One of the most hateful and vile pieces written against the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the book called ‘People Vs Muhammad – Psychological Analysis’. It is expected from venomous creatures to be like this in their private gatherings but the fact that such vile and disgusting words were formed into a book which was well received by many people is what prompted me to write a refutation.

Much of the criticism is regurgitated a lot has been copied from hateful websites. Many times, the author just makes various unfounded claims in brief and conveniently moves on. Such claims also require addressing but since this would cover a lot of space, specific dedicated links are added to direct the reader to the relevant rebuttal and explanation. Therefore, it is recommended for the reader not to ignore the links and footnotes – they are as essential as the main body, if not more so in some cases.

Topic Index

About JK Sheindlin

Sheindlin’s scholars

Blaming others for your mistakes

Sheindlin’s bigoted behaviour

Sheindlin’s ignorance

Biography of the Prophet (ﷺ)

The salvation question

Propagation of Jihad

Debatable existence?

Lies against the Prophet (ﷺ); no disorders!

Mocking and lying about the Prophet (ﷺ)’s description

Neither superstitions nor phobias

Attacks and wild lies against sexual life of the Prophet (ﷺ)

Attacks and lies against the revelation

Conclusion

About JK Sheindlin

The author of the book The People Vs Muhammad – Psychological Analysis inadvertently shares some background details about himself or herself. We do not know if the author in question is a male or a female or even an individual person. It seems like the name ‘J.K. Sheindlin’ is a nom de guerre.

The author[s] offers up this melodramatic excuse for why he/she/them hid their identity:

“Why have you not revealed your identity? 

For obvious reasons. Critics of Islam are always targeted by the Muhammadan fanatics. But to be frank, I would rather let my work speak for itself, not my identity. People can become so emotional and sidetracked simply by personality, yet fail to investigate further due to their own prejudices or preferences. Fact is fact, and truth is concrete. Read what I have written, and form your opinion.”

My doubts are that this person might be the real man behind:

Reasons for doubting the man in the video to be the author are shared throughout this book.

JK Sheindlin appears to be the victim of a troubled extremist mind as he admits himself – To avoid juggling all pronouns, we shall assume that the author is a man. He makes some statements which shed light behind his troubled extremist mind:

I was in my early 20’s when a particular incident occurred

It was horror. Pure horror[1]

I was adamant the event would spell the end of world. My mind began to play out a series of catastrophic events – war, famine, a total apocalypse

continued to haunt me

exploiting our greatest fears. Thankfully however, the world did not end that year.

The tragic event of 9/11 caused immense damage to Sheindlin[2] that he thought that the world would end and as a Bible thumping crusader, he was fearful of an apocalypse, a total apocalypse. However, there are more troubling things about Sheindlin which we learn about him from himself when he calls his upbringing peaceful and accommodating western upbringing.

Sheindlin appears to have been sheltered in a make-believe world where the crimes around him were played down which is why he considers the western upbringing as peaceful and accommodating.[3] Perhaps he was fed by those around him to fear the boogeyman and the boogeyman in his case appears to be the Muslim. This is confirmed by his statement when he found out that 9/11 was the work of terrorists:

all confirmed our suspicions

We learn that Sheindlin had a sheltered upbringing where any crime that may have reached his ear was blamed on the other enemy. This preconceived bias came into play when 9/11 took place after which he went on a journey of hateful investigation to justify what he already believed in.[4]

He further shows his crusader mentality when he says:

The media called it a “War on terrorism”, when really it was the inevitable confrontation with true Islam.

Sheindlin also suffers from severe hate. This can be seen by the double standards he so openly projects. He attacks Islam for what it does to the people, who are not British, but criticizes Muslims for being angry at the West for what it has done to Afghanistan and Iraq. He sees the Muslim outrage as ridiculous when only Afghanistan and Iraq suffered and not Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen and the Gaza strip. If this surprises him so much, he shouldn’t even discuss a dozen or so Muslims burning the American flag. Moreover, if Muslim outrage at the destruction of Iraq is so surprising to him, I wonder how he was able to survive in Britain; he might have had several heart attacks when so many British folk came out against the crimes their governments was going to commit.[5] Perhaps his sheltered upbringing had a role in surviving this period and his tunnel vision came to help which enabled him to ignore everything happening around him right in his own home which he was able to brush aside saying:

An Islamic agenda was being thrust upon us.

Sheindlin blows his cover throughout his book. There are several statements from him which disclose his personality:

They played on our fears of being aligned with Nazism – and they succeeded. Only a handful of true patriots seized the day to defend their country – all of which were demonized… [My note: As a reference to this statement, he provides this link – Just open the link and see for yourself. Such a hateful attack from a person, considered Nazi by the Westerners themselves, is understandable; however, to see so many others being influenced by him and his likes is what is troubling. Perhaps those influenced by his likes are similar to some of the Trump voters who kept their racism and hate secret but were exposed by and after the elections.]

it couldn’t be denied that the ideology of Muslim superiority was being actively perpetrated throughout their clandestine communities. ‘…call for Islamic supremacy…’ [The concerns of Sheindlin being a white supremacist are real and the tone of his language displays this.[6]]

He relishes his perceived authority and being regarded as an anti-establishment hero. [This statement shows the Nazi mentality very clearly which is what his countrymen consider him to be as he himself admits. Many Neo-Nazis in some parts of the West vote for people they consider to be anti-establishment heros [*]. The choice of wording from the hateful author is very striking.]

Sheindlin’s scholars

Sheindlin utilizes the works of several hate preachers and states:

Any reference I have included has been done so taking into consideration the contributors’ academic qualifications, expertise and logical arguments.

We see throughout the book how logical the arguments are. Such hate preachers have been refuted by the Muslims time and time again; however, the selective bias forbids such hate filled bigots to even look at the responses by the Muslims; they choose to ignore as if the Muslims have never addressed their wild allegations.

One wonders what qualifications of these scholars were considered? [*][*][*][*] Even Christians keep their distance from these people but Sheindlin chose to consider them as scholars.

It should also be mentioned that Walid Shoebat has also been quoted; Sheindlin includes him in his list of scholars while we all know his reality [*] which has been exposed by the mainstream media. If someone still wants to associate with such people, then we can only feel sad for his state of affairs. Perhaps this response will help in educating Sheindlin and people like him to step out of hate and come to peace.

Blaming others for your mistakes

Sheindlin resorts to using a trick – the trick is to accuse his critics of ‘playing the race card’ to silence his arguments. He knows enviably he’s going to be accused of being a racist, and so in expectation of this, he uses it to his advantage by saying ‘See? Told ya!’ and the ‘truth’ of him anticipating the accusation becomes the truth of why he can’t be racist. It’s misdirection via a circular argument that ‘proves’ itself true because he predicated he’ll be accused of being a racist, and ultimately that’s what allows him to say ‘See? Told ya!’.

Elliot D. Cohen at Psychology Today writes:

One of the most destructive human pastimes is playing the blame game. It has been responsible for mass casualties of war, regrettable acts of road rage, and on a broad interpersonal level (social, familial and work-related), a considerable amount of human frustration and unhappiness. The blame game consists of blaming another person for an event or state of affairs thought to be undesirable, and persisting in it instead of proactively making changes that ameliorate the situation. The drive shaft of this game is a series of four irrational beliefs:

• If something has gone wrong … someone other than myself must be identified and blamed for causing the situation.
• This person/s’ malfeasance diminishes the respect he/she deserves as a person.
• So, it is permissible (and only fitting) to treat this person/s in ways he/she deserves to be treated such as ignoring, name-calling…

Indeed, when people play the blame game, they often engage in further irrational thinking in order to justify blaming others.

The second belief of the blame game is also irrational because it confuses the deed with the doer. Here it is not simply “what you did was wrong.” Rather, it is that you as a person have fallen from good graces. You are less of a person for your failing and hence less worthy of respect; it is personal; you are stigmatized for it; looked down upon; you are less than you were before you faltered. If you are blameworthy then you are less worthy of respect. It’s a cardinal rule of playing the game.

The use of the silent treatment, personal attacks, and the use of force are all classic ways to alienate people and to shut down the avenue for meaningful interpersonal communication whereby disagreements can be rationally addressed. The blame game, however, does not aim at constructive resolution of disagreements; instead it aims at some vague, unrealistic, and negativistic goal of making sure that people get what they deserve. This game plan get us nowhere in building fulfilling interpersonal relationships. Instead it tends to perpetuate malcontent among all concerned.

Sheindlin’s bigoted behaviour

Sheindlin makes several Islamophobic and bigoted remarks as quoted below and calls it out in advance so that he gets away with it. He tries to take the escape route of claiming that Islam is not a race and hence claims that there is no racism when he actually acts hateful. The following statements from him are very much apparent. You be the judge:

‘… it’s unfortunate that this can’t be said about the majority of Muslim immigrants.

No doubt, Islam is bigotry defined

there are … Muslims … who have … contributed positively … worked hard, haven’t bled the welfare system, helped ailing non-Muslims, befriended non-Muslims, protected non-Muslims, obeyed the law … I do not consider such people to be Muslims in the slightest

majority of Muslims may not be violent, but the Quran will[7] inevitably bring out the violence in them [emphasis mine]

a non-aggressive Muslim is similar in nature to a sober alcoholic, or a binge-eater on a diet. Sooner of (sic) later, the true nature of beast will surface

I have no sympathy for any Muslim who willingly digests the myth that their master possessed an impressive physique [he may even propagate genocide of Muslims who refuse to accept his lie that the Prophet (ﷺ) was a dwarf as he has no sympathy for any Muslim who believes so, which is basically all Muslims].

dog would be cleaner than most Muslims living in thirdworld country filth [a reminder of history is essential for such racists [*][*][*][*][*]]

While Sheindlin hurls hateful remarks, he calls out his enemies stating:

‘… no true Muslim would ever believe (sic) that Jews are nothing more than “pigs and monkeys. Isn’t that racist?

He quotes Quran 7:166, 2:65, 5:60 for evidence whereas the fact is that these verses speak of some people from Israel who were turned into apes and pigs for their willful and continuous disobedience. The monkeys and pigs today are not the descendants of those transformed ones.[8] Moreover, even Western academics as well as Rabbis attest to this incident to have background in Jewish literature.[9] Furthermore, Islamic texts state that some people from among the Muslims would be transformed as well [*] and hence we see that this is a form of punishment not restricted to a single race or group of people; we find no racism in this at all.

Sheindlin plays another trick where he tries to portray the Muslims as being racist, however, yet again inadvertently admitting to his own racism. He quotes a statement from Malcolm X from his pre-Islamic days, when he was a member of the racist Nation of Islam (NOI), to show that Muslims are racist against whites. NOI is not an Islamic group even if they call themselves by the name of Islam. If Sheindlin was unaware of such a basic fact, then he should not be writing books and get back to protesting against Muslamics and their Iraqi law.

Sheindlin’s ignorance

In this section, we shall see the gross display of ignorance and lack of research on the part of the hate preacher. Although the list is not exhaustive, it conveys the message properly.

• ‘Not all Muslims are terrorists … but invariably, all terrorists are Muslims’. Yes we’ve all heard of this ignorant statement before several times. Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close. Majority of terrorists who have attacked America are not Muslim, new study finds.
• Mocking martyrs for a cause and equating them with a cult [*]. If you believe a religion to be false and its concepts to be false, then it would be a cult to you. This way, every religion is a cult to the other. There isn’t much that Sheindlin has left behind. He equates Muslims willing to give their life for a noble cause as those similar to followers of cult leaders whereas it is an easily observable fact that every group honours its fallen and considers the sacrifices as heroic deeds and these groups include not just Christians but also Hindus and even atheists among others. [*][*][*][*][*][*]
• Sheindlin says: In reference to other religions – Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are peaceful because of their religion, as nowhere in their sacred texts is there any prescription of violence to be found. Yet, for any Muslim who is kind and compassionate, it is not because of Islam, but in spite of it. And here is where the notion of good and bad becomes confusing. [Emphasis mine. Such a blunder is very easy to refute [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*]]
• He further says: the Quran is a clear and present danger to our societies. Yet it is the opposite that we witness around us [*][*][*]. People that do violence in the name of Qur’an are much less than those that do in the name of Bible. If you judge it this way, then Bible would be a bigger danger to our societies than anything else; however, this logic is flawed.
• Sheindlin writes: It (Qur’an plagiarizes wisdom from the Bible, distorts Biblical accounts. Yet the truth is opposite to what he ignorantly claims [*][*].
• Regarding Qur’an, Sheindlin writes: In truth, the book itself is a disorganized, confusing, semi-coherent collection of bipolar ayats (revelatory verses) where each chapter is arranged numerically, yet non-chronologically. For an ignorant person or a hate-filled person, such claims are likely to be there. For him and others like him, I present links for better education. Knowledge is the cure to ignorance. [*][*][*]
• Regarding Q.5:32, If anyone (Muslim) slew another, it would be as if he slew the world entire. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the world entire, JK states, while adding Muslim by himself in the brackets: the truth is that entire verse refers only to Muslims killing other Muslims. He very conveniently missed the earlier part of the verse which says: Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. Every order of Allah to Bani Israel, during the time of the Prophet (ﷺ), also applies to this Ummah as well. Bani Israel are reminded of their favours and reminded to fulfill their part of the covenant; they are also told to embrace Islam. By embracing Islam, they enter this Ummah and would become bound by this Shariah and hence would not be told to follow two different sets of laws which may even contradict each other. What they are instructed from the past to follow is that which this Shariah upholds and it becomes a part of this Shariah as well. If anyone thinks that Q.5:32 is only applicable to Bani Israel, then they lack basic common sense.
• A rather funny and also highly ignorant statement from the author is that anti-Christian sentiment is vehemently enforced in the Quran, as the book emphatically preaches that the crucifixion of Jesus never occurred. Such discussions are historical and done in a peaceful setting. If someone argues that Islam is not the true religion and he presents his reasons for that, we do not consider it hate speech and we discuss as the Qur’an instructs: Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. [Q.16:125]. Denial of the crucifixion is a historical belief that existed even immediately after Jesus and is not an anti-Christian sentiment.
• The ignorant racist states: there are no verses in the Quran to abrogate Islamic Jihad, and call for mutual respect between Muslim and unbeliever. So much for the 10 year study of Islam when simple basic facts are overlooked. If we believe that there is a genuine study of over 10 years by the author, then the only logical conclusion reached is that of deceit practiced by the ignorant racist. The Qur’an states in 8:61: And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]. Muslims are ordered by God to make peace with those who want peace.
• The author of the hate piece criticizes the Islamic law of abrogation. Good for him there are Muslims out there to explain the concept to him. Certain Qur’anic verses have been abrogated and replaced with others. There are no abrogated verses present in the Qur’an; if there are some, then they carry a new meaning which also makes perfect sense and the new meaning is not forced onto it. Here is an example: Qur’an 5:90-91 gives us a complete prohibition of alcohol, however, when we read Qur’an 2:219, we find that there is a strong discouragement of drinking alcohol but not explicit prohibition; moreover, Qur’an 4:43 indicates that drinking should not be done at certain times of the day. It makes sense to prohibit alcohol gradually for heavy drinkers; however, if Q.5:90-91 prohibit drinking altogether and abrogates Q.2:219 and Q.4:43, how do we understand the latter two verses? The answer is not complicated. Qur’an 2:219 mentions some facts about alcohol both positive and negative and from that and other Ayaat of the Qur’an, the scholars have deduced that alcohol may be allowed in certain circumstances such as absolutely essential medicines. Hence, Qur’an 2:219 continues to make sense and hold value even if it is abrogated from its originally revealed intended meaning. If a person continues to drink even though the Qur’an prohibits it, Qur’an 4:43 would still apply to him/her; they should not come to prayer in a drunken state. All this is regarding abrogation where the verses are still found in the Qur’an. Therefore, one cannot say that certain verses in the Qur’an are abrogated and carry no meaning now. They do carry meanings as explained above. The other type of abrogation where the verse is altogether abrogated and not found in the Qur’an also exist and these should not be issues for anyone. The Qur’an itself states that it came down in stages (Qur’an 17:106, 25:32 and many others) and if certain verses were revealed for some specific purpose and the purpose got fulfilled and no longer remained and God Almighty removed those verses, then it is completely normal and makes perfect sense. The former type of abrogation is something which people find confusing. Hopefully the explanation makes sense and would end any confusion there may have been.
• Regarding the concept of abrogation, the author decides that he is the judge, jury, and executioner when he decides which verse is abrogated and which is not. He states: the Tafsir on all accounts unapologetically acknowledges Muhammad’s infamous law of abrogation which ultimately makes the Quranist’s beloved ‘verses of peace’ redundant. Anything from the Qur’an he does not like or anything that refutes his hate-filled lies, he terms it as abrogated. How does one deal with such a taqiyya master?[10] [*][*][*][*][*]
• A very clear display of ignorance of Islamic terminology is displayed by the one who spent 10 years studying. He defines Sunnah as Islamic law whereas a simple search over Wikipedia would have informed him that Sunnah is the verbally transmitted record of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, as well as various reports about Muhammad’s companions. Sheindlin appears to be a big fan of Wikipedia, yet he did not utilize it properly in his research.
• It may be dislike for authority that forces JK to state: If any rationally minded person were to follow the constrictive ordinances laid out within the Hadith, they would rightfully deem Islamic jurisprudence to be a cultish and invasive affair. People naturally look for role models, children see it in their parents and grown-ups see elsewhere. If Muslims take the Prophet of God as a role model and try to emulate him, how would that be cultish? Is there a secret affiliation of Sheindlin with the KKK that he sees cult in whatever he reads? Does he also see obedience of children to their parents as a cultish behavior? It appears that the damage suffered by him, discussed earlier, is very severe.
• A statement showing total lack of understanding of the world around him, perhaps due to an over-sheltered upbringing says: they support genital mutilation practices. If one is to use similar logic, then the only conclusion reached would be that Christians and Jews support genital mutilation practices [*]. However, saying so would be grossly ignorant even though many in US and Europe support it very well [*].
• Sheindlin uses a lot of unreliable and fabricated material in his research and with the fear of being caught, he shouts out in advance: Typically, Muslim apologists are quick to discredit these embarrassing verses by refuting them as ‘daif’ or weak translations. This is very problematic for Muslims with one foot still on the side of commonsense, as these absurd traditions are found in the highest Hadith books of Islamic jurisprudence. Nonetheless, they expose Muhammad for the fraud he was. This is one of the highest forms of ignorance of Islamic text.[11] Muslims do not accept anything anyone says about the Prophet (ﷺ) – they scrutinize it and then conclude whether the evidence that it reaches him is strong or weak. Anyone can come and say that this is the statement of such-and-such or this book is written by so-and-so; we do not blindly accept these. It appears that there are many with the mindset of Sheindlin which is why the gospels continue to be accepted by the Bible thumpers as genuine and actually written by the disciples when all evidence concludes that they are forgeries [*][*][*]. Another blunder made by the author is that he calls the daif narrations as daif translations. This goes to show further how ignorant he is of Islam; the translation is either correct or faulty – what is weak is the authenticity of the narration as to whether it is actually spoken by the Prophet (ﷺ) or not.
• Regarding the usage of plural pronouns by God Almighty, Sheindlin writes: I personally disagree and believe this to be pure nonsense. Hopefully the JK will stop learning about Islam based on what he believes it says and instead accept what the Qur’an actually says. This should educate him on the usage of plural pronouns in the Qur’an.
• Sheindlin says that the official Quran as we know today was written after he died. Perhaps he meant to say compiled instead of written because Islamic texts themselves state that the Qur’an was written on numerous items which included large bones, and sheep skin among others and it was compiled in a book format during the reign of the first caliph [*].
• The ignorant Sheindlin is unsure about a basic matter and yet decided to write a book. He states, ‘if Muhammad did exist…’ displaying his ignorance and love for the absurd. He states: it’s highly possible that the man never existed and yet continues to attack an imaginary man.
• The ignorant hater with 10 years of study finds the lack of mention of the Prophet (ﷺ) in the Qur’an troubling. He states that the name Muhammad is hardly mentioned throughout the entire Quran (only 4 times). Ignorance of Islam is one thing but ignorance of language in general or pronouns is another. When you mention someone’s name and you continue to use it to address the person, you would look and sound crazy like Sheindlin; pronouns are used where a man is described as he if in third person and you if in second person. The Qur’an, being the first person speech of God Almighty, refers to the Prophet (ﷺ) by the pronoun you several times. If an ignorant person wants to see the name mentioned every time, then that is their problem, not of Islam.
• We saw earlier how JK Sheindlin is a nom de guerre, here we see a confirmation from the author. He states: the name Muhammad could very easily be used as a front for an ancient ‘dummy corporation’ (a criminal alias). We have seen the Freudian slips from Sheindlin earlier as well.
• Much of the criticism from the ‘un-Christian like’ Christian writer appears senseless and strange. A Christian, who has no problems in believing in unicorns, finds the concept of angels to be weird. While criticising these, he makes some blunders yet again when he says: boasting of the existence of giants, jinn, angels, buraqs and other fabled creatures. Islamic texts do not speak of giants; perhaps he confused the matter with the children of fallen angels of the Bible.[12]
• Hit and run approach is very rampant in Sheindlin’s book. It reminds me of a joke from Dave Chapelle where he says that winning an argument against women is an impossible task and it is better for one to shout ‘every time I come home, the microwave is on too high’ and walk away. Looks like Sheindlin took inspiration from such jokes. He makes several such statements and runs away and one such statement is about Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) advocating rape and sex-slavery. He runs away after making this statement. There is no advocacy for rape and sex-slavery in Islam [*][*]. Another hit and run statement is about Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) of the thousands of women he raped. Moreover, it does not make sense that you claim that Islam promotes rape on one hand and criticize the barbaric Islamic punishments on the other which include the death of the rapist! Choose one and be consistent please.
• Here are further examples of hit and run research of the author claiming 10 years of research behind the book:

Muhammad was no stranger to prostitution and frequently indulged in the act[13]

heaven for men would consist of luscious houris (wives), large breasted with appetizing vaginas [a hoor is a very beautiful woman; it is true that they would be wives of the inhabitants of paradise but to translate them as wives shows ignorance. Moreover, I fail to understand what he means by appetizing vaginas – perhaps some sort of desire of people like him who never had any heterosexual experience]

he was abandoned by his mother at the age of 6 [he may try to justify his statement that what he meant was that his mother passed when he was six; however, he is deliberately being manipulative here to show to his readers that the Prophet (ﷺ) suffered from abandonment related psychological problems as if his parents had deserted him and left]

it is a great offense to Allah and his prophet to act hospitable and charitable towards non-Muslims

being kind and merciful towards unbelievers will guarantee him a place in eternal hellfire [This is not just a case of hit and run research but also one that shows that the ten years of research is nothing more than a short time of bad Google search as well as inconsistency. Elsewhere Sheindlin argues against Islamic salvation and how it does not make any sense; here he tries to make sense of it but fails badly. The Muslims that will be punished in hell would not be done so for eternity; secondly, Islam does not say that being kind and merciful towards unbelievers is a sin or a crime. In fact, the Qur’an is filled with examples of the noblest of men being very kind towards even aggressive disbelievers.

• Some statements require no details. It is very difficult to understand how one could even make them without feeling embarrassed. Sheindlin says: young children are a good judge of character and can sense if an individual has bad intentions. I find it fitting to also mention that the Hadith records on one particular occasion a child being brought to ‘the prophet’, and made to sit on his lap – where immediately, the young child urinated all over Muhammad. Yes, this is verbatim from him – he does believe in such theories. Moreover, one can see the hate he carries in his heart where he says that the child urinated all over Muhammad whereas he himself says that the child was made to sit on his lap. The hate preacher leaves no opportunity to mock and insult and display his rage.

Biography of the Prophet (ﷺ)

If you are interested in becoming a doctor or simply interested in learning about science, you would not go to this person; you would go to a specialist. Similarly, if you want to learn about the life of the Prophet (ﷺ), you would not go to a person believed to be Nazi by his own countrymen but would go to the relevant sources. If you are interested in reading about the Prophet (ﷺ), you may refer to these sources [*][*][*].

The alleged Neo-Nazi Sheindlin provides the readers a biography, much like how the villager treats his patients. Following are the blunders he makes while explaining how he understood the biography:

• At the age of six, his mother abandoned the child… he was also abandoned and rejected by his mother – His mother passed away when he was six. He was not abandoned and rejected by her. Sheindlin tries to manipulate the reader into thinking that he was not loved as a child. He uses this manipulation to build his faulty case.
• he was known to be non-descriptive white man – The Prophet (ﷺ)’s colour was not what we consider today as white i.e. of European origin. That white was referred to as yellow by the Arabs[14] (either due to the blonde hair or the skin colour) and what the Arabs meant by white was a light skinned person from the Arabic skin tone.
• Around the age of 25, he married … Khadija … well into her 40’s – It’s very annoying that Sheindlin sneaks in these snide comments that try to present an incorrect picture. Khadija was 40 years old and not well into her 40s. I fail to understand what he intends by such a lie.
• Khadija, only proposed (to the Prophet) … upon learning from a third party that he was destined to be a prophet – He provides no support, not even an inauthentic narration, for this claim of his. The truth is that pagan Arabs did not understand the concept of prophethood.
• The union was initially frowned upon by her father, as it’s been documented that the patriarch objected to the marriage – We have seen earlier that Sheindlin has zero regard for authenticity and accuracy; we have also seen the statement from al-Tabari himself where he states that he simply collected narrations without affirming their accuracy and authenticity. There are reports that her father had passed away 10 years prior to her marriage with the Prophet (ﷺ). Sheindlin is a person of a weak mind and simply accepts whatever he reads that suits to his liking.
• The “angel”, who spoke on behalf of Allah, allegedly pinned Muhammad to the ground violently. In particular, the ‘spirit’ allegedly pinned Muhammad to the ground with terrifying ferocity and aggression (of which is unbecoming of a Biblical angel) – Sheindlin quotes a Hadith after which he reaches the conclusion that the angel pinned him down. If two parties went out, one in search of WMDs in Iraq and another to look for the pinning down violently in the Hadith, I am sure the former may still come up with something (albeit a lie). Sheindlin is an expert at pulling things out of his back side. His claim that this is unbecoming of a Biblical angel provides us some clues behind this faulty understanding. It appears that he may have come across the beastly angels of the Bible [*][*] and due to his factoring out bias and ‘blaming the others’ syndrome, he may have either forgotten about it and attributed it to Islam or simply lied as he is so used to.
• It’s (sic) remains unknown why Allah did not bestow the gift of literacy to his apostle – this conundrum which Muslims cannot elaborate on – If you do not ask the Muslims, you will always remain in a conundrum [*].
• The pagan Muhammad was left with a confronting message which challenged his polytheistic beliefs … While Islam is quick to reject the fact that Muhammad was also a pagan, the truth is that even he would also participate in veneration of Hubal and other deities. – This is another sneaky snide remark. If someone had an ignorant past and found guidance, this would not diminish his standing in any way; however, the fact is that the Prophet (ﷺ) was never an idolater.[15]
• Disturbed after the ordeal, he became immediately suicidal believing he had been approached or even possessed by a jinn (demon) – First of all, a Jinn is not a demon. Jinns are beings made from smokeless fire and may be both good and evil and the evil ones may be called demons in Biblical language. Secondly, Sheindlin claims that after seeing the angel, the Prophet (ﷺ) became suicidal. He should consult his sources again because the allegation is that suicidal thoughts were much later when the revelation stopped for a while. The ten years of research of Sheindlin got this wrong. At least get the argument correct, even if based on falsehood.
• Upon leaving the cave, Muhammad became increasingly despondent and after multiple attempts, tried to take his own life – Does Prophet Muhammad’s Contemplation of Suicide Disprove His Prophethood, Assuming He Did?
• According to traditional Islamic sources, Khadija “tested” the spirit by revealing her genitals to the entity, in which Jibreel allegedly vanished – this is such a blatant lie and the doing of a perverted mind. The source quoted by Sheindlin (‘Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 107) states that she cast aside her veil which he equates with revealing genitals. This can only be the doing of a sick perverted mind.
• Muhammad would convulse, writhe, foam at the mouth and snort like a camel – Another snide remark regarding how the revelation came to the Prophet (ﷺ). This is how the revelation came to the Prophet (ﷺ): Narrated Aisha: Al Harith b. Hisham asked the Prophet (ﷺ), “How does the divine inspiration come to you?” He replied, “In all these ways: The Angel sometimes comes to me with a voice which resembles the sound of a ringing bell, and when this state abandons me, I remember what the Angel has said, and this type of Divine Inspiration is the hardest on me; and sometimes the Angel comes to me in the shape of a man and talks to me, and I understand and remember what he says.” [Sahih al-Bukhari: 3215]. Elsewhere Aisha states: “I saw it coming down on him on an intensely cold day, and when it had left him his forehead was dripping with sweat.”
• ‘Meccan’ verses are poetic, peaceful and rational in nature. While the latter ‘Medinan’ verses are aggressive, militant, intolerant, punitive and legislative – otherwise known as the “sword verses – Makkan chapters are filled with description of heaven and hell. Elsewhere Sheindlin finds the idea of hell to be terrorizing while here he includes it under poetic, peaceful and rational verses. I am glad that he at least accepts the Makkan verses and good and I challenge him to present the intolerant Madinan verses instead of simply hitting and running away.
• During pre-Islamic times, the Ka’aba was a shrine dedicated to over 360 gods, most notably the three goddesses Al-Lat, Manat and Al-Uzza – Although true, one can see the deceptive intent behind this. Ka’abah, before it was converted by the pagans as their idol base, was built by the Prophet Ibrahim and remained with monotheists for a long time.
• Early Muslims persistently harassed the simple town folk – A quality of oppressors and bullies is that they see other fellow bullies and oppressors in good light. Sheindlin does the same because the reality is that the Makkan pagans oppressed the early Muslims [*].
• His message of Islam failed to spiritually connect with his kin who had a deep history entrenched in idol worship, which dated back to the Nabatean kingdom and the early Babylonian empire – The roots of idol worship were deep in Makkans but they were not that historical [*][*].
• He initiated perhaps the most embarrassing event in Islamic history – the infamous Satanic verses incident … while this risible situation is widely rejected by Muslims, the majority of the tradition is actually recorded in explicit detail in the Tafsir and Sira. Embarrassingly, the prophet declared that it was conveniently permissible to also incorporate the worship of the venerated pre-Islamic goddesses, Allat, Manat, Al-Uzza – with the inclusion of his god, Allah. – Something being recorded in tafsir and sira is not a confirmation of authenticity. The majority of Muslim scholars have rejected the historicity of the incident on the basis of their weak chains of transmission while some non-Muslims have accepted it. The claim is that six words in Arabic were added by Satan and some fabricated narrations quote the Prophet (ﷺ) admitting that he fabricated some Satanic words. The claim itself is ridiculous from the beginning; Satan inserted six words and the Prophet (ﷺ) repeated them and later admitted that Satan was able to do that. Denial from the Prophet (ﷺ) would have been a better claim but nevertheless the opponents of Islam continue to press this upon us. Moreover, the source of the claim is also disputed upon by Western scholars; Uri Rubin and Guillaume hold that the report was in Ibn Ishaq, while Alford T. Welch holds the report has not been present in the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. Trude Ehlert in Encyclopaedia of Islam finds the reasons of those Western scholars who affirm the incident as unconvincing and insufficient stating: “The story in its present form (as related by al-Ṭabarī, al-Wāḳidī, and Ibn Saʿd) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons”.[16] A few other Western scholars who argued against the authenticity of this incident are Alfred T. Welch, John Burton, G.R. Hawting, Leone Caetani, John Wansbrough, and many more.
• His racially offensive revelations regarding ‘black people’ would also have not been well-received – Although it has already been proven that there is no racism in Islam, enemies of Islam do not cease with their mischief. It appears that the primary reason for this is the fact that our black brothers and sisters are increasingly turning to Islam [*][*][*][*][*] and the enemies of Islam do not like it. Our brothers and sisters consider Islam as the natural religion of black people. Hence, it is understandable that those burning in rage come up with absurd allegations [*].
• The peaceful verses he previously revealed were conveniently abrogated – ‘Hit and run’ alert! [*]
• Muhammad did not establish himself as a peaceful prophet in Medina – ‘Hit and run’ alert!
• He would regard himself as a ruthless militaristic warrior – ‘Hit and run’ alert!
• During this time (after his forced emigration) the official Islamic calendar was created – A simple error yet again turning the ten years of research to dust. The Islamic calendar was formed in the era of the second caliph, several years after the passing away of the Prophet [*]. Although this is not central to the core arguments of Sheindlin, it is essential to show to the readers that his ten years of research into Islam is actually a few days of Google search.
• Muhammad strictly forbade followers to keep contact with family members in Mecca – ‘Hit and run’ alert!
• To keep his people in line, controlled and distracted by the ideology of total submission to the state, Muhammad devised the mandatory ‘call to prayer’ (Adhan), which would be performed many times throughout the day, in perpetuity. There, the hypnotic self-edifying chant would peel away his disciples’ consciences, subsuming their own identities into his own. In a state of trance, and obviously being subjected to sleep deprivation methods, his flock soon became the brainwashed pawns he envisioned – One should not go so far in hate that he forgets what his own books state [*][*]. Prophets throughout history have been praying and calling people to prayer. Moreover, people throughout history have been waking up at/with/before/around sunrise and even children today are brainwashed in preschools and homes with songs like early to bed, early to rise and no one considers it a sleep deprivation method. Perhaps Sheindlin has an alcohol problem which forces him to subconsciously equate waking up early with sleep deprivation.
• Muhammad exalted himself as intercessor between mankind and god. – This is another deceitful statement trying to portray that the Muslims are not true monotheists even though he does not say this explicitly. This statement attempts to show that the Muslims also have a hierarchal system of worship like other religions. The intercession of the Prophet (ﷺ) in the Hereafter is explained in detail here [*][*]. Moreover, the Prophet (ﷺ) informed us that a number of other people would also intercede (i.e. request to Allah) on behalf of others and they would be the martyrs, those who have memorised the entire Qur’an and others (Sahih al-Bukhari 7440 and others).
• His hermetic society with zero interaction with the outside world – The Muslims in Madina continued to trade, import and export. This claim that they were locked away from the outside world is simply ridiculous.
• Alcohol and pork were strictly prohibited, relationships were controlled, basic rights were abolished, and freedom of movement and expression were restricted or outlawed. In truth, Islam became a fascist state – There is no indication that the Arabs ate pig prior to Islam and so the claim of restriction on it does not make sense. The other group residing in Madina, the Jews, also did not eat pig. Christians did not reside as a group in Madina and there were only few isolated Christians there; however, even those Arab Christians had similar slaughter method to the Jews and we do not know whether they ate pig or not – there is high likelihood that they may not be pig-eaters as a whole while some isolated Christians may or may not be pig-eaters. It is unclear what Sheindlin means by relationships being controlled as he does not provide any details for these. If he means that there were Islamic laws governing marriage, then the same can be said about every country; there are courts and marriage registration processes. Abolishment of basic rights and freedom of movement and expression being restricted is also unclear and appears to be another hit and run incident.
• There was (sic) many who questioned the new violent intentions of their new leader – This is not just another case of hit and run but also of inconsistency. Elsewhere Sheindlin has alleged that the Prophet (ﷺ) had violent intentions in Makkah itself and that he threatened the Makkan pagans with violence there and here he alleges that after migrating to Madina, the new violent intentions were questioned by many. Were the violent intentions pre-existing in Makkah or were they new in Madina? In order to show the Prophet (ﷺ) as a violent man, a weak, contradictory, and faulty base is set and likewise, the argument stands on shaky grounds.
• Islamic calendar … based on lunar cycle worship. Even today, it’s hypocritical that Muslims continue to celebrate Ramadan, Eid etc, considering that all holidays are all pagan in nature. – Fasting, as done by Muslims, was foretold in the Torah as well.[17] The pagans were not used to fasting and Islam made it obligatory to fast the month of Ramadan. If it is alleged that Ramadan was a pagan month, then this is just silly; Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and others observe the 12 month calendar and call them by their currently known names. If Christians also call the months by these names, would we say that the Christian calendar is based on solar cycle worship? If the ancient Japanese considered their emperor to be son of God, could we say that the Christians worship the Japanese emperor? The claim from Sheindlin is as silly as these questions.
• The roots of Islam are well-grounded in ‘moon-worship’ – Sheindlin seems to be writing another book. If he is not willing to back down from it, I would advise him to cut down the number of pages and only focus on good, strong arguments instead of just throwing in whatever he could find. The moon-worship absurdity is something even Christian preachers consider embarrassing [*].
• The official Islamic flag in all Muslim countries is invariably the crescent moon and star. – I would love to see all the flags of all the Muslim countries with the crescent moon and star. The star and crescent symbol was the emblem of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, and gradually became associated with Islam in late 19th-century Orientalism [*].
• Jewish tribes contributed heavily to the city through their agricultural industry.– The Jews lived in walled compounds and fortresses [*] and hence their agricultural industry did not contribute heavily to anyone except themselves.
• ‘… despite Arabs and Jews having lived peacefully together for centuries before Muhammad’s reign of terror’ – Not only did the Jews and Arabs fight each other prior to Islam, the Jews fought fellow Jews and the Arabs fought fellow Arabs as well. Sheindlin tries to paint a rosy picture of peace and love that was destroyed by Islam. The fact is that Islam brought peace to the already war-torn city and everyone benefitted from it [*].
• Muhammad’s erroneous knowledge over Judaism, and his absurd claims to be ‘the final prophet’ of god – If this is absurd, then Sheindlin should dismiss the Bible [*][*].
• ‘… accusing them (Jews) of descending from pigs and monkeys’. – The Jews are human beings and are also descended from Adam and Eve like the rest of mankind [*]. Read Apes and the Sabbath Problem by Reuven Firestone, Become you apes, repelled!” (Quran 7:166): The transformation of the Israelites into apes and its biblical and midrashic background by Uri Rubin, and Ibn Qutayba and the Monkeys by Michael Cook.
• He began an unrelenting campaign of political assassinations … all being murdered through unspeakable acts. 50 people alone were murdered after being officially classified as political dissidents. Muhammad enjoyed bleeding his subordinates to death’. ‘… defiant unbelievers were always executed …’ – Although Sheindlin just leave this remark unsubstantiated, here is a comprehensive coverage of such allegations [*].
• ‘… preventing his disciples from entertaining the highly respected art (of poetry)’. – The claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) prohibited poetry is another deceptive one as it only covers half a side of the coin and that too with misrepresentation. This is explained here in some detail.
• One of the most famous political murders by Muhammad was the elderly Umm Qirfa. – This has been refuted here.
• Likewise, according to the Bible, the indicators of a true prophet is someone who fits all criteria in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and 13:1-3 – this being, he must be able to accurately predict the future and it must come to past – his message cannot contradict scripture – and his message must lead people to the word of the Biblical God, not away from him.⁹² Muhammad fulfilled none of these prerequisites – he unapologetically conducted himself in a way unbecoming of Jesus’ teachings. – If you set a criterion and refuse to listen to the response, then you will surely find that the criterion has not been met. However, if you are willing to judge properly, then you will understand why so many Westerners are converting to Islam. Examine the criteria here in more detail [*][*].
• Muhammad accused all Jews in general of “corrupting” the original word of Allah – First of all, the Qur’an does not accuse all Jews[18]. The Bible itself says (Jeremiah 8:8) that the scribes corrupted the Bible; moreover, it’s not just the Qur’an that asserts the fact that the Bible has been corrupted, it is the Western scholars themselves who state so [*].
• The Jews were completely innocent [Referring to Banu Qurayza] – Criminals have a tendency to sympathize with fellow criminals. This small group of Jews had plotted genocide against the Muslims for which they were punished [*].
• Because of this infamous historic incident, the trend of violence, hatred and paranoia towards Jews in Islamic countries has continued unabated. – Throughout history, the Jews were persecuted by the Christians [*] while they took refuge and flourished under Muslim rule [*][*][*].

• ‘… minorities were invariably ‘invited’ (by the sword) to convert to Islam’. – This is another oft repeated lie and has been addressed comprehensively several times [*][*]
• To pay the Jizya tax was the most disgraceful act a non-Muslim could perform – Another hit and run case. Jizya is elaborated on here.
• ‘… his teachings propagated the message that for a Muslim to respect a dhimmi, was to ‘dishonour’ the Ummah entire (sic)’. – This is another baseless allegation and addressed here in detail [*].
• Muhammad continued to propagate strong anti-semitic, anti-christ sentiment – The allegation of Islam being anti-Semitic has been addressed several times in this book as well as outside [*] and the allegation of Islam being anti-Christ is simply laughable. Elevating someone to a position that is anti-God is insulting to both God and that person. The Qur’an corrects what the Christians got wrong and in fact, elevates Christ to his proper position which is that of a mighty Messenger of God. If a Hindu says that cow is God and a Christian corrects him for that, would one say that the Christian is anti-cow?
• Throughout the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, there are multiple revelations which accurately foretold the coming of a ‘false prophet’ and a ‘system’ that describes the exact same tenets of Islam. – Although the books of Daniel and Revelation have prophecies of Islam, they are not the way Sheindlin thinks so; they are in favour of Islam [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*].
• ‘… this fact (of multiple marriages) brought the legitimacy of his prophethood into question as he himself ‘revealed’ that Muslim men should only marry up to four wives’. – This is another very weak argument and has been responded to here [*]
• ‘… women were “mentally inferior”’. Another unsubstantiated allegation that is addressed here.
• Muhammad himself highly encouraged his men to beat their wives and slaves into submission, even if the husbands “feared disloyalty (from them)”. – This is another very bold claim but is more of a hit and run than anything else. This is addressed here [*].
• ‘… he forbade his disciples to carry Quran’s with them on journeys lest the book be seized by the enemy’. Elsewhere Sheindlin says that the Qur’an was written down after the Prophet (ﷺ) passed away. An advice to him is to choose one and be consistent.
• Considering the Quran’s multitude of historical, scientific and archaeological inaccuracies – Qur’an is a book with zero errors [*][*].
• Islam has remained a brainwashed nation, hermetically sealed off from “heretical” western science, education and democracy. – One needs to set aside the hate and read how Islamic world contributed to Medieval Europe [*] and the rest of the world [*][*] and shaped the world we live in today [*]. Muslims have been in a declining state since some time now but there are signs around that the decline has stopped and the return to progress is inevitable.

Criticizing something from being sealed off from democracy is simply absurd. Democracy is an old system from thousands of years back and has immense technical and practical limitations. Consider an example (for a Parliamentary democracy – similar examples exist in Presidential democracy as well): Imagine a young graduate in the field of Finance, for example, joins the Finance Ministry. The young graduate gains a master’s degree and then a Ph.D. in economics with distinction. He then works day and night and becomes the Secretary, the highest possible position for that man. A rich man with a lot of land, money, personal servants who may practically be his slaves, and power and influence wins the elections and becomes the Secretary’s boss to become the Finance Minister. Does this occurrence seem fair and will this bring out the best in operations? Even if we assume that the Minister wins fair and square and is not corrupt and is an expert economist, how can he be more competent than the secretary who has spent more than 30 years in the Ministry and knows the minute details of each and every aspect of his work? In democracy, the deserving person does not get the chance to lead; someone else from outside takes over that job. This old and outdated system only results in lower levels of efficiency while Islam does not seek to please {most of the people}. Moreover, the Minister comes and goes while the people in the Ministry stay in most cases which makes the system rigid and not changeable within the Minister’s duration of service. Whatever effort he exerts to bring change will be resisted by the current rigid system and hence, the democratic system turns out to be rigid, dictatorial, and undemocratic. Such a system comes into place after years and years of evolution and is true of western democracies while in newer democracies, the ruling party dismisses all the political staff from the previous government and hire its own who in turn get dismissed when the other party comes into power and this weakens the processes and nothing runs smoothly for a time. The eventual evolution of newer democracies is into the rigid, dictatorial, and undemocratic western democracies.

Moreover, the democracies we see now are not as per the original definitions of democracy; they have been tampered with and modified to a significant extent taking away the people’s rights that were granted in the original form of democracy. In direct or pure democracy, the people governed directly based on referendums and other devices of empowerment to cater to the popular will. People voted for each issue. Modern variants have taken away these rights of the people and have turned them into an autocratic type. In such modern systems, sovereignty is held by the people’s representatives and they do not consult the people on every issue – in fact they may not even consult them on any issue and decide at will whether they like it not. Some may go one step further and opt for controlled democracies where one more level of rights is infringed upon, autocratic powers take over, and rule at will. Practically, bad rulers in modern democracies and controlled democracies are the same for the people in terms of rights and the latter can even be better than the former.

This is only a matter of taking it one step forward. Who decided that the modern form is the ultimate democracy and the dividing line which one cannot, and should not, cross over into controlled democracies or even dictatorship? The Islamic system is beyond modern democracy but before dictatorship.

• ‘… controversial Arabic word ‘Qatal’ which means ‘Kill’ has been embellished in western translation, where the word is deceptively replaced with ‘Fight’’. – First of all, there is nothing controversial about the word qatal and secondly, an authentic narration from the Prophet (ﷺ) states that if someone repeatedly tries to pass in front of the believer in his prayer, the passer-by should be resisted (with hand); the word used for resist is qatal and no Arab ever understood this qatal to kill. The Hadith under discussion is this.
• He personally taught his disciples that all men, women and children in history were born Muslim, including the Biblical Abraham and Adam. An illogical belief considering that Islam originated from his own unique teachings, thousands of years after Abraham’s existence. – It is illogical only if one doesn’t try to understand. God sent Messengers who taught the same message which was to believe in One God, His angels, His revelation, His Prophets and Messengers, the Day of Judgment, after-life and heaven and hell, and divine decree. The laws may have changed from one messenger and community to another but the basic message i.e. of Islam did not differ. Hence, all the Prophets and Messengers were Muslim (in their own language) i.e. they submitted their will to God Almighty. It is very simple and there is nothing illogical about it.
• ‘… apparently non-Muslims apparently have 7 intestines, while Muslims only have 1. – Ask, if you don’t know; the Hadith can be found explained here.
• ‘… which provoked him to advocate the consumption of camel urine, among other things’. – There is only one incident of camel urine being prescribed to a group of people from outside who had fallen sick. It was not something recommended to everyone or for general consumption. A disciple of the Prophet (ﷺ) was asked about the urine of camel and he responded: Wash that whatever touched you [Al Muhalla by Ibn Hazam 1/179, Ibn Abi Shaiba 1/212]. This was not something that was considered pure and was considered worthy of washing if touched. Moreover, urokinase is a substance found in urine that doctors use to resolve blood clots. This single incident of consumption of camel urine by a group of outsiders is not an indication that the Muslims considered it good to consume in general and this single incident is not similar to consumption of cow and elephant urines by some people done for seeking blessings.
• Not only did he preach that ‘water’ itself could not be defiled by bacteria, he also commanded his men to bathe in raw sewerage, which contained menstruation rags, dead dogs and feces. – No one was ever commanded to bathe in raw sewage; if someone thinks so, they need to cleanse their mind with pure thoughts, purge it of negatively and bathe in the fountain of wisdom. Here is a detailed explanation of the well of Buda’ah that is criticized [*].
• Ironically, the very first ‘revelation’ given by the angel Jibreel to Muhammad also heavily conflicts with Biblical teachings, of which he purported to have the utmost authority on. According to Muhammad, Jibreel commanded that he recite “mankind was created (by Allah) out a clot of congealed blood.” However, the Biblical account in the book of Genesis describes God creating Adam from “dust”, not blood – a gross oversight for a man who allegedly was in direct communication with the Biblical God. – On one hand Sheindlin accuses the Qur’an of attacking the Bible by calling it corrupt i.e. altered and changed by man and on the other hand, finds it problematic that the Qur’anic account differs from the Bible.[19]
• ‘… majority of Islamic nations have always remained in a state of turmoil, war, political unrest, famine, drought and economic stagnation’. – The fake millionaire preachers of our times are criticized heavily by the true Christians for preaching the false concept that the closer you are to God, the prosperous you are. On the contrary, Jesus, in Matthew 19:24, is reported to have said: Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God [*]. Muslims have not always been in a state of turmoil and have only suffered in the recent past [*][*][*][*]; however, things have turned towards the better and there might be a little more of the difficult time before things change drastically for the better.
• ‘… a substantial portion of 15% of the loot was always given to their prophet’. – The loot was after or due to battles and was the left-over material of the enemy combatants; a nice play with words is done by Sheindlin to portray the Prophet (ﷺ) and the believers as robbers. The share that went to the government is briefly explained here [*].
• they subsequently took captive women, proceeding to mercilessly rape them in front of their husbands. – This is yet another baseless and absurd claim. Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani – the student of Abu Hanifa, the Imam- said: “When the army takes a woman captive followed by her husband who is also taken captive sooner or later and either the woman does not have menses during that period or has had upto three menses but she is not taken out of the Territory of War before her husband is taken, their marriage shall continue.[20]”
• ‘… turned his ignorant army into a formidable war machine, hell-bent on achieving martyrdom status to sate their sexual desires’. – The Almighty will treat His people with the hospitality that we cannot even imagine but for a believer this is not the real aim; the real aim is as the Almighty has stated Himself in Q.9:72: Allah has promised the believing men and believing women gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally, and pleasant dwellings in gardens of perpetual residence; but approval from Allah is greater. It is that which is the great attainment. When the believers say that this is how they feel, some hate-mongers find it hard to believe. There is nothing we can do to convince them.
• ‘… annihilation of the Meccan army in 630 A.D’ – Another taqiyya done by the hate preacher. In total, there were not even 10 casualties in the process of taking over of Makkah by the Muslims; the Makkans were forgiven and their army remained and was not annihilated. When Sa’d passed by Abu Sufyan with the banner of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the day Mecca was liberated, he announced, “O Abu Sufyan! Today is a day of slaughter! Today the unlawful will be lawful! Today Allah will disgrace the Quraish!” So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “O Abu Sufyan, today is a day of mercy. Today Allah will honor the Quraish.”[21]

The salvation question

Christians are divided on the concept of salvation and there is one view which is very close to the Islamic one. This view states that the one who accepted faith will go to heaven but if his or her sins are considerable, they will be punished before finally being sent to heaven. I do not know the percentage of Christians that believe this to be so and it is very much apparent that the ignorant ones do not believe in this. For them, Christ died for their sins from the past, present, and future and that they would go to paradise no matter what! This over simplistic belief of theirs forces them to conclude:

Muhammad’s personal views on ‘salvation’ were vague at best. Throughout all his teachings, an element of uncertainty still remained regarding the prospect of entering his arcane Islamic paradise.

Such Christians do not like uncertainty; they demand assurance that they will land in heaven and this free pass plays with their psychology and turns them into the beasts. If the uncertainty is clarified to them [*], they end up losing their minds and make baseless statements to justify their thuggery:

heavenly sex-slaves, young boys to ‘serve’ the men (homosexuals).

The Qur’an calls them pure women and wives whereas Sheindlin calls them heavenly sex-slaves. It may be because some Christians believe that people in heaven would have sex without being married to each other [*][*]. Perhaps this is why some Christians are comfortable with lewd behavior and may feel as if they are enjoying heaven on earth. Sheindlin may have been a victim to abuse as a kid which makes him feel that children, made for heaven, are there to serve the sexual desires of adults.[22] If the only experience he, as a boy, had with an adult male was that of sexual abuse, then that is something he needs to be helped with – it is not a problem of Islam. The salvation question is not even a question; Islam discourages content with the idea that one would land up in heaven no matter what which is what the Prophet (ﷺ) preached as well. However, he also mentioned names of some of the people who would go to paradise [*] and therefore, the idea that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not know of his own fate is wrong.

Sheindlin lacks basic understanding and criticizes Islamic after-life as being anti-women. These should educate the likes of him better [*][*].

The hateful author brings up the story of an apostate Abdullah b. Sa’d and argues that he recognized the falsehood of Islam and hence Islam is false. Yes, you read that right. If such was the criteria, then no Christian would have remained Christian after witnessing the treason of Judas. If defection is the criteria to judge the truthfulness of something or someone, then Christianity is the most false religion in the world.

Sheindlin misuses a statement of Aisha (رضي الله عنها) cunningly to his benefit. Thankfully for him and others like him, Muslims are there to clarify and educate [*][*].

Is there uncertainty in Islamic concepts? There is none. We learn the basics from the Qur’an:

وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّـلِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّـتٍ تَجْرِى مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَـرُ كُلَّمَا رُزِقُواْ مِنْهَا مِن ثَمَرَةٍ رِّزْقاً قَالُواْ هَـذَا الَّذِى رُزِقْنَا مِن قَبْلُ وَأُتُواْ بِهِ مُتَشَـبِهاً وَلَهُمْ فِيهَآ أَزْوَجٌ مُّطَهَّرَةٌ وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَـلِدُونَ

And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, “This is what we were provided with before.” And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. [Q.2:25]

Good news for those with faith and deeds. Deeds without faith and faith without deeds are incomplete and not worthy of the good news. Faith and deeds alone do not take one to paradise (as that also makes one self-reliant, proud, and arrogant) but also, and most importantly, the will of Allah (ﷻ) leads to paradise. We know Allah (ﷻ) does not lie and He has promised that faith and deeds lead to paradise, it is in this leading that the will of Allah (ﷻ) is contained. In the end, we are hopeful and not certain of entering heaven because a free assurance creates thugs and criminals. The groups Sheindlin is a part of are clear examples of this.

Propagation of Jihad

Jihad is the most feared word among Islamophobes but for all the wrong reasons. They quote passages out of context and misunderstand basic and simple facts.[23] These are clarified below:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [Q.9:29]

This verse has been clarified several times [*][*][*][*][*].

Verse 56 of the third chapter is mischievously linked to the verse above:

And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.

If we simply go one verse back, we find that both these verse combined read as follows:

[Mention] when Allah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify [i.e. free] you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ. And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers.” [Q.3:55-56]

The deceptive author presented this verse as if the Prophet (ﷺ) said: I will punish them with a severe punishment. This is the statement of God concerning the disbelievers that they would be punished in hell. This is precisely what the Christians also believe in.

Sheindlin makes yet another embarrassing blooper where he states: The core concept of Muhammad’s advocation for belligerence and desire to subjugate all mankind, was to eventually usher in a new Islamic world, a Caliphate, under the rule of ‘the 12th Imam’. He mixed Sunnis with Shias here when he mentioned the 12^th Imam. He also appears to be a sensationalist when he says: Isa will go forth and murder the entire Christian church, destroy all crucifixes, and also aid the Islamic Ummah in murdering every last Jew [*].

The Jews had lived very well under Islamic rule throughout history [*][*][*] and this is a hindrance in the hate-filled analysis of Sheindlin which forces him to conclude: It is only recently that the modern Ummah has become aware of the prophecies concerning the alleged coming Islamic saviour – which explains the rise of anti-semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment. Although very childish but it is a convenient way to brush aside history and current affairs that seem to hurt the preconceived worldview [*][*][*].

Debatable existence?

A relatively new idea has emerged which challenges the existence of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). Sheindlin has utilised the services of John Wansbrough but chosen to ignore hard facts. Wansbrough’s writing style is very arrogant, lacking in respect for the people he is discussing or indeed the scholars he is criticising, sufficiently so as to be irritating. His work has been scrutinized in detail here [*] and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

We find evidences of the existence of the Prophet (ﷺ) from Roman sources themselves. The earliest (documented) Christian knowledge of Muhammad (ﷺ) stems from Byzantine sources, written shortly after Muhammad (ﷺ)’s death in 632. In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati, a dialogue between a recent Christian convert and several Jews, one participant writes that his brother “wrote to [him] saying that a deceiving prophet has appeared amidst the Saracens”. Another participant in the Doctrina replies about Muhammad (ﷺ): “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with sword and chariot?, …[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed” [*].

The rejecters of the Prophet (ﷺ) mocked and ridiculed him since the beginning but no one denied that he existed.

Further reading material that I recommend are Ecclesiastical Chronicle by Bar Hebraeus, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle, and Muhammad Is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of the Last Prophet by David Powers among others.

Moreover, Sophronius, the patriarch and effective political leader in Jerusalem also mentioned the confrontation with Muslims in 634 CE and other later sources such as The Chronicles by Saint Theophanes, deriving from earlier sources, mentions the very first encounter the Muslims had with the Romans in the battle of Muta.

Rejecting the existence of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is making a mockery of oneself and is a denial of basic history.

The simplest explanation is usually the best

In my opinion, Occam’s Razor is on the side of the generally accepted view of the origin of Islam. Namely, the Quran originated where people have always believed it did, the Hijaz, and at the time always believed, 610 CE – 632 CE, and there really was a prophet called Muhammad (ﷺ). These are the most likely historical facts, regardless of whether or not one believes that Muhammad (ﷺ) was divinely inspired.

Lies against the Prophet (ﷺ); no disorders!

Was there any sort of personality disorder?

Sadist: This is first of the allegations made by Sheindlin. He argues in vain that the Prophet (ﷺ) enjoyed giving pain to people and quotes Kinana and Umm Qirfa as examples. These have been addressed elsewhere in this book [*][*] as well.

Borderline personality disorder: The Hadith quoted for this claim is greatly misunderstood (or manipulated) as it never mentions the Prophet (ﷺ) questioning his mental faculties. Sheindlin takes a reference, misuses it and then writes lengthy passages and paragraphs on what he misused. Once you clarify the base of his argument [*], the rest of the deceit stands corrected.

Psychopathy: The psychopath Sheindlin comes up with yet another deceit. He declares the Prophet (ﷺ) a certified psychopath just because he said so. Let us take a look at some of the traits of psychopaths according to Psychopathy Checklist:

• Fluent but insincere – The Prophet (ﷺ) said: I am to you like a father to his son, and I teach you. Not only he said it but also practiced it showing his sincerity. A companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) states: Never was the Prophet (ﷺ) asked for a thing to be given for which his answer was ‘no’. On another occasion, he said: If one of the Believers dies in debt, I will repay it, but if he leaves wealth, it will be for his heirs. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples from the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) which show us his sincerity.
• Exaggeratedly high estimation of self – The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle. There are plenty of examples showing the down to earth attitude and behavior of the Prophet (ﷺ) so much so that the people visiting Makkah would ask a gathering of people as to who the Prophet (ﷺ) was since he would be so mixed with his people that an outsider would not be able to recognize him and his simplicity and lack of royal clothing.
• Need for stimulation – The life of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) serves great leadership lessons [*]; his life is contrary to such absurd allegations [*].
• Pathological lying – We have already seen the stance of the Prophet (ﷺ) on lying. It is a categorical no.
• Cunning and manipulativeness – Manipulation is a form of lying and Islam is very strict against lying.
• Lack of remorse – Even though the Prophet (ﷺ) did not commit sins, he used to ask Allah for forgiveness more than 70 times [*]. Once he was interrupted by a blind man while he was busy in an important meeting and the Prophet (ﷺ) did not like being disturbed in that situation. Even though he did not say anything to the one who interrupted, he later felt that he should have been friendlier towards the man. Such high were his morals that there was remorse even though he had not been rude.
• Superficial emotional responsiveness – There are a number of recorded incidents when the Prophet (ﷺ) cried. Moreover, as already stated above, he took a fatherly role of his nation and his interactions with people are a testimony to his close connection with them [*].
• Lack of empathy – Much more can be read here [*].
• Parasitic lifestyle – Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) used to herd cattle in his early days and later would run trade caravans. When he became the head of a state, he did not let go of hard work and would himself go out in battles, would work as labour and help in digging trenches and other manual labour. Throughout his life, he did not indulge in financial dependence on others.
• Poor behavioral control – Whoever met the Prophet (ﷺ) found that he was the jolliest person; they would find him smiling and would admit that they had never seen someone who smiled more than the Prophet (ﷺ). His behavior was predictable as it was full of love and mercy, compassion and care. Everyone felt as if they were the closest to him as he would treat people with immense love and respect. Sheindlin claims that the Prophet (ﷺ) beat his wife whereas the reality is completely opposite to that [*].[24]
• Sexual promiscuity – Many allegations are made by Sheindlin regarding this; in fact, so much that no one before him ever came up these. May be people like him conduct such mockery in their private gatherings; however, much of these vile attacks are totally new to me. All such absurdities have been refuted in this book.
• Early behavior problems – We find no such problems.
• Lack of realistic long-term goals – We do not find anything unrealistic from the Prophet (ﷺ). Although his prophecies make one wonder the difficulties in them, the Muslims still achieved them when they took Arabia, Persia, parts of Rome and more.
• Impulsivity – Reckless behaviour is something the Prophet (ﷺ) never committed. All these signs and symptoms may be present in a totally normal person to a very minor extent; however, we do not find even traces to even come close to the Prophet (ﷺ).
• Irresponsibility – When one reads about the biography of the Prophet (ﷺ), he/she finds that the Prophet (ﷺ) was the most responsible man one could find. He was offered fortunes to forego his mission or to amend it and he did not compromise on it the least bit. Examples of his responsible behaviour can be quoted in hundreds, if not thousands.
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions – When the Quresh were out from Makkah to attack the Muslims in Madina, discussions were underway in Muslim camp; some suggested to take on the Makkans within Madina and these were the senior members; others, mainly younger ones, insisted to take on them in the open field outside the city. Eventually, the Muslims went outside the city to tackle the attacking army. The Muslims suffered heavy causalities and the end result of the war was not a happy one even if the conclusion was a stalemate. The Prophet (ﷺ) never criticized those who had proposed the idea to tackle the army outside. He was not known for blame-game or making someone a scapegoat.
• Many short-term marital relationships – The life of the Prophet (ﷺ) is contrary to this.
• Juvenile delinquency – Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was given the titles Sadiq and Ameen i.e. truthful and trustworthy, even before he started preaching the message of Islam. He was known to be peaceful and kind at all times, even by his enemies.

Moreover, the Prophet (ﷺ) did not indulge in self-pity. When after the battle of Uhud, he was asked by his wife: Have you encountered a day harder than the day of the battle (of Uhud)? The Prophet (ﷺ) replied in brief about how he was treated by the tribes in Ta’if who beat him and expelled him from their city. The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned this incident to his wife at least five years later and that too upon her asking about it. This shows that the Prophet (ﷺ) was not a man who indulged in self-loathing and pity.

Considering the scientific term Occam’s razor, which proposes that the simplest explanation is often the correct one, we conclude that the Islamic explanations are authentic.

Misogyny, gynophobia and abandonment issues: The gist of Sheindlin’s argument is that since the mother of the Prophet (ﷺ) died when he was six years old, he felt abandoned and hence, developed a personality of misogyny, gynophobia, and abandonment.

Sheindlin checkmates his own absurd hypothesis by this statement:

If their parental shielding is to suddenly vanish, it’s highly likely that they will internalize a form of self-loathing, blaming themselves for the event.

We saw above how the Prophet (ﷺ) was far from self-loathing and blaming (either himself or others). If at all Sheindlin seeks to force add links where none exist, he should have made a proper comparison of symptoms and then attempt to link with the personality of the Prophet (ﷺ). No matter how much ones tries, there is no link at all. If you forcefully add one, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other events from the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) that go against it.

Sheindlin repeats many of his claims over and over again. Some of what he repeats for his misogyny and gynophobia claims is stated below:

• Women are less deficient than men. This has been addressed earlier and repeated here [*]
• Women cannot lead nations. Such claims are addressed as well [*][*]
• Muslima’s submission of evidence could only be considered legitimate with the inclusion of four male witnesses – Sheindlin quotes Q.24:13 as support for this claim. However, that does not support this claim of his in any way.[25] This claim is ridiculous, to say the least.
• A husband is permitted, nay encouraged, to fabricate false testimonies accusing their wives of lewdness (adultery) – undeniably, this law was invented as a quick solution for men who no longer desired their wife. – Another ridiculous claim so boldly made by Sheindlin. The verse he quotes for this claim is Q.24:6. If only he had read it properly and in full,[26] he might not have made such a blunder.
• Women’s inheritance is also questioned and this is clarified in detail as well [*]. Many men wonder why most of the converts to Islam in the West are women when Islam degrades women. This is because they recognize God and realise the overall system made for us by Him. They understand the wisdom behind the shares of inheritance and find it more liberating to the women. Yvonne Ridley converted to Islam being impressed with the Qur’anic verses on inheritance.[27] A woman is not required to provide for the children, their food, clothing, shelter, education while the man is obliged to do so. If she earns herself, she is not obliged to spend it on the family while the man is required to do so. Hence, when the Western women converts get this idea, they appreciate Islam. The image of Islam in the minds of haters is drastically different from what it is really is. Another problem that arises out of this limited context view is that the readers ordinarily see one side of the picture while ignoring or overlooking the other completely. If a collection of Hadiths state the man’s responsibility towards his wife and family, it may appear that Islam is too demanding from the man and does not give him his due rights. It has even happened that some fathers have read so much about the rights of mothers that they ask whether Islam even grants them any status! Sheindlin does this trick of only quoting men’s rights over women while totally ignoring the women’s rights over men.
• Polygamy is also attacked for being anti-women. Although men marrying up to four wives is allowed but not necessarily encouraged. We have seen that the Prophet (ﷺ) was monogamous for 25 years and after the passing away of his first wife, 15 years older, he remarried. Reasons have been provided as well [*]. Scholars have stated that the preferred manner is to marry only one unless there is a need.[28] However, real life may provide several situations where a need may arise and hence the necessity cannot be ruled out; moreover, women may discuss such a thing with their husbands-to-be if they have concerns and require confidence.
• Islamic way of divorce is criticized; this is expanded on here [*]. Another blooper made by Sheindlin is his saying this usually sees the wife shunned completely from the Ummah. Basically Sheindlin is saying that when a woman is divorced, she is expelled from the Muslim community i.e. she becomes a disbeliever. Imagine someone saying: if a Christian woman is divorced, she no longer remains a Christian! Yes, this is exactly how absurd it is. If such remarks were made behind closed doors, one may laugh them off but Sheindlin decided to write a book on this. Another blunder he made is his statement that it would be exceptionally difficult for her to return back to her parents of whom had received a handsome dowry by the spouse. This is wrong for many reasons; the dowry is a word that he uses whereas Muslims call it a gift from the husband to the wife. Sheindlin assumed that the man bought the woman from her parents. Perhaps centuries of slave trade played a subconscious role in his thinking here. Sheindlin says that divorce in Islam is invariably labelled as an act of shame whereas throughout history this has never happened. When Muslims mixed with other communities, most notably the Hindus in sub-continent, they eventually developed this stigma as well. As far as Islam is concerned, a divorced woman is neither degraded, nor deprived of her rights and may remarry if she wills.
• Modest dress of women is also attacked by the nudity loving author [*]. Even though Western women have also largely dressed modesty until a few decades ago and even though Catholic nuns still wear modest clothes, Sheindlin, in his rage, attacks it.

• Sheindlin attempts to play a sly, clever one once again. He states that women’s rights were so non-existent that even the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ) called out: You have made us (women) into dogs. A statement from elsewhere has been taken half-way and applied in another place. Read in detail here [*].
• Narrations with weak authenticity are quoted as well and they are addressed in detail by the Muslims [*]. Sheindlin also quotes another unauthentic narration from Ihya’ ‘Uloum ed-Din.
• The Hadith a woman’s silence is her consent is taken out of its rightful place and used (or rather misused) to claim that Islam allows rape. Islam does not recognize forced marriage and if parents choose a bride or groom for their son or daughter respectively, an approval from the boy or girl is essential. Since the believing women are not as vile and vulgar as some of the women Sheindlin may be around, they can be very shy. Such shy girls may find it very difficult to say ‘yes’ to a marriage proposal while they would not hesitate in saying ‘no’ if they disliked it, their silence is considered their consent to the proposal.
• Many more attacks are made against the status of women in Islam and these are responded to in detail [*][*][*][*].
• Sheindlin makes several hit and run remarks that are baseless and he provides no support for his claims. Some of them are quoted below:

Muhammad also favoured sons over daughters

young girls and women were often stoned to death or worse for disobeying their fathers

Ironically, it was one of Muhammad’s closest disciples Umar, who indirectly stated the obvious, that women enjoyed more freedoms, exclusively verbal expression, before the invention of Islam. [Sheindlin provides a support for this claim but as expected of him, completely twists it around. What Umar b.al-Khattab said to the Prophet (ﷺ) was this: We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them. Here Umar jokes with the Prophet (ﷺ) that back in Makkah, men had an upper hand while here in Madina, things have changed. What this statement shows is complete opposite of what Sheindlin claims. Women in Islam and in Madina had an upper hand over men and Umar jokingly complains about this to the Prophet (ﷺ)].

If women were allegedly mistreated in pre-Islamic times, surely he did nothing to alleviate their suffering

• The concept of Jizya is also criticized by Sheindlin without properly understanding it [*].

What we learn so far is that every attack against the Prophet (ﷺ) is rooted in lies, misconceptions, deliberate twisting of facts and references and forcefully making links where none exist.

Dependent personality disorder: Sheindlin states that it is evident that Muhammad suffered with ‘Dependent personality disorder’ in his early years, he did partially grow out of it by his 40’s. However, as with most of his accusations, this one is also unsubstantiated; forget about a misapplication, he does not even use any source or reference to justify his claim. Hence, when I say that most of his accusations are baseless, it is true as he does not even provide even a misapplied, out of context, or even fabricated evidence.

The World Health Organization states that DPD is characterized by at least four of the following:

• encouraging or allowing others to make most of one’s important life decisions;
• subordination of one’s own needs to those of others on whom one is dependent, and undue compliance with their wishes;
• unwillingness to make even reasonable demands on the people one depends on;
• feeling uncomfortable or helpless when alone, because of exaggerated fears of inability to care for oneself;
• preoccupation with fears of being abandoned by a person with whom one has a close relationship, and of being left to care for oneself;
• limited capacity to make everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others.

Associated features may include perceiving oneself as helpless, incompetent, and lacking stamina and also includes asthenic, inadequate, passive, and self-defeating personality (disorder).

There are several instances from the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) which refute this allegation; however, even one is sufficient to lay it to waste convincingly. The simple fact that the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go to the cave of Hira alone and meditate there for long period is sufficient to disprove any idea of dependency or fear of abandonment.

The fact that the Prophet (ﷺ) was asked by his uncle, upon whom he depended on for security and safety, to forego his mission and the Prophet (ﷺ) replied: O my uncle! By God if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until God has made me victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it. His uncle was not only his protector but also a very powerful man, yet the Prophet (ﷺ) resisted such pressure independently [*].

Sheindlin claims, again without any evidence, ‘it’s evident that Muhammad had no close friends, if any at all’ all the while forgetting who Abu Bakr was and that a title of his’ was Siddiq al-Akbar (the great friend).

The list of absurdities from Sheindlin does not stop. Some are quoted as follows:

As his father had died before he was born, he never experienced the blessing of belonging to a traditional family. This would have been a source of ridicule for his peers, thus undermining his self-esteem and creating a mental vacuum of self-loathing, and self-doubt.

Basically what he argues is that orphans are ridiculed for being orphans. I am not sure about the inner dealings of the author’s circle and so I cannot comment where he is coming from on this. All I can do is pray that orphans in his community are not treated the way he views them and that governments of his lands do better than taking any sort of inspiration from such people. Restrictions on his book by some Western countries is understandable; they do not want to be associated with a person of such low morals and know the right from the wrong that he propagates. They know that the future of the West would be dark if such forces, the likes of whom Sheindlin is a member of, come to surface and become more vocal.

After willingly giving up his working days after his mid 20’s, it only proves he remained largely unemployable. Of course, Islamic tradition would have you believe that Muhammad was a capable and diligent worker; trusted and exceptionally hard working. Of course, these traditions were dictated to the Ummah, by Muhammad. Truthfully, no-one knows much about his past, except him.

The sources of the biography of the Prophet (ﷺ) are his followers. If Sheindlin uses some and accepts them as accurate, how can he reject others as inaccurate? This is simply working on desires and accepting and rejecting what suits the needs instead of being academic and looking at the reliability of the sources. If he chooses to dismiss the entirety of the biography, then the options left for him are the following:

• Deny that the Prophet (ﷺ) even existed. However, this has been refuted above.
• Recognize that he existed but choose to not know anything about him believing that nothing can be known with certainty. In this case, he would have never written this book.

Another point to elaborate on is that the Prophet (ﷺ) never dictated his life story to his followers. We have seen an example where he mentioned an incident (of Taif), and that too in brief, from around 10 years ago to his wife. His life is recorded by witnesses and he was not the kind of person to boast about himself or praise himself, even if the praise was accurate.

What we can conclude here is that the claim of Sheindlin that the Prophet (ﷺ) quit working in his mid 20’s and remained unemployable is baseless. We have seen earlier how he ran trade caravans and engaged in import and export.

It’s clearly evident that without Khadija and her wealth, Muhammad wouldn’t have had the time to establish and propagate his religion, or establish his military in Medina.

The Prophet (ﷺ) had to escape Makkah overnight as the Quresh had decided to kill him in his home at night. The Prophet (ﷺ) and the believers left their homes and their entire wealth and settled in Madina from where they started from scratch. Such basic points are so easy to read but the anti-Islam author decided to lie against them. We know that the Prophet (ﷺ) rose above enmity and insult [*].

The author repeats the massive lie that Khadija “tested” the spirit by revealing her genitals to the entity, in which Jibreel allegedly vanished – this is such a blatant lie and the doing of a perverted mind. The source quoted by him (‘Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 107) states that she cast aside her veil which the pervert equates with revealing genitals. This can only be the doing of a sick perverted mind.

When he re-quotes this perverted thought, he is more explicit and vulgar than before and I have chosen to not quote him. Perhaps the explicit Songs of Solomon or the events of Ezekiel 23 have subconsciously molded his thinking this way. In any case, considering his troubled childhood which continues to haunt his adult life, such symptoms from him are expected.

Napoleon complex and delusions of grandeur: The lie that the Prophet (ﷺ) was very short has been addressed under the section Mocking and lying about the Prophet (ﷺ)’s description.

Sheindlin makes a mockery of himself once again and writes:

If Muhammad couldn’t play any musical instrument, it would prove he wasn’t the ‘perfect human’ as he made himself out to be.

If playing musical instruments is on the list of what it requires to be the perfect human, then I have surely missed it. I would be more than happy to get the revised list. Would he propose to the Mr. Universe or Mr. World contest to include more categories in their judgments and propose adding singing, dancing, solving the rubix cube, being the best at chess and so on?

Sheindlin asks a question understandable from a polytheist. Regarding the miracle of the Prophet (ﷺ) of food multiplication, he asks:

why couldn’t he have filled his house with bread by his own hands?

This question is anti-God and assumes that people are gods who have the power to do as they will. The miracles of the Prophets were not their own doing and were performed by God through His men [*].

As in other sections, the custom of major blunders from the ignorant author continues:

the ‘prophet’ was so bold as to declare himself indirectly as god himself

Muhammad never understood strategical theory, foresight or anticipation

In truth, the fact that it took Muhammad multiple failed attempts to invade Mecca

Islam is the strictest religion when it comes to monotheism. This has been elaborated on more throughout this book. Secondly, there was only one attempt made at taking Makkah and that was a success. There is no source that would say otherwise; Sheindlin pulled this one out of his backside once again. Moreover, to say that the Prophet (ﷺ) lacked strategy, foresight or anticipation is like a preschooler arguing with the teacher that B comes before A. The life and achievements of the Prophet (ﷺ) are clear examples of his foresight, strategy and ultimately victory. Be a man and admit the good of your enemy where it’s due.

Sheindlin mocks the idea that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade certain hairstyles and dresses. In his own community, if a child were to ask his parents for a Mr. T style haircut, they would not allow him to do so and therefore, if the Prophet (ﷺ) disallowed people to look like complete idiots and shaving a part and leaving the other, then what is the problem with that? If he disallowed the Muslims to wear the dress similar to those of Hindu pundits and Buddhist monks, then what is the problem with that? After all, he is (in rank) like a father to his children.

The instruction of the Prophet (ﷺ) of keeping the lower end of the garment above ankles is also mocked by the hateful bigot. Not understanding one thing and criticising it is one thing but deliberately quoting only a part and ignoring the other is deceptive. Sheindlin quotes the part where lower end of clothes are discouraged to be below ankles but deliberately and deceptively ignores the reason provided as well:

لاَ يَنْظُرُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِلَى مَنْ جَرَّ إِزَارَهُ بَطَرًا

Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at a person who drags his lower end of the garment (behind him) out of pride and arrogance. [Sahih al-Bukhari 5788]

عَنْ سَالِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ ذَكَرَ فِي الإِزَارِ مَا ذَكَرَ، قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ إِزَارِي يَسْقُطُ مِنْ أَحَدِ شِقَّيْهِ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏ “‏ إِنَّكَ لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ ‏”‏‏

Narrated Salim that his father said; “When Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) mentioned what he mentioned about (the hanging of) the Izar (waist sheet), Abu Bakr said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! My Izar slackens on one side (without my intention).” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You are not among those (who, out of pride) drag their Izars behind them.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 6062]

If only these narrations had been quoted, the entire premise of the faulty argument would have crashed hard.

Schizophrenia and Schizotypal personality disorder: If you ignore that there is anything divine or that whatever we see is all that exists and that God does not exist, then perhaps you would reach this conclusion. If such criticism had come from an atheist, it would have made sense but Sheindlin, being a Bible thumping maniac, decided to proceed with such a claim. It looks as if he copied this argument, and many others, from atheists. If he puts Jesus, as defined in the gospels, in the same line of fire, he would reach at a much horrible conclusion.[29] However, since he has put forth allegations, they are addressed as well.

For schizophrenia, two of more of the following should be present for a significant portion of time in a month and as a minimum, one of these should be from the first three:

1. Delusions.
2. Hallucinations.
3. Disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence).
4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior.
5. Negative symptoms (i.e., diminished emotional expression or avolition).

B. For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, level of functioning in one or more major areas, such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, is markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, there is failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational functioning).

C. Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e., active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or by two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).

D. Schizoaffective disorder and depressive or bipolar disorder with psychotic features have been ruled out because either 1) no major depressive or manic episodes have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms, or 2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, they have been present for a minority of the total duration of the active and residual periods of the illness.

E. The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition.

F. If there is a history of autism spectrum disorder or a communication disorder of childhood onset, the additional diagnosis of schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations, in addition to the other required symptoms of schizophrenia, are also present for at least 1 month (or less if successfully treated). [Source: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM-5]

Now it is up to the claimant to prove which two, as a minimum, he attributes to the Prophet (ﷺ) with at least one of the two being from 1, 2, or 3. Sheindlin attempts to make some links which are addressed in detail under the section Attacks and lies against the revelation.

The Prophet (ﷺ) was a calm and smiling man and did not display irrational fear; in fact he did not display fear at all [*][*]. When he spoke, he spoke with clarity and this is not expected from a schizophrenic person; the Qur’an is also very harmonious and composed with full of literary genius which even the enemies of Islam also recognized. Moreover, schizophrenia has a trigger somewhere between late adolescence and early adulthood (especially for men) [*] while the allegation claims that he developed it at 40 years of age.

Some other symptoms of schizophrenia are flat affect and avolition whereas we know that the Prophet (ﷺ) smiled a lot and even cried and let out his emotions; he wasn’t a demotivated individual either.

Since the hateful book throws out everything it could, many contradicting allegations are also made. A prominent symptom of schizophrenia is the failure to maintain self-hygiene whereas the Prophet (ﷺ) was known to be otherwise; in fact, Sheindlin argues that the Prophet (ﷺ) had an obsession for cleanliness. These contradictory attacks against the noble Prophet (ﷺ) do more harm to his haters than him.[30]

He lived a healthy life contrary to any symptom of the illness.

No surprises, Sheindlin makes some baseless allegations once again:

• He says that the Prophet (ﷺ) regulated when people could and couldn’t fart. He says: the ‘prophet’ also apparently controlled the quantity of farts his disciples would produce. The reference he provides says something else. What the Hadith says is that ablution is necessary before praying if someone had passed wind. Now if Sheindlin dislikes washing hands, arms, face and feet before praying and wants to hold it, then that is his problem. As a minimum, he should refrain from transferring his problems over to Islam.
• Sheindlin backtracks from his allegation of schizophrenia and says that the Prophet (ﷺ) faked being schizophrenic as well. He displays inconsistency so much that there are serious concerns he might have dual personality disorder. When he likes it, he calls it schizophrenia and when something refutes his stance, he runs to defense and says that he also faked it.
• Sheindlin claims that the Prophet was ‘engaged’ to Jesus’ mother, Mary, in heaven. We have seen that Sheindlin has zero regard for authenticity and accuracy; this criticism is addressed in detail by the Muslims [*].
• Sheindlin’s claim about Islamic prophecies that none of his predictions came true is very faulty. Not only are the prophecies of the Prophet (ﷺ) clear, free from vagueness and are very explicit, they have also come true while many are yet to take place [*][*].
• Sheindlin criticizes Islam for prohibiting alcohol even though its harms far outweigh its benefits [*]. He also criticizes Islam’s prohibition of making idols and images and does not understanding the wisdom [*] behind it even though the Bible is very explicit on this; the Bible is so explicit that the prohibition is included in the 10 commandments.
• After making some unsubstantiated claims, Sheindlin asks some questions with more unsubstantiated claims. He asks if Garlic, farting, and menstruation were indicative of “evil”, then why would Allah create them? This is simply silly. First of all, these are not described by the Prophet (ﷺ) as evil but in different words which anyone reading would agree with. Isn’t garlic something that leaves smell in the mouth? What is the problem if the Prophet (ﷺ) did not eat this himself due to this reason but did not forbid others from doing so. Farting is not defined as evil but something that breaks the ablution necessary for prayer. The Prophet (ﷺ) said regarding passing wind: Why does one of you laugh at what he himself does? Menstruation does not require a mention; ask a woman and she will tell you what she feels about it.

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD): The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection. [*]

Some of the key features of NPD are emphasized above. There are numerous examples from the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) that repeatedly refute all these key points. Prophet (ﷺ)’s empathy is very clear and visible to anyone who reads about his life towards not just humans [*][*] but also animals [*], his dislike for praise on his face is also known to all those who read the Sirah and Hadiths[31], the down to earth quality is something the Prophet (ﷺ) is very famous for [*], and his tolerance for criticism is something that leaves the readers amazed [*][*]. The Prophet (ﷺ) never tried to associate himself with the likes of Alexander the Macedonian or Cyrus the Persian or any other major personality. His association to Eisa and Ibrahim (عليهم السلام) as a fellow prophet is also to those who had very little followers in their lifetime. Much more can be read here [*].[32]

Sheindlin presents some examples for his claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) was narcissist. Let’s analyze them:

The Prophet said: “He who deliberately lies about me let him seek his abode in Hell.” Abu Dawud 3641

This is a very weak claim. Even Wikipedia has rules for editing and blocks people for violation. Does Sheindlin want people to fabricate Hadiths and attribute to Islam what does not belong to it? Anyone can come and say that the Prophet (ﷺ) said this or that and expecting tolerance for liars is simply absurd. Lack of respect for accuracy and authenticity leads one to criticize such statements.[33]

On one occasion, even his closest companion was harshly reprimanded for casually perusing the Jewish Torah:

“Umar brought a copy of the Torah to the Prophet and said: “O Apostle of God, this is a copy of the Torah.” But the Prophet kept silent. Then Umar started reading and the face of the Prophet kept changing. So, Abu Bakr interrupted him violently: “Don’t you see the face of the Prophet?” Umar looked at the Prophet’s face and said “May God preserve me from his anger…” Then the Prophet said: “If Moses appeared to you and you followed him and left me, you would go astray from the right path and if he were alive he would have followed me.” Sunan ad-Darimi

We have seen a number of times how Sheindlin disrespects accuracy and authenticity and how he wants just about anything to be attributed to the Prophet (ﷺ). This particular attribution to the Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions/disciples is not strong of evidence and the likelihood that this incident happened is weak due to weakness in the chain of narrators. Moreover, there was no Bible in Arabic (refer footnotes for more details). Furthermore, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Relate traditions from the children of Isra’il; there is no harm. Those events that do not contradict Islamic narratives may be narrated and the Prophet (ﷺ) also said: Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them. Some narrations that are usually dismissed from the Bible due to their apparent absurdity may be true events put in there by the scribes in an ineloquent manner or in a manner that gives vibes of absurdity while some events may look to be beautiful but may be lies inserted in the Book by mischief makers. Hence, when the believers listen to these, they are neither to believe nor disbelieve and may narrate to others if they do not contradict Islam. If it sounds confusing then think about it this way: A person doesn’t know whether Robin Hood was real or just a legend and decides to read books about him. There would be nothing wrong about it and he would be reading the book for educational entertainment.

Sheindlin finds the following statement of the Prophet (ﷺ) to be narcissistic in nature:

“Doesn’t it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish’s abusing and cursing? They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhammam).” Sahih Bukhari 4:56:733

We have already seen how the Prophet (ﷺ) was far away from narcissism; this statement from him shows a positive attitude and how the years of abuse and taunts from the Quresh did not affect him and how he handled them positively. There is no pleasing people like Sheindlin; if you show them something, they argue over another and if you catch them there, they run elsewhere. If you show positive attitude far from self-loathing and depression, he cries narcissism. I would love it if he could write a book describing the perfect man and what qualities are necessary and would then love to see the emotional state of that ideal man and whether that man is positive in times of criticism or depressed and if it is positive and not a narcissist, then a reconciliation between these supposedly contradicting qualities.

Sheindlin does not understand the concept of prayer and certain etiquettes surrounding it. He says that the instruction of the Prophet (ﷺ) to stay seated until he arrives is arrogant whereas the reality is otherwise. Imam Bukhari includes this Hadith under the heading To go walking unhurriedly and includes the following Hadiths under it:

مَنِ اغْبَرَّتْ قَدَمَاهُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ حَرَّمَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى النَّارِ

Anyone whose feet are covered with dust in Allah’s cause, shall be saved by Allah from the Hell-Fire.

إِذَا أُقِيمَتِ الصَّلاَةُ فَلاَ تَأْتُوهَا تَسْعَوْنَ، وَأْتُوهَا تَمْشُونَ عَلَيْكُمُ السَّكِينَةُ، فَمَا أَدْرَكْتُمْ فَصَلُّوا، وَمَا فَاتَكُمْ فَأَتِمُّوا

If the prayer is started do not run for it but just walk for it calmly and pray whatever you get, and complete whatever is missed.

لاَ تَقُومُوا حَتَّى تَرَوْنِي، وَعَلَيْكُمُ السَّكِينَةُ

Do not stand up (for prayer) unless you see me, and observe calmness and solemnity.

The believers stand behind the prayer leader who was also the state leader during the times of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the early caliphs after him. The Prophet (ﷺ) instructed the people stay seated until the prayer leader has arrived which is when the prayer commences. If anyone sees arrogance in respect for authority, then it is their problem.

Sheindlin concludes this section with the following verse claiming that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not take responsibility for his actions and blamed it on his imaginary friend, Allah:[34]

قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعاً مِّنَ الرُّسُلِ وَمَآ أَدْرِى مَا يُفْعَلُ بِى وَلاَ بِكُمْ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلاَّ مَا يُوحَى إِلَىَّ وَمَآ أَنَاْ إِلاَّ نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ

Say, “I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.” [Q.46:9]

Even from this verse alone, we do not see anything to substantiate what Sheindlin tries to claim; however, we shall read a few verses prior to these:

وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ ءَايَـتُنَا بَيِّنَـتٍ قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لِلْحَقِّ لَمَّا جَآءَهُمْ هَـذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ – أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ إِنِ افْتَرَيْتُهُ فَلاَ تَمْلِكُونَ لِى مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئاً هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا تُفِيضُونَ فِيهِ كَفَى بِهِ شَهِيداً بَيْنِى وَبَيْنَكُمْ وَهُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ – قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعاً مِّنَ الرُّسُلِ وَمَآ أَدْرِى مَا يُفْعَلُ بِى وَلاَ بِكُمْ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلاَّ مَا يُوحَى إِلَىَّ وَمَآ أَنَاْ إِلاَّ نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ

And when My verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, “This is obvious magic.” Or do they say, “He has invented it?” Say, “If I have invented it, you will not possess for me [the power of protection] from Allah at all. He is most knowing of that in which you are involved. Sufficient is He as Witness between me and you, and He is the Forgiving the Merciful.” Say, “I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.” [Q.46:7-9]

These verses state simple facts and one of the basic points of Islam which is that the Qur’an is a revelation from God Almighty.

We have seen time and time again, and will see further below, how there is no regard for authenticity and accuracy with Sheindlin. Continuing with this policy, Sheindlin quotes an unauthentic narration as follows:

“Khadijah asked Allah’s Apostle about her children who had died in the days of ignorance. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger said: “They are in Hell Fire” and when he saw the sign of disgust on her face, he said: If you were to see their station you would hate them.” Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 117

The authenticity of the above narration is weak and hence any attack based on this narration is faulty.[35]

Messiah and God complex: If we judge a person for Messiah and God complex as per the standards laid down by Sheindlin, then every woman will say that her husband suffers from this and every child would say that their parents suffer from this. Sheindlin is good at selective quotations and, before we discuss the references he provides, it is necessary to understand a few other things, events and sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ).

The Qur’an and the Prophet (ﷺ) are very clear that Eisa (عليه السلام) would return [*] and kill the Dajjal (anti-Christ) and that the Mahdi would appear and bring justice to the world as it was filled with oppression [*][*][*]. If he had a complex, why would he honour others as saviours of the world and why would he and the Qur’an say things that prove otherwise?[36]

Salvation for those non-believers who did not receive the message of Islam or those who received it in a distorted manner is a matter discussed by Muslim scholars considerably [*][*][*]. If the Prophet (ﷺ) had any sort of Messiah complex, he would not have allowed certain people to pass to heaven without going through him. Moreover, if we study these writings, we find that some people would be tested by Allah on the Day of Judgment by obedience to Him; if the Prophet (ﷺ) had any sort of Messiah complex, he would have included his role in there whereas the fact is that Hadiths do not mention any such thing.

Messiah complex is often reported in patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and, as we have seen and as also (surprisingly) admitted by Sheindlin as well when he says: it is doubtful that he was also afflicted with ‘bipolar disorder’. The Prophet (ﷺ) had neither schizophrenia nor bipolar disorder.

Now let’s look at some of the claims of Sheindlin:

• In fact, Muhammad was so deluded of his god ‘given’ messianic entitlement, that he reaffirmed his position of saviour by saying: “(Muhammad) is the messenger of Allah and ‘Khataman Nabiyyeen’ (“the final seal of the prophets” – translated by Yusuf Ali)” Quran 33:40 – The fact is that the Qur’an repeatedly calls Eisa (عليه السلام) – Latinized to Jesus – as the Messiah (3:45, 4:171-172, 5:17 and others). Moreover, being the last Prophet has nothing to do with any complex and it is something the Biblical prophets have been prophesying. Is Sheindlin unhappy that there would be no prophet after Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)? On one hand, he mocks claimants to prophethood as false prophets and on the other hand, he wants more prophets to come. Someone has to be the last prophet before the end of the world and if the rightful one is declared so by God Almighty, then who would dare call him deluded other than anti-Christ?
• Sheindlin quotes some verses that mention that the Prophet (ﷺ) is an excellent model for the believers. Since we believe that messengers of the Almighty are the best people, they are examples for us to follow. Musa (عليه السلام) is an excellent example for us and a leader we look up to with admiration; Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is also an excellent model of conduct and his life also proves that he is the best person to have ever walked the earth and to ever come.
• Sheindlin says that the persecution in Makkah at the hands of pagans was the Prophet (ﷺ)’s fault as it was he who initiated the conflict. The message of the Prophet (ﷺ) was that of peace and love, of monotheism and education, of security and life. If some people are happy with pagan Arabs killing their daughters, indulging in excessive drinking, not maintaining hygiene, indulging in promiscuous sexual activities, then it is their problem and not that of Prophet (ﷺ) as he was not the one who initiated the conflict.
• Sheindlin claims that the Prophet (ﷺ) set himself up as a partner with Allah and that without the Prophet (ﷺ)’s intercession, Allah rejects it. The evidence he provides is Q.4:64. However, when one reads in context, there is nothing to suggest what Sheindlin claims:

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ ءَامَنُواْ بِمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُواْ إِلَى الطَّـغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُواْ أَن يَكْفُرُواْ بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَـنُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَـلاً بَعِيداً – وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْاْ إِلَى مَآ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ رَأَيْتَ الْمُنَـفِقِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنكَ صُدُوداً – فَكَيْفَ إِذَآ أَصَـبَتْهُمْ مُّصِيبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ جَآءُوكَ يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَآ إِلاَّ إِحْسَاناً وَتَوْفِيقاً – أُولَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُ اللَّهُ مَا فِى قُلُوبِهِمْ فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ وَعِظْهُمْ وَقُل لَّهُمْ فِى أَنفُسِهِمْ قَوْلاً بَلِيغاً

وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إلاَّ لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللَّهَ تَوَّاباً رَّحِيماً

Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to ‹taghūt, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray. And when it is said to them, “Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,” you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion. So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, “We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation.” Those are the ones of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching word. And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful. [Q.4:60-64] Commentary can be read here [*].

• Q.33:56 is criticized and argued that Allah prays to the Prophet (ﷺ). The verse is discussed in detail here [*]. The Muslims do not worship the Prophet (ﷺ) nor ask of him but pray for him. There is a very clear difference in praying for someone and praying to someone.

Sheindlin refutes his own allegation when he says: Even Isa (the Muslim Jesus) is subjected to more praise than the Islamic god. He argues for God complex for the Prophet (ﷺ) while also arguing that the Prophet (ﷺ) gave that status to others as well.

• It is alleged that Q.9:29 promotes polytheism as the one to forbid something should only be Allah and not ‘Allah and His Messenger’. When the Messenger forbids something, it is on the instruction of Allah as confirmed in Q.53:3-4. Moreover, we have seen that the Prophet (ﷺ) was a leader and a role model and if he prohibits something as a teacher, like parents to their children, then that also does not come under polytheism. If someone indulged in praising someone excessively and the Prophet (ﷺ) disallowed that, then that is from good manners and this prohibition is backed by Allah as well. Furthermore, the verse calls the Prophet (ﷺ), His Messenger i.e. he was the messenger from the Almighty and the Messenger conveys the message of the One who sends him. Therefore, we learn that obeying the Messenger of Allah is obeying Allah.
• Sheindlin claims that since God cannot hate, Allah and Muhammad (ﷺ) must be the same persons. This criticism is addressed in detail here [*][*][*].
• The changing of the Qibla from the sacred Mosque in Jerusalem to the Ka’abah in Makkah is also mocked and this is exactly as the Qur’an says in Q.2:142-146: The foolish among the people will say, “What has turned them away from their qiblah, which they used to face?” And I did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that I might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And if you brought to those who were given the Scripture every sign, they would not follow your qiblah. Those to whom I gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it].[37]
• In the early part of this same section, we see that Sheindlin admitted that it is doubtful that he was also afflicted with ‘bipolar disorder’. However, he goes on to state that his flock could never win due to his capricious bi-polar ordinances. When it suits him, he attacks with one allegation but when there are evidences to the contrary, he backtracks from it, but only for a time being as he repeated his backtracked allegation elsewhere perhaps thinking that readers may have forgotten it or perhaps himself forgetting what he is attacking with. This clearly shows that he neither understands anything about the disorders he is alleging with and has simply copy/pasted them from all over the internet nor does he have a coherent, planned strategy. When you throw in dozens of allegations of which more than half contradict each other and are not possible for one person to have at the same time, then your end result will be as bad as this book from Sheindlin. The rage must be extreme in this one.
• Another statement that puts the ten years of research into the gutters is this: As we have already uncovered, Muhammad had a penchant for vigilantism. This shows the extreme lack of understanding of pre-Islamic Arabia as well as understanding of the word vigilantism. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a ruthless place with little regard for law and order; inter-tribal wars were common and rampant while tribes even fought within themselves. Kidnappings, robbery and other forms of violence were also the norm. It was this difficult scenario in which the Prophet (ﷺ) came and reformed these men. As for vigilantism, vigilante killing for any reason is murder and forbidden in Islam, no matter what reason or excuse the murderer might have [*]. The Prophet (ﷺ) was the head of state and the government and hence, his decisions come under organized form of governance which was further solidified under the caliphs, specially the second caliph. The entire process took some time which is understandable.
• The allegation of Islam being anti-Semitic has been addressed several times in this book as well as outside [*] and the often repeated Islamic plans for a Jewish genocide is repeated once again whereas it has been addressed several times by the Muslims [*]. Christians have been killing Jews throughout history and their oppression against them has not been slow and gradual but very abrupt and extremely violent. It is not only that the Jews faced routine racism from the Christians but also faced several holocausts with the latest one being the most severe; in fact, it was so severe that people have almost forgotten the numerous Christian holocausts against the Jews prior to that.

As already discussed, I would request Sheindlin, or those impressed with his work, to provide a list of qualities that they feel essential in an ideal man. When they put self-esteem as one of them [*], I would love reconciliation with how it is non-contradictory to Messiah and God complex. I am sure that in that context, they would not find high self-esteem [*] problematic and would not equate it with any sort of complex.

Mocking and lying about the Prophet (ﷺ)’s description

It is common sense to ask if one does not understand something. Sheindlin is either a total fool or he is deliberate in his mischief. He mocks the physical description of the Prophet (ﷺ) based on what he misunderstood while ignoring every evidence that goes against what he misunderstood. The physical description of the Prophet (ﷺ) has been quoted below:

عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ، قَالَ سُئِلَ أَنَسُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ أَخَضَبَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَرَ مِنَ الشَّيْبِ إِلاَّ نَحْوَ سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَوْ عِشْرِينَ شَعَرَةً فِي مُقَدَّمِ لِحْيَتِهِ

It was narrated that Humaid said: “Anas b. Malik was asked: ‘Did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) dye his hair?’ He said: ‘He did not have any white hair apart from approximately seventeen or twenty hairs at the front of his beard.’” [Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 4, Book 32, Hadith 3629]

This is narrated by Anas b. Malik (رضي الله عنه) who was one of the last companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) to pass away and when he narrates it, he does so much after the passing away of the Prophet (ﷺ). Therefore, he describes the late description of the Prophet (ﷺ) who passed away at the age of 63. The following narration is from when the Prophet (ﷺ) was around the age of 50:

قال محمد بن إسحاق: وحدثني محمد بن مسلم بن شهاب الزهري، أنه أتى بني عامر بن صعصعة، فدعاهم إلى الله، وعرض عليهم نفسه، فقال رجل منهم، يقال له بيحرة بن فراس: والله لو أني أخذت هذا الفتى من قريش لأكلت به العرب

Muhammad b. Ishaq said Muhammad b. Muslim b. Shihab al-Zuhri narrated to me: He (i.e. the Prophet (ﷺ)) went to the Banu ‘Amr b. Sa’sa‘ah, and called them to Allah and offered himself to them. One of them called Bayharah b. Firas said, “By God, if I could take this boy/young man from Quraysh I could conquer all the Arabs with him.” [Tarikh al-Tabari also in Sirat Ibn Hisham]

When the Prophet (ﷺ) migrated to Madina, at the age of 53, he stopped by with his close friend and companion Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) at the place of an old woman, Umm Ma`bad. The books of Hadith and Sirah (biography of the Prophet (ﷺ)) record how she described the Prophet (ﷺ) later to her husband when he came home (i.e. their tent):

I saw a man who is clearly handsome and with a beautiful face. He is well-built. He is neither blemished by a big stomach nor did he have an unusually small head. The pupils of his eyes are very dark, the edges of his eyelids are long and the area around the pupils of his eyes is so white. His eyebrows are perfectly close. He has a very dark hair, a rather long neck and a thick beard. When he kept silent he is always contemplative and when he speaks eminence and splendour show in his words. His words are like sliding stringed pearls. He is a gifted speaker whose words are neither too few nor too much. He has the clearest words and the most audible voice when he speaks. When you look at him from afar, he is the most handsome of all people, and when you move closer to him he is the most pleasant of them. You will never be tired of looking at him. He is like a branch between two branches. He is the most handsome of the three (she means: the Prophet (ﷺ) Abu Bakr and Amir ibn Fuhayrah) and the most important of them. He has Companions who honour him. When he speaks they listen to his words and when he commands they hasten to carry out his order. They serve him and rally around him. He does not frown or nag. [Source][38]

This description further shows that even at the age of 53, the Prophet (ﷺ) looked very young, fresh, attractive, charming, and charismatic.

عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَنَسَ بْنَ مَالِكٍ، يَصِفُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ كَانَ رَبْعَةً مِنَ الْقَوْمِ، لَيْسَ بِالطَّوِيلِ وَلاَ بِالْقَصِيرِ، أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ لَيْسَ بِأَبْيَضَ أَمْهَقَ وَلاَ آدَمَ، لَيْسَ بِجَعْدٍ قَطَطٍ وَلاَ سَبْطٍ رَجِلٍ، أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ وَهْوَ ابْنُ أَرْبَعِينَ، فَلَبِثَ بِمَكَّةَ عَشْرَ سِنِينَ يُنْزَلُ عَلَيْهِ وَبِالْمَدِينَةِ عَشْرَ سِنِينَ، وَلَيْسَ فِي رَأْسِهِ وَلِحْيَتِهِ عِشْرُونَ شَعَرَةً بَيْضَاءَ‏.‏ قَالَ رَبِيعَةُ فَرَأَيْتُ شَعَرًا مِنْ شَعَرِهِ، فَإِذَا هُوَ أَحْمَرُ فَسَأَلْتُ فَقِيلَ احْمَرَّ مِنَ الطِّيبِ

Narrated Rabi`a bin Abi `Abdur-Rahman: I heard Anas bin Malik describing the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “He was of medium height amongst the people, neither tall nor short; he had a rosy color, neither absolutely white nor deep brown; his hair was neither completely curly nor quite lank. Divine Inspiration was revealed to him when he was forty years old. He stayed ten years in Mecca receiving the Divine Inspiration, and stayed in Medina for ten more years. When he expired, he had scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard.” Rabi`a said, “I saw some of his hairs and it was red. When I asked about that, I was told that it turned red because of scent.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 3547]

The Prophet (ﷺ) was neither very tall nor short; perhaps he was around 5’10 or 5’11, Allah knows.

The enemies of Islam and Muslims, out of rage, have misused a narration as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ السَّلاَمِ بْنُ أَبِي حَازِمٍ أَبُو طَالُوتَ، قَالَ شَهِدْتُ أَبَا بَرْزَةَ دَخَلَ عَلَى عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ فَحَدَّثَنِي فُلاَنٌ، سَمَّاهُ مُسْلِمٌ وَكَانَ فِي السِّمَاطِ فَلَمَّا رَآهُ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏:‏ إِنَّ مُحَمَّدِيَّكُمْ هَذَا الدَّحْدَاحُ، فَفَهِمَهَا الشَّيْخُ فَقَالَ مَا كُنْتُ أَحْسِبُ أَنِّي أَبْقَى فِي قَوْمٍ يُعَيِّرُونِي بِصُحْبَةِ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ لَهُ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ صُحْبَةَ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَكَ زَيْنٌ غَيْرُ شَيْنٍ

Abdus Salam b. Abu Hazim AbuTalut said: I saw Abu Barzah who came to visit Ubaydullah b. Ziyad. Then a man named Muslim who was there in the company mentioned it to me. When Ubaydullah saw him, he said: This Muhammadan of yours is a dwarf and fat. The old man (i.e. Abu Barzah) understood it. So he said: I don’t think that I should remain among people who criticize me for having had the company of Muhammad (ﷺ). Thereupon Ubaydullah said to him: The company of Muhammad (ﷺ) is a honour for you, not a disgrace.

Assuming that the mockery was against the Prophet (ﷺ), how does that mean that it was truthful? The person who never saw the Prophet (ﷺ) allegedly mocked his appearance while those who met him described him otherwise. This is only assuming that the understanding of the blind hater is correct, which is far from it and is more of a blunder coupled with deliberate trickery than anything else.

Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, the governor, called the companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) a Muhammadan. He used the word Muhammadeekum (the Muhammadi of yours) and not Muhammadakum (Muhammad of yours) which shows that he called him a Muhammadan.[39] This is because he was a companion of the Prophet. He mocked the companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) by calling him dwarf and fat and Abu Barzah understood it and he replied that he is being mocked for being a companion.

Islam haters of today jump with joy at this narration and go forth miles in coming up with strange and hateful analysis based on this. If they simply took some time to properly read it and understand it, things may have been different; however, that is also a very minor possibility because, as we have seen throughout the book, they are expert at lying and deception and disguising their taqiyya in the garb of research.

Another narration is misused, twisted, and misapplied to claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) was of short height. When the angel visited the Prophet (ﷺ), Khadija asked him to sit by her left thigh and then the right thigh indicating that she was sitting cross legged. Then she asked him to sit between her legs and due to this Sheindlin claims that the Prophet (ﷺ) was of a very short height that he was able to sit in her lap. This is only his faulty assumption; when one sits cross-legged, a space between the body/stomach and the feet/legs remains and even a very tall person can sit there easily. Another way one may sit is as follows – pic taken from here – and to sit between the legs with back facing the person is not a difficult task even for a giant man.

Perhaps ignorant people like Sheindlin assume that the Prophet (ﷺ) had giant sofas in his home and that sitting on her left and right and front was on her lap while she was sitting on the sofa. Even to this day, many rich Arabs have luxurious living rooms where they sit on the carpeted floor.

Mocking the fake description of the Prophet (ﷺ) is another futile attempt by the enemies of Islam. This reminds me of the following incident:

Arwâ b. Harb (also known as Um Jameel, the wife of Abu Lahab) would follow the Prophet (ﷺ) around to hurt and humiliate him and used to taunt him, “Mudhammam (the dispraised) we have denied, and his religion we have loathed, and his command we have defied (مذمم أبينا، ودينه قلينا، وأمره عصينا)!” Instead of responding to her, he (ﷺ) would simply find solace in saying to his Companions, “Don’t you see how Allah diverts from me the curses and insults of Quraysh? They insult Mudhammam, and they curse Mudhammam, while I am Muhammad (the Praised One)!” [Collected by al-Bukhâri (334)] [*]

Enemies of Islam are doing the same now; they’re mocking a made-up person who they think is a fat dwarf. I am more than certain that they know their own lie but still choose to persist.

Neither superstitions nor phobias

Under these attacks, Sheindlin shows his pro ancient Roman bias and criticizes the Prophet (ﷺ) for being hygienic and encouraging hygiene. Perhaps he appreciates the filth that was prevalent in the Roman empire [*][*][*] that he finds Islamic pro-hygiene stance to be disturbing. Perhaps he wants to go back to the old days and start rinsing his mouth with urine, sharing sponge after defecating, using blood as medicine, rubbing dead skin on face, making obscene art, and consuming goat dung among others [*]. This thought-process may have a deep subconscious hand in bulimia nervosa practiced by many today as also done by the ancient Romans [*].

The hateful book criticizes Islamic rituals and considers them superstitions and phobias.

According to Catherine Bell, professor of ritual studies and author of the preeminent textbook on the subject, ritual has been traditionally defined as an action that lacks a “practical relationship between the means one chooses to achieve certain ends.” For example, shaking hands when you meet someone can be considered a ritual as there is no real reason why grabbing another’s hand and shaking for a second or two should lead to acquaintanceship. It is a culturally-relative gesture; we might very well greet each other with a pat on the shoulder or even no physical contact at all. As another example, washing your hands to clean them is not a ritual since there exists a clear practical relationship between your action and the desired result. But if a priest splashes water on his hands to “purify” them, that’s a ritual, since the water is largely symbolic and not really meant to rid the hands of bacteria.

Rituals are often framed as activities that carry on values and behaviors that have been in place since an institution’s creation. This link to the past gives the ritual power and authority and provides the participant with a sense of continuity. The ritual may simply harken to those who came before, as when university graduates don the gowns that were once typical everyday classroom wear for scholars, or it may actually seek to recreate a founding event – as in the American celebration of Thanksgiving [*].

It is in human nature to adopt rituals and everyone does them, whether they acknowledge this fact or not. Hence, if one adopts rituals presented by the Almighty and His Messenger, whether one understands the wisdom or not, why would anyone object?[40] Our Creator knows us and our natures more than ourselves and hence, accepting what He gives is only logical.

Sheindlin comes up with some attacks as follows:

Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)

OCD patients find it close to impossible to refrain from certain habits. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave instructions that help against OCD instead of showing that he had one:

لاَ يَنْصَرِفْ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ صَوْتًا أَوْ يَجِدَ رِيحًا

One should not leave his prayer unless he hears sound or smells something. [Sahih al-Bukhari 177]

The Prophet (ﷺ) discouraged excessive washing and cleaning. He (ﷺ) also said:

قَالَ جَاءَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَسْأَلُهُ عَنِ الْوُضُوءِ فَأَرَاهُ الْوُضُوءَ ثَلاَثًا ثَلاَثًا ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏ “‏ هَكَذَا الْوُضُوءُ فَمَنْ زَادَ عَلَى هَذَا فَقَدْ أَسَاءَ وَتَعَدَّى وَظَلَمَ ‏”‏

“A Bedouin came to the Prophet (ﷺ) to ask him about Wudu’, so he showed him how to perform Wudu’, washing each part three times, then he said: ‘This is Wudu’. Whoever does more than that has done badly, done to extremes and done wrong.'” [Sunan ibn Majah 457, Sunan an-Nasa’i 141 and Masnad Ahmad 6841]

It cannot be more explicit than this. The Prophet (ﷺ) is explicitly vocal against excessive washing and giving in to tempting feelings of washing over and over again. We learn the same from the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ):

`Ubaydullah ibn Abu Yazid narrated that a man asked Ibn `Abbas: “How much water is sufficient for wudu’?” He answered, “One mudd.” The man asked, “And how much is sufficient for ghusl?” Ibn `Abbas said, “One sa`.” The man said, “That is not sufficient for me.” Ibn `Abbas said, “No! It was sufficient for someone better than you, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)”. [Ahmad, Al-Bazzar, and At-Tabarani]

We learn that not only the Prophet (ﷺ) strictly discouraged excessive usage of water and over washing and cleaning oneself, he also refrained from doing so himself.

A very silly argument presented is that pork is good for OCD patients and hence should not have been prohibited by Islam while alcohol is prohibited even though Biblical prophets drank it. Another very silly argument is that since Arabia was short of fish, the Prophet (ﷺ) must have OCD because fish helps combating it. Such links are very silly even though the Prophet (ﷺ) used to eat fish [*]. Since the silly argument is that the Prophet (ﷺ) didn’t eat fish, he would have OCD, it is refuted by the fact that he used to eat fish. The other silly argument about alcohol being consumed by Biblical prophets is a big lie on the prophets. Muslims believe that prophets and messengers of God are the best people and the lies attributed to them are blasphemous. This is one of the reasons why the Qur’an was revealed; it came to correct what the previous ones got wrong and corrupted in their books. Additionally, if one were to judge the truthfulness or otherwise of someone being a prophet, then by Biblical standards, Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) would still be a Prophet of God even if we assume everything in the hateful book against Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is true and accurate.

We believers deny all the lies attributed to all the Prophets no matter how much the disbelievers repeat them.

Compulsive washing and hygiene

If someone has the habit of washing his hands before eating a meal, would you say that he has OCD or that he washes compulsively? No, not at all! Similarly, Muslims washing their hands and arms, mouth, nose and face, head and feet before praying is also not an indication of any sort of compulsiveness in hygiene. Taking a bath after having intercourse, not necessarily immediately but before then next prayer, is also a matter of hygiene and there is nothing compulsive about it. However, Sheindlin criticizes the Prophet (ﷺ) for washing his hands twice or thrice which is absurd; one does not simply put his hands in water or under a tap; rubbing them is something which everyone does. He also criticizes the Prophet (ﷺ) for cleaning his nose while taking a bath. This is just arguing for the sake of argument. While he is at it, he lies yet again (no surprises) and says that if any Muslim intends to have repeated sexual intercourse; washing becomes obligatory after each performance. Washing only becomes obligatory before the next prayer, as already mentioned; however, the liar chose to go with his natural instinct and lied instead.

Sheindlin somehow equates using marshmallow as a shampoo with OCD [*]. This shows another side of his personality; he loves to nag and complain all the time.

Other things he constantly nags about are taking a bath of Friday, cleaning the clothes if touched by urine, cleaning the private part after urinating and I assume that Sheindlin would clean himself at least after taking a dump, and wiping over the head while making ablution and over shoes in some circumstances [*]. Yes it’s hard to believe but Sheindlin finds all these as signs of OCD. The only conclusion we can reach at is that Sheindlin loves the way ancient Romans conducted themselves in matters of hygiene.

A criticism raised is regarding the different treatment in terms of washing for the urine of an infant boy and infant girl. This has been discussed in detail by the Muslims in the past and present as well [*].

The dead being punished for poor toilet hygiene is also mocked by Sheindlin. This is dealt with here [*]. He mocks the practice of urinating sitting down again and this has been addressed in the footnotes. Since he repeats his points a lot, the camel urine is also repeated a number of times. This has been addressed under the section Biography of the Prophet (ﷺ).

Sheindlin shows once again how strong his ten year research of Islam is. He states:

Likewise, his obsessive washing of the anus was prescribed upon waking, as “the leather straps of his anus are loosened.”⁴⁰² I’ve yet to have a Muslim scholar explain this to me comprehensively, nor do I still understand what are anal “leather straps.” I digress.

If he had genuinely spent ten years researching Islam as he claims, this another absurd blooper would not have been made. The matter being discussed is that of sleep breaking ablution [*] and to clarify this, the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

وِكَاءُ السَّهِ الْعَيْنَانِ فَمَنْ نَامَ فَلْيَتَوَضَّأْ

The eyes are the leather strap/strings of the back passage, so one who sleeps should perform ablution. [Sunan Abi Dawud 203]

The word وِكَاءُ is a polite, or as we now say medical, term for the back passage and therefore, usually translated as anus as that is also a medical term used today. What the Hadith means is that just like a leather strap is attached to a horse, sleep is attached to the breaking of ablution. If you sleep, your ablution breaks and before the next prayer, it needs to be made again.

Sheindlin asks another silly question; however, since he has asked, he will be responded to:

“Dust is a purifier for a believer, if he doesn’t find water, even if it were for ten years.” Tirmidhi

So, Islamic doctrine would deduce that any shoe which has stepped on a steaming pile of dog feces can be purified by throwing more dirt on to it? Or, not washing oneself with actual water for over ‘ten years’ is conducive to exemplary hygiene standards?

The question is very stupid because the Hadith itself says that when one does not find water to purify, for the prayer, then dust may be used. It does not say nor imply that feces may be cleaned by dirt. It may happen that a believer is out on journey and runs out of water and needs to pray; in such a situation clean dust may be used and there is a way prescribed for that as well [*].

The cleanliness of the well of Buda’ah is also mocked and this has been addressed in detail as well [*]. The dipping of fly in drink is criticized and mocked and it has been addressed in detail as well [*][*][*].

Obsessive counting

If we open most of the books that have anything to do with numbers, we find patterns; for example, if we look at children’s books on counting, we see that they are taught from one to ten. What is so special about the number ten that so many authors and books see a recurring theme? Before starting a race or perhaps diving into the pool, kids and adults usually say one, two, three and then jump or run. What is so special about the number three? This is simple human psychology which almost all of mankind follows [*]. If we were to scrutinize these people and authors of these books on the principles set for us by Sheindlin, we would conclude that the entire world suffers from OCD and not just the entire world from our times, but since the beginning.

Sheindlin finds something odd with the recurring theme of the numbers three and seven. If he only looks at these numbers in his search engine, he will only find these numbers. There are plenty of other numbers and one can even find one, two, and four in large numbers as well. The number of Rakaat to be prayed for morning prayers are two, for the two afternoon prayers, it is four while for evening and night prayers it is three and four respectively [*]. The total number of compulsory prayers are five while prostration in each Raka’ are two and if you go to the search engine to look for the number six, you will find plenty of it as well [*]; in fact, if you search for the number twenty, you will find numerous instances where it is repeated [*]. If you ignore all the numbers and focus only on a few, you will surely be acting deceptive and pushing an agenda.

Sheindlin brings forth a few more examples but, as is his practice, he shows a partial side to argue forth his claim. He states that the Prophet (ﷺ) would knock thrice and greet thrice before entering (the knocking part is accurate but greeting thrice is inaccurate) and that he would repeat a sentence thrice. If you knock at a door once, it may confuse the one inside who may think of it as accidental while doing it thrice removes all uncertainty. As for repeating the sentences thrice, it was because he used to preach as well; this does not mean that he repeated thrice in routine personal discussion. Repeating something to convey the importance or so that everyone hears it properly in a large gathering is beneficial to the listeners. This is confirmed by the companion himself when he said so that the people could understand it properly from him. Moreover, the repetition of something thrice is also present in literature and narrative style sometimes known as the rule of three [*]. If other genres of communication, presentation, narration, and storytelling have a link to repetition thrice, then the teaching style of the Prophet (ﷺ), which may be new or also adopted by others, is something that makes perfect sense.

Sheindlin misunderstands or lies yet again and claims that whenever Muhammad had a visitor, he would demand that they knock on his door and ask to enter – 3 times. The source he quotes for this claim states that a person should wait till he has knocked (or in our times rang a bell) thrice and if no response is given, the person should go back [*]. This is from good manners and also teaches a person to not continuously stay outside the door of the person because that person might have his reasons for not opening the door; wait till three requests and then leave. In another narration, the Prophet (ﷺ) instructed the believers to not feel offended as well.

If we look at the instructions of caretaking and housekeeping coaching manuals, we find that they instruct the reader to knock on the door thrice and ring the bell once:

If there is no sign on the door – Knock on the door three times using your index finger or ring the doorbell. Announce your self “Housekeeping”, Wait 15 seconds… [*]

Knocking thrice is from good manners and not a mental condition. Moreover, as we have seen earlier in this same section, some numbers are just taken as special by the human psyche and these include three [*] and ten [*] as well as seven [*] among others.

Sheindlin does not stop embarrassing himself. He twists a narration and states that the ‘prophet’ also commanded his traveling companions not to take off their shoes for 3 days, and 3 nights. He says no logical reason was given. Just another one of his compulsions. This is another extremely hilarious blooper. The conditions of wiping over socks are specified and for how long it may be done for ablution which was somehow equated with not taking off shoes for three days and three nights. Here is further reading on this subject [*].

Since Sheindlin leaves no stone unturned in mocking Islam, he ridicules this Hadith without properly understanding it: He who eats 7 dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them. Detailed explanation may be read here [*].

Sheindlin ends this section of his by some gems from the Bible. I will simply quote them below (emphasis mine):

According to the Bible, God created the universe in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Biblically speaking all debts must be called off after 7 years. The Biblically even number 40 is also indicative of testing and trial. God flooded the world for 40 days and nights [*], Jesus was tempted for 40 days and nights.

Symmetrical compulsion

The Prophet (ﷺ) knocked on door thrice with his right hand; if he had any sort of OCD, he would have also knocked with his left hand to even it out. There are several more examples as such. A person with symmetry concerns is caused great distress by their obsessions; however, the examples quoted by Sheindlin are routine matters where a man was only wearing one shoe and the Prophet (ﷺ) advised him to either wear both or leave both, and where a boy had a ridiculous haircut with a part shaved and part left out and the Prophet (ﷺ) advised him to either keep it all or shave it all. Any parent seeing their child doing such things would correct them and as a child, I remember a friend wanting to get a haircut like Mr. T and his parents disallowed him to do so. Now no one would say that his parents had symmetrical compulsion.

Before addressing some of the Hadiths presented by Sheindlin, let’s take a look at some of his blatant and unfounded lies as well as gross ignorance:

• Perhaps he was bald, no-one knows for sure – This is a snide remark whereas we all know that the Prophet had a thick set of black hair which hardly turned grey [*].
• Muhammad would also forbid anyone from sleeping on their stomach – I don’t understand why anyone would find this surprising when we know that there are great harms of sleeping on the stomach [*]. Moreover, the scholars state that if there is a condition which prevents one from sleeping in any other position than on the stomach, then they may do so [*]. Such allowance is also for those who do not have a right hand to eat with the left. Sheindlin mocks all such scenarios and does not consider the possibility of alternatives being allowed by Islam.
• Likewise, he directly altered future shoe styles after compulsively commanding that all footwear must have two straps, not one – The reference cited for this claim is a narration from the companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) (Anas b. Malik) who says: The sandal of the Prophet had two straps. How is this a command to anyone? This is a statement from the disciple narrating how the sandal of the Prophet (ﷺ) looked like. This is nothing but pure dishonesty from the hateful author but no surprises. Another ‘no-surprise’ is that the claim Sheindlin tries to pull out of his backside i.e. of symmetrical compulsion, is refuted by the two straps. He knows this and hence concludes: Arguably, his preference for odd numbers was interchangeable and were (sic) subject to his irrational nature. If anything he says goes against his own claim, he concludes it with the irrational card. Such behaviour is indicative of a person that has made up his mind on a certain matter and has closed his thoughts over a broad view and when something comes up that challenges that broad view, that thing is justified in such a way that it fits into the view. What he should be doing is challenging his own broad view and put it up for scrutiny and when he does that, he will realise the blunders he has made.
• If we refer to the Sunnah, his hatred for ‘mohawks’ may have derived from a brief confrontational encounter with northern barbaric tribes (perhaps nomadic Mongol marauders), or the Roman Imperial legion, of whom adorned the infamous warrior head-dress as a part of their military uniform. – Sheindlin needs a proper dose of history of Mongols, Romans, and Arabs. If he honestly thinks that the Prophet (ﷺ) faced Mongols, then there is no cure for him.

Coming to the Hadiths Sheindlin criticizes, all of which speak of the Prophet (ﷺ)’s preference of starting something from the right side, such as getting a haircut, putting on a shoe and so on, then these are not problematic in any way. All these are things even taught in Charm Schools which we have discussed earlier as well.

As with many other of absurd claims, Sheindlin states for this one as well that this is just speculation.

Obsessions with grooming and toilet etiquette

Yes, you read that right! Sheindlin finds a well groomed man with proper toilet etiquettes to be a man with problems. Filthy creatures living in filth perhaps see clean people as strange. Perhaps this is the kind of hygiene which Sheindlin wishes to see all around him (pictures taken from here and here):

Sheindlin repeatedly equates shaving the pubes with love for pedophilia. It would be better if he kept his disgusting morals and hygiene to himself. Sheindlin, like a clown, states:

Somehow, Muhammad believed that the act of trimming one’s mustache and growing a beard would give his army a significant upper hand in battle. Perhaps the absence of a mustache would bestow upon them magical powers? Muhammad gave no explanation.

He does not cite a reference where the Prophet (ﷺ) said such a thing i.e. advantage in battle. Muhammad gave no explanation because you are good at making things out of thin air.

Sheindlin states that on one hand Islam promotes much hygiene while on the other, forbids women from removing hair from their faces. This is an incorrect understanding of the narration he cites. There were some women who were known to have and make tattoos and create some sort of eyebrows, the details of which we don’t know but it is very likely that they looked idiotic somewhat like women of today who ruin themselves by plastic surgeries. Islam does not forbid women from removing unwanted hair from the face [*].

Compulsive incantations

What is considered compulsive incantation is something I have personally seen to be appreciated by some non-Muslim colleagues. Some of them find the Muslim spirituality very impressive and find the closeness to God very motivating and even try to emulate the Muslims. Their surprise, as to how the believers love and praise God even for a glass of water, is something that many Muslims have witnessed around non-Muslims. On the other hand, we have vile creatures like Sheindlin who mock the same thing. If the likes of him choose to do so, they are free and there is nothing we can do to convince vile creatures like these.

This is another silly section and the Hadiths criticized are as follows:

إِنَّ هَذِهِ الْحُشُوشَ مُحْتَضَرَةٌ فَإِذَا أَتَى أَحَدُكُمُ الْخَلاَءَ فَلْيَقُلْ أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الْخُبُثِ وَالْخَبَائِثِ

These privies are frequented by the jinns and devils. So when anyone amongst you goes there, he should say: “I seek refuge in Allah from male and female devils. [Sunan Abi Dawud 6]

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ إِذَا خَرَجَ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ قَالَ ‏ “‏ غُفْرَانَكَ ‏”

When the Prophet (ﷺ) came out of the privy, he used to say: “Grant me Thy forgiveness.” [Sunan Abi Dawud 30]

The criticisms raised is that why the Prophet (ﷺ) sought forgiveness when the call of nature is a natural thing. One reason is mentioned by the Prophet (ﷺ) himself which is that the place was/is frequented by jinns and devils. The job of the devil is to put in whispers and seeking forgiveness from God, whether one pays heed to them or not, is from higher spiritual manners. Moreover, during the time the Prophet (ﷺ) would remain in such a place, he would not be glorifying and praising Allah; he may even have sought forgiveness for this break which is due to no fault of his and is from higher spiritual manners.

The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned some of the sinful handiwork of Satan and how we must stay away from them. Nose-bleeding, vomiting, menstruation and so on are not sinful acts to abstain from but what they do is hamper one’s prayer which is what the Prophet (ﷺ) said and the criticizer did not understand. One should ask if he does not know something instead of writing books about the things he has no clue of.

Sheindlin mocks the praising of God after sneezing when even Christians say ‘bless you’. Another set of Hadiths criticized is presented below:

“‏ لَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ آمُرَ رَجُلاً يُصَلِّي بِالنَّاسِ ثُمَّ أُخَالِفَ إِلَى رِجَالٍ يَتَخَلَّفُونَ عَنْهَا فَآمُرَ بِهِمْ فَيُحَرِّقُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بِحُزَمِ الْحَطَبِ بُيُوتَهُمْ وَلَوْ عَلِمَ أَحَدُهُمْ أَنَّهُ يَجِدُ عَظْمًا سَمِينًا لَشَهِدَهَا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ يَعْنِي صَلاَةَ الْعِشَاءِ

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) found some people absenting from certain prayers and he said: I intend that (of if I had it my way) I (would) order (a) person to lead people in prayer, and then go to the persons who do not join the (congregational prayer) and then order their houses to be burnt by the bundles of fuel. If one amongst them were to know that he would find a fat fleshy bone he would attend the night prayer. [Sahih Muslim 651 a]

لَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ آمُرَ فِتْيَانِي أَنْ يَسْتَعِدُّوا لِي بِحُزَمٍ مِنْ حَطَبٍ ثُمَّ آمُرَ رَجُلاً يُصَلِّي بِالنَّاسِ ثُمَّ تُحَرَّقُ بُيُوتٌ عَلَى مَنْ فِيهَا

I intend that (or if I had it my way) I should command my young men to gather bundles fuel for me, and then order a person to lead people in prayer, and then burn the houses with their inmates (who have not joined the congregation). [Sahih Muslim 651 c]

There are a few important things to know to understand these Hadiths properly:

• The Prophet (ﷺ) never burned anyone and prohibited burning anyone. Regarding a notorious criminal, he instructed his companions (إِنْ وَجَدْتُمْ فُلاَنًا فَاقْتُلُوهُ وَلاَ تُحْرِقُوهُ فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يُعَذِّبُ بِالنَّارِ إِلاَّ رَبُّ النَّارِ) – If you find so-and-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire [Sunan Abi Dawud 2673].
• The Prophet (ﷺ) was the ruler of Madina and he did not have anyone stopping him from burning their houses if he wished to do so.

What we learn is that the Prophet (ﷺ) neither allowed burning anyone nor burned anyone himself and if he wanted to burn the houses, he had no one stopping him from doing so. What we further learn from this is that these statements from him are somewhat similar to how we say: If I had it my way, I would beat him and when we do get the chance, we refrain from doing so. We find some people saying that if they had it their way, they would shoot the thieves but if they were genuinely made to be in the position of a ruler, they would not do such strict acts and may only attempt to get the law to be implemented with strict force.

This shows that this was a speech from the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to convey the severity of the act performed (or not performed) by the hypocrites and their leaving off the prayer was equated by the Prophet (ﷺ) as a major act that deserved severe reprimand [*]. Moreover, this statement from the Prophet (ﷺ) did not come abruptly because the hypocrites were known to be troublemakers in the past as well [*].

I would like to end this section with another gem from Sheindlin:

Despite suffering with the extreme of OCD symptoms, he did however … which is completely uncharacteristic of the condition.

Sheindlin continues his tradition of making up an allegation and when his own presented facts contradict it, just ignore them and move on claiming that the contradiction is an oddity.

Dietary compulsions and Jewelry obsessions

While mocking the Muslim dietary standards, Sheindlin mocks the Zam Zam water for being unhygienic. The false news is spread by a British paper and was debunked by the authorities in Saudi Arabia [*]. It is alarming that British newspapers have been taking extra interest in Hajj, Makkah, Madina, and Saudi Arabia for some unknown reasons [*][*][*][*][*][*] and this happens every year around the Hajj event. Since most of the news have turned out to be nothing more than propaganda, the malicious agenda of the British press is evident which is what they have been onto with Zam Zam water as well.

Continuing with the legacy of the British media, Sheindlin goes on to spill some more lies. He claims that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade:

• Eating two dates at a time – The Hadith quoted says something else.[41]
• Mixing dates with grapes – The Hadith quoted says something else.[42]
• Touching ‘water-skins’ with the lips – The Hadith states that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade the drinking of water directly from the mouth of a water skin. Is this not from good manners that you do not drink with your mouth touching the water skin when the water is to be shared by many people?
• Eating from utensils made from silver – Islam is not against being rich but forbids extravagance and if the Prophet (ﷺ) did not allow such a royal habit, then that is from the down-to-earth nature which the believers are also encouraged to adopt.
• Drinking while standing – This is something even modern day science is against [*]. The Prophet (ﷺ) would drink the Zam Zam water while standing and facing the Ka’bah while he would drink other water while sitting. This treatment was special for Zam Zam water and we do not know the reasons why. Allah knows best.
• Wearing gold rings while he wore a silver ring – The Prophet was informed that kings do not pay attention to letters that come unsealed and that he should get a ring made which may be use to seal his letters [*][*][*].

Sticky brain

Self-embarrassment from Sheindlin does not stop and another one he pulls out of thin air is that of sticky brain where an image pops into the mind which is often close to impossible to forget. For this allegation, he cites the following narration as evidence:

Narrated Anas: Aisha had a thick curtain (having pictures on it) and she screened the side of her house with it. The Prophet said to her, “Remove it from my sight, for its pictures are still coming to my mind in my prayers.” Sahih Bukhari 7:72:842

Some of the signs and symptoms of people with sticky brain are depression, excessive sorrow and worry, suppression of lively, vibrant emotions, demoralization, and negative thoughts among others [*][*]. We have seen numerous times before how the Prophet (ﷺ) was very jolly, always smiling, very optimistic and positive, and far away from depression and regret. He was dedicated and hardworking and had challenging goals and conducted himself in the best possible manner. None of his qualities fall within the sticky brain syndrome and the Hadith cited is a routine common matter. Moreover, the Prophet (ﷺ) instructed his wife to remove it from his sight because the pictures were still visible to him which continued to appear in his mind in prayer. When we look straight, we still see things on the sides and if the pictures were at a 45° angle, or even less, the picture will most certainly continue to appear in sight.

Sheindlin then goes on to present his own scientific theory which is that sticky brain is contagious. He argues that the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) also developed sticky brain syndrome and quotes one example of one Sahabi wherein he asked the Prophet (ﷺ) whether even those who had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft would enter paradise [*] if they died as pure monotheists. Upon hearing a positive answer from the Prophet (ﷺ), the Sahabi was so surprised that he asked again twice. It is very clear that the repetition of the question was due to the great surprise he felt and indeed, this surprise is valid from pious people.

Remove every context and ignore everything else, only then will you find an illness where none exists.

Sheindlin concludes this section with some more absurd comments as follows:

The life threatening bacteria contained in the Zam Zam Well … should’ve killed off the early Muslims before Sharia could ever take hold in the region.

it’s possible that not only he, but many of his predecessors within the Quraish tribe suffered with OCD.

Zamzam is not a well and if he knew just the basics about it, he would not have made such a ridiculous comment [*]. We have already seen that Sheindlin is a racist and we see this throughout his book. Here is another example where he says that the entire tribe suffered from illness. Sheindlin’s mind wanders in strange directions and in order to justify contradictions in his own thought process, he invents weird theories.

Automysophobia

For this particular allegation, the refutation is provided by Sheindlin himself. He first defines the illness:

Characterized by the obsessive fear of being dirty, the phobia is a debilitating psychological disorder which may motivate an individual to internalize irrational superstitions and perpetually perform ritualistic cleaning.

He knows that the Prophet (ﷺ) does not fit into this definition, so he concludes himself:

Although the condition is similar to Molysmophobia (fear of contamination) and Rupophobia (fear of dirt), these two disorders do not entirely apply to Muhammad … nor did he fear dirt. In fact, as we have already discovered, it was he who believed that dirt could be used to cleanse impurities.

Of course, his perspective on what exactly constituted as dirty was based entirely on his own schizophrenic interpretations, rationalization and superstitions.

Moreover, anyone in our contemporary era who suffers with Authomysophobia would also be highly disposed to also internalizing other related phobias including Coprophobia (fear of feces), Urophobia (fear or urine), or Veminophobia (fear of germs). This was neither the case with Muhammad

So basically he argues that the Prophet (ﷺ) had a phobia for uncleanliness and when he finds evidence to the contrary, he himself states that uncleanliness was based on the Prophet (ﷺ)’s understanding regarding what he found dirty and what he didn’t. Since those inspired by Sheindlin lack basic understanding skills, here is an example to make them understand better:

A clown says that Bob is scared of cats. A cat jumps into Bob’s lap so the clown replies: This is not cat, Bob has his own understanding of what a cat is and he is scared of them.

How does this sound? Ridiculous and funny, right? This is exactly how the entire book from the hate preacher sounds like.

Superstitions

Islam is the only religion that is far away from superstitions. Its stance on superstitions is strict and opposing [*][*][*][*]. However, there are some who still feel that the Prophet (ﷺ) was superstitious.

Satanic superstitions: Sheindlin begins his attacks against the Prophet (ﷺ) by quoting and attacking the following Hadith:

عن عبادة بن الصامت قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ إِنَّ أَوَّلَ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ الْقَلَمَ فَقَالَ لَهُ اكْتُبْ فَجَرَى بِمَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ إِلَى الْأَبَدِ

Verily, the first to be created by Allah was the pen. Allah told it to write, so it wrote what will exist until forever.’” [Tirmizi 3319]

Sheindlin finds it fascinating that Allah would create a meager thing as pen which would then write the destiny of everything instead of Allah while the answer is in the emphasized part itself. Among the problems encountered by Sheindlin, proper reading and comprehensions skills are two of them.

Sheindlin then mocks Burraq which has been dealt with in the footnotes. Look for (Ctrl+F) Burraq there.

Sheindlin then goes on to mock the existence of Satan saying: Of course, undoubtedly the alleged spiritual entity was either a figment of his schizophrenia or he simply created it as a ‘boogie man’ to control his ignorant flock. He says this while on the other hand, as we have seen under the subheading of obsessive counting, he stated that Jesus was tempted for 40 days and nights. In order to respond better to him and his likes, it would be appreciated it he clarifies whether he believes in Satan or not. This duplicity reminds me of the following video:

Below are the Hadiths that are specifically targeted:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْعُطَاسَ، وَيَكْرَهُ التَّثَاؤُبَ، فَإِذَا عَطَسَ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ، فَحَقٌّ عَلَى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ سَمِعَهُ أَنْ يُشَمِّتَهُ، وَأَمَّا التَّثَاوُبُ فَإِنَّمَا هُوَ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ، فَلْيَرُدَّهُ مَا اسْتَطَاعَ، فَإِذَا قَالَ هَا‏.‏ ضَحِكَ مِنْهُ الشَّيْطَانُ

Allah likes sneezing and dislikes yawning, so if someone sneezes and then praises Allah, then it is obligatory on every Muslim who heard him, to say: May Allah be merciful to you (Yar-hamuka-l-lah). But as regards yawning, it is from Satan, so one must try one’s best to stop it, if one says ‘Ha’ when yawning, Satan will laugh at him. [Sahih al-Bukhari 6223]

إِذَا تَثَاوَبَ أَحَدُكُمْ فَلْيُمْسِكْ بِيَدِهِ عَلَى فِيهِ فَإِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ يَدْخُلُ

When one of you yawns, he should keep his mouth shut with the help of his hand, for it is the devil that enters therein. [Sahih Muslim 2995 a]

قَالَ ذُكِرَ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم رَجُلٌ فَقِيلَ مَا زَالَ نَائِمًا حَتَّى أَصْبَحَ مَا قَامَ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏ “‏ بَالَ الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُذُنِهِ ‏”‏‏

A person was mentioned before the Prophet (ﷺ) and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and had not got up for the prayer. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Satan urinated in his ears.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 1144]

The matter of the devils is from the unseen and since we do not see them, there is no physical way of knowing about them; the only source of knowledge we have are the Qur’an and the statements of the Prophet (ﷺ). The Prophet (ﷺ) informed us the following:

إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ يَجْرِي مِنِ ابْنِ آدَمَ مَبْلَغَ الدَّمِ

Satan runs in the body of Adam’s son (i.e. man) as his blood circulates in it. [Sunan Abi Dawud 4719]

We know that he resides in son of Adam like blood yet we cannot see it or feel it. This does not mean that we are possessed because what this devil does is give whispers to the person. The matter of the devils is a lengthy one and I recommend some reading material to get a better understanding [*][*].

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلاَةِ أَدْبَرَ الشَّيْطَانُ وَلَهُ ضُرَاطٌ حَتَّى لاَ يَسْمَعَ التَّأْذِينَ، فَإِذَا قَضَى النِّدَاءَ أَقْبَلَ، حَتَّى إِذَا ثُوِّبَ بِالصَّلاَةِ أَدْبَرَ، حَتَّى إِذَا قَضَى التَّثْوِيبَ أَقْبَلَ حَتَّى يَخْطُرَ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَنَفْسِهِ، يَقُولُ اذْكُرْ كَذَا، اذْكُرْ كَذَا‏.‏ لِمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ يَذْكُرُ، حَتَّى يَظَلَّ الرَّجُلُ لاَ يَدْرِي كَمْ صَلَّى ‏”‏‏

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise (ضرط) during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 608]

عَنْ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ إِذَا سَمِعَ النِّدَاءَ بِالصَّلاَةِ ذَهَبَ حَتَّى يَكُونَ مَكَانَ الرَّوْحَاءِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ سُلَيْمَانُ فَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الرَّوْحَاءِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ هِيَ مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ سِتَّةٌ وَثَلاَثُونَ مِيلاً

Abu Sufyan reported it on the authority of Jabir that he had heard the Apostle of Allah say: “When Satan hears the call to prayer, he runs away to a distance like that of Rauha”. Sulaiman said: “I asked him about Rauha.” He replied, “It is at a distance of 36 miles from Medina.” [Sahih Muslim 388 a]

These Hadiths are discussed in detail here [*].

إِذَا اسْتَيْقَظَ أَحَدُكُمْ مِنْ مَنَامِهِ فَلْيَسْتَنْثِرْ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ فَإِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ يَبِيتُ عَلَى خَيَاشِيمِهِ

When any one of you awakes up from sleep and performs ablution, he must clean his nose three times, for the devil spends the night in the interior of his nose. [Sahih Muslim 238]

After quoting this Hadith, Sheindlin asks the following question:

the assertion that the devil sleeps in every Muslim’s nose each night, around the world, is entirely unscriptural, and mathematically impossible for a finite individual.

This is a question understandable from anyone that wants to know about Islam; however, for someone who has studied Islam for more than ten years, this is simply unforgivable. It does not require much to go to reliable sources on the internet and get an understanding [*] of whatever is unclear.

Sheindlin makes an absurd statement: the ‘prophet’ was compelled to superstitiously rationalize earthquakes, and predictably attributed them to Satan. The evidence he cites for this claim is the following Hadith:

نِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي شَامِنَا وَفِي يَمَنِنَا‏.‏ قَالَ قَالُوا وَفِي نَجْدِنَا قَالَ قَالَ اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي شَامِنَا وَفِي يَمَنِنَا‏.‏ قَالَ قَالُوا وَفِي نَجْدِنَا قَالَ قَالَ هُنَاكَ الزَّلاَزِلُ وَالْفِتَنُ، وَبِهَا يَطْلُعُ قَرْنُ الشَّيْطَانِ

Narrated Ibn `Umar: (The Prophet) said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen.” People said, “Our Najd as well.” The Prophet again said, “O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen.” They said again, “Our Najd as well.” On that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 1037]

The side of the head of Satan or horn of Satan as mentioned other Hadiths may either be a literal event where something may come out of the earth or it may be referring to some evil that would come from there. Some of the evil that we see that came from there is the false prophet Musaylima Kazzab and this Hadith may very well be referring to him. Even if someone understands this Hadith in another way, I fail to see how anyone could think that earthquakes are the work of Satan.

أَبْرِدُوا بِالظُّهْرِ، فَإِنَّ شِدَّةَ الْحَرِّ مِنْ فَيْحِ جَهَنَّمَ

Pray Zuhr prayer when it becomes (a bit) cooler as the severity of heat is from the raging of the Hell-fire. [Sahih al-Bukhari 538]

الْحُمَّى مِنْ فَيْحِ جَهَنَّمَ فَأَبْرِدُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ

Fever is from the heat of the (Hell) Fire; so abate fever with water. [Sahih al-Bukhari 3264]

These Hadiths are discussed in detail here [*][*].

قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏”‏ مَا مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مَوْلُودٌ إِلاَّ يَمَسُّهُ الشَّيْطَانُ حِينَ يُولَدُ، فَيَسْتَهِلُّ صَارِخًا مِنْ مَسِّ الشَّيْطَانِ، غَيْرَ مَرْيَمَ وَابْنِهَا ‏”‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ يَقُولُ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ ‏{‏وَإِنِّي أُعِيذُهَا بِكَ وَذُرِّيَّتَهَا مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ ‏}

Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (Qur’an 3.36) [Sahih al-Bukhari 3431]

This Hadith is discussed in detail here [*].

لاَ رُقْيَةَ إِلاَّ مِنْ عَيْنٍ أَوْ حُمَةٍ

No spiritual healing is to be used except for the evil eye or a scorpion sting. [Sunan Abi Dawud 3884]

Reciting the Name or the Word of Allah over an illness is allowed conditionally in Islam. However, this does not prevent a believer from utilizing medical assistance. In fact, the Prophet (ﷺ) instructed the believers to trust in Allah but also tie the camel [*]. We learn from this that when one becomes ill, he or she is to not just trust the Almighty but also do his or her part which includes consuming medicine, making effort and so on.

عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، قَالَ قَامَ فِينَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ يُعْدِي شَيْءٌ شَيْئًا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ الْبَعِيرُ الْجَرِبُ الْحَشَفَةُ نُدْبِنُهُ فَيُجْرِبُ الإِبِلَ كُلَّهَا ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ فَمَنْ أَجْرَبَ الأَوَّلَ لاَ عَدْوَى وَلاَ صَفَرَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ كُلَّ نَفْسٍ وَكَتَبَ حَيَاتَهَا وَرِزْقَهَا وَمَصَائِبَهَا

Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stood among us and said: ‘One thing does not infect another.’ So a Bedouin said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! If a camel gets mangy glands and we leave it at the resting place of camels, then all of the camels get mange?’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Who caused the first to get manage? There is no ‘Adwa nor safar. Allah created every soul, so he wrote its life, its provision, and its afflictions. [Jami al-Tirmizi, Book 32, Hadith 2293]

From this Hadith, Sheindlin develops a faulty understanding which is quoted below:

Obviously, it was inconceivable how any created organism could possess the power to create and replicate itself. This rationale is based on the belief that only Allah had the power to create life. Sadly, he failed to acknowledge how the entire animal kingdom has flourished through its own ability to create.

What he understood is nowhere to be found in the Hadith. What the Hadith speaks of is the origin and that something does not originate on its own which is true for organism which self-replicate as well; there is a first cause. This Hadith is discussed in detail here [*].

Some other snide remarks passed on by Sheindlin are as follows:

• it’s abundantly evident that Muhammad was terrified of Satan – This is a baseless comment far from reality [*].
• the ‘prophet’ continued to propagate the message that evil Satanic omens came in the form of “houses, horses… and women.” – This has been addressed earlier as well [*].
• he initially ordered that all (black dogs) were to be slaughtered throughout Arabia. – This is a deceptive statement, no surprises, discussed in detail here [*].
• strict prohibition on “bells” became policy as the he inferred that the instrument was a musical instrument of Satan. – This only requires one to look around. Even today, the satan Kali Maa is worshipped through ringing of bells [*]. There are videos on YouTube on how these beings are worshipped through the ringing of bells but I do not want to link them here.
• their master continued to propagate obviously unscientific superstitions that “black cumin” cures all diseases – this would have to include AIDS, cancer, and a long list of degenerative illnesses. – The Hadith about black cumin can be read in detail here [*].

It is then argued that the Prophet (ﷺ)’s advice was caught out by a disciple who had come for medical help:

عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلاً، أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ أَخِي يَشْتَكِي بَطْنَهُ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ اسْقِهِ عَسَلاً ‏”‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ أَتَى الثَّانِيَةَ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ اسْقِهِ عَسَلاً ‏”‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ أَتَاهُ فَقَالَ فَعَلْتُ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ صَدَقَ اللَّهُ، وَكَذَبَ بَطْنُ أَخِيكَ، اسْقِهِ عَسَلاً ‏”‏‏.‏ فَسَقَاهُ فَبَرَأَ‏

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, “My brother has some Abdominal trouble.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said to him “Let him drink honey.” The man came for the second time and the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, ‘Let him drink honey.” He came for the third time and the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Let him drink honey.” He returned again and said, “I have done that ‘ The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, “Allah has said the truth, but your brother’s `Abdomen has told a lie. Let him drink honey.” So he made him drink honey and he was cured. [Sahih al-Bukhari 5684]

It is pertinent to point out that Sheindlin narrates another narration that has only half the part as follows:

The Prophet said, Let him drink honey.” The man again (came) and said, ‘I made him drink (honey) but that made him worse.’ The Prophet said, ‘Allah has said the Truth, and the abdomen of your brother has told a lie.” Sahih Bukhari 7:71:614

This is all he had quoted of the entire situation. If he had actually spent ten years studying Islam, he would have known how the narrations are to be understood and how all of them should be taken together to understand the entire picture. Muslims have explained these Hadiths in detail [*]; yet he did not bother to read them.

Superstitious fear

I find it hard to decide which particular section of Sheindlin’s book is most absurd. This particular section is definitely right up there competing hard with other parts. Here Sheindlin claims that the Prophet (ﷺ) taught that the love of ‘material objects’ would allegedly cause “deafness and blindness. The reference cited states: Your love for a thing causes blindness and deafness. If one loves someone unconditionally, perhaps a leader, he/she become immune to their mistakes and if you prove to them the crimes of that person/leader, it falls on deaf ears. Therefore, we learn that our love for a thing causes blindness and deafness.

Another thing that the hate preacher mocks is the idea of punishment in hell for those who did not pay the obligatory charity (Zakah). This amount is necessary to be paid to those in need who may be orphans, widows, homeless, travellers, and other distraught people. If anyone finds the punishment for not helping the poor and the needy as problematic, then he needs help.

The following Hadith is also mocked:

أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَنَسًا، يَقُولُ كَانَتِ الرِّيحُ الشَّدِيدَةُ إِذَا هَبَّتْ عُرِفَ ذَلِكَ فِي وَجْهِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم

Narrated Anas: Whenever a strong wind blew, anxiety appeared on the face of the Prophet (fearing that wind might be a sign of Allah’s wrath). [Sahih al-Bukhari 1034]

Imagine living in a desert and being confronted with strong wind. Those who live in the Arabian peninsula even in developed cities, such as Dubai, Kuwait, or Jeddah among others, know that a strong wind can very easily cause massive sandstorms which are worrisome for us even in today’s time where shelter is very easy to find. If someone, without these luxuries felt concern, which showed only by the expression on the face instead of a major panic, then there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, it is also not even fear but wisdom and we see the absence of that in the recent storms in USA where many people refused to evacuate from the affected areas [*]. Does anyone call them brave? They may have their reasons for not evacuating but certainly, no one considers this act as bravery. What we learn is that the Prophet (ﷺ) was wise and brave when he would be cautious about a very strong wind blowing. Moreover, we learn from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he used to pray to Allah to seek protection from the evil of Dajjal and yet he was not afraid of him because there appeared a person whom most of the people thought was the Dajjal and the Prophet (ﷺ) went out to investigate about him, met him, argued with him and confronted him.

From all of this we learn that a concern for something is from wisdom and there is no bravery in being foolish. The Prophet (ﷺ) was both wise and brave.

Invasive superstitions

In this section, the oft-repeated lie [*] that ‘gender selection’ could be accomplished merely by achieving orgasm is repeated yet again. One should be careful in making accusations and this one is so absurd that it is refuted by common sense itself without resorting to anything from the scripture. The gender of the child and discharging first is something anyone can check and if this is really what the Prophet (ﷺ) had meant, then he would have been contradicted by the listeners, who happened to be Jews as well. This Hadith is explained in some detail here [*].

Another absurd claim made is that Islam teaches that any couple who recited “Allah willing” whilst engaging in sexual intercourse, would be guaranteed a male child. This is gross misunderstanding of the Hadith, assuming it is unintentional which is highly doubtful. The Hadith is question is discussed in detail here [*].

The absurdity of claims does not stop and another one is that the ‘prophet’ emphatically insisted that “no-one knows a child’s gender before birth. This is a misunderstanding of the Hadith which is discussed in detail here [*].

Scientific superstitions

In this section, Sheindlin does not make new claims and repeats what are responded to in detail. Without going into what he said and claimed, I provide links to the Hadiths he does not understand and concludes based on his lack of understanding. He criticizes the following:

• The Hadith of not looking up during prayer [*]
• Thunder being caused by angels [*]
• Leprosy is caused by sun-bathing on Wednesday. This narration is not authentic and a simple search over the internet would have been sufficient to know this [*]
• The sun setting in water, rising between the horns of Satan etc. This lie is repeated a lot even though it is one of the weaker attacks against Islam [*]
• The sun prostrating to God. This is one of the attacks at which enemies of Islam jump with joy; however, if they only understand it properly, they would refrain from doing so [*]
• The world rests on a great whale. This is actually a Jewish narration which a companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) stated and is not a statement of the Prophet (ﷺ) [*][*]
• The surface of the earth is a giant flat carpet. The words are of the Hadith are grossly misrepresented and details may be read here [*]
• The verse about shooting stars is criticized but there is nothing worrying in it [*]
• The Hadith of eating with seven intestines is attacked as well but there is nothing for haters to enjoy there as well [*]

Repeating a lie over and over does not turn it into truth.

Afterlife and end-time superstitions

In this section, it is argued by Sheindlin that Islam copied the idea of hoor i.e. a very beautiful person (incorrectly translated as sensual sex-slaves by the ignorant author) from Hindu-Buddhist folklore. He cites a source for this [*] but his comprehension skills betrayed him yet again. His own quoted source states:

Some of the terms or the interpretation of the significance of certain characters were changed to fit in with Islamic culture.

When did this happen? The link itself states:

The use of many Sanskrit words, especially those of religious significance declined in Javanese, after the Hindu kingdoms were replaced by Moslem ones and Arabic words were brought into the language in the 16th century.

When we read the details of these shape shifting spirits [*], which Sheindlin equates with hoors, we find that they resemble the Islamic definition of Jinn more than anything else. Moreover, these creatures are wives to another being and move from place to place and dance there while the idea of hoor is that of heavenly companions for the believers; they are not earthly women but women created in or around heaven, and for heaven. A simple comparison of hoor versus aspara shows that there are more differences than similarities.

Those who have problems accepting a material heaven must ponder over the story of Adam (عليه السلام) and his wife. If the paradise is purely a spiritual place and acts after marriage are not worthy to be performed in paradise, then why would there be a male and a female couple in paradise? Just like men and women need each other in this world, they require each other in heaven as well. It is actually the result of a sick mind that finds the idea of purified companions to be lowly and undeserving of a great place as the heaven. As stated earlier, the greatest blessing, happiness, success in the afterlife would be the pleasure of Allah (ﷻ) and the pleasures of heaven would be the side benefits. Those with sick mentality and disease in their thinking, perhaps due to the hyper sexualised culture and environment they grow up and live in, would surely find this idea of marriage in heaven to be disturbing. Another interesting thing to note is that this unnecessary criticism of theirs of the heaven indicates their deep-down guilt of the open sexual behaviour and societies they are a part of. If they truly find their lewd acts as nothing abnormal, then they should not criticize the purified concept of marriage in heaven. Perhaps, the innate guidance inside them finds their lewdness to be unnatural and their subconscious tells them it is disgusting while they don’t even think about it.

The hateful author goes on to argue that the Islamic idea of after-life is similar to the Hindu idea of reincarnation and the Hadith he cites for this claim is as follows:

أَرْوَاحُهُمْ فِي جَوْفِ طَيْرٍ خُضْرٍ لَهَا قَنَادِيلُ مُعَلَّقَةٌ بِالْعَرْشِ تَسْرَحُ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ حَيْثُ شَاءَتْ ثُمَّ تَأْوِي إِلَى تِلْكَ الْقَنَادِيلِ فَاطَّلَعَ إِلَيْهِمْ رَبُّهُمُ اطِّلاَعَةً فَقَالَ هَلْ تَشْتَهُونَ شَيْئًا قَالُوا أَىَّ شَىْءٍ نَشْتَهِي وَنَحْنُ نَسْرَحُ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ حَيْثُ شِئْنَا فَفَعَلَ ذَلِكَ بِهِمْ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ فَلَمَّا رَأَوْا أَنَّهُمْ لَنْ يُتْرَكُوا مِنْ أَنْ يُسْأَلُوا قَالُوا يَا رَبِّ نُرِيدُ أَنْ تَرُدَّ أَرْوَاحَنَا فِي أَجْسَادِنَا حَتَّى نُقْتَلَ فِي سَبِيلِكَ مَرَّةً أُخْرَى ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا رَأَى أَنْ لَيْسَ لَهُمْ حَاجَةٌ تُرِكُوا

The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven). [Sahih Muslim 1887]

From this Hadith, we learn the following:

• There is no reincarnation the way other religions understand it [*] and the life of a martyr is in another world which we cannot know of more than what has been informed to us.
• A Muslim does not seek sacrificial atonement by submitting to the enemy’s sword but seeks to fight injustice and oppression for the sake of the Creator of the heavens and the earth and if he loses his life in the process, he is pleased with it for his Rabb.
• Blood is not the key component in a Muslim’s prospect of salvation. When a Muslim loses his life for the sake of his Rabb, his Rabb rewards it abundantly.
• If there is anything in Islam that affirms the previous scriptures, then those parts from the previous scriptures are true because one of the purposes of the revelation is to correct what the previous ones changed with their hands.

Sheindlin asks a question about bad Muslims entering heaven and that they have a ‘get out of jail free card’. Anyone who has studied Islam for ten years would know the truth from fiction. There are Hadiths that mention that such and such an act would ensure paradise and these are true; however, these are general Hadiths and specific ones may force the doer of these deeds out of this category. A person that has done wrong to another will not be forgiven until the one being done wrong to forgives and hence, if the one doing wrong has a ‘get out of jail free card’, then he would not be benefitted from that general because of the specific.

Sheindlin quotes a Hadith and asks a question:

Allah’s Messenger said, “Whoever can guarantee what is between his two jaw-bones and what is between his two legs (i.e. his tongue and his private parts), I guarantee Paradise for him.” Sahih Bukhari 76:481

He asks:

And so, the question put forth to Muslim fundamentalists: How will Muslim men be able to mindlessly indulge in unbridled carnal lust without their manhood?

The Hadith is very clear, yet Sheindlin failed to understand it properly. It means that the one who can control his/her tongue (from foul speech, lies, deception, backbiting and other forbidden things) and his/her private part (by not indulging in adultery and fornication), then they are promised paradise by the permission of the Almighty.

Sheindlin argues that the bridge stated in the Qur’an and Hadith is copied from Zoroastrianism. Bridge of the Requiter in Zoroastrianism is the sifting bridge which separates the world of the living from the world of the dead. What Islam teaches is different [*]. Moreover, these Zoroastrian books post-date Islam in many of its stories and events [*] and hence to argue that Islam copied from them is incorrect when there is more possibility that these books copied from Islam similar to the Alexander legends [*][*].

Athazagoraphobia

This is an irrational fear of forgetting, being forgotten or ignored, or replaced. We have seen earlier how the Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned the return of Isa (عليه السلام) who would kill the Dajjal and how he (ﷺ) also mentioned the coming of the Mahdi who would bring the world out of injustice and tyranny, oppression, and division. If the Prophet (ﷺ) had a fear of being replaced, he would have never preached about these gentlemen.

For this allegation, Sheindlin cites the example of the Prophet (ﷺ)’s journey to heaven as a story he made up to tackle his fear of fading into insignificance. However, the truth is that when the Prophet (ﷺ) returned from the night journey, he felt shy narrating to Quraysh with concerns that they would not believe him [*]. He knew that the miracle was tremendous and such an event would not be easily believed by his enemies. However, since he was/is a Messenger of Allah, he had to convey the message which he did and Allah helped him in it.

Sheindlin provides no other evidence for his claim of athazagoraphobia.

A contradictory thing here is that Sheindlin criticizes the act of memorisation of the Qur’an as a brainwashing tactic while elsewhere he alleged that the Qur’an has been altered. These are contradictory allegations and one of the beauties of the Qur’an is that if all the copies are wiped out today, the Muslims would very easily produce exact similar copies due to the millions of Muslims who have recited the entire book by heart.

Cynophobia

Cynophobia is the anxiety disorder defined as an abnormal fear of dogs which the Prophet (ﷺ) did not have as evidenced by the fact that chapter 18^th of the Qur’an mentions a dog in positive light and the fact that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not object to keeping guard dogs [*]. Moreover, when one reads the instructions of the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding not just dogs but also other matters, they are done so in a calm and normal manner which the hate preacher makes out as if they had come in fear and repulsion.

It doesn’t require much to know that the Prophet (ﷺ) had no phobia and none of dogs; however, some attacks are made by the enemy of Muslims surrounding this. All these have been clarified in detail [*].

Sheindlin assumes that if dogs are proven as clean animals, this would disprove the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). This is a strange criterion he himself set and then goes on to prove it. It is the same as saying: If the camel is proven to be good to eat, this disproves Judaism. Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? In any case, Sheindlin does this and compares cats and dogs briefly but if he had done it properly, he wouldn’t have been so anti-cat and pro-dog [*][*][*][*] just because the Prophet (ﷺ) liked cats.

While he’s at it, Sheindlin argues that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not say anything against mice because he wanted to hide his love for cats and cats eat mice. This is absurd and the link is very silly. Secondly, the Prophet (ﷺ) did say that mice are vermin (Sunan Ibn Majah). Thirdly, when Sheindlin sees himself trapped in his own allegations, he asks a question giving an appearance of absurdity to the Hadith and runs away saying: How a pyromaniac mouse could ignite a flame is beyond my comprehension. He says this in relation to a Hadith which says that the mouse may set the house on fire over its inhabitants. I don’t understand how such a simple fact can be beyond anyone’s comprehension. In the past, people did not have electricity and would have natural fire in different forms (candles, lanterns etc.) and it is very easy for a tiny mouse to trip one over setting the house on fire while bigger animals are less riskier as they are easily visible.

Even if an animal is unclean or appears useless to us, it serves a purpose in the grand scale of things [*]. Absence of one of these would create an imbalance on the planet.

It appears that Sheindlin’s love-hate criteria is biased by his hate for the Prophet (ﷺ) and since the Prophet (ﷺ) maintained cleanliness, Sheindlin finds that problematic as well. One should not go to extremes in hate.

Attacks and wild lies against sexual life of the Prophet (ﷺ)

Sheindlin uses the science-based work of Michael Herkov, Ph.D to claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) was a sex addict. The source he quotes states:

Why some people, and not others, develop an addiction to sex is poorly understood.

Yet the author with ten years of study of Islam reached baseless conclusions from it. In any case, if we read what Herkov has to say, we find the following:

The brain tells the sex addict that having illicit sex is good the same way it tells others that food is good when they are hungry.

Just a cursory look at the life of the Prophet (ﷺ) tells us another story. The Prophet (ﷺ) was a chaste man and the best man. Much has been written about this from Muslims as well as non-Muslim sources – read more here. He remained chaste till the age of 25 when he married a lady 15 years older than himself. He remained monogamous until she passed away and he was 50 years old at the time. It was later in Madina when he married more women and reasons have been provided here. All his wives except Aisha (رضي الله عنها) were either widows or divorcees and so the allegations of lust leveled against him by biased haters do not stand. Haters come up with the most absurd wild theories claiming that the desires were locked up for so many years that after the death of his wife, the Prophet (ﷺ) felt he could act upon those desires. Such shoddy logic does not stand on its feet and when one looks at the life of the Prophet (ﷺ), he finds that he even turned down lustful offers of the tribe of Quresh when they sent them as follows:

فاختر أي نساء قريش ونزوجك عشرا وإن كان إنما بك الحاجة لك حتى تكون أغنى قريش رجلا واحدا

If you choose any woman from the Quresh, we will marry you to 10 and if you have any other need, we will satisfy it until you are the richest man from Quresh.

The full conversation between the Qureshi representative and the Prophet (ﷺ) is somewhat lengthy where they even offered to make him (ﷺ) their king if he only let go of his mission of Islam or modified it to their liking; however, only the relevant passage is quoted to prove that the Prophet (ﷺ) was not a lustful man. He turned down the offer to marry 10 of the most beautiful women of his choice. The allegations of lust leveled against him by biased haters do not stand. Any lustful man would have taken such an offer and if a person is a sex addict, his judgment being clouded by such an offer is the only probable occurrence. This proves that the allegations of sex addiction against the Prophet (ﷺ) are baseless and absurd. This incident also disproves allegations that the Prophet (ﷺ) married an older woman for her wealth and that he and his desires were trapped in the marriage because we know that the Quresh offered him not just ten of the most beautiful women but also to make him their king.

Sheindlin checkmates himself when he says:

The key indicators of sex addiction is (sic) that compulsive sexual behaviour interferes with the individuals life, and priority for the act is more important than maintaining loving relationships.

We know from the biography of the Prophet (ﷺ) that he lived a complete life where he fulfilled the roles of being the head of a state, head of a family, rights and role of being a husband, friend and what not. He had an eventful life which would not have been possible in the slightest degree if he had any sort of problem his haters allege. Moreover, a lot of these alleged problems are contradictory showing that the author did not even understand these problems himself and simply went on a Google search rampage.[43]

If one were to attribute an addiction to the Prophet (ﷺ), it would have been that of (figuratively speaking) fasting, praying, and prostrating.[44]

In order to support the absurd allegation of sex-addiction, Sheindlin misquotes some narrations. Muslims have clarified these and hence copy/pasting them here would only cover needless space [*][*][*][*][*].

What is surprising (or not!) is that Sheindlin believes that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) did not exist and if he did, then the Qur’an is not just his work but that of multiple authors; yet he accepts the context of revelation of these verses he openly spills venom against. Accepting the context shows that he lied when he doubted the existence of the Prophet (ﷺ) or that the Qur’an has multiple authors. He appears to be throwing darts in the dark hoping one would hit the right target.

As seen earlier, the Muslims are strict in determining the authenticity of narrations attributed to the Prophet (ﷺ) which the author finds strange. Hence, based upon this strangeness for accuracy, he continues to quote narrations that are deemed doubtful in authenticity. One such narration he quoted, with many missing links in the chain, is that the Prophet (ﷺ) was given, by God, a pot with cooked meat which enabled him to increase his sexual power. Such tricks may work on those who care the least about authenticity and accuracy but if the author genuinely wants to engage not just Muslims but also sane people, he is advised to maintain honesty and accuracy.

Some other major absurd allegations made by the hate-filled book are those of pedophilia[45] (refuted here, here, and here), thighing[46] (refuted here), homosexual pedophilia[47], intercourse with prepubescent girls (refuted here), adult suckling (refuted here), cross-dressing[48] (refuted here), necrophilia (refuted here, here, and here), erectile dysfunction[49] (refuted here), micropenis[50], and premature ejaculation[51].

He makes all these absurd hate-filled allegations and wild theories and concludes:

Of course this is pure speculation.

Based on pure speculation, Sheindlin decided to spill out his venom. Perhaps he knew that he would be called out for his nonsense and ridiculous theories and that those who fall for the traps he has laid out are not smart enough to differentiate between fact and fiction which is why he still decided to go with the writing and publishing of the book. The worrying thing is that the hate preacher is writing more books.[52] We pray for his mental well-being.

Attacks and lies against the revelation

In order to attack the revelation and invent lies against it, Sheindlin presents, what he calls a few of his own theories, in order to attempt to explain the revelation.

Volcanic gas inhalation

An absurd allegation is made based on the absurd claim that the mountain in which the Prophet (ﷺ) went to meditate, Jabal al-Nour, is officially classified as a volcanic structure. No supporting evidence is provided for this claim. It may be a genuine misconception from the author and he may have confused the dried volcanic ash in Madina [*], where the Prophet (ﷺ) went to more than a decade later, with the mountain in Makkah. Perhaps the fact that Jabal al-Nour means the mountain of light got the ignorant writer to think that the light may be referring to a volcano. Since this is where revelation began, the mountain was given the title “Jabal-al-Nour”. “Jabal” in Arabic means mountain and “Nour” or “Noor” means light or enlightenment.

Moreover, a hallucinated man cannot produce a literary masterpiece [*][*][*].

Seclusion not sensory deprivation

Sensory deprivation is something drastically different to what the Prophet (ﷺ) exercised; he went to a cave to meditate in isolation which is very different from deliberately reducing or removing stimuli of one or more of the senses (sensory deprivation). Many people go out for walks in very early hours to enjoy the peace and quiet and to feel the nature, the weather, the chirping of birds and so on. If one reads about the things that most successful people do, he learns that isolating oneself for a time is one of them. If seclusion was the same as sensory deprivation, then a lot of priests and monks would be insane.

Sheindlin feels that it’s fair to assume that during his stay in the cavern, the area would have been shut out from all stimuli, including light and sound; however, the reality is far from this. The mountain even exists now and the cave above can be seen from the ground below. How is one to assume that no light reaches it or that it may function as a sensory deprivation tank devoid of light and sound?

Starvation and dehydration

We saw earlier how Sheindlin engages in a hit and run practice over and over. He does that again but this time, builds on that faulty base. He believes that Ramadan and fasting in it were pagan festivals whereas the truth is that the practice predates the pagans [*].The author quotes Rafat Amari, who is a known fabricator and a liar [*], to make the claim that Ramadan was a pre-Islamic pagan festival where the pagans fasted for the entire month. A lot of the Abrahamic traditions were corrupted by the pagans [*][*][*] and Islam corrected them, threw out the faulty ones, brought back the left out ones and reformed and rectified the entire process. Additionally, we know that many prophets from Israel also fasted [*]. Moreover, the pagans never fasted continuously for a month and were known to occasionally fast here and there but their fasting was drastically different just like how we see other religions fast occasionally today while it differs from the Muslims. Some fast intermittently while others do so only from some types of foods while others abstain from food but do not find drinking water or other liquids to be problematic.

There is no indication that the Prophet (ﷺ) fasted in Ramadan prior to Islam. Moreover, we know that when the first revelation came to him, he was not fasting:

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أُمِّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ أَوَّلُ مَا بُدِئَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنَ الْوَحْىِ الرُّؤْيَا الصَّالِحَةُ فِي النَّوْمِ، فَكَانَ لاَ يَرَى رُؤْيَا إِلاَّ جَاءَتْ مِثْلَ فَلَقِ الصُّبْحِ، ثُمَّ حُبِّبَ إِلَيْهِ الْخَلاَءُ، وَكَانَ يَخْلُو بِغَارِ حِرَاءٍ فَيَتَحَنَّثُ فِيهِ ـ وَهُوَ التَّعَبُّدُ ـ اللَّيَالِيَ ذَوَاتِ الْعَدَدِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَنْزِعَ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ، وَيَتَزَوَّدُ لِذَلِكَ، ثُمَّ يَرْجِعُ إِلَى خَدِيجَةَ، فَيَتَزَوَّدُ لِمِثْلِهَا، حَتَّى جَاءَهُ الْحَقُّ وَهُوَ فِي غَارِ حِرَاءٍ

Narrated ‘Aisha: The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. [Sahih al-Bukhari 3][53]

Moreover, we see from the Prophet (ﷺ) that it is discouraged to fast while travelling and things become difficult. Jâbir relates [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1946) and Sahîh Muslim (1115)]: We were with the Prophet (ﷺ) on a journey when he saw a crowd of people surrounding a man and providing him with shade. He said: “What is this?” They said to him: “He is a fasting person.” So the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “It is not part of righteousness to fast while on a journey.” Anas relates [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (2890) / Sahîh Muslim (1119)]: We were on a journey. Some of us were fasting and others of us were not. The people who were not fasting were the ones to give water to the riding animals and erect the tents. Therefore, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Those who did not fast today took the blessings.”

This absurd theory is also busted.

The absurdity of hashish abuse hypothesis

Sheindlin admits some essential points when he writes the following:

There isn’t much detailed historical information regarding the consumption of hashish during the pre-Islamic era.

Whether cannabis consumption in ancient Arabia was widely prevalent is debatable

Based on what he knows is neither accurate nor convincing, the hateful preacher builds upon his case. He admits his claim to be an outlandish proposition but still goes on to claim the following:

hashish consumption was employed by early Islamic leaders to manipulate prospective Jihadist martyrs; most notably Islamic sect founder Hasan ibn-al-Sabbah who found great benefit in prescribing the substance to psyche up his personal assassins.

It is worthy to note that the early Islamic leader mentioned by Sheindlin actually died in 1124 CE, more than 550 years after the Prophet (ﷺ) was born. Moreover, Sheindlin contradicts himself in the quoted passage. On one hand, he calls them Jihadist martyrs and on the other, he calls them the personal assassins of Hassan b. al-Sabbah. Were they Islamic or were they personal servants of the assassin leader? Before Sheindlin or a fan of his tries to attempt a reconciliation, they should learn more about the man and his mission [*] which was neither Islamic nor pro-Muslim; in fact, he fought against the Muslims.

Another vile and baseless allegation is quoted as follows:

‘… it would’ve been highly probable that he inhaled or consumed the psychotropic substance (perhaps through passive second-hand exposure) whilst circumambulating the Ka’aba, and especially during the month of Ramadan’.

Not only is this statement based on purely wild and baseless conjecture but also depicts total lack of understanding of Islamic ruling on intoxicants and substances. Not only is hashish forbidden in Islam [*], it, along with any kind of smoke, is especially forbidden in Ramadan [*][*][*][*].

‘Sheindlin may have been drunk and on crack when he wrote this piece’ is a much more plausible hypothesis than any hypothesis he invents out of thin air.

Prayer mark on forehead

In his hate, Sheindlin does not leave anything aside. He attacks Islam and Muslims with all his might. He even alleges that the mark of prayer on forehead of some Muslims is achieved by fervently hitting their head on the ground whilst praying towards Mecca, five times a day. I have yet to see a Muslim who fervently hits his or her head on the ground while praying. Perhaps he confused the Muslims with the Jews on the wailing wall swinging back and forth; however, even they do not fervently hit their heads on the wall. I am not sure where this idea came from.

Prostration may leave a mark on the forehead if done so on hard surface repeatedly. Many mosques in some countries have a hard marble floor while some are carpeted. If one continues to pray on the hard surface without fervently hitting his head, he may still develop a mark on the forehead. Prophets in the Old and New Testament prayed while bowing their heads on the ground (Genesis 17:3, 17, Exodus 34:8, Numbers 16:20-22, Joshua 5:14, Ezekiel 9:8, 2 Chronicles 20:18, Ezekiel 11:13, Matthew 17:6, Matthew 26:39 and many others). There is nothing pagan about prostration. However, in all the physical descriptions of the Prophet (ﷺ), we do not find prayer mark on the forehead to be one of them.

If anyone can show me where the head-smacking takes places, I would greatly appreciate it:

Sheindlin concludes this allegation of his with these words:

Understandably, it may be a stretch to infer that Muhammad did suffer with some form of brain trauma stemming from his religious obligations.

Since his own arguments are weak and faulty, he should have refrained from writing them in the first place.

Falling lower than expected

We have already seen numerous times that Sheindlin is a victim of a lying, hateful, angry, and disturbed mind. Here he portrays that yet again when he argues that the Prophet (ﷺ) had a sexually transmitted disease. He provides no evidence for that but it appears that he wants to take a jab at Muslims today where some people indulge in Bacha Bazi.[54]

Some of the symptoms of syphilis are lesions in places other than the genitals[55], skin rashes, sores in the mouth, rough, red, or reddish brown spots on the palms of hands and/or the bottoms of feet, fever, swollen lymph glands, sore throat, patchy hair loss, headaches, weight loss, muscle aches, and fatigue [*].

These signs are so apparent that it would have been very easy for someone to see and report. The description of the Prophet (ﷺ) is that of a healthy, charismatic, and attractive man who looked young even well past the age of 50. Moreover, he had a full set of hair and there were hardly any white hair in his hair and beard. References for the description of the Prophet (ﷺ) have been provided above.

Sheindlin tries to portray the Makkan environment to be such that everyone engaged in promiscuous sexual acts. He argues, wrongly, that those who attended the Ka’aba for religious obligation would run around the edifice seven times, whilst naked. It is true that there were some who worshiped naked; however, to say that all Arabs worshiped naked would be a lie. The naked culture was something similar to the Hindu Sadhus of today; while they do roam around naked, for one to say that all Hindus are nudist would be wrong.

Another absurd claim by Sheindlin states: If the Meccans sacrificed their firstborns to Hubal, then surely they engaged in orgies to venerate Dionysus. The Makkans were not known to sacrifice their firstborns.[56] Perhaps this idea came to him from the Bible. A number of atheists are subconsciously of the idea that if you hate Christianity, you would surely hate Islam. This is because they have not even tried to understand Islam; they assume it would be the same as Christianity and based on this faulty understanding, usually attack the Muslims with faulty arguments – I have myself heard atheists mocking the Muslims for believing in a 6,000 year old earth whereas this idea is purely Biblical and has nothing to do with Islam.

Sheindlin, the deceiver, argues that the disease came to the Prophet (ﷺ) when he reached his 40s after which his children passed away. However, his argument is very faulty because he argues the following:

• The disease came to him in his 40s
• His children passed away when he was in 40s due to his illness which they inherited
• His daughters survived because they were born before he was 40
• His sons passed away before he was 40 because … well… let’s blame this on the mother’s old age.

Yes, this is true. When he contradicts his own reasoning, throw the blame elsewhere. Wasn’t his wife above 40 when she gave birth to all his children? There are deliberate and forced connections being made where none exist.

Another forced connection made is that of the cause of death of the Prophet (ﷺ) where Sheindlin argues that Syphilis damages internal organs and the Prophet (ﷺ) is reported to have said that he felt his aorta is being cut. When one ignores everything surrounding the passing away of the Prophet (ﷺ), then such an assumption may sound convincing. However, the many days the Prophet (ﷺ) remained ill had altogether different symptoms with high fever one of them, and medical experts today say that those conditions show the cause of passing away to be flu of some sort.

Why didn’t the other wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) have children?

The Prophet (ﷺ) did not leave behind inheritance in the form of property or dynasty for his family. So much took place and continues to take place among the Muslims even with the fact that he did not have sons, imagine if he had sons; the claims to be descended from them and have the right to the throne would have been excessive. There was divine wisdom behind the Prophet (ﷺ) to be survived by only one daughter. Moreover, the Qur’an states:

مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍ مّن رِّجَالِكُمْ

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men [Q.33:40]

This verse was revealed just before he married Zainab bint. Jahsh i.e. around five years before he passed away. The Prophet (ﷺ) had a son, Ibrahim, born to him at least a year later. This verse is not just a statement but also a prophecy that he would not leave behind sons.[57]

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، قُلْتُ لاِبْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ مَاتَ صَغِيرًا، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَبِيٌّ عَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ‏

Narrated Isma`il: I asked Abi `Aufa, “Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet (ﷺ) ?” He said, “Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 6194][58]

Conclusion

The hate preacher presents a case against the Prophet (ﷺ) acting immature, living in his make believe world. We know that he suffered abuse in his childhood, suffers from alcoholism, severe rage, and lack of basic comprehension skills among other ills.

From the drama that he creates near the end of his hate rampage is yet another funny snippet:

I challenge both the defense team and jury to cross-reference the submitted evidence, especially the included Hadith texts, for which I will include on the basis that Sunni Islam is the majority sect (Shia Islam rejects these traditions). Likewise, though the Tafsir is a collection of ‘commentaries’, I will still submit its testimony on the grounds that the original authors are regarded as ‘Ismah’ (sinless); without religious error or blemish.

Sheindlin admits that there is difference between Sunnis and Shias and that he bases his testimony of the original authors who are ismah. A simple Wikipedia search would have again saved him from such embarrassments [*]. However, it may point to another disturbing fact of his life which we discussed earlier under the heading The salvation question. We established that Sheindlin may have been a victim of abuse as a kid and may have been mocked by those who abused him which eventually damaged him so much that he started enjoying the mocking and ridicule from others. This condition may be the cause why Sheindlin continues to throw out such humorous blunders.

The people have made their mind, Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion and thousands of Westerners are embracing it every year and this is the reality no matter how much his ilk hate it.

One should not go to extremes in hate. There is a saying that goes like this:

Fulfill enmity in such a way that when we become friends, we don’t feel embarrassed.

Indeed, Allah knows best.

References and footnotes:

[1] If the author was told that 9/11 was an inside job [*][*][*], he might even die because the severity of his trauma is so intense that his brain has developed a mechanism where it filters out things it cannot cope up with and displays it in irrational ways.

[2] Psychological trauma is a type of damage to the mind that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event. Trauma is often the result of an overwhelming amount of stress that exceeds one’s ability to cope, or integrate the emotions involved with that experience. A traumatic event involves one’s experience, or repeating events of being overwhelmed that can be precipitated in weeks, years, or even decades as the person struggles to cope with the immediate circumstances, eventually leading to serious, long-term negative consequences.

However, trauma differs between individuals, according to their subjective experiences. People will react to similar events differently. In other words, not all people who experience a potentially traumatic event will actually become psychologically traumatized.

After a traumatic experience, a person may re-experience the trauma mentally and physically, hence avoiding trauma reminders, also called triggers, as this can be uncomfortable and even painful. They may turn to psychoactive substances including alcohol to try to escape the feelings. Re-experiencing symptoms are a sign that the body and mind are actively struggling to cope with the traumatic experience.

Triggers and cues act as reminders of the trauma, and can cause anxiety and other associated emotions. Often the person can be completely unaware of what these triggers are. In many cases this may lead a person suffering from traumatic disorders to engage in disruptive or self-destructive coping mechanisms, often without being fully aware of the nature or causes of their own actions. Panic attacks are an example of a psychosomatic response to such emotional triggers.

Consequently, intense feelings of anger may frequently surface, sometimes in inappropriate or unexpected situations, as danger may always seem to be present, as much as it is actually present and experienced from past events. Upsetting memories such as images, thoughts, or flashbacks may haunt the person, and nightmares may be frequent. Insomnia may occur as lurking fears and insecurity keep the person vigilant and on the lookout for danger, both day and night.

The person may not remember what actually happened, while emotions experienced during the trauma may be re-experienced without the person understanding why (see Repressed memory). This can lead to the traumatic events being constantly experienced as if they were happening in the present, preventing the subject from gaining perspective on the experience. This can produce a pattern of prolonged periods of acute arousal punctuated by periods of physical and mental exhaustion. This can lead to mental health disorders like acute stress and anxiety disorder, traumatic grief, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, conversion disorders, brief psychotic disorder, borderline personality disorder, adjustment disorder…etc.

In time, emotional exhaustion may set in, leading to distraction, and clear thinking may be difficult or impossible. Emotional detachment, as well as dissociation or “numbing out”, can frequently occur. Dissociating from the painful emotion includes numbing all emotion, and the person may seem emotionally flat, preoccupied, distant, or cold. Dissociation includes depersonalisation disorder, dissociative amnesia, dissociative fugue, dissociative identity disorder, etc.

Some traumatized people may feel permanently damaged when trauma symptoms do not go away and they do not believe their situation will improve. This can lead to feelings of despair, transient paranoid ideation, loss of self-esteem, profound emptiness, suicidality, and frequently depression. [Source]

[3] Top 10 Countries With Highest Rape Crime | Gun violence in the United States | Crime in the United Kingdom | Crime and criminal justice statistics | The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Acid attacks in the UK

The West contradicts the idea of free speech. Laws against Holocaust denial: Holocaust was a tragic incident and those who say never again are right in saying so. Denying it is insulting not just to the survivors but also to the victims of genocide anywhere. However, what is pointed out as hypocrisy is that there is selective outrage by some. The purpose of these links is not to attack the West; the entire world has problems with crime and ideally, the world should unite against crime. Human life is not cheap and a crime in one place is a crime everywhere. World governments and militaries should unite against criminals. These crime statistics have been presented to better understand the mentality of Sheindlin and those who are impressed with his work.

[4] Such a trauma is visible throughout the book. It would be better if JK Sheindlin reveals his real identity so that people could give him the help he desperately needs. While some of his illnesses may not have a medical cure as of yet, others can be reduced if specialist assistance is obtained. It will be costly to treat so many illnesses and diseases but I am willing to start a GoFundMe campaign if he contacts me in private.

[5] 15 February 2003 anti-war protests | ‘We were ignored’: anti-war protesters remember the Iraq war marches | Iraq war 10 years on: mass protest that defined a generation

[6] A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought. The concept is part of classical psychoanalysis. Classical examples of parapraxes involve slips of the tongue and of the pen.

[7] Such statements from a racist are understandable but the troubling part is that such people have many secret followers and admirers. This raises concerns that the news items such as these may not be just desires of theirs but actual plans they may be working on:

US military taught future leaders ‘total war’ against Islam: Report | America’s ‘total war’ on Islam | Europe Preparing Holocaust for Muslims | ‘It’s gonna end with concentration camps’ | Christians in U.S. Military ‘serve Satan’ if they tolerate other religions, Air Force Chaplain says

[8] Are the monkeys and pigs that exist nowadays humans who have been transformed?

[9] Read Apes and the Sabbath Problem by Reuven Firestone, Become you apes, repelled!” (Quran 7:166): The transformation of the Israelites into apes and its biblical and midrashic background by Uri Rubin, and Ibn Qutayba and the Monkeys by Michael Cook.

[10] Is taqiyya Islamic?

Taqiyya is a shia concept which is up to them to defend and I will not go into that. Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was asked, ‘Can the believer be a coward?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He was asked, ‘Can the believer be a miser?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He was asked, ‘Can the believer be a liar?’ He said, ‘No.’ ” [Muwatta Malik 56:1832].

As we have seen Sheindlin loves Wikipedia; if he had utilised it properly, he would have read the following:

Protecting one’s belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called idtirar (إضطرار), which translates to “being forced” or “being coerced”, and this word is not specific to concealing the faith; for example, under the jurisprudence of idtirar one is allowed to consume prohibited food to avoid starving to death. Additionally, denying one’s faith under duress is “only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory”. Al-Tabari comments on sura XVI, verse 106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122): “If anyone is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe.” This verse was recorded after Ammar Yasir was forced by the idolaters of Mecca to recant his faith and denounce the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Al-Tabari explains that concealing one’s faith is only justified if the person is in mortal danger, and even then martyrdom is considered a noble alternative. If threatened, it would be preferable for a Muslim to migrate to a more peaceful place where a person may practice their faith openly, “since God’s earth is wide.”

[11] Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was da’if (weak) or even mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them. Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me (Introduction to Tareekh al-Tabari, vol. 1).

[12] Burraq is not an earthly animal. In fact, such a creature is not even that difficult to imagine even with our limited physics. If we cannot even think of a new colour by ourselves, how can we think that our physics is the only possibility? Can one imagine two right sides to a thing? No. Physics (and other sciences) beyond this world are not even comprehensible to us and so mocking something we (humanity) have not reached, and may never reach, is not only unwise but also arrogant.

[13] Temporary marriage was something that existed prior to Islam [*]. Islam banned it altogether and if anyone indulges in it now, it is considered adultery/fornication [*].

[14] The Romans were/are referred to as bani Asfar (descendants of yellow) by Arabs.

[15] There were a few Arabs who had never worshiped idols while there were some who used to but had left it later in their life. Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) had never committed polytheism:

  هشام بن عروة عن أبيه قال: حدثني جار لخديجة أنه سمع النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – وهو يقول لخديجة : ( أي خديجة والله لا أعبد اللات والعزى ، والله لا أعبد أبدا

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Khadija, by God, I never worshipped al-Lat and al-Uzza and by God, I never worshipped them. [Musnad Ahmad 17595]

It is not a surprise that even today we find many Christians who do not worship Jesus and in times of distress, do not call out to him for help but call out to God. We find stories of many Christian converts to Islam stating that they never found the Trinity or the worship of Jesus to be correct and that when they learnt of Islam, they recognized it as something very natural to them.

[16] “Muḥammad.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

For scholars that do not accept the historicity, see:

• “Kuran”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd Edition, Vol. 5 (1986), p. 404
• “Muḥammad,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs et al.

[17] Islamic fasting prophesied in the Bible

[18] From Q.2:76, we learn that there was no Bible in Arabic and the source of Arabs learning it was the Jews. Moreover, even the Hebrew Bible was not very widespread and not every Jew had a copy; only the learned elders would have a copy of the scripture and other Jews would learn about things in it from their leaders/elders. This is because there were some Arabs who knew Hebrew yet did not know about their faith more than what the Jews orally told them. The Qur’an confirms this in other instances as well (2:78, 5:41, 9:31 etc.). A small number of total Bible copies (perhaps a few dozen at most) to be changed later on is not something hard to believe and does not require one to believe in a mega conspiracy no one knew about. Theirs was a distorted view of God and they believed that the truth of Islam required approval from Torah and if there is none there, then Islam and Muslims would have no proof. This could be due to the fact that the scripture given to them was termed as ‘the distinction’ (Qur’an 2:53) and hence they felt the need to alter the distinction/deciding factor. This is a very modern lawyer-like approach of twisting around; it is also being foolishly over-literal where it is not required and not appropriate. This approach of strictly adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit is condemned by the Qur’an.

Assuming that Allah (ﷻ) is bound by such laws is thinking low of Allah (ﷻ) and is a blasphemy; changing the criteria and assuming Allah (ﷻ) has to judge by that, no matter what, is actually fooling oneself only.

Their hiding the truth was an unorganized crime and they were confused as to how to approach Islam and Muslims and how to get away with disbelieving in it. This unorganized approach led to contradictory reactions from them where some of them shared their scriptural details while some ordered to keep it hidden. We learn here that engaging others in dialogue brings out a lot of benefits and such an act is encouraged and recommended but only for those with knowledge; they did not have the truth with them and ended up contradicting themselves.

[19] There are several examples of the Qur’an differing from the Bible and correcting it along the way [*][*]. This is one of the purposes of the Qur’an i.e. to correct what the Bible got wrong due to the mischievous or incompetent scribes, translators and others. One such example is that of Haman; the Qur’an calls him a close aide of Pharaoh whereas the Bible considers him to be a Babylonian. The accounts differ and if one is biased, he would go with the Biblical narrative for being earlier. However, when one reads the details, it becomes clear that the Qur’an corrects the Bible [*].

[20] This may apparently seem to contradict the following Hadith narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:

“They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands (lahunna azwaj). They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed: ‘ And women already married except those whom you right hands posses.’ (iv. 24)” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3433)

But this narration only says they had their husbands, it does not say whether they were also taken as captives or not. However, the narration in Jami’ al-Tirmidhi shows they were not taken as captives. It reads:

“On the day of Awtas (the Battle) we got some women captives who had their husbands among their people (azwaj fi qawmihinna).” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1135, Translation by Rafique Abdur Rehman, Darul Ishat, Karachi, 2007, vol.1 p.477)

This proves their husbands were not taken as captives along with them, therefore their marriage was considered void then.

This is further supported by the following narration given by Al-Jassas (d. 370 A.H.);

Muhammad bin ‘Ali narrated: “When it was the day Awtas, the (disbeliever) men fled to the mountains and their women were taken as captives.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1994 vol.2 p.173)

For further discussion on the point see, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, vol.1 p.83-87 [*]

[21] Tārīkh Dimashq 23282. Al-Mawardi said, “The Prophet (ﷺ) made it a day of mercy and he rejected that it would be a day of slaughter. Thus, it shows that it was reconciliation without violence.” [al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr 14/28]

[22] Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

[23] Another hit and run case witnessed here is that of the preservation of Qur’an. Sheindlin states:

The veracity and authenticity of the Quran remains dubious considering that the text has been subjected to a variety of archival discrepancies and mishandling. … quantities of the Quran were eaten by “goat.”

Islam’s assertion that the text has remained uncorrupted is fallacious. Years after Muhammad’s death, the Caliph Uthman unapologetically commanded the Ummah to destroy the original texts, citing that the book and its message had indeed been corrupted. Uthman had all original copies of the Quran burnt. Nonetheless, the carefully revised version of the Quran as we know it today is the brainchild of said Caliph.

The proper Islamic way of disposing religious text or sacred paper is either to bury it, burn it, or drown it. Tearing the papers and throwing them in garbage shows lack of respect. The caliph Uthman burned the many copies and sent out the compiled ones; this was because in scattered copies, people made notes alongside the verses and it would have been very easy for them to confuse the revelation with personal notes. Hence, when the compilation was centralized, the risk of varying copies was eliminated. Read more here [*][*][*][*]. There is much more which is addressed throughout the book.

[24] Sheindlin claims that Islamic laws were so anti-women that even Aisha cried out against it. He states:

Disgusted by the growing brutality encouraged by her husband, Aisha herself said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

If you were to believe what he wrote without rechecking the sources, you would not only be an idiot but would also fall victim to hate. Here is the reference in full and see the deceit of Sheindlin:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”

This was a case of a dispute between a couple where the woman wanted to return to her ex-husband, blamed the current husband for a thing he was not blameworthy of, who got angry because of that and slapped her. This is nothing to do with Islam encouraging such behaviour. Moreover, we see that Aisha said: It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. She lent her support to the believing woman by highlighting the plight and not that women were oppressed by Islam.

[25] Q.24:11 states as follows:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ جَآءُوا بِالإِفْكِ عُصْبَةٌ مِّنْكُمْ لاَ تَحْسَبُوهُ شَرّاً لَّكُمْ بَلْ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ لِكُلِّ امْرِىءٍ مِّنْهُمْ مَّا اكْتَسَبَ مِنَ الإِثْمِ وَالَّذِى تَوَلَّى كِبْرَهُ مِنْهُمْ لَهُ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof – for him is a great punishment.

The next ten Ayat were all revealed concerning `A’ishah, the mother of the believers, may Allah be pleased with her, when the people of slander and falsehood among the hypocrites made their accusations against her and spread lies about her. Allah revealed her innocence to protect the honor of the Messenger of Allah. Read more here [*]

[26] Q.24:6, with some follow-up verses, is presented below:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ أَزْوَجَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَّهُمْ شُهَدَآءُ إِلاَّ أَنفُسُهُمْ فَشَهَـدَةُ أَحَدِهِمْ أَرْبَعُ شَهَـدَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّـدِقِينَ – وَالْخَامِسَةُ أَنَّ لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِن كَانَ مِنَ الْكَـذِبِينَ – وَيَدْرَؤُاْ عَنْهَا الْعَذَابَ أَن تَشْهَدَ أَرْبَعَ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الْكَـذِبِينَ – وَالْخَامِسَةَ أَنَّ غَضَبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَآ إِن كَانَ مِنَ الصَّـدِقِينَ – وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ حَكِيمٌ

And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy…and because Allah is Accepting of repentance and Wise.

Read details in Tafsir here [*].

[27] A Filipino lady colleague asked me what my wife does and when I told her that she is a house-wife, she shouted out loud ‘Wow! So lucky’. Different women have different ideas about work and family and most of them to day prefer the Islamic idea even with the onslaught of western feminism.

[28] The Hanbali scholar Al-Hajjaawi wrote, “It is recommended to take only one (wife).” [Zaad Al-Mustaqni’]. Ibn Qudaamah from the Hanbali School of jurisprudence, said in Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer: “It is more appropriate to marry only one wife. Ash-Shirbeeni from the Shaafi’i School of jurisprudence, said in Mughni Al-Muhtaaj: “It is a Sunnah not to marry more than one wife if there is no apparent need.”

[29] The sort of deceit practiced by Sheindlin would put Jesus, as described in the gospels, in a much worse position if the same criterion is used to judge him. Jesus is reported in Matthew 10:34 to have said: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. If Sheindlin had as much hate for Jesus, of the gospels, as he has for the Prophet (ﷺ), he would have attributed much more deaths to him and that figure would have far exceeded 270,000,000. Perhaps he might have argued that Jesus, of the gospels, is responsible for the deaths of 2,700,000,000 people as the Christians took inspiration from his words and took the sword and killed indiscriminately.

What is the reliability of this 270 Million figure? None [*].

[30] The haters of the Prophet (ﷺ) allege that he promoted the killing of women and children; however, this is yet another blatant lie and is addressed here [*].

[31] Abu Ma’mar reported that Miqdad said: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us that we should throw dust upon the faces of those who shower too much praise [Sahih Muslim 7142]. Hammam b. al-Harith reported that Miqdad said: Verily, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: When you see those who shower (undue) praise, throw dust upon their faces [Sahih Muslim 7143].

[32] Some people criticize the sending of Durood on the Prophet (ﷺ); however, this only shows his humbleness as one is not supposed to go and say good words in front of him. If someone sends greetings to him, he (ﷺ) said: your greetings are raised to me wherever you might be. The angels convey the greetings to him in the form of life we do not know about.

[33] While not required for this allegation of narcissism, Sheindlin still tries to deceive the readers that the Prophet (ﷺ) lied about his ethnicity and that he is not an Ishmaelite; however, the truth is that he is descended from him [*].

[34] If Allah is an imaginary Being, then why does his own book contain that imaginary Being [*]? Why do millions of Arab Christians and Arabic speaking Jews still call God by the name/title Allah?

[35] The narration is as follows:

 سالت خديجة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن ولدين لها ماتا فى الجاهلية فقال: ((هما فى النار)) رأى الكراهية فى وجهها قال: ((لو رأيت مكانهما لأبغضتهما)) قالت: يا رسول الله، فولدى منك؟ قال: ((إن المؤمنين وأولادهم فى الجنة، وإن المشركين وأولادهم فى النار)

The narration is weak because the one who heard from Ali (رضي الله عنه) is unknown:

عن عثمان بن أبى شيبة عن محمد بن فضيل بن غزوان عن محمد بن عثمان عن زاذان عن على

[36] Some statements from the Qur’an and Hadiths that no person suffering from God complex would make:

سُبْحَـنَ رَبِّى هَلْ كُنتُ إَلاَّ بَشَرًا رَّسُولاً

Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger? [Q.17:93]

قُلْ إِنَّمَآ أَعِظُكُمْ بِوَحِدَةٍ أَن تَقُومُواْ لِلَّهِ مَثْنَى وَفُرَادَى ثُمَّ تَتَفَكَّرُواْ مَا بِصَـحِبِكُمْ مِّن جِنَّةٍ إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ نَذِيرٌ لَّكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيدٍ

Say, “I only advise you of one [thing] – that you stand for Allah, [seeking truth] in pairs and individually, and then give thought.” There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a warner to you before a severe punishment. [Q.34:46]

لاَ تُطْرُونِي كَمَا أَطْرَتِ النَّصَارَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ، فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا عَبْدُهُ، فَقُولُوا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولُهُ

Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle. [Sahih al-Bukhari 3445]

There are numerous more such statements in the Qur’an and Hadiths.

[37] The last part of the last Ayah, a party of them conceal the truth while they know, (Q.2:146) is proven true by the Bible [*][*]. Furthermore, the Prophet (ﷺ) has been mentioned in the books of Christians in John 14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7-14, 1 John 4, John 1: 19-21, John 7: 40-43, John 1:25, John 5:25-27, Matthew 21:43, Luke 2:1-20, Matthew 11:11, and Matthew 3:11 among others and in the books of both Jews and Christians in Isaiah 1, 2, 3, 5, 19, 21, 29, 42, Deuteronomy 18:18, Deuteronomy 33, Habakkuk 3:3, Jude 1:14-15, Haggai 2:7, Genesis 22, Genesis 17:20 and Deuteronomy 4:7-8, Genesis 49:10, Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Psalm 110, and Malachi 3:1 among others. Moreover, the books that did not become a part of the Torah or the New Testament also mention the Prophet (ﷺ) such as in Book of Jubilees, Book of Enoch, Ch. 46, 48:9, 49:2, Genesis Apocryphon, and Apocalypse of Peter among others. Much more can be read here [*].

[38] Another translation for the same description is as follows:

He was innocently bright and had broad countenance. His manners were fine. Neither was his belly bulging out nor was his head deprived of hair. He had black attractive eyes finely arched by eyebrows. His hair glossy and black, inclined to curl, he wore long. His voice was extremely commanding. His head was large, well formed and set on a slender neck. His expression was pensive and contemplative, serene and sublime. The stranger was fascinated from the distance, but no sooner he became intimate with him than this fascination was changed into attachment and respect. His expression was very sweet and distinct. His speech was well set and free from the use of superfluous words, as if it were a rosary of beads. His stature was neither too high nor too small to look repulsive. He was a twig amongst the two, singularly bright and fresh. He was always surrounded by his Companions. Whenever he uttered something, the listeners would hear him with rapt attention and whenever he issued any command, they vied with each other in carrying it out. He was a master and a commander. His utterances were marked by truth and sincerity, free from all kinds of falsehoods and lies. [Source]

[39] This part is usually incorrectly translated which may also have caused the confusion; however, one when undertakes the task of writing a book or mocking someone, then they should take the pain of researching. Even if one does not take the pain, there is still indication within the narration itself that the person being mocked as short and dwarf was none other than the Sahabi Abu Barza. Moreover, this mocking is also not an indication that the Sahabi was short and dwarf as this is just a mockery and if someone argues that there has to be a basis behind the mockery, then that is just a hypothesis, an assumption as none of us have seen the Sahabi, nor do we have a description of him which we can compare against. For all we know, the Sahabi may have been around 5’6 and the governor taller than that who mocked him for a shorter height. Allah knows best but what we know is that such a narration does not serve an education lesson for the description and appearance of anyone.

[40] GENERATION Z: DESPERATE FOR RULES

[41] Here is how the narration reads:

كَانَ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ يَرْزُقُنَا التَّمْرَ – قَالَ – وَقَدْ كَانَ أَصَابَ النَّاسَ يَوْمَئِذٍ جُهْدٌ وَكُنَّا نَأْكُلُ فَيَمُرُّ عَلَيْنَا ابْنُ عُمَرَ وَنَحْنُ نَأْكُلُ فَيَقُولُ لاَ تُقَارِنُوا فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنِ الإِقْرَانِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَسْتَأْذِنَ الرَّجُلُ أَخَاهُ ‏.‏ قَالَ شُعْبَةُ لاَ أُرَى هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةَ إِلاَّ مِنْ كَلِمَةِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ‏.‏ يَعْنِي الاِسْتِئْذَانَ

Jabala b. Suhaim reported: Ibn Zubair used to provide us with dates during the time that the people were hard pressed because of famine. (Once) as we were busy in eating there happened to appear before us Ibn ‘Umar. He said: Don’t eat two dates together, for Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade eating them together but only after seeking permission from his brother (partner). Shu’ba said: I do not think these words pertaining to seeking permission but from the words of Ibn ‘Umar. [Sahih Muslim 2045 a]

Since the believers would share dates during the famine, it is part of justice that one does not eat more from the share of others.

[42] Here is how the narration reads:

لاَ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الرُّطَبِ وَالْبُسْرِ وَبَيْنَ الزَّبِيبِ وَالتَّمْرِ نَبِيذًا

Do not mix fresh dates and dry dates, and grapes and fresh dates for preparing Nabidh (alcoholic/intoxicating drink). [Sahih Muslim 1986 c]

Quoting something half would surely make the ruling appear strange; however, what the full Hadith forbids is mixing dates and grapes to make an alcoholic beverage.

[43] The uneducated Sheindlin finds some verses of the Qur’an troubling and one of these is Q.2:223:

Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will

Ibn `Abbas commented, “Meaning the place of pregnancy.” Allah then said: (…so go to your tilth, when or how you will,) meaning, wherever you wish from the front or from behind, as long as it is in one valve (the organ), as the authentic Hadiths have indicated. Then, this Ayah was revealed: (Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will). For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn Al-Munkadir said that he heard Jabir say that the Jews used to claim that if one has intercourse with his wife from behind (in the vagina) the offspring would become cross-eyed. Read more here [*].

[44] Prophet Muhammad was literally addicted to Fasting, Praying and Prostrating (bowing down) to GOD Almighty!

[45] An absurd allegation made is that the Prophet (ﷺ) preyed on toddlers who still had their own wet nurse with them. The Hadith quoted is discussed here in detail.

[46] Sheindlin shows his hypocrisy once again. He states that Aisha had not started to menstruate and the blood she had was due to rape; however, he also states that since she had not physically developed, thighing was practiced on her. He should choose one allegation and work on it instead of throwing his darts in the dark hoping to hit once target, if at all he has decided to go to extreme in his hate and deceit.

[47] The Prophet (ﷺ) kissed his grandson which the pervert equates with homosexual pedophilia. He did not disclose the fact that the child kissed was his grandson. This deliberate non-disclosure is mischievous and shows his true intents. The companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) narrate such incidents of love between grandfather and grandson in a loving and positive way – they clearly did not see it as perverted – but the perverted hate preacher sees perversion in this act. He also misapplies the behaviour of another tribal man to this case and claims that other tribes had begun to notice such inappropriate behaviour. What the other tribe saw and said was this:

قَالَتْ جَاءَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ تُقَبِّلُونَ الصِّبْيَانَ فَمَا نُقَبِّلُهُمْ‏.‏ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ أَوَ أَمْلِكُ لَكَ أَنْ نَزَعَ اللَّهُ مِنْ قَلْبِكَ الرَّحْمَةَ ‏”

A Bedouin came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, “You (people) kiss the boys! We don’t kiss them.” The Prophet said, “I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 5998]

If this is not deceit and hate-filled hypocrisy, then what is?

If we witness the different cultures in our times, we see that some are viewed by others in a negative way. For example, the French men greeting each other is considered gay by some Americans; two friends walking while holding hands is a friendly behaviour in some cultures while it is considered gay in others. If haters were to step out of their xenophobic mindset and thought process and understand and tolerate other cultures, they would not be as hateful, lying, manipulative, and deceptive as they are now.

[48] Sheindlin says about this allegation: my assertions about his mother and Khadija are hypothesis. His entire premise is based on shaky grounds. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a lying, deceiving hypocrite.

[49] This is yet another absurd speculation that the bigot reaches. Only a polluted mind can come up with such garbage. He quotes a narration that the Prophet (ﷺ) would forget things temporarily due to magic being done on him and this state lasted for a year. He speculates that the Prophet (ﷺ) would not have had intercourse during this period and this was due to erectile dysfunction. As we have seen earlier, this is not just an example of pure speculation but also a hit and run case. Make an allegation and just run away! If one forgets whether they had food or not and this continues for a week, would one conclude that the person did not eat anything for a week? Something slipping out of mind and later recalling it is something that happens to everyone; however, we do not make baseless assumptions based on this.

[50] You would think that there would be a limit to the rage but no, there isn’t. The anger is a lot in this one. He feels that since the Prophet (ﷺ)’s washroom etiquettes were that of sitting while urinating, he has to have a micropenis. He feels embarrassed by his own allegation that he himself states: ‘achondroplasia dwarves’ do not typically suffer with micropenis. 7 Reasons Men NEED To Pee Sitting Down and If you’re a true gentleman, you should pee sitting down. The Prophet (ﷺ) was a hygienic man and if he did not like splashes of urine on clothes, why does a dirty person have problems with that? He is free to live an unhealthy and unhygienic life, no is stopping him from it but why would he force his filth on others?

[51] The pervert feels that semen stains on clothes is an indication that a person suffers from premature ejaculation. This is another example of double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the author. One of his arguments, regarding thighing, argues that semen on clothes were due to a practice called thighing while here he argues that it was due to premature ejaculation. It would have been much better if he maintained consistency, chose one allegation and concentrated on that instead of throwing all his darts in the dark hoping that one would hit the right target.

The act of removing entire clothes that is common in hyper-sexualised cultures today was not the act of all cultures. Even today, it is not in all cultures to remove entire clothes for the act of intercourse. Therefore, a trace of semen on clothes is not something surprising.

Another brilliant logic from JK is that if Muhammad emphatically forbids ‘coitus interruptus’ then it directly proves that he himself was incapable of the act. Refuting the arguments of the pervert is so easy that at times, the only refutation required is to simply quote him. This is for the wise readers; however, there may be many readers with the brain-size as big as his’. First of all, the Prophet (ﷺ) did not forbid the act of coitus interruptus, he discouraged it and stated that it is not necessary that the purpose, of avoiding pregnancy, would be achieved. Moreover, if someone discourages someone from doing something, does that mean that the one prohibiting it is incapable of doing it themselves?

[52] In another absurdity, Sheindlin states: Muhammad seizes the Ka’aba and declares himself as god, fulfilling his ‘god complex’. Absurd is the politest word for such a claim. The root of Islam is monotheism; in fact opponents of Islam allege that Muslims have an obsession with monotheism [*].

[53] Even though the Prophet (ﷺ) was well-fed and had food with him, lack of food alone does not cause hallucination:

“Undernutrition, malnutrition and starvation can lead to many physical symptoms and often go hand in hand with psychiatric disorders including anorexia nervosa and depression. Low-calorie diets, lack of access to food and disorders that prevent the absorption of nutrients are all possible causes of not eating enough; but to induce hallucinations, other factors must also come into play.” [*]

[54] Sodomy of children is something that has been highly encouraged by the occupation of Western forces of Afghanistan. Apparently, Omar became sickened by the abusive raping of children by warlords and turned against their authority in the mountainous country of Afghanistan from 1994 onwards. The practice of bacha bazi by warlords was one of the key factors in Mullah Omar mobilizing the Taliban. Reportedly, in early 1994, Omar led 30 men armed with 16 rifles to free two young girls who had been kidnapped and raped by a warlord, hanging him from a tank gun barrel. Another instance arose when in 1994, a few months before the Taliban took control of Kandahar, two militia commanders confronted each other over a young boy whom they both wanted to sodomize. In the ensuing fight, Omar’s group freed the boy; appeals soon flooded in for Omar to intercede in other disputes. His movement gained momentum through the year, and he quickly gathered recruits from Islamic schools totaling 12,000 by the year’s end, with some Pakistani volunteers. By November 1994, Mullah Omar’s movement managed to capture the whole of the Kandahar Province and then captured Herat in September 1995 [*]. Afghans are sick of such practices but unfortunately, just like opium production [*], this sick practice has also revived after the illegal occupation of Afghanistan by invading forces.

[55] It is argued, incorrectly, that the seal of prophethood between the shoulders (on the back) of the Prophet (ﷺ) was the mark of the disease. However, the marks from the disease come and go whereas what the Prophet (ﷺ) had was neither different in colour [*] nor unusual in size. It was the same as his skin colour and did not emerge and disappear; it remained. Moreover, this mark is also prophesied in the Bible for the last Messenger; Songs of Solomon 8:6 speaks of the mark on arm which can also be shoulder blade. This chapter was seen as messianic by Ibn Ezra and it also speaks about the children of Israel coming out the desert with their beloved. Deuteronomy 33:12, and Isaiah 9:6 also mention this mark.

[56] A lot of the pagans killed their daughters and some killed their children for fear of poverty. The Qur’an states:

وَكَذَلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلَـدِهِمْ شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ لِيُرْدُوهُمْ وَلِيَلْبِسُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ دِينَهُمْ

And likewise, to many of the polytheists their partners have made [to seem] pleasing the killing of their children in order to bring about their destruction and to cover them with confusion in their religion. [Q.6:137]

“They make killing their children attractive to them.” Mujahid said, “Idolaters’ partners among the devils ordered them to bury their children for fear of poverty.”

[57] You never know Sheindlin may argue that he killed his own son. Such arguments from him are not surprising at all.

[58] If Ibrahim had become a young man, this would have contradicted the verse. Notice the precision of Allah: He didn’t say ‘the father of a young boy’. Rather Allah said Muhammad is not the father of any MAN. If the Qur’an had said he isn’t the father to a boy/child/offspring, this could be a contradiction. And subhanAllah Ibrahim was never a man. He was always a baby. And therefore one could say theologically it was impossible Ibrahim could live beyond early childhood. In another report from Anas ibn Malik the Prophet (ﷺ) said “Allah has given Ibrahim a wet nurse in Jannah. If Ibrahim had lived, he would have been a righteous prophet”. This is reported in ibn Majah. The majority of the scholars say this is in fact a statement of Anas ibn Malik, not the Prophet (ﷺ) himself. This is proven in other narrations that in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed they mention it as a statement upon Anas. That Anas said if Ibrahim had lived, he would have been a prophet. That’s just a ijtihad he is making. Also, one can add, there’s a political wisdom in not having male lineage of the Prophet (ﷺ). There’s no doubt immediately he would have been the next khalifah and so on; as it is, look at the controversies that erupted from the descendants of the Prophet (ﷺ). Look at how groups exalted the ahlul bayt to beyond what is human. We respect and admire ahlul bayt however there’s a big difference between us and the shi’a. We say the ahlul bayt are special and blessed if they are holy. Whereas shi’a say there are special and blessed because they are holy. Whereas we say you being a descendant of the Prophet (ﷺ) does not make you righteous. Your good deeds make you righteous; your blood cannot save you. Wallahi lineage does not matter. And it’s a hadith of course in Tirmidhi “whosoever’s good deeds hold him back, his lineage won’t push him forward”. [*]