Book Review: A God Who Hates

Figure 1A: A God Who Hates, offered in Hebrew translation.

Figure 1A: A God Who Hates, offered in Hebrew translation.

The reader would say from the outset that it was very difficult to get through this particular work; this was not due to the title or any saucy (or original) material prepared by the writer of the work.

No…instead it was how mechanical and boring it read. One who found himself reading through this book could only complete such a work after making a firm oath to do so or perhaps being threatened with rendition.

I believed that I would read about an author who prayed, fasted and then some tragic or severe event in her life began to re-shape her world view. Is she not the same Wafa Sultan described as “being raised in a devout Muslim family?”

Someone would expect this reading from someone casting herself as an authority and being held in esteem by others for her unique inside knowledge of Islam.

Any reader will be sorely disappointed once the dust jacket is cracked up and the words inside are read. Wafa Sultan memorably states, “Baniyas’s proximity to the sea had made it accessible to European tourism and kept it comparatively free of the constraints of Islamic law, which shackled the lives of the inhabitants of Aleppo.” A God Who Hates, pp. 22-23

If this was free of Islamic law, then how did the author grow up to be a devout Muslim? Further confusion comes from the fact that there is no mention in any of the pages of this work regarding her worship, hijab, wudu’ or any of the other external and cultured signs of Islam that someone would expect from a “devout Muslim family.”

The only thing we are able to put together is that there was a second marriage in the family to produce a son who would be his heir, Sultan’s mother was beaten mercilessly and other things that leave the reader wondering how this all ties in as a polemic against Islam.

Also balance this against the fact that Syria is ruled the Alawi Shi`ah cult and the legal system is pulled from French (primarily), American and British legal codes. There are a few tumbleweeds of Revealed Law in a few family matters like custody and some other things, but how Islam plays an over arching role in a Syrians life is humorous at best when remembering this Ba`athist regime.

We then have Morad, the husband of Wafa Sultan, who abandoned his own wife to go to the United States, knowing that she had little or no chance of getting out of the place without his written consent. (A God Who Hates, pp. 93-94;)

She stated in another section of her book, “I am a Muslim woman. Yes, I think of myself as a Muslim, whether or not I believe in Islam. I did not choose to be a Muslim, but it is not within my power to make myself anything else.” (A God Who Hates, pp. 113-114).

It is in works like this (which I affectionately call Professional Apostate Literature or PAL) that we often find an author claiming that they are still Muslim although they are atheists, strident homosexuals or any other manner of clear rebellion. Not only am I Muslim, but I don’t accept revelation, the Revealed Law, the Lord who revealed it; but I am still Muslim.

Let us be clear here…no you’re not. This is not Judaism where one can be just like Albert Einstein or Sigmund Freud and claim Judaism although rejecting their Lord. Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and other secular Jews are making reference to the fact that although they reject the religion of their family, they are still racially Hebrew (if their claims to Hebrew stock are to be believed although we have yet to get any independent data on their Semititude) or “Jew” for shorthand.

Thus they may have rejected the religion of their race, but they still identify with the struggles and emancipation of their perspective ethnic group. The same could be said of a Black man in the United States who rejects his Christian religious faith (which is still so integral in Black culture to be almost inseparable) but is still dedicated to Black emancipation. The same could be said for the one who rejects his Hindu faith but as an Indian is still heavily involved in Asian issues.

This works for these groups as no formal and uniform definition has been given for someone who is to belong to their faith; but this did not occur with the Muslims. Islam is not a race but a revealed religion. Most Arabs today (and 52% of Palestinians, 22% of Egyptians and some 15% or more of “Jordanians”) are Christians and not Muslims. We have a definition of what Islam is and what it means as defined by its’ Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

The Companion Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated, “I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, saying, ‘Islam is built on five: the testimony of there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishing the prayer, discharging the Zakah, making Hajj and fasting Ramadan.’[1]

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, also said, “When you have subdued the people of a city or a fortress, if they testify that there is no god but Allah, they have the same rights as you and they have the same laws against them as what you have.” [2]

Al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that he said one day, “Messenger of Allah, What would you say if I met a man from the idol worshippers and he fought me. He struck one of my hands with the sword and cut it off.

He ran away from me to a tree and then he said, ‘I have submitted to Allah. I am Muslim.’ Shall I then kill him, Messenger of Allah, after he said it?” He said, “Do not kill him.”

So I said, “Messenger of Allah, he has cut off one of my hands! He only said those words after he cut my hand! So should I kill him?” He said, “Do not kill him. If you killed him then he would have been a Muslim like you before you killed him. After you killed him, you would have been an unbeliever like him before he had submitted.” [3]

Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, related that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever prays as we do, becomes Muslim and faces the Qiblah as we do, eats of our sacrifices, then this is a Muslim to whom Allah and His Messenger have granted protection. So do not betray Allah in His Protection that was granted to him.” [4]

`Ubaidullah ibn `Adi ibn al-Khiyar, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that a man from the Helpers spoke of someone who had come to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in a gathering and then sought permission to kill a man from the hypocrites.

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, spoke up and said, “Does he not bear witness that there is no god but Allah?” The man said, “Yes, but there is no testimony for him.” He then asked, “Does he pray?” He said, “Yes, but there is no prayer for him.” He said, “These are the people whom Allah has forbidden from being killed.” [5]

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, “Whoever is pleased with Allah as Lord, Islam as religion and Muhammad as Prophet has tasted the sweetness of faith.” [6]

`Ubadah as-Samit, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who said, “Whoever bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, Allah has made the Fire impermissible for him.” [7]

Thus we were not told, “Whoever said he was Muslim no matter what and rejected revelation shall go to the Paradise.” No! Whoever believed that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah shall go to Paradise.

This is not the only contradiction that Wafa Sultan offers us. She often questions polygamy (for some reason the people who have never been fully involved in it or raised in it have the most to say about it) and asks what responsibility men hold for what is in her opinion a dastardly crime. (A God Who Hates, pp. 120-131)

Nevermind the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, took care of all of his wives and maintained them until the day that he died and the Muslim community later maintained them. It is of no consequence that these “products of men who have let their desires run free” have produced some of the greatest minds, scientists and upright people of history.

Are we able to say that the prophets Ibrahim, Isma`il, Ishaq, Ya`qub, Imams Ahmad ibn Hanbal,  `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Abdur-Rahman ibn Al-Jawzi, my grandfather and father did not take care of their responsibilities.

I, as a product of polygamy, can see first hand that I was pushed hard in education and speak more than one language. Members of my family were and are polyglots for the most part due to globetrotting, expulsion from countries in the Middle Ages and so forth.

If we should look at the country that she fled to – the United States – which is supposed to be a bastion of monogamy, what have they accomplished? With 5,000 children dead from gang violence between the years of 1988-1992 from monogamy or “strong women who did it themselves,” I have not seen the success.

If the Muslims were so sexually depraved, why is it that every 60 seconds a woman is raped and a child is molested according to US crime statistics? This would not seem like a country that fosters love and unity.

A careful read in the book with also reveal the starry eyed lies of this writer when during her whole time on the West Coast of the United States – the gang capital of the planet – she stays safely nestled away in the hills and other areas, pretending to be part of the American dream.

One will find no mention of her visits to Compton, Inglewood, Watts, San Francisco’s Hunter’s Point, West Covina Pacoima and other places that are not fit for human habitation.

Her visits in Long Beach are unsurprisingly short and limited to a tiny tip of the city that is sometimes not even counted as Long Beach, California. In the very epicentre of gang banging by Arab youths in LA, no mention is made of this fact.

She makes the same error as people in the United States make when referring to the niqab as the burqa` (A God Who Hates, pp. 148-149). This leads me to cast further doubt upon her knowledge of Arabic or Islam when she does not know the difference between the niqab and the burqa`.

My doubts are further augmented when she said that Islam forbids the translation of the Qur’an into other languages besides the original Arabic, (A God Who Forbids, pp. 165-166).

If this was the case, then why did Salman Al-Farisi, may Allah be pleased with him, translate extracts to his people in Farsi. Further, why were sections of it translated when it was sent to Muqawqis (a Coptic speaking Orthodox Christian), Negus (Amharic speaking Orthodox Christian)?

In fact, the entire dialogue between the great theologian Ja`far ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and the Negus was done through translators and the verses translated.

Muslims theologians have never said the Qur’an cannot be translated. The theologians have said that a translation of the Qur’an is not the Qur’an as that is not what was revealed on 27 Ramadan 12 BH.

One cannot read the Qur’an in English and derive rulings for juristic matters and legal foundations although they can derive devotional benefits from reading a translation. The English translation of the Qur’an does not require the reader to have wudu’ before touching it as the English or translation is not the revelation.

Sultan proves herself wrong yet again on the topic of disliking of the language used by the Holy One in describing the unbelievers (A God Who Hates, pp.169-170), the prohibition of usury and the imagery that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, utilises to drive home the point of how severe a sin usury is in its’ affect on society (A God Who Hates, pp. 171-172) and numerous other issues.

Someone looking into the affair will find that her problems range from everything from what Allah revealed all the way to sexuality and ethics. Much of her opinions expressed sound borderline psychotic (which perhaps for a secular Arab from a Ba`ath regime that studied American psychology intensively in the gang and serial killer capital of the world doesn’t sound so out of place or bizarre) when looked at in normal circumstances.

Consider statements from Wafa Sultan such as: If Pakistani mothers raised their children better, Pakistan would be the Switzerland of the Middle East (A God Who Hates, pp. 144-145), when her son Mazen’s hearing returned after medical treatment, she chanted to her husband, “Long Live America” (A God Who Hates, pp. 98-99), when a teacher by the name of Mr. Wilson brought her son to her in order to pick up the hearing aid that had been lost, Sultan made a link to `Umar ibn Al-Khattab and stated, “Long Live Mr Wilson and everlasting death to Omar ibn al-Khattab!” (A God Who Hates, pp. 100-101).

Other pearls of wisdom include the old canard about “women being the majority of the people of the Fire” (A God Who Hates, pp. 137-138), quoting a false hadith that “a man has a right to expect his wife, if his nose runs with blood, mucus or pus, to lick it up with her tongue” (A God Who Hates, pp. 138-139), Muslims living in the West are hypocrites (A God Who Hates, pp. 145-146), by holding a Qur’an memorising contest in Anaheim, California, American troops and the US government interests in Iraq were being put in harms way (A God Who Hates, pp. 150-151).

Of course there is more, but every intelligent person that can read these quotes in context can be sure of one thing. There is something wrong with Wafa Sultan that was there before she had her problem with Islam. The early chapters of her book describe how her toxic and diseased attitude toward men developed.

In her boasting about her appearance on Al-Jazeera, she left out (and most rightly for someone trying to save her credibility) her seemingly being cornered by an Algerian professor (Ahmad bin Muhammad, Professor of Religious Politics, Algiers) on the fact that she has sided with a country (the United States) that has the blood of millions of Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos and others on its’ hands domestically and not just internally.

As an immigrant to the United States and perhaps not knowing English very well (she’s only been there over 20 years, give her time!), she might have forgot this part. Rather than admit that she might need more study, or simply state, “I will look into this matter but until further notice, I hold to my aforementioned position,” she stepped into strange waters.

She brazenly pursed her lips and shouted towards her opponent, “Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, regime and a state – for killing the Indians.”

I had to watch this twice to be sure that Mrs Sultan was not under the influence of hallucinogenic products. Professor Muhammad was not referring to Christopher Columbus’s landing in 1492 (although much could be said for his 1493 return to Hispaniola on behalf of the crown to exterminate the Carib peoples and make room for expansion), but rather the establishment of the United States.

Unless you work for the Smithsonian Institute or the Waffen SS 21st century, those who access history and know the sources texts are aware that upon arrival of American settlers and the founding of the United States, there were close to 100 million people in what is now the continental United States.

Part of the Aztec Empire stretched into the southwestern states that make the West Coast of the United States and of course the dirty matter of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Between 60-100 million people just up and disappeared from the African continent and strangely found their way in the United States where they still reside in ghetto/internment camp circumstances for the most part.

If one would like to know more about the slaughterhouse enacted by the United States government, referring to the works of Russell Means, Ward Churchill (with a bibliography of 500 sources for one book alone), as well as articles penned by the Muckleshoot, Lummi, Onandaga and numerous other reports.

The writer, upon completing this Herculean task of finishing Wafa Sultan’s book was left with one thought: if she apostated, then it is better for the Muslim world. We need no such people in our ranks. Let these countries have our theological ranks.

Although it is not a fair trade I will gladly take the intellectuals that have come into our ranks from the unbelievers from the unbelievers. When your intelligentsia deserts you, the next thing is the collapse of your civilisation.

As long as we keep receiving the Abdul Hakim Murads, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthalls, Malcolm Xs and so many others, let us gladly give up a Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Bilquis Sheikh. Let’s make room for a smarter, sharper and more helpful member in the Ummah.

We don’t want people who are Muslim when life is in your favour. We want the people who came in when it is not advantageous. We should welcome the Makkan Muslim and keep the Madani on the far wing. Remember that 500 Makkan Muslims were tortured and it didn’t shake their faith.

It took a change of address to Madinah and the first hypocrites to appear in that city. Perhaps we have too many old Madanis that need to be discarded for more Makkans. I welcome them and their contribution…and this is why I can safely and confidently say goodbye to Wafa Sultan and her poorly written mumblings.

[1] Collected by Imams Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Bukhari in his Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Iman under the chapter, Your Supplication is YourFaith; Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj in his Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Faith, under the chapter, Explanation of Islam, Iman and Ihsan, the Necessity of Faith in what Allah, Glorified and Exalted has Destined and Decisive Evidence on Rebuking Whoever Does not Believe it, and classed by both of them as authentic.

[2] Collected by Imams Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Jihad under the chapter of the Permissibility of Making War Against the Unbelievers who Have Been Sent the Call of Islam and That They Do Not Have to be Informed of the Approaching March and classed by him as authentic.

[3] Collected by Imams Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Bukhari in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Battles under the Subchapter; Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Faith under the chapter of the Impermissibility of Killing the Unbeliever who said that there is no god but Allah and classed by both of them as authentic.

[4] Collected by Imam Al-Bukhari in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Prayer under the chapter of Facing the Qiblah and classed by him as authentic.

[5] Collected by Imam Malik ibn Anas in Al-Muwatta’, pp. 131-132 and classed by him as authentic

[6] Collected by Imam Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Faith under the chapter of the Evidence that Whoever is Pleased with Allah as Lord, Islam as Religion and Muhammad as Messenger is a Believer, Even if He Does Major Sins and classed by him as authentic.

[7] Collected by Imam Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj in Al-Jami` us-Sahih, Book of Faith under the chapter of the Evidence that Whoever Dies on Tawhid Will Enter the Paradise and classed by him as authentic.

2 responses to “Book Review: A God Who Hates

  1. Assalaam alaykum,

    Jazakum Allah khayran for an excellent rebuttal of this poor, sad woman. May Allah guide her and help her, ameen!

    Regarding her statement, “Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, regime and a state – for killing the Indians.” she should read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, which covers the period 1860-1890, long after the founding of the USA.

    The first part of the blurb reads: ‘Beginning with the Long Walk of the Navajos and ending with the massacre of the Sioux at Wounded Knee, this extraordinary book tells how the American Indians lost their land, lives and liberty to white settlers pushing westward.’ (Vintage Press, 1991)

    She should also read the book reviews people have left on the website:

    One reviewer wrote: “Told chronologically, it relates tribe-by-tribe the incredible levels of deep-seated racism and greed displayed by white prospectors, settlers, soldiers and politicians as they carved up the vast land of North America into its component states and territories in their boardrooms and forts, with the Native Americans trampled underfoot along the way.

    Not legally recognised as “people” (with the sole exception of Standing Bear, who managed to become a person only through legal action), the indiginous occupants of North America were confronted by soldiers tribe by tribe, and told to move out of the place they lived, and onto a reservation – or be killed. The Native Americans who agreed ended up on reservation land which was no use to the whites – that is, no use for hunting, farming, or living. The rations fed to them were not fit for human consumption, and on some reservations, most simply died from disease or starvation. Those who tried to complain, resist, or leave were imprisoned or killed. For the Native Americans that fought, they resisted long and hard but eventually they became vastly outnumbered. Originally they were only a few million in number themselves, but with another ten million new white faces arriving each and every year over the period written about, the already rapidly-diminished native population found itself up against unconquerable odds.”

    Another reviewer sums it up perfectly: “America gives the impression that it doesn’t like to talk about its original inhabitants. This book makes you realise why. Over a period of a few decades, the native population of the West were practically wiped out.

    As the USA increasingly positions herself as the World’s moral guardian, it is sobering to realise that the country was built on slavery and genocide. Hardly a distinguished pedigree.”

    And with Allah alone is every success!

    Assalaama alaykum,


  2. Assalaam alaykum Akhee Al-Hajj Al-Kareem,

    This poor guy is clearly disturbed. He can’t even spell and he thinks block capitals make him look more convincing. And where are his sources for any of this? He should also read The Case Against Adolescence by Robert Epstein. The author actually cites ‘Aisha’s age at marriage (radhi Allahu anha) as one of his proofs that adolescence is a modern, western fabrication that is absent from just about every other culture and civilization on earth. No normal person in history would see that as anything but pedophilia? Really? As Epstein points out, William Shakespeare would have found it quite normal. In the famous play, Romeo and Juliet were not older than their early teens, i.e. 13,14, and there’s also a line in the play where Juliet’s mother indicates then she was even younger than Juliet when she got married and had children.

    Mark Steyn, in After America, also points out that before the 1930s, in the US, there was a rapid transition from childhood to adulthood. At 13, it was normal to finish school, get a job and start a family.

    Thus, according to almost every other culture and civilization on earth, ‘Aisha, radhi Allah anha, was an adult when she got married. This poor fool is projecting his experience of modern US culture back on the rest of the world, like certain Ash’ari’s of today reading old Hanbali texts, and making an ass of himself.

    Do you want to publish his comment? I think this poor guy needs help.

    Assalaam alaykum,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s