₦airaland Forum

In seeking to defend Islam against the claim that it promotes violence many Muslims have said that 'Islam' means peace, or that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately this is just plain wrong.

ISLAM
Islam is derived from the Arabic aslama, which means 'surrender' (to the will of Allah). Muslim means 'one who has surrendered to the will of Allah'. And unfortunately, violence, under certain conditions, is a legitimate means to affect that surrender.

The argument that Islam means peace is based on a three-fold interpretive error.

Arabic is based on consonantal roots. Islam is derived from the root SLM. Arabic is also a poetic language that uses words derived from the same root as similes that are used to deepen the meaning of other words. SLM is also the root for the words salim, which means 'safe', saleem, 'perfection', sallama, 'salvation', salama, 'blameless' and salaam, 'wellbeing'. Using all of these words gives an expanded meaning to the word Islam: 'when one surrenders to the will of Allah (as revealed by His Prophet) one will find salvation, perfection, safety and wellbeing.'

The word salaam is often translated as 'peace', but this is only one of several meanings. It's primary meaning is actually 'wellbeing'. It can also mean health, soundness, wholeness, safety and serenity. A common Arabic greeting is as-sallam alaykum, which is usually translated as 'peace be upon you', but it's extended meaning is 'may wellbeing, wholeness and tranquility be upon you'.

The English word 'peace' has two meanings. The first and primary meaning is derived from its Latin root pax. This is translated as 'cessation of conflict'. The term pax Romana described the peace secured by surrendering to Roman law. The second meaning of peace is derived from the Latin serenus, meaning serenity/tranquility - when one is serene one can also be said to be peaceful. The word salaam is actually synonymous with the second meaning of peace, serenity. The first meaning is better served by the Arabic word sulh (root SLH), from salaha, meaning; reconciliation, to make peace, or peace treaty.

In saying that Islam means peace Islamic apologists are simply indulging in word play in order to put as positive a spin on things as they can. It is an attempt to argue that Islam promotes non-violence. As we will see such a peace is only available to one who has first surrendered to Allah and it is denied to those who refuse to surrender. Mohammed would sign his treaty offers with the words, aslem taslam, 'surrender and you will be safe'.

JIHAD
The key problem now revolves around what it means to surrender to Allah's will. Here we need to introduce another controversial Arabic word, jihad. Jihad is derived from the root JHD. Many of the words derived from this root connote the idea of effort, exertion and struggle. Jihad is a derivative of jahada, to struggle or strive. Thus jihad is taken to mean the struggle to surrender to Allah's will. The word mujahid means 'one who struggles', mujahideen is the plural. The root JHD also creates the word ijtihad, which means intellectual struggle.

Jihad is sometimes translated as 'holy war'. Again apologists indulge in word play by arguing that the literal translation of holy war into Arabic, harb muqaddasah, gives a different meaning. This is perhaps true in Arabic but not true in English, where holy war is a reasonable translation of 'spiritual struggle'.

There have been two meanings given to jihad. The original concept has been called the 'lesser' (asghar) jihad. This is the use of violence to defend Islam. We will have cause to examine this further. However many Muslim apologists now argue that the 'real' jihad is the 'greater' (akbar) jihad, an inner, or spiritual struggle to purify oneself. David Cook, author of Understanding Jihad says this:

Others have fallen into this error as well. They comprise two basic groups: Western scholars who want to present Islam in the most innocuous terms possible, and Muslim apologists, who rediscovered the internal jihad in the nineteenth century and have been emphasizing it ever since as the normative expression of jihad – in defiance of all the religious and historical evidence to the contrary. (my emphasis)

The idea of the greater jihad is linked to Sufism, which emphasizes the mystical or inner identification with Allah. However, mainstream Islam has often been hostile to Sufism and it prefers a literal and legalistic interpretation of the Koran and hadith (the collected saying of Mohammed). It is therefore somewhat intriguing to see orthodox clerics now argue that a Sufi concept is the real meaning. David Cook goes on to say:

There is no lack of evidence concerning the Muslim practice of jihad. The classical and modern works on the subject are voluminous, and they are documented by an examination of Muslim actions as recorded by historians. There can be no reasonable doubt that jihad is a major theme running through the entirety of Muslim civilization and is at least one of the major factors in the astounding success of the faith of Islam.And,, after surveying the evidence from classical until contemporary times, one must conclude that today's jihad movements are as legitimate as any that have ever existed in classical Islam, One such piece of evidence is the writing of Ibn Taymiyya who is favoured by many mujahideen. The scriptural authority of the concept of the greater jihad is supposedly based on a particular hadith. It is not based on the Koran. Ibn Taymiyya says:

“There is a hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet…said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from jihad asghar to jihad akbar.' This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the unbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for mankind.”

Thus Ibn Taymiyya rejects the tradition of the greater jihad in its entirety. So who are we to believe? This question is actually irrelevant for it is sufficient that enough Muslims follow the tradition of Ibn Taymiyya to challenge the Sufi tradition. In fact the four schools (madhhab) of Sunni jurisprudence as well as the Shia tradition only refer to the lesser jihad. This means that for many Muslims the concept of the greater jihad is unorthodox and heretical.

DAR AL'HARB
The language of the Koran separates the world into Muslims and kufir (infidels, unbelievers). It is quite clear about the fate of infidels, they will burn for eternity in Hell.

…then guard yourself against the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers. 2:23
This language clearly splits the world into two, the world of the righteous and the world of the infidel. The terms commonly used to describe this duality are dar al'Islam and dar al'harb. Dar al'Islam, following from above, means the 'abode of safety, perfection, salvation, wellbeing and peace'. It is often translated simply as the 'abode of peace'. Dar al'harb is the opposite. It means 'abode of war'. It is everything that Dar al'Islam is not. It is danger, chaos, punishment, disease and conflict.

This dichotomy clearly argues that Islam is superior and the unbelievers are therefore inferior. It allows Muslims to look down on non-Muslims with derision and contempt. This has found modern expression in many a Friday night sermon. Evidence of this line of reasoning can be found in the writings of the influential radical Sayyid Qutb who said:

Humanity today is living in a large brothel! One only has to glance at its press, films, fashion shows, beauty contests, ballrooms, wine bars and broadcasting stations! Or observe its mad lust for Unclad flesh, provocative postures, and sick, suggestive statements in literature, the arts and mass media!
To Qutb the world had fallen into a state of jahiliyya, or ignorance of the word of Allah. The main source of this ignorance is the West which is seen in wholly negative terms. He argued that it was the duty of Muslims to wage a jihad to rid the world of jahiliyya.

There is an argument that jihad should only be declared in order to defend Muslims from attack. However, much depends on the definition of attack and defence. Qutb argued that the notion of defence should be expanded.

If we insist in calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word 'defence' to mean the defence of man against all those forces that limit his freedom. These forces may take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as political systems, based on economic, racial and class distinctions. (From Tomorrow's Islam)

To Qutb the beliefs and practices of dar al'Harb were a threat to dar al'Islam, they were responsible for corrupting Muslims. The freedom he speaks of is a specific freedom, it is the freedom to choose Islam. It is based on the idea that the freedom to choose is limited by the lies of the infidels, when the lies are exposed people will naturally convert to the one, true religion, Islam. Therefore Islam is fully justified in defending itself from aggressive and corrosive ideas by waging jihad.

Another influential thinker is Sayyid Mawdudi, a scholar of Deobandism and founder of the Pakistan party Jemaat e-Islamiya (party of Islam). He puts it this way:

Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honoured Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad.


THE EXEMPLARS: MOHAMMED AND HIS COMPANIONS
One of the enormous difficulties apologists have in trying to depict Islam as a religion of peace is the fact that the new religion was born in violence and that its prophet actually fought and killed.

The Koran is divided into two periods, the revelations in Mecca and the revelations in exile, in Medina. The Meccan revelations are often more peaceful and tolerant. The Medinite revelations indicate a shift towards belligerence. Qutb explains it this way:

For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established.

There is a common argument that the later passages 'abrogate' (naskh) the earlier passages. That is, when trying to interpret apparently contradictory passages the later passages inform the earlier passages. Unfortunately the later passages are the most violent and the law of abrogation demands the peaceful passages be tempered by the belligerent passages, not the other way around. Many radical Muslims believe that the final command of Mohammed, to 'fully' establish Islam, has yet to be achieved.

Many apologists will however, argue that Mohammed only ever used violence in order to defend his people. This argument is based on the evidence that Mohammed made a treaty with the tribes of Medina which they later betrayed, thus he was fully justified in waging a war. And according to the traditional tribal rules of Arabia this makes perfect sense. Except that it only tells one side of the story. It ignores the fact that the tribes might have had very good reasons to break the treaty.

Mohammed had been disowned by his own tribe. He was given refuge in Medina and he made a pact with the tribes of the region, three of whom were Jewish. However Mohammed continued to claim that he was a prophet of God in the line of Abraham and that his teachings superseded the previous teachings of Judaism. This was something the rabbis of Medina could not accept and it is clear that the teachings of Mohammed became increasingly problematic. Of course, from Mohammed's view the Jewish tribes were simply rejecting the word of God. In any case the Jewish tribes decided to rid themselves of Mohammed, who they now regarded as a false prophet, so they formed an alliance with his own tribe, the Bani Quraysh. This new alliance negated the previous treaty and so Mohammed declared war on the tribes of Medina.

The rest is well recorded history. There are a number of Islamic accounts of the various assassinations, campaigns and battles. However, there is one in particular that is often glossed over. This is the massacre of the Bani Qurayzah, one of the Jewish tribes. Most accounts agree that Mohammed's men dug a long trench, then lined up all the males of fighting age (around 700) and then systematically beheaded them. The women and children were then handed to the victors as slaves. Now this was rather normal behaviour at the time, but it certainly challenges the idea that Mohammed was a man of peace and compassion.

Mohammed's army went on to conquer Mecca and the defeated infidels were given a simple choice, convert or die. The atmosphere of the final revelations are the most violent. These are sometimes called the 'sword verses'.

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. 9:5
Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the spirit of the faithful. 9:14
Here we return to the translation of Islam as 'surrender'

If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, they shall become your brothers in the Faith. 9:11
And it was not confined to unbelievers but also to Jews and Christians, the People of the Book (Ahl al-Qitab):

Fight those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Days, do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden, and do not profess the true religion until they pay the poll tax (jizya) out of hand and feel themselves subdued 9:29
After the death of Mohammed there was a period of uncertainty because he had not left a clear successor. Eventually it was agreed that authority would pass to one of his deputies (Caliph). During this period of uncertainty a number of tribes returned to the old ways. The first Caliph Abu Bakr attacked them and forced them to recant, this has been called the 'War of the Apostates'.

This early period was marked by a number of expansionary wars and internal civil wars. It was also marked by the assassination of two of the Caliphs, Uthman and Ali. This last civil war (Kharijites) created the schism between the Sunni and the Shia. So it can be seen that the birth of Islam was actually quite violent.

It is also interesting to note that much is made of the claim that Islam only engages in defensive war. Yet neither the Byzantine or Sasanian empires had declared war on Islam, rather the Muslims declared war on them. There is a tradition that says:

Abu Hurayra would say after these amsar (cities founded by Muslims) were conquered during the time of Umar, Uthman and afterwards, “Conquer whatever you wish, because by the One who holds the soul of Aby Hurayra in His hands, you have never conquered nor will you ever conquer any city until the Day of Resurrection without Allah having already given its keys into the hands of Mohammed previously”. (From Jihad: From Qu'ran to bin Laden )

What this means is that the success of the Muslim wars of expansion were considered to be preordained. And so the idea of the purely defensive war was quickly overturned and a tradition created to justify offensive war. Within a short time Islam had taken over the former Christian Byzantine empire and converted it's most holiest church into a Mosque. The Muslim empire then went on to expand into Europe, Russia and Asia, to see the rise and fall of several ruling elites and periods of sectarian violence.

Perhaps the final word should go to the jurist al-Shaybani:

Allah gave the Prophet four swords (for fighting the infidels): the first against the polytheists, which Mohammed himself fought with; the second against apostates, which Caliph Abu Bakr fought with; the third against the People of the Book, which Caliph Umar fought with; and the fourth against dissenters, which Caliph Ali fought with.

DHIMMI AND MURTADD
One of the claims of apologists is that Islam is a tolerant religion. In many ways, in comparison to some other cultures of the time, it was somewhat more tolerant. However, it was a highly qualified tolerance. There is a famous ayat that says “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” There are also a number of ayat that claim that the People of the Book, that is, fellow Abrahamites and monotheists, should be free to practice their beliefs. Again such tolerance is a qualified tolerance.

However, all such acts of tolerance are denied to unbelievers, those who do not accept the god of Abraham. This caused some problems as Islam expanded and encountered Zoroastrian, Hindu and Buddhist communities. Scholars adapted the term People of the Book to include any religion that claimed to be based on revealed scripture. In the case of Zoroastrianism this was the Zend Avesta and in the case of Hinduism the Vedas. These two faiths were also called the People of the Flame. However Buddhism has never really been accepted as a legitimate faith. There have been some scholars who have developed a rather convoluted argument to accept Buddhism, but the majority opinion is that Buddhists are infidels. The principle stumbling blocks are that Buddhists worship a man, which is idolatry and that they are declared atheists (for an example of anti-Buddhist propaganda see this http://www.islamandbuddhism.com - now offline)

Yet, regardless of their special status, the People of the Book were still discriminated against. To begin with the Caliph Umar expelled all non-Muslims from Arabia. He also developed a code of behaviour detailed in the Pact of Umar, this relegated the People of the Book to second-class status who had to abide a set of humiliating rules. They were considered to be 'protected people' or dhimmi. Some of the restrictions placed on dhimmis were:

To pay a special tax (the jizya)
Not allowed to build new places of worship (but Muslims were allowed to destroy any place of worship they wished)
Not allowed to recite prayers aloud, least Muslims hear them.
Not allowed to publicly display their religious literature.
Not allowed to publicly display religious symbols
Had to always walk to the left of Muslims
Had to stand and give a Muslim their seat
Wear special clothes
Remove their shoes whilst walking near a Mosque
Never hit a Muslim (though a Muslim could hit them)
Never build their houses higher than a Muslim house
Not ride a horse
Not bear arms
Could not testify against a Muslim
If these Dhimmi laws were broken the offender was regarded as no longer a protected person and they reverted to the status of infidel, which meant they lost all legal rights, could have their property confiscated and might be summarily killed.

These laws were in effect in varying degrees of severity in every Muslim controlled area. They were even enforced in the supposedly tolerant society of Moorish Spain which still applied the jizya tax - and as far as Moghul controlled India. Some lenient rulers neglected to enforce them only to have the rulers who followed them reinstitute them. Many of these restrictions are a part of sharia law and some are enforced even today. In Aceh, Indonesia, there are restrictions placed on the construction of churches under sharia law.

Many apologists have argued that Islam did not use force to convert people to Islam. This is a distortion. To begin with infidels must convert or die, atheism or polytheism is not tolerated at all. The People of the Book are able to continue to practice their faith provided they adhere to the dhimmi laws. These laws were often so restrictive that many ordinary Jews and Christians converted simply to make their lives easier. It was only the most devout who resisted. However, in some instances particular communities, such as Egyptian Copts, were set aside for particular discrimination. The dhimmi laws could be applied harshly and even the smallest infringement could have the offender declared an infidel and their property seized. Unscrupulous Muslims could manipulate the dhimmi laws to destroy economic rivals amongst Jews and Christians. It is also fair to say that other Muslim communities were rather more lenient and provided they kept quiet some Jewish and Christian communities were able to thrive. However, it all depended on the whim of the ruling elites who could interpret the dhimmi laws as they saw fit.

Once you had converted to Islam you were forbidden to convert to another religion. Conversion, murtadd, or apostasy, is forbidden under sharia and the punishment is death. In Islam there are two types of apostasy, murtadd fitri, where someone born a Muslim converts and murtadd milli, where a convert to Islam reconverts. The rules defining apostasy can be strict. According to some jurists even to enter a church, synagogue or temple is an act of apostasy, as is questioning any aspect of Islam. It is this latter offence that allows hardliners to declare other Muslims to be apostates for daring to disagree with their interpretation. And given that the penalty for apostasy under sharia is death it is permissible to kill apostates. This excuse has been used to argue that the Muslim victims of terrorist attacks were engaged in un-Muslim activities and were therefore apostates.

So if Islam is the religion of peace and if there should be “no compulsion in religion” why is it permissible to kill atheists and polytheists, kill dhimmi as infidels if they break the dhimmi laws and kill apostates? It takes a considerable amount of rhetorical contortion to argue that Islam is a tolerant religion when these rules apply.

WHAT DO ISLAMISTS WANT?

According to orthodox Muslims Islam is the perfect system. They are idealists who believe they have a utopian solution. The answer to the world's problems is Islam.

The tern 'Islamist' has been used to mean anyone who supports Islam as a political solution. There are many Islamist groups and they fall into two broad categories; nationalist groups and internationalists. Nationalist groups are primarily concerned with overthrowing their own government and replacing it with a government based on Islamic principles and sharia law.

The internationalist groups would prefer to see all Muslim countries united under the traditional system of the Caliphate and the Caliphate to enforce Islamic principles and of course, sharia law. The most extreme internationalists want to restore the Islamic empire including Spain, the Balkans and India, and then to continue to expand Islam.

There are too many of these groups to name, save to mention that the ideology of Islamism has reached every Muslim community. There are five major sources of the Islamist ideology.

Wahhabism (also called Salafi). Founded in 1745 by Mohammed Ibn Wahhab. This is the state doctrine of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is highly influential in the Arab states. The Saudis have funded an extensive program of expansion and have funded the construction of Mosques and Islamic schools throughout the world through a network of charitable organisations (in my own city of Melbourne a prominent Islamic school, the King Khalid College, received funding from Saudi Arabia). The Wahhabi doctrine is strict and condemns Sufism and moderate interpretations as apostasy. A proportion of this charitable money has gone to fund Salafi jihadist groups, some of it to bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Deobandism. Founded in the Indian city of Deoband in 1866 as a rejection of Sufism and syncretism, its aim was to overthrow the British and restore Muslim rule. It is highly influential in Pakistan where they control around 65% of the Mosques and madari (religious schools). The Taliban were the students of Deobandi madari. Salafi money has gone to support the madari and the war in Afghanistan saw a coalition of Salafi and Deobandi jihadi.

Muslim Brotherhood (Ikwhan). Founded in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna. Sayyid Qutb was influenced by the Ikwhan. The Deobandi scholar Mawdudi was an important influence on the Ikwhan and Osama bin Laden is regarded as a follower of Qutb.

The Shia under the influence of the revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution inspired both Shia and Sunni fundamentalists with the hope that Islamic states could be created elsewhere.

A loose coalition of fundamentalist Sufi and minority sects. The Naqshbandiya in Central Asia have formed a loose coalition with Salafi and Deobandi jihadis (see link), particularly in the war in Chechnya. Fundamentalist jihadi Sufis are influential in North Africa, particularly Sudan.

All of these groups provide a ready pool of mujahideen who are prepared to travel in order to fight the global jihad. The Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiya is a Salafi group that was funded with Saudi money and supported by members of bin Laden's al Qaeda group. The bombings in Madrid were committed by Moroccan mujahideen operating in support of the mujahideen under Zaqarwi in Iraq. The London suicide bombers had links with Deobandi radicals in Pakistan, and so forth.

'BUT THIS IS NOT THE REAL ISLAM!'
When confronted with the above moderate Muslims will often reply by arguing that these groups do not represent the real Islam. This is a nonsense. There is no such thing as a real Islam. Rather, there are multiple Islams. In fact the situation is quite absurd. There is no central authority in Islam and rival groups compete with each other to attract followers. As I write this a council of American Muslim scholars has issued a fatwa condemning terrorism. Yet, at the same time a council of orthodox scholars in Indonesia has issued a fatwa condemning moderates. Fatwa at twenty paces!

Authority for interpretation and judgement is usually given to the ulemma, a council of recognised imams or mullahs. However their judgements are only binding on their community. Each sect and each country can have its own ulemma. This means that there can be a range of judgements made, some of them contradictory, with rival ulemma in the same country issuing fatwa against each other .

It is also possible for charismatic teachers to arise and to create their own following. There is actually no formal process by which teachers and clerics can be officially recognised. Some modern sects were created by a single charismatic figure.

The fact is that there are many rival interpretations of Islam. These rival interpretations are in a state of civil war. The Islamists believe that moderates are apostates who have betrayed Islam and have been corrupted by the Western doctrines of democracy, capitalism and also, socialism. A great many bombings and assassinations have actually been directed at moderate Muslims and those governments that have adopted non-Muslim political principles. The West has become a target because they are seen to support the moderates.

The cry that this is not the 'real' Islam is actually completely and dramatically irrelevant. What matters is that sufficient numbers of Muslims continue to choose to follow the radical fundamentalist interpretation.

Nor is it a question of the radicals being a minority, for even if they are a minority they are an influential minority. In fact they are actually a majority in some countries (the majority of any population are usually not involved in politics anyway and tend to passively follow political groups who promise a better future). They are able to punch above their weight because they have financial and ideological support from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Perhaps the question that should be asked of moderates is this, if the radicals are a minority and if they do not represent the 'real' Islam how is it they have been able to carry on a global jihad on several fronts, jihads that include civil wars, secessionist movements, revolutions, assassinations and global terrorism? The list of countries that have been affected by this global jihad is quite long. As I write this incidents have occurred in England, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Bangladesh. The simple fact is that there is broader private support for the Islamists objectives than is ever admitted to publicly and a number are sitting on the fence, waiting to see which way things turn out.

A FINAL NOTE ON IRAQ
Iraq has now descended into a civil war. This is sadly something I warned about in a previous article. The Iraq war has allowed radical Islamist mujahideen to set up operations. One of the aims of Islamism is to overthrow secular and corrupt governments in the Middle East. Saddam, as a Ba'athist was always a target. The US-led war has simply done the job for them. They are now waging an insurgent war with the primary goal of taking control of Iraq. Of course they want to defeat the US, but that is only the first step. They will not stop if the US withdraws. If they can control Iraq they can control substantial oil revenue and then have a geographical and financial base from which to wage jihad on the other countries in the region. The final goal is to set up a regional Caliphate.

CONCLUSION
Islam was never a religion of peace. It is a religion based on a warrior code. The evidence is clear, it was made evident in the actions of Mohammed and his Companions. Islam means 'surrender'. It is entirely legitimate to interpret the tradition of Islam as a state of perpetual jihad with the final aim being the defeat of unbelief and the surrender of all to the word of Allah as revealed by His Prophet, Mohammed. It is only when that surrender has been completed that the world will abide in a state of perfection and peace. Many jihadi see themselves as simply following the example set by Mohammed.

Moderate Islam realises that this goal is impossible. However, what the moderates have not yet fully realised is that it is up to them to defeat the radicals. This cannot be done until the power centres of fundamentalism are isolated and choked of support. This is not something that infidels can hope to achieve. What it calls for is a jihad of another kind, a complete reformation of Islam that reinterprets Islam in light of modern history. A reformation that demands the overthrow of sharia law and the discrediting of supremacist and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

There are encouraging signs that after the London bombings moderate Muslims are beginning to wake up from their state of denial. This must be carried forward to the heartlands of orthodoxy.

The West can assist this process by isolating Saudi Arabia and demanding that the Saud's end their support of the Wahhabi doctrine. Iraq was never the problem, it was always Saudi Arabia. This will then have the effect of cutting off important sources of funding to other jihadist groups. It will then be up to the moderates in each community to name and shame the radicals.

Radical Islamism is doomed to failure, but it will sadly be a bloody fight that will take decades to complete. It may take a violent revolution in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that may initially favour the extremists but will cause a final backlash. In many ways Islamism is the last rallying cry of a defeated cause. Islam reached it's limit. It met infidels from east, west, north and south who refused to surrender and who fought back. Over time it began to lose territory, Spain, India, Greece, the Balkans. In many ways the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WW1 was the final defeat. Since then Islam has been struggling to find its way in a new world, a world not of all-embracing Islamic Caliphates but of independent nation-states, a world that can survive quite happily without it. This is not just a struggle against the Western enlightenment and modernity, but also a struggle against Asian values, a struggle against all that is not Islam. And perhaps this is the final humiliation – that Allah seems to have disserted Islam and the infidels are ascendant. The current violence is a futile protest against the inevitable, a protest against that those who would dare challenge Islam's natural pre-eminence by those who believe it is they who should rule the world.

And what should we do? We should articulate a fair, free and fearless critique of Islam. We must identify those progressive Muslim voices that are calling for a reformation. And we should continue to refuse to 'surrender'.

A note on transliteration: There are no set rules on how to spell Arabic words so any reader will inevitably come across a wide variety of spellings. Qutb is sometimes spelt Kutb and Koran as Qur'an, and so forth. I have kept the spellings as originally used in quotes but have otherwise used the spellings I am used to.

http://www.integralworld.net/harris20.html

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2wvqDfitLY?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

The Greater Accra Police command has impounded a truckload of ammunition said to be on its way to Nigeria.

Two people, a Ghanaian and a Nigerian have been arrested, Greater Accra Regional Police Commander, Rose Bio Atinga confirmed in an interview with Joy News’ Annie Osabutey.

The ammunition include pump action guns, double barrelled guns and an unspecified number of cartridges, Atinga confirmed.

The truck was impounded Tuesday at Achimota on its way to Nigeria.

Rose Bio Atinga did not reveal the identities of suspects, except to say thorough investigations had begun.

The populous West African country is in a turbulent crisis after local terrorist group, Boko Haram killed dozens of people in multiple bombings.

The country has also been plaqued by a general nationwide strike after a petroleum price deregulation last week led to price hikes.

http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/news/201201/79604.php

American political, media, intellectual, and religious elites (not all) propagating the "myth" that American Muslims are better than Muslims of Europe.

Two of the greatest lies that have ever been told are that Islam is a religion of peace and Prophet Muhammad was a prophet of peace.

And three great myths about Islam that are being perpetrated are: a) Myth of the Moderate Muslim, b) the myth of Islamic Reformation and c) Our Muslims are Better than Your Muslims.

The third myth – that Our Muslims are Better than Your Muslims – is the newest invention here in America, by which our political, media, intellectual, and (yes) religious elites (not all but many) claim that our American Muslims are better than Muslims of Europe. They argue that American Muslims are better integrated into our society than European Muslims, who have failed to integrate into European societies. The implication of this claim is:

that we have nothing to worry about,

that American Muslims are Americans first,

That they believe in:

American democracy and freedom,

the US Constitution, Rule of Law,

Equality Before The Law,

Equality of Men and Women,

Equality of All Races,

Dignity of All Human Beings,

No Right To Own Slaves,

No Right To Sex Slaves,

No Right to Rape Any Woman Including Their Wife,

No Right to Have Sex With Children,

Freedom of Speech,

Freedom of Press,

Freedom of Legitimate Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Equality of Believers and Non Believers in Any Faith,

Right not to believe in God,

The Right to Leave Any Religion,

The Right Not To Be Stoned, Lashed or Beheaded For Any Reason,

The Right To Sexual Freedom,

Women are Not The Property of Men,

Children Cannot Be Killed By Their Parents For Any Reason.

But American, European, Saudi Arabian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Turkey, Iranian, Palestinian, Pakistani Muslims etc. can never believe in any of the above. A Muslim can never believe in the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, equality of all races, equality of men and women, freedom of speech, press, and assembly. In Islamic thought, American Muslims are living not in democracy and freedom guaranteed by the constitution but under the tyranny of American non-Muslims: American kafirs. Only when American Muslims are living under Sharia Law will they be finally liberated and they will be living in true freedom. Their priority now is to overthrow the tyranny of American kafirs not by conquest since American Muslims do not have the number and power but by destroying the liberal democratic government by introducing Sharia Law through stealth jihad.

American Muslims’ efforts to introduce Sharia by stealth in America

Here are a sample of how the American Muslims are trying to introduce Sharia by stealth in America, which will make them hardly different from Muslims of Europe as our elites want to make us believe:

-All are being made Islamic worship sites through special rooms and time off to pray. This is in accordance to Sharia law.
-Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. Authorities will not act even when presented with evidence. Polygamy is pure Sharia.
-Muslims are praying in the streets and Muslim cab drivers are blocking traffic so they can pray.
-80% of all Mosques teach Jihad – the violent conquest of kafirs includes attacking American soldiers in the US and overseas. Read http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48499
-Muslim American children are being sent to summer camps to be indoctrinated in submission to Allah and prepared for jihad.
-The Muslim textbooks in America must be approved by Islamic councils that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in accordance with Sharia law.
-American employers and schools are met with demands for time and space to do Islamic prayer. These demands are based on Sharia law.
-The American banking system is becoming Islamicized with Sharia financing. Our banking system is incorporating Sharia financial law without knowing the rest of Sharia.
-Universities are asked to close swimming pools and other athletic facilities to be used for Muslim women.
-Hospitals are being sued for not having Sharia-compliant treatment.
-No course at the college level uses critical thinking in the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia, no aspect of Islam may be criticized.
-Muslim charities give money to jihadists, as per Sharia law.
-Muslim foot-baths are being installed in airport facilities, using tax money. This is in accordance with Sharia law.
-American prisons are a stronghold of proselytization for Islam.
-Workplaces Student Association has 600 branches in the USA and Canada and is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is the word for word “pledge of allegiance” of the Muslim Student Association. This is the Muslim Brotherhood pledge of allegiance.
-Allah is my lord.

Islam is my life.

The Koran is my guide.

The Sunna is my practice.

Jihad is my spirit.

Righteousness is my character.

Paradise is my goal.

I enjoin what is right.

I forbid what is wrong.

I will fight against oppression.

And I will die to establish Islam.

Jihad and Sharia Law are the most important tenets of Islam on one hand and are TREASON to America on the other. Islam seeks to overthrow the American democratic government by whatever means necessary – whether by violent Jihad or by imposing Sharia Law – the totalitarian law of Islam. This process of conquest applies not only to the US, but the entire world.

All good, moral, moderate Muslim men must believe in all of the following:

Jihad – unholy war to conquer all kafir nations and force them to submit to Islam. There are 164 Quranic teachings of Jihad. (Quran 29.6, 29.53, 22.52),
Pre-Pubescent Child Rape (65:4), Rape (4.3) and Gang Rape (24:13),
Sex Slavery (4:24),
Torture (22.19-22),
Whipping Adulators (24.2),
Amputation and Crucifixion (5:33),
Beheading (8:12, 47:4),
Wife Beating (4:34),
Inferiority of Women (2.228, 4.11, 4.176),
Women as Sex Objects (2.223),
Mass murder, Massacre and Genocide (8.17, 8.67, 7.4, 2:191, 9:5),
Human sacrifice - Killing kafirs (47.4),
Terrorizing kafirs (8.60, 3.151),
Immoral Paradise guaranteeing accession to Paradise for Muslim men who kill kafirs or who die in the process of trying to kill kafirs (9.111),
Theft and Robbery (Entire Chapter 8 called Booty),
All other religions must submit to Islam (2.103, 2.286, 3.19, 48.16),
Your children are your enemies (9.23, 64.15),
Revenge (5.45),
Hate (5.60, 2.61),
Slavery (2.178),
Extortion (9:29),
Lying (3:28, 5:51)

All good, moral, moderate Muslims must believe in Sharia Law that mandates the destruction of the US Constitution and democracy/freedom – their replacement with the totalitarianism of Sharia. Under Sharia Law there is no freedom of religion, speech, thought, press, artistic expression, no equality of peoples – a non-Muslim – a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim, no equal rights for women, women can be beaten, non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens, there is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

Death is the punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, mocking anything in the Quran or the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. A Muslim, who states a preference for democracy rather than Sharia Law or questions anything in the Quran or Sunnah, is a kafir (disbeliever), considered an apostate, and therefore sentenced to death. The punishment for theft is amputation of the right hand up to the elbow. The penalty for premarital sexual intercourse is 100 lashes with a whip and one year of exile. The penalty for adultery between a married man and a married woman is 100 lashes with a whip and death by stoning.

All Muslim, who do not believe All of the above teachings of the Quran and Sharia Law, are deviant Muslims – so deviant that they are no longer deemed Muslims but Apostates of Islam, and MUST be murdered as per Sharia Law and the Quranic verse 4:89 of God ordering their death and destruction.

A person cannot believe in the above basic tenets of Islam and be an America at the same time. Embracing the American Constitution would amount to abandoning or condemning Islam. Similarly, one cannot be a Muslim and be a good British, German, French, Dutch, Spanish, or Italian.

In conclusion, all Muslims – whether American or European – are fundamentally the same due to their allegiance to the same book, the Quran, as well as the same Sunnah. The claim that American Muslims are better than European Muslims is pure nonsense.

---

Jake Neuman is the author of “Islam and Sharia Law Are Treason: Jihad Is Treason” and “Prophet Muhammad: Monster of History. The Teachings of The Quran are The Teachings of A Psychotic and That Psychotic Was Prophet Muhammad: Murderer, Terrorist, Torturer, Rapist, Child Molester” (free download). His book ISLAM -- EVIL IN THE NAME OF GOD™ was banned in Malaysia.

The life of the prophet of Islam is full of mysteries, as if it is a nasty ocean with full of dirt. The more we research the more dirt we find in it. The subject of this article is one of such dirt. It dealt about the honor that Muhammad and his ancient Arab culture has given to noble relationship. Muhammad has given new dimension to relationship regardless of its nobility and respectability. In this article, I like to introduce a black African, Abyssinian slave-girl, who served throughout her life for Muhammad and his family.

ARAB CULTURE CAN NOT GET ALONG WITH ANY OTHER CULTURE

May be it is for us, the non-Arabs, the culture of Arabs appears shocking. But for the Arab Muslims, it is part of their culture. Muhammad loved his culture and just Islamized the ancient Arab traditions and made it unalterable. Muhammad brought nothing new except legitimizing his forefather’s barbaric culture on his followers. Multiple marriages by men, exchanging women among them, buying and selling the blacks from Africa were common among them. Muhammad should have removed such nonsense from his society, if he happened to be a real reformer. Instead, he just Islamized those barbaric practices, which supports the men alone and discriminated the women by banning all their liberties which they used to enjoy. After becoming a mafia boss of Medina, Muhammad distributed the captured young girls to his unmarried young fighters as well. Keeping young girls in his father’s home by a young bachelor Arab man was common among them. Muhammad’s father was a perfect example of this practice.

Ancient Arabian culture was very unique and different from any other culture of the world. Women were quite liberal in their sexual life in the pre-Islamic period. And they were free to manage their own business and free to buy male-slaves for their need. Muhammad’s first wife Khadija was amongst them. She was an independent and rich entrepreneur of her time in Mecca without any male counterpart’s help. She married Muhammad as her third Husband and had full control over him, to such an extent that he had not thought of his second marriage until her death. Muhammad enjoyed his immoral sexual life only after the death of Khadija, when he had turned 50. For the next 13 years until his death, Muhammad married 14 wives officially, with special sanction from his friend Allah. Apart from that, he enjoyed sex with multiple slave-girls, concubines and all other Muslim women, who came to his house to “offer” themselves in sex to this Arab hero.

In ancient Arabia, after their husband’s death, women were immediately taken care of by other males of that family. Muhammad’s mother Aamina was also shifted to her father-in-law Abdul Muthalib’s house after her husband’s death and lived 6 six years with him without having her second marriage, which is very strange according to their culture. Muhammad’s grandfather Abdul Muthalib called Muhammad as his “son” in several instances, and Muhammad also had called Abdul Muthalib as his “father”. The readers may have already come across an article about this subject “Was Prophet Muhammad the son of Abdullah ibn Abdul Muthalib”.

BARAKHA AS PART OF MUHAMMAD’S FATHER ABDULLAH’S WOMENFOLK

Since all the historical evidence was destroyed by Muslims from the time of Muhammad to this day, we have no other choice except seeking references only from pro-Islamic sources. And the pro-Islamic sources itself tell us that Muhammad’s father Abdullah bin Abdal Muthalib had purchased an Abyssinian slave-girl by the name Barakha, while he was a bachelor. It is easy to imagine by anyone, the motive behind the purchase of this young girl by a young Arab bachelor. It is also not difficult to imagine for any thinking human being to understand what Abdullah would have done with that young slave-girl according to their moral standards.

Then after few years Abdul Muthalib went to Medina to seek a girl for his son Abdullah and also for him! Abdullah got Aamina as his first official wife and his father Abdul Muthalib married Haala as his 4th official wife out of 5.

LUSTING FOR SON’S BRIDES IS A PRIDE

Here, I like to share with the reader an interesting incident that I have witnessed in Saudi Arabia 15 years ago. A father of a grown-up young man went to seek a girl for his son and found the “price” (Mahr) of that girl fixed by her father was too high, which his son could not afford. But the father himself was rich. Arab fathers generally do not spend their wealth on their son’s marriage. According to their tradition, the young man should have to have his own money to “purchase” a bride for him. So, the father of that young man arranged another “cheaper” bride for his son and then he himself married the “costlier” girl, whom he initially had sought for his son. We the non-Arab expatriates were stunned by this incident. But for the Saudis, it is a matter of pride. The local Arabs praised the old man for his “manliness”, and made supplication to Allah to give them power same as that old man.

This is one among the exemplary moral values of the Arab Muslims, whom the Quran boasting to be the “best” people on earth.

BARAKHA; AS PART OF MUHAMMAD’S GRAND FATHER ABDUL MUTHALIB’S WOMENFOLK

Let us continue our story of Muhammad’s father. Barakha, the slave-girl of Abdullah, was allegedly freed by him, after he married Aamina. May be he did not want the “service” of that black African girl anymore when he got Amina. Even after her manumission, Barakha preferred to live with the newly married couple. Few weeks after marrying Aamina, Muhammad’s father Abdullah died mysteriously. And the Islamic sources allegedly states that Aamina and Barakha were shifted to Abdulla’s father Abdul Muthalib’s house only after the birth of Muhammad. Here the confusion remains whether Aamina had moved to her father-in-law’s house before or after the birth of Muhammad.

BARAKHA AS PART OF MUHAMMAD’S UNCLE ABI TALIB’S WOMENFOLK

Muhammad considered Barakha as his second mother. Why not? After-all, she was the first “slave” woman in his father’s life, and deserves the title of “Second Mother”. After the death of his mother Aamina and his “grandfather”, orphan Muhammad was forced to move to his Uncle Abi Talib’s house, along with Barakha.

BARAKHA AS PART OF MUHAMMAD’S WOMENFOLK

When Muhammad married Khadija, the wealthy entrepreneur, Barakha also moved to Khadija’s house along with Muhammad. Barakha was manumitted again for the “second time” from slavery by her supposed son Muhammad. So, Barakha has no other place to go, except to marry Ubayd bin Zaid and bore a son, named Ayman. So she got the title name Umm Ayman (The Mother of Ayman), according to their tradition. Unfortunately, her husband Ubayd bin Zaid died mysteriously. So, Umm Ayman again came bake to her son Muhammad’s house.

BARAKHA OFFICIALLY AS PART OF MUHAMMAD’S SON ZAID’S WOMENFOLK

While Muhammad self-proclaimed himself as the prophet of Islam and started mocking the Gods of the pagans, the pagans got annoyed and reciprocated on him. Umm Ayman endangered her life at many occasions to protect Muhammad. In return, Muhammad wanted to reward her. What better reward could a woman expect from Muhammad except sex? So, he persuaded his adopted son Zaid bin Haritha to marry Umm Ayman. So, Muhammad’s supposed “second Mother” became the wife of his supposed “son” Zaid. So Muhammad has performed the marriage between a “Granny” and the “Grandson”. Umm Ayman bored a son Usaama to Zaid!

Zionists, Christians and other apostates unjustly blame Muhammad that he snatched his daughter-in-law Zainab from his son Zaid. They are liars and frauds. Muhammad was a perfect human being. He never happens to be unjust. Whenever he wants any place or anything, he “authoritatively” requested them to vacate that place, because that place is for Allah and his Messenger. When he wanted to build a mosque in Medina on the burial ground of Banu Najjaar sects, he authoritatively “requested” them and they gifted him freely in “love”. So Muhammad dugout and throw the buried remains of Banu Najaar’s forefathers and built his mosque on that graveyard, because there was no place to build his mosque in that desert other than that! Similarly, before taking the young wife of his son for himself, Muhammad gave his old Mom to his son as a mark of morality and justice.

BARAKHA AGAIN AS A PART OF MUHAMMAD’S WOMENFOLK

After a few years, Umm Ayman again became widow. Muhammad had predicted that Zaid will be killed soon in so and so war. So eventually Muhammad sends his “slave son” (After Muhammad married the wife of his son, Zaid again became his slave from son) and Zaid was killed in the battle of Mutaa, as “predicted” by Muhammad and her son Ayman was also killed earlier in the battle of Hunayn. So, Umm Ayman had nowhere to go but to return to Muhammad’s house again.

BARAKHA BLESSED WITH MUHAMMAD’S HOLY TREATMENT

This is the story of the divine relationship between Muhammad and Barakha. I like to end this story with an interesting incident, which made Barakha healthy and strong. And she lived a very long life without any health problem, even after his son Muhammad’s death. Let us read about that incident in Barakha’s own statement (Al-Tabari, Volume: 39, page 199):

Al Husay narrated,

Umm Ayman (Barakah) said: One night the Prophet got up and urinated in the corner of the house into an earthenware vessel. During the night I got up, and being thirsty, I drank what was in the vessel, not noticing. When the Prophet got up in the morning, he said ‘O Umm Ayman, take that earthenware vessel and pour away its content.’ I said ‘By God, I drank what was in it.’ The Prophet laughed until his molar teeth showed, then he said ‘After this you will never have a bellyache’. (This is Muhammad at his humble)

This is not a lone incident on Muhammad’s urine. There are several other incidents, which narrate how the different people were blessed by Muhammad after drinking his urine on different occasions. Fortunately, they are all his black slaves. So, it does not make any difference.

Here, I felt necessary to mention Barakha’s incident of drinking the urine, because, how a matured 60 years old son Muhammad, orders his 80 years old mother to clean his urine. Also it is important to notice about his reaction, after knowing his 80 years old mother have consumed his urine. Instead of feeling sorry or embarrassed for the incident, he immediately praised and blessed her for drinking his urine. ALHAMDU LILLAH.

CONCLUSION: Of course these spiritual, divine and holy standards, set by the perfect man of all humankind, are beyond the understandings of the fault finding, dirty intellectuals.

http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=891:barakha-the-black-slave-girl-who-served-muhammads-four-generations&catid=117:ghalib&Itemid=58

KANO, Nigeria: Suspected Islamists have shot dead three poker players near a church in the latest attacks targeting Christians in northeast Nigeria, residents said Sunday.

The killings took place late Saturday in Biu town of the northeast Nigerian state of Borno. The area is one of several placed under emergency rule by a presidential decree last week.

Two gunmen on a motorcylce shot into a crowd of Christians playing cards at an abandoned hotel near a church on the outskirts of the town, killing three and wounding seven others

"The gunmen, believed to be members of Boko Haram, riding a motorcycle, opened fire on a group of Christian residents playing poker outside the abandoned Honeymoon Hotel near EYN church and killed three people," Ba'na Ubaidu, a resident, told AFP.

Biu is about 200 kilometres (125 miles) south of Maiduguri, the homeground of Boko Haram and capital of Borno state.

Godwin Shamaki, a Christian resident, gave a similar account.

"They just fired into the group of about 15 people playing cards, and killed three people," Shamaki said, adding that seven people were wounded.

"The attackers fled into the bush and disappeared. They are by all indications members of Boko Haram," Shamaki said.

More than 80 people, mainly Christians, have died in a spate of attacks blamed on Boko Haram since Christmas Day in Nigeria.



Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2012/Jan-08/159135-suspected-islamists-kill-three-poker-players-in-nigeria.ashx#ixzz1is2hg4dN
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

(Reuters) - Hundreds of Christians have begun to flee northern Nigeria after dozens were killed in a series of attacks by Islamist militants who issued an ultimatum to Christians to leave the mainly Muslim region or be killed, witnesses said Saturday.

A Nigerian newspaper Tuesday published a warning from Boko Haram, a movement styled on the Taliban, that Christians had three days to get out of northern Nigeria.

Since the expiry of that ultimatum, attacks in towns in four states in northeastern Nigeria have left at least 37 people dead and hundreds of Christians are fleeing to the south, according to residents and a Red Cross official.

Gunmen armed with Kalashnikovs have targeted church congregations and a group of mourners in a church hall.

Witnesses said some shops run by Christians from the Igbo ethnic group in towns hit by the violence, including Yola and Mubi, were closed Saturday and residents started to pack their belongings onto buses heading to southern regions.

There are fears of reprisal attacks on Muslims. Christian groups have asked their followers to remain peaceful but they concede that there is a risk of further violence.

"We are very worried by the persistent killings. We have asked youths to remain calm. We stand for a united Nigeria but there is a limit to human tolerance," a spokesman for the Christian Association of Nigeria told Reuters.

President Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency in the northeast and two other regions in Nigeria on December 31, in a bid to contain a growing insurgency by Boko Haram, which says it wants to apply Islamic sharia law across the country.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/uk-nigeria-violence-idUKTRE8060AU20120107

MarcAnthon:
Lol. . .U guys are clowns. So Jonah Jang is now your new role model abi?  smh for una

Why are they clowns

Muhammad just as his Bedouin contemporaries had a strange belief in shadowy beings and ghosts that he called Jinn.

These Jinns were made of fire and would stand on top of each other’s shoulders all the way to heaven to eavesdrop to what was being discussed. But the most amusing part is that the prophet believed that the shooting stars and the meteors are the missiles thrown at the eavesdropping Jinns.

Q. 72: 8
“And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors.
9.
And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him;"

He repeated the same absurd idea again.

Q. 37: 6/10
”We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side,
Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,
Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.

And

Q. 67: 5
“And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.”

The universe as was envisioned by Muhammad, obviously belongs to the realm of fairy tales. The Earth for him was flat were the sun rises from one end and sets in the muddy waters on the other. In Arabic the word “sama” stands for both heaven and sky. And for Muhammad, just like his primitive contemporaries there was no distinction between the two. He described the heaven (sky) made of seven layers and placed the stars in the lowest layer, lower than the Moon. Then he envisioned the mythical Jinns as if they were real beings, standing on each other’s shoulders all the way to heaven to eavesdrop to the discussion of the “Exalted Assembly”. He assumed that the stars are just lamps to adorn the lower heaven that are also used as missiles to shoot the intruding Jinns. Can any reasonable person today accept these fables of those primitive people as true?

The shooting stars, despite their names are not stars but meteorites that glow when enter the atmosphere of the Earth. But Muhammad, could not see the difference; to him the shooting stars were stars.

As absurd as it may be, today’s Muslims still believe in the Jinns. It is written in Quran and for them the Quran is the word of Allah. How can it be wrong?

There is also a Hadith that confirms the above story.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 432

Narrated 'Aisha:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The angels descend, the clouds and mention this or that matter decreed in the Heaven. The devils listen stealthily to such a matter, come down to inspire the soothsayers with it, and the latter would add to it one-hundred lies of their own."

A similar hadith is reported in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 650

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVtqGkwED1w?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8NaYuRqkoE?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42091000/jpg/_42091934_effigy_ap_416.jpg



[img]http://3.bp..com/_Ro5C7JSleds/TH06pXtB-cI/AAAAAAAABlM/WsTs1FFCTFc/s1600/scott.stantis.violence.wrong%5B1%5D.jpg[/img]



https://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/islamic_rage_boy.jpg



https://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/religion_of_peace_1.jpg

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8s-Xyi76AA?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

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

Sources of the Qur'an

Contributions by `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh

Abstract

Muhammad had scribes write his revelations down for him. One scribe was Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. As Sarh wrote these revelations down, he frequently made suggestions on improving their wording. Muhammad often agreed and allowed the changes to be made. Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word. Later, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad ordered Sarh's death.

Introduction

During Muhammad's 23 years of prophetic ministry, Muhammad claimed to receive revelations from God, given to him by an angel. Muhammad used many men, functioning as scribes, to write down these assumed revelations. Different scribes wrote down different revelations. `Abdullah Sarh was one of Muhammad's scribes. Evidently, Sarh had some literary skills, sometimes suggesting improvements to Muhammad in the wording of the recited Qur'an. Muhammad often agreed with Sarh's improvements, and allowed the changes to be made.

Sarh eventually left Islam because he knew that no mere scribe should be allowed to change something that was proclaimed to be the word of God. The changes were frequent enough that it caused Sarh to realize that something was amiss. Upon leaving Islam, Sarh became a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. It would no longer be believed to be the word of God if a man had been allowed to edit and change it. Sarh's threat to the credibility of the Qur'an was also a threat to Muhammad's credibility. No real prophet would allow the word of God to be changed.

Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Some time later, Muhammad and his army moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. On that day, Muhammad ordered the murder of 10 people living in Mecca. Muhammad said "God forbid killing in Mecca, except for this one day." Sarh was one of the people Muhammad ordered to be murdered. His crime? He had left Islam, and he constituted a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an and the prophethood of Muhammad. No wonder then that Muhammad wanted him dead.

PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES

#1 SIRAT RASUL ALLAH

Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550: [words in brackets [ ] are mine]

The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka`ba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa`d, brother of the B. `Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose foster brother he was. [`Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest friends, and later became the Caliph of Islam]. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes, [granting `Abdullah immunity from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar [Muhammad's helpers from Medina] said, then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.
NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of Muhammad. It was even written before the Hadith were compiled.

#2 KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR

[Note: words in [ ] brackets are mine]. I have also added ( ) brackets to associate numbers with the people in the list.

Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa`d "Tabaqat", Vol 2, page 168.

The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8 ) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.
Occasionally, the Sirat, and the Tabaqat use a different name for the same person. #3 in the list given above is such a case. The differences in the name is due to the amount of family lineage given for the man's name, and the english translation.

Ibn Sa`d corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:

A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the already mentioned Abdallah] if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The the apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfil your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him." The prophet said signalling would have been a breach of faith. "It does not behave the prophet to make signal."


NOTE ON THE TABAQAT:

The Tabaqat was translated into English by Moinul Haq, a Pakistani. His work was published by the Pakistan Historical Society. It is published in English in two volumes. The title means "Book of the Major Classes". It is basically a biography of Muhammad.

#3 From Al-Sira by al-'Iraqi

The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise', and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'" So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says, 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him." So on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca, he commanded his scribe to be killed. But the scribe fled to `Uthman Ibn `Affan, because `Uthman was his foster brother (his mother suckled `Uthman). `Uthman, therefore, kept him away from Muhammad. After the people calmed down, `Uthman brought the scribe to Muhammad and sought protection for him. Muhammad kept silent for a long time, after which he said yes. When `Uthman had left, Muhammad said "I only kept silent so that you (the people) should kill him."

The above quotation in both English and Arabic is from the respective edition of Is the Qur'an Infallible? by `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Order Number VB 4009 E, Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria. The book is availabe in English, and the original Arabic edition.

Al-Iraqi refers to Sura 6:93 above. From Dawud's translation Sura 6:93 reads:

Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood about God, or says: "This was revealed to me", when nothing was revealed to him? Or the man who says, "I can reveal the like of what God has revealed"?

#4 Al-Baidawi commenting on the Qur'an, Sura al-An`am 6:93


"'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, ",  thereafter We produced him as another creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed." `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said."
Quoted from the famous Tafsir Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil by `Abdallah Ibn `Umar al-Baidawi.

DISCUSSION

Above I presented the details and the context behind the order to murder `Abdullah ibn Sarh. He was a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. He was a Muslim, worked with Muhammad in writing down the Qur'an, and, from time to time he suggested some minor changes, or made deliberate omissions or additions. `Abdullah eventually realized that if this Qur'an were truly from God, no changes would be made at his suggestion. Sarh realized Islam and the Qur'an were false and went back to Mecca.

After Muhammad took Mecca, and issued the order to kill him, he hid out with `Uthman who was one of Muhammad's closest companions. Later Sarh pled for amnesty. Muhammad wanted one of his men to kill him on the spot, but they didn't know if they should, because they couldn't read Muhammad's mind. So, finally, Muhammad gave him amnesty.

We see here that Muhammad really wanted Sarh dead. But Muhammad handled this in a very irrational way. Muhammad issues an edict to have a man executed, but fails to have it carried out because he doesn't want to make a signal with his hand, or wink with his eye Why didn't Muhammad kill him himself? If this man had committed such a crime as to cost him his life, why didn't Muhammad see that his death sentence be carried out? What kind of law is that? "You committed a major crime, punishable by death, but I'm going to let you live because I am too proud to signal with my hand."?

Note here that the Qur'an itself, revealed in regard to Sarh in 6:93, calls Sarh extremely wicked.

This shows that Muhammad gave orders willy-nilly. This man committed no major crime, he just exposed Muhammad and the Qur'an. Muhammad just wanted this man killed for personal reasons. People lived or died based on Muhammad's frame of mind, not based on law and justice.

Many Muslims today proclaim that,

"the Qur'an is the speech from Allah, revealed in its precise meaning and wording through the angel Gabriel, transmitted by many, inimitable, unique and protected by Allah Himself against any corruption".
Ahmad von Deffer "Ulum al-Qur'an", p21.
Yet we find that the Qur'an has suffered corruption. Remember, all of the sources I presented are from early, sincere, dedicated, Muslim writers. There were devout Muslims, not moderates or liberals who would change real Islam for their own ease.

So, even in the historical writings of Islam, we find proof of the Qur'an's corruption. Note: These additions by `Abdullah ibn Sarh are still part of the Qur'an today.

QUESTIONS

1) Why did Muhammad so readily accept Sarh's fragrant addition to his "revelations"?

2) If Muhammad so easily accepted the input of Sarh, could he not have accepted the input of his other scribes and spliced them into the Qur'an?

Modern scholars have shown that the Qur'an's style has been broken, and re-combined together, (see Bell's "Introduction to the Qur'an" for additional details on textual and stylistic flaws within the Qur'an).

3) Since Muhammad liked Sarh's addition, could he not have also added other stories to embellish the Qur'an? Examining the composition of the Qur'an, we find that there are many stories borrowed from other religious sources: the Old Testament, the New Testament, other works of Judaism (the Mishnah, midrashic commentaries like they are found in Rabbi Pirke Eliezer, etc., pre-Islamic religious stories, Sabeanism, other pagan religion, etc,  Could these also have been borrowed?

4) If this story about Sarh were a fabrication, why did so many early Muslim writers document it? Certainly devout Muslims would not document a lie that serves to undermine their faith.

CONCLUSION

Proof has been presented that the Qur'an has been tainted. Early Muslim writers have showed that there is corruption in the Qur'an. They have also displayed Muhammad's real motives. Sarh did add to the Qur'an; he realized that and left Islam. Muhammad then knew another threat to his credibility existed. After Muhammad took Mecca he ordered Sarh's death to erase the threat. Because of his vanity Muhammad did not have Sarh murdered but had to pardon him. To this day, this corruption in the Qur'an exists. Further, we have seen upon what principles Muhammad really operated on; principles of mood, not of law.

Source

For those people who study both Islam and the Bible, it is clearly obvious that Allah of Islam is not YHWH, the God of the Bible and the creator God.

We shall present just ten reasons which provide an elegant sufficiency to prove that Allah is not God.

1.The Name of God


Muslims say they believe in the prophet Moses (Musa) yet they do not recognize or acknowledge the unique name that God gave to Moses.

When Moses encountered the burning bush at Mount Horeb, he was told that the name of God was YHWH forever. [Exodus 3:14-15] Jesus used the first person of YHWH when he said “I AM”. [John 8:58] The Quran makes no mention of the special name for God and uses Allah which means “the God”. There were 360 idols in the Kaaba during Mohammed’s time called Allah. Allah is just a generic name for “the God”.

The names for God can’t be reconciled. Allah is not God.

2. God’s Laws for mankind

Moses received the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets from God on the mountain top. These commandments are the basis for laws recognized by both Jew and Christian. In fact, Jesus stated that : “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law. I have come to fulfil, and until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the Law”. [Matthew 5:17-18] Sharia Law which is based on the Quran and Mohammed completely rejects the Ten Commandments and Mohammed broke most of the commandments on a regular basis.

If you follow Sharia law you will certainly break the Ten Commandments and this denies the teaching of Jesus. Jesus went further and said that whoever breaks the law and teaches others to do the same is considered “the least in Heaven”. [Matthew 5:19] That makes Mohammed the least in Heaven.

Allah’s laws are contradictory to God’s laws. Allah is not God.

3. God’s Plan for Mankind

God revealed his plan for mankind through his prophets, starting with Psalm 2 about 1,000BC where he revealed the begotten son, and in Psalm 22 he revealed details of the crucifixion that Jesus would endure and then in Isaiah 48 he revealed the Holy Trinity about 700BC.

God announces a begotten Son; Allah denies a begotten Son

“You are my Son: today I have begotten you. I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possession”. [Psalm 2:7-8]

But 1600 years later, the Quran denies what is written in the Psalms.

“He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything”. [Sura 6.101]

So here Allah denies what God has stated.

God announces the Holy Trinity; Allah denies the Holy Trinity

God’s eternally begotten Son is part of the Trinity.

“From the time it came to be, I have been there, and now the Lord God has sent me and His Spirit”. [Isaiah 48:16] Here is God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit as spoken by the prophet Isaiah.

Yet from Sura 5:73, the Quran denounces the Trinity.

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah”.

God announces the crucifixion; Allah denies the crucifixion

The virgin birth [Isaiah 7:14] and birth in Bethlehem [Mica 5:2] foretold Jesus appearance. Details of the crucifixion were given in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, the betrayal for 30 pieces of silver in Zechariah 11 and that the sun would go down at noon was in Amos 8:9. However Allah denies all this in Sura 4:157.

“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them”.

God announces the sonship and describes the crucifixion about 1000BC and announces the Holy Trinity about 700BC, but Allah denies each element of God’s plan. Allah is not God.

4. God demands separation of church and state

From Abraham to Moses to Jesus, there was a strict separation of church and state. Abraham was served with wine by High Priest Melchizedek. [Genesis 14] Moses was served by High Priest Aaron and Jesus acted as the High Priest and served his disciples with wine. [Matthew 26:26-29] There is a story in 1 Samuel 13 where king Saul performed priestly duties and God removed his kingship because of this. God demanded separation of church and state. Jesus also said to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” enforcing the separation of church and state. Islam demands totalitarianism and also has banned wine.

God demands separation of church and state while Allah demands totalitarianism. Allah is not God.

5. God’s Holy city is Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the Holy city of God and Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah over 660 times and in the New Testament 154 times. The book of Revelation in chapter 21 states that a new Jerusalem will arrive indicating that Jerusalem is God’s Holy city forever. Mecca is not mentioned once by name in the Bible.

Mecca is the Holy city of Allah and Jerusalem is not mentioned once by name in the Quran.
God and Allah claim two different Holy cities that can never be reconciled. Allah is not God.

6. The Dome of the Rock

In 637AD when caliph Umar captured Jerusalem he told Bishop Sophronius that they would build a shrine to Allah’s prophet on the Holy mountain. Sophronius understood a prophecy of Daniel which called this an abomination that desolates. The prophecy starts in 583BC, the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, when the last group of 745 people were taken to Babylon, and so the regular burnt offerings ceased. [Jeremiah 52:30] Now the scope of this prophecy is 1290 years of 360 days or 1271 solar years. Coming forward from 583BC by 1271 years we come to 688AD. Caliph Abdul Malik built the Dome of the Rock between 685 and 691AD, so 688AD is the midpoint of the building program.

So the shrine to Allah’s prophet is called an Abomination that Desolates by God.
Mohammed is not mentioned even once in the Bible and Jesus said that only false prophets would come after him. That makes Mohammed a false prophet. Allah is not God.

7. The Fate of Mecca

Even though Mecca is not mentioned by name in the Bible, it is referred to in allegorical language as the harlot city and the LovePeddler of Babylon in Revelation 17 & 18. Babylon the mother of whores and abominations is drunk with the blood of the saints and the witnesses to Jesus [Revelation 17:5-6]. Mecca is the spiritual head of Islam and in her name millions of Jews and Christians have been slaughtered after cries of “Allahu Akbar”, and the slaughter continues today. Mecca and Medina (Yathrib) are the two most Holy sites in Islam, yet strangely in Islamic eschatology, both are destroyed. Consider now the two relevant prophecies.

“The final battle will be waged by faithful Muslims coming on the backs of horses, carrying black banners. They will stand on the east side of the Jordan river and will wage war that the Earth has never seen before. The true Messiah who is the Islamic Mahdi, will defeat Europe, will lead this army of Seljuks. He will preside over the world from Jerusalem because Mecca would have been destroyed.” [Yawm Al-Ghadab, Safar Alhwaly]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal)”. [Sunan of Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4281:  Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal]

God hates Mecca and will destroy it. Allah can’t stop the destruction of his holy city. Allah is not God.

8. God’s enemies are Allah’s supporters

There are numerous places in the Bible where God names the nations who will fight against him and with the Antichrist. In the famous seventy weeks prophecy, it is the people of the Antichrist who destroy the temple in 70AD. The soldiers of the Roman legion X Fretensis under General Titus were from Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Arabia. These nations today whose people destroyed the second temple in 70AD are Islamic. In Psalm 83, Isaiah 13-24 and Ezekiel 28-32 and 38, the nations named as following the Antichrist are Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Libya.

The Bible is consistent in naming Islamic countries where people follow Allah as the followers of the Antichrist.
Allah is not God.

9. God created mankind as equals, Allah didn’t

The Bible states clearly that all equal in God’s eyes, but this is not true with Allah.

Allah describes a hierarchy for mankind.

Arab male Muslims are the best of people (and Arabic is the language in Heaven)

White male Muslims are next in importance
Black male Muslims are next
Women Muslims are the lowest order of the believers
Non Muslims or infidels are the vilest of creatures. [Sura 8:55]
God states all people are equal, Allah does not agree. Allah is not God.

10. God hates what Allah allows

The Bible states clearly in the book of Proverbs 6:17-19 the six things that God hates.

Haughty eyes
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plans
Feet that hurry to run to evil
A lying witness who testifies falsely.

God hates haughty eyes but Allah gives Muslims haughty eyes by telling them they are the best of people and unbelievers are the vilest of people;

God hates a lying tongue, but Allah allows Muslims to lie in Sura 16.106;

God hates hands that shed innocent blood yet Allah demands the killing of unbelievers, apostates, homosexuals, and even Muslims who don’t follow the true faith;

God hates a heart that devises wicked plans yet Allah approves of Muslims who want to destroy Israel, blow up infrastructure and plan to undermine western democracies through lying and deceit;

God hates feet that hurry to run to evil [/b]but Allah approves of Muslims who murder poets and filmmakers and try to kill people who draw cartoons about Mohammed;

[b]God hates a lying witness yet Allah demands that a Muslim lies to protect or advance the cause of Islam.
From these six things that God hates, we see clearly that Allah is not God.

We have presented just ten reasons why Allah is not God. There are many more but these are sufficient to prove without a doubt that Allah is not God and Islam is based on a monumental lie.


http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4394:great-lies-of-islam&catid=203&Itemid=22

Please send all mail or hate mail to [email]tidytim@ymail.com[/email]

Dear Sir,

Please do not bring bible into this, try to defend the points raised in this article.

You can also buy the book or contact the author at  satanstrinity@gmail.com to argue your case.

Thanks

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMUO9jvzwZ4?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

Until age 25 Muhammad had been celibate at which time he married his first wife, Khadija, to whom he was to remain faithful (according to the literature) until her death in 619 A.D.  At this point (having invented his religion in 610 AD) he quite suddenly went sexually hog wild. Eventually he was to accumulate between ten and thirteen wives and some twenty sex-slaves.

At 50 Muhammad “married” the six year old daughter of one of his followers (Abu Bakr).  The child’s father was concerned by this event and managed to elicit from Muhammad the promise not to consummate (read: violation) the “marriage” until she turned nine years old (nine years old is now the legal marriage age for girls in Iran). So to satisfy his lust Muhammad practiced a intimate molestation known as “thighing.”  This is when Muhammad would thrust his erect member in between Aisha’s legs, her legs being tightly pressed together, creating friction until Muhammad would heavenly feeling.  When the little girl turned nine Muhammad violated the child. Muhammad was in his 50s at the time.

Much is made of this child bride thing of Muhammad and many have condemned this action as one of pedophilia.  I’m not given to making excuses for Muhammad but child brides were a common occurrence in 7th Century Arabia.  Age twelve was probably fairly widespread. Age nine would be extreme at best. Age six (when Muhammad got the hots for the child) would have been unacceptable even in the Seventh Century.

Muhammad’s criminal behavior is not really the problem; the problem is that today’s Muslims still believe this guy is to be emulated.

[b]CH Martel [/b]is an expert on the commonalities of Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad.  From the life and death of Hitler, to the life and Death of Muhammad with respect to Joseph Stalin, Satan’s Trinity is a compelling, interesting and historically relevant book that can be purchased at www.satanstrinity.com.  To reach the author for questions, information and interviews, please contact CH Martel at satanstrinity@gmail.com.

Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. in the town of Mecca and died in 632 A.D. He is reputed to be buried in the city of Medina.

Muhammad’s wife, Khadija, told Muhammad he was a prophet in 610 A.D.  Throughout his life Muhammad appears to have suffered from some sort of epileptic seizures, quite possibly the rarer form known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE).  Muhammad’s epilepsy was first recorded in a ninth century biography.  Among other symptoms sufferers of TLE are prone to hearing voices and this is what Muhammad experienced. Once his wife had informed him he was a prophet Muhammad understood these voices to be that of the Archangel Gabriel.

Until Muhammad was nearly fifty years old he behaved himself, if differently, nevertheless in an acceptable manner. Shortly after his wife, Khadija died in 622 A.D. Muhammad’s character changes completely. The year 622 is when Muslims say their religion was founded and this is when Muhammad became a killer, assassin, mass murderer, torturer, slaver, slave holder, serial despoiler, extortionist, liar, bigot, craddle-robber and bandit. He launched an aggressive attack on somebody about every four months until he died in 632.

Of course, much of Muhammad’s criminal activity could be excused as warlords were a dime a dozen throughout the globe in the seventh century.

No, the problem isn’t so much Muhammad’s bleak behavior in the Seventh Century; the problem is two other details. One, Muhammad is supposed to be a religious leader/founder and there is no other religious founder, whose flock is still around, that acted in such a manner. And number two, Muslims are scripturally required to act like Muhammad as best they can. Therein lays the rub.

CH Martel is an expert on the commonalities of Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad.  From the life and death of Hitler, to the life and Death of Muhammad with respect to Joseph Stalin, Satan’s Trinity is a compelling, interesting and historically relevant book that can be purchased at www.satanstrinity.com.  To reach the author for questions, information and interviews, please contact CH Martel at satanstrinity@gmail.com.

Fifty percent of the world’s Muslims are products of inbreeding, primarily breeding between first cousins. The percentages in such places Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are in the seventy percent range. Among a myriad of medical problems associated with this debilitating behavior perhaps the most disturbing is that cognitive abilities of such individuals are generally reduced by ten to fifteen points in standardized test scores.  We are talking about half the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today, half of which are inbred.

Today’s enlightened situation has been brought to us by none other than our old friend Muhammad.  In the Koran Muhammad authorized the coupling of first cousins and Muslims have been following up ever since.  Even our dead friend bin Laden’s first wife was his 14 year old first cousin.

Before we jump too hard on Muhammad we must realize that he lived in the seventh century and knew nothing about genetics or even the word itself. The Arabian Desert culture was tribal and Islam remains dominated by tribal identification.  Also, on the short list of positive contributions made by Islam, female infanticide was endemic among the pagan Arabs at the time Muhammad made his appearance.  Muhammad put a stop to this practice even as he reduced women to a status of owned property.

Since by nature tribes keep to themselves, with suspicion directed towards others, women were in short supply within the tribe and the female infanticide aggravated the shortage.  First cousin coupling, while denigrated elsewhere in the world, became a means to combat the chronic shortage of marriageable females.

As is always a problem with Islam it is not so much what Muhammad said or did but that his example is still followed fourteen centuries later.

CH Martel is an expert on the commonalities of Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad.  From the life and death of Hitler, to the life and Death of Muhammad with respect to Joseph Stalin, Satan’s Trinity is a compelling, interesting and historically relevant book that can be purchased at www.satanstrinity.com.  To reach the author for questions, information and interviews, please contact CH Martel at satanstrinity@gmail.com.

C. H. Martel’s new must-read book, ”Satan’s Trinity – Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad”, has a simple premise – compare the lives of the three most evil persons in history.

https://www.faithfreedom.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Satan-Trinity.jpg

Why did it take so long for this idea to be put in print? Probably because most people consider Muhammad a religious “prophet,” and they wouldn’t think of juxtaposing his life that those of two 20th Century tyrants. But Islam is, at the core, a political ideology, just like Nazism and Communism, with a goal of world domination. The main reason Islam has endured is that its promised pay-off for followers is in the unverifiable afterlife, whereas the other ideologies promised near-term successes which failed to materialize.

The similarities of these three historical figures are amazing. They were all narcissist tyrants who had the accidental good fortune of impeccable timing. They were the ‘strong horses’ of their day, and people fell into step by the millions. But they all had fatal character flaws – Hitler over-reached, Stalin was a clumsy strategist, and Muhammad‘s revelations from on high are contradictory and indefensible.

Author Martel assembles an amazing collection of facts, anecdotes, and insights in this 187 page book.  It is hard to put down because it traces the short careers of these men through some of the most calamitous times in history. While Hitler and Nazism were responsible for about 60 million deaths, and Stalin and Communism about 80 million, Islam’s legacy (albeit over a longer time-span) approaches 300 million lives.  Only malaria and influenza have killed more people than Islam.

Martel believes that ultimately Islam will be subdued – not by force of arms, but rather by the truth. “The only sane way to defeat Islam is to attack the ideology with the truth such [as] has been done in this book.”

“Satan’s Trinity” is available in Kindle format at www.amazon.com and in book form via www.satanstrinity.com. This is one of the best books I’ve read this year.

http://www.amazon.com/Satans-Trinity-Hitler-Muhammad-ebook/dp/B0066AKYBS/ref=pd_rhf_se_p_img_1

There are many non-fighting members, e.g., accountants, cooks, fund-raisers, logistics specialists, medical doctors, nurses or recruiters – who may play only a passive support role. But all of them have the same ultimate goal, i.e., to defeat the enemy. Similarly, there are many ways to support jihad, besides personal violence. The peaceful Muslims we know are playing this passive support role and the ultimate goal is to conquer the world for Islam by wiping out the infidels and their civilizations.

“Islam, just like the Roman God Janus, has two faces”. -- Abul Kasem

“The militant Muslim is the person cutting the head of the infidel while the moderate Muslim holds the victims feet”. -- Dr. M. Sabieski

In a country when Muslims are a minority, they demand more and more privileges and rights for minorities from the host country. When their number grows by birth or immigration, they want to impose Sharia rule. When they become the majority, they start bringing death and destruction to the host nation and start ethnic cleansing. This is the worst type of disloyalty and hypocrisy.

Is not this the same what Muhammad did to the early Meccans? When he was weak, he brought down verses, which were non-violent. He even uttered some verses, which praised the pagan gods (i.e. the satanic verses) to make the Meccans happy. But when he became powerful, his darker side began to emerge and the Qur’anic verses started losing their beauty. Once he conquered Mecca, he showed his true color to everyone – either convert or die by the sword.

Though the concerned governments, such as those in the West, spend billions to protect their citizens from Islamic jihadis, the policy-makers often fail to see this point. They are making the same mistake what the early Meccans did. They realize the impact of radical Islam, but fail to pay attention to moderate Islam. Little do they understand that this so-called moderate Islam is much more dangerous than the radical Islam, because it grows and silently kills the host. It is impossible for a Muslim to live and commune with non-Islamic societies without an obligation to convert them to Islam by force or deception. Islamic jihad has many faces. Jihad is not just slaughtering people for Islam; it is also a systematic suppression of truth and propagation of lies. If not, how can the moderate Muslims boldly assert (despite hard evidence to the contrary) that Islam is a peaceful religion?

The slogan “Islam is a peaceful religion” is about 1,400 years out of date. The seed of terrorism is germinating inside every Muslim. Anyone, who has put a single grain of trust on Muhammad and his Qur’an, fills up his mind with unjustified hate and paranoia, and he is bound to have similar destructive ideas like his Prophet. The dark force of Muhammad’s narcissism immediately starts working in him.

Even after a decade into the war on Islamic terror, we often hear that Islam is a religion of peace. While those so-called peaceful Muslims use this term for obvious reasons, those, who know Islam, use this term sarcastically. Terrorism is there in every cell of Islam. Islam cannot survive without terrorism, because terrorism is the life-force of Islam. Those, who are against terrorism, have no place in Islam; they are infidels. As Habis al Saoub, in his Arabic document, entitled A Martyr’s will, quoted (Spencer, 2003, p. 23): “The Prophet Muhammad’s seventh-century assertion is that abandoning the cause of jihad is a disgraceful act tantamount to leaving the Islamic religion.”

From the above quote it is very clear that jihad in the cause of God is an integral part of a Muslim’s life. Violence against non-Muslims is not a twisting of Islam, but it is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, the examples of Muhammad, and the rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence. Muslim terrorists are not “hijacking” Islam; they are, in fact, restoring it. Without terrorism, Islam will suffocate and collapse in quick time. The history of Islam is a millennium long devil dance of murder, massacre, rape and plunder, trickery, treachery, tyranny and torture across the world from the day of its inception. The peaceful face of Islam is a deception. It is political Islam, which is the mask of violent Islam. As the Turkish Prime Minister commented (McCarthy, 2010, p. 39); “These descriptions are very ugly. It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”.

The only difference between a peaceful Muslim and a terrorist Muslim is that terrorists are openly in action and not at all shy to make their agenda known to non-Muslims, whereas the peaceful Muslims are silently in action and hypocrite. Muslims cannot be a loyal minority, and as their numbers and strength build up, they will demand to impose Islamic laws and systems on their hosts. In fact, the Qur’an instructs them not to live as minorities, but to try to take over. Their allegiance is always to the wider world of Islam over any national boundaries. As example, a prominent American Muslim spokesman Siraj Wahaj advised the Muslims in USA (cited Spencer, 2005, p. 45): “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Islam and terrorism are blood brothers. In the wake of the two London bombings in 2005, al-Ghurabaa, one of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, stated (Dawkins, 2006, p. 307): “Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir (nonbeliever)”. And a similar self-explanatory statement from Zakir Naik (Al-Kindy, 2005, p. 86; Downing, 2009, p. 354) is: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”. These so-called peaceful Muslims are very calculative and proceed sophistically. As example, the influential American convert to Islam Hamza Yusuf in November 2004 exhorted Muslims to advance strategically to their goals (cited Spencer, 2006, p. 189); “There are times when you have to live like a sheep, in order to live in the future like a lion”.

This is called al-taqiyya (legal deception) in Islam, which allows Muslims to literally deny any aspect of their faith, and defined as (Richardson, 2006, p. 172), “Taqiyya is merely uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith.” These so-called peaceful Muslims give long speeches on human rights and democratic values and sing the peaceful verses of the Qur’an, but once Islam becomes powerful, they will start singing another tune. The fundamental concepts of human rights, developed in the West with the help of John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers, have not had any impact on Islam even to this day. Hard-line Muslims have openly admitted this fact. In January 1985, Saeed Raja’i-Khorasani, the permanent delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared (Spencer, 2002, p. 104): “The very concept of human rights is ‘a Judeo-Christian invention’ and inadmissible in Islam.”

The so-called peaceful Muslims would not hesitate to implement Jyzia tax on Christians and Jews, and slit the throats of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, ex-Muslims, atheists and agnostics in accordance with Sharia law. Deep down, every “believer” is potentially the judge and executioner of every “nonbeliever”. After all, both the terrorists and the peaceful Muslims are working for the same cause – to dominate the world in the name of Islam.

Since the noblest goal of a Muslim is to assist Islam rule the world, these moderate Muslims shamelessly try to deceive the infidels with their twisted logic and pathological lying. They repeat the same lies again and again thinking that it would become true if often repeated. If necessary, they will distort the meaning of Qur’anic verses as per their selfish needs. Imam Ghazali said (Shienbaum & Hasan, 2006, p. 63): “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying, because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible”. As Imam Jafar Sadiq (cited Richardson, 2006, p. 170) advised,

“One, who exposes something from our religion, is like one who intentionally kills us.”

“You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace and humiliate him.”

The peaceful and the terrorist Muslims are two sides of the same coin. For a peaceful Muslim, it is very easy to become a terrorist. Hate for non-Muslims is the basic tenet of Islam and violence is the conclusion. As Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, a hard-line Iranian Judge openly declared (Scott, 2002, p. 201): “Those who are against killing have no place in Islam. Our Prophet killed with his own blessed hands. Our Imam Ali killed more than seven hundred on a single day. If the survival of the faith requires the shedding of blood, we are there to perform our duty”.

So, when a so-called peaceful Muslim emerges as a terrorist, it does not involve a discrete choice to change status. Thanks to the teachings of Islam, a terrorist is lurking inside every Muslim waiting for a chance to come out. One such example (Martin, 2010, p. 195): Qur’an says, “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them…” (Q: 9.5). A son of Pakistani businessman was inspired by this verse and took the oath: “I state in the presence of God that I will slaughter the infidels my entire life. May God give me strength in fulfilling this oath.” Throughout the recorded history of Islam, the Qur’an, the unholiest religious book, had turned men into monsters. Muslims, generation after generation, take up the Quran’s teachings and make themselves into weapons of injustice, oppression, and domination.

Islamic terrorism is a complex phenomenon; hence, the personalities of terrorists change from person to person. It would be useless to attribute a simple and global characteristic to all of them. In Islam, terrorists can assume many different roles – only a few will actually fire the weapon or detonate the bomb or become a suicide bomber. The “personality” of a Muslim politician, or a Mullah, or a financier of Islamic terrorism, or a burqa-clad (niqab, burqa, chador – Islamic veil) illiterate Muslim woman, who gives birth to a dozen kids because a large family pleases Allah, or the simple pious bearded Muslim, who pays regular Zakat to the mosque, is different from that of an administrator, or strategist, or an assassin, or a suicide bomber. This is the essence of jihad that had been widely discussed in Islamic books on religious laws. Though some systematic differences might be discerned between those who engage in terrorism and those who do not; deep down, they have identical psychological set-up. Taylor and Quayle, the two well-known researchers of the present-age religious terrorism, concluded (1994, p. 197): “The active terrorist is not discernibly different in psychological terms from the non-terrorist; in psychological terms, there are no special qualities that characterize the terrorist.”

Who can deny the fact that the radical clerics and militant community leaders are elected by these moderate Muslims? Though terrorism expert Daniel Pipes estimates that 10 to 15 percent of world’s Muslims support jihadist agenda, there are indications from various parts of the Islamic world that the actual number is much higher. During a terrorism finance trial in New York in February 2005, Bernard Haykel, an associate professor of Islamic studies at New York University, estimated that 90 percent of the Arab Muslims support Hamas – the Islamic terrorist organization that blows up buses and restaurants filled with civilians to further its goals of a Palestinian Sharia state. Dr. Imran Waheed, the London spokesman for the international “peaceful” jihadist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, claimed in May 2005 that 99 percent of the Muslims worldwide want a caliphate to rule the world (Spencer, 2005, p. 192). These statistics confirm that those Muslims, who support terrorism, are not a tiny minority but a vast majority.

In reality, peaceful Islam does not exist. A peaceful Muslim makes as much sense as a peaceful Nazi. “Al Islam huwa al hall” (Islam is the solution) is not a slogan raised by Muslim terrorists only, but by all Muslims (Phares, 2005, p. 251). The nouns “terrorist” or “terrorists” don’t necessarily refer to everyone within a terrorist organization. In an army, not everyone carries a gun. There are many non-fighting members, e.g., accountants, cooks, fund-raisers, logistics specialists, medical doctors, nurses or recruiters – who may play only a passive support role. But all of them have the same ultimate goal, i.e., to defeat the enemy. Similarly, there are many ways to support jihad, besides personal violence. The peaceful Muslims we know are playing this passive support role and the ultimate goal is to conquer the world for Islam by wiping out the infidels and their civilizations.