Well, maybe "ban" is not precise enough but you decide. "Ban" means to "prohibit or forbid," and in that sense, my book has been banned by a Chattanooga newspaper and a television station. Chattanooga is a great place to live. It has many Christian colleges, seminaries, and many main offices of parachurch organizations in the area. And Chattanooga is the buckle of the Bible belt, but alas, the buckle has been tarnished by political correctness or maybe personal cowardice.

My new book, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published in March and review copies were sent to various editors. The book review editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press asked for a copy and my conversation with her was very positive and she agreed to do a review that would be published just before my April 4 book signing at Barnes & Noble. It is always news when a local author publishes a book, especially one as timely, informative, and controversial as mine, but the book review was not published. The book signing went on as scheduled after I appeared on many local radio and television shows. (So, I have not been totally banned.)

I called the book review editor and she said that she had been in Italy and would get it done. Weeks passed without it seeing the light of day, so I called her and told her that my credibility was at stake since I had told various bookstore managers and others that the review would appear. She would get back to me but never did, so I called again and was told that no firm commitment had been given that a review would be published!

She was wrong. Every editor who asked for a book got this message: I will send my book with the understanding that a review will appear within 30 days and tear sheets will be sent to me. The message was clear: I would only send books with the understanding that they would do a review with no guarantee that it would be positive. There is no way an author can afford to send his books to numerous editors without an assurance that a review will be done although big publishers often do that. I also told them that I would call them for an explanation if reviews were not published.

Then the Times Free Press published a letter to the editor by Khalid A. Hashmi who accused Cal Thomas of bigotry. I wrote the following in Cal's defense; however, they refused to print it:

Is Cal Thomas a Bigot?

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Well, the Muslims are at it again, trying to divert attention from their own untenable positions by attacking Christians' positions. Khalid A. Hashmi played the bigot card when he accused Cal Thomas of bigotry (in the May 27 issue of the Times Free Press,) comparing him to Jew-haters in Nazi Germany! What chutzpa! A Muslim "spokesperson" accusing a Christian journalist of bigotry! That's like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! While it is obvious that Cal Thomas is not a bigot, it is obvious that Hashmi is not a deep thinker.

I have spent two years studying the Koran, the "holy" book of Muslims, and the vitriolic hatred toward Jews is appalling and abhorrent. Throughout the Koran, Jews are called monkeys and pigs. Mohammed immediately started killing the Jews when he climbed into the catbird seat in Mecca. His killing of Jewish poets is well known. After he had Kab killed, Mohammed declared, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Numerous historians, some of them Islamic, clearly document his beheading of over 800 Jewish men after the Battle of the Trench! (And those Jewish victims were not combatants, only people who did not give full support to Mohammed during the battle.)

Hashmi suggests that non-Muslims can discover what "the American Muslim community really stands for" by visiting their web site, but since all Muslims consider the Koran their holy book (and many consider the Hadith holy) then we can best find out what Muslims believe by reading those books and listening to their leaders. How about the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Chairman Omar M. Ahmad who declared: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant….and the only accepted religion on Earth." Now, I will defend their right to make that attempt, but I deplore their hypocrisy in the pursuit of that endeavor. CAIR is the Islam's damage-control group made up of Muslim fanatics in my opinion.

Hashmi wants to put the best face on Islam that he can, but it is still a 7th-century, desert culture/religion. Let me declare the facts about Islam, facts that can be documented by spending an afternoon in any good library.

*Islam is a culture/religion and when you accept Islam, you accept it all. Then you have no right to convert to another religion. Many Muslims have been killed for converting from Islam.

*Islam teaches that all people are born pure and innocent while the Bible teaches that men are born sinners (and experience proves that children don't have to be taught to lie, steal, etc.).

*Islam teaches that Christ was not God or Lord but just a prophet which would mean He was either a liar or lunatic.
*Islam teaches that Christ did not die on the cross and rise from the dead.

*Islam's god is the desert pagan moon-god. Allah is not the God of Jews and Christians.

*Jihad (Holy wars) has always been a part of Islam. Historian, Will Durant said that the Islamic conquest of India was one of the bloodiest events in history.

*Islam denigrates women giving them less status than men. In court their testimony amounts to half that of a man.

*Mohammed had more than 20 wives, concubines, slaves, etc., while ordinary Muslims are permitted only four. (We are told that Mohammed was really showing kindness in taking those wives not wanting them to live alone!)

*Mohammed had a nine-year-old wife as attested to by numerous historians, some of them Muslims. Aisha, his nine-year-old wife, admitted her marriage to Mohammed was consummated when she was nine! She should know! The Hadith documents this fact, as do many historians who aren't interested in political correctness. Is there anyplace in the civilized world where sane, honest people would disagree that taking a nine-year-old bride is child molestation? If so, where? Does it matter that it took place 1400 years ago? If so, why?

*Mohammed took his son's wife to be his own. He also caused havoc in his harem when he was caught in bed with Mary, his Coptic slave.

Non thinkers will accuse me of bigotry, but honest people will ask, "But is it true?" Doesn’t' truth matter anymore? In fact, does it really matter to most people if Thomas or myself are bigots? Our motives are important to us but does it matter much to others? Who knows what motivates anyone about anything? Why not deal with the truth wherever it leads?

Hashmi may suggest that he is only interested in "American" Muslims; however, all Muslims are obligated to follow the Koran and the traditions of Mohammed. I would like for "moderate" Muslims to tell me why they are not demanding that Islamic nations moderate their customs and laws to be a little more civilized. Why are not thousands of Muslims protesting at the UN or at national embassies over the brutal treatment of Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, etc.?

Let me assure everyone that when (not if) the next Muslim attacks occur against Americans, I will not be accused of being too hard, harsh, or hateful in my assessment of Islam. And I suppose I can't prove that I am not a bigot but I am truthful. I will not waltz around the truth to make Muslims feel more comfortable as they try to justify their 7th-century religion in a civilized world. (End of column.)

The very conservative paper refused to publish my column, and my readers can decide if it was worthy of being read. Wonder why the paper did not want the readers to know the facts? I want bookstore managers to know that I told them the truth. I kept my word. The newspaper did not keep their commitment to do the book review nor would they print the above facts for their readers to see.

Then on June 2, the paper published a cartoon that would offend any nominal Christian or any person not historically deficient. I sent the following letter to the paper and they printed an edited version. (They required me to cut it in half.):

To the Editor:

What were you people trying to prove with the silly editorial cartoon in the June 2 issue showing an "Evangelical Zealot" standing on the chest of a hapless and helpless Muslim as the "zealot" crams "Fundamentalist Christian Dogma" down his throat? For those who didn't understand the cartoon, we were informed that the gist of it was "Converting the Muslims."

Humor is usually an exaggeration of truth (and I have written a book of humor) but your cartoon had no basis in fact. It was not humorous; it was offensive to all Christians and non-Christians who are not historically deficient. (Of course, political cartoons don't have to be "humorous" but they must not distort historical facts to make a political-or religious-point.)

Are your people totally uninformed about the subtle nuances in Christianity, especially in the more conservative groups? If you are like most people in the media you believe that one is a Christian if he or she belongs to a Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or whatever church. Of course, knowledgeable people know that it takes faith in the death and resurrection of Christ to produce a Christian.

But what about Fundamentalists? What makes one a "Fundamentalist"? What is an "evangelical"? What are the differences? You obviously don't know. Some uneducated and unsophisticated critics would say, "Fundamentalists take a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday." Bible-believing Christians do not try to force faith on anyone. We are aware of a simple fact: genuine faith cannot be forced. No one has ever been converted to Christ by force. Millions of people have been "converted" to a particular church and many have been "baptized" (the other option was to be buried) but none have been forced to believe. Forced conversion to Christ is an oxymoron.

Numerous times, on talk shows, I have been accused of "cramming my beliefs down the throats" of people. That accusation has been made simply because I vigorously defended the sane, sensible, and Scriptural positions on the death penalty, homosexuality, abortion, welfare, etc. Question: do we Bible-believing Christians (that's the only kind there are) lose our First Amendment rights because of our Biblical convictions? Can't those of you who disagree with our beliefs deal with our public expression of those beliefs without seeking to gag us and relegate us to the four walls of our churches? The two things you don't like are our Bible-based beliefs and our certitude.

It seems perfectly acceptable to offend Christians but you would not dare offend Muslims. Political Correctness has invaded the Times Free Press! Would you run a cartoon showing a typical Middle Eastern Arab holding a sword to the throat of a non-Arab as he asks: "Will you today accept the peaceful religion of Islam, making Allah your god and Mohammed his prophet?" (Of course, all Arabs are not Muslims and all Muslims are not Arabs.) Now, that cartoon would be historically true and be far more humorous than your anti-Christian cartoon that had no basis in fact.

As I reflect on my response to your offensive cartoon, I challenge you to run a cartoon as I have suggested, but I won't hold my breath until you do since I don't look good in blue. (End of letter.)

Then the paper published another letter from Hashmi on June 25 and refused to print my reply that follows:

To the Editor:

President Reagan's statement ("There you go again") could apply to Khalid Hashmi's letter in the June 25 issue of the Times Free Press. (Earlier Hashmi had played the bigot card by accusing Cal Thomas of bigotry!) Hashmi charged national preachers with blasphemy and falsehoods because of their statements about Mohammed being "a demon-possessed pedophile." Well, Mohammed thought he might be demon-possessed and considered suicide according to the Hadith!

History is replete with documentation of Mohammed's pedophilia. He consummated his marriage to Aisha at 9 according to Aisha in the Hadith. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports that she "had scarcely passed the period of infancy." Even Islamic scholars such as Tabari declared the marriage was consummated at age 9. Space limitations forbid further proof. Mohammed did have a 9-year-old wife. Question: "How do Muslims justify that fact?"

One of the first lies Muslims tell is that they worship the same God as Christians and Jews and Hashmi perpetuates that same distortion of history. I can provide more than 20 references from major historians to support my statement that Allah was one of 360 pagan gods worshiped at the Kaaba in Mecca. The Encyclopedia of Religion declares "Allah is a pre-Islamic name…corresponding to the Babylonian Bel." See also the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, World Book Encyclopedia and middle east experts Wherry, Coon, Farah, Thompson, etc.

Hashmi's charge about multiple wives in the Old Testament is sophomoric: We don't try to defend it. It was permitted by God but was always wrong!

Don Boys, Ph.D.
Author of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse!

No, my above response to the Muslim spokesman was not printed by the Times Free Press. So I called Harry Austin, Editorial Page Editor and asked why Muslims can make all kinds of accusations without being corrected with facts from a Christian. He said that printing Hashmi's letter "was a mistake" since he attacked Vines, Falwell, Robertson, Graham and others and accused them of "blasphemy and falsehoods." So the original letter was a "mistake" but the paper would not permit me to correct the mistake and defend honest men who spoke the truth about Islam and Mohammed!

Mr. Austin told me that Lee Anderson, Associate Publisher and editor of the Free Press agreed that my response should not be used. So, we have two honest, honorable, highly respected men who concurred that my response was not justified. Seems they can find paper and ink to print distortions by Muslims but none for the truth of Christians! Austin suggested that they didn't want to get involved in religious arguments! After all what about "King David's adultery and his concubines." I suppose he was saying that we Christians have to live with things like that as Muslims must live with accusations about Mohammed. What Austin doesn't understand is that we Christians agree that David's sins of adultery and murder were vile and wicked just as Mohammed's sins were, especially his beheading of over 800 Jews and his child molestation. However, David cried out to God: "Have mercy upon me, O God….Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin….Create in me a clean heart, O God….Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation." David confessed his sins; Mohammed did not. Not only was it unfair not to permit my response to Hashmi, it was poor journalism. Furthermore, it is bad business, after all, there are far more Christians in Chattanooga than Muslims! So, even from a business perspective, Austin and Anderson made a dumb decision in not permitting the truth to be told about Islam.

Are we living in Saudi Arabia where the Mecca "Free Press" never publishes anything negative about Mohammed or the Koran? Note that the Chattanooga Times Free Press serves a city of 500,000 that ran a headline on Easter Sunday morning: He is risen! It has been a great paper but I'm afraid the Powers-that-Be are now worshipping at the Shrine of Political Correctness. The people who worship at the Shrine of Political Correctness try to cover their poor journalism, prejudice against Christians, and unfairness with a simple ploy: they print emotional responses from sincere Christians that contain no facts and no "sting." A paper will have a "soft" conservative write a response to a leftist then will point to the very moderate and ineffective "answer" as proof that they are fair and balanced. Or the editor will print a couple of letters that deal with Christ or personal salvation but no relevant facts that speak to the issue at hand. Such "journalism" satisfies the average shallow, non-thinking reader who eagerly awaits that day's rerun (number 38) of "I Love Lucy."

During this time I was scheduled to appear on WTVC television's morning show on April 4 to promote the book signing that night at Barnes & Noble. However, three days before the event I was called by one of the co-hosts (who had me on her show to promote an earlier book) to be told that she would have to cancel me because of "a double booking." How does a talk show double book?

But, she would call me to rebook me. Well, all right but that would not help my book signing that evening. After a few days without a call, I called her and she would "get back with me." The call never came so I called her and was told that they could not have me on the show. It was not a "firm booking." Incredible! I talked to her boss and he said he would talk to her and get back with me. He did not. When I called him I was told that the booking was not confirmed and cancellations were common anyway. I asked him how I could not have had a confirmed booking when she promised to call back for a "rebooking"? To have a "rebooking" one must first have a "booking."

I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. I've been on hundreds of radio and television shows. No one has ever cancelled me or had a "double booking." Even people like Jerry Springer, Mark Walburg, Morton Downey, Jr., Sally Jessy Raphael, CNN's Crossfire and others have kept their word. Not WTVC in Chattanooga. Maybe ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! hasn't been banned in the legal sense but as far as the Times Free Press and channel 9 are concerned, the book has not been published. Again, are we living in Saudi Arabia?

Copyright 2003 Don Boys, Ph.D.


(Don Boys, Ph.D. is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, wrote columns for USA Today for eight years, authored 13 books and lives in Ringgold, GA. His book, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published in March.)

© 2003 Freesom Publications