₦airaland Forum

“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.

The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred” (Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:

In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah - especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists:

"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"
(As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)

The Truth:

This fragment of verse 5:32 is what Muslim apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means - with varying standards. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Muhammad and the Quran would qualify.

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

Any application to Muslims would have to apply only to Muslims - as in Muslim on Muslim murder within the brotherhood of believers. This would make sense given that the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Islamic scholars have never interpreted the verse to mean that Allah places any sort of value on the lives of non-Muslims. The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equality (2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Muslims (39:09). Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they should never be slain for killing a non-believer.

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service - and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

Muslim apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”. It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Together, verses 5:32-33 actually provide the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Islam. Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal ofense into a capital crime.

With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year.

https://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/media/02/02/4057014750.jpg

Many of the asylum-seekers Mission Free Iran supports have fled persecution in Iran due to their Christian faith. To support their applications for asylum, we gather reports demonstrating the persecution of Christians in Iran and submit them to decisionmaking authorities. Here, we post those selected news items on Christian persecution in Iran from the latter half of 2011.

Under Shari’a law, which is the law of the land in Iran, the penalty for apostasy – conversion from Islam to another religion – is death.

Despite the fact that no articles in the Islamic Republic’s legal code currently refer to the crime of apostasy, presiding judges base their opinions on texts by Iranian religious scholars, and prosecute Christians accordingly in the courts.

Internationally-known examples of this phenomenon include the ongoing case of 35-year-old Christian priest Yousef Nadarkhani, who is currently facing execution for apostasy . Another Christian pastor, 33-year-old Behrouz Sadegh-Khanjani, remains imprisoned and is facing a possible indictment for apostasy in the southern city of Shiraz.

A Christian Iranian asylum-seeker, Keivan Soufastaie, whose case documents included a court summons to be tried for apostasy by the Islamic Republic of Iran, recently won his struggle for asylum in Sweden after nearly being deported

In addition to persecution of Christians in the Islamic courts in Iran, there is also persecution of Christians in the street by regime-run bands of street thugs. There is photographic evidence of such attacks accompanied by witness statements of the tortures and beatings implemented by agents of the Islamic Republic’s Intelligence Ministry against “Farsi-speaking” Christians in Iran (caution: some may find the associated photographs disturbing).

It is well-recognized that in Iran, there is a violent wave of apostasy-related persecution of Christians that extends even to the Armenian Christian population, who cannot be considered apostates because they were born into Christian families.

Below is selected documentation of the ongoing crackdown against Christians in Iran, limited to news from August through December 2011.

* * *

In August 2011, there was an internationally-reported incident of burning of 6,500 Christian Bibles in Iran  – one incident among many similar such incidents of repression of people who believe in Christianity in Iran.

26 August 2011: Pastor Haghnejad, an evangelical Iranian pastor, has been re-arrested, with his family unaware of his whereabouts or reasons behind his arrest. Ten other members of his denomination were also detained.

6 September 2011: Iranian Christian Mehdi Forootan Pays for Faith with 105 Days in Evin Prison – his parents signed over the deed to their home as bail to secure his release.

6 September 2011: 5 Iranian Christians convicted of crimes against Islam (Behrouz Sadegh-Khandjani, Mehdi “Petros” Furutan, Mohammed “William” Belyad, Nazly Belyad, and Parviz Khalaj) – which, importantly are construed by the regime as crimes against the state– were ordered to report to prison to serve one-year prison sentences. Nazly Belyad was 7 months pregnant when the summons was issued in early September.

12 September 2011: [/b]Two Azeri converts from Islam, Vahid Roofegar and Reza Kahnamooee, who were arrested by security officers of Islamic Republic of Iran on charges of Christian activities, were released temporarily on $40,000 bail after appearing before two separate court hearings. The initial charges against them were of “apostasy,” later changed to “propagating idealogies against the regime and threatening the national security.”

[b]20 September 2011: The agents of the intelligence ministry threatened a Christian couple, took their child captive and demanded that they file a complaint against their fellow Christians who are being held in prison.

23 September 2011: Iran’s Watch on Christians Intensifies, Says Open Doors. The Iranian government’s tracking of Christians in Iran has intensified over the last several months, according to Open Doors USA, an organization that provides help to persecuted believers in Jesus worldwide. In Iran, Christians gather in house churches, which are being increasingly discovered. Members are then subjected to various forms of harassment, including imprisonment, job termination and separation from family.

2 October 2011: Eleven Iranian Christians who fled Iran in the wake of a government campaign against evangelical Christianity have received threats via email from ‘the unknown soldiers of the Hidden Imam’ calling on them to either repent or face extra-judicial execution. The ‘unknown soldiers’ are alleged to have links with Iranian security services.

11 October 2011: Pastor Behnam Irani of the Church of Iran is currently serving a five year sentence, whilst Farshid Fathi Malayeri, who belongs to a different denomination, remains detained without charge nearly eleven months after his arrest. Church leader Noorollah Ghabitizadeh, who was arrested on Christmas Eve in 2010, is still being held in Ahwaz and, according to Mohabat News, has been verbally informed he may receive a death sentence:

21 October 2011: Fariborz Arazm, a Christian convert who resides in the city of Robat-Karim was arrested by the Islamic republic officials. On Monday, October 17, a group of four officers raided Fariborz’s house, arrested him and transferred him to an unknown location. They confiscated Fariborz’s computer’s hard disk, CDs, Pictures and a number of Bibles. The family also were threatened to remain silent and not to talk about this incident to anyone. Fariborz Arazm, 44, is the father of two children. He has not been able to contact nor visit his family since the arrest.

6 November 2011: The “Saint Andrea church” in the city of Kerman has been demolished by city authorities despite being listed as a protected national monument.

20 November 2011: [/b]Attack on Christian couple soon after their release from prison in Hamedan: 29 year-old Mr. Arash Kermajani and his 26 year-old wife Mrs. Arezoo Teymouri were one of two married couples who had been taken from their home by agents of the Ministry of State Security of the Islamic Regime in September 2010 and held imprisoned for 8 months without ever being formally charged. After their release from prison, they were forced into hiding and eventually leave their country for fear of their lives as a result of threats by elements of the Islamic Regime.

[b]28 November 2011: Intelligence Minister declares house churches a threat for youth: Heydar Moslehi, Minister of Intelligence of Iran announced that house churches are a threat to youth and acknowledged a new series of efforts to fight the growth of the house church movement in Iran.

13 December 2011: Mr. Ehsan Behrouz a young Christian convert student has been re-arrested in the city of Mashhad by the agents of State Security of the Islamic Regime despite the previously paid bond of US$80,000. He had been previously arrested along with 15 other recent converts to Christianity. It is now over 5 weeks since anyone has seen or heard of Ehsan (Since November 7, 2011). His family seems to have been warned and threatened into silence.

14 December 2011: Alireza Seyyedian, 36, a Muslim who converted to Christianity six years ago, was sentenced to six years in prison by Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court for having been baptized in Turkey. “The judge said that by having his baptism performed in Turkey, he propagated against the regime. The judge’s interpretation was that by having his baptism in Turkey, my client’s intent was to express the lack of freedom in Iran. The other allegations against my client were distributing videos of his baptism on the Internet and holding various interviews about [the baptism]. He is also charged with running a home church.”

24 December 2011: Christian worshippers arrested in Ahvaz

http://missionfreeiran.org/

The Muslim Game:

The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic. One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic.

The Truth:

Although Muslims often tell critics of Islam to "read the Qur'an," they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded. An honest translation of Islam's holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion. The fallback is to then claim that the Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic.

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that “one must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people? Even the vast majority of Muslims and their imams do not speak Arabic.

Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) corresponds quite precisely with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an!

No other world religion claims that knowledge of a particular language is imperative to understanding itself and its holy texts. Neither is the same level of effort required to massage a primary message into palatability. While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the "perfect book" can't be translated and that Allah's perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same "necessary" chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well - a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek).

At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist - the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are - ironically enough - accused of taking the Qur'an 'too literally').

It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn - and susceptible to such horrible "misinterpretation" on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn't hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Neither do they qualify the claim that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Muslims) don't understand Islam since they can't read the Quran in Arabic.

Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that, for the first time, the information age is making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and it is highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others.

A response to the American Muslim article: Throwing Stones at the Quran from a Glass House


In an article entitled, “Throwing Stones at the Quran from a Glass House”, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence and war in the Bible can be misread in “exactly the same way as some verses in the Qur’an” (emphasis ours).  In other words, the on-line magazine alleges that, like the Quran, there are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are not bound by historical context within the passage itself.

Our first clue that this probably isn’t true is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups.  Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of “Allah Akbar!”  That there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists (or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.

Nevertheless, to support their claim, The American Muslim quotes sixteen of the worst passages that the Bible has to offer in the way of violence.  Others are alluded to as well, but delving into these particular verses should be a large enough sample to expose whatever sophistry might be at play.

Their first try is a passage from Deuteronomy that might appear to command present-day believers to take a city by force and slaughter the inhabitants on order from God:

   
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17 - As quoted by The American Muslim

Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds similar to a verse from the Qur’an:

And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. (Quran 17:16)

But, in fact, the Biblical passage is not an open-ended command to "kill anything that breathes", but instead, a story of history bound within the text.  Having trouble seeing this?  That’s because the author of The American Muslim piece cleverly left out this part of the passage:

“Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you”

These are the discrete targets referred to in the last part of the quoted text.  The rest of the passage is bound by context as well, given to "Israel" (verse 3) and those "brought out of Egypt" (verse 1).  These would be specific instructions to the ancient Israelites, which is why today's Christians and Jews do not treat these verses as present-day imperatives.

Strategic omission is just one way that Muslim apologists manipulate Biblical passages.  (In this case, The American Muslim editors did not even include an ellipsis in place of the omission, since it may have raised the suspicions of the reader).

The next passage that The American Muslim claims promotes violence is from the apostle Paul, who writes:

“Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”  (1Timothy 1:20)

The violence in the passage is not exactly evident from this reading.  In the context of the previous verse, these two men “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith,” but there is nothing to indicate that they were physically harmed as a result.  It was the practice of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, and there is every reason to believe that this was the “fate” of these two individuals.  They were expelled from the Church by Paul.  The Christian Church does not advocate killing apostates.

Contrast this with the words of Muhammad:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)

Not much ambiguity there.  Abu Bakr, the first caliph and several other Muslims testified that Muhammad had indeed put Muslim apostates to death.  For this reason, the practice is coded in Islamic law.


The next passage that is supposed to inspire Christians to violence is the recounting of David’s victory against the Philistines:

“This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it,  And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.”  (1 Samuel 17:46 - As Quoted by The American Muslim)


This is actually parts of verse 46 through 54.  We won’t waste much time here, because it is apparent that this is a recounting of an historical event.  The omitted passages from within the text make it even more obvious. 

Compare this to the word of Allah in the Quran:

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”  (Quran 8:12) 

There is no historical context to mitigate this Qur’anic exhortation either in the verse or in those that surround it.  (The American Muslim actually makes a monumental effort to bring historical context to the verse from sources external to the Qur’an in this article, which contains several inaccuracies regarding the timing of the “revelation” of the verse, the justification for attacking caravans, and the fate of hostages taken in battle, some of whom were actually put to death).

The next five passages quoted by The American Muslim, in trying to make the case that the Bible can be used to command violence, all suffer from the same problems as above:

“Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.”,  And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword.’ Now therefore hold him not guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.”  (2 Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:

“ When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, “Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring.” (2 Samuel 4:7)

"That is not true. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, called Sheba the son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King David; give up him alone, and I will withdraw from the city.” And the woman said to Joab, “Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall.” Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab." (2 Samuel 20:21)

"at Jezreel by this time tommorrow, And when the letter came to them, they took the king’s sons, and slew them, seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When the messenger came and told him, “They have brought the heads of the king’s sons,” he said, “Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.”. (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 6) “God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until he had left not one single survivor.” (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 10) “He put to death all of Ahab’s house, who were left there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH had spoken to Elijah." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7)

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

No doubt these were bad days to be particular individuals by the name of Shimei, Ishbosheth, Sheba or Ahab, but they obviously aren’t around anymore to complain.  Same with the tribes mentioned in the passage from Deuteronomy.  This is history, of course, not some open-ended instruction like:

“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (Quran 48:29)

At this point, The American Muslim pulls two verses out of the New Testament Gospels. The first is quoted as if they are the words of Jesus:

"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."(Luke 19:26-27)

But, in fact, this is the tail end of a parable being told by Jesus.  The words actually belong to one of the characters in his story.

Again, contrast this with the actual words of Muhammad:

[Allah's Apostle said] "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." (Bukhari 52:256)

We don’t have to play the same games here that The American Muslim does to try and convince Christians that they should kill based on the words of a parable.  Not only are these Muhammad’s own words, but there are many Muslims at this very moment who are trying to kill Jews in Israel.  Their religious leaders quote this passage to inspire them.

Moving along to the second New Testament verse that supposedly advocates violence:

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)

Though not quoted in the article, the passage actually goes on to say, “Your enemies will be the members of your own household.  Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. “

Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the impending hardships that will be suffered by Christians (ironically, the worst abusers eventually turned out to be Muslims).  Even Pope Urban, in his call for the Crusades, never quoted this passage, as it is obvious that the “sword” is a metaphor for the persecution against believers, not an admonition for them to take up arms.

If Jesus were speaking literally, then he would have produced the sword of which he was speaking.  In fact, the only time one of his followers produced a sword in his presence (to defend him), Jesus issued a harsh rebuke against immediate and general violence.  In keeping with his pacifist teachings, none of his disciples formed an armed militia of any sort despite tremendous persecution.  There were no armies claiming to be “Christian” for many centuries - and well after the church structure had been co-opted by the government, in contradiction to what Jesus taught.

By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who killed people in battle, executed captives and enslaved women and children.  When he said that “Jihad in the way of Allah elevates the position of a man in paradise” (Sahih Muslim 20:4645), his followers knew what he meant.  They engaged in warfare following his death, which continues to this day.


The American Muslim then moves back to the Old Testament:

“I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.” (Exodus 23:27)

Is this an open-ended imperative for present-day Christians and Jews?  Hardly.  Here’s the next verse:

“I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way”

Again, not a good time to be a Hivate, Hittite, or a Canaanite… but who is these days?

By contrast, the Qur’an speaks ill of Christians, Jews, “unbelievers” and “pagans,” [/b]and commands its readers to [b]“slay the infidel wherever ye find him.”   The historical context of the verse is apparently not all that conspicuous, judging by the fact that so many Muslims are trying so hard to kill these people in the name of Allah.


The American Muslim tries again:

And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.  At God’s instructions, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones” leaving “none to remain.”  And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. (Deuteronomy 2:33-36)

At this point, you can probably guess that there is something being left out.  If you look at the original passage, you’ll find that it refers to the Battle of Jahaz and even says “at that time” (emphasizing that this is history - not edict).

Next is this passage from Joshua:

Joshua said to the people of Israel, “The Lord has given you the city of the all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord.  The people utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and Bottom, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 6:21-23 as Quoted by the American Muslim)

The manipulation of the original passage is so extensive that the verse is barely recognizable. The author employs both omission and juxtaposition to try and emphasize that the city in question was destroyed.  In fact, the original does say that not everyone within the city was killed.  Even so, this is still a violent passage… but it is not open-ended instruction.

The city in question was Jericho, and the verses tell of the battle between the ancient Israelites and the inhabitants therein - and the subsequent massacre.  It is obviously a historical passage, and it no more inspires violence than reading an account of the Japanese slaughter of the people of Nanjing in 1937.

The American Muslim then pulls a verse from the Old Testament that it says can be interpreted to mean that apostates should be stoned:

"And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, , and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die." (Deuteronomy 17:3-5, as quoted by the American Muslim)

What does the ellipsis leave out, you may be wondering?  Well, it turns out that this was yet another specific command handed down to a specific people at a specific time:

“If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death” (Actual text)

No Christian in their right mind would kill someone for worshipping a different god based on this passage.  While it's true that Christian apostates have been killed in sporadic and rare historical incidents, it was not the example of Jesus, nor is it a part of Christian teaching.

As we have already pointed out, however, Islam’s most reliable Hadith mandates the execution of apostates from Islam.  It is firmly established in Islamic law, since it is the example set forth by Muhammad himself.


The American Muslim then submits a rare New Testament verse as proof that Christians can interpret the Bible as a command to murder in the way that Jihadis wage holy war:

"Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:20-32, as quoted by the American Muslim)

It is unclear why the author cites verses 20-32 but quotes only the last verse.  The full text of the passage actually contains a rebuke against killing and it assigns judgment to God alone.  The next verses in sequence confirm this:

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.  So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?” (Romans 2:1)

God is the judge, and not man, according to the context of this passage.  How anyone is supposed to interpret this to mean exactly the opposite - that they should kill another human being - is a leap of logic that escapes this writer (and generations of Christians as well, apparently).

Muhammad’s own words, however, contain no such cryptic message:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Quran 2:216)

Now, at last, The American Muslim pulls out the grand finale – the famous passage from Numbers that is quoted so enthusiastically by the detractors of Western religion:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

From the way this is quoted, it sounds as if God is telling today's Bible-thumpers to kill every man within reach and enslave their women and children.  What a horrible world this would be if Christians took this fragment literally and killed the nearest person.

So why aren’t the Jews and Christians of today doing this?

Well, it's most likely because there aren't any Midianites around, since that was the unfortunate tribe on which this vengeance is specifically commanded - as is obvious from the surrounding verses.  Again, this is a historical narration that clearly refers to an obscure tribe, unlike many of the open-ended passages of violence against unbelievers,  “idolaters,” polytheists, Jews and Christians found in the Qur’an.

Contemporary Islamic apologists, such as the author of this American Muslim piece, apparently borrowed this research from secular critics of Christianity, who use passages such as these to make dark insinuations about the character of the god of the Bible and thus bolster their rejection of all religion.

This certainly makes for some strange bedfellows, given that most atheists would concur that the god of Muhammad is far more violent than the god of the New Testament.  (Those who may not agree are free to travel to a Muslim country and see how publicly denying Allah there compares to Christian "intolerance" at home, but they may want to make out a will beforehand).

We’ll leave it to the theologians to respond, since the character of God and the nature of progressive revelation falls outside the scope of this discussion.  Our only interest here is in the argument that Muslims are trying to make by citing such passages.

Since Muslims do not argue the point that Muhammad commanded the slaughter and enslavement of others at various times in his last ten years (a practice that his followers have faithfully applied to this very day), their logic here is quite tenuous.  At best, these apologists appear to be trying to bring other religions down to the level of Islam, particularly Christianity.

What makes this noteworthy is that Christians and others do not act as if they need to bring Islam down to their religion of choice.  The reason is that no other religion regularly kills members of every other faith explicitly in the name its god.  And, on the rare occasions when this does happen, the response is anger and denouncement rather than the general indifference that Muslims have for Islamic terror (aside from the 15% or so who openly endorse it).

Islamic terrorists wage holy war on a daily basis because it is the literal command of the Qur’an.  Western Muslim apologists (concerned solely with the image of Islam) window-dress these violent passages through a complex series of appeals to a patchwork of external Muslim sources.  Then, after delicately arranging the products of this Herculean charade in such a way as to convince the rest of us that these Qur’anic verses of violence are not what they appear, the apologist steps back, wipes the sweat from his brow and says, “See how clear it is?  No Muslim could possibly interpret this command to kill as a command to kill.”

Well, why are these verses in the Qur’an at all, then?  If they are supposed to be history, then why do they appear as imperative?  Why isn’t the context right there in the text as it is in the Old Testament?

After all, this is supposed to be Allah’s perfect book. How is it that it is so vulnerable to the worst sort of "misinterpretation"?

Lacking a decent answer to these questions, Muslims attack the Bible instead.



Source

Surah 15:9 of the Qur’an proclaims:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."


Muslim scholars interpret this ayah (verse) as a divine promise that the text of the Qur’an would be preserved perfectly, down to the smallest detail. The Qur’an therefore offers us a way to test its divine origin, based on whether Allah’s promise in Surah 15:9 was fulfilled. In this pamphlet, we will review the history of the Qur’an according to Muslim sources, allowing us to see if this book has Allah’s stamp of approval.

I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE QUR’AN

The first Qur’anic revelation came to Muhammad around the year 610. Muhammad delivered many more verses to his scribes and companions for memorization and recording over the next two decades. These verses were written on stalks of palm leaves, bones of dead animals, flat stones, and other materials. There was no complete manuscript of the Qur’an during this time.

Qur’anic revelation ceased when Muhammad died. Shortly after Muhammad’s death, Caliph Abu Bakr needed to suppress a rebellion, and he sent many huffaz (people who had memorized portions of the Qur’an) to fight at the Battle of Yamama. Many of these huffaz died, and Muslim sources tell us that portions of the Qur’an were lost:

Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif—Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them.

Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad. (For a fuller account see Sahih al-Bukhari 4986.)

During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an. When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex.

II. DISPUTES AMONG MUHAMMAD’S SCHOLARS

Not all Muslims approved of the new Qur’an. Indeed, some of Muhammad’s top teachers rejected Zaid’s version.

Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3808). Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an.

Because of this (along with hundreds of other textual differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444).

Should Muslims submit to this “deceit”? Not surprisingly, Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said:

Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.”

But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5005—Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”

Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick regarding Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed!

III. MISSING CHAPTERS

Simply knowing the facts about such disputes is enough to dismiss the claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved. Nevertheless, we may go further by briefly considering certain other problems.

When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof’” (Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an).

One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness:

Sahih Muslim 2286—Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it . . .

This shows that entire chapters of the Qur’an were forgotten.

IV. MISSING PASSAGES

We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost:

Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”

According to Aisha, the collectors simply couldn’t find all of Surah 33. Why not? As we’ve seen, many huffaz were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Apparently, no one who knew the entire chapter survived.

V. MISSING VERSES

Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways:

Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”


The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times are not in the Qur’an today. Why? Aisha’s sheep ate them.

VI. MISSING PHRASES

Since entire chapters, large portions of chapters, and individual verses of the Qur’an were lost, it should come as no surprise that short phrases were forgotten as well. Let’s consider two examples.

First, Surah 33:6 declares that “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” Ubayy ibn Ka’b and other early Muslims held that a phrase (“and he is a father of them”) is missing from this verse. Even the great translator Yusuf Ali admits this in his commentary. Ali writes: “In some Qira’ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab, occur also the words ‘and he is a father of them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words ‘and his wives are their mothers’” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Note 3674). It seems that Muslims have been left with an incomplete verse.

Second, if we open a modern edition of the Qur’an, we find that Surah 2:238 commands Muslims to “Guard strictly your (habit) of prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).” According to Aisha, Muhammad recited this verse as follows: “Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience” (Jami at-Tirmidhi 2982). Hence, the phrase “and Salat Al-Asr” is missing from modern editions.

VII. ASSESSMENT

Obviously, the Qur’an has changed significantly over the years. The evidence shows that entire chapters were lost, that large sections of chapters came up missing, that individual verses were forgotten, and that phrases have been left out. Muhammad’s best teachers and reciters couldn’t even agree on which chapters were supposed to be in the Qur’an.

This raises an obvious question. What’s the difference between a book that’s been perfectly preserved, and one that hasn’t been perfectly preserved? If Muslims are right, there’s no difference at all. The typical characteristics of a book that hasn’t been perfectly preserved are (1) missing phrases, (2) missing passages, (3) missing chapters, (4) disagreements about what goes back to the original, etc. But the Qur’an has all of these characteristics. Thus, Muslims who are aware of the evidence but who also want to maintain the perfect perseveration of the Qur’an must say something like this: “Yes, the Qur’an has all the characteristics of a book that hasn’t been perfectly preserved, but it’s been perfectly preserved anyway.” Can anyone make sense of such a claim?

We must also take note of the obvious. Anyone who has read the Muslim sources (e.g. Hadith, Tafsir, etc.) knows that the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved. Muslim scholars are well aware of the fact that the Qur’an has been changed, and yet they tell less-educated Muslims that the Qur’an has always been exactly the same. Why are Muslim scholars and leaders deceptive about the history of their book? Moreover, if they are willing to deceive their fellow Muslims about the history of the Qur’an, what else are they being deceptive about?

Friends, whenever a book is passed on and copied by human beings, mistakes are going to be made (e.g. spelling errors, inadvertent omissions, intentional changes, and so on). This is true of all books, including the Qur’an and the Bible. The difference between the Qur’an and other books is that the Qur’an promises that no changes in its text will ever occur. As we have seen in this study, the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved, which means that the promise of Surah 15:9 was not kept. The Qur’an cannot therefore be the Word of God.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbwaIdnGKk?version=3&hl=en[/flash]


Since Boko Haram, cowards as they are , enjoying killing women and children , but also fighting behind women and children, I suggest that ISRAEL send in their women soldiers to teach the Nigerian army how it is done.

Believe me, in a week they will rein in those cowards.

Enjoy !!!

Allah has said in the Quran:
16:44: “(We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto (thee) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.”

This is a Medinese verse. The word “Book” in it leads us to conclude:
It is evident from the Quran that in his preaching in Mecca, Muhammad always insisted, even in the face of severe objection from the Quraish, that the Quran had been revealed in piecemeal through inspiration brought to him by the angel Gabriel, who carried the Soul or Spirit of Allah, hence his title “the Holy Spirit.” When people asked him, “Why not the Quran is revealed to him all at once (jumlatan wahidatan),” Allah had him tell them:
“…Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.”

This was not intended to oppose the Jewish—and what Muhammad understood to be the Christian—contention that Scriptures are revealed all at once. Instead, it conforms to the Quran’s descriptions of his early visions and what every Muslim knows, that he continued to receive revelations right down to the very end of his life. But his position on revelations changed after he arrived in Medina; here, he began asserting that the Quran (“The Book”) had in fact, like the Torah, been revealed to him on a single occasion, first, ‘we hypothesize, on Ashura, the very same day as the Torah, and then, after his break with the Jews, on the old Arabian New Year’s “Night of Destiny” ‘for the express purpose of making clear those things (to the Jews) in which they differed.’

But how good is our assumption? Not much, for the Quran says “Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Quran, as Guide to mankind…." This clearly contradicts Allah’s assertion that He had revealed the entire Quran in a single night.

As it is clear from the above verse, Allah had revealed the entire Quran to Muhammad in the month of Ramadhan, and not in the single Night of Destiny. This being the fact, the question is: What is the significance of the “Night of Destiny” and what He revealed or reveals in this night?
As the Quran explains, the Night of Destiny is a Night, which is better than a thousand months, for “on that night the angels and Spirit by their Lord’s leave come down with each decree. That night is peace, till break of dawn.”

Muslim scholars do not know which night the ‘night’ of the verse refers to, as such, one of them says: “Usually taken to be a night in the month of Ramadhan, say the 23rd, 25th or 27th night of that month.”

Maududi thinks this refers to the Night in which Allah had handed over the entire celestial Quran to the angels from which angel Gabriel “kept on revealing its verses and Ayats from time to time to Rasul Allah for 23 years in accordance with events and circumstances.”

Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees and accordingly, it translated the verse 97:1 in the following words:

“Lo! We revealed it, that is, the Qur'ān, in its entirety, [sending it down] from the Preserved Tablet to the heaven of this world, on the Night of Ordainment, that is, [the Night] of great eminence.”

But if Allah had revealed the entire Quran in the Night of Destiny or Glory, why has He not stated it clearly in the verse and also what He intended to say by using the word “errand” or “decree” in verse 97:4?

In our understanding, the “Night of Destiny,” or “The Blessed Night”was a new expression, or rather, an old occasion newly employed by Allah to appease the Jews of Medina. From its generic descriptions, the Night of Destiny can be identified with a typical New Year’s day observance, an occasion, as on Rosh ha-Shana, on which Allah determines how the humans and all other creatures would fare in the following year;[14] i.e. their lot; this having been written down by Him in the Heavenly Book before He created the Universe. As we have stated earlier, the Quran is a prototype of the Heavenly Book.

But was the Quran revealed in a single night? Here is Allah’s response to the question:
“(This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt, - from the Lord of the worlds.”
It is clear from the verse that what the Quran contains are the revelations from the Heavenly Book – referred to in the Quran as the Book - and these came to Muhammad in piecemeal over a period of almost 23 three years. So, the question of the Quran coming to him in the form of a Book did not and could arise, for it took its present shape only after all the revelations were brought together following his death.

This reality brings us to the question: Why Allah insisted that He revealed the Quran to Muhammad in a single night?
F. E. Peters answers:
“Linked with this new assertion of a single revelation of the Quran was another notion that might also have been Jewish inspired, that an angel, specifically Gabriel, was an agent of that revelation. This too had been thrown up to him earlier (6:8 ) but he {Muhammad} dismissed it (16:43). Now, however, at Medina, he concedes that Gabriel was the messenger for his revelations – an assertion that of course caused later Muslims to read the visions of Sura 53 as referring not to God but to an angel.

But if the identification of Gabriel was intended to make the Quran more “scriptural,” it did not satisfy the “enemies of Gabriel,” probably the Jews of Medina who preferred to see Michael as the guardian of Scripture: “Say: Who is an enemy of Gabriel? For he it is who revealed it [that is, the Quran] to your heart by God’s permission, confirming what was before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers (Quran 2:97).”[17]

Conclusion: The Quran is a Book of contradiction, hence it could not have come from Allah or an all-knowing Deity, as Allah is believed to be by Muslims and other monotheists of the world.

http://www.islam-watch.org/MAsghar/Did-Quran-come-down-complete-Book.htm

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB1mnQAsWb4?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY?version=3&hl=en[/flash]


[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMZ62pzQnOI?version=3&hl=en[/flash]


[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbWQRxr6hc?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

An organized effort is underway worldwide orchestrated by a powerful Islamic political body to criminalize speech that "offends" Muslims. As much as that may sound like some fantastic conspiracy theory, these Muslim leaders broadcast their group's every move on their website—yet America's ruling elites refuse to listen.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations representing 57 member states which seek to criminalize speech that violates the archaic tenets of Sharia law.

The OIC is comprised of the kings and heads of state of all Islamic countries numbering its membership at 57 states by including the non-existent state of Palestine.

As reported last week on HUMAN EVENTS, the OIC website says it comprises "the collective voice of the Muslim world" making "policy decisions" and providing "guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah."

The ummah is the worldwide body of Muslim believers.

The OIC's claim to speak for "the collective voice of the Muslim world" carries great weight considering its membership. The OIC is not an Islamic religious organization but a political entity exercising political power and territorial claims through all of its member states as well as the ummah.

On December 8, 2005, at a heads-of-state-level summit, the OIC ratified its "Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century."

The plan, among other things, seeks to define slander according to Islamic Sharia law—making Islamic “slander” a serious crime in every jurisdiction in the world, including the United States.

By January of 2006—just one month after ratification—the first OIC-orchestrated crisis was born.

In an attempt to buck the trend of media self-censorship on matters regarding Islam worldwide, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005, published 12 editorial cartoon depictions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Under Sharia law it is illegal to publish an image of Muhammad.

Four months later, Muslim leaders circulated offensive cartoons not published by the paper, cartoons they had created themselves for the sole purpose of inciting violence. Manufactured outrage and violence ensued.

Eleven ambassadors from Muslim countries asked for a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss what they perceived as an "on-going smearing campaign in Danish public circles and media against Islam and Muslims."

On December 6, 2005, at a summit with heads of state in attendance, the OIC issued an official communiqué demanding that the United Nations impose international sanctions on Denmark.

On March 4, 2006, in The News from Karachi, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf "raised the offensive caricatures issue and demanded his U.S. counterpart draft [a] law to avoid such incidents in the future. President Bush, who hopes to boost the U.S.' image among Muslims, condemned the publications of the cartoons and assured full cooperation."

Muslim imams toured the Middle East inciting violence that caused over 100 deaths.

Much more on the coordinated OIC efforts are found in this exhaustive, footnoted timeline of events.

The following year in 2007, the process was repeated when Salman Rushdie, author of the Satanic Verses, was honored with knighthood by the British government.

As reported in the Washington Times, Pakistani cabinet member Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq called for violent response to what he framed for the ummah as "slander" to Islam—this coming from the son of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's third military president who reinstated Sharia rule in Pakistan in 1977:

"This is an occasion for the [world's] 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision," Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, said in parliament.

"The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title," Mr. ul-Haq said.

In 2008, the OIC continued its strategic campaign with an effort to silence Geert Wilders, a sitting member of the Dutch parliament. Because of OIC orchestrations, Wilders is currently on trial in Amsterdam for hate speech.

Wilders produced a film entitled Fitna which cites violent verses from the Koran interspersed with footage of Muslim imams spewing vitriol and violent Muslim jihadi attacks worldwide.

OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu readily admitted in a speech in June of 2008 the OIC's targeting and orchestration, noting their success in causing the West to deter "freedom of expression."

"In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film Fitna, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look serious into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked," Ihsanoglu said.

Wilders' trial began in earnest last week and is expected to run through October. Wilders was denied expert-witness testimony to assert the truth of claims he made in the film about Islam.

The Dutch court instead stipulated to the truth-of-all-the-facts-of-the-matter when the court stated, in language that aligns with Islamic notions of “slander,” that: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’ witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations [about Islam] to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

It doesn’t matter what’s true; the court says speaking truth in regard to Islam is illegal in the Netherlands because it may incite violence. Just what the OIC ordered.

Wilders' speech in Germany last Friday gives great insight into the OIC attacks on those who confront the "supremacy" of Sharia law and his own court battle that resumes today.

In 2009, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution (without a vote), submitted by the Obama Administration, which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to UN oversight standards. These standards mirror the OIC’s Ten-Year Plan objectives.

The OIC seeks deterrent punishments for speaking against Islam to garner silence and submission to Sharia law.

In 2009 the toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the U.S. reached out and touched an American Christian group personally. The Christian Action Network (CAN) had its non-profit status revoked and was fined $4,000 by the state of Maine in 2009 for "an inflammatory anti-Muslim message."

CAN sent information to its members exposing schooling programs that took place in Byron, Calif., that required students to dress up as Muslims, chant "Praise be to Allah" and learn the Five Pillars of Islamic faith. The letter asked parents to sign a petition to the governor of their state to prohibit such Islamic teachings and activities in their public schools.

CAN eventually prevailed in court spending thousands of dollars to fight the precedent-setting fine for "insulting" Islam.

In August and September of 2010, we were all treated to threats of Islamic violence surrounding a Gainesville, Fla., preacher’s plan to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

The story hit the radar screen of most Americans in news reports of the Muslim threat of concerted retaliatory violence. How is it that these groups around the Muslim world were protesting this small-town rural American preacher at the same time on the same issue? Did al Jazeera open a Gainesville bureau?

Hardly.

In the Koran burning iteration of the information campaign, there was a coordinated media message including tie-ins to the Ground Zero mosque, Christian clergy condemning the pastor’s activities as “un-Christian” to satisfy Muslim sensitivities, the State Department comparing the pastor to the 9/11 terrorists (an American citizen exercising his protected free-speech rights inside America, mind you), and the U.S. Army commanding general in Afghanistan injecting himself into constitutional free-speech issues by allocating blame for future acts of Islamic-based terrorism to Americans.

A staged protest of Afghanis pressured Gen. Petraeus to comment on the planned actions of a private citizen inside the United States.

As seen in these efforts, the OIC seeks out stories to augment and broadcast to the Muslim world to orchestrate the violence or threats of violence. Once the Gainesville pastor buckled to Sharia-compliant demands, there was no outrage in the Muslim world over those who actually did burn the Koran on the nine-year anniversary of September 11.

Because the OIC picked the Gainesville pastor as its target, when they forced him to back down through intimidation, they had won.  U.S. leaders including the President of the United States demanded the pastor submit to the tenets of Sharia law.

The subordination of 1st Amendment rights to Islamic law under threat of lethal jihadi attacks should be understood to be a declaration of hostility by those making the demands.

The threat that Muslims will self-radicalize and kill is at the very heart of the OIC campaign to squelch free speech regarding Islam. Issues such as the proposed Koran burning are manipulated for that purpose. Western cultural “elites” are targeted to deem the free speech inappropriate thereby facilitating a cultural dilution of our commitment to free-speech principles over time. 

OIC “slander” campaigns are calibrated against issues like Koran burning or the Muhammad cartoons to dupe elites in the West into support for Islamic standards of “free speech” against their own interests. And it’s working.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39366

I still remember the words my mother spoke to me some 45 years ago, regarding LAIL-AL-QADR or THE NIGHT OF POWER. When I was 6, my mother insisted on my going to the mosque with my father and brothers on the 27th of Ramadan and spend the night there praying almost 2/3rd of the night, because it was Lail-al-Qadr. I could not help asking my mom why and I was told that it was the night Allah dropped His book, “The Quran”, from heaven some 1,400 years ago. So, it was the most auspicious night and Muslims will get rewards for their good deeds, equal to the deeds done in 1,000 months. I believed as I was by my mom. For the next 20 years, I spend the night of every Lail-al-qadr, which falls on 27th Ramadan, in the mosque, as it is celebrated throughout India.

When I went to Saudi Arabia with a job in my late 20's, I came to know about the contradiction over the exact date of Qadr, which was totally unacceptable to my intellect. When I narrated this astonishing fact to my mom, she replied that she didn’t have any knowledge about this. She was helpless, because she was not taught by anyone about it until then. These types of absurdities are not taught to common non-Arab Muslims, because mullahs are afraid of being questioned by Muslims of these free countries. So, the celebration of the Qadr on the 27th night of Ramadan continues even today.

Muhammad: A Prophet or a Joker?

As a Muslim I was thinking that Muhammad was a Prophet, which means a person, who teaches his people about the intentions of God and predicts the future. If a person, who couldn’t remember even the very momentous event of the present and/or of recent past, how could he be able to predict the future? Even an ordinary human being never forgets the important days of his life. Also a small kid remembers his/her date of birth. Then how come a “Prophet” forgets the inaugural date of his ultimate religion of God? What kind of prophet he was?

The Islamic sources really projects Muhammad as a joker in this case, since they reflect very badly about the authenticity of most of Hadiths and the Quran. Here are the few examples of such absurdities from Islamic sources. Before reading such absurdities, it is necessary to know the importance of Muhammad’s sunna and also that Muhammad never speaks anything of his own.

Muhammad said, “He, who does not follow my tradition (sunna) in religion, is not from me (not one of my followers) – (Bukhari Vol. 7:1)

“NOR DOES HE SPEAK OF DESIRE” (Quran/ Sura An-Najm 53:4) asserting that nothing the Prophet utters is of his own desire or wish. And we have to admit it. Let us analyze what Allah wish to say through his messenger Muhammad:

Exact date of Lail-Al-Qadr according to Muhammad’s prattling.

Lail-al-Qadar was came true with it signs on 21st Ramadan, as showed to Muhammad in his dream. (Bukhari Vol. 3:235)
Search it on 21st, 23rd and 25th of Ramadan. (Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol.  1:238 & Tirmidhi 2092).
Seek it on 25th, 27th and 29th of Ramadan. (Bukhari Vol. 1:46 & Vol. 3:240)
Seek it in the last 7 nights of Ramadan. (Bukhari Vol. 3:232 & Vol. 9:120)
Search it in the last 10 nights of Ramadan. (Bukhari Vol. 3:252)
Search it in the odd nights of last 10 days. (Bukhari Vol. 3:234, Vol 3:252)
Seek it in the first 10, second 10 and in the third 10 nights (i.e. all 30 nights!!!!) of Ramadan. (Bukhari Vol. 1:777)
These are the utterance of the all-knowing prophet of Islam about the best day of his life. Even if a child of 6 years happens to have such encounter with Jibreel, he or she will never forget that event until his or her survival. Then what kind of prophet Muhammad was!

Furthermore, some more hadiths from the comic-books, namely Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, claim that Muhammad was showed the Qadr in his dream for the second time, but he forgot it again (Bukhari Vol. 3:235 & 244; Sahih Muslim 2631). The same hadith’s narrator Abu Saaid al-khudri says that he remembers the Qadr and it was on the 21st night of Ramadan (Bukhari Vol 3:235). An ordinary man from his companions somehow has managed to remember the date of Qadr according to this hadith. Yet, the intelligent Arab Muslims of this modern age are still searching it in the last 30 days of Ramadan, and the non-Arab Muslims searches it on the 27th of Ramadan.

Some people were shown the night of Qadr as being in the last 7 days of Ramadan. Muhammad said, “Seek it in the last 7 days of Ramadan.”  (Bukhari Vol. 9:120)

With these hadiths, one can easily judge about the veracity of Islamic scriptures, be they Hadiths or Quran.

SIGN OF LAIL-AL-QADR

Whatever be the date of Qadr, let modern Muslims search it on the whole 30 nights of Ramadan, as per the teaching of their mentor Muhammad. At the same time, let them also not forget the sign of Qadr mentioned by their Boss Muhammad:

Muhammad said, “I was shown Qadr. I saw in my dream that I was protesting in mud and water.” The narrator of hadith Abu Saaid Al-Khudri further says, “At that time the sky was clear and no cloud was visible, but suddenly a cloud came and rained. The prophet led us to the prayer and I saw the traces of mud on the fore head and on the nose of Allah’s apostle. So it was the confirmation of that dream.” (Bukhari Vol 1:777)

CONCLUSION: Praying the entire 30 nights of Ramadan, we wish, our Muslim brothers of today’s World, may experience once, that particular rainy and muddy night of Qadr with mud on their foreheads and noses.

Before concluding this article, I would like to ask Muslims, who are the first and worst victims of Muhammad’s Islam, to seek answer to the following legitimate questions, before seeking the mysterious night of Qadr.

How can Allah’s prophet forget the best events of the present or of recent past? Does he deserve the title of prophet?

Muhammad was shown the night of Qadr again for the second time in his dream and made to forget the Qadr again. If Allah doesn’t want him to remember it, then why did Allah show him the Qadr for a second time in his dream? I hope the Muslims will scrutiny this point with open mind.

Even though Muhammad’s dream came true with its sign on 21st night of Ramadan, he did not authenticate that night as Qadr and the poor Muslims are still searching it on every Ramadan. What is the secret behind this mystery?

Muhammad must have forgotten the very momentous day of his life. Because “he was a Prophet after all”. Even Khadeeja, his first official wife out of 15, who lived through ten years of Muhammad’s alleged Prophethood, had forgotten that night? Doesn’t it appear that this whole incident was fabricated by Muhammad or later on?
Moreover Jibreel, the dimwit angel of Allah, had allegedly been visiting Muhammad for 23 long years with Allah’s revelations. In particular, Jibreel used to visit Muhammad during the month of Ramadan on a daily basis. (Bukhari Vol. 1:5, 1:777). Since Muhammad was so confused about the date, why didn’t he get the confirmed date of Qadr from Jibreel?

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=795:muslims-how-long-will-you-be-searching-lail-al-qadr&catid=117:ghalib&Itemid=58

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1YBoMC-oE?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

The harsh and violent ethics and tendencies of Islam are a product of the harsh desert environments in which it was born, and greening the world’s deserts may help remedy the world’s “Islam” problem by helping its disappearance.

In his book, "Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex Repression, Warfare, and Social Violence in the Deserts of the Old World" (Natural Energy Works, Ashland, Oregon, 2006 revised edition), James DeMeo discusses the role which deserts played in the origins of Islam, whose harsh Sharia law reflect the harsh, barren place it originated in "the desert kingdom" region of today’s Saudi Arabia, whose 7th-century people lived in the same harsh, barren environment that its modern inhabitants live in.

Muhammad claimed that an angel dictated "The Koran" to him, which was, of course, only a false claim of a con man or psychotic. In reality, Muhammad, and his part of the world's desert environment, created Islam, as I will show in this article.

Two places in Africa – namely Sudan and Nigeria – may prove that Islam is a desert religion, whose harsh rules would be of less and less interest to Muslims over time if all of the deserts could be greened, which, as the Israelis have long proved, is an achievable goal by using cloudseeding technology to wash out the salt of desert sands to turn them into productive farmland. In both Sudan and Nigeria, the northern halves of those places, have harsh, barren desert environments, mostly populated by Muslims, while the fertile southern halves are populated by people of Christian and animist faiths who follow much less harsh laws.

Part of the reason why Islam makes more sense to desert people is the hot, dry desert winds, known as khamsin, sirocco, and simoom, which when blow off the desert, can be used as a diminished-responsibility-type defence in violent crime cases in some countries. This is not surprising, as scientists have shown that such desert winds are electrically very imbalanced, and create irritability and aggression, because they have far more positive ions of air electricity than negative ions, the latter is produced by vegetation and creates more peaceful behaviour.

So Islam's warlike jihad mentality streak is not really surprising, as much of the Muslim world is regularly influenced to be violent by the positive ion dominated desert winds. In more fertile places like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and India, Islam has, historically, been more Sufi, mystical, and inward looking, and less harsh, dogmatic, and violent than the Islam of desert Arabia.

A fertile, or relatively fertile environment, for not being harsh and barren, does not produce desert winds, and is less likely to create a harsh, dogmatic, violent mentality. That is partly why of the four Asian countries – Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and India (only 2 of which have some deserts) – are part of a group of five previously or currently Hinduism and Buddhism dominated Asian nations (the other is Sri Lanka), which have had far more female presidents and prime ministers than even the 5 Scandinavian nations, which a World Economic Forum survey rated as the 5 best countries in the world for women's rights.

By contrast, the 22 members of the Arab League nations, which have desert environments, have never had any female presidents or prime ministers.

The fertile, or relatively fertile environments of those 5 Asian nations, are also perhaps partly the reason why some Indian subcontinent and Indonesian "Muslims" still hold onto their old Hindu-Buddhist culture influenced traditions alongside Islam’s. It is possible that, for those "Muslims", pure Islam is too harsh a faith to follow.

It is also true that old habits die hard. That is why some people argue that Iranians are also still heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion their forefathers practised for over a thousand years before Islam. Still the Iranians often go on camping holidays in the desert, which most people in fertile countries would probably see as strange behaviour, because deserts are so featureless. This perhaps proves that they also have a more desert-influenced mentality than Muslims in more fertile parts of Asia.

As nearly half of all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims live in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, it is no small matter that some "fertile" Muslims stick to Hindu-Buddhist influenced religious and cultural traditions, and are thus not even proper Muslims. They are unlike "desert" Muslims of the Arab world, who are far less likely to be interested in Sufism, never mind their pre-Islamic religion.

It is also true that Saudi oil money is paying for madrassas, mosques, and imam training, which are helping the spreading of Saudi Wahhabist Islam to South Asia, and making its Islam more harsh, dogmatic, and violent in the process. The Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, many of whom went to Saudi funded madrassas, are the product of that Saudi aid effort. It is also true that as early as 1857, the British colonial authorities noted the influence of the "Wahhabis" on the Indian subcontinent Islam as Wahhabism-influenced Muslims inspired the bloody Indian rebellion against British rule of that year, which included the Bibighar massacre of 120 British women and children. But most South Asian Muslims, who were often converted to Islam by force and other compulsions, have historically had a less harsh mentality than that of Arab Muslims. However, Muslims of "tribal areas" in Pakistani and Afghanistan, who often have a xenophobic and violent mindset, are so because people in those areas live in harsh, barren environments.

Even Pakistani Muslims, who have undergone greater Saudi Arabianisation of their Islam than the Muslims of India, Bangladesh, and Indonesian, still have certain cultural traits, which have more in common with their Hindu past than the austere pure Islam of the Arab desert. For example, a taste for (Sufi) religious festivals with lots of dancing, which is reminiscent of Hindu religious festivals, a fondness for Hindu Indian films, which also often feature lots of dancing, a liking for qawwali Sufi devotional music which would appal Islamists, who believe that Sharia law outlaws music because of Muhammad’s hostile attitude toward music and musicians, and, in the case of some Pakistani truck drivers, a tendency to drive the same brightly painted, multicoloured trucks as some Hindu Indian truck drivers.

Thousands of years of Hindu cultural traits did not disappear suddenly, because ancestors of the Pakistani Muslims began converting to Islam, often at the point of a sword, in the 8th century.

Many black African Muslims, who sometimes live in fertile places like Malawi and Tanzania, also still appear to be influenced by the pre-Islamic animist faith of thousands of years (Animism was the dominant religious faith for black Africans as little as a century ago). So it is not surprising that black African Muslims are generally worse at sticking to desert Islam's harsh intimate codes than the Arab Muslims, who have long complained about the relative laxity of black African Muslims of that area. That is, perhaps, partly why more black African Muslims are now converting to less sexually strict Christianity than Muslims of other parts of the world outside Islam's Arab heartland, which bans missionary work.

Since black African men in fertile areas of Africa are also generally not as likely to be sexist as the Arab men, which is why some of the mostly Christian and animist black African nations have very high percentages of female politicians like in Scandinavian countries, as this "Women in national parliaments" global league table on the worldwide Inter Parliamentary Union website shows.

Since people living in fertile environments are not inclined to harsh laws and violent behaviour, that is probably why black African Muslims are now converting to Christianity in droves, because many black African Muslims, women in particular, may be increasingly alienated by the extreme sexism of Islamists as regularly highlighted in major media reports as well as by reports of terrorist atrocities, honour killings, or other horrible acts of violence by Muslims. According to the Religion of Peace website that attempts to document all of the Muslim-perpetrated terrorist attacks reported in the media, there have been more than 18,000 of such attacks since 9/11.

So, it is not surprising that in this transcript of an Al-Jazeera interview, Libyan Muslim cleric Sheikh Ahmad al-Katani lamented the fact that 6 million black African Muslims are converting from Islam to Christianity every year. This is a huge total that even dwarfs the large number of Muslims, who are converting from Islam to Christianity every year in Iran, Central Asia, Russia, Indonesia, Europe, etc., which you can see by Googling "Muslims converting to Christianity".

If this trend continues, Islam may well disappear from black Africa before the next century. It may even disappear from non-Arab Islamic countries of the world in future centuries, before finally imploding in its Arab heartland.

So, greening the world’s deserts may come handy in fighting Islamic violence and the ills of male-dominance of Islamic societies. The Israelis have succeeded in greening the desert using the cloudseeding technique. The Chinese use tree planting to stop the growth of desert areas. Late Austrian natural scientist Wilhelm Reich successfully tested cloudbusting in Arizona in a US Government funded project. Reich's ideas inspired "Saharasia" author James DeMeo, and his small group in Oregon, and similar groups in Germany, who use cloudbusting technology to green small areas of deserts whenever they can.

Islam has been a 14-century disaster for the world, whose increasingly Saudi-influenced harsh, dogmatic, and violent beliefs are increasingly out of step with ideas of the world's increasingly pro-democracy and pro-human rights (for example pro-women's rights) people. The popularity of the totalitarian and, thus, anti-human rights Islamist parties in recent local or national elections in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, etc. portends a grave future for the humankind. And one effective way to remedy this danger may be achieved by greening all of the world's deserts, thereby helping harsh, dogmatic, violent beliefs disappear from the world in the future. And this is certainly achievable, since just 8000 years ago, there were hardly any desert areas on the planet except in a small part of Asia.

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=900:greening-of-the-worlds-deserts-may-remedy-humanitys-islam-problem&catid=143:roddy&Itemid=58

"The Messenger in your rear is calling you from your rear, urging you to fight."

Alas, Islam was not all murder, plunder, and lust. There was war. Tabari VII:105 "In this year there was the expedition of the Messenger to Uhud. In year three of the Islamic Era (March, 625) the Quraysh were provoked against the Messenger because he had killed their nobles and chiefs at Badr."

The Meccans had witnessed the prophet's demented behavior at the pit. "Muhammad has bereaved us and killed our best men. So help us defend ourselves against him and perhaps we will obtain vengeance for those he has slain." They wanted to prevent the onslaught from continuing. Yet today, Muslims raise shrill voices protesting that Uhud was proof that the Meccans were the aggressors and that Muhammad was forced into defending his flock. But their own scriptures say otherwise, putting Islam in a difficult position. If these Hadiths are accurate, their prophet was a warmongering terrorist and a ruthless pirate. But if these Traditions are not true, they have no prophet and thus no religion - for nothing else is known about him or of Islam’s beginnings.

While we are on the subject, I'd like to bring your attention to the format I have been using to present the events that the Islamic Era comprises. I have woven the Hadiths of Ishaq, Tabari, and Bukhari together with the Qur'an because I want you to appreciate the similarities between the four sources. Although there are some subtle differences, all four paint the same portrait, and it's the only picture of Muhammad and his Companions that can be drawn. Nothing predates these books. Any statement about Muhammad or Islam that contradicts what you are reading is opinion - either wishful thinking or purposeful deception.

That said, occasionally some positive words are sprinkled in amidst the horror; although they are few and far apart. For example: Tabari VII:106 "Abd Allah al-Jumahi had been treated kindly by the Messenger on the day of Badr, being a poor man with daughters. He was among the captives, and said, 'Muhammad, I am a poor family man with needs of which you are aware; so treat me well.' The Prophet treated him kindly." I suppose that it bears mentioning that he was a pagan named Slave-to-Allah. Being poor, he was of no value to the "profit." And the only reason he was a prisoner in Medina was because he was kidnapped during a Muslim raid.

The following chat allegedly took place between a militant and his victim. Tabari VII:106 "Abu Azzah, you are a poet, so aid us with your tongue. Join our expedition and I swear before Allah I will make you a rich man.'" The first Muslims were mercenaries.

According to the Sira: Ishaq:372 "The opinion of Abd Allah bin Ubayy was the same as the Prophet. He should not go out to meet the Meccans camped near Uhud. Yet some [the soon-to-be dead] Muslims whom Allah ennobled with martyrdom on the day of Uhud and others who had missed Badr jumped at the chance to fight. Yet Abd Allah said, 'We have never gone out of Medina to meet an enemy but that they have inflicted severe losses on us; and no enemy has ever entered Medina but that we inflicted severe losses on them. Leave them alone.'" Abd Allah laid out the perils of invading a city. "If they enter Medina, the men will fight them face to face, and the women and boys will hurl stones at them from above. They will retreat, wishing they had not come."

But unfortunately, Muhammad had oversold his ability to command angelic help as well as the value of martyrdom. The newly minted Muslims roared: "O Messenger of Allah, do not deprive us of Paradise!" Bukhari:V4B52N61 "My uncle Anas said, 'Allah’s Apostle! We were absent from the first battle you fought against the pagans. If Allah gives us a chance to do battle, no doubt, He will see how bravely we fight.'"


Unable to give Muslims a reason to live, Muhammad gave them a reason to die. Bukhari:V4B52N72 "The Prophet said, 'Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujahid [Islamic fighter] who wishes to return so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives.' Our Prophet told us about the message of Allah: 'Whoever among us is killed will go to Paradise.' Umar asked the Prophet, 'Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and those of the Pagan's will go to Hell?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.'" Bukhari:V4B52N73 "Allah’s Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.'"

The prophet, like der fuhrer, seduced militants to kill for him. His Hadith prioritizes Jihad over all else. In fundamental Islam, fighting is the ultimate "good" deed: Bukhari:V4B52N85 "Allah’s Apostle dictated the Divine Verse: 'Not equal are those believers who sit at home and those who strive hard, fighting in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives.' [Qur'an 4:95] Zaid said, 'Maktum came to the Prophet while he was reciting that verse. "O Allah’s Apostle! If I had power, I would take part in Jihad." He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle while his thigh was on mine. [That's not a pleasant picture.] It became so heavy I feared he would break my leg before Allah revealed: 'Except those who are disabled by injury or are blind or lame.'" If "jihad" were a "spiritual struggle" as the Islamic apologists claim, why would Allah have to give the physically disabled an exemption?

Fact is, jihad is always linked to fighting in the Qur'an and Hadith. It means to fight holy war for Allah without retreating, sacrificing one's life and resources. Any other definition makes Allah and Muhammad liars.

Since Qur'an 4:94-5 confirms the Mein Kampf nature of Islam from Allah’s perspective, let's nail the coffin shut before we move on. Qur'an 4:94 "Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in the Cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you peace: 'You are not a believer.' seeking and coveting the chance profits of this life (so that you may despoil them). With Allah are abundant profits, plentiful spoils and booty." Lucifer is announcing by way of his prophet: "Muslims, when you leave Arabia to fight and rob those who don't worship me, don't accept a peace offering and leave a potential victim alone. Rather, conquer them, for therein lies the greatest potential for profit. And always remember, you are a mercenary and that I have seduced you."

Qur'an 4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard [Jihad], fighting in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard [Jihad], fighting with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers those [Jihadists] who strive hard and fight above those [pacifists] who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward." The Qur'an confirms that "Allah’s Cause," "Jihad," "striving hard," and "fighting" are synonymous. The reference to "leaving home," "injurious hurt," "life," and "bodies" confirms that there is nothing "spiritual" about jihad or Allah’s Cause. The promises of "inequality," "a higher rank," "preference," and "a huge reward" for jihadists are nails in Islam’s "peace-loving" coffin. The crescent moon is as tolerant as the swastika. The Qur'an is as warlike as Mein Kampf . Peace in Islam is as Hitler defined it: "There will be peace when Aryans alone rule the world."

The 96th verse begins by confirming Allah’s preference for warriors. It ends in contradictory fashion. Some would call it camouflage. Qur'an 4:96 "Ranks and higher grades are specially bestowed by Him. He is Forgiving and Merciful." The god who prefers fighters to lovers, warriors to pacifists, is "merciful." No wonder Muslims say the Qur'an cannot be translated; the words don't make any sense.
The next verse is an example. Souls are taken before judgment. Further, in Islam, flesh is roasted in hell and gratified in paradise so the separation conflicts with the central pillar of the doctrine. Nonetheless, here it is: Qur'an 4:97 "Verily, when angels take the souls of those who die wronging themselves (by staying home), they say: 'In what (plight or engagement) were you.' They reply: 'Weak on the earth.' They say: 'Was not the earth spacious enough for you to move.' Such men will find their abode in Hell, an evil resort!" Allah’s communication skills are so poor I almost miss Hitler. Who knows what this actually means? But it takes us to: Qur'an 4:98 "Except those who are feeble - men, women and children - who cannot devise a plan nor do they have the means, power or (a guide-post) to their way. These are those whom Allah is likely to forgive." The moral is: only the feeble of mind and body don't have to fight.

Returning to Muhammad’s Sunnah we learn: Tabari VII:109/Ishaq:372 "The Messenger called for his coat of armor and put it on. When they saw this they repented, 'What an evil deed we have done. We have given him advice when inspiration comes to him.' Muhammad replied, 'It is not fitting for a prophet to put on his coat of mail and take it off before fighting.' So the Prophet went out to Uhud at the head of a thousand of his Companions, having promised them victory." That didn't make him much of a prophet; the Muslims were routed.

Ishaq:372 ""When he went out, Abd Allah bin Ubayy [the man who had advised against leaving town] came back with 300 men, saying, 'We do not know why we should get ourselves killed here.' So he went back to Medina with the Hypocrites [peaceful Muslims] and doubters who followed him. Abd Allah bin Amr said, 'Allah curse you, enemies of Allah. Allah will let us manage without you.'" A "peaceful" Muslim is such a "bad" person, he is considered Allah’s enemy.

Ishaq and Tabari reveal that a Jew had to be abused before the battle could be joined against the Arabs. The troops were hungry so Muhammad led his militants through the fields of a blind Jew named Mirba. Tabari VII:112/Ishaq:372 "When he became aware of the presence of the Messenger and the Muslims he rose and threw dust in their faces, saying, 'Even if you are a prophet, I will not allow you into my garden.' I was told that he took a handful of dirt and said, 'If only I knew that I would not hit anyone else, Muhammad, I would throw it in your face.' The people rushed up to kill him, but the Prophet said, 'Do not do so, for this man is blind of sight and blind of heart.' But [then the heartless] Sa'd rushed in before the Messenger had forbidden this and hit him on the head with his bow and split the Jew's head open." Sa'd murdered a blind and defenseless man for trying to protect his land with a handful of dust. He did it "before the Messenger had forbidden" it so the prohibition was disingenuous.

With their usual flair for exaggeration intact, a three-hundred-year-old oral Tradition claims: Tabari VII:112 "The polytheists numbered three thousand and their cavalry numbered two hundred. Their womenfolk numbered fifteen. Among the polytheists there were seven hundred men wearing coats of mail, while among the Muslims there were only one hundred. The Muslims had no cavalry."

If the prophet looked he would have seen a rude and disorderly band of militants milling about in a dusty date plantation. The bloodstained face of a dead Jew lay at his feet. Mount Uhud loomed nearby, barely three miles from Medina. At its foot was a wadi, its course marked by sand and scattered stones.

At dawn, with the Meccan merchants in sight, Muhammad and his turbaned marauders, swords at the ready, prostrated themselves to Allah. Across the way, the businessmen, showing a complete ignorance of military strategy, huddled in the lowlands. They left the heights open to the Muslim archers. If the Muslims stood their ground, victory was assured. Muhammad put on a second coat of mail and waited. Holding the superior position, the militants appeared ready to halt the merchant.' advance.

Ishaq:373 "The Apostle, wearing two coats of mail, drew up his troops for battle, about 700 men. There were 50 archers. Muhammad said, 'Keep their cavalry away with your arrows.' Then he asked, 'Who will take my sword with its right and use it as it deserves to be used?' Abu Dujana asked, 'What is its right, Apostle.' 'That you should smite the enemy with it until it bends.'" It was so religious of him. "When Abu took the sword from the Apostle's hand he walked toward the fight reciting: 'I'm the man who took the sword when "Use it right" was the Prophet's word for the sake of Allah.' When Muhammad saw Abu strutting, he said, 'This is a gait which Allah hates except on an occasion like this.'"

Muslim:B20N4678 "Before the battle of Uhud a Muslim asked, 'Messenger, where shall I be if I am killed.' He replied: 'In Paradise.' The man fought until he was killed." And if you think that he is cavorting with virgins, you might believe this: Muslim:B30N5713 "Sa'd reported. 'On the Day of Uhud, I saw two persons dressed in white clothes whom I had not seen before or after at the side of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). They were [the angels] Gabriel and Michael.'" Another Hadith proclaims: Bukhari:V4B52N63 "A man whose face was covered with an iron mask came to the Prophet and said, 'Shall I fight or embrace Islam first.' The Prophet said, 'Embrace Islam and then fight.' He became a Muslim and was martyred. The Prophet said, 'A little work, but a great reward."

Muhammad’s kin brought their slaves to do their bidding. Ishaq:374 "The black troops and slaves of the Meccans cried out and the Muslims replied, 'Allah destroy your sight, you impious rascals.'" The merchants brought their womenfolk, too. Ishaq:375 "Abu Dujana said, 'I saw a person inciting the enemy, shouting violently. When I made for him, I lifted my sword and he shrieked, and lo, it was a woman. I respected the Prophet's sword too much to use it on a girl.'" Ishaq:380 "We attacked them thrusting, slaying, chastising, and driving them before us with blows on every side. Had not women seized their war banner they would have been sold in the markets like chattel." As we have discovered, and will continue to witness, Islam was financed by the slave trade. Muslims fought to capture women and children so they could sell them into bondage.

The Islamic scriptures are in conflict as to what happened at Uhud. Some verses proclaim that Allah sent his demonic angels to fight as promised. Others say that Allah abandoned his militants so that he could "harvest martyrs." Ishaq:379 "Then Allah sent down His help to the Muslims and fulfilled His promise. They slew the enemy with the sword until they cut them off from their camp and there was an obvious rout." Then: Ishaq:380 "The Muslims were put to the fight and the Meccans slew many of them. It was a day of trial and testing in which Allah honored several with martyrdom."

Hamza, Muhammad’s most brutal militant, shouted: Ishaq:375 "'Come here you son of a female circumciser.' His mother was Umm Anmar, a female circumciser in Mecca. Hamza smote and killed him." Virtually every Islamic ritual had a pagan origin. Female circumcision was no exception. It is still practiced throughout the Islamic world and is designed to assure that men alone are pleasured by sex.

The militants began to act like the pirates they had become. They rushed to plunder the merchants, rummaging through their baggage. The archers, seeing this, could not resist the temptation. They abandoned the high ground and hurried to the spoil. With the militants' flank and rear exposed, the merchants galloped in. The charge was devastating; the battle was over in minutes. Greed, the sole motivation for Islam, proved fatal. Bukhari:V4B52N276 "By Allah, we saw the Meccan women running, revealing their leg-bangles. So, we cried out, 'The booty! O Muslims, the booty! Our Companions have become victorious. What are we waiting for? By Allah! We will go to the pagans and collect our share of the war booty.'"

This next Hadith is told from the perspective of one of the African slaves who fought at Uhud. Tabari VII:121/Ishaq:375 "I saw Hamzah cutting down men with his sword, sparing no one. He yelled out to us, 'Come here, you son of a cutter-off of clitorises.' He hit Siba so swiftly, his sword could not be seen striking his head. So I balanced my javelin until I was satisfied. Then I hurled it at Hamzah. It struck him in the lower part of the belly with such force it came out between his legs. He came toward me, but was overcome and fell. I waited until he was dead and recovered my javelin. I returned to the camp since there was nothing else I wanted." Unlike the Muslims, the Africans were civil.

With the Muslim ranks broken and his militants either money-grubbing or in full retreat, Muhammad tried to avert disaster and save his sorry soul. He cried: Wackidi:107 "Don't run away! Come back! I am Allah’s Apostle! Return!" Muhammad didn't bother calling upon Allah or his demonic angels. Apart from rain and wind, they were useless, and it was a little late to be saved by bad weather. Muhammad was learning that being a pirate is a bloody, rough business. On this day his unruly mercenaries were whipped by some pudgy salesmen.

The prophet's call was unheeded; the retreat went unchecked. Rocks and arrows flew around Islam’s bad boy. A stone, we are told, wounded the stone worshiper in the under lip, chipping a tooth. Another dented his helmet. Presuming Muhammad was dead and that the terrorists were defeated, the Meccan merchants collected their belongings and went home. The scene was reminiscent of Desert Storm, although the weapons were not so high tech. Ishaq:380 "The enemy got at the Apostle who was hit with a stone so that he fell on his side and one of his teeth was smashed, his face scored, and his lip injured." Tabari VII:124 "Abd Manat came and threw a stone at Muhammad, breaking his nose and his lateral incisor, splitting his face open, and stunning him. His Companions dispersed and abandoned him, some of them going to Medina and some climbing up Uhud and standing there. The Messenger cried out to his men, 'To me. To me." Caught up in the moment, Muhammad confessed. "It’s all about me."

Ever willing to lure his pirates to their doom with bribes of booty and never-ending sex, we find the pathetic prophet promising that which he could not deliver. Well over a million souls have succumbed to this temptation: Muslim: B19N4413 "When the enemy got the upper hand at Uhud, the Messenger was left with only seven Ansar and two Emigrants. When the enemy advanced towards him and overwhelmed him, he said: 'Whoso turns them away will be my companion in Paradise.' An Ansar man came forward and fought until he was killed. The enemy advanced and overwhelmed them again so Muhammad repeated: 'Whoever turns them away will attain Paradise.' Another Ansar fought until he was slain. This state continued until all seven Ansari were killed, one after the other. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Muslims: 'We have not done justice to them.'" That was true enough.


Please YOU MUST READ THE REST HERE http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_17_Good_Muslims_Kill.Islam

We are talking about hundreds losing their lives in Northern Nigeria, this is where the focus should be.

Forget the subsidy for now.

We need a well tested Police Chief from Scotland Yard, I tell ya , Nigeria police will change within 6 months, if he is given support by the Government.

The Majority of the Nigerian police force  are armed robbers and oppressors of the masses.

LagosShia:
point for me where in my Quran "72 virgins" are mentioned.i am a Muslim and i dont believe in 72 virgins.nontheless i wish for 720 virgins!!!

as for drinking blood,your christian god killed his son in the name of love!!!

Hello LagosShia,


Please can you explain the below image

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/images/kismanyo-after.jpg

Your brother,

TidyTim.

vedaxcool:
I see your words have no value to you! frosbel!

Address this to Frosbel.

For now what do you think about this article ?

Since your fanatical brothers will not stop , let us play that game

Ahadith: 491) Muhammad: “He who recites the holy Qur’an well and clearly is equal in rank to the angels, who record creation’s deeds. These Angels are honorable and lofty in rank. He who finds no difficulty in reciting the noble Qur’an will obtain a double reward.” [Bukhari, Muslim]


As every religion had have a source from which it sprung, Islam, the last faith of Allah, must have its originating cause as well. Accepted neither by the Jews nor the Christians nor by believers of any other religious faiths for that matter, many treatises have been written to convert these thoughts. Hence, Islam discourages the followers of Islam to shirk any other beliefs with Islam! These have been answered by Muslims in many works by contradicting itself and mocking other beliefs; but unfortunately the learning of the authors of these defenses of Islam has not been equal to their zeal.

The object of the present work is to investigate the various theories, which have been put forward as to the origins of Islam via the Qur’an. Firstly, we will briefly review the Muslim views, and then examine the claims of those, who hold that “Islam has a human touch and not of divine origins” [in later parts].

Muhammad found himself disturbed by the idolatry and moral debasement of the people of Makkah [Mecca]. And, he was troubled by the thought of what might be the one “true” religion, and began meditating in the caves of Hira near Mecca in the hope of finding his troubled truths!

Many experts contend that Muhammad was illiterate, thus, making the works of the Qur’an that much more of a miracle. However, this is most probably not true. As he meditated and sought the true religion in a cave, it is thought that Muhammad had composed the chapters of the Qur’an, which expressed yearnings of an inquirer. And, no scribes ever accompanied Muhammad on these trips. There are other reasons also for doubting the illiteracy of Muhammad. For example, there are accounts of peace treaties signed by Muhammad, his asking for pen and paper to write the name of his successor while on his deathbed, and the fact that Muhammad had served for many years as a trading merchant for Khadijah, his wife. So, he must have known reading, writing, and arithmetic as he took his trades to Damascus and other cities in the Arabian regions? Also, the Qur’an was conceived in 7th-century Arabic, the same language spoken by the very literate Bedouins, who raised him as a child. Even Muslims must question this claim of Muhammad’s illiteracy, when even Allah referred to him as "the one who taught by the pen".

[Surah Al ‘Alaq Chapter 96: verses 1-5] In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Read in the name of thy Lord who —

Creates man from a clot,

Read and thy Lord is most Generous,

Who taught by the pen,

Taught man what he knew not.

Regardless of Muhammad's writing abilities, it is not disputed that he had a proclivity toward his lucid dreams, his compulsive trances, and his opus visions; and he was said to be so troubled by them to an extent that, at times, he sought escapes by committing suicide. It was during one of these suicide episodes, as Islam informs us, the angel Jibraiel called out to him: "O Muhammad, thou who art the Prophet of the Lord, I am Jibraiel". It is also known that when Muhammad would have godly revelations, severe sweating would pop up on his brows and he would drop to the ground in constant pain and nausea. At such times, Jibraiel would reappear to him and repeat his commanding instructions that ‘Muhammad was a prophet of Allah sent to reclaim the lost people of the land’! It was these visions and Muhammad's revelations from Jibraiel that led to the religion of Islam into being! When Muhammad first began having these opus visions, he feared that those messages were coming from Jinn or evil spirits. In fact, it was Muhammad’s wife Khadijah, who convinced him that these were ‘divinely inspired visions’ and that Muhammad was a true prophet of Allah. Thus, he began spreading his alleged revelations and gathering followers of the newly found "one true religion" of Islam!

You can find the Qur’an translated in most languages. An authentic Qur’an should have a statement of authenticity inside and also should contain the original Arabic form. It is required of the new Muslims to try to learn to read the Qur’an correctly and in Arabic text to receive the full blessings of Allah.

(Ahadith: 491) Muhammad: “He who recites the holy Qur’an well and clearly is equal in rank to the angels whom record creation’s deeds. These Angels are honorable and lofty in rank. He who finds no difficulty in reciting the noble Qur’an will obtain a double reward.” [Bukhari, Muslim]

While reading it, the Qur’an clears your mind of thoughts, tries to beautify your voice, instills fear of Allah [SWT] in you and makes you believe in those words that you recite. You should feel them in your chest as if they were written to you personally. And, also one who is reading the Qur’an should lower their voices or read it silently. If there are people around you, who find it inconvenient in listening, should not be forced into listening. While the Qur’an is being recited, listen attentively and always stay silent.

For the Qur’an says (7:204): “So when the Qur'an is recited, then listen to it and pay attention that you may receive mercy”.

You may ask others, who can read it correctly and beautifully, to read the Qur’an and you listen to it. Remember as much of the Qur’an as your memory preserve.

For the Qur’an says (2:2-5): “This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah. Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them, And who believe in what has been revealed unto you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [in faith]. Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.”

And For the Qur’an says (47:24): “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?”

Muhammad is said to have heard Christians and Jews talking about their religions in fairs in Mecca. And he would go meditate in a cave when he was troubled about some of the questions they would bring up. He was there when he supposedly had a vision of the archangel telling him that he was God's prophet. He didn't know what to make of this, but his wife reassured him and he had many revelations afterwards. His wife and cousin were his first disciples. While preaching, he would recite from his revelation which was written down by certain followers of him in scattered pieces. Twenty years after his death, these utterances were collected, and conflicting versions were destroyed, to form what is now known as the noble Qur’an. Like others have done since (e.g., Joseph Smith), Muhammad claimed to be God's last viceroy with His last ‘holy’ book in his blessed heart! Some followers claimed that the large mole on Muhammad’s shoulder was also proof of his divine selection, presumably taken from the holy Bible from Isaiah 6: "the government shall be upon his shoulder".

Initially, Muhammad started preaching social reforms, monotheism and economic justice, but his teachings were not very fruitful. The rich merchants of Mecca did not like the idea of economic fairness as Muhammad’s followers were mostly the poor of society and he sought to raise their economic well-being. Some of slaves, who had adopted Muhammad’s faith, were also persecuted by their masters.

After his wife and uncle died in 619 C.E., Muhammad began to lose all hopes as the Meccans had decidedly rejected his faith. He was in despair after his attempt to convert the nearby town of at-Taif failed. But soon thereafter, another city, Medina, where his faith was doing well even in his absence, offered him hopes as his followers there invited him to relocate to that city. Having accepted the offer to relocate, he fled to Medina, allegedly before his enemies of Mecca could carry out their plan to murder him. His trip marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. It is known as Hijrah, which means ‘emigration’ or ‘migration’. There are numerous differences of between the Medinan and Meccan Surahs of the Qur’an. And so, of the 114 “Surahs” in the revealed Qur’an, do the “Medinan” verses follow and nullify several of the former “Meccan” verses? Also, I would describe the causes and effects of the great Muslim Hijrah of 622 C.E.

The Surahs are chapters of the Qur’an (Koran), the Islamic Holy scripture. They are collections of the different “verses” or ‘sayings’ of Muhammad, which Muslims believe were channeled to him via angel Jibrael from Allah’s original Arabic Qur’an in heaven. Muhammad uttered these sayings over a period of 23 years from the time of his first revelation in a cave in Hira in 610 C.E. and until his death 632 C.E. Estimates suggest that two-thirds of the Surahs of the Qur’an Muhammad spoke or repeated while living in Mecca and the other one third while living in Medina. During those 23 years, Muhammad faced some major changes in his circumstance, and these were reflected in the Surahs. Other than a general change of length, the Medinan Surahs being more prolonged and extensive than the Meccan ones, the character of the Surahs also changed. To understand this difference, it is vital to understand the situation in Muhammad’s life both in Mecca and then in Medina.

Muhammad, a member of the wealthy ruling Qurayesh tribe, grew up in Mecca. During this time, Mecca was a center of pagan worship, centered on the Kaab’ah, the main pagan temple of Arabia, which was under management of the Qurayesh tribe. Muhammad started receiving visions and, at first, he told nobody outside his immediate family. After his wife urged him, he started preaching to everyone the “Word of the Lord”. The first Meccan Surahs Muhammad "received" told him to tell others of Allah’s message. In these Surahs, he viewed himself as one, who should warn the people with a goal similar to that of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah of the Bible. Muhammad had warned the Meccan citizens to leave their idol-worship and wickedness behind, and to follow the one true Allah. During this time in Arabia, there was a great deal of Jewish and Nestorian Christian influences. Though Muhammad never read the Bible, he heard much about the prophets, about Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and the history of the Jews. He showed respect to “the people of the Book” and to the Bible in the Meccan Surahs. It is interesting to observe that the most dramatic change between the Meccan and Medinan Surahs concerns the Muslim relationship with Jews and Christians.

During the years when Muhammad preached in Mecca, he wanted to attract the Jews and Christians of the area to his message. He did this by showing the similarities of the other prophets and himself, and praising and showing that the Allah was the God of Abraham and was also the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims! This helped him because, compared to negative reactions of most pagan citizens of Mecca, when they were told to destroy their sacred idols, the Jews and Christians welcomed his message and some of the so-called “Christians” even converted to Islam and became Muhammad’s closest companions and followers. However, by the time of his flight to Medina, his approaches “differed and the Medinan Surahs show a different face concerning the Jews and the Christians. Predominantly, the Jews and Christians, quietly yet firmly rejected his claims of being a prophet of God. Additionally, the change might have been influenced by a tribe of Jews that refused to help Muhammad when an army from Mecca besieged Medina in an attempt to kill “The Prophet of Islam”.

The Medinan Surahs show that though Muhammad still believed they served the same God, he started pointing out the fundamental differences of the Christian and Jewish beliefs from the teachings of Allah. For example, read and compare the following three verses:

A Meccan Surah (29:46): “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Whilst a Medinan Surah reads (9:30): ‘The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded.’

Most of the Medinan Surahs, when speaking of the Jews, speak negatively about them and how they abandoned “The Book” and the ways of the Lord. Numerous passages warn Muslims to avoid them or not associate with them. Though the Qur’an claims that Allah had chosen Israel, it also says that God left them because of their disobedience and now blesses and cares for the Muslims! Even though that was the opinion of Muhammad towards the Jews and Christians, he sanctioned special better treatment towards them than towards other pagan people.

These contradictions in the Qur’an’s message raise much debate. But Muslims use various excuses to support these discrepancies of the Quran. For example, about the Christian-Muslim relations, Muhammad made it very clear that contradictions can occur because ‘Allah sends down newer revelations which improve or replace the older revelations’. [(2:106): “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”]

This is vital to understand that, even though you can clearly find contradictions in the Qur’an, Muhammad predicted and talked of such possibilities; and in the opinion of many Muslims, this does not change the sanctity of the Qur’an.

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=896:allah-o-akbar--for-the-quran-says-part-2&catid=110:brokaan&Itemid=58

Dear Ali,

I must let you know there was a time I really hated you. “How dare you tell such lies about Islam?” I’d say. But deep inside I knew it was the truth [shock treatment works].

I feel I was kind of conned into Islam, I read all the pamphlets regarding great “scientific miracles” in the Quran. I read how it was the trilogy of the Abrahamic faiths, how if I loved Jesus I should be a Muslim because he was. I did love Jesus, but I never believed he was God I just thought his teachings where great, really advanced for his time and that he truly loved people and wanted them to live a better life. I began to believe that God really does exist. I read so many books until one day I was sufficiently brain washed and I converted.

The Quran I always found hard to take, it was sadistic, but because everyone I knew found it so beautiful I began to think it was me that I was reading it the wrong way. Mohammed, I didn’t dislike, but as hard as I tried to love him there was something holding me back. It was like for every one beautiful Hadith I read there were ten horrendous ones. The deeper I began to dig into the real Islam I found darker and darker things, until I snapped. I hate this man. How did God ever think it was a good idea to send him as a prophet? But I still couldn’t disbelieve.

I began to think that God was in fact evil. Then the Quran started to make sense. At the same thought I thought God hated me because I was clearly a hypocrite.

Somewhere in all this madness I was an extremist. I forced my son to go to an Islamic school that he hated. I would pressure him to pray. I knew when he told me he believed he was lying, so I began to think bad things about my own child. And I withheld my affection from him .I can’t tell you how sick that makes me feel now. I hated everyone and everything that wasn’t Islamic or Halal. I looked down on everyone even my Parents and sisters. My relationship was about trying to convert them. Instead of holding my poor dying grandmother in her last hours I tried to convert her. I have only started grieving for her now, two years after her death because I couldn’t pray for her as I believed she was in the depths of Hell, where she apparently deserves to be. My Grandmother was a beautiful human being who loved us all so much.

I would pray that God would give me a way to do Jihad. My faith was a kind of religious zeal filled with arrogance. My mind was totally warped. Before I became a Muslim I loved people with all their faults. I had friends from all walks of life. I lost a very good friend who had been there for me my entire life, just because he was Gay.

I even started to hate my Husband because he was a weak Muslim. I began to push him, trying to make him a good strong Muslim ‘brother.” [What a crap!] And I succeeded. He was so proud of me and what I had become. I had become a monster. My husband is now thankfully no longer a good Muslim brother. He is just a good man. But he does still believe and will not have anything bad said about Islam. He is no longer proud of me because I left Islam and our marriage is dead. He is normally a kind and calm man, but if I even begin to speak about the reasons I have left the faith he becomes aggressive. So we don’t talk. We just pass the time of day. We are just waiting for a good time to go our separate ways.

Islam did not bring me peace. It gave me a mental illness. I am starting to rebuild my relationship with my son, but I don’t think he will ever truly forgive me for what I did to him. I am trying to keep a low profile in my community. I am scared, I don’t know if it is just my paranoia, but I know how I felt about people like me. I really don’t know what to expect when it all comes out and I know it will. I needed your site, I needed shock treatment. My brain is my own again. I was a terrorist in the making.

http://islam-watch.org/LeavingIslam/How-a-Christian-Became-Jihadi-minded-Muslimah.htm

^^

Guilty I am , but certain Christians are fed-up of the spamming of the religious section by LagosShia and Frosbel.

Please move all ISLAM topics to ISLAM section.

Clean up please and I will also respect this requirement.

Thank Ya

LAGOS — Weary and hungry, scores weave their way through rutted and chaotic alleys in a food market in Nigeria's largest city, seeking to replenish their food stocks after a week-long strike against soaring fuel prices shut down the country.

Roads to Mile 12 market, Lagos's largest food market, were jam-packed with vehicles as people jostled for parking space.

One woman, a shopping bag in hand, stops by a stall selling yams, a staple food in Nigeria. The vendor says his price. She walks past -- it's too expensive -- but steps back.

"I have to buy. It's food. We have to eat," said Funke Kayode, a furious 45-year-old mother of two.

But both sellers and buyers have one common problem: food prices have hit the roof.

"The price of yam is high. All the same, we still have to buy because we have to eat," lamented Olabisi Adekoya, a mother of four.

Traders say prices have been affected by the hike in transportation costs since fuel prices went up.

Fish trader Oluwatoyin Oluwaseun has not sold much.

"Although many people have come, very few are buying due to the high price," he said.

In some cases prices of vegetables such as tomatoes have risen seven-fold after fuel prices abruptly more than doubled in Nigeria since January 1 when the government lifted subsidies on petrol prices.

The decision sparked anger, and labour unions called an open-ended strike which totally shut down Africa's most populous country for five days.

Sunbo Ahmed said a basket of tomatoes now costs 7,000 naira, up from 1,000 naira last week.

For Abiola Ayansanya the strike has brought misery to her family.

"I came out today because I am hungry. No money. No food. We are suffering. My children suffered a lot during the strike," she said.

"Some of them were crying for food but the older ones were able to show some understanding. Government should go back to 65 naira," she said.

A decision by the government to end petrol subsidies without warning brought tens of thousands of people out into the streets in protest during the week.

The decision caused petrol prices to more than double overnight, from 65 naira ($0.40, 0.30 euros) per litre to between 140 naira and 145 naira.

Strike organisers ordered a two-day pause on Saturday and Sunday to allow people to stock up food in case unions and government fail to reach a deal.

Government and labour representatives held a first round of talks on Thursday and began meeting again late Saturday. Unions are sticking to their guns, refusing accept any deal but a return to the old petrol price.

The talks are to take place with government under intense pressure after the country's white-collar oil workers' union PENGASSAN threatened to stop production at midnight if no deal is struck.

Most of the population of Africa's leading oil producer live on less than two dollars a day and see cheap petrol as the only benefit they get from their largely inefficient and corrupt government.

"Everybody is angry and hungry. We voted for (President Goodluck) Jonathan so that he can improve our condition," said Muda Ogunniyi, a 25-year-old driver reading newspapers near the market, summing up the mood in the country of 160 million people.

http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/angry-hungry-nigerians-rush-stock-food-after-fuel-strike

[flash=200,200]http://amilimani.com/wp-content/gallery/articles2/freedom-muslimas.jpg[/flash]


Detoxification is the physiological or psychological removal of toxic substances from a living organism. Let me use a metaphor to help an understanding of this process. Islam is a type of dependence inducing “potion.” In the same way that; let us say, alcohol is. Millions and perhaps billions imbibe alcohol. A great majority of these consumers qualify as moderate and social drinkers. Drinking alcohol may do them some psychological good but may also exact some physical health problems and a monetary price. Yet, a vast number of human beings find enough “comfort” to put up with the monetary, health, relationships, and other costs of their drinking.

A certain number are the heavy drinkers who are severely dependent and reliant on the drug. And there are those who are infrequent drinkers. They may have some wine at Christmas or on their birthday. And finally, there are those who are teetotalers. They never touch the stuff. So, you have a kind of what statisticians call a normal curve that people distribute themselves along the drinking dimension as a bell-shaped function. Some are on one extreme, some on the other, and the great majority between the two extremes.

The same applies to Muslims. Islam is habit-forming. Just like alcohol. How strongly habit forming? It depends on the person and his circumstances. Is Islam “beneficial” to the person? Apparently yes it is. For some, it is life itself, just like the skid-row alcoholic, to others it means something, and yet to others it is something to be avoided altogether.

Mind Invasion

Islam, from its inception, discovered the crucial secret of getting to the young mind early by adhering to the dictum: Instruction in early childhood is akin to carving in a rock. In the same vein goes the Jesuit saying, “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man,” derived from the philosophy and theology of Saint Augustine. The immense importance of getting early to the young mind is also emphasized by non-religious doctrines as diverse as the Freudian psychoanalytic theory and Watsonian Behaviorist psychology.

Total or major replacement of beliefs, particularly as one gets older, becomes less likely, yet it happens occasionally. Paul’s sudden transformation from a rabid Christian-persecutor to a devoted believer of the faith of Christ is a familiar instance of such a dramatic change. Ideas, on the other hand, are much more amenable to change, replacement or discard as long as they do not substantially undermine the integrity of the main framework—the belief.

Short Answer

In the same way that people need to go through detoxification programs to free themselves from physical dependencies, they also must undergo detoxification programs to wean themselves from Islam.

How to do that? The best way in my opinion is exactly what many concerned citizens, writers, bloggers and experts are doing. Explain and expose Islam and its harm. They also need to further expand the re-education effort greatly by writing and translating in their native Muslim nations’ languages. Radio and television programs are also vital. It is a long process. Yet, the bottom line is this blind dependency on Islam that hooks the masses to its greatly enticing promises and provides easy answers for much of humanity’s underclass.

https://amilimani.com/wp-content/gallery/articles2/islam-mind-control.jpg

Persian Enigma

I am very optimistic about the country of my birth. I believe Iran will be the first that carry the torch of liberty. This is indeed the dawn of a new era in Persian history, a true renaissance for our world. Over 1400 years of darkness has reached its inevitable end. People on the mountaintops are clearly discerning the rays of the new sun that inevitably will chase away the gloom of darkness. It is time to celebrate the new day by enlisting all of us in the work of ushering in the light of freedom and insuring that never again will it be replaced by the darkness and oppression of Islam. I am calling upon all Iranian, whether at home or abroad, to join this natural movement in ushering in the new day and to contribute whatever you can to make it a truly magnificent change of fortune for the new Iran as well as for the entire home of humanity, by leaving Islam in large numbers.

It is going to be a slow process, much slower and much more difficult than we would like it to be. This Islam thing is a long-term deep dependency of many attractions to many. It is going to take a great deal of work and perseverance to free Muslims from its grip. As sad as it is, that’s the way this world is: Far, far from perfect, and not even close.

Cultural Muslims


There are some 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of which are “Cultural Muslims” who are generally called moderate Muslims.  Why moderate? Because they were simply born into Islam, where a great many of them never go through the process of deciding for themselves if they want to be Muslim. It is not a religion that they choose; it is a belief they inherit. For whatever reason, this great majority of these “Cultural Muslims” are Muslims of this type without fully toeing the line of Islam. Real Muslims are the jihadists, a small minority who lives and dies by the dictates of the Quran and the Sunna, the life examples of Muhammad.

Islam is a powerful magnet for the masses that are unable to deal with the uncertainties of life and death on their own. It is from this population, many already thoroughly indoctrinated from birth that the majority of diehard jihadists emerge.

Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book, which demands terrorism and was written over 1400 years ago, must serve as the one and only guide for humanity. I believe that “Cultural Muslims” hold the key. They hold the balance of power.

Jihadists

The great majority of jihadists emerge from the ranks of those born into the religion of Islam, simply because they are the ones who are most thoroughly indoctrinated and influenced by Islamic dogma in their most receptive and formative early years. Yet, there are others who embrace Islam in adulthood, on their own, and enlist themselves as devoted jihadists for the same rewards that Islam offers them.

Within this sea of surging humanity composed of some 1.5 billion Muslims, each individual believer—a drop—through a combination of choice and forces beyond his control, ends up in one of its many waves. It is the jihadist wave that is highly attractive to the deeply indoctrinated and poorly adjusted in dealing rationally and independently with life. Here, he finds the ironclad perfect solution to his anxieties and perplexities.

To a jihadist, death is nothing more than casting off a shell of the worthless earthly existence and donning an angelic suit to wing joyously to a life of bliss promised by none-other than Allah’s beloved final emissary, Muhammad.

Eradication of jihadism is a daunting task, since Islam is truly a virulent and persistent pandemic disease. Massive education efforts, combined with resolute confrontation of all sources and people that support and promote detoxification of the mind of this deadly philosophy, hold the best promise of dealing effectively with this affliction of humanity.

Final Note

The best, yet most difficult resolution of this conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of former Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitive clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.


https://amilimani.com/wp-content/gallery/articles2/freedom-and-islam.jpg


http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=898:islam-detoxification&catid=48:imani&Itemid=58

[img]http://thewillnigeria.com/thumbnail.php?file=Map_of_Northern_Nigeria_677810059.png&size=article_medium[/img]

The more the beneficiaries of this colonial fraud called Nigeria make believe that all is well with Nigeria, the more they attract doom, odium, and opprobrium to that name Nigeria. Please tell me what makes us one Nigeria if not for the colonial interest that the slave masters amalgamated all the countries they invaded within “Oduduwa Republic”, “Republic of Biafra” and also “Arewa Muslim Nation” and called them Nigeria. Our cultures are irreconcilable, our religions and mode of worships are poles apart, our mentalities are so different and even our languages are absolutely strange to each other. In 1947 Chief Obafemi Awolowo said "Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no Nigerians in the same sense as there are English, Welsh, or French. The word Nigerian is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not." Nobody has got that audacity in Nigeria now to say contrarily to the above declaration. In 1948 Mallam Abubakar Tafawa Balewa said “Since 1914 the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite. Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country."

This testimony came from the first Prime Minister of the fraud called Nigeria. Can you be more catholic than the Pope? We are just incompatible - no love, no tolerance and no similarity by all ramifications. One of the creators of this fraud and harm called Nigeria Sir Peters Smithers who was a cabinet minister during the colonial regime admitted the wickedness of the British colonists when he said in 1998 "The creation of Nigeria involved forcing several different ethnic, cultural and religious groups into one political structure. In retrospect of forty years, it is clear that this was a grave mistake which has cost many lives and will probably continue to do so." Yes, it has cost more the lives of the Igbos and their properties than any other nation in the fraud called Nigeria. Ndi Igbo are made scapegoats at any crisis in the north; call it politics or religion they have always been provocatively at the centre of massacre and their properties looted and destroyed without anybody held responsible.

We have not forgotten what led to the Nigerian Biafran war and how Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the great “Ikemba” of Nnewi, the “Eze” Igbo “gburugburu”, and the man who saw tomorrow had tried to save the future of his people from the agony that awaited them in this forceful marriage, but was betrayed by some people who had not kept to their promise out of ignorance of what the future was holding and out of selfishness. We have equally not forgotten how the Igbo pregnant women cried and died in pains when their wombs had been wickedly opened with cutlasses and their children had been brought out cruelly during the war. It is equally painful to remember the deaths of our children as a result of malnutrition.
We have not forgotten that at the end of the Nigerian civil war, it was declared “no victor, no vanquish” by the then head of state, General Yakubu Gowon. But what followed after the declaration was a systematic disenfranchisement of Ndi Igbo. Every Igbo man was inconsiderably given only twenty pounds to start life, while their properties were jealously and wickedly confiscated and declared as abandoned properties.

In retrospect, immediately the British colonialism ended, the Igbos dominated Nigeria’s economy. Irrespective of the callousness of the federal government of Nigeria to them, they were the true patriotic symbol of one Nigeria because there was no city you would go to that you did not see the presence of an Igbo man through his business or landed properties. They were the mechanism in which development had stood in almost all the cities of the federation called Nigeria. Any city you go to in Nigeria now without seeing big presence of an Igbo man run for your dear life as that city is doomed.

The first ceremonial president of Nigeria, the “Owelle” of Onitsha, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe said in 1964 “I have one advice to give to our politicians. If they have decided to destroy our national unity, then they should summon a round table conference to decide how our national assets should be divided before they seal their doom by satisfying their lust for office. I make this suggestion because it is better for us and many admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning, then I will venture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of Congo will be a child's play if ever it comes to our turn to play such a tragic role." This was a man that was respected for his stand in one Nigeria, a true son of Igbo land and an emblem of Nigerian unity, but one Nigeria failed him even in death.

The Nigerian people seem to have been subdued to stoicism otherwise the injustice in Nigeria is stinky that no free mind can stomach. Go to Ogoni Land in Rivers State you will pity the people: No road, no good school from the federal government, no good water to drink, no hospital, no jobs, no future and yet Ogoni people are very rich in oil. Ken Saro Wiwa alongside nine other Ogoni indigenes were unjustly roped in a kangaroo court and cruelly hanged by the then federal government of Nigeria for crying out against injustice to their people. The situation is not different in other parts of Niger Delta. Most people from Rivers and Bayelsa states are fishermen but because of the pollution of the water with oil they cannot fish again but the federal government does not seem to care. Some Igbo states are part of the oil producing states in Nigeria but were excluded as such by the federal government of Nigeria until they had to fight for their inclusion. The Igbo speaking states have the worst federal road network in comparison to other geo-political zones in Nigeria.

The political imbalance in Nigeria is too big even for the blind to see. Why must everything about the Igbos be unjustly politicized? Igbo speaking areas have the least number of states in Nigeria even though they are the most populated tribe, but more states were created in the less populated north. Why is it that the northerners are favoured in everything in this country? The allocation money meant for the then newly created local governments in Lagos state under Governor Bola Tinubu was withheld by the then federal government of Nigeria under President Olusegun Obasanjo. It is very disappointing to note that Olusegun Obasanjo is a Yoruba man yet he tried to use his power to hinder the progress that was coming to Yoruba land because of dirty politics just to satisfy the northerners which he was still not able to do. But go to the north, they created more local governments for themselves and legalised them without anybody raising eyebrows, they manipulated even the national census by counting cows, fowls and their brothers/sisters from Niger Republic as Nigerians just to maintain the political suppression. As a result of this dishonesty they are more in number in the National Assembly and the House of Representatives. Tell me how you can pass a successful bill if that bill is meant to correct the injustice which they see as normal and birthright. They hide under the shadow of religion to cause us pains and because they derive joy from our sorrow that is why they always kill us at every little provocation. They are trying to make us hewers of wood and drawers of water in the midst of plenty and because they are not president Nigeria must be on fire. In this glaring cruel injustice, this misguided chorus of one Nigeria cannot stand. Therefore, divide this country now in peace and let “Boko Haram”, “Oduduwa Republic”, “Republic of Biafra”, “Arewa Muslim Nation” or more to go, if we are not ready to face the reality that we all must make a compromise.

It does not matter who is at the helm of affairs in the hoax called Nigeria, the situation of the Niger Delta people or the Igbos will never change because that Aso Rock is like a secret cult, when you are there your hands are tied and therefore obliged to join the overwhelming erroneous chorus of one Nigeria to the detriment of the Niger Delta people. President Goodluck Jonathan is a core Niger Delta man from Ijaw, watch out if there will be much difference in the state of infrastructural development in the Niger Delta regions after his term.

The whole idea about Nigeria was based on lies and deceit by the British people and I consider it evil until the so-called leaders decide to pick up political courage to address the injustice, the Niger Delta or Igbo people will continue to pay the price for one Nigeria.
Sunny Okosun of a blessed memory sang in one of his songs “Which way Nigeria? Since many years of our independence we are still finding it hard to stand. How long shall we be independent before we reach the promised land?” We can never get there my departed brother, under this shamble and fraud arrangement. The Igbo people have demonstrated enough willingness to be together with other tribes than other tribes of Nigeria. Therefore, shedding of the Igbo’s blood, looting and destruction of their properties for one Nigeria is no longer acceptable.

Margaret Thatcher said in 1998 that “It is difficult to govern a country like Nigeria. It is artificially created, divided into Moslem north, Christian and pagan south." Yes, she was right, but who created this artificial country? She forgot that she was part of the evil that brought the different nations together as one Nigeria and benefited from the fraud more than any other individual. Though I acknowledge the truth but we don’t need her sympathy.

I was angry and disappointed to read in one of the Nigerian national newspapers where the IG of police tagged the Boko Haram members as cowards. Please, Boko Haram members are surely not cowards. Macmillan English Dictionary describes coward as “someone who is not brave enough to fight or do something difficult or dangerous that they should do,” the real cowards are the Nigerian police force and Nigerian leaders who know the people behind the killing of innocent citizens in the north but they are afraid to touch them.

The federal government is not sincere with the handling of the Boko Haram issue because most of the military or police men/women they are using against Boko Haram from the north are members themselves who give them tip off on how to escape which the federal government knows. How can Boko Haram find its way deep into the overall head office of the Nigerian police force without an insider? This is incredible! Nigerians are no fools and I will not be too surprised if they find their way into the Presidential Villa Abuja. Therefore, the committee the federal government formed now because of Boko Haram is not necessary and as such ill conceived just to deceive you and me. It is also a shame that after the Boko Haram group turned down the offer from the Aso Rock for negotiation that the federal government turned round again on 04.08.2011 through the Secretary of State Pius Anyim who said that they are not ready to negotiate with a faceless group like Boko Haram which is contradictory to what the IG of police had earlier told us, then I ask, who is deceiving who? If they are sincere let them send military men from the east, west or south to the north and see within two weeks if Boko Haram would not be a story of “once upon a time”. But some northern military men who do not understand good English are always selected by the federal government and brought to the old eastern part of the country to waste the lives of the citizens of that part with impunity whenever there is an uproar, probably because of the harsh government policy towards their plight. The massacre of Odi people from Ijaw in Delta state is still very fresh in our memories.

It is also agonizing to hear that the federal government of Nigeria was pleading with Boka Haram for dialogue. On 05.07.2011 the IG of Police told us that some of the arrested members of Boko Haram will not be charged to court because the federal government has decided to handle the issue politically. What an unfortunate statement! Contradictorily non-violent MASSOB members are brutalized, killed and imprisoned for just exercising their civil rights through peaceful demonstrations and there is nothing wrong in such callousness. This jailing and killing of armless and defenseless MASSOB members is an annual event. The harassments and arrests of Raphael Uwazuruike continue at will by the so-called federal government of Nigeria at any statement he makes and this can no longer be tolerated. Therefore, we the unrecognized voices of concerned Ndi Igbo all over the world demand with immediate effect the unconditional release of all MASSOB members detained or imprisoned since our Igbo elites have refused to speak.

From every signal, the northerners want one Nigeria not because of their love for us but because of the oil money. If peradventure oil or gold is discovered in any part of the northern state today, which I pray for, the Emirs, the Babangidas, the Buharis, and the Atikus will gather to pronounce “To your tents, O Israel.”

Nigeria stands to gain a lot in unity, but every day indicates in the direction that it is not workable because of selfishness, dishonesty and greed. There is a lot of nepotism, tribalism and hatred in this fraud called Nigeria as a result of so many evident factors like cultural different backgrounds, religious beliefs, incompatibility and intolerance.

My dream Nigeria is a Nigeria that may never be. My dream Nigeria is a Nigeria where there will be tolerance, honesty, peace, unity and love; a Nigeria where you can live in any state or town without fear of your life because of your religion or ethnicity; a Nigeria where we will do away with the stereotypes that an Igbo man is too cunning, a Yoruba man is a betrayer or a Hausa man did not go to school etc.; a Nigeria where we will honestly tell ourselves the truth that we were forced by the British people to come together but also recognize the fact that since faith has brought us all together that we could as well live in harmony and peace if we all sincerely agree to make sacrifices and sit down to fashion out the mode that will make our aspirations fairly attainable; a Nigeria where you can gain employment anywhere as long as you are qualified for it without regard to “godfather”, ethnicity, religion, gender or disability etc. This is my dream Nigeria. This is the ideal Nigeria we all should strive to achieve, a Nigeria I would staunchly believe in.

Nigeria as it is presently constituted is a fraud built on falsehood and it cannot stand under the present arrangement, until our leaders pick the political courage and convene a national conference where we will decide on how to make the centre (federal government) not so attractive like it is now by allowing each federating state to develop according to its pace and to have greater percentage of its natural resources, but also making the centre very strong enough to hold the federating states together as one Nigeria. Until this is done, all the federating units of Nigeria will continue to be threatened. Under this threat Nigeria is staggering, under this threat I see danger and under this threat with the unfolding events I am forced to say that Nigeria as an entity may not survive for too long and even if it does, it looks like the bomb will explode during or after the 2019 election. But before it gets to this point please let us separate in peace and not in pieces.

Do not forget that no matter how long it takes a stammerer he must surely pronounce his name. We are waiting for maturity to eat the bearded fruit as Chinua Achebe would put it for the triumph of might over right is only temporal.

Divide Nigeria now in peace or address the injustice and balance the equilibrium for tranquility to reign!

I join millions of people all over the world to congratulate South Sudan people on their independence.

Uzoma Ahamefule writes from Vienna, Austria. uzomaah@yahoo.com. Phone: +436604659620 please sms only.

http://thewillnigeria.com/opinion/9357-DIVIDE-NIGERIA-PEACE-NOW-ADDRESS-THE-INJUSTICE.html

Both Muhammad and Allah made this claim, which was a big lie. The Jews caught Allah red-handed of His lies in his own words. Apparently extremely embarrassed and angered, He ordered annihilation of the Jews of Medina, who caught him. He also had to change His earlier revealed requirements for prophethood to establish the validity of Muhammad's prophethood. Find out all these and more,

Muslims claim that Muhammad was a prophet, whose coming was prophesied in Christian Gospels and the Jewish Torah. World-famous Sufi Muslim intellectual Fethullah Gulen says:

"According to Islam, almost all previous prophets predicted Prophet Muhammad… Despite the distortions suffered by the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels, we find indications of his coming."

Indeed, Muhammad himself made the same claim to the Jews and Christians of Arabia saying:

"I am the one whose coming Abraham prayed for and Jesus gave glad tidings of, and I resemble my forefather Abraham more than anyone else [Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-'Ummal, 11:384]."

When he failed to convince them and they rejected him and his Islam—Allah, the God of Muhammad and Islam, ordered their persecution and annihilation; the Jews suffering their first Holocaust at Muhammad’s hand: he slaughtered en masse the men of Banu Quraiza, Banu Nadir (earlier evicted by Muhammad from Medina and resettled in Khaybar) and Banu Mustaliq tribes, and enslaved their women and children [my book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, gives a concise overview of Muhammad's pogrom of the Jews].

The claim that Muhammad was the promised future prophet of the Jews and Christians is rooted in Allah's own claim in Quran 7:157:

Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them…

Connected to this prophetic succession is another Islamic claim that Muhammad was the "seal"—the finality—of prophethood [Quran 33:40]:

…he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets. And God is ever Knower of all things.

In other words, Muhammad was not only the Prophet, but also the final prophet, predicted in the Torah and Gospels.

[b]Is that true? Not at all! [/b]This will be proven in Allah’s own words!

Before proceeding, let me briefly address a couple of troublesome issues with these verses.

Gospels/New Testament says Jesus was the final Messiah: Allah’s claim in Quran verses 7:157 that Gospels predict the coming of a future prophet is a big lie, which Allah repeats in Quran 61:6:

When Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O children of Israel! I am indeed a Messenger of God to you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name is Ahmad [Muhammad]."

While the Torah predicts the coming of prophets, Gospels are very clear that Jesus was the final savior of the Jews, and by extension, of all Gentile nations. Those of the Jews, who embraced Jesus, would enter the "true House/Children of Israel", the Kingdom of God; because, the Old Israel had become defunct with Jesus’ promised coming. Those, who would reject Jesus, would be thrown out of the Kingdom of God, as he told the Jews: "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit" [Mat 21:43].

The overall theme of the New Testament is:

Jesus was the promised prophet;
With his coming, Judaism and God’s old Law in its entirety have become obsolete, of no value, whatsoever;
Those, who embraced Jesus, would constitute the “True Israel”, the Old Israel had become defunct;
Those, who embrace Jesus, would have guaranteed salvation by simply believing in Christ, without even requiring to follow any law.
Thus, in Christianity, Jesus was the finality in the God’s succession of prophethood; no future prophet would come, whatsoever. Therefore, Allah is wrong or ignorant to claim that Gospels mention the coming of a prophet.

Muslims also claim that Jesus was a true prophet of their Allah. If that is so, then, 1) Islamic claim that another prophet would come is baseless; or 2) their claim of Jesus being a true prophet of Islam is a sham, a complete deception.

No finality of prophetic succession in the Torah: The second problem with Muhammad's prophetic claim is that he was the final prophet. In the Torah, Moses prophesies the coming of prophets in Deu 18:15:

"The lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers."

This verse spells no finality in the succession of prophethood whatsoever; prophets would continue coming whenever need arises throughout the existence of the Israelite nation; no end or finality is indicated in this verse.

Does Muhammad qualify to be a promised prophet of the Torah?

Was Muhammad’s claim to prophethood valid? Not at all, as we will see.

Jesus also made the same claim, and Apostle Peter pointed to the same verse (i.e. Deu 18:15) in the New Testament (i.e. Act 3:22) to justify Jesus’ coming as a Messiah to the Jews. Malachi 3:1, which falls outside the Torah, also make a similar prophesy ("See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me, ", but the Gospel of Mark (1:2) attributes it somewhat wrongly to the 'Book of Isaiah'.

However, Muhammad, an illiterate prophet, completely failed to point out which verse in the Torah prophesied his coming as a prophet. Allah tried on Muhammad's behalf, but erred big-time [Quran 2:129]:

(Abraham prayed): "Our Lord, raise up in their midst a Messenger from among them who shall recite unto them Your revelations, and teach them the Book and Wisdom, and purify them…"

It was not Abraham as claimed by Allah, but Moses—through whom the biblical God sent His first revelations—had prophesied the coming of prophets.

However, to the fulfillment of this prophesy, numerous Israelites have come with the claim of prophethood to the Jewish people throughout history—both before Jesus and after—well into the modern era (Even John the Baptist, a Jews, who had baptized Jesus, is also shown as such a prophet in the Gospels). Those, who came before Jesus, mostly received acceptance; those that came after Jesus, when the Israelites were in dispersion all over the world, received only limited and localized following of varying degrees.

Now let us see, who can qualify to be a prophet as predicted in Deu 18:15. God repeatedly says in the Old Testament that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac (Abraham’s son) and Jacob or Israel (Isaac’s son) [Exodus 3:15-16, 6:3 etc.]. When the Israelites in Egypt were oppressed by Pharaoh, "God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” [Exodus 2:24]. And it was the children of Jacob (God later named him ‘Israel’), who ended up in Egypt, suffering Pharaoh’s oppressions. Moses, commanded by God, led them out of their Egyptian captivity and oppression. And God made His final covenant with those, who came out of Egypt with Moses—i.e. the children of Jacob/Israel. God says of this covenant: "I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusite—a land flowing with milk and honey” [Exodus 3:17]. God again makes it clear that His covenant is with the children of Jacob, when He told Moses: “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob… if you obey me and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession” [Exodus 19:3-5].

Deu 18:15 clearly prophesies that God would choose a prophet "from among your brothers"—that is, from amongst those, who came out of Egypt under Moses’ leadership, namely the children of Jacob. In other words, God will choose prophets from amongst those, who carry the seed of Jacob as well as of his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham. The offspring of other children of Abraham and Isaac were not included in this final covenant of God.

But Muhammad and the Arabs, it is claimed, descended from Abraham’s son Ishmael. Ishmael was Abraham’s son through his slave-woman Hagar, not through Sarai, a free woman and his properly married wife. Moreover, Hagar was an Egyptian, not a Semite. Therefore, Ishmael was only half-Semitic. Semitic purity was essential to be included in the God’s covenant. So, Ishmael and his offspring fell outside the God’s covenant. Indeed, God made this clear when he said to Abraham: ", it’s through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant (i.e. Ishmael) into a nation also, because he is your offspring" [Genesis 21:12-13]. In other words, the offspring of Isaac would carry forward Abraham’s true legacy; Ishmael’s offspring, carrying the gene of a non-Semitic and slave woman, will also became a nation as they multiply, but would have no legitimate claim to Abraham’s true legacy.

Therefore, Muhammad—an offspring of Ishmael, not carrying the seed of Isaac and Jacob—could, in no way, qualify to be a promised prophet of the Torah.

Indeed, Muhammad's or Allah's training in the Torah, it seems, was not that bad. The duo knew of this basic requirement—i.e. the necessity of carrying the seed of Isaac and Jacob, in addition to Abraham’s—to become a prophet as prophesied in the Torah. Initially Allah said the same [Quran 45:16]:

And verily we gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favored them above (all) peoples.

Here, Allah clearly agrees and affirms two cardinal facts in agreement with Old Testament: first, the Children of Israel—i.e. the Children of Jacob—were blessed with right to Prophethood; second, God’s covenant was only with them amongst all nations.

In the following verse, Allah made this central paradigm of the Torah succinctly clear:

We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation,  [Quran 29:27]

This means, only those—carrying the seed of all three patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—can make a legitimate claim to prophethood.

Allah had revealed these verses in the build to later verses (7:157, 61:6 etc.), which claim Muhammad's prophethood as promised in the Torah and Gospels. Verses 45:16 and 29:27—affirming facts of the Torah concerning the genealogical requirement for prophethood—were, it appears, intended to create a favorable and friendly impression upon the Jews (and Christians) about Muhammad, so that Allah's later claim that Muhammad was their promised prophet would be more acceptable to them.

But the Jews, who had thorough knowledge of their scripture, had no difficulty to refute Muhammad’s claim to prophethood—given Muhammad, an Arab and the offspring of Ishmael, could not be a promised prophet. They probably had knowledge of Muhammad verses, and it seems that they point out the falsity of Muhammad’s prophetic claim by pointing to Allah’s own verses that say only the children of Jacob could become a promised prophet.

Unaware of the Jews' depth of their scriptural knowledge, Allah initially spoke with honesty of the true requirement for prophethood without realizing that it would disqualify Muhammad’s claim to prophethood; Allah got caught red-handed in His own words. He obviously had no answer, except extreme embarrassment. All he could do to save his Godly credibility was to annihilate the Jews, to whom he got caught; this he eventually did by commanding Muhammad to put them to the sword.

Next, to legitimize Muhammad’s claim to prophet, Allah embarked on an extraordinary mission to create a completely new foundational paradigm of his creed, altering all that He had been affirming in His verses until now. First, Allah hit-back at the Jews, accusing them of corrupting the Torah, which He had earlier recognized as containing "true guidance":

“Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn” [Quran 2:79].

Next, he had to create a totally new genealogy of prophetic requirement, so that Muhammad’s claim to prophethood becomes legitimate. Allah made Abraham a “true Muslim”, not Jew or Christian, so that Muhammad and his Muslim followers would become legitimate bearer of Abraham’s legacy, thus, justifying Muhammad’s claim to Abrahamic prophethood. So revealed Allah:

“Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), ” [Quran 3:67].

Until now, Muhammad, following the Jews of Medina, was turning to Jerusalem while praying, where stood God’s original sanctuary, the Temple of Jerusalem. Now, he changed the sanctuary of the Lord from Jerusalem to the pagan temple of Ka’ba at Mecca (his home town), which he now claimed to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael (Thus, Ka’ba, not the Temple of Jerusalem, became the true House of God):

And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us,  [Quran 2:127]

Next, Allah would include Ishmael also into the true legacy of Abraham (which is Islamic), which was carried forward not by his son Isaac alone, but all his sons:

And this was the legacy that Abraham left to (all) his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam." [Quran 2.132]

Next, Allah would include Ishmael (Isma’il), mentioning by name, in the God’s true covenant, which is Islamic:

Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).” [Quran 2:136]

Here, Allah claims Ishmael was also amongst those, whom He gave his religion, also received by Muhammad and his followers.

As the final step of twisting facts to suit Muhammad’s claim to prophethood, and his religion as the true religion, Allah turned the entire foundation of the Abrahamic faith into an Islamic one. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, became true heir to Abraham’s legacy. So Allah reveals:

Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah?,  [Quran 2.140]

Here, Allah questions the legitimacy of identifying all the patriarchs and the twelve tribes (i.e. Children of Israel) as “Jews or Christians”. Instead, Allah, who knows better, claims they were believers in Allah, and hence, in Allah’s true religion—Islam. They were, therefore, Muslims, not Jews or Christians, in truth.

It’s interesting that even Muhammad and Allah failed to legitimize Muhammad’s claim to prophethood based on the Torah, and had to condemn it as corrupted, before perverting/rewriting all the Torah requirements for prophethood to create a completely new paradigm in the Quran to validate Muhammad’s legitimacy to prophethood; but renowned Canadian professor Jamal Badawi, trying to outdo Muhammad and Allah, outrageously tries to legitimize Muhammad's prophetic claim based on the Torah itself using all kinds of trickery.

Summary

While Islam claims that both Jewish and Christian scriptures prophesy the coming of Muhammad as a prophet, in Christianity Jesus was the final; no future prophet would come at all. The Torah prophesies the coming of prophets, but from amongst the Children of Jacob aka Israel only. Muhammad, allegedly Ishmael’s offspring, falling outside Jacob’s descendents/genealogy, could make no claim to prophethood, whatsoever. Islamic God initially admitted this fact, albeit unwittingly. When He later tried to push Muhammad as a promised prophet to the Jews (and Christians), he got caught in His own words and was well nigh embarrassed. Angered, Allah accused the Jews of corrupting the Torah, and later altered all His earlier pronouncements about the Torah-agreeable prophetic requirements to establish the validity of Muhammad’s claim to prophethood.

Conclusion

So, was Muhammad a promised prophet of the Jews and Christians?

I leave it to readers to make their own judgment and draw conclusions accordingly.

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=897:was-muhammad-the-promised-final-prophet-of-the-torah-and-gospels&catid=65:khan&Itemid=58

Islam Does Not Mean Peace

Muslims are not real studious and tend to reject scholarship in favour of their own version of things. In other words, they invent stuff when it suits them. Take the definition of the word Islam. In the USA, I have heard Muslims actually say the word "Islam" means peace, trying to put a kinder gentler wrapping paper on their horrible religion. As you can see from the authorities below, the lexicon definition of "Islam" is submit. After which one will experience peace. Notice the cause and effect in this quote: First you submit in Islam, then second, after submitting, you will experience peace: "And a Muslim , is 'one who submits' or surrenders to the will of God, thereby attaining peace of mind and soul." (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397) Problem is if you blindly swallow the mythical and fictitious claims of Islam as true, and never rock the boat, you will experience peace. But for the intelligent who reject Islam because they are not prepared to ignore the universal testimony of every history book in the world, Islam means war, persecution and death.

　

Contrary to Muslim rhetoric that claims Islam means peace, the truth is that the word Islam does not mean peace, but "Submission" as this authority verifies: "The term Islam in the lexicon of the Arabs means 'Submission' to God." (Islam, Beliefs And Observances, Caesar E. Farah, p2-7, 26-35)
Islam still bears the stigma in the West of a religion of violent fanatics, bent on conversion at all costs. Yet the Arabic word Islam means "submission" or "surrender," as in surrender to God; it also derives from salam, the Arabic word for "peace." Both meanings are present in the actual experience of Islam. And a Muslim (the spelling preferred to Moslem) is "one who submits" or surrenders to the will of God, thereby attaining peace of mind and soul. (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996, p394-397)

Muhammad called his new religion "Islam," a word which means submission, that is, submission to the will of Allah, the Lord. One who accepts Islam and makes such submission is a Muslim. Such a person is termed a mu'min (believer), and one who does not accept Islam is a kafir (unbeliever). To live in submission to Allah and in obedience to the teaching of the Prophet a Muslim, a Muslim must follow a rule formulated for him as a good Muslim. Such a rule is provided in the Shariah which is in the first instance on the Qur'an, in the second instance on the Hadith, the Traditions, in the third instance on Ijma', the consensus of the community, and in the fourth instance on qiyas, the application of analogical reasoning to the other three sources for the deduction of new rules. Obviously, the Prophet's intention was that the community should be a single community and the Shari'a its common rule of life. (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p xi-xiv)
　

We have been hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, and in fact that Islam means peace. Both of these assertions are in error. Islam means submission. Check with any good Muslim dictionary and "submission" will be the definition of Islam. Redefining the word Islam is an attempt to deceive people about the real nature of Islam.

The argument is made based upon the idea that the Arabic word salaam means peace. The word "Islam" shares a common root with salaam, therefore Islam means peace also. It is true that Islam and salaam share a common root, but according to the dictionaries, they do not mean the same thing.

According to A Basic Dictionary of Islamic Words by M Zakiuddin Sharfi, Islam means, "Submission or resignation to the will of Allah, completely. He does not define salaam, but does note that one of the ninety-nine attributes of Allah is as-Salam, meaning "The Peaceful One'

A common greeting is Arabic is "as-Salam-u'Alaikum." This means "Peace be upon you." It is easy to see that it is not Islam, but Salam.

Do not be deceived by claims that Islam means peace. It means submission. Islam has always been a religion of violence.

Quotations from the Koran:

2:190-193 Fight in the cause of God, those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out: For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they fight you, Slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

2:216-217 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

2:244-245 Then fight in the cause of God, and know that God heareth and knoweth all things. Who is he that will loan to God a beautiful loan, which God will double unto his credit and multiply many times? It is God that giveth (you) want or plenty, and to Him shall be your return.

4:74-77 Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter, to him who fighteth in the cause of God, whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children whose cry is: "Our Lord! rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Thee one who will protect; and raise for us from Thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (form fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular charity? When (at length) the order for fighting was issued to them, behold! a section of them feared men as, or even more than, they should have feared God: they say: "Our Lord! why hast Thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not grant us respite to our (natural) term, near (enough)?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right: never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least!

4:95-96 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward: Ranks specially bestowed by Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. For God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

8:12-15 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment. Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist God, is the penalty of the Fire." O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.

8:37-39: In order that God may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

9:14 Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers
9:20 Those who believe, and suffer exile and fight with might and main, in God's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of God: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
9:41 Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle [fight in war], with your goods and your persons, in the cause of God. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.

9:73 O Prophet! strive hard [wage war] against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed.

9:123: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him.

22:38-39 Verily God will defend (from ill) those who believe: verily, God loveth not any that is a traitor to faith, or shows ingratitude. To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight) because they are wronged-and verily, God is Most powerful for their aid

25:52 So obey not the unbelievers and fight strenuously with them in many a strenuous fight.

47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, - He will never let their deeds be lost.

48:29: "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other."

60:4: We have renounced you; and enmity and hatred is begun between us and you for ever, until ye believe in Allah alone

61:9-11 It is He Who has sent His Apostle with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it). O ye who believe! shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in God and His Apostle, and that ye strive (fight) in the Cause of God, with your property and your persons: that will be best for you, if ye but knew!

66:9 O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode! and wretched the passage to it!

The Hadith:

Hadith 1:13-- "I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah."

Hadith 1.24 "Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers"

Hadith 1.25"Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

Hadith 19:4294 "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war."

Hadith 1:35 "The person who participates in Allah's cause (namely, in battle). . will be recompensed by Allah either with reward or booty or will be admitted to Paradise."

Hadith 9:4 "Wherever you find infidels kill them; for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."

Hadith 9:50, 57 "No Umma (a member of Muslim community) should be killed for killing a Kafir (an infidel). . Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Sahih Muslim 4363: "You (the Jews) should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle and I wish to expel you from this land (Arabia)

Sahih Muslim 4366 Narrated by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims


Words of Muslim leaders:

"Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!' Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: 'Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.' Islam says: 'Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.' The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force. The other religious groups (Christianity and Judaism) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah: Ail Introduction to History, Islamic historian, 1377 AD)

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian Shiite mullah)

"the religion of Islam could be above all, so that all areas of life could be guided by Islam, and so that the earth could be cleansed from unbelief" (The Islamic Council in Chechnya)

"The foremost duty of Islam is to depose the government and society of unbelievers (jahiliyyah) from the leadership of man." (Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian)

"Uniting the five pillars of Islam is the principle Jihad (lit. struggle). In Islam a Muslim must struggle against himself and his habits to submit fully to God. He must also struggle to guide his family, relatives, and friends to bring them to Islam and to convey the message of Islam itself. Since Islam is totalistic, Muslims wherever they may be, must struggle and sacrifice their energy, time, and material resources to establish Muslim congregations, mosques, madrassas (religious schools) for the maintenance and spread of Islam.

Where Muslims make up a substantial fraction of the population, they must struggle to establish the Islamic Shariah (law) as their rule for living, with the aim to ultimately establish a full Islamic state in which Islam would be the ruling ideology and system. To understand this last point is very important for it is part and parcel of Islam to seek its full manifestation and where Muslims fail politically or economically, they also fail spiritually. It is innate to Islam to be militantly uncompromising with alien systems since all sovereignty and glory belongs to God, to the Prophets (PBUH) and to the believers."

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm

Quran 2:40-41: "O children of Israel! Call to mind the special favor which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill your Covenant with Me and I shall fulfill My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. And believe in what I reveal, Confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when you know what it is."

Muhammad, the greatest Prophet God sent to mankind, was born in the Quraysh tribe in Mecca around the year 570 C.E. and died in the year 633 C.E. at the ripe old age of sixty three. Both his parents died when Muhammad was quite young and an uncle of his took him in and raised him up in the beliefs of their Pagan worship. Muhammad’s father Abd Allah was so named because he was a high priest and worshiped idol, called ‘Al lah’. The Quraysh being the most powerful Pagan tribes in Arabia were also the ‘sole keepers’ of the Kaab’ah, the sacred idol-temple, which then housed approximately 360 idols that were being worshiped since long in the sands of Arabia! In 630 CE, Muhammad captured it and made it into the Islamic House of Allah alone!

As the story goes, when aged 40, Muhammad was visited by an angel of Allah called Jibraiel [like Angel Gabriel from the Bible], whom supposedly appeared to him in a vision whilst, he was half-sleepily meditating in a cave of Hira [what made Muhammad meditate in these caves is a mystery to this very day?]. This Angelic being was the “main” source and medium of communication between Muhammad and the so-called creator of this blessed world –his Allah [ring any bells?]! For, as Jibraiel was providing Muhammad with holy revelations and orders from Allah, which had been written and kept as a ‘Xerox in Paradise’ [heavenly abodes of all believers] since time immemorial, when Allah thought of CREATING all things wonderful! Hence, this “holy” Qur’an was dictated and narrated over the next 23 years period of Muhammad’s ghastly life!

So, the myth of his being the messenger of Allah was weaved very much like the recent false Prophet, his holiness Joseph Smith, who claimed to have also been visited by the angel Moroni, which gave the Mormon religion!

During the last 23 years of Muhammad’s eventful life, Jibraiel dictated Allah’s revelations to him in fragments, which he kept as a garbled mess, and it eventually became the present-day Holy Qur’an! These verses, many of them nonsensical and others spiteful, of the sacred and holy Qur’an were so zealously written by Muhammad’s faithful learned followers [pagan believers] on whatever they could find – like parchments, leather tit-bits, on palm-leaves, and even on whatever pieces of [human or animal] bones – and were tossed into various receptacles with no special care to keep the verses in any logical or chronological order -- despite the fact that, these were sanctified hallowed scriptures, the true spoken “Words of the Almighty and ever living God of All”!

As claimed by Muslims, the Qur’an is the ONLY Holy Scripture that has never ever been changed since its spoken inceptions to Muhammad. Moreover, several Muslims also claim to know the blessed Qur’an all by heart [truly magical and miracle]. But, if you have ever held this Qur’an in your hands, you would know the strange possibility of anyone ever knowing every word in this book is wily remote.

By the teaching of Muhammad, the Qur’an, is of divine origins, and was brought down, as the Islamic Tradition tells us, “word by word by Jibraiel to the Prophet's ear. The original is "written on a Tablet, and kept in Heaven, which is "sent down on the night of al Qadr''' by the Almighty Allah. Thus, the Qur’an comes from God alone, heavenly, divine, and uncreated. Now, if it be shown that much of this grand book can be traced to human sources existing daily around the Prophet, then Islam falls to the ground! And this is what proves to me with erudition!

Now, as those passionately obsessive followers of Muhammad, the Sahabahs, who had memorized the Quran under Muhammad’s dictations, started dying in numbers in bloody battles after Muhammad’s sudden death, the true Qur’an was obliterating into dusts of time! Willfully, Abu Bakr ordered Zaid ibn Thabit to "search out the Qur’an and bring it together". Hence, Zaid started to gather these Godly words of spoken fragments "from date leaves and tablets of white stones and off the breasts of pagan men" and pieced them together into a book that is now the holy Qur’an! And, several copies were compiled and made from Zaid's completed collected manuscripts, but these verses contained no vowels… [strangely enough with various grammatical errors also!]

And, because of these ‘grave errors’, the readers and believers of the holy Qur’an interpret/entreat some verses/words to mean one thing or another, and hence, confusions multiply to this very day amongst Muslims!

Some, eighteen years later in 651C.E. the Caliph Othman again commissioned Zaid and the other three taught Quraysh tribesmen, to revise the first carbon copies of the noble Qur’an… Their uncorrupted works was sent to Damascus, Kufa and Basra, in feeble attempts to cure the rigid problems of confusions!

The 114 chapters or "Surahs" of the Qur’an are not arranged in any chronological order of their revelation [which is not known from head to tail] but, these Surahs are arranged first by what took place in Medina and then by what took place in Mecca, and then, are arranged by the decreasing length. Only the Devil, who comes as an "angel of light" to sinful men like Muhammad, could conceive of a book as confusing as the Qur’an!

The Qur’an is simply a bundle of playful untruths of disorders and heretic confusions, far from what should be a divinely-inspired book of orderliness and clarity (the Bible is chronological and much better orderly). Each passage of the Qur’an has its own disconcerted purpose! For, one passage states the Islamic doctrines; another provides hateful prayers; another announces grotesque Godly laws; another condemns unbelievers to outright slaughtered; another tells insanely stories of parasitic ecstasies in paradise; another is a call to arms to fight the Kufars; another proclaims divine victories of unending worldly governances; another formulates deceitful treaties to be overturned; others appeal for vengeful Jihadist conquests, and contrarily, other passages regulate paganistic Islamic rituals of daily head bangings with Islamic morals, industrial warring supremacy, and Worldly Islamic trades and finances!

As one might suppose, much of it was already of no use, except to confuse the bigoted reader. For, the holy Qur’an requires a commentary to be understood by the lay reader, depending on the beliefs of Islamic commentators relating to those deceitful thoughts at those very moments. However, the reader of an illogical Godly Book will have an individualistic Qur’an on their hands!

So, if there is a need for "Tafsir" or interpretations of the Qur’an, which any ordinary Muslims or whomever are never presumed to be qualified enough to do so. Hence, my question is: ‘why shouldn’t a believer be qualified in knowing or deciphering his/her religious teachings?’ This, forthwith, makes Muslims dependent on some higher Islamic authority, which is sacrilege in Islam! Therefore, there are the "Hadiths" or traditions established by Muhammad… And there are mandatory Islamic Shari’ah laws into every direction conceivable as Holy Laws of God. Accordingly, there are no boundaries and rejections in Islam!

If you are talking to a Muslim with a Qur’an in your hand, he/she will debate and dictate you those meanings of the words and verses on the pages of the Qur’an you are reading, When “WE” simply means two or more persons acting in conjunctions, these Muslims will comprehend it to mean as only ‘ONE’ person in Allah’s Arabic mode….whatever? In many instances, Muslims will always say that, Oh! You have to go through them or to a local Muslim leader/cleric/scholar to get to the bottom of these truths of Islam. [I mean why should any layman have to seek a professional scholar to decipher these simple and easy verses of the Qur’an, when Allah has repeatedly claimed that He has revealed the Quran in simple and plain terms [this is simply mind boggling, but not to Muslims?].


The Holy Quran is so confusing and disorderly that a reader, especially a deceptive Muslim, may make anything of his/her choice from the reading of its verses.

So, when Osama Bin Laden blows up the World Trade Towers in New York claiming justification from the Qur’an, then, who are we to question his understanding of dictation of the Quran which Allah commanded humanity to follow?

And, there are desperate little Muslims blowing themselves up in haste to attain the vain promises of Islamic heavens – Janna’h. And for whom, are we to question those directions they get from Allah’s Quran?

There are also terrorist leaders around the world, ordering Jihadi Muslims to rob banks and blow up crowds of people. Who are we to question those directions they get from Allah’s Holy book.

Unlike the Bible which teaches about a loving God, who cares for His flock of worshippers and made unjust and sinful all that the Islamic God has provided and provisioned. Islam teaches its faithful to be "deceitful and having desperately wicked hearts" beating in their chests. Islam is a degenerate religion of the flesh!

To me, religions are like people. We know them by their fruits of spirituality! Currently, Muslims are troubling the world we live in with such abundance of irrational violence and terrorism that Islam is, no doubt, an evil conception disguised as a bigoted religion and the source of this unruly problem is the corrupted megalomania of the Qur’an!

I foresee Islam as attractive to the mindless followers of faithful nincompoops, who can be led into any adventurism by their Imam or Caliph might choose for them in regards to the sanctified commands of Allah. In the war between Iraq and Iran, many teenage boys were sent into one end of the battlefield to distract the enemy whilst being unarmed and they were meaninglessly slaughtered, the so-called Islamic self-sacrifice to gain martyrdom, so that they could inherit sadistic Allah’s empty promise of lewd Islamic paradise. A hoax created for those mindless believers into thinking that a true God can be as naive as to let His chosen people enjoy pure lusts and erratic fantasies in origins of bare knuckled ecstasy of sexual perversions.

While the Muslim nations school their children in Qur’anic studies since childhood, these children are made a part of an Islamic culture, where one knows only blood, sex and selfish gains of ever-lasting afterlife!

Before they ever come to an age of accountability, where they might be able to make the right decision for themselves, Muslim children are turned into brainwashed zombies, who rest their natural inborn faiths in ritualistic Islamic traditions and become fanatical as adults. They taught hatred of the Jews and Christians for loving free Israel, and in that extreme of fanatical hatred, Muslims are raised in cultured psychopathy, led by irrational madmen crying Jihads of forever Islam – Allah O’ Akbar!

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=894:allah-o-akbar-for-the-quran-says-part-1&catid=110:brokaan&Itemid=58