A Rebuttal to Syed Tirmizi: Is Christianity Rational?

Watch Roark's distortions, ignorance and delusional statements be debunked in this article and see the proof of both western and Christian immorality and irrationality. Truly Islam is a rational religion. 

DMR1  wrote: 

There is a chasm that is difficult to bridge between Islamic ideology and the West. Very basic to understanding this divide is what happened in history. The West has been influenced by two great inspirations: Greek thought and the Christian faith. 

The influence of the Greeks came to the west initially by way of Plato's Timaeus. Plato asked the question about what it is to be as a human being. Primarily man was a rational creature.  Although man had appetites and emotions, they were to be ruled by reason.  When the appetites ruled in man's life disorder and chaos followed.   When the emotions ruled the same could be said. Reason was primary and only when reason ruled was there justice in operation. 

When one knows what is good then the rational response is to pursue it.  Man was to examine issues in life and make decisions based on reason.  The universe is rational and can be studied and the rise of modern science in the West is the result of this sense of rationality. 

Does Christianity inspire a lot of American girls to have sex before marriage? What about the countless abortions that take place in the west? What about hundreds of teenagers that have sex before marriage? Is Christianity the reason why 25% of Christian girls have STDs (see here)? 

A SENIOR Iranian cleric has claimed that dolled-up women incite extramarital sex, causing more earthquakes in Iran, a country that straddles several fault lines, newspapers reported today. 

"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes," Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told worshippers at overnight prayers in Tehran.  (Jihad Watch, April 18; source) 

It's very nice to hear you praising the Ancient Greeks. You fail to mention that the medieval barbarian Christians of Europe destroyed all the 'rational' culture employed by the Greeks and that while the Christians were sunk in the Dark Ages in Europe, burning witches and killing 'rational' thinkers, such as Galileo, the Muslims prospered in anatomy, mathematics, chemistry, philosophy, physics, medicine, architecture and countless other areas where 'rational thinking' applied (see here). 

The real result of 'rationality' are the several open and rational teachings of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), namely, 'Pursue knowledge even as far as China', 'The ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr' and 'For every disease Allah made a cure'. 

It was these very words that led the once most barbaric people on the Earth, i.e. the Arabs, to become the most 'rational' and 'scientific' people on the Earth and to think openly in addition to searching all over the world for many cures to diseases, which paid out an contributed heavily to our contemporary medical advancement. Much of western science owes its thanks to the works of Muslims. The words Algebra, Chemistry, Alkali, Earth in addition to numerous others mathematical and scientific terms originate from the Arabic terms such as Al-Jabr, Keme, Al-Qali and Ard. 

None can deny the massive contributions made by Muslims to our modern day society. 

"This means that the modern scientific world view rests on certain assumptions about the regularity and lawfulness of the natural world and the presumption that man is capable of grasping this underlying structure. In addition to subscribing to the notion of laws of nature, modern science is a metaphysical system which asserts that man, unaided by spiritual agencies or divine guidance, is single-handedly capable of understanding and grasping the laws that govern man and the universe." (Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science, Cambridge U. Press, 1993, p. 65)

The second great influence in the West is the Christian faith.  There are two emphases that we can describe here.  First, there is an emphasis on conscience. 

The human conscience can evaluate an issue and make a moral decision concerning what is right or wrong. Plato talked about the “eye of the soul” in which a person weighs a moral dilemma and comes to a rational decision. In contrast,

Is it really the Christian faith that influenced progress or is it the Islamic resurrection of the 'rational' Greek ideologies and their progression from the Greek works? If anything Christianity kept the Western world more backwards than ever. It is due to Christianity that the Greek legacy of 'rationality' almost died and probably would have died out, had it not been for Islam. 

Conscience was a major reason that Muslims prospered in all fields of knowledge. It is conscience that allows a man to think beyond any boundaries and it was the Islamic teaching of mandatory pursuit of knowledge that allowed this conscience to rise up in man. 

The second emphasis in the West can be seen in the words of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount he declared: “Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.” (Matt.7:12) All kinds of problems in the world could be solved with the practice of this rule. 

Really? So if I want to be treated nicely and a psychotic killer comes to my house, I would treat him nicely by this logic. I would be kind and nice to him and offer him all kinds of lovely expressions while he carves up my family. 

Would a lawless world where we treat others as we wish to be treated at all times solve our problems?    

Jesus quote there also seems to conflict John's teaching: 

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed (2 John 1:10)

Hence, Christians are not to receive non-Christians into their houses if they come, since they do not have the Evangelistic Doctrine.

Would Christian missionaries find it okay for all non-Christians to reject them for having the doctrine? If so, then there is no contradiction between John and Jesus, but I know that almost all missionaries are bent on spreading Christianity and wouldn't be happy for someone to slam the door on their arrival. 

As Jesus says 'Treat others as you would like to be treated', Christians must 'like' to be rejected when arriving at a non-Christians house, since they are commanded to treat them the same way (2 John 1:10). 

The Muslim world is ruled by the influence of Mohammed as expressed in the Qur'an, the hadiths, and Sharia law. Where does reason fit into the system? Can one question the preaching of Mohammed? Can one say that an accepted practice in Islam is wrong? 

The fact that reform in Islam has not come about for 14 centuries is evident in the modern era. Reformers are most likely to be killed as committing blasphemy against Mohammed. 

Obey Mohammed, do not question him. Rationality is not as important as obedience. Reasons against Islamic practices are not allowed. 

The Muslim world has the sharia, a comprehensive law bound to the 7th century and it is unchangeable. There are no challenges to it. There are no rational issues concerning it. What is required is obedience, not questioning. There is no question concerning whether it is moral or immoral. There is no appealing to a higher standard.  Obedience is without question. 

Where does reason fit? Perhaps you should educate yourself on Islamic teachings, which demand pursuit of knowledge (i.e. rationality and reason). One can question the Islamic Doctrinal system all he wishes as long as his criticism is constructive. 

If I'm confused about a certain situation I always ask the Sheikh (Islamic Minister) about it. One can believe that an Islamic practice is long and can express his view to the Sheikh, so he can clear the situation, however he cannot ignorantly preach hate against Islam. If he himself doesn't feel satisfied with the response, then he can express his view to others but not go on a hate-rampage against Islam. 

Where is your proof? Rationality is the very essence of Islam. Obedience to God and the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) is mandatory, which is why reasoning is also something central to a Muslim's deeds, since the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) made pursuit of knowledge a compulsory act, i.e. being open and rational. 

In Islam, the search for answers and truth is itself an act demanded and blessed by God. If one has reasons against Islamic Practices he can be open after clearing the matter with Islamic Scholars. 

Doesn't Christianity demand you to follow Jesus? You are bound as a Christian to be masochistic, by enjoying people slamming the door on you every time you come to their house. You are bound to love and show kindness to a man who comes to your house and starts caving up your family. Your restrictions and limitations put you in no position to condemn the openness and 'rationality' of Islam. 

Truly there is no standard above Shari'a, however if our own delusions fail to see it this way, we can always have inquiry with the Islamic Scholars. Shari'a is a system that gives the solutions to all the worlds problems. Adultery, alcohol, rape, stealing, usury, murder and other indecent and abominable deeds would all deplete with the installment of Shari'a Law. 

Yes, there are harsh punishments in Islam, but not for the sake of barbarism of blood-thirst, rather to quell crime and make criminals think twice before performing any act that will harm another person in any way. However, openness and constructive criticism is, as I said, the very essence of Islam. 

The laws do change Mr. Roark. Do you see all Muslims applying camel laws today (such as Muslims being prohibited to overload camels)? Not likely because the majority of us we drive in cars, hence this law doesn't apply. 

(Editor: There is a paragraph that precedes this sentence it was not quoted by Syed. Here it is inserted back, in curly brackets.)

{The Muslim world has the sharia, a comprehensive law bound to the 7th century and it is unchangeable. There are no challenges to it. There are no rational issues concerning it. What is required is obedience, not questioning. There is no question concerning whether it is moral or immoral. There is no appealing to a higher standard.  Obedience is without question.}

One cannot say that sharia offends my conscience.  

Consider the following from a Muslim writer,

“The status of woman in Islam constitutes no problem. The attitude of the Qur'an and the early Muslims bear witness to the fact that woman is, at least, as vital to life as man himself, and that she is not inferior to him nor is she one of the lower species. Had it not been for the impact of foreign cultures and alien influences, this question would have never arisen among the Muslims. The status of woman was taken for granted to be equal to that of man. It was a matter of course, a matter of fact, and no one, then, considered it as a problem at all.

In order to understand what Islam has established for woman, there is no need to deplore her plight in the pre-Islamic era or in the modern world of today. Islam has given woman rights and privileges which she has never enjoyed under other religious or constitutional systems. This can be understood when the matter is studied as a whole in a comparative manner, rather than partially. The rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of a man but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two quite different things. This difference is understandable because man and woman are not identical but they are created equals. With this distinction in mind, there is no problem. It is almost impossible to find even two identical men or women.”   The Status of Woman in Islam from "Islam in focus" By Hammuda Abdul-Ati, PH.D. (Source)

The more I read of Muslim writers I conclude that they are deniers.  They deny the facts of Islamic suppression, slavery, women's low status.  The writer above admits that the issue of women's rights came about because of foreign cultures.  In other words, if the world would let us alone we can ignore the plight of women's rights and lack of privileges.  Women had greater freedom in pre-Muslim Arabia than later under Mohammed and the centuries following.  The claim that “the status of woman was taken for granted as equal to that of man” is a statement of denial. The imposition of Sharia in Muslim countries has been brutal for women. 

Are they deniers or are you just delusional? There is no suppression in Islam against women. 

To summarize the Islamic position of women is: 'Different but equal'. Both men and women have equal rights in Islam, however certain restrictions are placed on both to 'prevent ethical corruption'. For instance Hijab is demanded in Islam because a woman maintains her honour that way and does not openly reveal her sexuality, i.e. does not degrade and dishonour herself. 

Would Roark be happy if any of his female family members began openly revealing their sexuality, by wearing mini-skirts and bikinis? Would he like it if men started lusting after her? I don't believe so. Openness to an extreme level leads to such dishonour and unethical acts; hence suppression to a certain extent is part of the Islamic doctrine. 

Men also have certain restrictions. For instance in Islam men cannot wear gold or silk, possibly because it leads them to become more feminine-like. The Islamic teaching is that there must be a distinction between man and woman, in spite of overall equality. 

Slavery was not introduced, rather restricted and depleted by Islam. It was Islam, which demanded feeding slaves with what we eat, dressing them as we dress, not over burdening them, to free them during solar eclipses, to free them if we hit them and that emancipation of slaves is a charitable act (see Bukhari 1:2:29, Muslim 15:4094, 4095, 4096, Bukhari 2:18:163, Bukhari 7:65:286, Muslim 15:4079, 4082, 4088, 4108) 

Indeed Roark is in no moral position to judge Muslim on this. After all, the Bible condones slavery (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, Matthew 10:24) and demands slaves to obey their masters and states that slaves aren't equal to their masters. 

Slavery is just a word and contemporarily the first picture that would come in a person's mind after hearing the word 'slavery' is one of barbarism and punishment. Roark makes good use of this and omits all the Islamic doctrines I mentioned above, which depict the truth behind slavery in Islam. 

Does Roark think that Muslims speak for the governments that allegedly create gender inequalities? Any indecent acts committed by them, doesn't shift the blame on Muslims, but on the west because they're the ones that continue preserving their influence on power. America's most funded regime after Israel is the Egyptian Mubarak government. 

Just look at the ignorance of Roark, He states that women had greater rights in pre-Islamic Arabia. Let's briefly analyse some facts and gender reforms by Muslims. The pre-Islamic pagan Arabs used to: 

As well as this, they also put women under life-imprisonment in their houses for committing adultery, yet never laid a finger to punish a man who committed adultery. Words can never describe the cruel and barbaric treatment of women by the Arabs prior Islam and the low-level of women in Arab society, though women from rich backgrounds were given decent rights (and they were a small minority).

The teachings of Islam and the abrogations and restrictions Islam had brought to these sick, practices had astounded the pagans:  

Which treatment is better? I do not even need to say anything, just read the above reforms and make your own decision. The Muslims massively reformed the position of women and destroyed numerous barbaric pagan traditions. It is Islam that made the woman a woman and not an object of man. Yet Roark is ignorant enough to state blatant lies about pre-Islamic Arab women having more freedom than Muslims women, based on no proof and no evidence.

It is not Shari'a that mistreats women in Muslim countries, rather governments like the Mubarak, who are funded by the west. 

What about the West? You in the west benefit from child-labour and suppression in third world countries like Thailand and India (not to mention China). The clothes you wear are made from innocent animals being confined to cages before being brutally murdered and skinned. The shoes and various other items you possess originate from child-labour (which to me is no different than slave-labour). Innocent children and families break their backs everyday to get food and water that is just enough to survive and very little shelter and the west benefits from all of this. If a revolution occurs in such a country, the west attempts to re-impose their puppet government so they can continue to benefit from them. 

During the Bay of Pigs Invasion, America wanted to topple Fidel Castro, who, in spite of being a dictator, introduced astounding reforms and nationalistic ideals to Cuba. After this they would re-impose the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship, a western puppet government, which deprived the Cuban people of almost all their civil rights. That's what they did in Iran back in 1953. They toppled the democratic leader Mohammad Mosaddeq to re-impose the monarchy, since they wanted to benefit from Iranian oil and the suffering of peasants of lower classes in Iran. 

Hence, Roark and the West are in no moral position to judge us. They benefit from slavery, suppression, subjugation and suffering all around the planet and have the nerve to speak of freedom and democracy. There's no freedom and democracy. It's lies and hypocrisy. 

The headlines of the past week or so give a number of examples in which Islamic custom, or sharia law came into play and the results were devastating to the lives of the people involved. 

Consider the following story in the news in recent days. 

“A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said. Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27, 2008 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.” 

The young girl went to the police wanting justice. The police arrested her and she was charged with adultery. (Source) 

What kind of mind set is a work here?  A thirteen year old girl is charged with adultery because she was raped.  There are similar stories in Pakistan in which women were raped and then charged with adultery. These stories are incomprehensible to the rational mind. Why would a young girl wanting justice be dismissed and then put to death for the evils that men did to her? Why was there not a serious investigation for her?   What about the girl’s rights?  She has none. 

So the acts of some barbaric 'Muslims' give Roark the position to condemn Islam, based on nothing?

What's the reality? The reality is that if a man does not desist from harassing a woman, he gets brutally murdered or exiled from the land (Surah al-Ahzab 33:59-61). 

What does Islam really teach? The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) stoned a man to death after he confessed to raping a girl, who accused him (Abu Dawud 38:4366). 

That's the reality. If the rapist denies of course, the problem goes deeper and in modern-day times technology allows us to distinguish between people who lie and tell the truth, though certain factors, such as eye movement and blood pressure. Back in those days, they may have had other ways to do such a thing, but of course thanks to Islamic doctrine of having to pursue knowledge, the west has gotten to the stage of progressing so rapidly in science and discovering such a method. 

Investigation in Islam is something mandatory. One cannot just assume such-and-such with no evidence and the modern-day science that gives us a more refined method of judging right from wrong, makes investigation even more mandatory. 

Mohammed taught that women have half the intelligence of men, so why was this not considered for a thirteen year old girl who was helpless and immature? No doubt the justice system is weighted toward the men who are responsible not only for the rape but the killing of this innocent person. 

Jesus encountered a woman caught in adultery. What kind of snooping had to go on to catch a woman and a man in adultery? The accusers wanted to stone her. The reply of Jesus was, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  One by one they departed.  They had a conscience and their sense of guilt would not keep them there. 

Did these people who stoned this innocent girl have a conscience?  Does obedience to a barbaric law absolve one of guilt? 

Did the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) really teach this or is Roark delusional? 

Let's examine: 

Many people misinterpret Surah al-Baqara 2:282 and believe that it makes a woman's testimony worth half that of a man. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the Holy text. In Islam, the woman's testimony has equal value to that of a man. The verse states that 2 women are required because if one of them errs, the other one can correct her. The other woman is not there to testify at all, but to correct the first one just in case. In the end, only 1 woman testifies and only 1 man testifies, making the value of their testimonies equal. 

In the Hadith I mentioned earlier (Abu Dawud 38:4366) the woman was the only witness to the rape and she was the victim. Yet the rapist ended up being stoned to death. No doubt the justice system would be weighted towards the innocent woman who is raped, because this was the Holy Prophet Mohammad's (SAWW) example and he the one whom the Muslims are compelled to follow. 

If the woman is lying we can tell, through scientific technology today, thus we have no problem. Not at all does Islam condone the barbarism committed by such people. 

Follow Jesus's doctrine then Roark. What about if one of your female relatives commits adultery with a man, due to the fact that no punishment awaits her? Is that okay with you? The Islamic punishment isn't barbaric. You people see Islam as a medieval thing. It isn't. 

It's a system for today, yesterday and the future. Its punishments are from God, hence we obey and these punishments are effective in instilling fear into a would-be criminals mind, thus depleting crime massively. 

America is suffering the world with medieval punishments, such as child-labour, suppression and puppet governments. They are a corrupt regime murdering innocent civilians in Afghanistan and are responsible for some of the most indecent acts in history. 

What about the Sabra and Shatila massacres committed by Christians in Lebanon in 1982 (who were acting on Israel's behalf), when 3500 innocent Muslim men, women and children were murdered with knives and guns and the women raped before being carved up? Were the Biblical genocides and rapes an inspiration to these Christian barbarians (1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18 and numerous others)? No punishment was given to these criminals. Christian barbarism throughout history is unimaginable compared to those committed by Muslims. 

What about the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam when 100s of innocent Vietnamese men, women and children were rounded up and mass-murdered? Like I said, neither Roark nor America have any moral position to judge Muslims. 

“Amina Said, 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, smile happily in one widely circulating photo, and Amina is wearing what looks like a sweatshirt bearing the name “AMERICAN.” But their fate may have been the herald of a new, disquieting feature of the American landscape: honor killing. Amina and Sarah were shot dead in Irving, Texas, on New Year's Day. Police are searching for their father, Yaser Abdel Said, on a warrant for capital murder.” (1-08-2008) 

The sin of the girls? Adopting American culture. Does this sin merit honor killing? 

Honor killing involve a false sense of shame.  This sense of shame has lead to terrible atrocities done to men and women who disappoint the father mostly who claims the right to defend and cleanse his honor.   The evil act may be carried out by brothers, uncles, and friends and it is done in the name of restoring honor.  Many honor killings are based on suspicion and the charges used to kill them are ultimately proven false.  This is particularly true in charges of adultery and medical test indicate that no sexual acts were involved.  Is there no shame in killing a daughter who was truly innocent? 

Is this a rational response? Not really. A rational response would be: “I don't approve of my daughters adopting American culture. However, they are of age and it is their lives, not mine, that they are leading.  I am not responsible for what they do. They should have the freedom to live their own lives, for better or worse.    

Are any of these acts permitted by Islam? Certainly not. When did Islam every say to kill someone for having 'American' on their shirt. Is there a narration of Muslims killing other Muslims who had 'Quraysh' written on their shirt? That is an equivalent circumstance and there is no such evidence. Roark is basing his arguments on indecent acts committed by Muslims that clearly have nothing to do with Islam. 

I can mention numerous barbarism committed by Christians, 100 times worse than those committed by Muslims and I had mentioned several already, namely the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the toppling of Mohammad Mosaddeq, the Sabra and Shatila massacre and the Mai Lai massacre. 

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."  (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17)

“KABUL, Afghanistan - Suspected Taliban militants killed a religious leader in western Afghanistan after he criticized the use of suicide attacks as a weapon of war in the country, an Afghan official said Friday.  Militants kidnapped Shamsudin Agha in Farah province's Anar Dara district on Tuesday, days after he led prayers condemning the practice of using suicide attacks, said provincial police Chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar.” 

This is simply one example of the inability of Muslims to take criticism. Muslims delight in criticizing Jews and Christians. One can see this in the Islamic countries seeking to have the UN denounce criticism of Islam.  The Saudi government prohibiting non-Muslims to worship according to their own culture is another example.   Many Muslim countries prohibit Bibles and freedom to share one's faith with Muslims. The Taliban cannot stand to think reasonably about the issues of war. They have destroyed schools for girls because they cannot allow an educated woman.  Recent attacks on school girls whereby acid was thrown in the girl's faces is another example of irrationality. 

What does Islam say about suicide? 

It says that anyone who commits suicide will be punished by the very tool he used to commit suicide (such as a knife, sword or gun) (Sahih al-Bukhari 8:73:73). 

So if this man was criticising suicide bombing, then he had a legitimate Islamic stance to do so, so killing him was a blatant sin and is fully condemned in Islam.  

Islam can and does accept constructive criticism, as long as it has the intention of knowledge and not derogatory insults. I do criticise Jews and Christians who commit immoral and barbaric acts against innocent Muslims, but not innocent Jews free of such guilt. What about the numerous debates between Muslims and Christians where criticism has been constantly exchanged? Has any Muslim lashed out at his opponent for criticism? I don't know, but I've never seen such a thing happen and I've seen several debates.  

Roark is again criticising the Saudi government for its persecution of Christians. Well, they don't speak for us.

Where is destruction of schools and throwing acid at a girl's face allowed in Islam? Give me the proof of Islam condoning such an act.  

4) Female circumcision:  “She was three years old when her family left impoverished, war-ravaged Somalia and settled in the East End of London, where her early childhood life seemed immeasurably better. Everything changed for Lali when she was 11 years old. One morning, her mother told her, quite casually, that they were to visit another Somali girl, whom she liked. "I thought I was just going to play with my friend, so I was happy," Lali says quietly, avoiding eye contact. Soon after she arrived at the friend's anonymous council house, however, cold reality dawned. In fact, Lali's mother had secretly joined together with several other women to pay for a "cutter" to travel to London from Mogadishu to circumcise their daughters. "They believed it had to be done, otherwise we would never get a husband," Lali shrugs. What happened next was like a scene from medieval times. Her mother, other female relatives and family friends suddenly grabbed Lali and grappled her to the floor. Then, on cue, the strange woman came in, like a torturer with her bag of implements. "They held me down, and when the woman began cutting I screamed, so my friend's sister put her hand tightly over my mouth," she says. "I had known her and these other women all my life, and now they were doing ... this. The cutting often results in life-threatening complications such as septicaemia, hemorrhaging or cysts.” (Source)

Female “cutting” is a barbaric, irrational practice based on custom and the Qur’an’s view about the status of women.  Did God make a woman that was imperfect and had to be cut to improve her condition? Did God make a mistake by giving a woman the possibility of pleasure in marriage?  A woman who is cut is doomed to a sexual life with her husband devoid of any pleasure.

This is another evil act perpetuated in the name of tradition.  Muslims who write that it increases the pleasure for a woman and man have not been listening to women who have experienced the terrible cutting.

Cutting out a part of the woman’s sexual organ is irrational.  How would a man like to have about 2 inches of his penis cut off?   That sounds barbaric!!  That same holds for women!!

Islam does not condone this act. Roark, ignorant and delusional as he is, believes that the Holy Qur'an is responsible for this, because of the 'low' status of women. He fails to mention anything about female circumcision because there is absolutely no proof of this. 

The true Islamic view of women is that they are equal, although different and it is the same with man (see here). 

As Roark rights:(sic)  'This is another evil act perpetuated in the name of tradition'. Thank you very much Roark. I couldn't agree more. It is in the name of tradition not Islam. Islam destroyed all barbaric tradition and indecent barbarism committed by the Arabs prior.  

What about the Christian massacres? Are they rational? Are the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings rational (killing almost 200 000 people in 3 days)? What about the children in the Iraqi city of Faluja, who suffer chemical diseases and have been mutilated by George Bush's 'crusade' on Iraq (just see the horrible and heart-striking images here).

You have absolutely no moral position to judge us, for what you're the west and Christianity have done to the world. 

5)  Slavery    

Posted: November 10, 2003 5:00 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

“A leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum believes Islam advocates slavery.  "Slavery is a part of Islam," says Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, according to the independent Saudi Information Agency, or SIA.   In a lecture recorded on tape by SIA, the sheik said, "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam."

His religious books are used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and abroad, including the United States. Al Fawzan – a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body – says Muslims who contend Islam is against slavery "are ignorant, not scholars."  "They are merely writers," he said, according to SIA. "Whoever says such things is an infidel."

Consider the words of Jesus, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”  Would you like to be captured and sold into slavery? Would you like for your kids to be captured and sold into slavery in some strange country? Would you like for your wife to be captured, sold into slavery,   raped and coerced into sex?  Of course not, you say. Rational Muslims should object to these practices.       

The irony of all this is that Muslims have rioted over the Danish cartoons and demanded the death of the artists, but Muslims do not riot over the mis-treatment of women.  Muslims men should be marching in the streets against the practice of female circumcision. Muslims should be incensed at the practice of slavery in Islam. Muslim should be marching in the streets against the shame of honor killings. Muslims should be guided by the great words of Jesus, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Such a practice would revolutionize Islam away from an inhumane archaic code.

As I said before: 

“Slavery was not introduced, rather restricted and depleted by Islam. It was Islam, which demanded feeding slaves with what we eat, dressing them as we dress, not over burdening them, to free them during solar eclipses, to free them if we hit them and that emancipation of slaves is a charitable act (see Bukhari 1:2:29, Muslim 15:4094, 4095, 4096, Bukhari 2:18:163, Bukhari 7:65:286, Muslim 15:4079, 4082, 4088, 4108)”  

Islam doesn't allow capturing or deportation to another country, nor kids being sold into slavery and not wives being raped? Everything David has mentioned is fully prohibited in Islam. 

Muslims do not protest over the barbarism committed by their leaders? Where's the proof? Most Muslims condemn and openly speak out against these barbaric acts. In the Islamic Center near my community over 1000 people gather and at times we speak out against the unjust deeds of some of the governments in Muslim countries. Just because your biased and slanted western media does not portray it, doesn't mean it never happened.  

We don't need to convert to Christianity, reject all non-Christians who come to our houses (as demanded in 2 John 1:10) and at the same time treat others as we like to be treated, i.e. slam the door on others and enjoy the door being slammed on you.  

Shame on you Mr. Roark. You have depicted such a grave level of ignorance and delusion in this article. I pray that Allah (SWT) guides you and all Christians to the right path of Islam and to stop following a self-contradictory, irrational religion.  

And verily, Allah (SWT) knows best that Islam is the most rational religion.