tanveer hussain  

>wrote:

Dear Ali, I am surprized that inspite of having so much reservations about Allah, Islam and Muhammad, how strictly you are following them all.Take example of your email address , faithfreedom. Do you know which saying of Allah you are following: "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. " Quran 18/29. The above verse is about complete faith freedom. The name of your site is rational thinking. Look how you are following Muhammad. "Say: This is my Way: I invite unto Allah

>with rational thinking (baseerat) . I and whosoever followeth me " Quran 12/108 Do you know what Quran says about those who do not think. see the follwing:" they have hearts with which they do not think, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are even worse; these are the heedless ones." Quran 7/179 Look what the Quran says about following something without knowledge:""And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge;" Quran 17/36 And finally do you know what is one the the main characteristics of Muslims and momins, see "Those who, when they are admonished with the verses of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind" Quran 25/73 I hope you will keep on following Allah, Islam and Muhammad as long as you will keep the same email address and same website title.

 Best regards, 

Tanveer

From: Ali Sina

To: tanveer hussain

Subject: Re: I am surprised that you are following islam so strictly

Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 15:58:04 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Tanveer,  

I think you need to read this:

http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/preacher_to_despot.htm

Regards  

Dear Ali,

I am surprised again that how a rational person like you can fail to see things in perspective and the context. You have pointed out some verses chosen randomly to prove that there is contradiction in Quran. Before I try to let you know how you failed to see the context in Quran, let me talk about "contradiction" in context of common human behaviour, (e.g. yours). If someone is nice to you, you are likely to be nice to him. If someone attacks you, you are likely to fight back (obviously if you can). Is this a contradiction in your behaviour? You are nice at one time, angry at other time, may be happy at one time, sad at other and so on. So much contradiction….Is it really is contradiction. May be according to you, if you do not see things in perspective.

Let me now taking just one of the issues pointed out by yourself, which according to you is contradictory to Quran, i.e fighting with disbelievers and killing them.

The first verse you have quoted in the table given by you is 2/191, i.e

"Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. "

Dear, You just missed to see the previous verse which is 2/190

"And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. "

You did not see the context. If you do not believe in fighting those who fight you that is OK, you are just a pacifist.

The next verse that you have quoted is 9/123 i.e

"Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. "

Again dear, you just could not see the previous verse where the context is. See 9/122

"And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware."

You do not need to contemplate, it is a pretty clear context i.e., the talk is about a war and troops. Now if you go in a war, it is OK if you do not murder the enemy, You will just be killed. Just that.

The third verse you have quoted is 9/5 i.e.

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them "

O my! Third time in a row, dear you committed the same mistake by not looking just the previous verse.(it was not that far, just previous). See 9/4

"Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)."

Now if there is someone, who help someone against you , it is OK if you make him a friend. It will be just that, you will risk your own life, just that.

Dear Ali,

You picked the verses randomly. I have picked given by you the first three. I am really surprised that a rational thinking person like you could not see the obvious.

I can understand now that you have not read Quran even like a novel, take aside thinking and contemplating on what is said in it. Because even if you read a novel, when you are e.g. in the last chapter, you can understand what is the context. But if you just read it randomly, a line from first chapter, a couple of lines from the second and  3-4 from fourth and so on, you will obviously conclude what you have concluded about Quran. I am so so surprised you just could not see just one earlier verse in all three cases where the context was…

Best regards, 

Tanveer

>From: Ali Sina

>To: tanveer hussain

>Subject: Re: Surprised again..

>Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 20:16:28 -0700 (PDT)

What you forget is that no one waged any war against Muslims. Muhammad after immigrating to Medina waged 67 wars all of them, except the war of Khandaq, a war that was never fought, were aggressive. In fact these wars were called Qazwah meaning ambush or sudden attack. Muslims used to ambush their victims without warning and with no provocation. It was Muhammad and his followers who invaded the non-Muslims killed the men and captured the defenseless women. What Muhammad in those verses is saying is that if you attack a town and people do not defend themselves but surrender without any fight, don’t kill them. If however they defend themselves and fight back kill them. Please read some history of Islam from reliable sources such as Ibn Ishaq, al Waqidi or al Tabari. Then everything starts making sense to you. The genocide and crimes perpetrated by Muhammad and his men eclipse the barbarity of the Nazis. Take for example the battle on Bani Mustaliq, on Kheibar or against the Bani Quraiza.  

http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/Juwairiyah.htm

http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_quraiza.htm 

I want you to read the above stories and try to justify them. Tell me how someone calling himself a messenger of God could be so ruthless.  

Regards  

 Dear Ali,

First of all you should have solved the problem of "contradiction" in Quran. I gave you three examples chosen by you where there was no contradiction, just you forgot  to read the context. Now let us talk about history. You test Quran on the basis of history. There are some people who test history on the basis of Quran. They do so because there were many people who learnt Quran by heart. There has been none who had learnt a history book by heart. So they believe by rational thinking that a book learnt by heart by many people is more likely to be in tact as compared to others. These are two different ways to look at things. You are dogmatic about history just like people are dogmatic about Quran. You believe what is written in history is the absolute truth. Some think history is full of errors. And most of the heresies and errors were deliberately introduced by the people who hated islam. What would you say to a person who thinks history is full of errors. Let us not go in the very past. Take an event of the last century. Take the death of Hitlor. You will find not a dozen, but more than that contradictions and and theories about his death (just one event) that has become a part of history. The books you are  quoting were written  at least  more than 200 years after the death of Muhammad. If history can be full of errors and contradictions in moderen age about the death of Hitlor, how come it can be free of errors when it as old as more than 1000 yaers. It would be naive to be dogmatic about history, think rationally and see how many are on the planet earth now who are followers of Muhammad and how many are who are the followers of the barbaric halaku khan.

A word about contradictions and as you call incompatibility of attributes of Allah. Have you seen water. It is always H2O2 wherever you go in the universe. That is immutability. But it can change to Hydrogen and Oxygen under certain conditions. It can aslo change into ice or steam. There is an aspect of change and at the same time an aspect of consistency about water. Is it contradiction? both are attributes of water, properties of water. One property is to remain consistent and another to change. pretty contradictory? isn't it?

Now a word about your rational thinking. Once the brightest man on  the earth believed the earth was flat. He believed by rational thinking. Then another brighter person was born. He refuted the first one again by rational thinking. How contradictory is your rational thinking. Reason will always suffer from its limitaions. One is its subjectivity and the other is its qualitative and quantitative limitation. First let us get a perfect "reason" then be dogmatic about it.

Best regards,

Tanveer

>From: Ali Sina

>To: tanveer hussain

>Subject: Re: Dogmatic about history?

>Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 08:12:49 -0700 (PDT)

Kindly read the links I gave you and comment on them. >A dialogue in which you talk but do not listen is monologue and I am not part of it. I have heard a lot of sermons. I have no time for that. If you want to have a dialogue please read what I wrote and comment on them. Once I see you are actually reading and listening, I will respond to what you write.

Regards  

From tanveer hussain Sat May 3

Dear Ali,

Thanks for your advice. I forgot to tell you that I have read all versions of your trusted friend history, including your site and your refered links, which is just a cut and paste of most of others works and your naivity in believing that what people have written in history is the absolute truth or word of the gospel. You have given reference of books of history written by different mortals like you and me. History does not agree even on the date of any important event, take aside the details of an event. You have written a lot about Muhammad giving references from history which does not even agree when Muhammad was born. You also refer a lot to Ismaeel Bukhari's work, who even did not know arabic well enough,  who collected tens of thousand of hadiths and then published in his book just 3-4 thousands with lots of repetitions and contradictions. He said he took 16 years to do this task. If he had worked 24 hours a day it just could have given him about 15 minutes to review each hadith he had collected. Well you trust Bukhari a lot, some people do not. Neither do I. History is full of contradictions and as you are of the opinion, Quran is full of contradictions. You do not follow Quran because of contradictions, why should you expect someone to follow something else which is full of contradictions. Give me a point of reference that is free from contradictions. Talking about monologue vs. dialogue, I have been adressing you direct, you refere me to hither and thither, why do you not just try to comment my queries directly. It is you who is creating an atmosphere of monologue because you do not comment on my points and just go astray. I asked you that you are following teaching of Quran by naming your mission and email according to it. You tacitly seemed to agree that yes you are doing that but Quran also says things which are contrary to that. You sent me examples, I told you back, show me where is contradiction. Then you digressed from Quran and jumped to the history, which you believe is very authentic point of reference. I have read history and having found it contradictory, I do not trust it.  First you need to prove to me that there is no contradiction in history. Then I shall trust your historical references.

Let me talk a little about a point you made in the references you sent me last time. i.e about the ones your right hands possess. Given a period in time when you have a tradition of slavery. Now suppose your policy is to put an end on slavery. What would you do? Perhaps you would pass a ruling "there will be no slavery in future" .Ask your friends who know arabic ( keep in mind it does not imply that if you are even born in an english family you can understand shakespeare, so ask a friend who knows arabic really well), that wherever in Quran there is talk about "what your right hands possess" accorrding to the arabic linguistic syntex and grammer, the very arabic word means which your right hands already possess.  There will nowhere in Quran you will find that in future when you make slave, do this.....All talk is about the ones who were already slaves

Now suppose, you have passed a ruling there will be no more slavery. Then what would you do with the existing slaves. Would you ask them to leave your home. You can, this is one solution. Where would they go? Will you open a new city for them, you can. this is another solution. (but remember, this might be disriminatory). Would you allow them to stay in your homes if they are willing, but not as a slave but with equal rights as you yourself enjoy. Would you make them a part of your family. Would you marry a slave girl if she wants to marry you? This might be another solution. If you marry a slave girl if she and you both agree, she might become a part of your family, feel honoured even become your own honour. Now you have quoted in your last references, Quran says, 

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 )

You have erroneously inferred that these possed ones are to be kept without marriage. Dear Ali, why you never learn from your mistakes. Just you forgot to read the next verse 4:25, where there is clearly a talk about marrying those whom your right hands possess. See

"And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess." 4/25

Look how a slave can become a family member after getting married.

Also See  it is the same chapter in this book of law just a few lines ealier (not that far) 4/19 that when it comes to marriage you cannot force someone to marry with you.

" O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will" 4/19.

It seems that you have run out of arguments and just refer me to your old arguments that I have been through in your website.

I wont try to convince you or change your point of view. I am just not convinced with that what your website says and that is due to your erroneous point of reference and wrong logical deduction. I just want to be convinced if you can do that. But you cannot do that by refering me to here and there. Talk direct.

Best regards and life,

Tanveer

Dear Tanveer,  

So your position is denial of the history when that does not suit your purpose!  

Yes the history of Islam has contradictions, but the differences between the various versions of the history are not crucial. Since these stories were not recorded immediately but were passed from one generation to another, it is expected and normal that various versions of the same events emerge. However the very fact that these stories have come to us (or to Bukhari and Muslim) through different sources and despite the fact that they slightly differ with each other they tell the same tales, is evidence that those events have actually took place and those stories are true. The exact details of the events may not be clear, yet there is no ground to deny them either. Let me make this point clear to you with an example. If you ask a group of people to detail an event that took place 20 or 30 year ago, each one will give you a different account. The details will vary. When you take note of the similarities of all those different versions a relatively clear picture of what happened will emerge. Say for example Khalid killed Zaid and a group of people witnessed that crime. Some will tell you that Khalid started the fight; others will tell you that Zaid started it, but everyone will agree that Khalid killed Zaid. This is how we should look at these hadithes and the history of Islam. We have two, three or more versions of the same events. They may differ in details but all of them agree on fundamentals. It is the fundamentals that we are concerned with not the details. For example there are at least two versions of the story of Juwairyah. In one place we read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit, the captor of Juwairiyah, and then married her. Yet another hadith claims that the father of Juwairiyah paid the ransom to set her free. This is a small detail and it does not interest us who paid the ransom. Memories fail and people do forget the details. However what cannot be disputed is that Muhammad raided Banu al Mustaliq, killed the able men who had gone to the fields after their daily work and took as captives their women and children. All the versions do confirm this fact. All the versions also confirm that Juwairyah fell into the lot of Thabit and Muhammad bought her/took her from him. All the versions agree that the reason Muhammad was interested in that woman was because she was beautiful. Furthermore this story in consistent with other stories about Muhammad raiding civilians with no warning, killing the able men caught by surprise and looting their belongings, enslaving thise women and children. 

Now your position is to deny all this. Can you tell me what happened to the Banu al Mustaliq? Do you have access to a different version of the history that contradicts all those narrations collected by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Ishaq, al Waqidi and al Tabari? These books are our sources of the history. There are some variations in them, as far as the details are concerned, but they all concord in fundamentals. Do you want to throw them all out of the window because they differ in details? Do you have a better, more reliable source of the history of early Islam?  

As you see Mr. Tanveer, it is not easy and in fact it is not honest to reject all these books. These books are our only link to the early history of Islam and Muhammad. If you throw these books out, we would not know who was Muhammad. Who were his parents? Where and when he was born and how he expanded his religion. We would know nothing about Muhammad, his sunnah and his companions. We will never know how to perform the Salat, the Saom and the hajj. These are the pillars of Islam. The Quran does not tell us how these rituals must be performed. The details for them are found in the books of the Hadith.  

Furthermore no one doubted the authenticity of these books for 1200 years. Muslims followed the Hadithes collected by Bukhari and his student Abul Husain Muslim like they followed the Quran. They called those collections Sahih (authentic) to distinguish them from the Hadithes that may be dubious. It is only now that the Muslims have come in contact with Western humanistic secular values and they desperately deny these hadithes and their own history of Islam all to gain acceptability in the eyes of the Westerners. How much credence you expect people grant you and your religion when you do not have any history to show them and the only recorded history you have is so disgraceful that even you deny it and disown it?  

Denial is not the answer. Suppose you catch a criminal and there are several witnesses testifying to his crime. Several years later the criminal is brought to justice. The witnesses’ memories may be fuzzy and their stories may vary in details. Yet all of them agree that they saw him committing the crime. The thief denies all the charges yet he does not have an alternative version of the events. He cannot tell you a story that could serve as alibi to absolve him from the charges. Would anyone believe him? The very fact that so many people witness to those crimes and the fact that those stories are similar despite the fact that they may vary in details is proof that those stories are true. There are criminal lawyers who try to dismiss all the evidences against their clients and they do succeed to set free many criminals because of some technicalities. You and I know that the criminal lawyers are agents of devil on earth. We know that these people will sleep with their own mother for money. They are the most despicable people who have no conscience. The lawyers who fought and succeeded to set O.J. Simpson free or the Lawyers who are trying to throw out of the court all the confessions of Lee Boyd Malvo, the teen sniper, claiming that the police did not read his rights to him before receiving his confessions. These are evil people. Don’t be the devil’s advocate. Stand on the side of the truth and nothing but truth.  

If we had just one version of the history different from the rest we could start doubting. One against ten is not enough, but it is better than nothing. What you have is nothing my friend. All the versions of the history of Muhammad incriminate him. All of them depict him as a mass murderer, a thief, a rapist, an assassin and a warmonger criminal. Those stories were not written by the enemies of Islam. They were told by the believers. They were told by several people. They vary in details but agree on principles. The very fact that the same story was told by several people, and come from different chains of narrators, is proof enough that they are true. If they are not against logic and commonsense then there is no reason to doubt their authenticity. We can dismiss all the Hadithes that speak of miracles attributed to Muhammad. Miracles are against logic and they contradict the Quran. Muhammad said that miracles are of no use and his only miracle is the Quran. However the tales of the massacre and the genocide that fill the books of the history of Islam are not against science or logic. And if several people reported that those things happened, there is no reason to deny that they actually did. 

History, it has been said, to be the propaganda of the victorious party. All these tales of brutality attributed by Muslims is recorded by Muslims themselves. The vanquished nations were obliterated and nothing is left of them for us to gauge the real barbarity of the Muslims. Yet even this biased history written by the victors is enough confession of guilt. In fact when they describe the brutalities of Muhammad and his companions, they are more credible that if they were recorded by the enemies of Islam.  

Right hand possessions 

Now let us talk about the “right hand possessions”. The history of Islam is nothing but qazwah (ambush, raid, sudden attack) and slave making. Muhammad had just one slave when he was married to Khadija. All his fortune comes from raiding town after town and reducing free people into slavery. We have a story of Aisha manumitting 40 slaves in one occasion in expiation of breaking her oath. She promised to herself not to talk to a certain person and when she did, she manumitted 40 slaves in expiation. Where she got so many slaves to manumit 40 of them just in one occasion? (Read this story about the childish mind of Aisha here.  )

How many hundreds more slaves she had? This was just the share of one of the wives of Muhammad. He had other wives. How many slaves was their share? Where do you think these slaves came from? They were free people whose towns Muslims raided and after making a big slaughter the rest were taken as slaves. Read the story of Banu Quraiza, of Banu Nadir, of Kheibar, or Banu Mustaliq and of tens of other tribes. What do you say about these verses?

002.085
 After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they

047.004
 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. Quran  47:4 

Who do you want to defend?  Muhammad was an evil man. He lied and he fooled people to gain control over them. He built his empire with those lies. He led a lustful life of killing sprees and orgies. Can’t you see that?  

The history of Islam is full of gruesome tales of brutality, murder and slavery. You deny all of them. Yet you have no other document to show a different version of the history. You even claim that the verses of the Quran that prescribe slavery speak of the slaves that Muslims already had. The fact is that Muslims were a bunch of poor shoeless, locust eating ignorant people. They had no slaves. They were working as labors for the Jews of Medina who owned that city 2000 years prior to the advent of Islam and at least 1500 years before the arrival of the Arabs’ who mostly came after the flood of Yemen (A. D. 450 or 451). Muslims did not have slaves. All the slaves were made when they raided defenseless people and captured them. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were enslaved and were sold in the markets of Mecca and Medina. Firouz who courageously killed Omar in a mosque before killing himself was an Iranian free man who was reduced into slavery. He was so embittered that he killed that evil Khalifa knowing perfectly that he will lose his life too. Now tell me how Firouz ended up becoming the slave of the Muslims in Medina if Muhammad prohibited slavery? The slavery in Islam has not ended yet. Read the story of this courageous lady, Maria Sliwa, who has dedicated her life to end the slavery in Sudan. She received a death threat call from a Muslim after she sent this article for publication. http://main.faithfreedom.org/oped/Sliwa30330.htm 

The verse 4:19 that says the consent of the woman must be sought for marriage does not apply to slaves girls. According to the Quran, your right hand possessions are yours to enjoy and you need not marry them. The slave girls are the right hand possessions and they have no rights to reject their masters. In the case of the marriage their consent must be sought but not in the case of having sex with them. This is clear from the following Hadith.    

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

In this Hadith Muhammad discourages “coitus Interruptus” but not rape of the captured women in war. Did these women whose husbands, brothers and fathers Muslims murdered consented to open their legs for the Muslim men because these men were horny? Did Muhammad ask the Muslims to seek the consent of the women before having sex with them? No! All he was concerned about was “coitus interruptus” and that “No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence." Forget about the stupidity of this claim. Think about its barbarity and its inhumanity.  

In fact the following Hadith erases every doubt on this question. This is the sha’ne nodul of the verse 4:24 

Muslim Book 008, Number 3432:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end). 

Therefore it is clear that sex with slaves do not require marriage.

Do we see anywhere Muhammad telling his followers to seek the consent of their captives? Can the captives not consent freely? Pay attention that these women were forced to have sex with Muslim men when they actually had to morn the loss of their loved ones. None of that mattered to your beloved messenger. In fact he himself set the example. Did you read the story of Safiyah? Muhammad demanded to have sex with her in the same day that he killed her husband, relatives and many loved ones. Muhammad previously beheaded her father when he raided the Bani Nadir.  http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm

Also Muhammad has sex with Mariah the Coptic slave that was given to her by the King of Abyssinia and Rayhanah the Jewish girl of Bani Qurayzah after killing all her mail relatives. These were just two women who remained slaves and never marries to Muhammad. Yet the prophet of Allah had not qualms sleeping with them. Did they consent? 

What kind of monster would kill all the loved ones of a young woman and then have sex with her in the same day? I leave the answer to the conscience the readers. Those who lack humanity will certainly remain unaffected but this much bestiality. 

Dear Tanveer, 

You wrote: 

"You have erroneously inferred that these possed ones are to be kept without marriage. Dear Ali, why you never learn from your mistakes"

Do you want to tell me that you really did not know that Muhammad had sex with women that he did not marry? Now you know. Do you still defend him? The above statement make believe that you are shocked of such thing and you categorically deny it. Well looks like your information was not right. Now do you still defend Muhammad despite the fact that you know he slept with his slave girls without any marriage? This is the test of your sincerity and your commitment to truth. Are you going to defend Muhammad despite the fact that he did things that are offensive to you and shock you or you are able to forgive him no matter what sins he has committed.  Are you willing to sacrifice the truth, and your own decency for Muhammad? I hope not. 

Muhammad was devil. Are you willing to follow this devil to hell? ... Why? 

Many Muslims are not bothered at all that their prophet kept having sex with many women, even his prisoners of war, without marrying them. You seem to have more decency and you seem to care. Now that you know Muhammad did the most despicable things that abhors you, are you going to keep defending him? Are you prepared to justify, rationalize and excuse all the immorality, brutality and crimes perpetrated by this psychopath? ...Why? 

With the truth coming out, Muslims are soon losing respect for following the evil Muhammad. It is a shame to be a Muslim. Why you agree to be humiliated this much? Why accept this much shame? Do you think you are going to paradise because of it. But not so. If Muhammad was such a despicable monster as I have shown him to be, there is no paradise for Muslims. In fact if there is such a place like paradise or hell Muslims will go to hell for following an evil man such as Muhammad. You lose this world and the next for what?  

Please read more articles in this site and see the truth. Join me and other enlightened ex-Muslims and let us free our people from this curse. 

Next  >