How My Brother Tried to Kill Me in ‘Honor Attack’


Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — It’s cold and raining in Kabul and the pothole-filled dirt roads have turned into a sea of mud. We drive up to the gateway of a high-walled compound. A soldier brandishing an AK-47 stands guard outside the building. We’ve come to a women’s shelter to meet Gul Meena — a 17-year-old girl from Pakistan who shouldn’t be alive.

How My Brother Tried to Kill Me in 'Honor Attack'

My crew and I are ushered into a room and sitting on a wooden chair slouched over is small, fragile Gul Meena. Her sullen eyes turn from the raindrops streaming down the window outside and towards us as we enter the room.

Gul’s bright coloured headscarf is embroidered with blue, red and green flowers and covers most of her face. She nervously plays with it and gives us a glimpse of a frightened smile from underneath the fabric. Her guardian Anisa, from the shelter run by Women for Afghan Women, touches her head and gently moves the headscarf back. That’s when we see the scars etched deeply into her face.

This Pakistani girl’s life of misery and suffering began at the tender age of 12, when instead of going to school she was married to a man old enough to be her grandfather. She says: “My family married me off when I was 12 years old. My husband was 60. Every day he would beat me. I would cry and beg him stop. But he just kept on beating me.”

When Gul told her family what was happening, they responded in a way that shocked her. “My family would hit me when I complained. They told me you belong in your husband’s house — that is your life.”

After five years of abuse, Gul Meena met a young Afghan man and finally gathered the courage to leave her husband in Pakistan. In November 2012 she packed up some belongings and they made their way across the border into Afghanistan to the city of Jalalabad.

Gul knew she was committing the ultimate crime according to strict Islamic customs — running away from her husband with another man — but she also knew she didn’t want to continue living the life she had since her marriage.

“I’d tried to kill myself with poison several times but it didn’t work. I hated my life and I had to escape. When I ran away I knew it would be dangerous. I knew my husband and family would be looking for me but I never thought this would happen. I thought my future would be bright,” she says.

Days later her older brother tracked them down. Armed with an ax, he hacked to death Gul Meena’s friend, and then struck his own sister 15 times — cutting open her face, head and parts of her body.

Gul Meena shows me these scars — taking off her headscarf, her finger gently running up and down the raised, freshly healed skin. She touches her head where the blade hit her and then shows me the deep cuts that were made to the back of her neck and her arms. It’s clear to me she desperately tried to fight off her brother before she passed out.

Assuming she was dead, her brother escaped back to Pakistan. Authorities are yet to catch him, but his family denies that he tried to kill Gul.

Hearing the commotion, a passer-by discovered Gul Meena lying in a pool of blood in her bed, and rushed her to the Emergency Department of Nangarhar Regional Medical Centre.

With part of her brain hanging out of her skull, neurosurgeon Zamiruddin Khalid held out little hope that the girl on his operating table would survive.

“We took her to the operating theatre and she’d already lost a lot of blood. Her injuries were horrific and her brain had been affected — we didn’t think she would survive”, says Khalid as he shows us photos of Gul’s injuries before he sewed up the wounds. In one photo her face looks like a piece of meat that has been hacked apart.

Khalid said: “We are very thankful to almighty God that Gul Meena is alive — it really is a miracle.”

But Gul’s troubles were far from over. While she’d received life-saving treatment from the doctors and staff at the hospital, she had no one to care for her on the outside. Gul had been disowned by her family and despite the government and authorities knowing that she was alive and receiving care at the hospital, they wanted nothing to do with her due to the stigma and circumstances surrounding her attack.

For two months Gul stayed in the hospital thanks to the generosity of doctors who donated the money to pay for her medicine. Finally the American-Afghan organization Women for Afghan Women was informed of Gul’s situation and took her in, transporting her back to a shelter in Kabul to give her the love and care she so desperately needed.

“When she first came to us she couldn’t talk or walk she was barely conscious — she couldn’t eat by herself. She had to wear a diaper. If we hadn’t got her when we did, she wouldn’t have survived,” says Manizha Naderi, the executive director of Women For Afghan Women.

Gul Meena is one of thousands of women living in shelters across Afghanistan — many of them victims of attempted honor killings. Tragically this practice still exists in a number of cultures, including certain tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon recently expressed concern over the 20% increase in civilian casualties among women and girls in Afghanistan in 2012. Moon said: “I’m deeply disturbed that despite some improvements in prosecuting cases of violence, there is still a pervasive climate of impunity in Afghanistan for abuses of women and girls.”

The U.N. claims that 4,000 cases of violence against women and girls were reported to the Afghan Ministry of Women between 2010 and 2012.

While there are 14 women’s shelters in Afghanistan, all of them are funded by the international community, and the concern is that once international forces pull out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014 this funding will disappear. What will that mean for the thousands of women who rely on their services like uneducated, illiterate, homeless Gul Meena?

Naderi says: “If we send her to her family, she’s going to be killed. As far as her family is concerned she’s dead. That’s the problem for all our women. It’s a scary time for Afghanistan and especially for Afghan women, in particular the women in our shelters because we don’t know what’s going to happen. If they leave here, for most of them it will be a death sentence.”

Gul Meena doesn’t think about the future — and in fact, she wishes she had died the day she was attacked.

“I’ve tried to kill myself several times since arriving at the shelter but they won’t let me. When I look at the mirror I put one hand to the side of my face. People tell me not to do that … but I’m so ashamed.”

27 thoughts on “How My Brother Tried to Kill Me in ‘Honor Attack’

  1. Hi Lucky, cont. of the balls you’ve quoted :

    6. “…I.say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell”.
    (100% crap, we are not even priests and you know what wonderful angels they portend to be!!)

    7.” …and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery”.
    [Even if it wasn’t her fault…surely this encourages prostitution!]

    8. “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you”
    [What about terrorists and Al-Qaeda and Indian rapists; how do I do good to them??!?]

    9. “…..But I tell you not to resist an evil person”
    (1000% crap…tadpoles!)

    10. “….do not do your charitable deeds before men….”
    [to remain as a motivation / accountability for others to follow suite it is a must…why hide?]

    11. “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place”
    (Then why go to Churches and what about the Sunday brayings…?)

    Please ref to next leaf….

    Regards

    Plum

    • ALLAH & HIS PROPHET ENDORSE THE RAPE OF CAPTIVE WOMEN:

      RAPE JIHAD

      Sahih Muslim Book 08. N 3371Marriage

      Chapter: Al-Azl (incomplete sexual intercourse): Coitus Interruptus.

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.
      So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?

      So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

      Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars:Al-‘Azl
      Al-‘Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-‘Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.

      Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136
      When RAPING your captive, it’s better if you do not pull out at the end
      THIS IS ISLAM

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus(RAPE WITHOUT PREGNANCY)?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to PULL OUT. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

      Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

      Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”
      Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718

      We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. ………
      We asked (him) about it and he said, “It is better for you not to PULL OUT, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured females and wanted sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. He said, “It is better that you leave it in, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.”
      Sahih Bukhari 9:93:506

      RAPE JIHAD
      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:137

      THE REASON WHY THERE ARE FEW VIRGINS LEFT!

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to pull out, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”
      Sahih Bukhari 8:77:600

      WANKING MUSLIM KILLS 2:

      UK: Driving drunk while masturbating: Muslim gets 8 years for deadly car-crash
      DECEMBER 9, 2008
      BBC

      A drink-driver who killed a father and son in a motorway crash was performing a sex act on himself minutes before the collision, a court heard.

      Hussain pleaded guilty to the charges

      Imran Hussain was driving at speeds of up to 120mph minutes before he ploughed into the back of a Fiat Punto carrying the Proctor family, from Wakefield.

      PART 2:

      Gary Proctor, 47, and son James, 16, died in the smash on the M62 motorway near Rochdale, on 3 August.

      Hussain, of Bradford, was jailed for eight years at Manchester Crown Court.

      The 32-year-old, of Como Avenue, pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of driving with excess alcohol at a previous hearing.

      The court heard that Hussain’s erect penis was exposed when motorists came to his aid after the crash.

      WATERMELONS & CUCUMBERS

      “If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey].
      In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.

      ALWAYS WASH CUCUMBERS BOUGHT FROM MOHAMMEDANS!

      MOHAMMEDAN DILDOS:

      “If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.
      Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim (Islamic scholar), page 129

      UMAR THE KHALIFA WORKED IN A SEX SHOP:

      A Muslim Shia website notes: “Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.”

      WANKING JIHAD!
      Companions of Muhammad masturbated during Jihad
      “If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveler, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this.

      WANKING JIHAD!
      2. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
      Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim (Islamic scholar), page 129

      MONKEY SEE –MOHAMMED DO

      Muttaqi (God-fearing) monkeys

      Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

      Sahih Bukhari 5:58:188

      MOHAMMED WAS RIGHT!

      WOMEN ARE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED & ARE LIKE ANIMALS.

      WHAT WOMAN, IN HER RIGHT MIND, WOULD BECOME A MEMBER OF A CULT, THAT TAUGHT THAT THEY WERE LIKE A FIELD & THEIR MAN SHOULD PLOW THEM, WHENEVER HE FELT THE URGE?

      WHAT WOMAN, IN HER RIGHT MIND, WOULD RESPECT A MAN, WHO RAPED A PRE-PUBESCENT CHILD Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311.
      WESTERN WOMEN WHO JOIN THE CULT OF MOHAMMEDAN, PROVES THAT WHAT HE SAID ABOUT MOHAMMEDAN WOMEN, IS TRUE!

      COMPARING QURAN TO OLD TESTAMENT

      It is totally irrelevant that there is violence in the OT. The OT is a historical record, and none of it is prescriptive, none of its violence to be applied by todays Christians (or Jews)
      The best argument (which is often overlooked,) is the fact that there are no Christians in the OT.
      The Jews have moved on, they don’t live according to the OT, apart from Mosaic and Noahide laws.
      But the Moslems are stuck. The Koran is the perfect book of Allah for all time and any place, none of it must be doubted and the unbelievers must be wiped out to make Allah’s religion dominant in the world.
      There is no comparison.

  2. Hi Lucky/Raj, Please explain the unfulfilled prophecy of “Jesus”, The Coming of Zion’s King:

    Zecharia 9/9: “Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!
    Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!
    See, your king comes to you,
    righteous and victorious,
    lowly and riding on a donkey,
    on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

    Kindly, note that the prophecy talks of a man coming riding on a small single male donkey, and that would be their king, right?

    Now compare,

    Mathews 21:1-11

    2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
    5 “Say to Daughter Zion,
    ‘See, your king comes to you,
    gentle and riding on a donkey,
    and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
    7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

    How come “Jesus” did not fulfill the prophecy as “he” went riding on two donkeys?

    The scribe as he jotted from the oldie book mistook a “coma” for an “and” and thus created his fake story and attributed it to the oldie like all others in the book “according to Mathews”!

    The same goes for the virgin birth:
    Issiah 7:14
    14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel”,

    Is “Jesus” called Immanuel?

    Now match:

    Matthew 1:18-23
    “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
    The name Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means “God saves.”
    Is “Jesus” = Immanuel?

    This scribe who wrote “Matthews” was not well versed in the Oldie and thus made plenty of errors when copying verses to suit his story hero. Jesus never lived!

    Regards

    Plum

    • YO PLUM,

      TAKE YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR BUM, YOU IGNORANT MOHAMMEDAN!

      But “Jesus” never lived…a mere story character….in the book of anonymous author of “According to Mathews”….how can that become word of God? What God??

      TAQIYAH: LYING IN ISLAM:

      The “best” type of Taqiyah according to some Muslim authorities is Tawriah. In Tawriah, a kind of Delphic practice, the speaker makes the “mark” believe that they are agreeing with them through ambiguity, whereas in fact they may be saying the opposite. For example, the slogan “Islam is the religion of peace” has an ambiguous meaning, since for Muslims, the peace is to be found only through surrender to Allah.

      MOHAMMEDANS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH & NATURAL BORN LIARS!

      • Hey lucky ‘bum’, I am NOT a Mohammedan!

        But what do ya say about raping 3-5 years old in India, every day, besides killing infants, by the dead baby elephant head worshippers??? …and turning our great Hindustan into the land of rapists???…..what happened to your morals you small dicked brutes??? You rotten nincompoops you surely disgust us!!!

        When you cannot control you dirty and filthy thoughts and tongue, why don’t you, at the least, control your phalluses? All the time the blood flows to your small pricks instead of to your brains….that makes you see nothing… but bums and that is why you have become beasts abusing others’ beliefs…. peckers and what flows out from your empty boxes is the nasty abuses in the direction of putz and peters and nothing more than cocks and butts….what a degradation of you the biggest Muslim hating Hindu cow worshipping hoodlum!! Yes, You!!!!!!!!!

        Christianity does not teach the same sex marriages as you know nothing about it and keep defining Islam your way. you prat…in your tooshie the abode of your head should be and dwell eternally!

        Concerned about the raping of angelic babies by the micro phalluses of the Hindu beasts of India!!

        Plum

    • THE RAPE OF PREPUBESCENT AISHA

      Sahih Muslim
      Book 008, Number 3311:
      ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
      Aisha owned dolls (which as we know is NOT allowed in Islam (if you have reached puberty)

      Sahih Muslim
      Book 031, Number 5981:
      ‘A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

      Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274:
      Narrated Aisha:

      …….On that Allah’s Apostle called Buraira and said, ‘O Burair. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?’ Buraira said, ‘No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age (IMMATURE AGE), who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.’

      SHE ALSO GAVE THE PORTION OF QURAN FOR STONING TO THE GOAT TO EAT!

      Book 41, Number 4914:
      Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
      When the Apostle of Allah arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.

      He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.

      THE IDEA FOR BURAQ THE FLYING HORSE IS REVEALED!

      Ha, Ha, Ha

      SOME MEN PREFER BLONDS, MOHAMMED PREFERRED VIRGINS!

      Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:17

      He said, “Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, “A matron.” He said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?” When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, “Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:16

      MOHAMMED “LOVED” BABIES
      Had sexual intentions for another baby girl
      (Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab…

      Some examples from al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
      Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

      Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).”
      _____________________________

      Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:

      Narrated ‘Ursa:

      The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
      _____________________________

      Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

      Narrated Hisham’s father:

      Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

      Consider Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:

      Book 008, Number 3311:
      ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
      In the next hadith, we learn that playing with dolls is only permitted for prepubescent children:

      From Sahih al-Bukhari, a canonical hadith collection:

      Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
      Narrated ‘Aisha:
      I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

      The parenthetical statement is not mine — it’s in the University of Southern California’s Sahih al-Bukhari online, as you can see by clicking on the link above. So, from the two canonical hadiths just cited, we find that 1) when Aisha, at the age of nine lunar years, entered Muhammad’s house as a bride, her dolls were still with her, and 2) playing with dolls is permitted only to prepubescent children.

      And then of course there is the increasingly infamous Qur’an verse 65:4, which specifies a waiting period for prepubescent females to remarry after being divorced. A waiting period before remarriage is required only if the dissolved marriage was consummated. (See Quran 33:49.) Thus Qur’an 65:4 assumes consummation with prepubescent girls.
      Qur’an Chapter 65, Verse 4:

      And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation [because post-menopausal], if you have a doubt, their prescribed [waiting] time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses [because prepubescent]; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

  3. But “Jesus” never lived…a mere story character….in the book of anonymous author of “According to Mathews”….how can that become word of God? What God??

    Plum

    • SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, ACCORDING TO PLUM,

      MOHAMMED WAS A LYING DECEIVER!

      Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad (Mohammed) was born in Arabia. His father Abdullah was of the tribe of Qureyshi, and died before Muhammad was born.

      As a lad, Muhammad traveled to Syria with his uncle on merchant caravans. Years later, he made the same journey while working for a wealthy widow named Khadijah. He later married her and, even though he was 15 years younger than she was, they had a good marriage.

      Muhammad soon gained rank among the notables of Mecca. The Meccans claimed to be descendants of Abraham (Ibrahim).

      Muhammad detested those who disobeyed the Scriptures. He was familiar with the teachings of the Jewish and Christian holy book the Bible. He was very upset with the hypocrisy among the people: the idol worship, and anything dishonoring to God was very revolting to Him. He believed that Allah had revealed the Torah and the gospels (the Injil).

      “ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong).”

      Qur’an, Surah 3:3-4

      “Abraham was indeed a paragon of virtue, obedient to ALLAH, ever inclined to HIM, and he was not of those who set up equals with ALLAH; Ever grateful for HIS favors: HE chose him and guided him to a straight path. And WE bestowed on him good in this world, and in the Hereafter he will surely be among the righteous. And now WE have sent revelation to thee, enjoining, ‘Follow the way of Abraham who was ever inclined to ALLAH and was not of those who set up equals to HIM.'”

      Qur’an, Surah 16:121-124

      Abraham was also looked upon as one who fulfilled God’s commands:

      “And remember when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commandments which he fulfilled, HE said, ‘I will make thee a leader of men.’ Abraham asked, ‘And from among my offspring?’ God said, ‘MY covenant does not embrace the transgressors.'”

      Qur’an, Surah 2:125

      Muhammad also had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).

      “So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance and caused her to grow an excellent growth and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah visited her in the chamber, he found with her provisions. He said, ‘O Mary whence hast thou this ?’ She replied, ‘It is from ALLAH.’ Surely ALLAH gives to whomsoever HE pleases without measure.
      Then and there did Zachariah pray to his Lord, saying, ‘My Lord grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.’

      And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, ‘ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH – noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.

      He said ‘My Lord, how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?’ He answered, ‘Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,’

      He said ‘My Lord, give me a commandment.’ He replied, ‘The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs.

      And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.’ And remember when the angels said, ‘ALLAH has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above all women of the time.

      ‘O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and prostrate thyself and worship the one God with those who worship HIM.’

      This is of the tidings of things unseen which WE reveal to thee. And thou was not with them when they cast their arrows, as to which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor was thou with them when they disputed with one another.

      When the angels said, ‘O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;

      ‘And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.

      She said, ‘My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said, ‘Such is the way of ALLAH. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it ‘Be,’ and it is;”

      Qur’an, Surah 3:38-48

      Muhammad also speaks of the resurrection of Jesus:

      “Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’ Jesus said, ‘I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; ‘And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; ‘And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; ‘And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.’ That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt.”

      Qur’an, Surah 19:30-35

      In calling Jesus a messenger, Muhammad was also correct. He did not mean that Jesus was not the Messiah. Muhammad knew that one could be a messenger and not be a Messiah… but as The Messiah, one is also a messenger.

      Jesus was both a messenger and The Messiah that God had promised! What is a Messiah? A Messiah is always known as “a Savior… a liberator and a deliverer.” God had promised to send one (Messiah) to pay the debt of sin for all mankind.

      The Messiah!… God’s gift to sinful man… The Saviour… The Liberator… Our Redeemer. The prophets of the Torah foretold of His coming. Muhammad and his Disciples revered Him… the Qur’an and the Bible reveal Him! The Messiah… The Saviour of the world! Neither the Qur’an nor the Bible speak of any other as being the Messiah!!!

      PLUM, that is the most profound truth!

      And it is truth that cannot be denied. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. He is the Savior. He is the Messiah of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Millions throughout the world of every nation and creed accept Him as Savior.

      Many have followed false Messiahs and had their lives ended in death. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Had they only accepted the indisputable claim that Jesus is the Messiah, they would have found the peace that they were looking for, and the eternal life that God has promised to all who will accept Jesus as Messiah… the Savior of the world.

      Yes, Isah Al Masih loves you! The Messiah that Muhammad wrote about… to forgive you and to be your Savior… your Liberator… your Deliverer from sin. History tells us that He was crucified and died on a cross. History tells us that three days later there was an empty tomb. History, and hundreds of eye witnesses, tell us that He rose from the dead. But sadly many also reject the love and forgiveness God has offered in Jesus.

      God has given you a free will. YOU must make a choice. You cannot be neutral.

      Don’t take this writer’s word for it. Investigate for yourself the claims of Muhammad, the prophecies in the Torah, and the life of Jesus written in the Bible. The prophecies that were fulfilled by His birth, life, death and resurrection.

      Check out the reasons why Paul, the greatest persecutor of Jesus’ followers, became such a strong believer in Jesus as the Messiah… and why he became the world’s greatest missionary.

      If you are not already a follower of Isah (Jesus), you must make a choice (1) to believe that Jesus is the Messiah OR (2) to reject Him as Savior. You can choose to believe the Messiah, Jesus, who said He would, and did, rise from the dead. God gave Jesus, born miraculously through Mary (Maryam, Sura 3:45) as Muhammad agreed, to the world… for you.

      “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”—John 3:16

      (“Son of God” does not mean that God had physical relations with Mary, but rather that God willed it supernaturally that Mary would become the earthly mother of Jesus even as a virgin.

      See Surah 3:47-48)

      God loves you. How could anyone want to reject such a wonderful love… reject God’s forgiveness… His promises of eternal life? The Bible teaches how we can know where we will spend eternity.

      Explore what the Scripture teaches…

      • Hi lucky/Raj,

        I may agree with you on many issues like : ALL religions are foreign and thus have destroyed our original traditions; imposition of others’ rites, rules and rituals on our lives and even ideals thus the destruction of the original thought and conscience of the self! All in the name of “TRUE” religion/s!

        So, what “fact/s” does any religion/s teach/es? What God? Which God? Who created that “God”….if it weren’t for a homosapien then what would that be??

        Huh…..the innocent labelled with an absurd notion…..”he the heretic” …”she an apostate” are killed for merely being in variance with “the established beliefs”, for merely holding controversial opinions???!!??

        Religions are dangling carrots, with promises of lovely paradises—- in “cooked up visions” but putting a gradual stranglehold in reality! And that is what every religion is about, dangerous, very deadly, can strike the deadliest bite of making one unapproachable, an outright social outcast. The Swamis, Priests and Mullas suddenly bloom into forms of God/s inflicting severest punishments on those who are in variance with their established beliefs!!

        Yet, I humbly beg to disagree with you on the teachings by “Jesus” as “he” was a mere story character in the book “according to Mathews”. The Vatican is based on the teachings of Saul turned into self claimed apostle, who does not even know how “”Jesus” died!! ref 5:30
        “The God of our ancestors raised Jesus to life after you slew him and then hung him on a tree”.!!

        This Saul bin Paul teaches nothing about “Jesus” and used Mark his son, Luke his friend and himself pseudo ‘John’, to create the cult called Catholicism! Paul in his 13 Epistles gives no account of “”Jesus”‘!!

        In conclusion: All religions are foreign and thus have harmed our original traditions; imposition of others’ rites, rules and rituals on our lives! Religions have always helped missionaries, mullas to put a free foothold in others land and dominate to their will and whims!!

        Regards

        Plum

      • Sexy India,

        What is wrong with your small dicks?

        1. PATNA: A senior Bihar government official, posted in the revenue and land reforms department here, was on Friday evening arrested for allegedly repeatedly raping his 14-year-old daughter over the last three months, police said on Saturday.

        In her complaint, the mother of the girl said, “On Friday morning, when I returned home around 6.30am after dropping my son at school, I caught my husband red-handed raping our daughter in her room.
        “http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-14/patna/38528481_1_complaint-class-vii-student-ssp

        2. During their arrest on Sunday they confessed to the crime, according to police. The men face additional charges of robbing the Swiss couple.

        The attack occurred on Friday night as the couple camped in a forest in Datia district. The couple told police that the woman had been raped by seven or eight men, but that it was dark and they could not be sure of the exact number.

        The men beat up the husband and tied him to a tree before raping the woman, police said. They stole the couple’s mobile phone, laptop computer and 10,000 rupees (about £120). Police said they recovered the laptop and phone from one of the suspects.
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/six-court-gang-rape-india

        3. The rape and murder of English teenager Scarlett Keeling, on 18 February 2008, brought international attention to cases of rape in India.

        4. A Russian national working in India claimed that she was raped by a Goan politician on 1 December 2009 after having dinner with him that evening. Shantaram Naik, an MP.

        5. The gang rape of a 23-year-old student on a public bus, on 16 December 2012, sparked large protests across the capital Delhi. She was with a male friend who was severely beaten with an iron rod during the incident. This same rod was used to penetrate her so severely that the victim’s intestines had to be surgically removed, before her death thirteen days after the attack.

        6. “Add” to No 5; In the 24-hour period after the gang rape of the victim, at least two girls under the age of 18 were gang raped and one of them was murdered.

        7. In 2012 Bikram Singh Brahma was accused of raping a woman in the Chirang district of Assam. He was caught by villagers who heard the woman’s screams. He was stripped of his shirt and beaten by locals and was suspended from the ruling Congress party

        8. Northeast India
        Human rights groups allege that the Indian armed forces under the protection of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 have carried out a large amount of rapes in the Nagaland, Assam and Manipur provinces.

        9. Uttar Pradesh

        In 2011 number of brutal assaults on women were reported in Uttar Pradesh and according to the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the majority of those assaulted were poor women from remote areas and Dalits. SR Darapuri vice president of the PUCL stated, “I analysed the rape figures for 2007 and I found that 90% of victims were Dalits and 85% of Dalit rape victims were underage girls.”

        10. Crime Against Children

        According to a BBC report in February 2013, more than 7,200 children are raped each year in India. Underage victims who do report the assaults are often subjected to mistreatment and humiliation from the police.

        11. A landmark government survey in 2007 revealed that the vast majority of children in India are physically abused and that such occurrences are ″disturbingly common″ In January 2013, a 7 year old girl was raped in the school toilet while studying at school in Goa.

        12. Minor girls are trafficked into prostitution in India, often by those women who have been trafficked themselves. As adults they use personal relationships and trust in their villages of origin to recruit additional girls. India is categorized as one of the ‘extreme risk’ countries for trafficking children.

        13. Indian women also have much else to be gloomy about, especially if they live in the north. Studies and statistics abound, but India is generally at or near the bottom of the heap of women’s misery. A UN index in 2011 amalgamated details on female education and employment, women in politics, sexual and maternal health and more. It ranked India 134th out of 187 countries, worse than Saudi Arabia, Iraq or China.
        Indian women also have much else to be gloomy about, especially if they live in the north. Studies and statistics abound, but India is generally at or near the bottom of the heap of women’s misery. A UN index in 2011 amalgamated details on female education and employment, women in politics, sexual and maternal health and more. It ranked India 134th out of 187 countries, worse than Saudi Arabia, Iraq or China.
        http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569031-horrible-attack-could-prove-turning-point-indias-women-rape-and-murder-delhi /
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_India

        Ain’t ya puzzled you nincompoops have turned our great motherland into a nation of rapists and fuckers by undermining Islam. Islam is strict and allows chopping off your
        dicks if you rape our girls, daughters, mothers!!

        Plum

        • MOHAMMEDAN WOMEN ARE SUBSERVIENT TO MOHAMMEDAN “MEN”.

          In the book, “You Ask and Islam Answers” (p. 94 for example), Abdul–latif Mushtahiri says,
          “If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!”
          Muslims regard Ibn Timiyya as the Sheikh of Islam. He truly is. He is the author of great many huge volumes on various subjects. If we open Vol. 32, pp. 29 and 30, we read,
          “Even if the virgin is an adult, her father may force her to get married. This is in accordance with Malek Ibn Ons, al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal’s.”
          On page 39, he also states:
          “The young virgin can be forced by her father to get married without being consulted.”
          This is the verdict of Ibn Timiyya who was joined by some great Legists such as the Shafii, Malek, Ibn Hanbal, and the professors of Islamic law at the inception of Islam in Mecca and Medina. Most Arabs and most Islamic countries embrace their teaching. Actually, if we study Malek Ibn Ons book (Vol. 2, p. 155), we read,
          “A father can force his virgin daughter, his maid-slave and his male-slave to get married.”

          What is Ibn Hazm’s opinion concerning the daughter’s marriage? How can we ignore the opinion of the chief Legists of Islam in this respect? It is well known that Ibn Hazm also composed huge volumes of books on various topics on which all contemporary Muslim scholars rely because he is one of the greatest scholars of the Islamic law through the ages. In his sixth volume, part 9 of his book al-Muhalla (“The Sweetened”, pp. 458-460), he says,
          “A father may give his consent to have his young virgin daughter married without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as Abu Bakr El Sedick did to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old. He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission.”

          Then Ibn Hazm adds:
          “Even if she was deflowered (previously married and divorced, or a widow) as long as she is young and has not reached the legal age, her father may force her to marry without obtaining her permission.”
          As long as she is a virgin or just still young, she can be forced to get married without her consent. These are unequivocal, plain words. “Without her consent”, and “does not have any choice.” These are cruel, hard words and iniquitous Islamic principles which the free human conscience utterly rejects and detests because it is related to the most important subject in the girl’s life, that is, her body and her future.
          These scholars are quoted from Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.96),
          “Muhammad said: ‘I saw Paradise and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch of grapes, then I saw Hell (fire), and I have never before seen such a horrible sight as that the majority of its dwellers were women.’ The people asked, ‘O Allah’s apostle, what is the reason for that?’ He replied, ‘Because of their ungratefulness.’ It was said, ‘Do they disbelieve in Allah (God)?’ He replied, ‘They are not thankful to their husbands and they are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do some good to one of them all your life when she sees some harshness from you she will say, “I have never seen any good from you.”
          The same text is repeated in Vol. 1, p.83. In Vol. 7 of the same book (p.94), Muhammad says,
          “I stood at the gate of the fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women.”
          In the Mishkat al-Masabih (p. 14), we encounter the following exciting episode about Muhammad who, when met by some women, had the following conversation (Mishkat al Masabih p. 14),
          “Allah’s messenger went out to the place of worship and he passed by the women and said to them, ‘O women, give charity, for I have been shown that the majority of the inmates of Hell are amongst you.’ They said: ‘Allah’s Apostle, wherefore?’ He said, ‘It is because of the fact that you curse one another very much and show ungratefulness to your husbands.”’
          How miserable women are in Muhammad’s view! He orders men to scourge them, forces young girls to marry against their will, and exploits single women as tools of pleasure. He also declares that the majority of people in hell are women!
          “Women Are Short Of Faith And Intelligence”— Muhammad Said
          The Egyptian contemporary scholar Sheikh al-Sha’rawi stresses the fact that Muhammad uttered this statement. This is recorded in Vol. 4, p.21 of his famous book, “You Ask And Islam Answers”. Al-Sha’rawi, who is regarded as the Sheik of Islam, relies on the former recognized scholars. We encounter the following dialogue in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. l, p. 83) and in the Mishkat al-Masabih (p.15) which took place between Muhammad and some women:
          “Muhammad said: ‘I have seen that you, in spite of being deficient in mind and religion, rob even a wise man of his senses.’ They said: ‘Allah’s messenger, where lies our deficiency of reason and faith?’ He said: ‘Is not the evidence (testimony) of a woman equal to half the evidence of a man?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘This is because of the deficiency of your minds (mental status). Is it not a fact that when you enter the period of menses, you neither observe prayer nor observe fast?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ Then he said: ‘This is the deficiency in your faith.”’
          A Female Inherits Only Half Of A Male’s Portion
          A female inherits only half of a male’s portion and her testimony is regarded as half a man’s testimony. Though the general public is not aware of this fact, the Qur’anic text is very blunt concerning this matter, and is also acknowledged by all the Muslim scholars without exception.
          First, concerning an inheritance, The Qur’an clearly indicates:
          “Allah chargeth you concerning your children—to the male a portion equivalent to that of two females” (Surah 4: 11).
          This is in regard to a man’s offspring, whether they are males or females. The same concept is applied to the brothers and sisters of a deceased person. The Qur’an says:
          “If there be brethren – men and women – unto the male, the equivalent of the portion of two females” (Surah 4: 176).
          This matter is a well-known fact and practiced all over the Islamic world.
          Al-Bukhari, al-Jalalan and al-Baydawi
          The Bukhari alluded to it (part 6, p.55), as well as the Jal-alan in their famous commentary (p.65). We read:
          “A male may have the portion of two females if they are related to each other. He takes half of the inheritance and the two females take the other half. If the male has one sister only, she takes one-third of it and he takes two-thirds” (p.65).
          On page 66, the Jalalan says:
          “If he leaves his parents an inheritance, his mother takes one-third and the father two-thirds.”
          Al-Baydawi (page 104) and the rest of the scholars follow the same interpretation which is based on the indisputable Qur’anic verse.
          The Contemporary Scholars
          1) In his book, “Islam in the Face of Modern Challenges”, Abu al-a’la al-Mawdudi states conclusively:
          “There is no room in Islam for the idea that a woman’s portion of an inheritance be equivalent to the man’s portion. The prohibitory reason is one of decisive Islamic laws” (p.264).
          The Sheikh al-Sha’rawi
          He also acknowledges this fact in part II of his book, “You Ask and Islam Answers”:
          “The portion for a woman from an inheritance is half of the man’s portion because a woman is not responsible for her livelihood but rather the man is the responsible one (p 39, part 2).
          French Philosopher, Roge Jaroudi
          Even the French philosopher, Roge Jaroudi, who was converted to Islam reiterates in the magazine, “The League of the Islamic World” (the issue of February/March, 1984), the same logic of al-Sha’rawi. Jaroudi says:
          “Concerning the inheritance, it is true that the female inherits half of the portion her brother inherits, but in view of that, the responsibility of taking care of her falls on her brother’s shoulder” (p.39).
          Dr. Ahmad Shalabi repeated the same meaning in his book, “The History of Islamic Legislation” (p. 137).
          The statement of al-Sha’rawi and the French philosopher that a woman should inherit half of the portion because man is the one who bears responsibility for her livelihood is a meaningless and unacceptable justification because it is very possible that a woman may be much more in need of the money than her brother. Why should she receive only half of what her brother inherits from his parents? Is it not possible that the sister may be married to a poor man and have many children, while her brother may be a rich businessman or single without responsibilities?
          Even if the sister is still single, why should her brother receive double her portion from the inheritance and have control over her expenditures? He may spend the money on his own pleasures while his sister could be wiser and more prudent than her brother, who may be younger than she. These situations happen daily in Arab and Islamic countries. Any man takes twice what his sister receives. The only reason for it is the inequality between females and males. Why does this happen? Al-Mawdudi tells us it is because this is one of the decisive Islamic laws based on an indisputable Qur’anic verse in the Surah of Women. This is the inequality of unfair Islamic law.
          Secondly, what about a woman’s testimony before the court and in business contracts? In the Surah of the Cow (2:282), we read:
          “From among your men, two witnesses, and if two men be not at hand then a man and two women of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember (and we read about what Muhammad said about the testimony of a woman).”
          The Ancient Scholars
          Scholars have agreed upon the interpretation of this verse which is recorded in the Surah of the Cow concerning the testimony of women because it is very conspicuous and unquestionable. We would like to refer briefly here to the statements of al-Baydawi and the Jalalan. The Jalalan says (on page 41):
          “There must be two adult free Muslim witnesses. If they are not available then (let it be) a man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous women is that if one of them forgot something because of lack of intelligence, the other one would remind her.”
          These are the same words of Muhammad and the Qur’an.
          On page 64, the Baydawi says:
          “The two men must be two free Muslims, or one man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous women is because of their lack of intelligence and to obtain accurate information.”
          But the statement of the Jalalan and Bawdawi that the witness should be “two free Muslims” is because Islam does not accept the testimony of non-Muslims or slaves, as we will see later.
          Nobody denies this about Islam, including all the Azhar scholars as well as the Saudi and Pakistani scholars. Among them, the Grand Imam Dr. Mahmud Shaltut emphasizes this point in his book, “Islam: A Dogma And A Law” (p.237).
          In its February/March, 1985 issue (p.17), the magazine, “The League of the Islamic World”, records for us an incident which took place in Pakistan during the enactment of some of the Islamic laws. The magazine says:
          “Three groups of women demonstrated against the new law which gives women only half of the men’s rights when they sign business contracts. These groups which are located in Lahore in Pakistan, say that this law, derived from Islamic Law, intends to insult women and debase their dignity.”
          It is obvious that any intelligent, thinking man who enjoys a sensitive conscience would object to this unfair Islamic law, just as these female groups objected. How could a woman’s testimony be regarded as half of a man’s testimony in court and when signing business contracts? The same magazine also published on the same page, the response of Dr. Aly Farrukha, Director of Islamic Studies in Chicago, in which he says:
          “The issue of a woman’s testimony in court is a divine order which necessitates that a woman who is a witness should be accompanied by another woman in order to remind her if she forgets (some details) and to correct her if she makes an error. This verdict does not intend to insult women but rather to help them.”
          This is the conclusion of Dr. Farruka, who senses that this law really does insult women, but tries to defend Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islamic law. However, the insult is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. The statement of Dr. Aly that there is a need for two women in opposition to one man in the case of testimony in order to help the women not to forget or to be corrected if she makes an error, is a polite statement, though it does not negate that in Islam, women are treated as second class and cannot be trusted to be accurate when witnessing in court.
          Actually Muhammad was more pointed than Dr. Aly Farrukha. He expressed his opinion without any vagueness. He says that the reason that a woman’s testimony is regarded as equal to one half of a man’s testimony is not to help her but because she is short of intelligence!
          The Ancient Scholars
          On page 79, the Jalalan says:
          “Men have been given authority over women to discipline and control them by the merits of knowledge, intelligence and custody, etc., which God bestowed on some over others.”
          In his commentary, page 111, the Baydawi says:
          “God preferred man over woman, and the reason for the bestowing of this verse (4:34) is a well-known episode which says that a man from the helpers beat his wife, whose name was Habiba, the daughter of Zayd. Her father took her to the apostle of God (to complain). Muhammad said: “Let us punish him.” But God sent down this verse 4:34. The woman returned home without having her husband punished. Muhammad said: ‘I intended to do something (that is, to punish the man), but God willed otherwise, and what God wills is better.’”
          This famous incident was the reason God sent down this verse which prefers men to women and prohibits the retribution of men if they abuse their wives. This episode is mentioned also in the commentary of the Jalalan (page 69) as well as in the suyuti’s book, “Reasons for Sending the Verses From God” (Asbab al-Nuzul, p.75). Suyuti tells us that the women said to Muhammad:
          “My husband beat me and left some marks on my face. In spite of that, the man was not punished though Muhammad wanted to do so but the just God, the God of equality, declined and did not allow Muhammad to punish the man for abusing his wife.”
          What a compassionate God who sympathizes with relentless men! Is this the God who honors women? This God revealed a verse which confirms that men are better than women and above them by one degree, and that they have the right to discipline them. However, what concerns us here is to stress the point that the Qur’an says that men are a degree above women and better than them.
          The Contemporary Scholars
          It is sufficient here to quote the Azher scholars: Mrs. Iman Kamil corresponded with the Azhar scholars and Sheikhs inquiring about this critical subject in order to comprehend the meaning of the verse under discussion (Surah 4:34). The following is her question and the answer she received as they were published in “Liwa al-Islamic”(“The Islamic Banner”)in its issue of July 4, 1985, page 6. The question was:
          “What is the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: ‘Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God preferred in bounty one of them over another?”’
          The answer of the Azhar scholars was:
          “Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: ‘A woman came to the prophet complaining against her husband, who slapped her face. The apostle of God said: “(He must be) punished.” But God sent down this verse, and the woman returned home empty-handed.’ The meaning of his saying: ‘Manager’ is that a man is the woman’s lord and her disciplinarian whenever she disobeys him. God has explained that the reason for this lordship is that men excel women.”
          What more can be said after this issue has become so obvious? The reader can easily discern if God is the one who composed it to please the powerful men among his followers.

          • So, according to you only Muslim women get beaten?? What about all those poor Hindu ladies getting thrashed till their faces become distorted?? What about the degradation of women to the level of putting them on pyres of hell when their hubby’s die for the only reason that they don’t get laid by others?>?
            And what about the brutalities committed by the Christians, Africans, Chinese on their womenfolk???Why waste our precious time talking rubbish??

            And what about you, small dickies Indians, raping our Grand daughters aged 4-5 years? What is wrong with your phalluses, with your peters, you “taka-takas”…..you idol and beast worshipping brutes???????????? What morality can one perceive after bowing to hand made idols and beasts??

            In which Islamic states do you hear of vehement rapings marked by forceful energy of youths perpetrated on 4 year olds???? What about India??

            Enforce Islamic laws in India which will enhance dicks chopping-off!!!

            Why do ya criticise the great religion of Islam???

            Plum

      • Small dickies…read!!

        “A group of Indian men accused of gang raping a 23-year-old woman were today kept away from court amid fears of mob violence.
        Five people have been formally charged over the rape and murder of the student paramedic, with one named as Ram Singh.
        Today it emerged that a sixth suspect, who is believed to be a juvenile and is expected to be tried separately, was the cruellest of all”.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256444/Revealed-How-youngest-Indian-gang-rapist-cruellest-men-youth-charged-murder.html#ixzz2RQrLeY7s

        Plum

        • Sir first of all Let me say I respect Christianity ..I dont know whats the matter between you and the other guy nor do I want to know….

          Sir If a Hindu or a Christian commits a hideous thing like rape or violence of any kind it is a clear indication that he/she is NOT following their religion, just look at the thousands of Hindus who came out to protest when they heard about this , some were even asking the Govt. to hang the culprits,

          ..But somehow Islam is different..ofcourse there are many moderate muslims and thankfully they have now started to become more vocal but there are far more radical teachers/preachers of Islam who openly call for a violent Jihad against others ..people like Anjum Choudhary , Zaid Hamid( of pakistan) just to name a few openly challenge the moderate interpretation of Islam and have inspired and continue to inspire thousands and we are not able to do anything

          I was amazed to see some muslims dance when they saw the news of the Boston incident ..when I asked them as to why they were so happy their only answer was that “…a muslim was successful in killing some American Kafir’s..” this is horrifying , my muslim friend Javed who was with me at that time gave them a small scolding and presented some koranic verses which forbids hurting innocents even if they belong to a different community or Faith( sorry I am not a muslim nor do I know arabic so I wont be able to share theme here) ….I think the Mullas are presenting an extremely rigid and backward interpenetration of Islam and its high time Modern Muslim intellectuals and scholars save Islam from the Mullas .

          • THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MODERATE MOHAMMEDAN! EITHER THEY FOLLOW MOHAMMED OR THEY ARE HYPOCRITES! PLAY ACTING MOHAMMEDANS Given Mohammedanism’s violent history and the unfavorable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Mohammedans are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age. Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith. “If Mohammedanism were a violent religion, then all Mohammedans would be violent.” “Other religions kill, too.” Mohammad preached ‘no compulsion in religion’ (Qur’an: 2:256) “Mohammad never killed anyone.” The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred (Qur’an 5:32) “Mohammedans only kill in self-defense.” The million dollar wager that “Holy War” isn’t in the Qur’an. “Verses of violence are taken out of context.” “Islam must be true, because it is the world’s fastest growing religion.” “The Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic.” “If Islam were a violent religion, then all Mohammedans would be violent.” The Mohammedan Game: Most Mohammedans live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Mohammedanism be a violent religion? If Mohammedanism were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Mohammedans terrorists? The Truth: The same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year? Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane full of passengers into an office building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Mohammadans when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs? Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let’s just say that the reason why most Mohammedans don’t kill is that regardless of what Islam may or may not teach it’s wrong to kill over religious beliefs. Consider that many Mohammedans would not even think of amputating a thief’s hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, it is clearly mandated in both the Qur’an (5:38) and the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792). As individuals, Mohammedans make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice. However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn’t say, it doesn’t change what Mohammedanism says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone’s opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interpret it. The Qur’an plainly teaches that it is not only proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement. Mohammedans who don’t believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Mohammad’s religion. Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise. In fact, few Mohammedans have ever read the Qur’an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Mohammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint. The harsh rules that Mohammedan countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood. In the West, many Mohammedans, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Mohammedanism is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary. It is no coincidence, however, that the purists who take Islam to heart are far more likely to become terrorists than humanitarians. Those most prone to abandoning themselves to Mohammad’s message without moral preconception are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Mohammad. “Other religions kill, too.” The Mohammedan Game: Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems? The Truth: Because they don’t. Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that “science” was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned. The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Mohammedans are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Mohammedan terrorists do – and this is what makes it a very different matter. Mohammedanism is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Mohammedans who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Mohammedans enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly 10,000 deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Mohammedan armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a “Christian fundamentalist” by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout “praise the Lord” as he picked people off. In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror. Mohammedans may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to “misinterpretation” as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an, Verse 2:256) The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…” The Truth: The Mohammedan who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Mohammedans had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Mohammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem. But Mohammedans today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Mohammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur’an 2:106, 16:101). Mohammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Mohammedan fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Mohammad to the present day. There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Mohammedans at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Mohammedans. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Mohammedans to “fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah.” This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Mohammedans above non-Mohammedans, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups. Though most Mohammedans today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Mohammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…” (See Bukhari 2:24) Mohammad put his words into practice. When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by himself, his father, grandfather and the Arabs for centuries. By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own. Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia. Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like “no compulsion in religion?” According to Mohammedan historians, Mohammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn’t comply. He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray. Interestingly, even the same contemporary Mohammedans who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.” Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Mohammedans from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is? The Crusades The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Mohammedans were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Mohammedan, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.” The Truth: Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Mohammedans claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Mohammedans. Here are some quick facts… The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Mohammedan armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Mohammedan armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Mohammedan armies, 443 after Mohammedans first plundered Italy, 427 years after Mohammedan armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Mohammedan armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Mohammedan armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Mohammedan army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Mohammedan armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Mohammedans since the first few years following Mohammad’s death. As early as 652, Mohammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Mohammedans staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Mohammedan armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam. Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Mohammedan advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Mohammedanism and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Mohammedans being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though “often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defense of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas… clearly reflect the Mohammedan notion of jihad.” Lewis goes on to state that, “unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory… The Mohammedan jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Mohammedan faith or submitted to Mohammedan rule… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.” The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Mohammedans had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Mohammedan empire was not on the agenda. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Mohammedan occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone – to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old. Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Mohammedanism. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Mohammedan radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Mohammedan lands. The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Mohammedans. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Mohammedan rivals on occasion. Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Mohammedan expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Mohammedan Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years. Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to “drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out” (Sura 2:191), even though the aim wasn’t to expel Mohammedans from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after. The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Mohammedans have never apologized for their crimes and never will. What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah. “Mohammad never killed anyone.” The Mohammedan Game: In order to give others the impression that Mohammad was a man of peace, Mohammedans sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention). The Truth: By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either. Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Mohammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know. There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Mohammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Mohammedanism, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Mohammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife. Indirectly, Mohammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history. “The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred” (Qur’an, Verse 5:32) The Mohammedan Game: In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Mohammedan apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah – especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists: “…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…” (As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”) The Truth: This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Mohammedans to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There’s something being left out. Here’s the full text of the verse: “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Mohammedans are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means – with varying standards. Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Mohammad and the Quran counts as “mischief”. Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Mohammedans after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews. Any application to Mohammedans would have to apply only to Mohammedans – as in Mohammedan on Mohammedan murder within the brotherhood of believers. In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Historically, this verse has never been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that Allah places equal value on the lives of non-Mohammedans. The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equalitySura 2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Mohammedans (Sura 39:09). Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they shouldnever be slain for killing a non-believer. Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service – and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is. Mohammedan apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows Sura 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”. It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” Although verse 5:32 recounts the law given to Jews, the verse that follows is clearly intended for Mohammedans. Verse 5:33 provides the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Mohammedanism. Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal offense into a capital crime. So, the Quran’s best example of moral instruction is a passage which actually mandates the torture and execution of those deemed a threat to Islamic hegemony… With this being the best that Mohammedanism has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year. “Muslims only kill in self-defense.” The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (i.e. when their own lives are in danger). The Truth: In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Mohammedans are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Mohammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar). Mohammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Mohammedans, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Mohammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself). The very first battle that Mohammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Mohammedan raids. The Meccans did not threaten Mohammad, and (turning this Mohammedan myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Mohammedans. Following the battle, Mohammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions. The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Mohammedan violence that eventually passed right throughout the world. The early Mohammedans were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time. Mohammedans try to justify Mohammad’s violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Mohammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Mohammad and his followers in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives. Even Mohammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Mohammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Mohammedans is worse than slaughter [of non-Mohammedans]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Mohammedans is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Mohammedans. Under Mohammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. Following his death, Mohammad’s companions stormed the Christian world – taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad. “The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.” The Mohammedan Game: In early 2005, a well-known Mohammedan apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam. So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah). The Truth: In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Qur’an, such as the infamous Sura 9 (which includes the “Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text. So what’s the catch? Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.” And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). “Jihad” is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”). If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.” Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer. So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way). My, what a hollow victory this is! One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is. At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism. “Verses of violence are taken out of context.” The Mohammedan Game: All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it). The Mohammedans who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages). The Truth: Unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite. This is why new Mohammedans and non-Mohammedans alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Mohammedans who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the “counseling” of a Muslim scholar or cleric to “help them” interpret what they read. It isn’t the verses of violence that are rare; it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Mohammad’s life and superseded by later ones). Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in most cases. There is nothing overall that limits the targeting of unbelievers to a specific place and time. One would think that a perfect book from a perfect god would be easy to understand, but in the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. Few Quran’s are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original “revelation.” This is a problem when it comes to many of the verse that dictate violence. Although they can often be mitigated with non-intuitive references to entirely separate passages, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework. It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave the brutally sensitive topic of killing open to human interpretation. With external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Mohammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Mohammedans at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as present-day orders. But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Mohammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives). Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation. This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Mohammedans are likely to engage. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there – such as in the case of the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur’an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Mohammad’s later imposition of the jizya and the sword). Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous. “Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion” The Mohammedan Game: How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it? The Truth: In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief. Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet. Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was? Secondly, Islam is not “growing faster” than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of genuine accomplishment. There are also a few women who “marry into Islam” each year, but this is usually just a nominal change in official designation. Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and other parts of the non-Mohammedan world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than Islam. This leads to our most important point, which is that decent Mohammedans should feel a sense of embarrassment rather than pride over the rules that they have to enforce in order to maintain Islam’s status as the “fastest growing religion.” In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Mohammedans have in their own religion – and the banal immaturity of Islam compared with other faiths. Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves on his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves on yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken. Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed – is it really something in which he can truly take pride? The rules that Mohammedans impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (i.e. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Mohammedans are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death. In the Mohammedan world, Christians who evangelize are imprisoned, assaulted, beaten, set on fire, shot, bludgeoned, and tortured by Islamists. Missionaries are raped and killed. Former Mohammedans who embrace Christianity as their religion of choice are thrown in jail along with their children, sexually assaulted, crippled, hanged, stoned, stabbed, dismembered, carved up, scalded, beheaded, brutalized, doused with acid, burned alive and publicly executed… …and Mohammedans brag that their religion is growing faster! Mohammedans who gloat over their “fast growing” religion are no different than the child from our example who deludes himself into thinking that he is smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless. So the more pertinent question isn’t which religion is growing faster, but which is growing faster where people are free to choose. In this environment, Christianity wins easily. Converts are even won in Mohammedan countries under draconian conditions that Mohammedan evangelists never have to face anywhere on the planet. When was the last time a person was killed or tortured merely for embracing Islam? Mohammedanism has been playing by its own rules since its inception. It is unlikely that Mohammedans will soon develop enough maturity or confidence in their own religion to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success, and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field. As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has (by that standard, Christianity would be true). But when a religion has to be supported by double standards, death threats and violence there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity. “The Qur’an Can Only be Understood in Arabic” The Mohammedan Game: The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic. One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic. The Truth: Although Mohammedans often tell critics of Islam to “read the Qur’an,” they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded. An honest translation of Islam’s holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion. The fallback is to then claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic. Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Unfortunately, for those Mohammedanss craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion. In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that one “must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker). Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people? Even the vast majority of Mohammedans and their imams do not speak Arabic. Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) perfectly corresponds with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an! No other world religion claims that it can only be fully understood in one language. Neither is the same level of effort required to massage primary messages into palatability. While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages. An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the “perfect book” can’t be translated and that Allah’s perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same “necessary” chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable). Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Mohammedans. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well – a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek). At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist – the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are – ironically enough – accused of taking the Qur’an ‘too literally’). It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn – and susceptible to such horrible “misinterpretation” on an on-going basis? Really, it isn’t hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Neither do they qualify the claim that “Islam is the fastest growing religion” with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Mohammedans) don’t understand Islam since they can’t read the Quran in Arabic. Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Mohammedan scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others. THE COSMIC JOKE YOU DON’T NEED TO KNOW ARABIC TO REALIZE THAT THE QURAN IS A “COSMIC” JOKE SO THIS IS ALLAH’S PERFECT BOOK? “The Qur’an escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.” The present text of the Koran, which all Muslims accept as the only non-falsified holy book, was collected 15-20 years after the death of Muhammad in the time of the Caliph Uthman who ordered all previous collections to be burned. But you don’t have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn’t need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn’t deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn’t need a scholastic review of the Qur’anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely. Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions. There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages. Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism. Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq’s Sira, or Biography, stands alone—a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim. Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur’an—a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Their message is all that Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur’an are Islam. Bragging one day, Muhammad called his surahs a miracle: Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’” If the Qur’an was his only “miracle,” why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear. Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests. Muslim: C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Qur’an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’” A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur’an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur’an’s most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur’anic passages along with them. Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. “The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur’an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur’an may be lost unless you collect it.” I replied to Umar, “How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?” Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.’ Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur’an and collect it (in one manuscript).” By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?” Zaid declared that collecting the Qur’an’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid’s search for Qur’anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur’an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay. There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring. Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it’s obvious he did. Remember: Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’” the worse it gets. Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” [9:128] This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur’an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did? Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur’an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’” So there were at least seven Qur’ans. THE QU’RAN CHALLENGE! • In Bukhari’s Hadith we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day: Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.” This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur’an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled. WHY QURAN WAS WRITTEN DOWN • Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif—Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. THE REMAINDER QURAN Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad. (For a fuller account see Sahih al-Bukhari 4986.) THE “PERFECT” QURAN IS MISSING When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof’” (Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an). UTHMAN’S QURAN During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an. Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur’an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.” Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur’an’s credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking. WHO BURNT THE FIRST QURANS? When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex. ZAID’S QURAN REJECTED Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3808). Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an. FLAWED QURAN Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick regarding Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed! 2 CHAPTERS MISSING FROM THE “PERFECT” QURAN One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness: Sahih Muslim 2286 THE PART THE GOAT EAT Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways: Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep/goat came in and ate it.” The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult not in the Qur’an today. MISSING PASSAGES We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost: Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].” • Sahih al-Bukhari 5005—Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.” • But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation: • Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said: Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.” • Because of this (along with hundreds of other textual differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444). THE BOOK FROM HELL: DEMONS LOVE LISTENING TO THE QURAN And Allaah revealed other aayahs in a separate soorah, where He says: “Say (O Muhammad): “It has been revealed to me that a group (from three to ten in number) of jinn listened (to this Qur’aan). They said: ‘Verily, we have heard a wonderful Recitation (this Qur’aan)!” [al-Jinn 72:1] MUHAMMAD HAD A DEVIL COMPANION WHO BECAME A MUSLIM Even the Prophet had a shaytaan with him, his constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn, in the hadeeth which says that the Prophet said: “There is no one among you but he has with him a constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn and a constant companion from among the angels.” They said, “You too, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Me too, but Allaah has helped me against him (the devil-companion) and he has become Muslim.” The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales. Do your research! The Qur’an is a revised counterfeit of 6th century polytheism, composed of previously existing pagan beliefs, practices and fairy tales. For example: The Koran says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166). The Quran repeats fanciful Arabian fables as if they were true. “Arabic legends about the fabulous jinns fill its pages” (G.G. Pfander, Balance of Truth, pp. 283). “The story of the she-camel who leapt out of a rock and became a prophet was known long before Muhammad” (Suras 7:73-77,85; 91:14; 54:29). The story of an entire village of people who were turned into apes because they broke the sabbath by fishing was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166). The gushing 12 springs story found in Sura 2:60 comes from pre-Islamic legends. In what is called the “Rip Van Winkle” story, seven men and their animals slept for 309 years in a cave and then woke up perfectly fine (Sura 18:9-26)! This legend is found in Greek and Christian fables as well as Arabian lore. The fable of the pieces of four dead, cut-up birds getting up and flying was well known in Muhammad’s time (Sura 2:260). It is also clear that Muhammad used such pre-Islamic literature as the Saba Moallaqat of Imra’ul Cays in his composition of Suras 21:96; 29:31,46; 37:59; 54:1, and 93:1. Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works. This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229; Jomier, The Bible and the Quran — Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13). The source of Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser. The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham. The source of Sura 27:17-44 is the Second Targum of Esthe
          • Hmm..after seeing the extreme hate and threats my Muslim friends are getting from the MAJORITY of their community members, just because they are more open and understanding towards other faiths and cultures, I too am starting to believe you are right.

        • PLAY ACTING MOHAMMEDANS Given Mohammedanism’s violent history and the unfavorable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Mohammedans are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age. Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith. “If Mohammedanism were a violent religion, then all Mohammedans would be violent.” “Other religions kill, too.” Mohammad preached ‘no compulsion in religion’ (Qur’an: 2:256) “Mohammad never killed anyone.” The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred (Qur’an 5:32) “Mohammedans only kill in self-defense.” The million dollar wager that “Holy War” isn’t in the Qur’an. “Verses of violence are taken out of context.” “Islam must be true, because it is the world’s fastest growing religion.” “The Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic.” “If Islam were a violent religion, then all Mohammedans would be violent.” The Mohammedan Game: Most Mohammedans live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Mohammedanism be a violent religion? If Mohammedanism were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Mohammedans terrorists? The Truth: The same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year? Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane full of passengers into an office building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Mohammadans when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs? Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let’s just say that the reason why most Mohammedans don’t kill is that regardless of what Islam may or may not teach it’s wrong to kill over religious beliefs. Consider that many Mohammedans would not even think of amputating a thief’s hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, it is clearly mandated in both the Qur’an (5:38) and the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792). As individuals, Mohammedans make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice. However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn’t say, it doesn’t change what Mohammedanism says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone’s opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interpret it. The Qur’an plainly teaches that it is not only proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement. Mohammedans who don’t believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Mohammad’s religion. Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise. In fact, few Mohammedans have ever read the Qur’an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Mohammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint. The harsh rules that Mohammedan countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood. In the West, many Mohammedans, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Mohammedanism is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary. It is no coincidence, however, that the purists who take Islam to heart are far more likely to become terrorists than humanitarians. Those most prone to abandoning themselves to Mohammad’s message without moral preconception are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Mohammad. “Other religions kill, too.” The Mohammedan Game: Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems? The Truth: Because they don’t. Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that “science” was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned. The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Mohammedans are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Mohammedan terrorists do – and this is what makes it a very different matter. Mohammedanism is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make. Mohammedans who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Mohammedans enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly 10,000 deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Mohammedan armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period. Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a “Christian fundamentalist” by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout “praise the Lord” as he picked people off. In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror. Mohammedans may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to “misinterpretation” as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse. Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an, Verse 2:256) The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…” The Truth: The Mohammedan who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Mohammedans had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Mohammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem. But Mohammedans today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Mohammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur’an 2:106, 16:101). Mohammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Mohammedan fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Mohammad to the present day. There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Mohammedans at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Mohammedans. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Mohammedans to “fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah.” This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Mohammedans above non-Mohammedans, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups. Though most Mohammedans today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Mohammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…” (See Bukhari 2:24) Mohammad put his words into practice. When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by himself, his father, grandfather and the Arabs for centuries. By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own. Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia. Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like “no compulsion in religion?” According to Mohammedan historians, Mohammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn’t comply. He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray. Interestingly, even the same contemporary Mohammedans who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.” Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Mohammedans from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is? The Crusades The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Mohammedans were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Mohammedan, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.” The Truth: Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Mohammedans claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Mohammedans. Here are some quick facts… The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Mohammedan armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Mohammedan armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Mohammedan armies, 443 after Mohammedans first plundered Italy, 427 years after Mohammedan armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Mohammedan armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Mohammedan armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Mohammedan army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Mohammedan armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Mohammedans since the first few years following Mohammad’s death. As early as 652, Mohammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Mohammedans staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Mohammedan armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam. Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Mohammedan advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Mohammedanism and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Mohammedans being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time). Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though “often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defense of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas… clearly reflect the Mohammedan notion of jihad.” Lewis goes on to state that, “unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory… The Mohammedan jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Mohammedan faith or submitted to Mohammedan rule… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.” The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Mohammedans had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Mohammedan empire was not on the agenda. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Mohammedan occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone – to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old. Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Mohammedanism. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Mohammedan radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Mohammedan lands. The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Mohammedans. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Mohammedan rivals on occasion. Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Mohammedan expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Mohammedan Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years. Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to “drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out” (Sura 2:191), even though the aim wasn’t to expel Mohammedans from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after. The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Mohammedans have never apologized for their crimes and never will. What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah. “Mohammad never killed anyone.” The Mohammedan Game: In order to give others the impression that Mohammad was a man of peace, Mohammedans sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention). The Truth: By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either. Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Mohammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know. There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Mohammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Mohammedanism, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Mohammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife. Indirectly, Mohammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history. “The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred” (Qur’an, Verse 5:32) The Mohammedan Game: In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Mohammedan apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah – especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists: “…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…” (As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”) The Truth: This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Mohammedans to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There’s something being left out. Here’s the full text of the verse: “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Mohammedans are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means – with varying standards. Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Mohammad and the Quran counts as “mischief”. Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Mohammedans after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews. Any application to Mohammedans would have to apply only to Mohammedans – as in Mohammedan on Mohammedan murder within the brotherhood of believers. In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Historically, this verse has never been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that Allah places equal value on the lives of non-Mohammedans. The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equalitySura 2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Mohammedans (Sura 39:09). Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they shouldnever be slain for killing a non-believer. Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service – and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is. Mohammedan apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows Sura 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”. It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” Although verse 5:32 recounts the law given to Jews, the verse that follows is clearly intended for Mohammedans. Verse 5:33 provides the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Mohammedanism. Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal offense into a capital crime. So, the Quran’s best example of moral instruction is a passage which actually mandates the torture and execution of those deemed a threat to Islamic hegemony… With this being the best that Mohammedanism has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year. “Muslims only kill in self-defense.” The Mohammedan Game: Mohammedans often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (i.e. when their own lives are in danger). The Truth: In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Mohammedans are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Mohammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar). Mohammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Mohammedans, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Mohammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself). The very first battle that Mohammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Mohammedan raids. The Meccans did not threaten Mohammad, and (turning this Mohammedan myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Mohammedans. Following the battle, Mohammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions. The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Mohammedan violence that eventually passed right throughout the world. The early Mohammedans were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time. Mohammedans try to justify Mohammad’s violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Mohammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Mohammad and his followers in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives. Even Mohammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Mohammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Mohammedans is worse than slaughter [of non-Mohammedans]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Mohammedans is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Mohammedans. Under Mohammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy. Following his death, Mohammad’s companions stormed the Christian world – taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad. “The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.” The Mohammedan Game: In early 2005, a well-known Mohammedan apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam. So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah). The Truth: In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Qur’an, such as the infamous Sura 9 (which includes the “Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text. So what’s the catch? Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.” And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). “Jihad” is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”). If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.” Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer. So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way). My, what a hollow victory this is! One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is. At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism. “Verses of violence are taken out of context.” The Mohammedan Game: All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it). The Mohammedans who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages). The Truth: Unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite. This is why new Mohammedans and non-Mohammedans alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Mohammedans who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the “counseling” of a Muslim scholar or cleric to “help them” interpret what they read. It isn’t the verses of violence that are rare; it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Mohammad’s life and superseded by later ones). Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in most cases. There is nothing overall that limits the targeting of unbelievers to a specific place and time. One would think that a perfect book from a perfect god would be easy to understand, but in the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. Few Quran’s are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original “revelation.” This is a problem when it comes to many of the verse that dictate violence. Although they can often be mitigated with non-intuitive references to entirely separate passages, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework. It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave the brutally sensitive topic of killing open to human interpretation. With external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Mohammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Mohammedans at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as present-day orders. But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Mohammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives). Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation. This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Mohammedans are likely to engage. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there – such as in the case of the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur’an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Mohammad’s later imposition of the jizya and the sword). Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous. “Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion” The Mohammedan Game: How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it? The Truth: In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief. Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet. Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was? Secondly, Islam is not “growing faster” than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of genuine accomplishment. There are also a few women who “marry into Islam” each year, but this is usually just a nominal change in official designation. Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and other parts of the non-Mohammedan world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than Islam. This leads to our most important point, which is that decent Mohammedans should feel a sense of embarrassment rather than pride over the rules that they have to enforce in order to maintain Islam’s status as the “fastest growing religion.” In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Mohammedans have in their own religion – and the banal immaturity of Islam compared with other faiths. Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves on his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves on yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken. Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed – is it really something in which he can truly take pride? The rules that Mohammedans impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (i.e. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Mohammedans are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death. In the Mohammedan world, Christians who evangelize are imprisoned, assaulted, beaten, set on fire, shot, bludgeoned, and tortured by Islamists. Missionaries are raped and killed. Former Mohammedans who embrace Christianity as their religion of choice are thrown in jail along with their children, sexually assaulted, crippled, hanged, stoned, stabbed, dismembered, carved up, scalded, beheaded, brutalized, doused with acid, burned alive and publicly executed… …and Mohammedans brag that their religion is growing faster! Mohammedans who gloat over their “fast growing” religion are no different than the child from our example who deludes himself into thinking that he is smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless. So the more pertinent question isn’t which religion is growing faster, but which is growing faster where people are free to choose. In this environment, Christianity wins easily. Converts are even won in Mohammedan countries under draconian conditions that Mohammedan evangelists never have to face anywhere on the planet. When was the last time a person was killed or tortured merely for embracing Islam? Mohammedanism has been playing by its own rules since its inception. It is unlikely that Mohammedans will soon develop enough maturity or confidence in their own religion to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success, and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field. As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has (by that standard, Christianity would be true). But when a religion has to be supported by double standards, death threats and violence there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity. “The Qur’an Can Only be Understood in Arabic” The Mohammedan Game: The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic. One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic. The Truth: Although Mohammedans often tell critics of Islam to “read the Qur’an,” they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded. An honest translation of Islam’s holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion. The fallback is to then claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Arabic. Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Unfortunately, for those Mohammedanss craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion. In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that one “must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker). Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people? Even the vast majority of Mohammedans and their imams do not speak Arabic. Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) perfectly corresponds with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an! No other world religion claims that it can only be fully understood in one language. Neither is the same level of effort required to massage primary messages into palatability. While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages. An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the “perfect book” can’t be translated and that Allah’s perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same “necessary” chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable). Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Mohammedans. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well – a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek). At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist – the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are – ironically enough – accused of taking the Qur’an ‘too literally’). It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn – and susceptible to such horrible “misinterpretation” on an on-going basis? Really, it isn’t hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Neither do they qualify the claim that “Islam is the fastest growing religion” with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Mohammedans) don’t understand Islam since they can’t read the Quran in Arabic. Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Mohammedan scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others. THE COSMIC JOKE YOU DON’T NEED TO KNOW ARABIC TO REALIZE THAT THE QURAN IS A “COSMIC” JOKE SO THIS IS ALLAH’S PERFECT BOOK? “The Qur’an escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.” The present text of the Koran, which all Muslims accept as the only non-falsified holy book, was collected 15-20 years after the death of Muhammad in the time of the Caliph Uthman who ordered all previous collections to be burned. But you don’t have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn’t need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn’t deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn’t need a scholastic review of the Qur’anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely. Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions. There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages. Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism. Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq’s Sira, or Biography, stands alone—a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim. Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur’an—a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Their message is all that Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur’an are Islam. Bragging one day, Muhammad called his surahs a miracle: Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’” If the Qur’an was his only “miracle,” why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear. Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests. Muslim: C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Qur’an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’” A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur’an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur’an’s most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur’anic passages along with them. Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. “The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur’an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur’an may be lost unless you collect it.” I replied to Umar, “How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?” Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.’ Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur’an and collect it (in one manuscript).” By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?” Zaid declared that collecting the Qur’an’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid’s search for Qur’anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur’an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay. There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring. Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it’s obvious he did. Remember: Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’” the worse it gets. Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” [9:128] This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur’an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did? Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur’an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’” So there were at least seven Qur’ans. THE QU’RAN CHALLENGE! • In Bukhari’s Hadith we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day: Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.” This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur’an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled. WHY QURAN WAS WRITTEN DOWN • Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif—Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. THE REMAINDER QURAN Abu Bakr decided that it was time to gather what remained of the Qur’an in order to prevent more from being lost, and he appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to this task. After Zaid completed his codex around 634 AD, it remained in Abu Bakr’s possession until his death, when it was passed on to Caliph Umar. When Umar died, it was given to Hafsa, a widow of Muhammad. (For a fuller account see Sahih al-Bukhari 4986.) THE “PERFECT” QURAN IS MISSING When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof’” (Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an). UTHMAN’S QURAN During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an. Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur’an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.” Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur’an’s credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking. WHO BURNT THE FIRST QURANS? When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex. ZAID’S QURAN REJECTED Muhammad once told his followers to “Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud—he started with him—Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3808). Interestingly, Ibn Masud (first on Muhammad’s list) held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters (today’s version has 114 chapters), and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an. FLAWED QURAN Due to these disputes among Muhammad’s hand-picked reciters, Muslims are faced with a dilemma. If Muslims say that the Qur’an we have today has been perfectly preserved, they must say that Muhammad was horrible at choosing scholars, since he selected men who disagreed with today’s text. If, on the other hand, Muslims say that their prophet would know whom to pick regarding Islam’s holiest book, they must conclude that the Qur’an we have today is flawed! 2 CHAPTERS MISSING FROM THE “PERFECT” QURAN One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness: Sahih Muslim 2286 THE PART THE GOAT EAT Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways: Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep/goat came in and ate it.” The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult not in the Qur’an today. MISSING PASSAGES We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost: Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].” • Sahih al-Bukhari 5005—Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.” • But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Qur’an. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Qur’an was missing two chapters! Later Muslims were therefore forced to reject some of Ibn Ka’b’s recitation: • Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said: Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.” • Because of this (along with hundreds of other textual differences), Ibn Masud went so far as to call the final edition of the Qur’an a deception! He said, “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444). THE BOOK FROM HELL: DEMONS LOVE LISTENING TO THE QURAN And Allaah revealed other aayahs in a separate soorah, where He says: “Say (O Muhammad): “It has been revealed to me that a group (from three to ten in number) of jinn listened (to this Qur’aan). They said: ‘Verily, we have heard a wonderful Recitation (this Qur’aan)!” [al-Jinn 72:1] MUHAMMAD HAD A DEVIL COMPANION WHO BECAME A MUSLIM Even the Prophet had a shaytaan with him, his constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn, in the hadeeth which says that the Prophet said: “There is no one among you but he has with him a constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn and a constant companion from among the angels.” They said, “You too, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Me too, but Allaah has helped me against him (the devil-companion) and he has become Muslim.” The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales. Do your research! The Qur’an is a revised counterfeit of 6th century polytheism, composed of previously existing pagan beliefs, practices and fairy tales. For example: The Koran says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166). The Quran repeats fanciful Arabian fables as if they were true. “Arabic legends about the fabulous jinns fill its pages” (G.G. Pfander, Balance of Truth, pp. 283). “The story of the she-camel who leapt out of a rock and became a prophet was known long before Muhammad” (Suras 7:73-77,85; 91:14; 54:29). The story of an entire village of people who were turned into apes because they broke the sabbath by fishing was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166). The gushing 12 springs story found in Sura 2:60 comes from pre-Islamic legends. In what is called the “Rip Van Winkle” story, seven men and their animals slept for 309 years in a cave and then woke up perfectly fine (Sura 18:9-26)! This legend is found in Greek and Christian fables as well as Arabian lore. The fable of the pieces of four dead, cut-up birds getting up and flying was well known in Muhammad’s time (Sura 2:260). It is also clear that Muhammad used such pre-Islamic literature as the Saba Moallaqat of Imra’ul Cays in his composition of Suras 21:96; 29:31,46; 37:59; 54:1, and 93:1. Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works. This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229; Jomier, The Bible and the Quran — Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13). The source of Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser. The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham. The source of Sura 27:17-44 is the Second Targum of Esther. The fantastic tale that God made a man “die for a hundred years” with no ill effects on his food, drink,
  4. JESUS MESSIAH, THE WORD OF GOD SAID:

    THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (Matthew ch 5 to ch 7).

    The Beatitudes

    1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

    3″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    4Blessed are those who mourn,
    For they shall be comforted.
    5Blessed are the meek,
    For they shall inherit the earth.

    6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    For they shall be filled.
    7Blessed are the merciful,
    For they shall obtain mercy.
    8Blessed are the pure in heart,
    For they shall see God.
    9Blessed are the peacemakers,
    For they shall be called sons of God.
    10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
    For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11″Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    Believers Are Salt and Light
    13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
    14″You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

    Christ Fulfills the Law
    17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Murder Begins in the Heart
    21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
    26Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

    Adultery in the Heart
    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not commit adultery.’
    28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

    Marriage Is Sacred and Binding
    31 “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

    Jesus Forbids Oaths
    33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your “Yes’ be “Yes,’ and your “No,’ “No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

    Go the Second Mile
    38 “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

    Love Your Enemies
    43 “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
    44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

    Matthew 6

    Do Good to Please God
    1″Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

    The Model Prayer
    5″And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
    8″Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9In this manner, therefore, pray:

    Our Father in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    10Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done
    On earth as it is in heaven.
    11Give us this day our daily bread.
    12And forgive us our debts,
    As we forgive our debtors.
    13And do not lead us into temptation,
    But deliver us from the evil one.
    For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

    14″For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

    Fasting to Be Seen Only by God
    16 “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

    Lay Up Treasures in Heaven
    19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

    The Lamp of the Body
    22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

    You Cannot Serve God and Riches
    24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

    Do Not Worry
    25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
    27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
    28″So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
    31″Therefore do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?’ or “What shall we drink?’ or “What shall we wear?’ 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

    Matthew 7

    Do Not Judge
    1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
    4Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
    6″Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

    Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking
    7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    The Narrow Way
    13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

    You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
    15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
    19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

    I Never Knew You
    21 “Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

    Build on the Rock
    24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
    26″But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
    28And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

    • Hi Lucky/Raj, somehow you jumped this verse for the very reason best known to you;

      Matthew 10:34 Jesus said,

      “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”.

      Regards

      Plum

    • Hi lucky, let’s see the balls you’ve quoted and added to your “faith” :

      1. ″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      For theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
      (Total crap as the one rich in spirit is always rewarded)

      2. “Blessed are the pure in heart,
      For they shall see God”.
      (nonsense-what god does one see? Blessed by who? Who is pure in heart in this world?

      3. “Let your………glorify your Father in heaven”
      (Is the Father ever glorified or mentioned in astericks?)

      4. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill….”
      { During his ministry, Jesus violated many of their oral laws. He mixed freely with tax collectors and sinners, making Him ceremonially unclean (Luke 7:39). He ate and drank with them, and was called a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34). He ate with ceremonially unclean hands (Luke 11:38). He broke their Sabbath laws by healing people, and gleaning corn to eat (Luke 13:14, Matthew 12:1-2). He forgave peoples’ sins, which to the Pharisees was blasphemy (Luke 5:21). He also freely criticised the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and self righteousness (Luke 11:37-52))

      5. “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison”.
      (total bulls: why should I fear my enemy and accept his frogs or jail…cowdung??]

      Please ref to next leaf….

      Regards

      Plum

      • MUSLIMS HATE NON MUSLIMS

        Non-Muslims in Islamic Society

        Muslim propagandists use an attractive motto which says that Islam is the religion of justice and equality. It is the religion of freedom and women’s dignity, they say, but this cannot be proved by mere talk and a loud voice, especially among Occidentalists who do not know the reality of Islam. It is also true that even most Arabs don’t know the truth about Islam. However, a case is proved by presenting facts and empirical evidence.
        Abu Al-Ala Al-Mawdudi’s View: Discrimination is Necessary!
        In his book, “Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic States” which has been translated into many languages, this great scholar asserts that we should distinguish between the rights of non-Muslims and the rights of Muslims. On pp. 2-3, Abu Ala al-Mawdudi says:
        “An Islamic state … is by its very nature bound to distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, and, in an honest and upright manner, not only publicly declares this state of affairs but also precisely states what rights will be conferred upon its non-Muslim citizens and which of them will not be enjoyed by them.”
        Now let us analyze the rights which are not supposed to be conferred on non-Muslims We will witness the worst practices of racial discrimination and religious segregation.
        A Muslim Must Not Be Sentenced To Death For Murdering A Non Believer
        Muhammad himself gives justification for this. He says only Muslims’ have blood that is alike; thus a Muslim should not be put to death for murdering a non-Muslim but must pay a blood feud to the family of the murdered man. As expected, the great Muslim legists and scholars such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hazm, Al-Shafii, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Jalalan, Al-Bukhari and Muslim agree on this important point.
        Ibn Timiyya
        Ibn Timiyya emphasizes forcefully in Volume 14,
        “Nothing in the law of Muhammad states that the blood of the disbeliever is equal to the blood of the Muslim because faith is necessary for equality. The people of the Covenant (Jews or Christians) do not believe in Muhammad and Islam, thus their blood and the Muslim’s blood cannot be equal. These are distinctive texts which indicate that a Muslim is not to be put to death for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant or an unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free Muslim, regardless of the race” (Vol. 14, p. 85).
        He reiterates the same statement (Vol. 20, p. 282) that a Muslim must not be killed for one of the people of the covenant; that is, a Christian or a Jew
        The Imam al-Shafii
        In section one of “Ahkam al-Qur’an” (“The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, page 275), he says: “A Muslim is not to be killed for an unbeliever”. Then he says (page 284),
        “If a believer murders an unbeliever, he has to pay blood feud to the Jew or Christian which is one-third of the blood feud of the believer, though Malik says it must be one half.”
        Ibn Timiyya inclines towards Malik’s opinion and indicates (Vol. 20, p. 385) that:
        “The blood feud should be one half because this is what was transmitted by tradition about the prophet Muhammad and as the Sunnis said also.”
        Whether the blood feud is one third or one half is not important. What really matters is that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Despite the disagreement among the Muslim scholars about the actual amount of the blood feud to be paid, the important thing is that the blood feud of the unbeliever is less than the blood feud of the believer, and that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim.
        Of course, if a Muslim murders another Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because he assassinated another Muslim. According to al-Shafii, in this case the victim’s relatives have the option either to accept a blood feud or to kill the criminal. However, if the murdered is non-Muslim, his relatives have no choice but to accept the blood feud (“The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, Sect. I, pp. 180, 279).
        Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
        In his book, “Zad-al-Maad” (Sec. III, p.124), he says:
        “Muslim blood is alike (has the same value). A Muslim is not to be put to death for killing an unbeliever.”
        “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari and” Sahih of Muslim”
        These are two authorized books acknowledged by all Islam scholars pertaining to Muhammad’s sayings. We read in Part 9 of al-Bukhari’s book (p. 16,) “A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever.” He stresses that this is also the opinion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.
        In “Sahih of Muslim” interpreted by Nawawi (Part 4, p. 244), we read,
        “A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for one of the people of the covenant nor for a free man or a slave.”
        The Jalalan
        In their famous commentary, in the context of their interpretation of Sura the Women, the Jalalan clearly and distinctly states the following (p. 178),
        “On the topic of punishment, whether or not a man embraces the same religion will be considered. Thus a Muslim is not to be sentenced to death, even if he is a slave and the victim was a free man—not a Muslim”.
        It is obvious from these words that there is discrimination between a slave and a freeman. What matters to us is that if a Muslim slave murdered a non-Muslim freeman, he is not to be sentenced to death because he is a Muslim and the murdered man is a non-Muslim.
        These are the scholars who have quoted the words of Muhammad himself in this regard: Ibn Timiyya, Shafii, al-Jalalan, Ibn-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of al-Bukhari. They are more acquainted with his sayings and | traditions than anyone else.
        Ibn Hazm
        In part Twelve of Vol. 8 (page 39), he asserts and demonstrates by practical and empirical examples the same opinion we have already observed. He indicates,
        “If one of the people of the covenant murdered another one of the people of the covenant, and then the murderer was converted to Islam, he would not be subject to punishment based on the prophet Muhammad’s saying, “A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever.” But if the injured was converted to Islam, and died as a Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because believers’ blood is alike. If a Muslim injures a non-Muslim intentionally, he is not to be punished because the injured is a non-Muslim, based on the Qur’anic verse. But if the injured confessed Islam and then died, the Muslim must be punished.”
        It is obvious here that Ibn Hazm relies on Muhammad’s sayings and does not present his own personal opinion. He explains how a murderer can spare himself punishment, even if he is not a Muslim. He offers him an easy way to escape by embracing Islam after he murders his non-Muslim friend! In other words, Islam tells a murderer frankly,
        “Confess: ‘There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the apostle of God’ and you spare yourself the sentence of death because you became a Muslim, and in this case you will only pay a fine.’’
        Places Of Worship Are Not Allowed To Be Built Or To Be Renovated Or To Be Rebuilt If They Are Destroyed
        Can the reader believe this unjust verdict? This is practiced in countries which were originally Christian such as Syria and Egypt. These countries had been invaded and occupied by Muslims and tom by war. Because of the attitude of Islam against the Christian places of worship, we discover obvious persecution and inequality.
        Umar Ibn al-Khattab
        Muslims claim that Umar was the most just Caliph. The title, “just”, is his famous attribute. He was the second Caliph and the father of Hafasa, Muhammad’s wife. He was also one of the greatest companions of Muhammad who was responsible for enacting legislation because he received it directly from Muhammad. Muhammad himself used to say,
        “Take as examples those who come after me—Abu Bakr and Umar” (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28, p. 651 as well as other sources).
        Now what did Umar Ibn al-Khattab say? Ibn Hazm, Ibn Timiyya and all the Chroniclers assert that when Umar signed the peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he dictated some conditions to be carried out by the Muslim governors throughout the conquered Christian countries. One of these conditions was that Christians were prohibited from building a monastery or a church, and from rebuilding those that were destroyed even the cell of a monk (Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4, part 7, p.346).
        This same words (uttered by Umar) are quoted also by Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p.652).
        In his above-mentioned book, Abu al-ala al-Mawdudi, the contemporary scholar, says (page 28),
        “In lands owned by Muslims, the non-Muslims are not entitled to build new places of worship.”
        That refers to the countries which Muslims possessed by war. Christians are not permitted to build new churches in them. It happened that a ruined church was actually renovated, but what was the punishment? Ahmad Ibn Timiyya, the Sheikh of Islam and the Mufti of Muslims in his time, was asked about this matter (Vol. 28, p. 648).
        “Question: A Christian priest lives in a house next to a site on which there is a ruined church without a roof. The priest bought the site and renovated it and made the church part of the building in which he gathered people (to pray). Is he allowed to do so?
        “Answer: He does not have the right to do so even if there were the ruins of an old church because Muslims had conquered these places by force and possessed the churches, and it is permissible for them to destroy them according to Muslim scholars. Therefore, all those who helped him must be punished, and the Christian priest’s blood must be shed and his properties must be confiscated according to some legists because he violated the terms imposed on them by Muslims. ”
        Ibn Timiyya’s words are very clear. He says that it is not permissible to renovate a ruined church. Notice also Ibn Timiyya’s statement that all the scholars agree on the permissibility of Muslims destroying churches in countries which they conquer by war. Pertaining to the death sentence inflicted upon anyone who builds a church, this verdict is voiced by Umar Ibn al-Khattab after he imposed his terms on the Christians. Umar told them,
        “Anyone who violates such terms will be unprotected. And it will be permissible for the Muslims to treat them as rebels or dissenters namely, it is permissible to kill them” (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28:652).
        Concerning demolishing the churches or confiscating them, Abu Ala al-Mawdudi in his above-mentioned book (p. 11), indicates,
        “Muslims have the right to confiscate places of worship in such towns as have been taken by storm.”
        Another Important question reveals strange historical and eccentric events which took place in Cairo, Egypt. In the same volume of Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p. 632), we find the answer to the following question
        “Question: If Christians claim that the churches which had been closed by the rulers were unjustly closed and they have the right to re-open them, and if they made their request to the rulers, should the rulers approve their case?
        Re-opening those churches may incur a change in the hearts of Muslims in all the earth because Christians will rejoice and will be pleased to go to churches. This will cause annoyance to the righteous Muslims and others so that they invoke God against whoever allowed that and assisted it.
        Answer: Ibn Timiyya, the Mufti of the Muslims responded to this question at the beginning of page 634. He said,
        “Praise be to God: The allegation of Christians that Muslims were unjust to them by closing their churches is contrary to the consensus of Muslims because Muslim Scholars who belong to the four schools of Abu Hanifa, Malik Al-Shafii and Ahmaad as well as others of the Imam, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Uzai, al-Laith Ibn sad and others, and before them some of the companions (of the prophet) and their successors, have consented that the Muslim Imam, even if he destroyed every church in the conquered land by war (such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria) that would not be regarded as injustice done by him, but rather he must be obeyed in that. If Christians refuse to accept the verdict of the governor, they would be violating the covenant, and their blood and their properties become lawful (to the Muslims).
        “It is well known that Umar Ibn al-Khattab made it a condition that Christians are not to build a church even in a land that was conquered through a peace treaty. If they had a church and the Muslims erected a city, the Muslims have the right to confiscate the church. Even if there were churches on the lands of Cairo before it was built, the Muslims would have the right to seize them after the erection of the city, because the city which is inhabited by Muslims who own mosques in it should be free of tokens of ungodliness, churches or anything similar.
        “Because of the same principle, the prophet said: ‘Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arab peninsula.’ So no Jews were left in Khaybar. The prophet (until then) had agreed to keep them there after he invaded Khaybar and conquered it. Later, he gave his order to expel the Jews and Christians from all the Arab peninsula. That happened after the Muslims began to inhabit it. Thus, some rulers such as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others used to demolish the Christian churches to support God’s cause. May (God’s) support and victory be upon them ! ”
        We have quoted the text of Ibn Timiyya word for word, as we usually do. Do these words need any comment? The matter is very clear and the reader can re-read these words. Sheikh al-Islam here clearly states all the historical facts, and the consensus of all the scholars, and the companions (Muhammad’s friends) who call for the abolishment of the churches and prohibition of building a new church. Only during a weakened Islam when the rulers did not apply the Islamic law were some churches were built, but in case of a strong ruler, such as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others, God’s order was carried out and churches were demolished!
        Whenever Christians refused to obey the order, their blood and properties became lawful to Muslims. What an insult and injustice! Yet in spite of that, they talk boastfully about justice and equality! Even during the time of the Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Muslims confiscated the largest church in Damascus and converted it into a mosque which is now called the “Amawi Mosque” (Ibn Kathir, Part 7, p. 21).
        The Inadmissibility of the Testimony of the People of the Covenant
        This simply means that a non-Muslim (whether they are Jews or Christians) is not allowed to give his testimony in any matter in a court. Basically, their testimony is not acceptable because they are not Muslims. Is it possible that an entire society does not accept the testimony of its citizens because they are not Muslims? How then, can court cases be justly conducted, and where is equality?
        This is Islamic law which does not comprehend the meaning of equality. Equality in Islam is delusion and deception. Islam is nothing but the religion of inequality.
        The Sayings of Muslim Scholars and Legists
        All Muslim scholars agree on this matter. I have chosen to show you the greatest and the most famous from among them, such as al-Bukhari, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Timiyya and Malik Ibn Ons.
        Malik Ibn Ons
        In Vol. 5, Section 13, p. 156, we read the following plain statement,
        “Non-Muslims’ testimony is not permissible at all, even against each other! Of course, their testimony is not allowable against Muslims but Muslim testimony against them is acceptable.”
        Concerning non-Muslim women he says also,
        “The testimony of the women of the people of the covenant is not permissible even in birth! But the testimony of the women of Muslims is acceptable provided two women testify. One woman’s testimony is not acceptable” (p. 157).
        The statement is very clear. Christian or Jewish testimonies are not acceptable, even against each other. Their women’s testimony is not acceptable even in matters of birth!
        The Imam Al-Shafi’i
        In his famous book, “The Ordinances of the Qur’an” (“Ahkam Al-Qur’an”, Part 2, p.142), Al-Shafi’i says,
        “The testimony of the people of the covenant is not permissible . The witness must be one who belongs to our religion and he must be a freeman not a slave. Testimony is acceptable only from our freeman who belongs to our religion.”
        This is an unquestionable statement—The witness must be a Muslim, a freeman not a slave.
        The Bukhari
        In Part 3, p.237 of the Sahih, the Bukhari indicates,
        “Polytheists are not to be asked for a testimony or anything else. The testimony of the people of other religions against each other is not allowable, based on the Qur’anic saying: ‘We caused enmity among them,’ and because the prophet Muhammad said: ‘Do not believe the people of the Book.”’
        That is, a Christian cannot testify against another Christian, according to al-Bukhari, one of the most famous scholars of Islam. He quotes a verse from the Qur’an which says that God has caused enmity to prevail among Christians, thus their testimony is not acceptable against each other—as if there is no hostility, homicide, war and destruction among Muslims! Then the Bukhari cites Muhammad’s saying: “Do not believe the people of the book.” The non-Muslim’s testimony is not acceptable.
        Ibn Hazm
        In Vol. 6, Part 9, pp. 405-408, Ibn Hazm remarks,
        “The testimony of a Christian or a Jew is not permissible unless a Muslim man dies in a foreign land void of Muslims! Apart from this, the testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable against another Muslim or even against a Jew or a Christian like him.”
        In order to authenticate his statement Ibn Hazm quotes the most famous among the companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa, as well as some of Muhammad’s wives.
        Ibn Timiyya
        In Vol. 14, p. 87, Ibn Timiyya indicates plainly and decisively:
        “The testimony of the people of the covenant is not admissible.”
        I believe the texts quoted from the works of these prestigious Muslim authorities are sufficient to clarify this point. Otherwise, tell us, my dear Muslim friend, who are more famous than al-Bukhari, Malik, Ibn Timiyya? If you want to know the opinion of the Imam Abu Hanifa, he also declared that the testimony of a non-Muslim is not allowed against a Muslim. He agrees with all other scholars in this matter, but he adds that the testimony of a non-Muslim against another non-Muslim like him may be admissible because all of them are ungodly men. The rest of the scholars (without exception) disagree with him in this matter.
        The Prohibition Against Employing non-Muslims
        There exists a prohibition against employing non-Muslims in certain jobs, such as management positions. All scholars and legists of Islamic law agree on this view.
        Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, (the “Just” Caliph)
        In Vol. 28, pp. 643, 644 Ibn Timiyya narrates the following significant events:
        “Khalid Ibn Al-Walid wrote to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab saying: ‘In Syria there is a Christian secretary who is in full charge of accounting the taxes.’ Umar wrote to him: ‘Do not use him.’ Khalid answered: ‘He is indispensable and if we do not put him in charge of it, the treasury will be lost.’ Umar responded again: ‘Do not use him.”’
        It was quoted in Sahih Al-Bukhari that Muhammad said,
        “‘I will not ask the assistance of a polytheist.’
        “One day, Abu Musa Al-Ashari came to Umar while he was in the mosque to lay before him the income of Iraq. Umar was pleased with the outcome and said: ‘Summon your secretary to read it for me.’ Abu Musa told him: ‘He would not enter the mosque because he is a Christian.’ Umar attempted to scourge Abu Musa with a whip. Had it touched him, it would have hurt him and Umar said: ‘Do not honor them after God has humiliated them. Do not believe them after God has disbelieved them”’ (Ibn Timiyya, Vol. 28).
        Based on Ibn Timiyya’s volumes, it is well known that Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to command the Muslims and their governors saying,
        “Humiliate the Christians.”
        This is the second Caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr. He refused to let Khalid appoint a Christian to take care of the taxes in spite of Khalid’s evaluation that no one knew better than he. When he also discovered that Abu Musa had employed a Christian to oversee the accounts of Iraq, he scourged him with a whip. Then Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume (p. 646),
        “Some who were less qualified than the Christians were appointed; that would be more useful to Muslims for their religion and earthly welfare. A little of what is lawful will be abundantly blessed, and abundance of what is unlawful will be wasted.”
        Ibn Timiyya meant here that regardless of how little the qualification of a Muslim, God will bless it because employing a Muslim is lawful; and no matter how great the qualification of a Christian, employing him is an unlawful matter which God has forbidden.
        Of course, it is not allowed that any Christian be appointed to a position of leadership All scholars agree on that. Ibn Hazm says, “No one but a mature, sane Muslim should assume the office of judge” (Vol. 6, part 9, p.363). Umar Ibn al-Khattab said; “No one of them should hold a position in which he can have power over a Muslim.”
        Contemporary Scholars—The Azhar Scholars of Egypt
        It is sufficient to quote the Azhar Scholars of Egypt and the Mawdudi of Pakistan. Dr. Abdul Moumin says,
        “All Muslims Jurists agree that a judge should be a Muslim and it is forbidden for a non-Muslim to be a judge according to the Qur’anic verse, ‘There is no authority of the infidels over the Muslims.’ Judgment is considered authority and judgment requires that the judge be a mature and wise Muslim. In addition, a non-Muslim should be humiliated as an infidel, whereas the position of judge requires respect, and he is ineligible even to be a witness.”
        This article is from the “Journal of the Administration of Governmental Judicial
        Cases” (1979 July-September) concerning the general rules prohibiting non-Muslims from being judges in court according to Qur’anic verses and Islamic teachings. This article was written by Dr. Badr El Deen Abdel Moumin, teacher at the international university of Al-Azhar. The Journal is published by the Egyptian Government. This Islamic law is not applied now in Egypt, but it is an Islamic law according to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s teaching.
        The Mawdudi
        In his previous book, “Rights of Non Muslims in Islamic State”, the Mawdudi says, “They cannot become members of the Council and they do not have the right to participate in electing members to these positions” (Arabic version, p.31).
        Also, in his book, “Islam and Encountering the Challenges”, the Mawdudi also says,
        “Non-Muslim sects must not be made equal to Muslims in political rights; even the right of election is prohibited for non- Muslims” (p. 268).
        On the same page, the Mawdudi asserts that non-Muslims do not have the right to propagate their religion in Muslim lands.
        It is apparent to everyone, therefore, that the position of a judge is prohibited for a non-Muslim or a woman because Muhammad said plainly,
        “May God curse the people who appoint a woman to govern them” (Bukhari, Volume 6, p. 10, and Volume 9, p. 70).
        What a significant saying of Muhammad! This is a tradition upon which scholars rely. It is even known to the ordinary man. This is why some Kuwaiti and Saudi newspapers warned the people of Pakistan against electing Mrs. Buto to be Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistani officials said that there is nothing in their constitution which prohibits it.
        The People of the Covenant are Subject to the Qur’an
        In Vol. 6, part 9, p. 425, Ibn Hazm reiterates these auspicious words,
        “The Jew and the Christian and the Magian are to be judged by the laws of the people of Islam in everything, whether they like it or not, whether they come to us or not. It is unlawful to refer them to the law of their faith. There is a verse in the Qur’an which says to Muhammad, ‘If they come to you, pass arbitrary judgment among them or turn away from them.’ Another verse was inspired which abrogated this verse. It says, ‘Pass your judgment on them according to what God revealed to you.’ This is what Ibn Abbas has said.”
        In his book, “The Islamic State” (p. 105), Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani of Jerusalem attests to Ibn Hazms’s statement:
        “The Islamic state was carrying out the laws of Islam in the Countries which were subject to its authority. It used to implement the ordinances, and apply the punishments as well as the business deals and to administer the people’s matters according to Islamic principles. Scholars of the foundation of jurisprudence believed that the one who was addressed by legal ordinances must comprehend the message, whether he is a Muslim or non-Muslim—all who embrace Islam and those who do not yield to its ordinances.”
        The important thing here is that Muslims attacked Christian lands and occupied them, then they imposed Islamic law on Christian inhabitants!
        The Remainder of Umar’s Terms
        We have already mentioned that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab made it mandatory that Christians not build a new church or renovate any of the ruined churches. Now let us complete the study of the restrictions which Umar imposed on Christians as they are recorded in the same reference (Ibn Timiyya, Vol. 28, and Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4). Umar says,
        “Christians should not hinder any Muslim from staying in their churches for three days during which they offer them food and serve the Muslims. They ought to give them their seats if the Muslims wish to sit down. Christians should not resemble Muslims in anything, such as their dress, tiaras, turbans or shoes or parting of the hair. They should not ride a donkey with a saddle. They must shave their foreheads. They should not display any of their (religious) books on the streets of the Muslims. They should not bury their dead next to Muslims and must not read loudly in their churches. They should not mourn loudly over their dead. They should not buy slaves who fall under the portion of Muslims Not one of them should assume any position by which he has any authority over a Muslim. If they infringe any of these terms, they lose the right of protection and it is admissible for the Muslims to treat them as people of rebellion and quarrel; that is, it is permissible to kill them. Head tax must be imposed on them, free men as well as the slaves, male or female, poor and rich and on the monks” (cited from Ibn Hazm).
        Ibn Timiyya asserts that these are the conditions which Umar Ibn al-Khattab actually made. He completely agrees with Ibn Hazm because this is the history of Islam. When Umar made a peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he offered them these terms in a clear document. Sufyan al-Thawri who is one of the ancient Muslim scholars and chroniclers acknowledged by all Muslims, attests to this. Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume (page 654):
        “These terms are constantly renewed and imposed on the Christians by any one of the Muslim rulers who, God may be exalted, has bestowed on him success, as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz did during his reign, who strictly followed the path of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. Harun Al-Rashid, Jafar al-Mutawakkil and others renewed them and ordered the demolishing of the churches which ought to be demolished, like the churches of the entire Egyptian lands.”
        Ibn Timiyya recorded the above after he praised the rulers who carried out these terms which Umar Ibn al-Khattab, father of Hafasa, wife of Muhammad and the second Caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr imposed on Christians. Ibn Timiyya declares to us (Vol. 28, p.654):
        “These terms are mentioned by the chief scholars who belong to the acknowledged schools. They alluded to the fact that the Imam ought to oblige the people of the book to subjugate them to these terms [because Muhammad said many times, ‘Follow Abu Bakr and Omar!’].”
        Ibn Timiyya also indicated that Umar Ibn al-Khattab said about the people of the covenant, “Humiliate them,” because the Qur’an said distinctly that they should pay the head tax with humiliation (9:29).
        1. These unjust humiliating terms imposed on Christians are acknowledged not only by Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm but also by the chief scholars (who belong to the four schools which are followed by the majority of the Muslims) among them Sufyan al-Thawri, who is one of the great companions and chroniclers. These terms were not only carried out during the era of Umar Ibn al-Khattab but were implemented by many Arab Muslim rulers during their occupation of the lands of Christian people.
        2. After Umar Ibn Al-Khattab presented these terms to the inhabitants of Syria and Damascus, he told them plainly:
        “If any Christian violates any of these terms, it will be permissible to kill him.”
        Imagine the extent of the relentlessness and injustice of this verdict. This means that if a Christian dressed like a Muslim, it would be permissible to kill him. If he refused to host the Muslims in the church for three days, or if he did not move from his seat to let the Muslim sit in his place, he could be killed. Also, if Christians pray loudly in the churches or mourn loudly over their dead, or if one of them renovated a ruined church he would be killed. What a just man, Umar Ibn Khattab! As all Muslims say about him, “The Just Caliph!”
        A Christian Is Condemned To Death If He Curses A Muslim
        Who can believe this matter? No one, unless he reads it clearly in Ibn Hazm’s book (Vol. 8, part 11, p. 274). He said:
        “It is mandatory to kill anyone of the people of the Covenant who curses a Muslim, whether he is a Jew or a Christian because God says, ‘Pay the tribute readily, being brought low [humiliated]’” (9:29).
        “That is humiliation. If anyone violates this principle by cursing a Muslim, he must be killed or taken into captivity. His properties become lawful for Muslims nor does it matter whether the person who did it was a man or a woman. If any one of them cursed a Muslim, he would have no choice but either to embrace Islam or be killed” (p. 274).
        Ibn Hazm (page 275) added,
        “Of course, if a Muslim curses another Muslim like him, he would only be whipped.”
        Ibn Timiyya states that in general, any Christian who curses a Muslim must be killed immediately (Vol. 28:668).
        It is easy for the reader to imagine all the situations in which a Christian who is humiliated in his own land might get angry, react impulsively, and curse a Muslim. However, if he does, there is nothing left for him but to accept Islam or to be killed, as Ibn Hazm indicated! What a merciful religion! A religion of equality and love and understanding—and justice!
        Before we conclude this discussion, we would like to mention briefly three specific things out of dozens of other issues. What we have already discussed is sufficient for anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about equality and justice as they are practiced by Muhammad and Islam. It is enough to remove this veil, yet there are three more things:
        1. If a Christian father executed or arranged a marriage for his Muslim daughter (even with her approval) that marriage is not permissible and is void because the rather is a Christian and she is a Muslim – even if the daughter approved of it (Malik Ibn Anas, Vol. 2, part 4, p. 176). That is, the father cannot be the legal guardian of his Muslim daughter even if she herself wants it! A Muslim who is a stranger to her will become her legal guardian!
        2. Muhammad said, “Do not meet Jews or Christians with greetings. If you ever meet them in the street, force them to the narrowest part of it” (refer to Sahih of Muslim, “Interpretation of Nawawi”, Vol. 5, p. 7; also Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: Zad al-Ma’ad, Part 2, pp. 424, 425). This is a well-known statement of Muhammad.
        3. Last, we would like to state here a remark made by one of the contemporary Muslim scholars, Dr. Ahmad ’Umar Hashim, in which he reveals the real face of Islam. He says,
        “Islam does not prohibit [Muslims] from conducting business with non-Muslims, but Islam prohibits hearty friendships because hearty friendship should only be between a Muslim and his brother Muslim” (Al-Liwa al-lslami, issue no. 153 – Al Azhar).
        What a sad statement! Yet, this is not foreign to Islam and, of course, Al Azhar knows exactly what Islam does and does not prohibit.
        You may have a Muslim friend who tells you that Muhammad said of the people of the Book,
        “They enjoy the privileges we enjoy and they are subject to the duties to which we are subject.”
        What does this statement mean? How does it agree with what we have already had which reveals clearly that there is a striking discrimination between the Muslim and the non-Muslim? Besides, we have seen that the people of the Book are subject to ill-treatment and contempt.
        The answer is very simple. Muhammad spelled out this statement about the people of the Book provided that they became Muslims like them. In this case, they would be treated as Muslims without any discrimination and they would be subject to the same privileges and duties as other Muslims because they have become Muslims. If they do not embrace Islam, they will be subject to the head tax and all the terms which ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab mentioned in his document. It is relevant here to know the situation concerning to which the above statement refers, because many Muslims wrongly believe that it means equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
        They Have the Rights and Duties We Have
        If we open the “Biography of the Prophet” (“Al-Road Al Anf”, Ibn Hisham and Al-Sohaly, part 4, p. 216), we read that Muhammad sent a letter to some of the Byzantines who accepted Islam saying,
        “From Muhammad, the Apostle of God: I received what you have sent and I became aware of your acceptance of Islam and your fight against the infidels. You have to practice praying, pay the alms and give one-fifth of the bounty to God and to His apostle. Any one of the Jews or Christians who accepts Islam will enjoy the same rights we enjoy and will be subject to the same duties to which we are subject. But anyone who holds fast to his faith must pay the head tax.”
        What is important to us in this quotation is not Muhammad’s request that they send him one fifth of the bounty which was captured during their raids, but rather his plain statement that anyone who embraces Islam will have the same rights and will be subject to the same duties imposed on the Muslims. Those who hold fast to their own religion must pay the head tax (the tribute). This is what is recorded in Ibn Hisham’s biography which has become the most authoritative source about Muhammad’s life.
        If we examine the “Chronicle of al-Tabari” (Part 2, pp. 145-196), we see the same principle. Muhammad himself says,
        “Whoever prays our prayer is a Muslim, and will enjoy the same rights as Muslims and be subject to the same duties. But those who reject (Islam) must pay the head tax.”

        Conclusion:

        Islam cannot be Reformed! It must be Rejected!

      • Hi Lucky, cont. of the balls you’ve quoted :

        6. “…I.say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell”.
        (100% crap, we are not even priests and you know what wonderful angels they portend to be!!)

        7.” …and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery”.
        [Even if it wasn’t her fault…surely this encourages prostitution!]

        8. “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you”
        [What about terrorists and Al-Qaeda and Indian rapists; how do I do good to them??!?]

        9. “…..But I tell you not to resist an evil person”
        (1000% crap…tadpoles!)

        10. “….do not do your charitable deeds before men….”
        [to remain as a motivation / accountability for others to follow suite it is a must…why hide?]

        11. “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place”
        (Then why go to Churches and what about the Sunday brayings…?)

        Please ref to next leaf….

        Regards

        Plum

        • Hi lucky, let’s see the balls you’ve quoted and added to your “faith” :

          1. ″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
          For theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
          (Total crap as the one rich in spirit is always rewarded)

          2. “Blessed are the pure in heart,
          For they shall see God”.
          (nonsense-what god does one see? Blessed by who? Who is pure in heart in this world?

          3. “Let your………glorify your Father in heaven”
          (Is the Father ever glorified or mentioned in astericks?)

          4. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill….”
          { During his ministry, Jesus violated many of their oral laws. He mixed freely with tax collectors and sinners, making Him ceremonially unclean (Luke 7:39). He ate and drank with them, and was called a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34). He ate with ceremonially unclean hands (Luke 11:38). He broke their Sabbath laws by healing people, and gleaning corn to eat (Luke 13:14, Matthew 12:1-2). He forgave peoples’ sins, which to the Pharisees was blasphemy (Luke 5:21). He also freely criticised the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and self righteousness (Luke 11:37-52))

          5. “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison”.
          (total bulls: why should I fear my enemy and accept his frogs or jail…cowdung??]

          Please ref to next leaf….

          Regards

          Plum

    • Hi lucky, let’s see the balls you have quoted that seem wavy :

      12 “Our Father in heaven,
      …………….For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen”.
      (So why did the liars change and add, “the Son and some Ghost”?)

      13. ” Father who sees in secret will reward you openly”
      [Any head or tail of this bulls?…..hmmm sees hidden but rewards openly..mmm urrgg!]

      14. “…but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven…”
      [where is that HEAVEN??]

      15. “…the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness…”
      [Any darkness in light?? Unpalatable!]

      16. “No one can serve two masters”
      [what about the ‘TRINITY’?]

      17. “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you……for this is the Law and the Prophets”
      [Law of the Prophets? ……what is that?]

      18. “Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it”
      {So what will happen to the rest?…..Doomed!!}

      19. “Beware of false prophets”
      (Talking about the Vatican rogues or the street hoodlums?)

      20.”And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”
      (What a lovely jelly it will be from Jesus for those who love him?? But when?)

      21. ” I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock”

      {to build a house on a rock? and about the one who builds on the solid ground?}

      So, how does such a bull become god’s word or associate to which god? Where does that funny whacky “god” live?

      Regards

      Plum

      • SLAVERY IN ISLAM

        All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the fact of slavery in Islam and clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most famous scholars to shed light on their position.
        The Scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt
        In his book, “You Ask and Islam Answers”, Dr. ‘Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp. 51,52),
        “Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other – it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner.”
        The text is plain that all prisoners of war must either be killed or become slaves. The ancient scholars are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89),
        “The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the nation of Muhammad.”
        Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates clearly and without shame,
        “Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity”.
        In Part 4, p. 177 of the “Prophet Biography” (Al-Road Al-Anf’), Ibn Hisham says,
        “According to Islamic law concerning prisoners of war, the decision is left to the Muslim Imam. He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange them for Muslim captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard to men, but women and children are not permitted to be killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim captives) or enslaved – take them as slaves and maids.”
        This is the statement of Ibn Hisham, on whom all Muslims and students of Muhammad’s biography rely. Of course, these matters which Ibn Hisham recorded used to take place continuously in all of Muhammad’s wars and invasions. All of Muhammad’s people (his wives, and Muhammad himself) owned many slaves – males and females. In his campaign against the children of Qurayza (the Jewish tribe), Muhammad killed all the males (700-900) in one day. Then, he divided the women and the children among his people.
        The Caliphs across the ages followed Muhammad’s footsteps and enslaved (by hundreds and thousands) men and women who were captured in wars. Many of them were Persians and Byzantines. All the Islamic Chroniclers without exception have recorded these facts. The way Arab Muslims invaded Africa and killed and enslaved Africans is a well-known, historical fact.
        In Vol. 2, Part 3, p. 13, Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham who is also quoted by Ibn Timiyya, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (part 3, p. 486). All of them taught the same principle and said the same words.
        This question was delivered to Ibn Timiyya who was Mufti of Islam (Vol. 31, pp. 376, 377),
        “A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an owned slave?”
        Ibn Timiyya says emphatically,
        “Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs – whether he must be enslaved or not because when A’isha (Muhammad’s wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A’isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.'”
        Then Ibn Timiyya states (Vol. 31, p. 380) that the legist Abu Hanifa says,
        “Muhammad is an Arab; thus it is not admissible to enslave Arabs because of the nobility of this race since Muhammad is from them.”
        Yet other scholars disagree with him, emphasizing that Muhammad (in one of his campaigns) enslaved Arabs, too. However, it is evident from Muhammad’s traditions that he regarded Arabs to be the noblest race, especially the Quraysh, his tribe. His famous saying (that the caliphs must be elected from the Quraysh tribe) is acknowledged by all translators of the tradition without exception.
        He should have told A’isha,
        “Set her free because she is a human being like you. It is not important whether she is a descendant of Ishmael or of Isaac!”
        Islam Encourages Muslims to Keep Slaves – No Liberation
        All Muslim scholars acknowledge that Islam has retained the principle of slavery, though some of them claim that Islam encourages the liberation of slaves. Maybe some of Muhammad’s sayings and a few Qur’anic verses indicate so, yet from a practical point of view, we realize that the liberation of slaves was a rare occurrence. The reason is well known. Neither Muhammad nor his wives or companions were a good example in this regard. Sometimes, Muhammad used to talk about the merits of liberating a slave, yet he himself owned dozens of slaves and maid-slaves. However, we encounter a strange opinion spelled out by Muhammad’s wives and his friends in which he encourages them to retain their slaves. In Vol. 33, p. 61 Ibn Timiyya says,
        “Anyone who says, `If I do so (such a thing), every slave I own will become free’ is not obligated by his oath and he can redeem his oath by any means and retain his slaves. (He can do that) by fasting a few days or by feeding some hungry people.”
        On the same page Ibn Timiyya stresses that this is what all Muhammad’s friends said (such as Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn ‘Umar) as well as his wives (such as Zaynab, A’isha, and Um Salama).
        Is the liberation of slaves a bad thing so that it is possible for a man who swears he will liberate his slaves to renounce his oath and retain them? It should be said that whoever takes an oath to free his slaves if so and so happens, is obliged to fulfill his oath and liberate his slaves, but we see that Muhammad’s wives, his great companions and his relatives say something different according to the testimony of Ibn Timiyya.
        The Qur’an itself (in several places) approves of slavery and assures the Muslim the right to own dozens of male and female slaves either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. The Qur’an talks about the possession of slaves as “the possession of their necks” (Surah 58:3, Surah Al-Mujadilah).
        Slaves of Muhammad – Prophet of Freedom and Equality!
        Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves after he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. I would like here to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (Part I, p. 160), he says,
        “Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.
        This trading used to take place in the slave market in the Arab Peninsula and in Mecca. Muhammad was accustomed to sell, purchase, hire, rent, and to exchange one slave for two. Thus, he had an increasing number of slaves, especially after he claimed to be a prophet, and after his immigration from Mecca to escape death at the hand of his tribe Quraysh. Also, the slaves of Muhammad and his followers were constantly increasing as the result of those who were captured in wars and not only by purchase. This should alert those who have accepted Islam – the Muslims of New York, Chicago, Georgia, Detroit, Los Angeles as well as all the Africans and all Muslims of the world. Even among the Arabs are Muslims who are not aware of these facts concerning Muhammad. Sadly, this is only a small part of the facts of which they are unaware concerning Muhammad.
        The Names of Muhammad’s Slaves
        (A) Male Slaves:
        Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet’s biographies written by great ancient scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his book, “Zad al-Ma’ad” (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following,
        “These are the names of Muhammad’s male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, ‘Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad’am, Karkara, Abu Rafi’, Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu ‘Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship’).
        He himself relates his own story; he says:
        “The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. (When) their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, `Spread your garment.’ They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, `Carry (it), for you are a ship.’ Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, `You are a ship”‘ (refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222).
        The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of Muhammad’s slaves. The Tabari also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the Tabari’s and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s records.
        Still, in regard to Muhammad’s slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, and then he married him to his (Muhammad’s) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by her. The scandalous story is documented by verses in the Qur’an, and Muslim scholars admit it.
        (B) Maid Slaves:
        In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad’s maid-slaves. They are Salma Um Rafi’, Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa’d, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.
        The Status of the Slave Under Islam’s Unjust Laws
        Let us survey together some strange things embraced by Muhammad and Islam pertaining to slaves. Then let us shed some light on the attitude of Christianity towards this issue.
        The Freeman Should Not Be Killed For A Slave
        The Qur’an as well as Muslim scholars are explicit in this regard The Qur’an (the Surah of the Cow:178) shamelessly says,
        “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered – the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.”
        The reader does not need the interpretations of the scholars to understand these explicit words which indicate that the freeman should be killed only for another freeman, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. Still, I promised to stick to the interpretations of the great expositors of these Qur’anic verses from among the Muslim scholars because they are more knowledgeable of their Book and its verses. We rely on their interpretations and not on our own. In the commentary of the Jalalan (p. 24), we read the following regarding the above mentioned verse,
        “The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman.”
        What kind of equality is this between human beings!
        To explain the aforementioned verse (2:178), the Baydawi relates what really happened with the prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This is recorded in his book entitled, “The Commentary of al-Baydawi”. On p. 36, we read,
        “The Shafi’i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men’s slaves. This is because ‘Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was related on the authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad’s companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it.”
        These are the verses of the Qur’an and this is the attitude of Muhammad himself as well as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar after him.
        The Muslim legists
        The Shafi’i, Malik and Ibn Timiyya, pronounce the same principle as in the Qur’an (2:187).
        The Imam Shafi’i tells us plainly and decisively in Part I of his book, “Ahkam al-Qur’an” (“The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, p. 275),
        “A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a slave.”
        On the same page he adds,
        “A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave or for a woman.”
        What justice! What equality! Then he adds,
        “The freeman is not to be killed for a slave according to the scholars.”
        Malik Ibn Anas was asked: “What is the punishment of a master who beats his slave to death?” He answered: “Nothing!” (Vol. 6, Part 15, p 164).
        In Vol. 28, p. 378, Ibn Timiyya also says:
        “What we mentioned in regard to the believers whose blood is treated equally is restricted to the free Muslim against another free Muslim.”
        I do not have better witnesses in this regard than these scholars: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Ali and Muhammad’s deeds, and all great, popular Muslim scholars.
        A Slave Is Not Entitled To Property Or Money
        Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9,
        “The slave is not permitted to write a will when he dies, nor can he bequeath (anything) because his entire possessions belong to his master.”
        In part I, p. 180 of his book, “The Ordinances of the Qur’an”, the Shafi’i also says,
        “The Qur’anic verse; `Marry of the women who seem good to you, two or three or four are meant for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he says in it that the one who acts fairly is the person who owns money and slaves do not own money.”‘
        He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, “The owned one does not have money.” Besides, according to the Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except slaves and women. Malik Ibn Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 33,34),
        “Slaves and women do not have any portion in the bounty.”
        This is true even if they have been fighting with the rest of the Muslims. In Part III of the “Prophetic Biography” (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says,
        “The slave does not get anything from the bounty whether the bounty is money or women.”
        The Testimony Of The Slave Is Not Admissible
        In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks,
        “The Shafi’i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, who are the legists of Islam, assert that the testimony of the slave is not acceptable.”
        If we also turn the pages of the “Ordinances of the Qur’an” by the Shafi’i (part II, p. 142), he determines,
        “The witnesses must be from among our freeman, not from our slaves, but from freeman who belong to our religion! ”
        The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable, even if justice would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not important. In his “Sahih” (Part III, p. 223), Al-Bukhari remarks,
        “The testimony of a slave is not acceptable in marriages.”
        What is the meaning of the Shafi’i’s statement,
        “A witness should not be from our possessed slaves.”
        Does not Mr. Shafi’i know that God only is the One who owns people? How dare he utter the phrase, “our possessed slaves.”
        There Is No Punishment For One Who Makes False Accusation Against Slaves
        It is well known that if a Muslim falsely accuses another free Muslim and slanders his honor, he will be punished by being flogged with eighty lashes. This is what happened when some of Muhammad’s companions and relatives accused A’isha, his wife, of adultery with one of the young men because they stayed behind after the departure of the caravan, then later in the morning they arrived together. Muhammad ordered each one of them flogged with eighty lashes. But if a Muslim calumniates a slave, he would not be punished.
        This is the opinion of all the scholars.
        For instance (Vol. 8, Part II, p. 27 1), Ibn Hazm asserts that this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, and Sufyan al-Thawri and not only his own opinion. This is what the Sharawi shamelessly remarks,
        “Female slaves are deprived of dignity and subject to abuse because they are not `an honor’ to anyone (that is, they are not free, respectable women who belong to a free man). These are the same words reiterated by the Shafi’i (Part I, p. 307) in his book, `Ahkam of the Qur’an’; thus a female slave must not be veiled. When- ever Muhammad took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Muslims would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, `He owned her as a slave’; that is, she became a property of his right hand.”
        A good example is the incident of Safiyya, daughter of Hay, who was taken as a bounty in the war of Khaybar. All the chronicles (as well as the biographies without exception) have recorded, “We wonder why it is said about women and girls that they are of `shed dignity’.” The Shafi’i and the Sharawi state this word for word. Is it necessary for us to repeat that Islam sheds the dignity of man under the pretense that he is a slave, that she is a woman, or that he is a non-Muslim?
        On Matters Of Sex And Marriage – and About Black Slaves
        1. The Slave cannot choose for himself.
        This was confirmed by all the Muslim scholars on the authority of Muhammad. In Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 467, Ibn Hazm said,
        “If a slave gets married without the permission of his master, his marriage will be invalid and he must be whipped because he has committed adultery. He must be separated from his wife. She is also regarded as an adulteress because Muhammad said, `Any slave who gets married without the approval of his master is a prostitute.'”
        The same text is quoted by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Part 5, p. 117 of “Zad al-Maad”), as well as Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 201). Malik Ibn Anas relates (Vol. 2, Part 4) more than that. He says (pp. 199, 201, 206),
        “The slave does not get married without the approval of his master. If he is a slave to two masters, he has to obtain the approval of both men.”
        2. The male slave and the female slave are forced to get married.
        Malik Ibn Anas says explicitly,
        “The master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without obtaining their approval” (Vol. 2, p. 155).
        Ibn Hazm says that Sufyan al-Thawri, too, has said that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without securing their approval (Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469). Ibn Timiyya is of the same opinion.
        I must not fail in this regard to mention that Malik Ibn Ons, who (after agreeing with the other scholars that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to get married) added,
        “The master does not have the right to force the female slave to wed to an ugly black slave if she is beautiful and agile unless in case of utmost necessity” (refer to Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469).
        We wonder here, what did Malik Ibn Anas mean when he said, “An ugly black slave”? Is a man valued on the basis of the color of his skin? Do you say that, O Malik Ibn Anas, and you are one of the great four legists? Or is a man valued on the basis of his personality, reasoning, and heart? We also have the right to wonder why Mihran, the black slave, suffered the humiliation afflicted on him by Muhammad and his companions when they made him carry their belongings in the burning desert while Muhammad was saying to him, “Carry them, for you are a ship.” Thus he became known by that surname. Did they not have dozens of other slaves?
        Muhammad even discriminated (in Islam) between a black dog and a white dog! Yet, what concerns us here is what I pointed out about slaves in general; their masters treat them as if they are not human beings who have feelings, desires and self-will.
        Let us continue our discussion in order to have a more complete picture about how the Islamic religion abuses the dignity of men and women under the pretense that they are slaves and not free human beings.
        3. The Arab freeman does not marry a slave unless it is inevitable:
        In Vol. 31, p. 383, Ibn Timiyya says,
        “It is not permissible for the Arab freeman to marry an owned slave unless it is inevitable, such as being unable to get married to a free woman. If it happened and he were wed to a slave, her children would be slaves, too, because they follow (the status) of the mother in slavery.”
        Malik Ibn Anas notes,
        “It is not allowable for a man to wed a slave besides his freewoman wife. In this case, his wife has the right to divorce him. Likewise, if he marries a freewoman while he is already married to a slave and he fails to tell her so, the freewoman has the right to leave him” (Malik, Vol. 2, p. 204).
        I do not have any comment on these strange principles, yet I wonder why an Arab freeman cannot marry a slave. Is not he a man and she a woman? And why (if it is inevitable that he should marry her) should all her descendants be slaves? These are iniquitous and ruthless ordinances. It is obvious that Muhammad failed to change the traditions of the tribal society of the pre-Islamic period. Most Arab Muslims had slaves. His companions, wives and he himself owned and retained dozens of them. He bought more after he claimed his prophethood and declared his message – the message or equality, and freedom, and human rights!
        What Would Happen If A Freewoman Married Her Slave?
        She might be an open-minded woman who did not discriminate between one man and another. Thus she might have fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and they intended, officially, to get married. What is the attitude of Islam in this case? If something like that took place in Islamic society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar Ibn Khattab in these situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248, 249, Ibn Hazm remarks,
        “A woman was wed to her male slave. Umar intended to stone her, but instead he made them separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to your owned slave!’ Another woman got married to her slave. Umar scourged her with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another time, a freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a pretty woman and I have a slave to whom I would like to get married.’ Umar refused to do so. He whipped the slave and ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to what your right hand owns. Only men have the right to get wed to what their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to marry him and he becomes a freeman, the manumission will be invalid and the marriage is not valid.”‘
        Is there any comment on the ruthlessness of this second caliph who was Muhammad’s father-in-law and one of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the two whom Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when he declared, “Emulate Abu Bakr and Umar.” Yet Umar was a tyrant, a ruthless man without a heart who attempted to stone a woman for no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He also scourged another woman, forbidding any other man to marry her, and beat and exiled a slave. And when a third woman wanted to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily together, especially after she lost hope in getting married to a freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and said, “No, this is not permissible.” He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign country. By that, he became an example of relentlessness, a hard heart, and detestable oppression.
        In matters of sex and marriage, Ibn Timiyya states:
        “The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of his maid-slave because they are his property, provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time” (Vol. 35, p. 54).
        The Value Of The Slave – What Is His Price In Dinars?
        “If an owned slave assaults somebody and damages his property, his crime will be tied to his neck. It will be said to his master, `If you wish, you can pay the fine for the damages done by your slave or deliver him to be sentenced to death.’ His master has to choose one of the two options – either the value of the slave and his price or the damage the slave has caused” (Vol. 32, p. 202, Ibn Timiyya).
        Is this how the value of a man is calculated? If the loss amounted, for example, to 600 dinars and the value of the slave in the estimation of the master did not exceed more than 400 dinars because he was sick or weak, his master would, in this case, deliver him to be killed!
        We have looked at six points concerning the status of slaves in the Islamic religion. Actually, any one point, if we ponder it, is sufficient to clarify the truth. It reveals to us how human dignity is crushed in the practice of slavery. From the very beginning, we referred to the principle of slavery as it is manifested in this religion, and we have listed the names of Muhammad’s slaves, the master and the “apostle of God!”
        The Position of Christianity – the Teaching of the Gospel
        Christianity is very decisive in this matter. The words and the spirit of the Gospel are very clear. From the very beginning, we have used a fundamental principle in this study and research; namely, the comparison must always be between the Gospel and the Qur’an – Christianity as religion and teachings and Islam as religion, in order to see which one of the two reveals the thoughts of the true, living God. Also, the comparison should be between Muhammad, his life and his sayings on the one hand, and Christ, His life and teachings on the other.
        If we were to find (for example) some European countries or Americans who allowed themselves to acquire slaves, we should not blame Christianity for that because we must realize that the Gospel teaches something different. We see that Jesus and His disciples did not possess slaves.
        We do blame Islam in this regard because Muhammad himself acquired male and female slaves by dozens. All his friends, his wives and most Muslims of his time and after owned slaves. The Qur’an encourages that and the scholars do not negate it. We blame Islamic thought and the behavior of Muhammad in regard to this matter and other issues recorded in the most authentic Islamic sources.
        We should not, in any subject, dwell on the behavior of some Christians or some Muslims but rather try to examine the attitude of Islamic thought (or Christian thought) toward the issues under discussion. Some people, for instance, believe that a man like Khomeini is an extremist because of Islam, the religion of tolerance, love, and reason. We, for our part, feel surprised to hear that, because who says that this statement is true? Islam is not the religion of tolerance, love, or reason. Not at all! Islam is the exact opposite of this claim.
        This religion humiliates and persecutes women and non-Muslims as well as waging offensive wars and encouraging Muslims to kill apostates? Is Muhammad, who ordered the killing of a woman who insulted him, the prophet of tolerance? Why should we blame Khomeini when he issued an order to kill Rushdie? Does not Rushdie (according to the law of Islam and Muhammad, not the law of the United Nations) deserve death for attacking the Qur’an, Muhammad and his wives? Khomeini was never radical; he was always a true student of Muhammad. He intended to enforce the Islamic laws and to fight nations which do not comply with them – such as Iraq (even though Islam is its official religion).
        When Muslims kill one another, it is because Muhammad’s friends and disciples did so immediately after his death, each one of them trying to force his friend to go in the right way. Khomeini is a true Muslim who follows Muhammad and his friends. Thus, we hear about “exporting the Islamic revolution” to other countries. All these things are compatible with the views of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs who succeeded him such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. When Khomeini slaughtered his opponents, he was following the footsteps of Ali who killed the dissenters, like Talha, Al Zubair and Al Khwareg, even though they were faithful Muslims.
        Now, what does the New Testament say about slaves? If we turn in the pages of the New Testament we read these verses:
        “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians. 3:28).
        Christ was always warning his disciples and all believers from calling themselves masters. He said to them:
        “But you, do not be called `Rabbi’ [master]; for One is your Teacher [master], the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Matthew. 23:8).
        “But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be abased (humbled); and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew. 23:12).
        By these last words Jesus Christ has turned over all the feeble human standards – The “… greatest among you shall be your servant.” How profound and deep are these wonderful words!
        This truth is clearly taught in the New Testament by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It happened that there was a slave called Onesimus who ran away from his master, Philemon. Onesimus met the apostle Paul in Rome and was converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon with a very impressive letter which is included in the New Testament and in which we read these shining words,
        “I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart. Receive him … no longer as a slave but … as a beloved brother, …, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Chapter 1).
        Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples did not have the authority to abolish slavery within the Roman Empire. Paul was not one of the Roman governors, but a fugitive and a persecuted man. Later he and most of the disciples were killed at the hands of the Romans along with thousands of their Christian brothers. Muhammad and his successors were rulers and could have outlawed slavery. Instead, they retained it and kept their slaves.
        In another letter, Paul urged the Christians to “give your servants what is just and fair” (Colossians. 4:1). The text emphasizes these two words – brotherhood and justice – because there is neither slave nor freeman, but all are one in Christ.
        Egyptian history relates a story about a courageous man who stood in front of his tyrannical rulers who mistreated people and wondered in agony,
        “Why have you enslaved people whose mothers gave birth to them as free persons?”
        This brave man did not know that he was addressing multitudes of people across the ages, whether ruthless Westerners in Europe and America or the prophet of Islam himself who failed to liberate the slaves because he himself had acquired dozens of them.
        Christian religious leaders such as John Wesley boldly condemned slavery in Europe and sent strong messages to the rulers of Europe and America. They led the movement of slaves’ liberation during the day of Abraham Lincoln. Now there are multiplied black men who hold various positions of honor and respect in America. They teach in colleges and universities. They sit on the bench of the courts of the land-even the Supreme Court. And one of them is President of America.They are freely elected to local, county, state and federal positions. They hold high military offices. They build their own fortunes with which they do as they wish. They freely marry and raise their families without fear.

        This is what Jesus taught – “There is no difference ….”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s