SS failed to comprehend the argument: that the idol worshippers acknowledged Muhammed (P) as a truthful, honest and sincere individual. But they only made accusations when he (P) asked them to accept him (P) as God’s prophet. Therefore, there was an inconsistency in their position. Muhammed (P) was not accused or suspected of telling lies in any concievable matter before he (P) began preaching Islam. His (P) honesty was publicly acknowledged. It was only later, once he (P) had declared himself (P) as a prophet, that the unbelievers began to make a range of accusations at Muhammed (P), accusing him (P) of being a magician, madman, etc. SS completely missed this. To quote “the Terrorist”:

“This contradictory attitude of the disbelievers was the reason why they deserved God’s punishment in the end; they knew that Muhammad (P) was a truthful person and that he never told a lie. However, they disbelieved in him and vigorously rejected his Message”

SS presents the usual lame claims to deny the prophethood of Muhammed (P). He says that Muhammed (P) did not perform miracles and that Prophets are accompanied by miracles. But these claims are false. There is a strong scholarly concensus that Muhammed (P) did do miracles. Second, miracles are by themselves no proof of prophethood because false prophets can also do “miracles.” Third, John the Baptist did not perform any miracles as far as I can tell. Yet he was a prophet.

The really comical part is SS’s rather silly mention of reports where some sahaba asked Muhammed’s (P) permission to tell a lie (Muhammad ibn Maslama and Al-Hajjaj ibn Ilat) in specific circumstances. SS wishes to conclude that Muhammed (P) allowed telling lies whenever a person wanted to do so. His desire is to make Islam into this “bad” religion which openly peaches its adherents to tell lies whenever they feel like it. But one wonders if this was the case, then why did these individuals need to take Muhammed’s (P) permission in the first place? Surely this indicates the opposite: that the act of lying was viewed as unacceptable, and hence the need to refer to Muhammed (P) to seek his permission. This (Muhammad ibn Maslama) is, in fact, a specific case in a WAR situation and SS foolishly makes a hasty generalization on its basis. In a war scenario, one HAS TO deceive the enemy combatants. This is what ALL ARMIES do, even now. But to use this specific war scenario case to make a generalization and suggest that lying is “acceptable” in “all cases” is foolish to say to least. In Islam lying is a sin. The texts are too numerous to quote which condemn the act of lying, dishonesty and deception. However, in a war, armies have to deceive the opposing armies in order to get an upperhand.

The other comical part is SS’s comparison of lying with the totally unrelated act of dissolution of oaths! And to top it off he brings in takiyah! In case someone does not know, when your life is in grave danger and someone is forcing you to do or say something, threatening to kill you (and/or your loved ones) if you do not comply, and you accept the demands to save your life, this is known as takiyah. Likewise, if there are people who you fear will very likely harm you and the only way to avoid that would be to be “friendly” towards them, then this would be takiyah as well. Takiyah, therefore, is permissable in dire life threatening situations. It is no green signal to tell lies everyday on every conceivable issue. SS has a weird problem with this and he does not explain why takiyah is “wrong.” Perhaps he plans to force a Muslim to convert to Christianity and kill him if he does not, so SS wants to ensure the Muslim *really* converts and does not do so just to save his life from SS? You never know :)

As usual, SS makes another hasty generalization on the basis of this unique and specific permission, which is limited to dire life threatening situation.

This just shows how embarassing SS is for the answering-islam website. I am sure that most Christians are a bit more intelligent and would not be fooled by his, frankly stupid, arguments. I have come across a few christians online who have been brave enough to acknowledge this in private. It is very strange that a person has the ability to apply such silly arguments as a result of his hate and prejudice.

SS produces large amounts of texts in an incoherent manner and hastily hops from one unrelated topic onto another, while all the time either completely ignoring or distorting his opponents arguments.

I think “the Terrorist” can have a marvellous time shredding to pieces SS’s silly tirade and I look forward to his refutation.