Among the many areas of concentration in the new Islamist apologetics literature (aside from attacking the Deity of God, saying He was only a prophet subordinate to Muhammad [they call Him "Isa," a transliteration of Y'Shua into Arabic], who is, of course, the "seal of the prophets") is a very admirable attempt to revise well over a thousand years of history and recast Islam as a female-friendly religion.  Under the shadow of this truly daunting task, the obvious and most effective inroad is to undermine Biblical faith by revising well over six thousand years of Biblical history to recast Christianity as a female-viscious religion.  We will briefly examine this here.
 
 
 

Ali's Misrepresentation of the Facts
Ali begins by asserting that the Qu'ran holds men and women in equal esteem.  Ignoring for the moment the rather titanic problem facing all Islamist apologists that the Qu'ran is horribly self-contradictory, anachronistic, and ahistoric, one has only to point out that according to the Qu'ran one man can possess up to four wives (this is one of the multiplied myriads of places where the "Prophet" broke his own "revealed law;" he had far more than four wives, including an eight year old girl); yet a woman cannot possess more than one husband.  (The Bible declares one man for one woman.  Where a man had more than one wife, the Holy Writ records inerrantly the terrible consequences of such violation of God's purpose and plan for marriage; for instance, Israel's wives connived and fought one another, bringing about early dischord among the Patriarchs and sowing the seeds for the future split of the Monarchy; David's polygamy split the nation; Solomon's polygamy drew him ultimately from YHWH; etc..  The Bible inerrantly records the graces and foibles of men, without condoning that which goes against Jesus' holy Law.)

As with most Islamist apologetics, the arguments are not developed from an assumption of External Truth, but of internal conviction; i.e., not based on logic but on emotional response.  The question for Ali is not one of Revealed Truth, but of "what sounds better."  He predictably avoids altogether the issue of Absolute Truth:  Is what God records in the Bible actually true?  That is the starting question he fails thoroughly to address, and launches immediately into a contrast-and-compare session by setting up straw men by insinuation and juxtaposing them with his watered-down semi-quotes of Islamist teachings on the subject of the woman's position.  There are several pages that deal with the question of Scriptural inerrancy via confluent, verbal-plenary inspiration; we will for the remainder of this response assume it here.  [For further research we recommend the books "When Skeptics Ask" by Dr. Norman Geisler, and "Answer to Tough Questions" by Josh McDowell.]

Ali first claims that the Qu'ran does not "blame... [women] for violating the "forbidden tree," nor is their suffering in pregnancy and childbirth a punishment for that act."  Laying aside the gross errors in the Qu'ran concerning Creation Week (see Genesis 1 & 2, compare), we note that neither does God.  In fact, God declares that the Fall is completely  due to Adam's failure [Romans 5:12-21], not Eve's.  Though created in absolute equality ontologically [Genesis 1:27, 2:18; Galatians 3:28, etc.], in the economy of marriage someone is called to lead, and within marriage that someone is the husband.  In the Old Testament, women are capable of obtaining an inheritance, and multitudinous laws were put in place by God to protect women, in sharp contrast to the wicked societies that surrounded the children of Israel pre- and post-Conquest.  In Ephesians 5:22, wives are to "submit" to their own husbands [notably, not to men in general, as sexists have grossly misinterpreted this verse]; the Greek word used is hupotasso, which direcly implies ontological equality [you cannot hupotasso unless you are intrinsically equal with the one you are submitting to; it is often used as a military term denoting the subordinating of the individuals soldiers under the headship of the centurion in order to so place themselves as to protect the whole and advance the purpose of the unit.].  Et cetera.  As for childbirth and pregnancy being a punishment for sin, Ali would do well to actually read the Bible, and note that Genesis 1:28 occurred before the Fall; pregnancy and childbirth was indeed declared by God to be "very good" [Genesis 1:31; the "very good" applies to all that Jesus had created up to this point, which necessarily includes both pregnancy and childbirth].  The pain of pregnancy and childbirth was a direct result of the Fall -- as indeed was sickness, suffering, and death -- and was wholly alien to the original created order.

Ali then states:  "Roles of men and women are complementary and collaborative. Rights and responsibilities of both sexes are equitable and balanced in their totality."  He states this obviously attempting to contrast this with God's Word.  Again, laying aside the obvious disparity between the genders in the Qu'ran and in practiced Islam, we point out that the Bible declared this very same thing two-and-a-half thousand years before Muhammad was even born.  In Genesis 2:18, the term "helpmeet" (or "helper comparable to him") is 'ezer kenegdo, and again directly implies ontological equality.  It contrasts thematically with the creation of the fauna, as this 'Isha is of the same nature and being as the 'Ish.  In fact, the narrative in Genesis 2 is especially poignant about the point of essential equality between the genders; the only time Jesus says something is "not good" in His work of Creation is when He sees the man in isolation; Adam needs Eve in God's inerrant estimation.

Ali closes by stating:  "Likewise, treatment of women in some areas of the Muslim world sometimes reflects cultural practices which may be
inconsistent, if not contrary, to authentic Islamic teachings."  We submit that this is something of a cop-out, and is at the very least extremely presumptuous.  One would think that those who would know the best about what Islam teaches concerning women are those who are lifelong Mohammedians living under Islamist regiemes.  One only has to note the sad state of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, et. al, to see through the very valiant but less than truthful facade that Ali attempts to erect.
 
 
 
 
 

Conclusion:
In conclusion, we applaud Ali and other Islamist apologists for undertaking the impossible task of defending Islam on at least semirational terms; we admire your courage.  However, the truth still stands.  Straw man argumentation is perhaps the easiest to counter, and although Islamist apologists seem to be masters of both this and the Red Herring disinformation technique, it inevitably will fall.

The issue is not "what sounds best," but rather what is truth.

Jesus -- the God Made Flesh [John 1:1-3, 14] -- says that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no man may come to the Father except through Him.  He is not "one way among many," neither is He simply a mortal prophet later to be superceded.   He is God Himself, our Perfect and Necessary Go'el, the spotless Lamb of God without Whom we are utterly lost.