Robert Morey’s Muslim IQ Test

He includes in the IQ test, 25 propositions; can we examine and disprove the evangelical Christian.

I heard in the rebuttal, he speaks in the most defamatory, hateful manner about the Prophet of Islam.

He, like many of his kind, assumes that colloquial English applies to the hadiths of ancient Arabia; for example, he states “Allah(sic) saw the sheet of Muhammad move and the whiteness of his thigh, and the whiteness of the thing…”

Please, whenever you read anything, understand to read, don’t assume that because you are reading the Qur’an or hadiths, as a Christian or non-Muslim, that you will definitely find something very strange and evil, such as the explanation which brother Morey gives about the hadith above during the rebuttals.

In the above example, he says, “the thing” refers to the penis. To a kindergartener in America, “the thing” will mean a penis; in the translation, it is obvious that is not what is meant; but this American evangelical Christian doesn’t understand what was said.

In the tradition, Muhammad, pbuh, was riding an animal, maybe a horse. His legs became uncovered, up to the mid thigh, not higher. Someone, narrating the hadith (Allah is nowhere mentioned, and Allah is never spoken of in this manner e.g. as being a witness to Muhammad when he was riding or when he ate; it was always other people, who saw Muhammad doing these types of ordinary mundane activities; why would Allah have to see anything? This first of all is not what the tradition says; Allah doesn’t see it, someone else is seeing Muhammad and describing what he sees.

Next, the whiteness of his thigh is how the narrator describes the color of Muhammad’s leg. Due to his riding, and the shirt moves  so that part of his thigh becomes uncovered(not a sheet, but perhaps his shirt, or a bisht; type of covering, not called a sheet (we know the non-Muslims, due to their racist attitudes like to say that Muslims wear sheets, or are ‘camel jockeys’ and so on, but the bisht, or some type of Arabic clothing or covering is referred to)Muslim men used to also wear Izzar, or a waist cloth, but this might also ‘ride up’ during activity such as riding a horse. The point of the hadith was only to explain that Muhammad was a white Arab, not very dark-skinned. In other hadiths, some described that he did not have a lot of body hair as some men do; he had some hair running down the middle of his chest to his navel, but not an abundance of chest hair, or neck hair, etc. He had dark wavy hair past his ear lobe, between the chin and earlobe, etc. He had brown eyes, or honey -colored eyes and thick eyelashes, a broad forehead and straight nose. He was handsome; some of the companions resembled him (one or two of them in particular).

When the sentence, says, the thing, it is referring back to the thigh again. It is just reiterating that his thigh was white. It is ridiculous to say that when he is riding his horse anything of his private parts would have been visible. This is pure fantasy on the part of the Christian debater.

“I had a cat, it was orange. The thing was orange.”

What do you think the “thing’ in the above example refers to? Even in English people say things like this.

Where does he get the idea that a cat’s penis is meant??

Only a child would confuse, “the thing”, meaning “the cat” with the cat’s penis.

Similarly, “I had a cat, it was orange. It had a cute orange face and pink tongue. The thing was very pink”.

I find it very sad that such debasement is possible in a free, thinking human being.

As for the source of rituals in Islam - none of them come from Pagan, or Christian or Jewish sources. That would mean that Muhammad didn’t receive revelation about what rituals would be Islamic rituals. But the matter is quite clear, as Robert Morey points out, the verse in the Qur’an clearly states that these rituals are revealed and Muslims do the pilgrimage, fast, etc. because Allah told Muhammad to do so, and the Companions did as he did, and we do as they did. There is no differing opinion on any of the rituals as far as Islamic scholars are concerned, and it has been this way since Muhammad’s time.

The fact that Christians and Jews fast, doesn’t mean that we fast because they used to fast, otherwise we would also only fast on Saturdays, or Wednesdays, or during lent. But we don’t fast days because they used to, we fast the days we fast because Muhammad told us to. There is no additional reason for us to fast any of the days we do, except that it was done by our Muslim predecessors.

Similarly, hajj and Umrah, pilgrimages are done because Muhammad did them, and the Companions did them. We didn’t find the Christians or Jews making these pilgrimages. As for the Pagans, they didn’t do the pilgrimage with all the Islamic rites, but were doing a strange form of pilgrimage, without clothing, which they thought was pious, they used to enter their homes during pilgrimage times, from the back doors, or holes they made in the back of their homes, etc. The strangeness of superstitious practices they had are not part of Islamic pilgrimages. Also, Muslims do rites in the pilgrimage which non-believers didn’t do, such as walking between Safa and Marwa, (two mountains and a valley, which Hajar crossed while she looked for water to drink, in the story of Abraham and his son Ishamael.) by this walking (Sai) we commemorate her walking.

There are many differences between Islamic pilgrimage and the pagan practices of the pre Islamic peoples. Also, the reason the pagans even did pilgrimages, or fasted was due to the remnants of the religion of Abraham which they still had, but they had hugely distorted the true religion of Abraham and had made many changes. Their pagan religion hardly resembled the true Islamic monotheism which Abraham and his sons practiced. There are biographical accounts of Muhammad’s religion, true Islam, and how the pagans had distorted and forgotten much of the original religion which Abraham had practiced and which Muhammad, SAWS, came to restore. This is the reason Allah sent Muhammad, and no other reason.

To reiterate, Muhammad’s source for the religion and rituals associated with fasting, pilgrimage and all the five pillars of Islam, were Allah. Allah, SWT, told Muhammad how Islam would be practiced, and what the main tenets of the religion were. He didn’t go to any sources for the religion, but was told by Allah what the religion would be and what forms worship should take, etc.

Muslims wear proper clothing at all times, in and out of pilgrimage, the pagans didn’t.

Muslims don’t have “pine trees” or hang special symbols as part of worship; even the Qur’an is not supposed to be hung on the walls for mere decoration, many Muslims don’t have any Qur’an hanging on their wall; they read the Qur’an, they don’t play with it.

I’m sure there are 100,000s of examples, but I don’t have time for that.

People should think for themselves and not listen to lying men and women, who obviously hate Muslims and hate Islam. Don’t listen to their twisted version of Islam, they are deceivers.

Western Hatred of Islamic Culture

Is Islamic culture respected? (Part Two)

Now, France and Britain attempt to unite their people under a “cultural identity”. The culture, or more correctly religious expression of Muslims, specifically Islamic dress, is a recent target. In America, surprisingly, even the five daily prayers are being attacked!


Britain’s “multiculturalism” and religious freedom allows much cultural and religious expression, but laws can be created to stifle Islamic religious expression, or freedom if need be (on a mere whim, apparently) or as the government sees fit; for example, in the name of security, or under the guise of “multiculturalism” or “women’s rights”.


Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.


“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, The Qur’an)


See also footnote 476, p.273, The Qur’an, Saheeh International publishers.


The internment of Muslim families, specifically children is a systematic practice in Netherlands. Families are separated; children taken away from their fathers. It is inhumane and dirty; one man said, he had not known that such a thing happens in his own country; a free and modern state; he was shocked at his country’s ‘dirty secret’. Most people don’t know that this is happening to the asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants. He is a children’s author, he wrote a book about the experience. (see story - add)


See also, Islam in America and Europe targeted

Islam in America and Europe Targeted

Is Islamic culture respected? (Part One)

Examine the Free Speech in Countries like America and Denmark.


Problem: free speech is not regulated, like say, the food industry.


In other industries, for example, we know that there are certain guidelines, for ex. Food must not pose a threat to health.


Toys must be safe; no lead paint, if there are small parts, then toys must be labeled, as such.


Health equipment; is another example of regulation.


Laws on “freedom of expression” are “no racism”, no “hate”, etc.


Are the laws sufficient? Too vague?

Because countries like America and Britain, which are the biggest proponents and in practice allow the most so-called “free speech”; they also have the highest incidents of hate crimes, and violent threats directed at “Free speech” proponents. Such as writers/artists, or in Denmark, it was the editors of newspapers carrying the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, years back.


The non-Muslims should be taught (tolerance), or governed by/ laws which allow free speech, enacted under “appropriate conduct”.


For example, if you have a problem with Muslim women’s dress in western countries, being forced to/or wearing the face veil, of their own free will, does that constitute a threat to your liberty, or safety? You believe that the public should be able to see anyone’s face.


What about tattoos? Do they not also cover the face? That person can no longer be identified except by his tattoo, for example. If several people then have such tattoos, doesn’t it mean that there is confusion about who is who?


Free speech should be able to show that it is somehow important, or expresses, either art, or culture, or seeks to right some wrong, or so on….


It should be specific: i.e. Don’t complain about Islam in general, is a bad religion; there are examples in the Bible about things which most people would not agree with, yet, the Bible as a whole is not being banned, or attacked, as a whole, nor are certain Christians, denominations, sects, or groups being attacked as a whole.


For example, someone could protest that Muslim women should not wear Islamic clothing, such as the burqa, or a face veil, and give reasons why. There should be a clear and defensible argument why this is not good in a Western society. (I.e. People can merely teach their children that Muslims believe they must dress this way, if it bothers them or their children).


Laws, denying men unilateral divorce, for example. Laws; denying men the right to practice polygamy; these apply to all Muslims; might/might not be seen as violating the basic right to religious freedom. In a secular society, which decides matters in a legal or constitutional framework, what things does the government have a right to ban, or legalize?


But the banning of a covering overcoat? Will Muslim women be allowed to wear “London fog” coats in summer, or will that constitute something illegal. I.e. trying to over cover up in the summer when people should be uncovering?


Should free speech which is “provoking” anger, with no other intention except to “provoke” a group of people, or a religious sect then be illegalized? Considering that such free speech, serves no other purpose; it is not (construed as) being done from an (largely) artistic perspective, it is not challenging a specific idea or belief dangerous to the wide public.


We find that countries like Canada, which have not banned the face veil, have fewer problems. The Muslims are perhaps not choosing extremism, as a result of more freedoms. Definitely, they are happier than Muslims in France at the moment.


Isn’t the government’s direct involvement in banning Islamic clothing, or Islamic teaching, going to anger Muslims, cause resentment, anger, and possibly extremist views? Should the government not make it its job to target specific religions, or sects?

“Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?” (43:5)Qur’an

Governments against Islam

The so-called religious conflict between Christians and Muslims is more political than religious. For one thing, it is not in Muslims’ nature to kill Christians, on the contrary Muslims have always, since the beginning of Islam, thought of Christians as neighbors, many say “cousins”, and have gotten along rather well in communities with Christians, whom the Qur’an calls “people of the Book” respecting the origins of the Christian tradition, being from the same source.

When it comes to religious tensions and wars, we often hear the media talk about the old problem of ‘hatred’, which we are led to believe is inherent due to the fact that Muslims have a strange and opposing religion; they are the ‘cousins’ of the Christians (because the two sons of the Prophet Abraham, according to Christians and Jews, especially the evangelizing kind of Christian and the Zionists, were the ‘cousins’ born of two distinct figures, one a legitimate son (Isaac, according to the Christian/Zionist view) and one an usurper, the ‘younger’ Ishmael.

The problem with the logic of the story is that Ishmael (Ismail, A.S.)was the first born, not Isaac (Ishaq). Muslims also believe them to be equally legitimate sons of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham, A.S., the father of monotheism). Then it follows, that Ishmael’s and Isaac’s descendents would have been equally believers, and Muslims have no problem with this. They don’t see that there was any source of conflict between peoples (from the beginning). There are no ‘stories’ to support such a conflict or hatred.

An important realization (which Muslims get) is that the conflict in the Middle East is about Crusades as much as terrorism; or the Christian governments and Israel holding onto power. From the beginning of Islam, it’s true there was always conflict; it was more political than religious, however. Talk of “war on terror” is an excuse to renew religious hatred in the name of “security”, citing frightening statistics of Al-Qaeda’s presence worldwide, while maintaining bases in the ME to reap the imperialist rewards of tension. But religion is merely a pawn in a chess game of land grabbing. And the UN sponsored Peace talks i.e. Camp David, or what have you, are always unsuccessful, but enough participation by all sides keeps the facade of genuine concern for ME and European stability and human rights in the fore, while in reality land is grabbed away from Muslims (i.e. Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo). It is the Jews or Muslims who really look bad, while the Christian governments and their representatives are spinning a good story; they are believable, which makes opposition impossible or politically disadvantageous. The Jews can afford the spin, too and are good at it. Muslims, their leaders and representatives (Hamas, etc in Palestine, Taliban in Pakistan, even American Muslims like CAIR, which has some success in media, or at least more savvy)are not viewed as positive, even given the spotlight. The media is more than not controlled. Even with YouTube, Muslims can’t get their positive message across. Most Westerners still don’t know what that is/’might be’.

When Muhammad, SAWS, in Mecca began preaching his message of monotheism, it was the leaders that refused the message, and put up the most fight. They didn’t want to lose their position of power and respect. Islam made them appear ignorant, blind and arrogant. When some of the leaders saw the power Islam possessed they decided within themselves to wait. They thought, if Muhammad wins, then we will join him, but not before. This shows that despite their clinging to the old ways, they were willing to follow Muhammad in the end, and didn’t deny that he was the most truthful among them, which is often stated in the authentic prophetic traditions.

Abu Jahl, the ‘pharaoh of the Arab nation’ even commented that it was not Muhammad he denied, but it was the message he denied. Once, he bragged that there was a prophet from his tribe whereas the other tribe, which his own was always in competition with, didn’t have a prophet of God to boast.

Likewise, the Christians didn’t want to be unseated from their position as the premier religion. They were adamant that God had meant them to be the ‘faithful’ that would enter paradise. They didn’t know that the bible had literally been rewritten, by men, including the story of the garden of Eden which relegated women to the role of a betrayer of the first man and Prophet of God, Adam. She would have to suffer and pay each time for that mistake, in the throes of childbirth. The majority of Christians clung to their traditions, unwilling to give an ear to the new religion, a follow up to the same basic monotheism preached at the core of some of the oldest Christian churches, such as the Unitarian tradition. Basically, Christianity believes in God, and Prophets, and the books of revelation, but they didn’t accept Muhammad, also largely because he was an Arab.

As with many conflicts, fear is a motivating factor, and the ones to use that fear to their advantage is the leadership, fanning it to create a phobia that will buffer their followers from the new tradition emerging. With so much misinformation, Christianity has continued to remain largely in the dark about Islam for 1430 plus years.

While Christianity is misogynistic, Muslims are painted as more misogynistic. While the crusaders were barbaric, Muslims are painted as more barbaric, and so on. Even to the point that despite the complete and eternal ban on alcohol in Islam, the only religion that forbids drinking as well as gambling (two great vices among modern Christians), Muslims are painted as the fat and drunk sultans; always mentioned is the whoring that was supposed to be accompanying this revelry.

The Islamophobic beliefs aside, Christianity (the Church) in the past and Western nations and the Zionists in the present want to hold onto power.
("Who Values Peace?" is similar)

Perhaps the highly touted ‘multiculturalism’ is just a western tool to control Muslims after all. While manpower is essential to any nation’s ability to sustain growth, countries such as Canada, France, etc. benefit greatly from immigration, but the government has a lot of control over what Muslims can and cannot do when they live in Canada. They cannot practice polygamy, for one, except illegally, or in the shadows. Recently in America, there was a feeler sent out of stopping Muslims from performing their five daily prayers.

In Britain, the government banned the niqaab, with no legitimate reason. As facial recognition/racial profiling doesn’t help curb crime (not something Muslim women are accused of as such) and women with hiijab will often look very similar if not identical, to most Brits, the only reason to ban the niqaab would be to hurt Muslims.

“Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.” (newer, revised)

“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, Al-Qur’an)

Learn more about Islam's Prophet

Others are always stupid, and not funny

Lessons on Day two -

Oh please.. I am only writing this because I am up before ten this morning and had a pretty late night (last night)...then I wake up and think I'll edit my profile page, only...

I decided to do some reading other ppl's blogs (just a little). It happens that the first one I read sets me thinking again (as often people on the net do) about why ppl can be so self-centred? You are writing a blog; shouldn't it be beneficial to whoever might read it (in a perfect world)? But we live with stuff like this daily..the self-centred young women (21! how much has she yet not experienced? You know, you may end up falling in love and marrying a Muslim someday..you wouldn't be the first! )



REGRETS; ever say something and wish you hadn't? We ALL have and then swore we wouldn't do it again. But that's life. Of course, I easily concure the main point of what the young woman was saying (but with a little editing), that SOME muslims overreact (may or may not be an understatement depending on each individual  Muslim's reaction ) to provocations. By the way, you know when you have a bad hair day, or PMS? Well, Muslims have days like that, too. Sometimes, a person just has had enough irritation for one day, or an entire bad week, and your comment, Qur'an burning frenzy, or whatever is the last straw; it's human nature ( Muslims for the most part, knowing them as I do now, are mostly rational, intelligent human beings) to make quick judgements, rude gestures, or even 'freak out' occasionally. Not everyone is a pillar of calm strength, or perfection. Sometimes rational and intelligent Muslims also say incoherent, ridiculous, or inflammatory hateful things because they are caught off guard. It doesn't make a bad person, only a regretful -about -that- one- moment person.



Think, it's not the very guarded, or experienced people that get all the media attention. It's not the person who has "thought it through" and then didn't 'act out', or the person who was too embarrassed to say anything about his stupid friends' comment to somebody, that get's noticed. Extremists are a different issue altogether. But why blog about them, only?



I don't like ppl saying, "I hate this and I hate that", either. It's not constructive criticism. If you want to change the world, better everyone's experience on the planet, then think of more creative ways to express what you TRULY feel.



Any regrets, yet?