Response To “Muhammad as Al-Amin (the Trustworthy): How His Enemies Really Viewed Him” And The Christian Missionaries

It has become a habit for some to publish responses to any paper dealing with the issue of Islam, its truthfulness and the falsehood of other religions. This is particularly true of the Christian missionaries as such people do not care whether they provide an efficient responses or not; all they care about is to respond, regardless of the outcome. Is this reaction an idiotic one? Well, we cannot claim that it is a stupid strategy; because it is always useful to show your followers that you are able to respond and speak loudly, drowning other voices. The psychological factor is after all always important here. But what is glaring indeed are the content of such “responses” because the writer tries to show that he is competent in the field when in actual fact he is totally unqualified.

Was Sarah Really Abraham’s Sister?

Was Sarah really Abraham’s sister? Ibn Hazm questions the status of Sarah as being Abraham’s sister, as accepting that viz., from the Biblical perspective would result in various disagreements with other passages in the Old Testament concerning moral and theological issues. This is in reference to the stories of Sarah’s seizure by Pharaoh and Abime’elech which was narrated in Genesis 12:10-18 and Genesis 20, Genesis 17:17 and Genesis 20:1-18. We cite the related passages on the story of the seizure of Sarah as follows.

What I Did Not Say And The Missionary Myopia

There are those who say that lying and deceiving is at the soul of all crime and that Christianity epitomizes these traits more than any other faith. As proof of their assertion they often quote Paul of Tarsus, arguably the true founder of Christianity, who is recorded to have said, “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? Any why not do evil that good may come? – as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” (Romans 3:7-8)

“Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”: Why A Different Yardstick For Muslims?

In the post-9/11 era the Western media are at the forefront of a highly orchestrated assault against Islam and its people. So, I am not too surprised with the Times Online piece trying to raise storm over some 13th century text that are taught at a Shi’ite religious school in London. The subject in question is najasa or impurity: what makes something impure according to Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, a 13th century Shi’ite scholar. The text says, “The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever.” So, the Times reporter Sean O’Connell draws the conclusion that Muslim students are “being taught to despise unbelievers as filth”, which becomes the news heading, sure to draw much publicity in UK before the election in May.