A Crescent Among the Crosses

On Monday, America’s Right published an article by John Pratt which posed the question: Can One Simultaneously be a Good Muslim and a Good American? Today, the editors of America’s Right would like to answer that question directly.

The answer: Yes.

Anyone seeking insight into the relationship between Islam and American patriotism may want to consider a trip to Arlington National Cemetery.  As they walk among the fallen, they will find something perhaps unexpected: crescents among the crosses.

The most famous of these crescent-adorned gravesites belongs to Specialist Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. In the picture at right his mother, Elsheba Khan, cradles his headstone. Kareem served in the Stryker Brigade combat team of the Army’s 2nd Infantry Division. In August 2007, Ms. Khan received word that Kareem had been killed in Iraq, along with three other American soldiers, when a bomb exploded while they were searching for explosives in a house.

Kareem was motivated to join the army after the attacks of September 11, 2001. He was just 14 years old at the time, but after waiting years for his chance he shipped out for basic training within a month of graduating from high school.

A close look at Kareem’s headstone will find that he was only 20 years old when he was killed by that improvised explosive device.  It will also show that he earned a Bronze Star for his service in Iraq, as well as a Purple Heart after being injured during combat in an incident which preceded the one which brought about his death.

Kareem’s crescent-adorned headstone does not stand alone. On a stroll through Arlington National Cemetery you might pass the grave of U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who lost his life while saving others by diverting a suicide car bomber away from his men. Perhaps you might also find the final resting place of Army Spc. Omead Razani, the son of Iranian immigrants, who also died in Iraq. There are more–plenty more–but at this point you have to wonder: just how many dead Muslim heroes does it take to prove a point?

There can be no question that Kareem and other American Muslims who gave their lives in services to this nation were good Americans.  That part of the question is settled.  So are we left with another question?  Should we debate whether or not they were good Muslims?

The fact is that Kareem Khan was born a Muslim, he lived as a Muslim, and he died as a Muslim.  He left behind a twin legacy of patriotic service to our country and devotion to his faith, a legacy that his family carries on in his memory. Of his son’s Islamic faith, Kareem’s father Feroze Khan said: “His Muslim faith did not make him not want to go. It never stopped him. He looked at it that he’s American and he has a job to do.”

Because Kareem was motivated not only by his allegiance to this country but also by his devotion to his faith, we can know two things are true:  The first is that Islam enhanced this young man’s patriotism.  It did not detract from it.  He died to prove that.

The second is that it is nothing short of sacrilege to question the faith of a fallen hero.  Be it evangelical Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, or secular humanism, the living have no right to twist the legacy of those who gave their lives in defense of ours.  Abraham Lincoln said that it was impossible for the living to consecrate the ground where fallen heroes sleep:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

If ordinary dirt can be made sacred ground purely by becoming the resting spot of American veterans, how much more sacred must the deeply held convictions of those veterans be?  Lincoln also said that “the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”  We can write all the blog posts we want about the nature of Islam in America, but none of our words matter next to the actions taken by Kareem.

This is not about political correctness.  There are many unresolved questions regarding tensions between Islam and the West.  We will seek to dig deeper into those questions in coming pieces here at America’s Right over the next few days.  But among the questions that remain unsettled, “Can a person be simultaneously a good American and a good Muslim?” is not to be found.  That question has been finally and irrevocably answered.  That answer can be found six feet underground at Arlington.

In addition to questions about the relationship between Islam and the West, another issue that needs to be addressed is the boundaries of admissible discourse.  Writing in today’s New York Times, Ross Douthat addressed some of the extremist beliefs that appear prevalent in American society:

To some extent, partisans persist in these arguments — “your side encourages extremists!”; “no, your side encourages extremists!” — because America really is rife with wild and crazy sentiments. The belief that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim (apparently held by nearly 20 percent of the country) gets the headlines. But as the George Mason law professor Ilya Somin has noted, national opinion polls reveal support for numerous far-out or noxious-seeming notions.

There’s the 32 percent of Democrats who blame “the Jews” for the financial crisis. There’s the 25 percent of African-Americans who believe the AIDS virus was created in a government lab. There’s support for state secession, which may have been higher among liberals in the Bush era than among Republicans in the age of Obama. And there’s the theory that the Bush White House knew about 9/11 in advance, which a third of Democrats endorsed as recently as 2007.

Douthat concludes that there can’t really be that many nutcases in America, and cites libertarian writer Julian Sanchez:

… it’s worth taking all these polling responses with a substantial grain of salt. For all but the hardest-core conspiracy theorizers, they may express what Sanchez calls “symbolic beliefs.” These are “propositions you profess publicly” but would never follow through on, because they’re adopted as a kind of political and cultural statement rather than out of deep conviction.

The idea that Islam and Americanism are diametrically opposed belongs in this category of beliefs that are so outrageous we can only hope that those who espouse them do so symbolically – whether or not they admit it.  It was a mistake to run Pratt’s piece here at America’s Right precisely for that reason.  We will never know exactly where to draw the lines between what is admissible and what is not when it comes to faith, religion, and politics, but defacing the memory of America’s veterans is never acceptable.  For that reason, and for the hateful rhetoric, it was a mistake to run Pratt’s piece here at America’s Right and we apologize for doing so.

Just as there have been tolerant and intolerant Christians, there have been and continue to be tolerant and intolerant Muslims.  Just as Christianity has seen faith spread at the business end of a sword, Islam has seen and continues to see the same.  And while reality certainly dictates that all Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists certainly seem to be Muslims, and while this weekend we will certainly remember the lives of three thousand innocent men, women and children of all faiths snuffed out at the murderous hands of radical Islamists, sweeping generalities do nobody any good.

Sweeping generalities are what makes all Tea Party activists bigoted and racist.  Sweeping generalities are what makes all Christians abortion clinic bombers.  Could our daily discourse benefit from featuring more and more moderate Muslim voices?  Absolutely.  But in their unfortunate absence, it only takes a single glance at a crescent-adorned tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery to show that actions speak louder than words ever could.

This isn’t about apologizing, somehow, for the murderous actions of radical Islamists.  This isn’t about going soft on Islamic terrorism and forcing willful blindness toward the threat it presents.  This isn’t about political correctness.  Political correctness is what allowed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to slip through crack after crack after crack, as part of a protected class because nobody wanted to challenge or even document his radical views, until 13 American soldiers lay dead and 31 more lay injured at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas.  Political correctness is what empowers radical Muslims while simultaneously stifling the already too soft voice of moderate Muslims.  Instead, this is about correctness itself, about how a man’s relationship with his God is his own to define.

One of the major problems with a politically correct view that refuses to acknowledge the role that Islam plays in terrorism is that it rewards radical extremists for co-opting the Muslim faith. By refusing to acknowledge that Al Qaeda and others abuse religion and twist it to their ends, defenders of political correctness in effect reward people for hijacking Islam. “If you operate under the guise of religion,” goes the implicit message, “We will leave you alone.”  That sentiment certainly applied to Maj. Hasan.

Does fundamentalist Islam comport with traditional American values? Of course not. Does the subjugation of women in Islamic countries across the Middle East comport with traditional American values? Of course not. However, conflating one of the world’s largest and most widely spread religions with one specific ethnicity–Arabic–and subsequently imputing the mysogynistic values and rampant violence inherent to that the socioeconomic circumstances of that ethnicity to an entire religion is more than inequitable.

Those kinds of blanket generalities, blind to billions of non-Arabic Muslims who do not practice Islam in the same manner as those who stone women and strap bombs to the torsos of the mentally handicapped, are not appropriate here at America’s Right. Those very same kind of blanket generalities are exactly what we fight against every day when it comes to the mischaracterization of the American political right by the mainstream media.

The American political left is in the middle of a fight for their lives, and a lynchpin in their strategy is to make the Tea Party seem as repugnant as possible. The primary thrust of the attack is to tar everyone concerned about federalism, limited government and out-of-control spending as an ignorant, racist, redneck bigot. As a result, there is tremendous pressure from the left to characterize anyone who says anything remotely negative about any aspect or Islam as a xenophobic hate-monger.

Undoubtedly, had new or old media types cared to do so yesterday, that’s exactly how they would have described John Pratt. A “hatemonger,” they would call him. He’s “a bigot,” they would say. Why give them the opportunity? A little bit of nativism is perfectly healthy so long as the nativist has his or her facts straight — in this case, imputing the realities of radical Islamic jihad on even those who fight and die or are prepared to die for this country was nativism mixed with an impassioned and egregious mischaracterization of an entire faith.

This meaningless polarization is detrimental to our civil society. It eats away at the common fabric of our society and distracts from legitimate policy discussions. Reasonable voices are drowned out in an escalating shouting match of increasingly hysterical and bizarre fantasies. On the one hand, we have Eric Holder refusing to even say the word “religion” in the same paragraph–let alone sentence!–as “terrorism”. On the other hand, we have a lunatic Christian pastor out to hold a good old-fashioned book burning and ignite some Korans.  Meanwhile, we have others who disregard all context and find themselves more incensed about charred Korans than about beheaded infidel contractors or the three thousand innocents lost nine years ago this weekend. We have the left pretending that Muslims are all angels, the right pretending they are all devils, and everyone on all sides so mired in the shouting match that good, old fashioned common sense is simply lost in the scuffle.

Is there any room left for sanity?

America vitally needs a serious, honest, and open discussion about Islam and the West, and that’s exactly what we will deliver.



  1. MichaelP says:

    @ AhmadH

    Please be so kind and provide us the context then. There is no mention of any violence towards Mohammad or any threats to his life. He was cast out of Mecca because of his verbal assaults against his fellow pagans but there were no threats to his life. Can you provide us the context you are referring to please? Also, he turned violet in Medina because the Jews there knew he was full of crap and was twisting their teachings. He became violet because they would not submit, and he would not allow for that. So he turned to the sword. The pagans of Mecca were very tolerant of people believing what they wanted. Kind of sounds like America these days. They had the Kaaba that housed many gods that were worshiped and it exists to this day. The only reason they pushed Mohammad out was because he was stirring a hornets nest. He may have initially been on to something but it is quite clear by his teachings that he adopted many Jewish folklore stories and pagan stories, making them his own and twisting them slightly for his own advantage.

    And even if his life would have been threatened, what man of GOD would have had such revenge. Never did Mohammad kill or have others do his dirty work when his life was directly in danger. He always ambushed his enemies when they were carrying out normal duties in life. He always played the victim and Muslims still do it to this day. You are always playing the victim game. You could have an infidels head in one hand and a knife in the other and claim that you did it because of what someone did to your religion a 1000 miles away.


  2. Nicknack says:

    @ AhmadH

    Thanks for clarifying that killing is condoned as a defensive measure much like a government does to protect its citizens. The link that seems to be missing is when a religion became a government.
    And since when does religion have to be defensive if it promotes peace as the Christian teachings do. Martyrdom in the Christian religion occurs when people killed Christians. In Islam the muslim must kill others while killing him/herself to gain martyrdom.
    You would have to have a different understanding of what religion is with respect to the morals and ethics you have defined in the quotes presented then what is generally thought religion to be.
    Out of context? Don’t know what other way to define the context except that divine scripture is divine for ever. If some how the divineness is lost when one is in Medina as opposed to Mecca then its just a convenient religion that allows one to show some superiority over others. None of which is the purpose of religion.
    As muslim s think of the their religion it must give them comfort at the amount of enmity they have among themselves and can count on the convenience of any of the versus to justify their actions. In fact who has killed more muslims than other muslims s? And that should give one pause to define why a religion needs that much defenses for all their actions. My conclusion is that it promotes immoral acts of killing and unethical acts such as lying to create the global domination it seeks. That is if they can stop killing each other before they get to kill all the infidels.

  3. AhmadH says:

    sorry, been away on EID holidays. More pertinent question; is america a good follower of God’s religion?. the muslim’s version of Prophet Muhammad’s early history is that he started dakwah politely and with wisdom as God commands. He use no force, and is not intent on hurting or killing anybody. God does not like war, but commanded Muhd to fight to save their lives and against further persecution. when Muhd triumphed and entered Mecca again, he forgave most of his enemies and punished only a few. muslims don’t kill ‘infidels’ because of their ‘wrong’ religion. God’s commands in the Quran are sometimes specific to certain periods/ situations, so it is out of context to presume that God commands to wage war all the time or slay/ slaughter the enemies , all the time. Yes, Islam promotes/prefer peace, but can’t it defend itself against persecution and injustice?.and thats not revenge. Admittedly, muslims have killed and hurt many people, unjustifiably. God punishes the unrepentant evil-doers throughout history thru ‘natural disasters’; is he less Divine then or anytime since? Matyrdom is one of the ways to win God’s favour. But the usual common norm is to honestly be diligent in prayers, fast, charity and other good deeds. And surprise; Islam does not start with Muhd.pbum. His Islam is the final upgrade to the islam of Adam,Noah,David, Solomon, Moses, Isa and other prophets of the world. And if God ‘came’ to earth as Jesus to show his caring and sacrifice to the people, then why did he came only once, and not before, to the other world communities?

  4. Randy Wills says:

    To “AhmedH” @ 5:28 PM:

    To fulfil Old Testament prophecy.


  5. William says:

    No one will deny that there are loyal american muslims who have died for this nation. There are also muslim soldiers who have said they could not fight other muslim and there are muslim soldiers that have killed other non-mulsim american soldiers in the name of allah. That is not the question. The question is: overall is islam compatible with America. You can come to only one conclusion, a resounding no. A second question is overall are the majority of American muslims loyal to America and the constitution or to islam. Jesus Christ never advocated spreading the gospel buy military means. Mohammed began his religion with violence and it spread through violence. I am perplexed. Do you actually equate the spread of islam and the spread of Christianity? In general Christianity was spread by missionaries who put there lives at risk and continue to do so to this day. Certainly there were episodes when missionaries accompanied military expeditions but the expeditions were not to spread Christianity. Christianity went along for the ride. After a rambling, convoluted argument you finally made a relevant comment:

    “America vitally needs a serious, honest, and open discussion about Islam and the West, and that’s exactly what we will deliver.” We need the discussion without being called racist or bigoted for questioning islam. There is much to question.

  6. Nicknack says:

    To “AhmedH” @ 5:28 PM:

    You are on the verge of an epifanany. Careful about the questions you now ask.

    You dismiss your earlier assertions on the divinity of the quranic versus. Time and place are irrelevant to divine truths. Killing cannot be good today and bad tomorrow. The Jesus that i know said to turn the other cheek. Men are by nature sinful. It requires a constant request from God to ask for forgiveness and strive not to do it again. Not to justify it as the wrong thing to do at the right time. And according to the teachings of Christ there is only vengeance that can be extracted by God and not by men. The fact that men do it is as noted earlier the failure of God’s creation to live up to His Will.
    It must be that God is consistent and not fickle with His demands and the quranic verses as you noted are just fickle. According to your interpretation, it was in a specific time that the verse had meaning but now is not then and therefore it should have no meaning. How then to live ones life if time has moved on and the versus must be interpreted? There can be no question as to the axiom to turn the other cheek. It stands the test of time.

    As for mother nature somehow extracting revenge on behalf of God you would have to prove that all who died were guilty of actions that caused God’s wrath. Without it God becomes fickle and a fickle God would not be a just God. Without justice belief in any religion becomes worthless for it is religion that should guide us to actions that will be pleasing to God and a good God will not cause undue suffering.

    The real point is that your argument for your beliefs seems less convincing of a man who has thought out the implications of those versus then one who has look beyond his world and seen their moral and ethical problems as applied to all in every situation. It will be then that the Truth will be undeniable.

  7. AhmadH says:

    I have inkling that i have to start from the ‘beginning’. In the Beginning, God is alone; and later creation is created.From the muslims point, God’s love is CONDITIONAL, the humans on earth need to seek again the knowledge of God and to love God for what he is and for the bounties that he has given.The various prophets came to earth to remind humans about this and about God’s commands to do good deeds n not to do evil etc.I read ( for eg.in the ‘answering Islam website’ that, for christians, God’s love for creation is UNconditional and God is ever-forgiving (correct me if i’m wrong). But throughout history God has punished evil people by so-called ‘acts of nature’ and also thru commands to the prophets. review again the history of the Jewish prophets, for example Moses and the 10 commandments..This contradicts the concept that God ‘unconditionally loves’ and forgives unconditionally. Prophet Muhammad begins his mission in mecca as a loner; a SINGLE person preaching dakwah. Yet accusers say he verbally abuse and use violence to slowly convert the idolators ?A single person doing that, and the idolators accepts Islam.??? please check the chronology of meccan events before accusing which side starts the ‘war’. God is not fickle in His commands in the Quran. He likes and love those who follow his true single religion; he gives time to contemplate and reminders to those who are confused and searching for the truth, He forgives all except the sin of shirk; and He punishes the ‘persistent evil-doers’ as he wills. Muslims have lived in peace with non-muslims in many parts of the world and share many common aspirations with the americans.A good Muslim is a good American in many aspects.

  8. MichaelP says:

    @ AhmadH 03:35

    How can you say that GOD’s love is conditional? You hold to the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Gospels (New Testament), correct? At least somewhat? Did Christ die for some? Or did He die for all? He died for all. He loves every single person that ever lived and will ever live. He prepared the Way for us back to the Father through the cross. If that is not unconditional love, then I don’t know what is. He did this on His own for our sake. Now, we have a part. We have to respond. We have to love Him back. If we don’t, then we suffer eternal damnation. This is not because He doesn’t love us, but because He does love us and He eventually gives us what we want, and that is not Him. He will not force us to love Him back; that is the mystery of “free will”.

    I do agree that nature has a way of chipping away at mankind and its sins. I, like you, believe in the wrath of GOD. I believe that GOD allows suffering so that we can learn of His divine Wisdom and so we can see our sinful ways. He has done so in many ways throughout Sacred Scripture, e.g. Sodom & Gomorrah. However, Christians believe that bodily death is not the end. So what GOD allows via nature or through other people only impacts our temporal nature. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that GOD allowed anyone to spiritually die during these “acts of nature”. So with this, we can still conclude that GOD does unconditionally love all people regardless of sin even when He allows for their bodily death or temporal suffering. Remember that this was prior to Jesus, so the Gospel was not preached. However, the Salvation Christ brought is retroactive and after He died on the cross, He descended to the dead, i.e. everyone that had bodily died prior to His death, to preach the Good News. This is why Muslims just don’t get it. You deny the Good News by saying Jesus did not die on the cross and that He is not the Son of GOD. You dismiss this pivotal teaching because of Muhammad’s hatred for the Jews. From the beginning, Mohammad held to the belief that the Jews perverted the New Testament and they could not be trusted. And because of this, you are a victim of ignorance due to Mohammad’s hatred for his fellow brothers.

    And don’t give me this crap about Mohammad converting all the pagans. He converted a hundred people in 10 years while being in Mecca. I would not brag about those numbers. Remember, they were pagans and they already worshiped Allah. This was no big leap for them. Muhammad was pushed out of Mecca because he was disturbing the peace. There is no evidence that his life was threatened. Mecca was big on the trade routes because of the Kaaba. The Kaaba was very profitable and the pagans did not want to mess this up. Mohammad was able to fool some of the pagans regarding the teachings of the Jews because there were not many, if any, Jews in Mecca to counter his teachings. When he was pushed out to Medina, a place with many Jews, he was quickly mocked because the Jews knew he was not speaking properly about their teachings. This is when Mohammad got violent and started using the “sword” to spread Islam.

    This is history my friend. Christ died for you, too. But for you, the Gospel has been given. Your fate lies in your own free will. Will you love the Father back or will you continue to deny his paternal nature.

    Oh, and GOD is never alone. He is life itself and is the epitome of a familial relationship. The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; this divine love (charity) is so powerful and so communal that a third person exist for this divine canosis or pouring out, the Holy Spirit. God is not lonely.


  9. AhmadH says:

    I am thankful that we can express our differences in opinion and beliefs in this page but M.P has used the ‘crap’ word twice. M.P says here that the pagans already worshipped ‘allah’, giving the impression that its the same Muslim Allah. But the pagans also worshipped the other ‘gods’ Lata, Uzza, and others. that’s why they are called polytheists.This is established historical fact. The meccan pagans are NOT monotheists, even if one of their gods is called allah. Don’t try to confuse the readers, brother. Thats why Prophet Muhamad pbuh.dakwah/ preach to these idolators about true monotheism.So again; don’t repeat this fallacy that just because one of their gods are callad allah, therefore Muhd cannot dakwah MONOtheism to them. Monotheism is the same monotheism ‘preached’ by Prophets Adam, Nuh, Abraham,Hood, Saleh,Lut,Yahya the ‘baptist’,Solomon,Moses,other jewish prophets, Prophet Isa (the Muslim version of Jesus);peace and Allah’s blessings on all of them. Even earlier christians are monotheists. peculier than,that the 3 in 1 God concept, came into being. Even the jews who are at odds with the muslims,have not corrupted the concept of the ONE God. All prophets of Gods are ‘stirring up the hornets nest’ in dakwah-ing throughout history, especially about monotheism and Gods commands, including prophet Isa( your Jesus). The spread of Islam,God’s Oneness, requires another long page of discussion and debate, if this website permits. You can again tell your version ,and I can tell my version; and readers,happy reading.

  10. AhmadH says:

    if i love my mind and heart, and my mind and heart loves me, i would still be LONEly of another person’s love.right? hahaha.i don’t know about you. For arguments sake; whether its the 2-in-1 God, 3-in 1, or 1 God with more than 99 attributes, and God already loves Himself or (3-in-1 self); God still wants reciprocal love. Your unconditional love,to me, is actually the general love of God towards his creation ( the Rabb aspect ).But God has give humans (and jinns) a mind for thinking + an intuitive heart (= free-will),(and send down prophets and scriptures) so that we know right from wrong, and whether to love God or deny God. What kind of God is He that Unconditionally loves someone that knowingly deny and not love him .Thats what i meant in Conditional Love. And i might add, that God is in a ‘happier state’ after He created creation where only a few truly loves him and follow his prophets, than whence before he created, and is Alone. If i tell you to read about prophet Muhd’s life history from true muslim historians, should i expect you to believe in it or still you might say ‘where’s the evidence of these/ that’ ??? hahaha (i’m happy with God).

  11. AhmadH says:

    Christians like to say- Christ died for you, died for your sins, on the cross..to show humans his compassion. Now i’m really wondering ???. If Christ really died on the cross, then he cannot be God because God is EVER-LIVING and you cannot have an on-off God. If Christ did’nt really die, because Christians expect his Second coming soon, then its just a wasteful drama on the cross. Throughout human history, when people sacrificed valued animals, they kill the animal and its dead forever (at least in this world). When prophet Abraham was tested by God to sacrifice his son, he was sad because sacrifice means,again, dead forever.(at least in this world). So, to me, its not really meaningful- to ‘die’ and then live again. What lesson in sacrifice, can i learn from Christ, if he ‘died’ and then come again, alive??? And dare i think, that all those sacrificed animals- chickens, goats,cows etc-, if they can talk, the animals would say that their sacrificial deaths are more meaningful , because they died forever (in this world). That’s real, GENUINE ,sacrificial death. This is an academic debate; don’t want to hurt anyone.(p.s- William; you can question all about Islam to your hearts content; and since when did i call anyone here a racist or a bigot? A very recent book,titled “A World Without Islam” by Graham E.Fuller, former Vice chairman of NIC at CIA, gives a broad-minded perspective of Islam and the West). My answer to the topic is- Yes and No, because America is a mixed, mixed bag of multi-everything.

  12. MichaelP says:

    @ AhmadH

    Admad, the god of Islam is the same god that the pagans worshiped, at least one of them. You can’t deny this, nor should you. Allah was the only god represented in the Kaaba that Mohammad left standing. Let us not forget that Mohammad was also a pagan prior to his claim that the Angel Gabriel brought him the revelation that God was one and not many. I also recall Mohammad foaming at the mouth from this episode and him thinking he was possessed by a demon. Mohammad may have been smarter than we thought, when looking backwards in time. I don’t remember the Blessed Virgin Mary foaming at the mouth when the Angel Gabriel announced to her that she was with Child. And never did I even imply that Mohammad was wrong for teaching monotheism, I was just stating why he was cast out of Mecca.

    if i love my mind and heart, and my mind and heart loves me, i would still be LONEly of another person’s love.right?—correct, your analogy fails, though, because you are one human person. GOD is 1 with 3 divine persons. Do you see the difference?

    Ahmad, you believe that the advocate Jesus promised to come after Him was Mohammad, correct? If so, why would Jesus tell his disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the advocate (Holy Spirit) to come to them. I don’t think they were waiting for Mohammad to come a few hundred years later.

    Acts 1:4-5
    4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

    Ahmad, do you believe that bodily death is the end of life or do you believe in an afterlife, e.g. spiritual life? If your answer is yes, which I know it is, then why couldn’t Christ die bodily and then raised back to life by the power of the Holy Spirit, His own power? How can you esteem Jesus as a great prophet while claiming that He was a liar because He did not do what He said He did. You write-off the whole Resurrection and Ascension because it does not fit into your version of who Jesus is. Don’t you think Jesus would of at some point said, “hey guys, you have it all wrong. I did not die, that was Judas who was made to look like me. I am not God, stop worshiping me.” Even non-Biblical writings do not have Jesus making any statement remotely close.

    And just to defend William, he was not saying that you called anyone a racist or bigot. He was simply making the comment that name calling should not be used just because we disagree. We should stick to the facts and let the truth stand as it is.

    Out of curiosity, why do you abbreviate the name of the most important prophet according to Islam?

    Pax Christi

  13. AhmadH says:

    Michael, that’s your version and simplistic intepretations design to distort the mind. Muhammmad s.a.w living around Mecca where there’s lots of pagans; therefore makes him a pagan?. Merriam-Webster dictionory defines a pagan as 1. follower of polytheistic religion 2.little or no religion and delights in sexual pleasure and material good.Does he fit this description? Definitely NOT. He was mostly in the desert, with sheeps; he never prayed to idols in the Kaaba; he was much in contemplation of God and has good personality. It’s the same style of misinformation like when you say the prophet ‘turned violent/ became violent’ in Medina. The prophet and his new followers (including 20 Arab -Christians), were persecuted in Mecca for 10 years, yet he was patient and did not retaliate, and he escaped to Medina because he was about to be killed. The Quran , God records thisIn Medina, he gained more followers through wise dakwah; the meccan pagans and some jews became worried and make plans to wage an aggressor war on him.

  14. AhmadH says:

    in The Quran,8:30,God says ; “and remember when the disbelievers began to make their plans with regard to thee( Muhammad);To put thee in confinement,Or to kill thee; Or to turn thee out.They made their plans, And god made His; And god is the best of plan-makers”. Quran, 22;39, ” Permission(to fight) is given to those against whom war has been declared, Because they have been wronged.And most surely God is capable of helping them;Those who have been expelled from their homes without just cause,(Solely) because they say ‘Our Lord is God’ “. In the Badr battle, around 300 under-equipped Muslims face about 1000 enemy soldiers,700 on camels,300 on horseback .In the battle of Uhud; 700 muslims face 3000 Quraish. Now,(i don’t need Michael to tell me) who is the aggressor; and the Muslims are on the defense.Much later on, when Muhammad s.a.w won and entered Mecca again, he did’nt slaughter the inhabitants. he sets most of them free. Less than 10 were punished for criminal acts. It’s because of this kind act and un revengeful nature of prophet Muhammad, and other good deeds; thats what attract many Meccans to Islam, and not because of the “sword”.

  15. MichaelP says:

    @ AhmadH

    Mohammad was a member of the Quraysh tribe and was raised by his uncle that was a custodian for the Ka’bah after being orphaned. I think you have to have blinders on to conclude that he never practiced some form of paganism. And if so, so what? Are you saying that Mohammad was incapable of sinning in this way? Also, how do you reconcile the “Satanic Verses”? I know Muslims like to write them off these days as being myth but they are what they are even if you leave them out of your current Qur’an. It is quite obvious that Mohammad, at a minimum, acquiesced to the Meccans when they wanted to offer prayers to the daughters of Allah. Would this be proper behavior for a true prophet of God? I think not. I have no problem with a prophet being against God prior to conversion; that is the whole reason for the conversion. But to condone the worship of other gods while claiming to be monotheistic is hypocritical.

  16. AhmadH says:

    Ahah; comparing the blessed virgin Mary and the more blessed Muhammad s.a.w. Blessed Prophets of God are tested the hardest by God (gist from a hadith).Some Prophets suffer diseases(Ayub a.s),sorrow, painful death( Zakariaa a.s) etc.Some are tested with wealth and kingdom (Sulaiman a.s) Does a suffering prophet makes him less esteemed and makes his status lower in the eyes of God?. The blessed virgin Mary, pregnant, is healthy (“not foaming” according to Michael); prophet Muhammad’s mother, blessed Aminah ,pregnant, was getting healthier by the day. Even Halimah, the wet-nurse of Muhammad, gets healtier, with baby Muhammad suckling. Muslims believe in afterlife. Muslims also revere the blessed prophet Isa a.s (Jesus). He performed miracles(as other prophets do) and his teachings excellant; he’s NO liar; but he is NOT god. Prophet Moses a.s before him is not God; prophet Muhammad s.a.w. after him; also NOT God.(just to assert the continued brotherhood of the prophets). And if ‘God’ has part human body, then for sure that’s NOT god. And yes, Isa a.s did say that he is a servant of God, but that is ‘lost’ in Michael’s history. That’s the Muslim’s world-view / belief. ADIOS. Many thanks to America’s Right for giving me space to write and thanks to Allah, the One Supreme God.

  17. MichaelP says:

    @ AhmadH

    For the sake of having to trek where others have gone, I would like to post from a different site. After this, I will refrain from responding anymore. I think this is a good site because it lists all the references to Islamic texts.


    If Muslims are only supposed to fight in self-defense, then the Battle of Badr would had to have been a case in which an enemy was attacking or marching on Muhammad at Medina. Of course, if this is what you want to believe, then stop right now and try to stay away from history books.

    Muslim historians of the day meticulously documented the circumstances that preceded the battle and there is not the least bit of wiggle room for anyone hoping to believe that Muslims fought that day in self-defense.

    In the first place, the Meccans were not marching on Muhammad. They did send out an army, but it was to protect their caravans from the Muslims (who had recently killed Meccan caravan drivers defending their property). The Meccans were not interested in starting a war, only in seeing that their merchandise and drivers were unmolested by Muhammad’s raiders (see previous):

    Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq 428)
    The account goes on to say that some of the Muslims were reluctant to participate in the attack because they did not want to go to war. Muhammad later refers to these peaceful Muslims as ‘Hypocrites’ in the Qur’an, where he also condemns them to Hell and demands that true Muslims deal with them harshly (66:9).

    After Muhammad sent out his men to attack the caravan, Abu Sufyan (his Meccan adversary) learned of his plans:

    When he got near to the Hijaz, Abu Sufyan was seeking news and questioning every rider in his anxiety, until he got news from some riders that Muahmmad had called out his companions against him and his caravan. (Ibn Ishaq 428)
    Abu Sufyan did two things at this point to avert battle. He changed his route, so as to avoid Muhammad’s army, and he sent for help. The Meccans then sent out a larger force of about 900 men to rescue the caravan.

    A lengthy cat and mouse game ensued between Muhammad and the Meccans, in which the latter do nearly everything they can to avoid a conflict (Ishaq 433 to 443). Eventually Muhammad forces them into battle by deliberately stopping up the water wells on which they depended for the trek home to Mecca, and then planting his army between the remaining wells and the thirsty Meccans.

    The Muslims clearly had the advantage against the weary and reluctant Meccans, even though they were lesser in number. Initially, they amused themselves by killing the few men desperate enough to try and reach the water:

    Al-Aswad, who was a quarrelsome ill-natured man, stepped forth and said, “I swear to God that I will drink from their cistern or destroy it or die before reaching it.” Hamza [a Muslim strongman] came forth against him and when the two met, Hamza smote him and sent his foot and half his shank flying as he was near the cistern. He fell on his back and lay there, blood streaming from his foot toward his comrades. Then he crawled to the cistern and threw himself into it for the purpose of fulfilling his oath, but Hamza followed him and smote him…” (Ibn Ishaq 443)
    The Muslims toyed with several other thirst-crazed Meccans in the same deadly manner before Muhammad finally gave the order to rout the “enemy.”

    The period following the victorious battle was one of giddy celebration for the Muslims. The decapitated heads of Muhammad’s opponents from Mecca were presented to him, and their slayers honored. Live captives were brought before him as well, where he ordered some ransomed and some executed. In what seemed bizarre even to his own men, Muhammad walked among the bodies of the dead Meccans and taunted them, insisting that they could hear him in Hell (Bukhari 59:314).

    The captured wealth of the Meccans was divided among the victors. Hamza, the man who had slaughtered the first Meccan attempting to reach water, turned his cruel amusement toward defenseless animals, cutting the humps off of camels and disemboweling them for no reason other than to relish their agony (Bukhari 59:340).

    Amid the drunken carnage, Allah “spoke” to Muhammad and told him to make sure that the other Muslims gave him a fifth of the war booty. These words have become permanently recorded in the Qur’an (8:1), even though they have no relevance today. The prophet of Islam also informed his men that their victory was actually due to a legion of angels sent down by Allah (8:9) – which were, of course, visible only to Muhammad (8:50). (For some reason, the angels didn’t show at the next battle, in which the Muslims were routed at Uhud).

    Much of the 8th Sura, one of the Qur’an’s more violent chapters, was “revealed” following the aftermath of the Battle of Badr. Many of the verses make little sense outside of their historical context, proving that the Sira (biography of Muhammad) is necessary for interpreting the Qur’an.

    In this case, the historical context is completely at odds with any misconception on the part of modern-day Muslims that the Battle of Badr was a defensive conflict. Only the Meccans fought in defense of their lives and property that day – and they did so reluctantly, after Muhammad took monumental steps to force them into battle.

  18. roadrunner says:

    Here again we have a great example of someone writing an article with no knowledge of the truth. Islam uses religion for a cover for it’s world takeover agenda. Is it a religion? No! The preachings of the Koran are that the latest versus in the book take priority over any previous less combatant writings making most, if not all, of the previous early text null and void. For a person to be a good and faithful follower of Islam, they must subscribe to all the writings and the mean spirited agenda of the latest writings, not the “Pick and Choose” approach that many in America have selected. If born a muslim you better stay a muslim, or else be killed by a muslim. That’s the teaching of their “Good Book”! That’s probably why the numbers of muslims in the world are growing at such an alarming rate. We all make another mistake. We call these terrorists RADICAL muslims. They are NOT! They are only acting on direction of the Koran and are nothing worse than ACTIVISTS!

    We all need to recognize this movement for what it truly is and a religion it is not! So, simply put, those muslims who fight with American soldiers against the mid eastern enemies of America are not good muslims. They do not align themselves with the teachings of the Koran and therefore have decided to become greatly modified from the Koran in order to live without fear of being killed by a muslim who follows all the teachings. If they had the choice, they probably would have denied their so-called faith and become Christians or something else.

  19. AhmadH says:

    i have to again rebutt MichaelP. Michael’s history of Meccan events is upside down . Read carefully. 1. M.P said that Muhammad s.a.w ‘claim to be monotheistic, but condone worship of other Gods’. WRONG TIME-FRAME. At this time, Muhammad was a young adult, contemplating God and not a prophet yet. So ‘condoning polytheistic Gods’ is M.P’s words/ own conclusion. M.P likes to put his words into other people’s mouth. 2. M.P concludes that ‘since Muhammad’s uncle is a custodian of Kaaba, therefore Muhammad must at least worshipped idols. Again,Wrong own conclusion of Michael’s. Muhammad’s possible passive presence around the Kaaba, does not make him, by default,a polytheist. He was a young man contemplating the nature of God. 3. Muhammad fled to Madinah, after about 10 years of Quraish persecution in Mecca. MichaelP wants readers to believe that, between the time of Muhammad’s escape and the time of Abu Sufyan’s caravan being raided,about 2 years, that the Quraish meccans are just laying idle,not planning an attack? WAR on Muhammad.In this period, it was lke ‘spy-vs-spy’ game. SO naive and lame, Michael. I might even conclude that M.P is a propagandist liar, of Muslim history. 4. Michael says that I say that Christ/ Isa a.s is a liar. I DID NOT say that; what I meant is the story of jesus is LIED UPON by later people. There’s a big difference; as if M.P does’nt know. 5. to Nicknack; about a’fickle’ God. Jews are not allowed by God to fish on saturday (Sabbath),but Christians, and Muslims are allowed, happily. Is then, God , Fickle ???

  20. AhmadH says:

    Good News to my Christian brothers and sisters. The question as to how a Muslim Goverment will treat its christian citizens (gist from Prophet Muhammad’s Letter to St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai).This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah as a COVENANT to those Christians, near and far.WE ARE WITH THEM. Verily, I and my followers are to DEFEND them, because Christians are my CITIZENS; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. NO compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their Judges to be removed from their jobs,Nor their Monks from the monasteries.No one is to destroy a house of their religion,to damage it,or take anything away from it to a muslim’s house.Should anyone take any of these,he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His prophet.No one is to force them to travel and nor to oblige them to fight.The Muslims are to fight FOR !!! them(Christians).If a female christian is to be married to a muslim,it is not to take place without her approval.She is not prevented from visiting her church to pray.The churches are to be respected.They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the Sacredness of their Covenants. NO ONE of the MUSLIM NATION is to DISOBEY the COVENANT till the LAST DAY !!!. (from Muhammad s.a.w the prophet). How beautiful the spirit of this message; compared to those misintepretations of the Quran and Muhammads character. The St. Catherine’s monastery IS protected; from Muhammad’s days and muslim empires, till today!. Ponder on this .

  21. Nicknack says:

    @ AhmadH September 24, 2010 at 4:06 am

    The covenent that the Jews had with God was broken. All of God’s laws to the Jews were revised when His people shunned the Messiah. The new covenant is to be a bond for all people. That is not fickle but inherntly generous since God forgave even those that broke their word to Him. Ahmadh he will glady accept you as well.

    John 3:15-16

    That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

  22. AhmadH says:

    “Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares the glory of God;_For He is all-Mighty,all-Wise._To Him belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth,_He causes life and He causes death,For He is capable of doing all He pleases._He is the First and the Last,the Apparent and the Hidden,_For He knows all things._It is He Who has made the heavens and the earth in six periods,and then remains firm in His Power._He knows what goes down into the earth and what comes out therefrom,And what comes down from above and what rises thereto._And He is with you wherever you be,For God sees what you do. ___To Him belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth,_And towards God is the return of all affairs._He merges the night into day and he merges the day into the night,_And He knows what is inside the breasts.__________ Believe ye in God and His messengers.” Quran 57;1-7. THANKS, Editors of A.R.


  1. [...] America’s Right The Americas Right Editors [...]

  2. [...] Can One Simultaneously be a Good Muslim and a Good American? NOTE: Read the Editors’ response to this controversial piece HERE. [...]

Speak Your Mind