I think your disagreement with the cause that
my client was pursuing is leading you to label him as an
assassin. But in light of what I have stated for the jury,
your label is unfair and unnecessary. My client can be guilty
of the law we establish first, and if you want to accuse him
and find guilty of assassination, you have to state your
position as to what an act of assassination is supposed to
encompass. If you mean that he murdered and we forget the word
assassin, then murdering also has similar issues of not being
very clearly defined. But I’m trying to add more here in
interest of brevity.
Thank you for being so explicit. I do not
think I need to add anything more. I can rest my case at this moment.
However since many of our readers are also Muslims and since I know
how Islam affects human mind and values and distorts them to the
extent that the victim become jaundiced, I would like to shed some
light on this kind of typically convoluted Islamic thinking and
hopefully rescue some from this disease of the mind and soul called
a battalion of US soldiers enter someone's backyard in Iraq
and kill the inhabitants of the house, regardless of the vices
of those killed, will the US soldiers be called assassins?
Yes if that happens, those soldiers will
be charged with war crime and will have to stand trial.
This twisted Islamic thinking that likes
to portray Muslims as victims, with no evidence at all, while
justifies all their crimes perpetrated against others is typical
The US soldiers do not enter in people’s
houses and murder them indiscriminately. They may enter in people’s
houses in the search of weapons or to capture a combatant enemy.
However they will not open fire on the residents unless they are
That is not comparable to the
assassination expeditions of Muhammad. From the links that I provided,
we learn that Muhammad sent someone to assassin a
120-year old man because he was telling the people of Medina to
not be fooled by him. When Asma
bent Marvan, a poetess and a mother of five small children
complained about that dastardly act, he sent another man to assassinate
her too in the middle of the night while she was in her bed nursing
her infant. I hope you also read the case of Ka'b
ibn Ashraf and Abu
Rafi. These are the kind of crimes perpetrated by your defendant
whom a billon gullible people blindly have accepted as a messenger of
God. And yet look how he mocks everyone and how he makes his ever
handy god to praise him so loftily:
surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q.68:4).
in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow"
sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. (Q.21:107).
this is the word of a most honorable Messenger, (Q.81.19)
We want to shed light on these facts and
unmask Muhammad, so haply we save the Muslims who are primary victims
of this lie and save the world from an unnecessary calamity.
However, we are helpless to save those
whose minds and values are distorted to a point of no return. Islam is
indeed the disease of the mind. We want to help Muslims recover but we
can’t help everyone. I am afraid you are one of those who are beyond
A man that justifies assassination,
questions whether dishonesty could sometimes be good and has succumbed
to Islamic moral relativism to such an extent that cannot see the
obvious is beyond reach of reason.
I nevertheless thank you for your honesty
in this case, even though you think dishonesty sometimes is necessary,
for not deny futilely the authenticity of the hadiths and other
historic sources that reveal the crimes perpetrated by your defendant
Muhammad. You even admit that you do not have “some hidden
revolutionary new source that no one knows about”. You only
contend that since assassination, dishonesty and other vices "can
sometime be good" and we humans cannot tell one way from other,
Muhammad cannot be accused of any crime.
In other words, your position is to mock
human conscience, human intelligence and our commonsense. You state
that man cannot know what is wrong and what is right and therefore any
vice committed by Muhammad could actually be a virtue in disguise.
Is that true in the case of all criminals?
.... Or Muhammad is the exception?
Interestingly you suggested we use “commonsense”
and “logic” to determine the guilt or innocence of
What commonsense and what logic are you
talking about? Isn't it obvious that assassination is not right? That
pedophilia is not good? That raiding, looting and enslaving women and
children is wrong?
Yet again, you ended up contradicting
yourself by stating that
you as the prosecutor are allowed the liberty to use any
source as you deem befitting, then I should be at least given
the fair chance of stating whether I believe in the source or
not, and whether it conforms to my own stated position or
Now it seems that you are implying that
the sources that I provided, namely the sahih hadith and early books
of history written by early Muslim historians may not be valid. If so
can you present another version of history of Islam? Of course there
is none and you already acknowledged that you do not have “some
hidden revolutionary new source that no one knows about”.
would like to mention that my job is not really to prove
innocence, my exercise is to demonstrate that the guilt cannot
be proven or established beyond any doubt. Proving innocence
is practically impossible given the limitations of passage of
time, but if a human being is accused of a crime, then at
least he needs to be defended against the establishment of
I do not have to prove any guilt because
it is confessed. It is enough to read the books of
history and the hadith, written by devout Muslims to see how they
bragged about these crimes perpetrated by their prophet.
The prosecution in the case of Humanity
vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah rests.
It is now up to the jury to deliberate on
For the next court session, I invite you
to refute my charge against Muhammad being a lecherous womanizer. I
contend that considering his lack of moral fortitude Muhammad could
not be a messenger of God. He was simply a successful and ruthless
cult leader who beguiled the foolhardy ignorant people of his time to
satisfy his own ambitions and lusts.
In the following links I have presented my
claim with enough evidence to back it up.
Please read all of them.
P.S. I do not want to sound
timumphalist as I know this is one of the "virtues" of
Muslims. However judging by your poor performance in this first round
I invite you to gang up with other Muslims and build up a stronger
I invite any other Muslim who wants to
join the defense team and salvage the lost honor of their prophet to
If you are a Muslim who are dismayed and
think someone else can do better a job than Mr. Shahzad, please invite
him. Tell him it is vital because the honor of Islam is at
I hereby promise once again; should
anyone prove my charges against Muhammad to be false. I will not only
withdraw this site but also will appear in any television and radio
and announce to the world that I was wrong and Islam is true.
There are over a billion Muslims in this
planet. Is there not just one who can prove me wrong?
Even the hypocrite
and the paid western apologists of Islam are welcome to join the
defense. Please tell your Saudi sponsors to fill up your bank accounts
again as you are going to defend Islam once more rehashing the lies
that Quran is scientific and Islam is peaceful and shut down this
pesky site that has brought so much humiliation and disgrace to the
religion of Allah and his messenger.
It must be noted that the humiliation and
disgrace of Islam means freedom and glory of its primary victims,
namely the Muslims.
Freedom and glory for all the people of
the world is what Faith Freedom International is striving