I hope this article can help Muslims and others looking for scholarly answers to this one sided article (most of which the

critic blindly copies and pastes).This rebuttal will examine his claims.

You said:
"Islam was born in the 7th century, in the Arabian Peninsula, which is part of the continent of Asia. Yellow Asia and

Black Africa are separated by the Red Sea. Here, we are talking about two different continents and two different

peoples. Islam went to Africa relatively recently, and is not the predominant religion there. African Americans were

most likely either Christians or Animists at the time they were brought to America."

Response:
No sir, your wrong. Islam existed since man set foot on Earth. Islam means "peace acquired by submitting your will to

God." This existed since man set foot on Earth. (http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/WhatIsIslam.html) for more

information.

You said:
"Christianity has been present in Africa since the first half of the first century. St. Mark, the writer of the Gospel of Mark

was a North African Jew who preached the Gospel to Egypt."

Response:
St. Mark was the author of Mark's Gospel? The scholars of the Bible are unanimous that the 4 Biblical Gospels are

ANONYMOUS.

"Scholars debate when the Gospels were written, but by far the most common datings was that Mark was written

sometime around 65 or 70 AD. Luke and Matthew about 10 or 15 years later. John maybe 10 or 15 years later; John

maybe around the year 90 or 95. Matthew and Luke around 80-85. These are the dates that are taught throughout the

universities and divinity schools, seminaries of North America and Europe. I take them to be right for reasons I can give

you, if anyone really wants to know; it's a complicated argument." (Time Slice: 1:04-1:38, Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can

Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead? Part 2). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJ23Y5tDDA&NR=1)

NRSV Bible - Zaine Ridling, Ph.D. Editor - Introduction To Mark, Pg. 74:
"Although the Gospel is ANONYMOUS, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark (mentioned in Acts 12.12; 15.37),

who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter's preaching (see 1 Pet 5.13). Modern scholars,

however, find LITTLE evidence to support this tradition."

So sir, educate yourself about the Bible from scholars, before running on autopilot like a neophyte.

You said:
"These are the names of Muhammad's male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan,

Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah,

Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu' Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black

slave called Mahran."

Response:
Muhammad didn't ONLY have black slaves. Your trying to create this false image, based on your preconcived bias. He

used to purchase other slaves IN ORDER TO FREE THEM. A slave could ask for freedom whenever he/she wanted

(Surah 24:33).

Furthur readings:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/94840
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/ProphetMuhamamd_and_slavery.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_
http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6053592/f/Does_islam_permit_rape_of_female_slaves_or_captives.pdf
http://muslim-responses.com/islam_on_slavery_/islam_on_slavery_
http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/1328-slavery-bible-or-quran
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-

Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596
http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/ShariahAndHumanity/articles/2007/04/01.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-

Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543640
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503547546&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%

2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
http://mdarik.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015526&counsel=aaislam&pagename=IslamOnline-

Mobile%2FWapCounselDetailE
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/aprq12y2.html
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=aeb5442f3fbb6f3761f9e0e0c2328afc
http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/slave_girls.htm
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=815§ion=indepth&subsection=Misconceptions
http://load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=231§ion=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=122852
http://www.youtube.com/user/iqraproductions#p/search/0/Lxre6qIGYm0
http://islamicreplies.ucoz.com/2/Misconceptions_Regarding_Slavery.html

Islam doesn't permit the type of slavery Christianity does:

Exodus 21:7:
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is NOT to go free as menservants do."

Bible not only gives permission to make women slaves, it orders it. The verse below suggests that when an army

attacks and defeats their enemy, only their virgin girls are worth keeping alive (for what other purpose but to make them

their slaves); whereas their non-virgin women and boys do not deserve anything but death.

Numbers 31:17:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never

slept with a man."

Result:

Numbers 31:32-35:
"The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys 35

and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man."

So don't throw stones when you live in a glasshouse, hypocrite.

You said:
"Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "Black" is "Abd" meaning slave."

Response:
WRONG. Firstly, your trying to make it out as if Saudi is 100% following the Islamic law. It is NOT. NO country on the

plannet follows the Islamic law 100%. Secondly, don't judge a religon by the followers because every herd has it's bad

sheep. Last time I checked, NON-MUSLIMS live in Saudi as well like Christians, etc. If we blindly agree that "abd" is

used to mean "black" according to your false logic, we should blame Christianity. But notice, you will have double

standards now.

Show me from a single authentic confirmed Islamic text where "abd" is used only to refer to a black man. "Abd" means:

Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"slave, bond (s) man, chattel, thrall, serf, worshipper, adorer."

Doesn't mean black person.

You said:
"What was Mohammed's position on freeing the slaves?

In one instance , a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he

auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al- Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page

83)."

Response:
Why didn't you quote the previous Hadiths? Obviously you BLINDLY COPIED AND PASTED from a hater site based

on your preconcived biased assumption. Shame on you.

Sahih Muslim, Book 15, Number 4110:
"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who emancipates his portion in a slave,

full emancipation may be secured for him out of his property (if he has money) if he has enough property to meet (the

required expenses), but if he has not enough property, the slave should be put to extra labour (in order to earn money

for buying his freedom), but he SHOULD NOT BE OVERBURDENED."

It is possible this person did not have enough property, therefore needed to do more labour in order to afford a life

without depending anything.

By the way, slavery is much different than what the typical European slavery was & Christian slavery is:

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/94840

Also, the Hadith you quoted doesn't say that the person objected against it, so you have no case.

You said:
"According to Mohammed, the punishment for committing adultery is different between a free man, a free woman and

a slave-woman. The man is to be flogged one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. The free woman must be

stoned to death. But the slave-woman (since she has a monetary value) will not be exiled or killed, she is to be flogged

one-hundred stripes. If the violation is repeated, the slave-woman is to be sold.(Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 8:821 & 822)"

Response:
Again, he's blindly copied and pasted. The 1st Hadith is:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 821:
"A bedouin came to the Prophet while he (the Prophet) was sitting, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give your verdict

according to Allah's Laws (in our case)." Then his opponent got up and said, "He has told the truth, O Allah's Apostle!

Decide his case according to Allah's Laws. My son was a laborer working for this person, and he committed illegal

sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I offered one-

hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom for him. Then I asked the religious learned people, and they told me that

my son should be flogged with one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "By Him in Whose

Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah's Laws. The sheep and the slave girl will be returned to you and

your son will be flogged one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. And you, O Unais! Go to the wife of this man

(and if she confesses), stone her to death." So Unais went in the morning and stoned her to death (after she had

confessed)."

I challange the author to show me where it says "adultery" in this Hadith. It doesn't. Any person can see that the man

who comitted illegal sexual intercourse was NOT married. However, the female who had sex with that male was married

to someone else. Do you see the difference now? An unmarried person who does it, after the sufficient witnesses are

provided gets 100 stripes and exiled for 1 year NOT the death penalty. However, a married person who does it (after

the sufficient witnesses are provided) is stoned to death.

The difference is whether the person who does it is married or not, NOT whether your male or female. This ruling can

be seen in Sahih Muslim Book 17, Number 4191-4192. The other Hadith the critic bought up:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 822:
"The verdict of Allah's Apostle was sought about an unmarried slave girl guilty of illegal intercourse. He replied, "If she

commits illegal sexual intercourse, then flog her (fifty stripes), and if she commits illegal sexual intercourse (after that

for the second time), then flog her (fifty stripes), and if she commits illegal sexual intercourse (for the third time), then

flog her (fifty stripes) and sell her for even a hair rope." Ibn Shihab said, "I am not sure whether the Prophet ordered

that she be sold after the third or fourth time of committing illegal intercourse."

It's not simply if the violation is repeated a 2nd time, it is at least a 3rd time. It is worth noting selling slaves to someone

doesn't mean that the slaves are mistreated or traped. Selling a slave to someone can allow the buyer to set her/him

free.

"Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) DID NOT own slaves. He had many slaves purchased and

FREED. The author quotes Muslim scholar Ibn Al-Qayyim who said about the Prophet, “His purchases of slaves were

more then he sold.” This is correct because he used to purchase slaves in order to FREE THEM, not to sell them."

(see Zad Al-Ma’ad, vol. 1, p. 154)

(http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503547546&pagename=IslamOnline-English-

Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar)

You said:
"Mohammed referred to Blacks as "raisin heads". (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256)."

Response:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
"Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "LISTEN and OBEY (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin

were made your chief."

Why do you bigots ignore what the Hadith says? It says LISTEN and OBEY him. Remember, his own people were

mostly Arabs, yet he is telling them to OBEY your cheif. The "raisin" quote isn't a rascist remark. Some people have

tightly small curls in their hair that look like raisins. It's not equivalent to the word "nigger" that Christians had placed

upon black people. In addition, all black people do not come from Ethiopian.

The simple, straightforward answer to your question is: no, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never made

such remarks or any other remarks even come close to this.

He said:
"In another Hadith, Mohammed is quoted as saying that Blacks are, "pug-nosed slaves". (Sahih Moslem vol. 9 pages

46 and 47)."

Response:
I searched hard to find this Hadith, but couldn't find it. Neither could this scholar:

"The simple, straightforward answer to your question is: no, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never made

such remarks or any other remarks even close to this."

SOURCE: http://mdarik.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?

cid=1225697872417&counsel=aaislam&pagename=IslamOnline-Mobile%2FWapCounselDetailE

This should be more than enough evidence that the author of this unscholarly and poor article didn't even verrify his

references, and cannot be trusted.

He said:
"Even if we wrongly assume that Islam started in Africa and that its Prophet was a black man, this still wouldn't in itself

be a good reason for Blacks to adopt Islam. Nor would it be a good reason for Whites to adopt Islam just because

Mohammed was white. We have to look at Islam itself. I wouldn't want to be a Muslim because Islam is anti freedom,

which is one issue so close to the hearts and minds of African Americans, considering the inequities they have

suffered in their past. "

Response:
Again, you commit the fallacy of appealing to blacksheeps. A SMALL minority of blacksheeps in Muslim community

does not represent a religion. By the way, Islam is NOT anti-freedom (Surah 2:256, etc). By the way, Muhammad was

not fully white. Parts of his body was, but other parts were slightly darker (Shama-il Tirmidhi).

He said:
"One thing Islam does not believe in is freedom of religion. If Islam takes over America there wouldn't be a choice of

religion. The Quran states: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the

hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost".(Surah 3:85)."

Response:
Islam DOES allow freedom of religion: (i.e. Surah 2:256, etc).

Please visit:
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Apostates.html

If Islam takes over America, people can still practise their religion. Why do you think Islam allows non-Muslims living in

an Islamic state to pay a low tax? (http://islamicreplies.ucoz.com/2/9_29.html)

Because non-Muslims CAN live in an Islamic state and practise their religion. Surah 3:85 is referring to the

AFTERLIFE, not on Earth. In the afterlife, no other religion will be accepted by God in Islam. The same is their in

Christianity (Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:32, Luke 12:10).

Let us see which allows religious freedom, and which does not:

Deuteronomy 13:6-9:
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you,

saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples

around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no

pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must CERTAINLY PUT HIM TO DEATH. Your hand must be the FIRSTin

putting him to DEATH, and then the hands of all the people."

2 Chronicles 15:13:
"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be PUT TO DEATH, whether small or great, man or

woman."

NO: I'm not quoting out of context and NO I'm not appealing to a weak translation. So, by strictly applying the Biblical

law in USA, all non-Christians would have to be PUT TO DEATH! Don't try and say "we are under a new covenant"

because the Biblical Jesus HIMSELF confirmed the law (Matthew 5:17-20) and everything is God/breather according

to 2 Timothy 3:16.

And (presuming he's a Christian) objects to an allegation which doesn't exist in Islam but exists in his own Bible? Truly

a hypocrite.

He said:
"Here are a few examples of the teachings of Islam: Men are superior to women. (Surah 2:22)."

Reponse:

Surah 2:22:
"Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens; and brought

forth therewith Fruits for your sustenance; then set not up rivals unto God when ye know (the truth)."

You are lying: the verse doesn't even say that. Another evidence to suggest blind copying and pasted / plagiarism by

the critic.

He said:
"Women have half the rights of men: In court witness. (Surah 2:282)."

Reponse:
Women and men are equal but not identical in Islam. For example, if 2 people both get 90/100 in an exam, they both

get equal marks. However that does not mean both got the same questions wrong and same questions right. The

reason given as to why 2 females are equivalent to only 1 male can be read here:

http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/misconceptions/a13.htm

He said:
"In inheritance. (Surah 4:11)."

Reponse:
The difference is: the man in Islam is OBLIGED to work and spend the money inherited FOR THE FEMALES. In

contrast, the female inheritor does NOT have to spend any of it. This is the equality the critic failed to see.

He said:
"A man may beat his wife. (Surah 4:34)."

Reponse:
Appealing to weak translation and disregarding authentic Hadiths. The Arabic word used in that verse is "daraba" and 1

of the meanings is LIGHTLY / TAP (Wiktionary Dictionary & Sakhr Dictionary).

Authentic Hadiths (Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2138-2139) clearly say do not beat women, which means in Sua

4:24, the Arabic term means "lightly." This is a symbolic beating which DOES NOT happen at the 1st stage. It is after

admonishing the wife, if that doesn't work, then not sleeping with her and as a last resort light beating (i.e. using a

toothbrush or handkerchief).

Scholars have agreed on this such as: Muhammad Asad, Yusuf Ali, Ibn Kathir, etc.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-

Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544256
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=84120
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/noble_quran_4_34.htm
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Wife_Beating.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_silas__article__a_rebuttal_of_jamal_badawi_s__wife_beating_

He said:
"A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (Surah 4:3)."

Reponse:
Allegation based on subjective fallacious opinion. Reasons for polygany in Islam:
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Polygyny.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/reasons_why_islam_permits_polygamy

Polygamy exists in his own Bible: Exodus 21:10, 1 Kings 11:3.

He said:
"Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam. (Surah 9:29)."

Reponse:
Quoting completely out of historical context. Response is here:

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/9_29.html

He said:
"A Muslim must not take a Jew or a Christian for a friend.(Surah 5:51)."

Reponse:

Appealing to weak translation. Response is here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/friends.htm
http://islamicreplies.ucoz.com/How_Do_You_Treat_Jews_And_Christians.html

He said:
"A Muslim apostate must be killed.(Surah 9:12)."

Response:

Surah 9:12:
"But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their

oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained."

Again, completely out of historical context. This refers to those who broke the oaths they agreed to follow by fighting

AGAINST the Muslims. Read the next verse:

Surah 9:13:
"Will you not fight a people who have BROKEN THEIR OATHS, and who PLOTTED to turn out the Messenger, and

they were the first to commence hostilities against you ? Do you fear them ? Nay, ALLAH is most worthy that you

should fear HIM, if you are believers."

Furthur reading:
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/9_5.html

He said:
"Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands. (Surah 5:3)."

Response:
Nice one Mike, because this is yet more evidence to suggest you have blindly copied & pasted and have no read the

entire Quran.

Surah 5:3:
"Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name

of other than God; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being

gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that

which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This

day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I

perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if

any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

No-where does this verse say what the critic alleged. I verse he supposed to refer to was Surah 5:33 which is out of

context. Responses here:

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/5_33.html
http://muslim-responses.com/Crucify/Crucify_

Let's see what his own Bible says about stealing punishment:

Exodus 21:16:
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be PUT TO DEATH."

Again, double standards.

He said:
"Adultery is punished by public flogging. (Surah 24:2)."

Response:
Appeal to subjective opinion or appeal to common practise fallacy. Nothing you have to prove that this ruing is wrong.

Bear in mind, 4 witnesses are needed before the penalty can take place. (Sahih Bukhari, Book 60, Number 271, Maliks

Muwatta, Book 36, Number 17, Abu Dawud, Book 34, Number 4518).

Just in case your a Christian...

Leviticus 20:10:
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress

must be put to death."

He said:
"No separation between Church and State. (Surah 2:193)."

Response:

Surah 2:193:
"And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they

cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

Verse doesn't even say that. Verses 2:190-194 give the context & following links give historical context:

http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2_191.html
http://muslim-responses.com/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them_

He said:
"No opposition party allowed. (Surah 4:59)."

Response:

Sura 4:59:
"O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in

anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and

most suitable for final determination."

What a dupe: the verse refers to RULINGS in religion. If scholars or students differ in jurisprudence, then cite proof

from Allah (Quran) and the Messenger (authentic Hadiths).

Source: http://www.altafsir.com/ViewTranslations.asp?

Display=yes&SoraNo=4&Ayah=59&toAyah=59&Language=2&LanguageID=2&TranslationBook=7

He said:
"My fellow African-American: Muslims don't care for your skin color, they are only using that to gain control over you.

For if Muslims really care for Africans, why are African Muslims kidnapping their African Christian brothers these days in

Sudan, butchering the weak and selling the healthy as slaves? (see State Dept. report: News Network International;

May 26,1993)."

Response:
Appealing to a false corrolation between Islam and Muslims and making hasty generalization. A FEW minority out of

the 1.5-1.7 billion Muslims do it. How on Earth does this represent a faith? The religious scriptures represent the faith

NOT the blacksheeps.

Also, Islam is NOT a racial religion.

Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 5198:
"Narrated by AbuDharr Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, "You are not better than people with red or

black skins unless you excel them in piety."

Surah 49:13 conveys a similar message. Muhammad even said in his final speech:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority

over an Arab; also A WHITE HAS NO SUPERIORITY OVER A BLACK NOR A BLACK HAS ANY SUPERIORITY

OVER WHITE except by piety and good action."

Conclusion:
This critic is still a novice who has no scholarly endevour to even both to check up what he is blindly copy and pasting,

let alone desire to even examine the historical context. One can wonder how people like this are able to write essays

as college & university and quote their sources accurately but when it comes to Islam: "Nah, I'll just blindly copy what I

want based on preconceived notions without checking up anything."

Double standards. Wake up people.