₦airaland Forum

The prophet of islam loved his swords. Some taken as booty . Booty is stolen property from subjugated tribes. I can't get more info on his swords but I believe they were more than nine from some old writings.
Why would a prophet , a bringer of good tidings need to own swords and moreso stolen from the people he ordered raided and killed?


More here.

https://ibnulazim./2008/09/28/swords-of-muhammad-saw/


http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/swords/index_of_swords.html

Devout Muslims kill other moderates who do not follow Isl strictly eg wage jihad, seek western education (book haram- western education is illegal).
Besides killing non muslims as they are commanded by the Qur'an , they still turn on each other with the Sunnis killing shia, druze, bahai and vice versa.

This pretty sums up Islam

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon
of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me
and my brother against our father; my family
against my cousins and the clan; the clan
against the tribe; and the tribe against the world.
And all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris,
"The Haj"

dolphinheart:
I believe that abraham fathered ishmeal, ishmeal is a forefather of the Arabs .
In the bible, the prophecy was made that Ishmael offsprings will always be against the ofsprings of Isaac , and we can see how the Arabs have been trying fervently to anihilate the Jews, right from prophet mo's time

Abraham never fathered the Arabs. Ishmael married an Egyptian, settled in Paran and even attended His fathers burial. From Mecca? Never.
zThere is some serious debate about whether Abraham ever visited Mecca. Here read this.. Will make you wiser


http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16295

For those interested read this article by a former Muslim

http://www.islam-watch.org/component/content/article/68-mumin/1646-mohammed-first-among-equals.html


Also read this

http://www.islam-watch.org/component/content/article/68-mumin/1646-mohammed-first-among-equals.html

shahydbinaliyu:
WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS WHAT ALLAH SAY IN QURAN AND WHAT PROPHET MUHAMMAD SAY IN HADITHS...

AS LONG AS HADITH DIDN'T CONTRADICT QURAN, IT'S ACCEPTABLE....

Does Allah approve beheading. His prophet beheaded 900 or so Jews for not accepting him
Is disbelief of Allah tantamount to q beheading punishment

Anas09:
What have u said in essence?

He is fishing for s miracle in the Qur'an. Says nothing at all.

shahydbinaliyu:
for every crime, there is a punishment........ either punished by law or religion law...

if according to Islam, the crime committed is for the person to be beheaded... the person should be.. but i have never heard or read about any crime that attracts beheading In Islam....

wats disbelievers halal bro..

The Saudi know more about Islam than you. Theirs is the perfect sharia lala land.
That you admit beheading is allowed without saying so is apparently clear.
ISIS has been beheading non Muslims. Is being a non Muslim punishable by beheading?
Who is right or wrong here. Saudi or ISIS?

shahydbinaliyu:
YOU CAN JUDGE A RELIGION BY ITS SCRIPTURE AND TEACHINGS..

YOU CAN LIKEWISE JUDGE A RELIGION BY ITS FOLLOWERS


WHEN ANYONE THAT CLAIMS TO BE A FOLLOWER OF ANY RELIGION DOES SOMETHING YOU FOUND ODD, WHAT ARE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IS TO REFER TO THE HOLY BOOK TEACHINGS

IF WHAT SUCH PERSON DO IS IN LINE WITH THE RELIGION... IF YOU STILL FIND IT ODD, ASK THE FOLLOWERS OF THAT RELIGION TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.. THAT'S ALL..


I AM A MUSLIM AND AM VERY PROUD I AM... I JUDGE CHRISTIANS WITH THEIR SCRIPTURES NOT JUDGING CHRISTIANITY BY A CHRISTIAN... BUT BY BIBLE...

Is beheading allowed in Islam? <Or is the whole of Saudi Arabia misinterpreting the religion of peace?
Stop evading the question Just answer.

shahydbinaliyu:
good one bro



.. i want you to answer this questions...

according to religion and laws of the land.... what happens to whoever is guilty of murder?

and you said mentally ill woman murder her employee kids ...media is simply playing tricks on you..

who will ever employ a mentally ill to any job?


and when last did you see a mentally ill person murdering a kid?


haba... tori oloun..

So is beheading criminals and I must add the disbelievers halal Or is it savagely barbaric in your opinion?

Saudi Arabia beheaded a mentally ill woman who murdered her employers kid. This from a sharia country was a just sentence as prescribed by hudud laws.
What's the difference between Wahabbi Saudi and ISIS? Nothing. The Islamic laws call for beheadings 'strike off their necks'.
ISIS is behaving like Saudi but its more open and thus very appealing to jihadists.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/17/asia/indonesia-saudi-arabia-executions/index.html

More from the Quran.

Quran 3:54 Surat 'Āli `Imrān

Sahih International
And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.

Quran 16:106 Surat An-Naĥl

Sahih International
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;

Bukhari 5.59.369:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. “ have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”

The prophet allowed his companions to lie in order to murder a poet who had composed some verses that he ( or was it allah?) did not like

Ramadan begins with the siting of the moon.

Islamic burial excludes women.


https://imamluqman./2012/06/12/the-islamic-ruling-regarding-muslim-women-following-funeral-processions-by-shaykh-luqman-ahmad/

Some facts most of you don't know. In other post I have said Muhammad was transported by burraq to al aqsa which means the farthest mosque. He was in Medina then and the furthest mosque then was?
Let's find out from Islam books.

Monday, April 29, 2013
SM DERIS at 9:37 PM
Curious Tale of Prophet
Muhammad’s Love Affair with
Umm Hani
Muslims are told that the Miraculous
Night Journey (Isra’ Mi’raj) took place
because Allah wanted to bring some
consolation to Muhammad the Prophet,
peace and blessing be upon him. It took
place in the tenth year of Prophethood,
after he had lost his beloved wife,
Khadijah, and his protective uncle, Abu
Talib.
It was also to give him some “firsthand
experience” about the glory of God. He
was transported to Seven Heavens,
where he “saw” the glory of God with
his naked eyes. And the Prophet was
also shown some “preview” about the
life in the Hereafter, where both
Paradise and Hell, yet to take place in
our time, were shown to him with his
naked eyes. It was “time travel” before
the idea of time travel was even
conceptualized.
But according to one deranged theory,
which seems to find some support in the
Internet, the story of the Miraculous
Night Journey was only his own
concoction. Muhammad was caught in a
very embarrassing position with his
cousin Umm Hani. He was caught red
handed with her in her bed, in her
house, with his pants down. Not
knowing what else to say, his
imaginative mind quickly made up the
miraculous journey: first from Makkah
to Jerusalem, henceforth to Seven
Heavens.
Let’s quote what this theory says:
Muhammad passionately fell in
love with her [Umm Hani], but
for some unknown reason his
beloved uncle, Abu Talib did not
give her hand to Muhammad
when Muhammad requested.
Instead, she was married to a
pagan, Hibayrah. But
Muhammad’s adulterous relation
with Umm Hani (real name
Fakitah, also known as Hind)
continued. He used to sleep in
her house, when no one was
around.
Such an incidence took place
when Muhammad returned from
his failed mission at Taif, after
the deaths of his first wife,
Khadijah and his uncle Abu
Talib. Returning from Taif, he
took shelter in Ka’ba. But at
nightfall, when all were asleep,
he stealthily went to Umm Hani’s
house and spent the night with
her. When the people did not
find him at Ka’ba, they went
looking for him and when he was
discovered in the house of Umm
Hani, he was embarrassed, so
was Umm Hani.
To hide the truth, he concocted
the story of his night journey to
Jerusalem and Paradise from
Umm Hani’s house (more
precisely, from her bed), which
many converted Muslims found
too incredible to believe and left
Islam. This made him sad and
withdrawn. Soon, after such an
adulterous affair was leaked out,
he left Mecca and settled in
Medina. But his undying love for
Umm Hani remained aflame. (1)
I quote the above exactly as it is
written. It shows how far the
imagination of the enemies of Islam can
go. In a single scoop, three ideas are
rubbished in: (1) that Muhammad was
passionately in love with his cousin but
her love was unrequited due to the
objection of his uncle; (2) that after
getting caught fornicating with his
cousin, he concocted the story of
Miraculous Journey to get out of
embarrassment; and (3), because of that
adulterous relationship, he migrated to
Madinah.
One can see that even the Seerah books
of the Prophet written by the
Orientalists, designed to disparage him,
would not have stooped that low. For
that reason, none of these allegations
need to be defended, for they are all
rubbish. I have mentioned the above
tale only to introduce the name of the
alleged adulterous partner of the
Prophet (God forbid), Umm Hani.
Who is she?
Umm Hani is Fakhitah/Hind bint Abi
Talib b. 'Abd al-Muttalib b. Hashim b.
'Abd Manaf b. Qusayy b. Kilab b.
Murra. She was the sister of Ali, the
daughter of Abu Talib and Fatimah
Asad. She was the cousin of the
Prophet.
Muhammad’s alleged love story with
her has been gaining some interest of
late, although such tale can hardly be
found in any Seerah literature, classical
or contemporary, written by Muslim or
otherwise. One Internet site (by a well-
meaning Muslim woman) says that she
was the Prophet’s first love. I find this
curious, because none of the Seerah
books that I have read (and I have read
plenty), ever put it that way.
There is, however, a famous hadith
attributed to Ibnu Abbas, saying that the
Prophet wanted to marry her, but her
father, Abu Talib, married her to
someone else. Abu Talib was quoted as
saying that they (Abu Talib and
Muhammad) were already closely
related to each other through blood, and
that he wanted to return the favor by
marrying her to another man (Hubayra,
or Hibayrah according to the spelling in
the above quotation).
There is also another famous hadith
saying that the Prophet proposed to
marry her again, but this time, it was
she who rejected the proposal, on the
ground that she did not want to bother
him with her small children. She was
quoted as saying: “I loved you in
Jahiliyya , what to say in Islam? but I
have young children and hate that they
should bother you.”
There is yet another hadith which says
that when her children attained
puberty, she went to the Prophet. Umm
Hani said to him she was ready to
marry him, but this time, it was the
Prophet who turned her down.
Putting aside the authenticity of these
traditions, there is nothing to suggest
that the Prophet was madly in love with
her, or even to suggest that she was his
first love. As to his adulterous
relationship with her, we can just
dismiss it outright, without further
argument required.
If he was truly madly in love with her,
would his uncle object to his proposal, if
ever he made one? There was hardly
anything his uncle would not have done
to him. What more if both were
passionately in love with each other.
Furthermore, it takes some imaginative
mind to construe the word “love” as
uttered by Umm Hani’s in the second
hadith to indicate that it was romantic
love. It could well be the love of one
cousin to another.
Most importantly, if the Prophet was
madly in love with her, why on earth
did he turn her down when she was
ready to marry him, as the third hadith
suggest.
Let’s analyze their so called love story
into perspective.
We know for certain that the Prophet
died in 11 AH when he was 63 years
old. He married Khadijah when he was
25, and Khadijah died when he was 50.
I have not yet been able to find the year
of Umm Hani’s birth, but she was said
to die in 41 AH, about 30 years after the
death of the Prophet. If their age was
about the same, then Umm Hani had
lived a long life, about 90 years, plus
minus. We have to keep this age thing
in mind because, for Umm Hani to be
the Prophet’s first love, she has to be
about the same age as the Prophet’s, or
perhaps slightly younger. Else, she was
too young for the Prophet to marry her
before he married Khadijah, in which
case Umm Hani cannot be his first love.
Now, we do not know when the alleged
first proposal was made (the one
rejected by Abu Talib), but we know that
the second proposal was made after the
conquest of Makkah. The conquest of
Makkah took place in 8 AH. By then the
Prophet was already 60 years old. If
Umm Hani’s age was about similar to
the Prophet, then she must have been
about 60 as well, or slightly younger, or
even slightly older.
If such is the case, why would Umm
Hani refuse him by giving such a lame
excuse? She said: “But I have young
children and I hate that they should
bother you.”
Umm Hani had four children. All of
them were still very young during the
conquest of Makkah. Most did not reach
their puberty as yet. If the age of Umm
Hani was about similar to the Prophet,
then she must have given birth in her
late forties and early fifties.
Could that be the case? It is highly
unlikely, of course, because that would
be the age when woman starts having
menopause.
It seems very like likely, therefore, that
during the conquest of Makkah, Umm
Hani must have been rather young. She
was perhaps in her forties, or thirties.
That being the case, then Umm Hani
must have been a toddler or was just a
little girl when the Prophet married
Khadijah. For this reason, Umm Hani,
therefore, cannot be Muhammad’s first
love, unless if you buy the idiotic idea
that Muhammad the Prophet was a
pervert.
This so-called love affair between the
Prophet and his cousin, Umm Hani, is
nothing but a fanciful tale. The
Prophet’s proposal to marry her after
the conquest of Makkah only suggest
that he wanted to honor her, as he had
honored other women such as Umm
Habibah, Hafsah, Juwairiyah and
Safiya, by marrying them.
Besides, Umm Hani, on her part, would
not have refused him, in spite of her
young children, if her cousin (i.e., the
Prophet) was madly in love with her.
She would not have refused him if truly
she was his first love.

Here is more

in Early Models
The succession of the Prophet has remained
highly contested throughout the history of
Islamic societies because of its implications for
the nature of the state and its relationship to
Islam. The commonly accepted sequence of
events is that the claim to leadership of the
group of Muslims who migrated with the Prophet
from Mecca ( al-Muharajun ) prevailed over that
of those who welcomed and supported him in
Medina ( al-Ansar ). Reports that the latter group
suggested that there should be a ruler (amir)
from each of the two communities indicates that
they were worried about the risks of consolidated
governance, rather than that they opposed Abu
Bakr as such. This fact is relevant to
understanding the reasons for the rebellion of
other Arab tribes who were suppressed through
what is commonly known as the wars of
apostasy. Abu Bakr finally prevailed over all
other contenders in what Umar called a
“fortuitous coincident” ( falta), which confirms
the political nature of the whole process. One
critical aspect of the enduring controversy of
that process is that some Muslims, who came to
be known as Shi`at Ali (partisans of Ali, hence
the term Shi`a) continued to challenge the
validity of the selection of Abu Bakr over Ali.
Another aspect that is even more significant for
our purposes here is that differing opinions on
the rationale of the selection of any successor
to the Prophet, and the criteria for such
selection, have had profound consequences on
the nature of the state and position of the
Caliphate as institutions.
The wars of apostasy (hurub al-ridda) were the
first crises that the emerging polity faced
immediately after the death of the Prophet
Muhammad. Abu Bakr had to assert the authority
of the state over a number of Arabian tribes that
apparently resisted his authority. The
conventional position held by Muslims is that Abu
Bakr executed those wars because the tribes had
apostatized by following false prophets or by
refusing to pay the zakat , and that either type of
action warranted suppression by force in the
name of Islam. This episode came to be highly
revered in Sunni discourse as the great
achievement of Abu Bakr that confirmed the
validity of his selection as the first Caliph. After
all, it was that consolidation of political power
throughout the Arabian Peninsula that propelled
Muslim expansion into the Byzantine and
Sassanian Empires.
I am not concerned here with the validity of that
dominant view, or whether Abu Bakr was right or
wrong in waging war, but only with the meaning
or significance of that major episode for the
nature of the state at that phase in Islamic
history. Abu Bakr’s determination to fight those
tribes into submitting to his authority as Caliph is
emphasized in his statement about their
withholding zakat: “I swear by God if they
withheld only a hobbling-cord [of a camel] of
what they used to give to the Prophet, I would
fight them for it.” What was the rationale of that
position, and how or why should it be interpreted
to mean that Abu Bakr was asserting his
succession of the Prophet in a religious and not
political sense?
It could be argued that Abu Bakr regarded the
refusal to pay zakat to the treasury of the state
in Medina as tantamount to apostasy, which is
punishable by death. Alternatively, that refusal
could be seen as a rebellion against the authority
of the state as a political institution, which
warranted an effective assertion of that authority
by military force. It is not possible of course to
discuss in detail those protracted and complex
controversies that continued to rage into the
second century of Islamic history. My limited
objective here is to reflect on the implications of
those controversies for the nature of the state at
that formative time, regardless of what one may
think of what Abu Bakr did.
The prominent Companions of the Prophet
( Sahaba), such as Umar and Abu Ubayda, urged
Abu Bakr to “rescind the tax for the year and to
treat the tribes loyal to Islam leniently in order to
enlist their support for those who had abandoned
Islam” (Madelung 1997, 48; Berkey 2004, 261–
64). Others, like Ali, never participated in the
campaign. The existence of such disagreement
on this issue among Muslims is itself significant
for understanding the basis of Abu Bakr’s
decision and its implications for the nature of
the state itself at that time. In fact, when the
leaders of the rebellious tribes were captured
and brought before Abu Bakr, they rejected the
charge of apostasy by affirming that they were
Muslims who were only not willing to pay zakat
to the state (Kister 1986, 61–96).
If Abu Bakr was exercising the religious authority
of the Prophet, Companions of that high standing
would not have disputed any aspect of Abu
Bakr’s decisions if they accepted them as
expressing the religiously binding precepts of
Islam. Yet, despite the Companions’
disagreement with Abu Bakr, they did not
attempt to act on their own in implementing
what they thought was the correct view,
presumably out of respect for Abu Bakr’s
political authority as the Caliph. The view that
came to prevail among Sunni Muslims is that
Abu Bakr had no choice but to fight the rebels to
maintain the authority of the state.
Recalling that I am not presuming to decide who
was right or wrong, the point for our purposes
here is the inherent ambiguity and the risks of
claiming to implement a religious view through
the coercive authority of the state. That
ambiguity may be clarified if we understand the
issues in terms of Abu Bakr’s role as the political
leader of the community, not as a religious one.
The willingness of the leading Companions to
abide by Abu Bakr’s decisions though they
believed them to be wrong may have been
motivated by political factors, especially the
need to consolidate and secure the community
during that critical period. But religious rationales
were also cited for such factors, including verse
4:59 of the Qur’an, cited earlier. In addition to
this obligation to obey the ruler, Muslims also
have the obligation to enjoin justice and oppose
injustice (al-amr bil ma`ruf wa l-nahy an al-
munkar). There is a Sunna report (or maxim) that
no human being should obey what constitutes
disobedience to God (la ta`ata li makhluq fi
ma`siayat al-Khliq).
Thus, whatever justification is considered, it is
difficult to separate the religious aspects from
the political ones: Muslims will always disagree
on both counts, and religious reasoning includes
political considerations and vice versa. Regarding
the wars of apostasy, it is possible that Abu
Bakr’s actions were valid from an Islamic point
of view. For instance, he decided to wage war on
the Arab tribes either as apostates or as rebels
against the state, which warrants the
punishment of death under what came to be
known as the capital crime of waging war
against the community ( hadd al-haraba under
verse 5:33–34). Whatever may have been the
rationale, Abu Bakr was able to enforce his view
over the objections of the leading Companions
because he was the Caliph, and not because he
was “right” or “correct” from an Islamic point of
view. This is not to say that Abu Bakr was right
or wrong, because both are possible, but there
was no possibility of an independent authority
that could have adjudicated or arbitrated his
disagreement with the other Companions.
Conversely, as noted earlier, if Umar or Ali, for
instance, was the Caliph instead of Abu Bakr, the
wars of apostasy would not have occurred.
The conclusion I am drawing here for our
purposes is that it may be helpful to distinguish
between Abu Bakr’s religious view and his
political decisions and actions as the Caliph.
Similarly, some leading Companions disagreed
with Abu Bakr probably on the religious as well
as the political grounds. Such a distinction may
still be difficult for Muslims to see regarding the
Medina period because of the very personal
nature of political authority at the time when the
state hardly existed as a political institution.

Here is another must read for those interested in Islam shia vs sunni 1400 year old war . Place this in context to what is happening today, the declaration that west thinks Islam is a religion of peace and that if Israel ceased to exist There would be peace.

Seven Steps to Islamic State (IS) Part 1
The rise of Islamic State (IS) and its seizure of
large parts of Iraq and Syria have caused alarm
in the West and across the Middle East.
Harrowing images of mass killings and
beheadings of soldiers and journalists have
sparked calls for renewed U.S. intervention in
the region. Alarming as it is, Islamic State has
not risen in a vacuum. In fact IS can be seen as
an outcome of thirty five years of continual
warfare across the Middle East. This post, the
first of three, looks at those thirty five years of
conflict and the seven steps that have led to the
emergence of ISIS.
Step 1 – 1979
The year 1979 saw three events that radically
changed the Middle East. These were the Iranian
Revolution, the seizure of the Mosque in Mecca
by Saudi extremists, and the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 overthrew the
Iranian monarchy and replaced it with a
fundamentalist Shia theocracy under Ayatollah
Khomeini . Khomeini’s rise to power directly
threatened a number of Iran’s neighbours. Under
Khomeini, Shia Iran became a direct threat to the
Al Saud monarchy in Sunni majority Saudi
Arabia. Khomeini condemned the ruling Al Saud
royal family of Saudi Arabia as a corrupt,
illegitimate dictatorship, subservient to American
interests, and incited Saudi Arabia’s Shia
minority to rise up against the Saudi government.
Months later, the Saudi monarchy faced another
threat to its rule, this time from within its own
borders. In November 1979, Sunni insurgents
took over the shrine at Mecca during the annual
Hajj pilgrimage. The rebels called for the
overthrow of the House of Saud which they
claimed was exploiting religion for its own gain,
paying allegiance to Christian America, and
bringing evil and corruption upon Muslims. The
insurgents also slated the Saudi government for
making reforms which they considered un-Islamic
– such as allowing women to drive, allowing
music, TV, and dancing, permitting international
football tournaments, and allowing girls and
women to take part in sports.
In a battle that lasted more than two weeks,
Saudi forces attacked the Grand Mosque and a
protracted gun battle raged within. In the final
days of the battle, as the rebels retreated
underground, the Saudi forces flooded the maze
of underground prayer rooms first with water and
finally with canisters of CS gas to flush out the
remaining rebels. When the siege ended, over
sixty fundamentalist insurgents were publicly
executed in towns across Saudi Arabia.
Finally, in the dying days of what had already
been an historic year, a third event shook the
Middle East when the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan . In Christmas 1979, Russian
paratroopers landed in Kabul to prop up the
communist government of Hazifullah Amin.
Afghanistan was already in the grip of a civil war
which pitted Amin against rebels opposed to his
efforts to erase Muslim tradition, a move that
had outraged the majority of Afghans. The
invasion marked the beginning of Soviet
occupation that would last for more than a
decade.
Step 2. Saudi Arabia assert’s its primacy as
Defender of Islam
The historic events of 1979 meant that Saudi
Arabia’s rulers were being attacked by powerful
Shia outsiders in Iran as well as by home grown
violent Sunni insurgents. The common charge
from both Iran and the Saudi fundamentalists
was that the Al Saud rulers were not religious
enough.
Saudi King Fahd’s response was twofold. Looking
at the fate of the Shah of Iran, Fahd concluded
that the Shah had been toppled because he had
become estranged from his religious power base.
Fahd moved to placate his fundamentalist
critics. The solution to the threat of religious
fundamentalists, he decided, would be even more
religion.
Within Saudi Arabia, the King reversed liberal
reforms and handed more power to the religious
establishment. King Fahd also took on a new
title – custodian of the two holy places Mecca
and Medina. On the international stage, Saudi
Arabia embarked on a sectarian strategy,
depicting the House of Saud as Sunnism’s
greatest defenders, and portraying Khomeini’s
Shia challenge to the House of Saud as sedition.
Using its immense oil wealth, Saudi Arabia also
launched a worldwide missionary campaign to
combat the Shia teachings of Khomeini’s Iran.
The result was the spread of Wahhibism and
Salafism – the militant forms of Sunnism
predominant in Saudi Arabia – across the Muslim
world. Tens of millions of Korans were
distributed with commentaries approved by the
Saudi ulema. The Kingdom’s embassies around
the world hosted religious attaches whose job
was to get new mosques built and to encourage
existing mosques to teach the Saudi version of
Islam. The Saudi government allocated over $27
billion to this missionary fund. [1]
The war in Afghanistan also presented the Saudi
rulers with a unique opportunity to demonstrate
their primacy as defenders of Islam. The Saudis,
who had always been militant opponents of
communism, now became vigorous supporters of
the Islamic fighters opposing the Soviets in
Afghanistan.
The Afghan war was significant in that it saw the
US and Saudi Arabia collaborating in opposing a
common enemy. In February 1980, U.S.
President Jimmy Carter agreed a covert
programme with the Saudis which would see
both countries fund a guerrilla campaign in
Afghanistan to the tune of more than $3 billion
each over the following decade. (Robert Lacey
p67) While the US saw the fight as one against
communism, the Saudis saw it as a holy war for
Islam. The U.S and Saudi Arabia’s efforts would
result in the emergence of the Taliban and Al
Qaeda.
photo credit: basheem via
photopin cc
photo credit: basheem via photopin cc
Step 3. Iran – Iraq War
The Iranian Revolution had a momentous impact
on the Middle East in another way. In Iraq,
Saddam Hussein saw Ayatollah Khomeini ‘s rise
to power of as a direct threat to his rule.
Hussein, an advocate of rapid modernisation,
promoted secularism, alongside ruthless
dictatorship, as the path to progress. Khomeini
slated Hussein as an infidel, a brutal Sunni tyrant
oppressing his country’s Shia majority, and called
on Iraqi shia to topple him.
In September 1980 Saddam attacked Iran in a
pre-emptive attempt to topple Khomeini before
Khomeini could topple him. Hussein also hoped
to take advantage of the turmoil of the
Revolution to seize Iran’s oil reserves and make
Iraq the region’s dominant power. When he
invaded Iran, Hussein expected his ‘whirlwind
war’ would be over within weeks. Instead it
lasted eight brutal years.
The Iran – Iraq war featured indiscriminate
ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides,
but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of
chemical weapons, mostly by Iraq; and hundreds
of attacks on third-country oil tankers in the
Persian Gulf, which threatened the entire world
economy.
Saudi Arabia and the United States both provided
support for Saddam Hussein. The Saudis wanted
to avoid Hussein’s overthrow, which was likely to
lead to a Shia-led government in Iraq. The U.S.
was concerned about Khomeini’s militant anti-
Westernism, his calls for global Islamic
revolution, and the threat to global oil supplies.
The U.S. was also still suffering from the
humiliation of the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis.
Support from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia allowed
Iraq to acquire advanced weapons and expertise
on a much larger scale than Iran. As a result the
war was highly asymmetrical, with Iran sending
wave after wave of poorly armed infantry to
repel the better armed Iraqi invaders. Twice as
many Iranian soldiers died as Iraqi soldiers during
the war, used their bodies to set off mines and
overrun Iraqi gun positions. Despite the heavy
losses, Iran, with a population of 50 million to
Iraq’s 17 million was able to mobilise seemingly
endless masses of volunteers to defend the
revolution and to defend Islam.
Khomeini used the cult of martyrdom to justify
the rocketing death toll. The regime insisted that
those who died in combat were guaranteed a
place in heaven, and gave the untrained and ill
equipped volunteers arriving at the front a plastic
key representing the key to the gates of
paradise as. This cult of martyrdom has since
become ubiquitous among both Shia and Sunni
extremists. [2]
When the war ended in August 1988 neither side
had achieved its aims. Both Khomeini and
Hussein remained in power. The cost in terms of
lives lost was immense, with conservative
estimates of one million dead.
The Iran-Iraq war was tragically to set the
pattern for future Middle East conflicts – in being
so long, so bloody and so futile.

I am glad for the internet. Though we copy paste a good number of people are aware that a common thief murderer, paedo, rapist and a narcissistic can never be a God sent prophet.
This annoys Muslims. Its only a matter of time when Muslims realise their taqqiya is not being bought any more and that they deitify a criminal

Keep up.. the annoyed muslins will do anything to silence islam critics growing by the day. Thanks to kuffar internet.

Sunni Shia rivalry started ,1400 years ago because Muhammad never named his successor nor bothered to compile the Qur'an despite having announced that the Torah was revealed to Musa (Moses) , the Injeel (gospel) to Issa..They were written and compiled books in the Bible then. When he died the verse of stoning as from Aisha had already been eaten by a goat.

The Unholy War between Iran and
Iraq
by David Reed
Reader's Digest (Aug. 1984 pg. 39)
Both East and West risk being drawn, against their
better judgment, into grisly conflict.
Hundreds of Iranians boys at a time, many as
young as ten to twelve, come in waves. Some
carry rifles and some are unarmed. Their mission
is to detonate mines and draw fire in preparation
for full-scale attacks Iraqi lines. The boys carry
plastic keys to heaven. They have been assured
by their leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that
if they are killed on the battlefield they will go
directly to paradise. "The purest joy in Islam,"
Khomeini has explained, "is to kill and be killed
for Allah."
The war between Iraq and Iran, which enters its
fifth year this September, has become a top
concern in the West. Iraq, with known reserves
surpassed only by Saudi Arabia, is one of the
richest oil states on the Persian Gulf. The
Iranians have recovered all the territory won
from them by Iraq in the earlier stages of the
war. If Iraq should fall, Saudi Arabia and the
other Gulf states would be in danger. Saudi
Arabia in untested militarily. Kuwait, Bahrain,
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iman have
only token armed forces. Khomeini could
conceivably, bring the fabulous oil-fields of the
Gulf under his control. If so, the West and Japan
would be subjected to excruciating blackmail.
Khomeini had no interest in a negotiated peace.
Instead, he seeks to overthrow the secular
government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
and replace it with a puppet regime modeled
after his own fanatical Islamic one. Iraq had
called repeatedly for a ceasefire, but Khomeini
says the war will end only when the "heretic"
Saddam is overthrown and Iraq agrees to pay
100, 000 million pounds in "war reparations."
"This is not a war for territory," the Ayatollah
thunders. "It is a war between Islam and
blasphemy." Saddam Hussein, in turn, sneers at
Khomeini as a "Shah in a turban."
Khomeini has what he regards as a powerful fifth
column in the region. While the rulers of Iraq and
the Gulf states all follow the Sunni branch of
Islam, they govern substantial populations of
Shiites, the rival branch. 50% of all Iraqis are
Shiites, as is a majority of the Iraqi armed
forces. Khomeini, a Shiite, has been inciting
Shiites in Iraq and the Gulf states to rise against
their Sunni overlords.
There has been bitter enmity between the
Iranian and Iraqi leaders since the 1970s, when
Khomeini, having been exiled as a trouble-maker
by the Shah, took up residence in Iraq, at the
Shiite holy city of An Najaf. There he involved
himself with Iraqi Shiites. Under pressure from
the Shah, Saddam Hussein ordered him out in
1978. "He ate Iraqi bread and drank water from
the Euphrates," Saddam Hussein declared, "but
he was ungrateful."
A year later Khomeini was back in Iran as a head
of a revolutionary government, and thirsting for
revenge.
While Khomeini is shrilly anti-American, Saddam
Hussein is only a little less so. "We have no
diplomatic relations with the Americans because
we consider them to be enemies of the Arab
nation and enemies of Iraq," he has declared, in
commenting on US support of Israel. He is pro-
Soviet, avowedly Socialist and virutently anti-
Israel.
None the less, Washington has abandoned its
initial neutrality and has "tilted" towards Iraq.
Iraq gets all the arms it needs from Moscow and
France, but Washington has provided 600 million
pounds worth of grain on credit. Although they
gave little sympathy for some of Saddam
Hussein's policies, such as Arab leaders as
Jordan's King Hussein, Egypt's President
Mubarak and Saudi Arabia's King Fahd also back
him because of their fear of Khomeini.
American, British and French are stationed in
and near the Gulf to ensure that the flow of oil
continues. Each day, tankers carry 8 million
barrels through the Strait of Hormuz, the 40 mile
wide chokepoint at the entrance to the Gulf.
This oil accounts for only 4% of US needs, but
Western Europe depends on the Gulf for around
30% of its oil, and Japan for some 60%. After
Khomeini threatened to blockade the strait,
President Reagan declared: "There's no way that
we could allow that channel to be closed."
The war begins in earnest in Basra, Iraq's second
largest city and main port before the war closed
it down. Basra is situated on the Shatt al Arab
("River of the Arabs", a confluence of the Tigris
and the Euphrates that flows into the Gulf. For 4
years, more than 80 ships from all over the world
have been anchored in the Shatt, trapped by the
war.
A Sheraton hotel overlooking the waterway
remains open business - but there are few
takers. Day and night, artillery shells streak into
Basra from Iranian batteries at the front, some
20 miles to the east. Sandbags have been piled
along Basra's streets to protect citizens from
shelling, but people are killed almost every day.
The main front line reminds one of such First
World War battlefields as Verdun, or the Somme,
with massive, static concentrations of troops.
Iraqi soldiers huddle in trenches and bunkers,
peering out through barbed wire at a ravaged no
man's land that separates them from the Iranian
lines. Furious artillery duels go on almost
continuously. An especially unpleasant echo of
the First World War is the Iraqi use of the
mustard gas and modern nerve gases against
the Iranians. Observers feel that Saddam
Hussein's decision to use these outlawed
weapons reflects his growing desperation.
Saddam Hussein started the war in September
1980, when his troops invaded Iran. Ostensible
justification for the attack was a long standing
dispute about which country has sovereignty
over the Shatt al Arab. Iran lies on its eastern
shore and Iraq on its western.
Until 1975 Iraq claimed sovereignty over the
waterway right up to the Iranian shore. That
year, however, the Shah of Iran, then at the
height of his power, forces Saddam Hussein to
relinquish Iraq's sovereignty over the eastern
half of the Shatt. Saddam Hussein regarded this
as a humiliation, but to accept the Shah's
dictate. In return, the Shah stopped supporting
Kurdish tribesmen who had rebelled against the
Baghdad government.
At the time of the 1980 invasion, Iran seethed
with revolutionary disorder. The Shah had been
overthrown that year before, and Khomeini was
trying to consolidate his position. Saddam
Hussein thought Iran would be a push-over. But
even those Iranians who were against Khomeini
rallied in the face of the foreign attack.
Knowledgeable sources report that well over
50,000 Iraqis have been killed in action while
Iranian have been killed in action while Iranian
casualties may be as high as 200,000. Even Iraqi
soldiers have been appalled by the Iranian
practice of sending boys on suicidal missions.
Says one, "When we capture them, they cry for
their mothers." More than 200 are being held at
a camp in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad.
These young prisoners say that when they
recruited, they were told they would be reserve
troops, guarding Iranian cities in the rear. Instead
they found themselves at the front, after only a
few days of training.
A boy named Hassan, who was 12 when
captured, said: "They told us, 'If you don't die a
martyr on the battlefield, you'll be executed in
the rear.'" Gesturing towards a group of boys, an
adult prisoner said: "Each one you see here
represents 100 killed on the battlefield."
The International Committee of the Red Cross
has denounced both Iran and Iraq for battlefield
atrocities, charging them with executing
defenseless and abandoning wounded. Because
Iranian soldiers would rather die as "martyrs"
than surrender, Iraq has only about 8,000 Iranian
prisoners while Iran holds some 50,000 Iraqis.
Despite dragging Iraq into an unwinnable war,
Saddam Hussein is probably more entrenched in
power now than before. Says a European
diplomat: "He has a lot of will, decisiveness and
a ruthless streak." Although war enthusiasm has
vanished, the Iraqi people recoil in horror at the
thought of a Khomeini-style revolutionary
republic.
While Iran's record on human rights is even
worse, Iraq remains one of the tightest police
states in the world. In his 16 years as Iraq's
strong man, Saddam Hussein has come to be
known as the Butcher of Baghdad. Amnesty
International reports that more than 800 political
priso9ners have been executed since 1978 - 300
in 1982 alone. Torture is widely practised.
Saddam Hussein has, however, set Iraq firmly on
a secular course. His monolithic political party,
the Ba'ath (Arabic for "renaissance",
emphatically rejects the idea of an Iranian-style
fundamentalist Islamic state. Iraqi women are
among the most emancipated in the Arab world.
They hold leading government positions and
some have graduated as fighter pilots from Iraq's
air-force academy. Saddam Hussein's own wife
is headmistress of a Baghdad school.
Corruption in Iraq is minimal by Third World
Standards. Iraq's oil revenues have, for the most
part, been spent wisely. Villages have been
electrified, school's built and free health services
and education established.
Everywhere in Baghdad are photographs of
Saddam Hussein, a handsome man of 47, with a
shock of black hair and a big mustache. Huge
blow-ups, giving him a toothy, six-foot grin, have
been erected at roundabouts. He has no military
experience, but he is often shown in combat
fatigues, pistol on hip, and sometimes in the
uniform of a Field Marshal, weighted down with
medals and a huge sword.
So far Iraq's Shiite majority has ignored
Khomeini's cries for an uprising. Arab
nationalism has proved stronger than religious
affinities. Saddam Hussein has sought further to
ensure their loyalty by spending more than 140
million pounds in refurbishing Shiite shrines and
mosques and by lavishing benefits on his
predominantly Shiite soldiers.
Experts on military and Middle Eastern affairs
say that Iraq, dug in defensively and possessing
superior fire-power, should be able to hold the
Iranians off for the time being. After that, the
crystal ball gets murky. If the Iranians ever
seized a substantial amount of Iraqi territory,
Saddam Hussein's high command might jettison
him and sue for peace.
Says a diplomat in Baghdad: "How will it end? It
depends on Khomeini, on whether he changes
his mind, which isn't a characteristic of him, or
whether he is removed from power or dies." As
Khomeini has seen 84 summers, some Iraqis are
counting on the Grim Reaper to come to their
rescue.

9ja4life

as per rules on how Muslims debate You now turn to insults,insult the bible and walk away claiming victory. We know you too well.
You won the debate?

Trustworthiness:
The use of veil have never been controversial issues in Islam. It well stated and clear without any ambiguity in the holy Quran. And various hadiths reported regarding the use of veil by muslim women.

I want to believe you intentionally post this to misguided ignorant people like you.

Yea right Never controversial. Should I believe you or Sahih Bukhari.
Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet
used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place
(near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of
nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the
Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's
Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint
Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at
'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar
addressed her and said, "I have recognized
you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired
eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the
observing of veils by the Muslim women) may
be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of
"Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding
the eyes).
Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet)
'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's
Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did
not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to
go out to answer the call of nature at night
only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter
of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman.
'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in
a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you,
O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was
anxious for some Divine orders regarding the
veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed
the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete
body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith
No. 148, Vol. 1)
Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257
'A'isha reported that the wives of Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to
go out in the cover of night when they went
to open fields (in the outskirts of Medina) for
easing themselves. 'Umar b Khattab used to
say: Allah's Messenger, ask your ladies to
observe veil, but Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) did not do that. So there
went out Sauda, daughter of Zarn'a, the wife
of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him), during one of the nights when it was
dark. She was a tall statured lady. 'Umar
called her saying: Sauda, we recognise you.
(He did this with the hope that the verses
pertaining to veil would be revealed.) 'A'isha
said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, then
revealed the verses pertaining to veil.

Cha I will not go thru any of those whitewashed links.
In the link I posted Umar seemed to know that if he made a request Allah would bring down a revelation through his prophet. Do I sense s lie that Allah was hearkening to Muhammad depending on what his prophet desired?
In another thread I posted somewhere Muhammad earliest scribe used to suggest to the prophet on how the revelation should read and the prophet would agree with him. The scribe realised then that all those revelations were made up and not from Allah. he apostated. That was in Mecca. When the prophet conquered Mecca that scribe escaped death by pledging allegiance to the new Kaaba ruler Muhammad. But the prophet accepted the allegiance on the third attempt wondering aloud why his saheebs did not read his hesitant acceptance to kill him whether he was hiding behind the curtains of the Kaaba.

User mane we know a lot about Islam and how it is fake.

second caliph Umar fervently prayed that allah would reveal a verse thru his ptophet ordering women to veil themselves.
Allah eventually revealed one.
Today we see hijabis and niqabed women as a 'sign of modesty', 1400 years later.Apologists treat us to long stories about moral Islamic women and how proud they are when they cover themselves up. ISIS is lashing ,40 strokes to men whose wives dare to show flesh or hair.
zthe great Israeli hater Hannan Ashrawi would have been lashed if not stoned to death by Daesh.

Usermane... You misrepresents the facts. Umar begged Muhammad to order the veiling of women . he spied on Muhammad's wife as she went out to the fields to relieve herself. He even approached her saying I recognise you.
Allah not to disappoint Umar brought down the revelation ordering women to be veiled.

Read here:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Revelation_of_the_Hijab


Umar later became the second caliph after Abu Bakr.

You are a good candidate for the Islamic state. Islam is being ridiculed everywhere.
Just read your Qur'an . Here the critics of Islam only quote the Qur'an and hadeeths which I can say are full of the filth of Islam.