Sunni Muslims explode 10 car bombs, killing 39 Shi’ite Muslims: What a Religion of Peace?


(By Kareem Raheem for Reuters) Ten car bombs exploded across the Iraqi capital on Monday, killing nearly 40 people in markets and garages on the evening of a Shi’ite Muslim celebration, police and medical sources said.images (56)

Some of the attacks targeted districts where Shi’ites were commemorating the anniversary of the birth of a revered Imam, but there also were explosions in mixed neighborhoods and districts with a high population of Sunnis.

The violence reinforced a growing trend since the start of the year, with more than 1,000 people killed in militant attacks in May alone, making it the deadliest month since the sectarian bloodletting of 2006-07.

Waleed, who witnessed one of Monday’s explosions in which five people were killed in the Shi’ite stronghold of Sadr City, described a scene of chaos: “When the explosion happened, people ran in all directions.”

“Many cars were burned, pools of blood covered the ground, and glass from car windows and vegetables were scattered everywhere.”

Eight people were killed in two car bomb explosions in the central district of Karada, one of them in a car garage. Two car bombs exploded simultaneously near a market in the western district of Jihad, killing eight.

Separately, a bomb placed in a cafe in the northern city of Mosul killed five people, pushing Monday’s death toll over 40.

Insurgents, including al Qaeda’s Iraqi affiliate, have been recruiting from the country’s Sunni minority, which feels sidelined following the U.S.-led invasion that toppled former dictator Saddam Hussein and empowered majority Shi’ites.

Since the withdrawal of U.S. troops in December 2011, critics say Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has consolidated his power over the security forces and judiciary, and has targeted several high-level Sunni leaders for arrest.

Sunnis took to the streets last December in protest against Maliki, but the demonstrations have thinned and are now being eclipsed by intensifying militant activity.

Sectarian tensions have been inflamed by the civil war in Syria, which is fast spreading into a region-wide proxy war, drawing in Shi’ite and Sunni fighters from Iraq and beyond to fight on opposite sides of the conflict.

Political deadlock in Baghdad has strained relations with Iraq’s ethnic Kurds who run their own administration in the north of the country, and are at odds with the central government over land and oil.

14 thoughts on “Sunni Muslims explode 10 car bombs, killing 39 Shi’ite Muslims: What a Religion of Peace?

  1. Ha..ha…haha….Half of British pilots fall asleep on the job!!!!

    The survey comes after it emerged that both the captain and co-pilot of an Airbus A330 plane fell asleep at the same time while it was on autopilot during a flight by an unnamed British operator on August 13!

    They must be falling even in their dreams!!

    (ndtv)

    Plum

  2. Rahul Raj, you jackass! If a Muslim kills another Muslim in the name of Islam then this makes Islam evil? Wow! Then launch a campaign against internet because internet is being recently used to kidnap little children.

    Islam is peace. Islam is what Qur’an, the Prophet and the Imams preach. A Muslim’s act is his personal problem. Talk about our religion here, not adherents.

    • YOU IGNORANT, MORONIC MOHAMMEDAN!

      MOHAMMEDANISM IS THE CULT OF DEATH!

      REAL ISLAM & JIHAD

      Early History of Peaceful Islam:

      Islamic leaders and politicians constantly tell us in English that “Islam is a peaceful religion”, but one can’t help wondering if they would say it quite so often if they were absolutely sure it was true.

      Some recorded massacres of Muslim history:

      On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughtered its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was apparently incited by Muslim preachers that had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power. Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco. Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

      Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Qur’an’s purported prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344). Some escaped, but the Jews of Arabia who remained were pretty much completely wiped out. Islamic revisionists claim they were killed because they were literally asking for it, is their apologetic rubbish propaganda. These Islamic revisionists (Islamaniacs) claim that the Jews demanded it as per their own law. I mean that’s like the Nazis claiming they were only accommodating the Jews demand to get warm by the ovens. Like Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is for others to believe it.

      In the violent, nearly 1,400-year relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, Jihad and Dhimmitude were firmly established by the 8th century. Perhaps the pre-eminent Islamic scholar in history, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), summarized five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

      In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

      Between 1894-96, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 (Dhimmi) Christian Armenians, followed by the first formal genocide of the 20th century, in 1915, at which time they slaughtered an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians. Contemporary accounts from European diplomats confirm that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal Jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of Dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. Regarding the 1894-96 massacres, the Turkish-speaking interpreter of the British embassy reported:

      …[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the “rayah” [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians…”

      The scholar Bat Yeor confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their “legal status,” which involved a “contract” (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers).

      This …breach…restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property…

      In the following chronology, note how closely Islam’s inception is associated with war. From 623 to 777, a span of 154 years, there are 83 military conflicts involving the Muslims…. Muslims tell us Islam is a religion of peace, but all historical facts seem to discredit that claim rather convincingly.

      Chronology of early Islam

      • 570 – Birth of Muhammad in Mecca into the tribe of Quraish.

      • 577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.

      • 595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.

      • 605 – Placement of Black Stone in Ka’aba.

      • 610 – Mohammed, in a cave, hears an angel tell him that Allah is the only true God.

      • 613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few converts.

      • 615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraysh.

      • 619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha

      • 620 – Institution of five daily prayers .

      • 622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, gets more converts.

      • 623 – Battle of Waddan

      • 623 – Battle of Safwan

      • 623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir

      • 624 – Raids on caravans to fund the movement begin.

      • 624 – Zakat becomes mandatory

      • 624 – Battle of Badr

      • 624 – Battle of Bani Salim

      • 624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr & Zakat-ul-Fitr

      • 624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’

      • 624 – Battle of Sawiq

      • 624 – Battle of Ghatfan

      • 624 – Battle of Bahran

      • 625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.

      • 625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad

      • 625 – Battle of Banu Nadir

      • 625 – Battle of Dhatul-Riqa

      • 626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra

      • 626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal

      • 626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah

      • 627 – Battle of the Trench

      • 627 – Battle of Ahzab

      • 627 – Battle of Bani Qurayza

      • 627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan

      • 627 – Battle of Ghaiba

      • 627 – Battle of Khaibar

      • 628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish. (The 628 Al-Hudaybiyya agreement, between the Prophet and the Meccan tribe of Quraish, was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims. The agreement was broken after 18 months, Muhammad’s army then conquered Mecca)

      • 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.

      • 630 – Battle of Hunain.

      • 630 – Battle of Tabuk

      • 632 – Muhammad dies. The reign of the Caliphs begins.

      • 632 – Abu-Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.

      • 633 – Battle at Oman

      • 633 – Battle at Hadramaut.

      • 633 – Battle of Kazima

      • 633 – Battle of Walaja

      • 633 – Battle of Ulleis

      • 633 – Battle of Anbar

      • 634 – Battle of Basra,

      • 634 – Battle of Damascus

      • 634 – Battle of Ajnadin.

      • 634 – Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.

      • 634 – Battle of Namaraq

      • 634 – Battle of Saqatia.

      • 635 – Battle of Bridge.

      • 635 – Battle of Buwaib.

      • 635 – Conquest of Damascus.

      • 635 – Battle of Fahl.

      • 636 – Battle of Yermuk.

      • 636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.

      • 636 – Conquest of Madain.

      • 637 – Battle of Jalula.

      • 638 – Battle of Yarmouk.

      • 638 – The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.

      • 638 – Conquest of Jazirah.

      • 639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.

      • 641 – Battle of Nihawand

      • 642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia

      • 643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan

      • 644 – Conquest of Fars

      • 644 – Conquest of Kharan.

      • 644 – Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.

      • 647 – Conquest of Cypress island.

      • 644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.

      • 648 – Byzantine campaign begins.

      • 651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.

      • 654 – Islam spreads into North Africa

      • 656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.

      • 658 – Battle of Nahrawan.

      • 659 – Conquest of Egypt

      • 661 – Ali is murdered.

      • 662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.

      • 666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims

      • 677 – Siege of Constantinople

      • 687 – Battle of Kufa

      • 691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq

      • 700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.

      • 700 – Military campaigns in North Africa

      • 702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira

      • 711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar

      • 711 – Conquest of Spain

      • 713 – Conquest of Multan

      • 716 – Invasion of Constantinople

      • 732 – Battle of Tours in France.

      • 740 – Battle of the Nobles.

      • 741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa

      • 744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.

      • 746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha

      • 748 – Battle of Rayy.

      • 749 – Battle of lsfahan

      • 749 – Battle of Nihawand

      • 750 – Battle of Zab

      • 772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa

      • 777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain

      Undeniably, Christians have in the past also committed despicable acts in the name of God, and in recent history the Serbia conflicts and the Protestant-Catholic Northern-Ireland clashes stand out as examples. But there are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between those crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name.

      The first difference is that the unfortunate events were limited in both time and scope, they had an end.

      The second distinction is that terrorists acting from Christian cultures always did their vile deeds in violation of scriptural teaching and the example of Christ, not in fulfilment of it, as in Islam.

      The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes. To expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam’s founding in the 7th century, is to expect them to jettison core values of their faith — something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history. Although nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than pessimism, yet in relation to Islam this attitude is in fact simply just realism.

      Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward religion, but is our civic piety, allied with political correctness, blinding us and keeping us from asking reasonable questions about Islam, questions upon which the survival of our civilization may depend. Do Western cultures, obsessed with tolerance, render us incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions about Islam’s core values and designs? The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion and the almost universal public ignorance about Islam make for a dangerous potentially lethal mix.

      Unlike Constitutional provisions in the US, there is no cultural or scriptural mandate for separation of church and state in Islam, making secular democracy an alien and hostile concept. Women have few rights over and against their husbands, who may legally beat their wives and concubines. Enslaving infidels and raping infidel women are justified under Qura’nic law (and still occur in some Muslim lands). Grotesque punishments for crimes — beheadings and the like — are not medieval holdovers; on the contrary, they will forever be part of authentic Islam as long as the Qur’an is revered as the perfect Words of Allah.

      While Muslims in the West live in peace, prosperity and religious liberty, Christians and other “Infidels” in Muslim lands have been, are now, and will continue to be persecuted, sometimes unto death. Turkey is the only Muslim country that could be called democratic, and that’s probably a stretch. The example of Turkey is laudable, but sadly it shows that secularist values can only be imposed on Islamic societies by force, and will therefore remain tenuous. Because Islam demands death for heretics, moderate Muslims will always risk their lives if they offer more liberal interpretations of their faith.

      The problem is that for all its schisms, sects, and multiplicity of voices, Islam’s violent elements are firmly rooted in its central texts; as such, Islam cannot be other than a religion of violence. It would be too pessimistic to say that there are no peaceful strains of Islam, but it would be imprudent to ignore the fact that deeply imbedded in the central documents of the religion is an all-encompassing vision of a theocratic state that is intractable and fundamentally different from (and opposed toward) democratic values and Western governments based on them.

      THE QURAN’S VIEW OF JEWS & CHRISTIANS:

      A basic principle of Islamism holds that humanity is divided according to a strict hierarchy of worth. At the top of this hierarchy are free Muslim males, the cream of humanity. Below them, in descending order of humanity, are: Muslim male slaves, free Muslim women, Muslim female slaves, the males of the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians), and, then, the females of the ‘People of the Book’. Finally, the rest of humanity comes in dead last (excuse the pun), because they lack a soul they are regarded as worthless having no rights whatsoever. This unfortunate final grouping includes Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, atheists, agnostics, and others. But before Jews and Christians celebrate escaping last-place in this uniquely Islamic popularity contest, the fine print should first be carefully studied.

      With quotes referencing Christians and Jews from the Quran like: – “WORST OF CREATURES, PERVERSE, FRIENDS OF SATAN”, it seems impossible to characterize Islam as a tolerant religion harmless to others. By one widely accepted definition of a ‘Religion’; … “An organization dedicated to raising the spiritual awareness and moral standards and actions of its followers, and in improving peaceful relationships with others”, Islam seems to fall well short of qualifying. Early Islam was clearly neither harmless nor tolerant of non-believers. Intolerance seems the cruel norm in Islamic societies, while tolerance, charity and kindness towards different cultures and religions is glaringly absent. The fruits of extreme Islam are bitter indeed, and it is by their fruits that we should judge them.

      The clear direction appears to be that Muslims are not allowed to even be friends or take favours from Jews and Christians, unless the devotion and tax is extracted by force or threat of force.

      Quran 98:1 Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and among Al-Mushrikun (polytheists) were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence.

      Quran 98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

      Quran 5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong & shy; doers and unjust).

      Quran 58:19. Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!

      Quran 4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).

      Quran 47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.

      Christians and Jews then and now hold a special place in Islamic theology. In the end, they were regarded with contempt by Muhammad, and were presented in a hateful manner in the Qur’an and in modern Islamic theology today. The final direction appears to be this: When the Muslims have the upper hand, they are not to seek peace, but instead they are expected to sacrifice and toil for the continued destruction of all their enemies. The final words reported from the mouth of the dying Muhammad were a curse on the favoured ‘People of the Book’.

      From Ibn Sa’d page 322: When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said:

      “Allah’s damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship.”

      The bitterness of this final utterance from their beloved prophet, as he died a painful death at the hands of a Jewish girl (Shiias say it was Abu Bakr, Umar & their two daughters, Aisha & Hafsa, who poisoned him), obviously still weighs heavy on the minds and hearts of all of Islam. Revenge is a glorified mandate for Muslims yesterday and today.

      “MOHAMMEDANISM IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY & FOREVER”!

      THE QURAN ON RELATIONS WITH NON-MUSLIM FAMILY MEMBERS

      Islam has an anti-family element, causing Muslims to fight and kill even their relatives if they reject Muhammad’s rule. Family ties, devotions, and sensibilities form the backbone of Western civilizations, from which we derive our strength and teach morality. In Islam, even normal, natural family bonds are subservient and must yield to Muhammad’s vision of Islam. That is why in many Muslim communities and households each family member is expected to police the acts, thoughts, and expressions of other members in the household. On a slightly broader scale, communities are expected to monitor the conduct of families in their neighbourhoods. So in Islamic lands, the control structure in place extends from the highest branches of the government (including the Judiciary), to the lowliest family member. The consequences imposed for failure to support the official family, neighbourhood, tribal, national policy with respect to violent Jihad vary by tribe and region, but are often quite brutal.

      Quran 48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

      Quran 58:22 You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Ruh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And We will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Verily, it is the Party of Allah that will be the successful.

      In the officially state-sponsored Wahhabi controlled elementary schools in Saudi Arabia (our alleged ally in the war on terror), there is a fifth-grade lesson book that reads as follows:

      “It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a friend of one who does not believe in God and his Messenger or who fights the Islamic religion. God has severed the [link of] friendship between Muslims and infidels. The Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother-in-belief, while the infidel, even if he is your brother of kin, is your enemy by religion.”

      When one takes into consideration all that Muhammad and his devoted followers ask of the faithful, the direction to have no Muslim friends makes perfect sense. It’s all part of the psychology of violence. Built-in natural human feelings of empathy and all impulses of conscience must first be overcome before an individual can perform an act of violence on another. Normal feelings of affection, respect, and trust toward a friend would get in the way of an Islamic Jihad movement. So not only does Muhammad dehumanize non-Muslims, he also specifically tells followers not to develop personal relationships with others. This philosophy and psychology, when internalized, is designed to groom the Muslim believer into becoming an effective, non-thinking, non-feeling Jihadist warrior (i.e. a killing machine). Not exactly in line with his oft repeated claim that ‘God is most merciful, most forgiving, most loving and charitable’, but that contradiction does not seem to register. Certainly any personal dilemma resulting from such contradictions are easily dismissed once fully immersed in the blood-lust and lynch-mob mentality of Islamic Militants. Apparently ‘most-merciful’ in their minds only applies to Muslims, or to survivors who agree to pay tribute, or in other words, an eternal ‘survivor tax’.

      THE INESCAPABLE INFERENCES:

      Instead of trying to comprehend and facing the true roots of militant Islam, we have preferred to hope that Islamic violence is just the pernicious work of a few individuals or radical groups. We hope that by destroying the al-Qaida network the threat of Islamic terrorism will cease. We can then put it out of our minds and hope and pretend that it will no longer affect us. We are captivated by sports, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and rock stars. We are happy that the DOW is back up and interest rates have lowered, and hope the recession will soon be over. Yet, those planning our destruction are still living among us and saying that Islam is a religion of peace. All the while, just as Maslama deceived his good friend Ka’b b. al-Ashraf in order to murder him, militant Muslims are prudently, patiently planning their next acts of terrorism.

      VITAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
      (1) What are the teachings of real Islam found in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira with respect to the use of violence, call it jihad if you like, to aggressively spread it’s power over non-Muslims, and are these teachings valid and applicable today?

      ANSWER: It should be obvious that real Islam still calls for the use of jihad, force and violence, when able, to spread Islam’s power over non-Muslim people. The jihad may take the form of passing out literature for Islam, or it may take the form of assassination, or a bombing of a building, or a massacre, for worse. These teachings are valid and applicable even today.

      (2) Is real Islam behind and does it condone the murder of hundreds of thousands of victims all over the world, or are these Muslim terrorists doing something well outside Muhammad’s religion?

      ANSWER: Yes. Real Islam is behind the murder of hundreds of thousands of victims all over the world. Official Islamic theology taught in most parts of the world justify violent acts to further the cause of converting all to Islam, especially acts designed to weaken the “Great Satan- America”, deemed the biggest threat to that cause.

      (3) What does the future hold for Islam and the West?

      ANSWER: Continued Islamic violence. Would that it could be said otherwise, but it appears likely that Muslims will yet perform many large and small acts of murderous violence against us. If given the chance they may, one day, detonate a nuclear warhead, or warheads, as many in the movement see it as their only viable option. In order to advance Muslim theology as they see it, these militants know that the West must be brought low, regardless of the cost. They are dedicated and may eventually succeed in obtaining the bombs or bomb material from Iran, Pakistan, Korea or perhaps from a former Soviet Republic Country. Muslim militants are cognizant of how to go about this, their goal is our incapacitation, and they believe the best way to accomplish this is through the use of WMD’s.

      So, why is it that so many Muslims want to see the West broken or destroyed?

      The West is a powerful. Its military strength and cultural power represents the best hope against the violent spread of Islam. Obviously, if the West is weakened or incapacitated, then Muslim terrorists can begin to act with more impunity throughout the world.

      CONCLUSION

      By their own words and works, Islam is apparently a violent religion after all, and large parts of it continue to condone and allow the use of aggressive violence to spread its dominion over non-Muslims. The war that Muhammad launched long ago continues today, but the stakes are getting higher. America, European and Asian nations will continue to be adversely affected by the actions of real Muslims – those that are obeying their “God and Prophet” – as they have been in the past. The West previously insulated by distance and oceans are no longer safe and have become the relatively new targets of expansionist Islam. For all the cries against Zionism by Muslims, it is in truth Islam that has the most aggressive ambitions and designs on other peoples and lands.

      “Will you listen to me O Meccans? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter.” (Muhammad, some of the earliest words spoken in Mecca, shortly after his first visit by “Gabriel”, to people who rejected his claim to prophethood). “The Life of Muhammad”, by A. Guillaume, page 131.

      “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle (Muhammad) have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.”

      We see that Muhammad had many people murdered. By request, by command, by implication, Muhammad had many killed, some while they slept. There were no trials, no judgments, and no dialog. If you insulted Muhammad, if you doubted his credibility, or if you spoke out, you were killed. Men and women, young and old, all were killed because of Muhammad’s intolerance, anger, hatred, and disdain towards those who spoke out against him. Today, Fatwas continue to be issued demanding that faithful kill any perceived to insult the prophet or discredit his divinity. One wonders if the thin skin and short temper of Islam is due to insecurity stemming from the inherent weaknesses of its doctrine. The fact remains that challenging the doctrine of Islam or hearsay against the prophet carries the penalty of death to this day. The intellectually insincere individual full of hatred will certainly not benefit from this article; rather he will undoubtedly be greatly offended by the facts outlined herein. As the saying goes,

      “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”.

      A closed mind will forever be unable to draw correct inferences from a set of facts plainly laid out before him.

      Make no mistake about it: By any standard of any age, Muhammad deployed murderous tactics that can only be described as terrorist in nature. Muhammad, indeed, taught his followers to oppress or kill non-Muslims. Today’s Muslim terrorists are following his actions literally, … like prophet, like followers.

      Today’s Muhammedan terrorists commit their acts with full understanding and belief that they are based upon what Muhammad said and did, and what he expects of them. Based upon Muhammad’s actions and teachings, large parts of Islam continues to practice, justify, support, finance, or tolerate terrorism against non-Muslims today. The life of Muhammad is and will continue to be used by militants as justification to attack and murder those who differ from them.

      Muhammad taught his followers that Islam is the final and universal religion. Where Islamic law has been instituted, no other religion is tolerated, unless it agrees to submit to Islamic rule. Today, more than forty nations have a majority population of Muslims, and Muslim leaders have spoken of their goal to spread Islam in the West, until Islam becomes a dominant, global power. That global agenda is in keeping with Muhammad’s final clear orders: convert… pay with submission … or die.

      Muslims who Leave Islam:

      Under Islamic law [the Sharia is based on the Qur’an, the example of Muhammad (sunna) and the consensus (ijmaa)], anyone falling away from faith in Islam commits an “unforgivable sin”. Such “apostates” must be taken into custody by force, and called on to repent. Anyone so confronted and who does not immediately repent and turn back to Islam has forfeited his life, and is to be put to death by the state. While this is not carried out on a regular basis in the many Islamic lands practicing Sharia, the threat is ever present. One of Islam’s most respected theologians and prolific writers in the last century, Pakistani Abu’l Ala Mawdudi, insists that both Qur’an and Hadith demand an apostate’s execution. He quotes the Qur’an (9:11-12) and the canonized Hadith: “Any person, i.e. Muslim, who has changed his religion, kill him” (Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45). The Islamic scholar, Majid Khadduri, agrees that Qur’anic commentaries say a believer who turns back from his religion must be killed if he persists in disbelief (p. 150). Today “Islamic jihad” draws on religious texts whose interpretations, some genuinely peaceful Muslims dispute. They challenge this interpretation of jihad because they wish to live in peace with non-Muslim peoples and nations, and as a result, their lives are also threatened. Muhammad was not content to conquer by force, or kill those that merely opposed him verbally. Muhammad also taught that Muslims who leave the Islamic faith are to be murdered as well. Here are some quotes from Bukhari’s collection of Hadith. Remember, Bukhari’s Hadith is the second most important writing in Islam, following the Quran.

      Bukhari, volume 9, #17

      “Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

      Bukhari volume 9, #57

      Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

      Bukhari volume 9, #64

      Narrated Ali, “Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s messenger saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”

      Not only did Muhammad teach that Muslims are to murder those that have left Islam, “wherever you find them”, he further taught that a Muslim who commits this type of murder of fellow Muslims will also be doing God’s service and will be rewarded. It is in this spirit and understanding that many ‘honour’ killings occur in Muslim communities.

      THE MURDER OF KABAA BIN AL-ASHRAF

      Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, a chief of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadi, was a victim of Muhammad’s rise to power which personifies the prophet’s moral failings. Once Muhammad gained political power and the ability for force his will on others, some of the Jewish tribes around him grew mistrustful and opposed both his message and his rising influence. Muhammad ordered Ka’b bin al-Ashraf’s murder, and authorized deception in the process.

      Muhammad was driven by power; however he tried to disguise it or sublimate it by his invocation of Allah, and the Jews who lived in the town of Yathrib and elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula who would not submit to his iron rule simply got in the way. The Jew that got in the way, that opposed the will or whim of this vicious man who covered his worldly ambitions with Allah’s mantle, was promptly dispatched to Sheol.

      The Fifth Commandment, if Muhammad knew it expressly at all, did not apply to Muhammad in his view. He doubtfully read Exodus, since he was supposed to be illiterate. Perhaps it might have done him some good had he read, “Thou shalt not MURDER. (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy. 5:17) It would also have done him well to have heard Jesus’ angle on that commandment. (Matthew. 5:21-22). He certainly seems not to have been open to the divine injunction that prohibited murder that was contained in the recesses of his heart, i.e., the natural law.

      But in Muhammad’s view, there was no need to read the Scriptures prior to his supposed revelations; they were corrupted on Muhammad’s account (See Qur’an 5:13, 41.). And whatever was therein contained was of no moment since, by the supposed revelations of Allah which came to us through the mouth of Muhammad, whatever Muhammad did was perfect. If the Fifth Commandment has to take a back seat to Muhammad’s “perfect” desires, and if the unwritten law of God in the heart of every man that says one should not MURDER an innocent man had to be squelched, then so be it: Allah and his messenger know best.

      Unlike the God of the Jews, Allah did not say, “Thou shalt not MURDER.” Rather, Allah said, “Thou shalt MURDER.” Or so Muhammad would have it where it was to his political advantage.

      Though Muhammad had ostensibly entered into an informal treaty with the Jewish tribes in the town of Yathrib (which later was known as Medina), there was tension between Muhammad’s followers and the Jewish tribes, including the Banu Nadi. (This seems to be a chronic feature of Islam’s relationship with its neighbours, even to this day.)

      Al-Ashraf, it may be conceded, was an opponent of Muhammad, believed Muhammad a false prophet, and opposed himself to Muhammad’s worrisome rise.

      After Muhammad’s victory at the battle of Badr, al-Ashraf grew particularly concerned.

      THAT WAS NOT A CRIME!

      It was from Muhammad’s vantage point. In Muhammad’s eyes, opposition to him and his doctrine and will was anathema: nay, it was more than that; it was a virtual death sentence.

      “He [al-Ashraf] inveighed against the apostle,” wrote a plaintive poem at the loss by the Quraysh tribe defeated at Badr, and “composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women,” Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq tells us.

      This was the extent of his alleged crimes.

      The enmity between al-Ashraf and Muhammad and Muhammad’s response to it is found in several sources, including Sahih al-Bukhari 3.45.687 and 5.59.369. The second hadith is particularly long, so only parts will be quoted here. The hadith begins:

      “Allah’s messenger said ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?’

      Thereupon Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s messenger! Would you like that I kill him?’
      The prophet said, ‘Yes.’

      Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e., to deceive Ka’b).’ The prophet said, ‘You may say it.'”

      So here we have two moral lapses by Muhammad to the Realpolitik of the day. The first: a willingness to put a political opponent to death–political murder. The second: a willingness to use all manners of deceit to advance the political murder–lying. Here we find an instance of the questionable doctrine of taqiyya, or dissimulation, approved by the alleged prophet of Allah, the Arab war idol and transformed moon god who–unlike Jesus Christ who says, “I am the truth” (John 14:6)—Allah says of himself that he is the “best of deceivers,” Allahu khayru al-makirina, (Qur’an 3:54).

      Based on the pretence that, as an opponent of Muhammad, he wanted to borrow a camel load or two of food, Maslama visited al-Ashraf at night and, together with his foster brother Abu Naila, was invited into Maslama’s fort. The plan among the conspiring assassins was to compliment al-Ashraf on his perfumed hair, and, when he was distracted, to cut off his head.

      The plan worked, and together Maslama and Abu Naila cut of Muhammad’s enemy’s head.

      According to the Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq, the Muslim poet Ka’b bin Malik (who should be distinguished from the murdered Jewish poet and political enemy of Muhammad, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf) said:

      “Sword in hand we cut [Ka’b] down.
      By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night Ka’b’s brother to go to Ka’b.
      He beguiled him and brought him down with guile.
      Mahmoud [bin Maslama] was trustworthy, bold.”

      Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat records Muhammad’s delight at the successful murder of his political opponent:

      “Then they cut his head and took it with them [and] . . . they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his being slain.”

      Allahu akhbar. The pseudo-prophet can rejoice at an innocent man’s death, just like many of his followers could rejoice at the countless attack, and the deaths of millions who did none of their killers wrong. This is what happens when you are the prosecutor, the alleged victim, and the judge. The defendant, even if innocent, has no voice. This is because, in Islam, Allah and his messenger know best, Allahu wa rasulluhu a’lam.

      This is the Muslim mantra that blinds him to the fact that his alleged prophet is a sinner, a violator of the natural law, and most certainly not an authentic prophet.

      • EDUCATING MOHAMMEDANS.

        MOHAMMEDAN CONSTITUTION:

        RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
        A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
        Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

        09.0 JIHAD
        (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was
        returning from jihad,

        “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

        The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic
        verses as:

        (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
        (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
        (3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

        and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

        “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights ofIslam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

        and the hadith reported by Muslim,

        “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

        Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the
        Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of
        UhuJ. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. Himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

        THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

        09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”
        and Allah Most High having said:

        “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind.
        And to each. Allah has promised great good”
        (Koran 4:95).

        If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent
        times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.
        The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

        The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

        09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all ‘those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

        09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.
        All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed ifhe does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will
        be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).

        WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
        09.4 Those ealled upon (0: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

        09.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
        (1) Someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
        (2) or someone with at least one Muslim parent. until they give their permission;
        unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.

        09.6 It is offensive to conduet a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: 025), no permission is required).

        09.7 Muslims may not seek help from non Muslim allies unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims.

        THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

        o9.R Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
        “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29), the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad, The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad, As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

        “I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,” this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

        09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (0: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (iizya») (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sale exceptions to
        which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21). 6.48–49)).
        THE RULES OF WARFARE

        09 .10 It is not permissible (A: in Jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (0: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty
        years of age) and monks.

        o9.11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (0: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim’s protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does
        so voluntarily (0: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

        09.12 Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

        09.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

        09.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other
        three alternatives is chosen.

        09.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings.

        TRUCES

        09.16 (0: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:

        (1) “An acquittal from Allah and His messenger…” (Koran 9:1);
        (2) “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Koran 8:61);

        as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

        Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (025) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is
        why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.
        There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the
        status quo. Allah Most High says,

        “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost” (Koran 47:35).

        Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up.
        If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.
        The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)

        010.0 .THE SPOILS OF BATTLE

        010.1 A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it.
        After personal booty (def: 010.2), the collective spoils of the battle are divided into five parts.
        The first fifth is set aside (dis: 010.3), and the remaining four are distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares to each cavalryman.
        From these latter four fifths also, a token payment is given at the leader’s discretion to women, children, and non-Muslim participants on the Muslim side.
        A combatant only takes possession of his share of the spoils at the official division. (A: Or he may choose to waive his right to it.)

        010.2 As for personal booty, anyone who. despite resistance, kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or other.

        010.3 As for the first fifth that is taken from the spoils, it is divided in turn into five parts, a share each going to:

        (1) the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and after his death, to such Islamic
        interests as fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges. muezzins, and the like;
        (2) relatives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) of the Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib clans, each male receiving the share of two females;
        (3) orphans who arc poor;
        (4) those short of money (def: h8.11);
        (5) and travellers needing money (h8.18)

        011.0 NON•MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

        011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

        (1) Jews;
        (2) Christians;
        (3) Zoroastrians;
        (4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
        (5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

        011.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9(n:», or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book. (A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

        011.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

        (a) follow the rules ofIslam (A: those mentioned below (011.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
        (b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax Gizya

        THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

        011.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
        It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

        011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity oflife, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
        (1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
        (2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunna:r);
        (3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” ;
        (4) must keep to the side of the street;
        (5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a
        tall house, it is not razed;
        (6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
        (7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

        011.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

        011.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

        011.8 It is, ohligatory for the caliph (def: 025) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

        011.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam. or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: 0 I l.1 I) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

        011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
        then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
        (1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her:
        (2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
        (3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
        (4) kills a Muslim;
        (5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

        011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (09.14).

      • Lucky, you’re a patient who needs proper medical treatment quickly. Islam is a religion of love’n peace. Stop irritating us with your nasty lengthy comments. We’re busy people and we can’t waste our time reading your comments.

        I’ve told you hundreds of times; be brief. Then we can have a proper debate otherwise you go your way and let’me go mine.

        • EDUCATING BRAIN DEAD MOHAMMEDANS:

          THE MOHAMMEDAN CONSTITUTION

          RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
          A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
          Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

          09.0 JIHAD
          (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was
          returning from jihad,

          “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

          The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic
          verses as:

          (1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
          (2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
          (3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

          and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

          “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights ofIslam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

          and the hadith reported by Muslim,

          “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

          Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the
          Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of
          UhuJ. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. Himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

          THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

          09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”
          and Allah Most High having said:

          “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind.
          And to each. Allah has promised great good”
          (Koran 4:95).

          If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent
          times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.
          The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

          The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

          09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all ‘those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

          09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.
          All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed ifhe does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will
          be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).

          WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
          09.4 Those ealled upon (0: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

          09.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
          (1) Someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
          (2) or someone with at least one Muslim parent. until they give their permission;
          unless the Muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.

          09.6 It is offensive to conduet a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: 025), no permission is required).

          09.7 Muslims may not seek help from non Muslim allies unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims.

          THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

          o9.R Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
          “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29), the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad, The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad, As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

          “I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,” this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

          09.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (0: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (iizya») (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sale exceptions to
          which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21). 6.48–49)).
          THE RULES OF WARFARE

          09 .10 It is not permissible (A: in Jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (0: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty
          years of age) and monks.

          o9.11 It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (0: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim’s protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does
          so voluntarily (0: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

          09.12 Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

          09.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

          09.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other
          three alternatives is chosen.

          09.15 It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy’s trees and destroy their dwellings.

          TRUCES

          09.16 (0: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as:

          (1) “An acquittal from Allah and His messenger…” (Koran 9:1);
          (2) “If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also” (Koran 8:61);

          as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim.

          Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (025) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is
          why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions.
          There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the
          status quo. Allah Most High says,

          “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost” (Koran 47:35).

          Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up.
          If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.
          The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires.)

          010.0 .THE SPOILS OF BATTLE

          010.1 A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it.
          After personal booty (def: 010.2), the collective spoils of the battle are divided into five parts.
          The first fifth is set aside (dis: 010.3), and the remaining four are distributed, one share to each infantryman and three shares to each cavalryman.
          From these latter four fifths also, a token payment is given at the leader’s discretion to women, children, and non-Muslim participants on the Muslim side.
          A combatant only takes possession of his share of the spoils at the official division. (A: Or he may choose to waive his right to it.)

          010.2 As for personal booty, anyone who. despite resistance, kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money, or other.

          010.3 As for the first fifth that is taken from the spoils, it is divided in turn into five parts, a share each going to:

          (1) the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and after his death, to such Islamic
          interests as fortifying defenses on the frontiers, salaries for Islamic judges. muezzins, and the like;
          (2) relatives of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) of the Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib clans, each male receiving the share of two females;
          (3) orphans who arc poor;
          (4) those short of money (def: h8.11);
          (5) and travellers needing money (h8.18)

          011.0 NON•MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

          011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

          (1) Jews;
          (2) Christians;
          (3) Zoroastrians;
          (4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
          (5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

          011.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9(n:», or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book. (A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

          011.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

          (a) follow the rules ofIslam (A: those mentioned below (011.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
          (b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax Gizya

          THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

          011.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
          It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

          011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity oflife, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
          (1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
          (2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunna:r);
          (3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum” ;
          (4) must keep to the side of the street;
          (5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a
          tall house, it is not razed;
          (6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
          (7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

          011.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

          011.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

          011.8 It is, ohligatory for the caliph (def: 025) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

          011.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam. or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: 0 I l.1 I) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

          011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
          then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
          (1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her:
          (2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
          (3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
          (4) kills a Muslim;
          (5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
          give him peace), or Islam.

          011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (09.14).

          • Hi Lucky Raj, Points to note :

            Teachers do NOT rave or rant when they aspire to teach, right?

            Teachers do NOT abuse and insult their students, do they?

            Did you know that you can become sick in mind when you constantly nag and criticise others over a longer period of time?

            Do you know that you depict a picture of your madness here??

            You constantly think of Muslims killing others…do you see those apparitions as your friend Paul saw???

            Inspite of killing and undermining Muslims in various places, do you see Islam spreading all over the World?

            Is that what your fear is compounded of?

            Do you know why the Western world appreciates Islam?

            Are you aware of the fact that there is NO Muslim who is a Mohammedan and only barbaric mytho worshippers of YONI…pussy are brain dead ??

            If you think that there are killing verses in the Quran then so be it, as behind those thoughts is the brain of an insane monkey!!!

            Expecting your quick recovery from your Mental Trauma due to lengthy comments and sickness of over repetitions of your remarks…

            Plum

        • MM/RajbinLucky, On way home from work, she was allegedly gang-raped, then thrown naked on the road.

          The men allegedly forced her to drink alcohol and after taking her to an isolated spot, took turns to rape her. They finally dumped her on the road.

          Another : Capital horror: Four-year-old allegedly raped, dumped in Delhi park.

          New Delhi : A four-year-old girl was allegedly raped and dumped in a park in Naraina in south-west Delhi on Sunday evening.

          The child was found unconscious and taken to the hospital, where she is now reportedly stable. Her parents say she was playing outside her home when she was lured by a man who promised her chocolates.

          Is that what goes on in India?????
          (NDTV)

          Plum

        • @MODEST MUSLIM
          nobody asked you to comment here …go away if you think you are wasting your time.
          and Islam is The Religion of Peace …LOL..you scums can’t live peacefully with your own kind …and you say Religion of Peace …that must be Joke of the day

          • Mindset, if you believe that Islam is an evil religion then show me just ten (so-called) terrorist verses from Qur’an.

    • Dear MM/Raj, I really feel sorry for all the Shia Pilgrims and Shia people being killed by their fellow Muslims called Sunni. Even tears come to my eyes as I type this…..

      Can you please highlight why the killings of innocent Shia pilgrims by the Pakistani dudes?

      It is very very sad. Iran since its inception from the Persian Empire has never fought any war outside its Territory. Then why the enmity….give a honest reply without relating to historical rivalry as only Pakistani and Iraqi Sunnis(for political) kill those poor Shia pilgrims. Why do Pakistani bastards kill the poor Shia pilgrims???

      Please explain!

      Plum

      • Plum, those who murder someone just because of difference of belief, are wild dogs and when a dog goes wild, we can’t except anything good out of him.

  3. ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS ARE SODOMITES

    Satan Attends Every Childbirth; He Touches Every Infant
    Except for Mary and her Son Jesus, all babies cry during their birth, because Satan touches them… (Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.641)

    Whenever a child is born, Satan pricks it; that is why the child cries. Only Mary and Jesus were not pricked by Satan…(Sahih Muslim, 30.5837, 5838)
    Say prayer during sexual intercourse, and Satan will not touch your child…(Sahih Bukhari, 4.54.503

    Arabic poetry to glorify homosexuality, take their famous poet Abu Nuwas:
    O the joy of sodomy!
    So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
    Turn not away from it–
    therein is wondrous pleasure.
    Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
    twisting on his temple
    and ride as he stands like some gazelle
    standing to her mate.
    A lad whom all can see girt with sword
    and belt not like your whore who has
    to go veiled.
    Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
    very best to mount them, for women are
    the mounts of the devils

    ARAB POET Abu Nuwas:

    ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS FINGER F—-D BY SATAN AT BIRTH

    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.

    EVEN MOHAMMED & HIS COMPANIONS

    ISLAMIC CLERIC CONFIRMS MUSLIM MEN ARE SODOMITES

    You know how some people insult Muslims by calling them crude names that are the equivalents of sodomites and bestialists (butt- and goat-f**kers)? It turns out at least the sodomite insult is true! We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.
    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.
    TRANSCRIPTION OF YASSER HABIB:
    “Anyone who consents to being called ‘Emir of the Believers’ is a passive homosexual. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example, who willingly assumed this title, was, without a doubt, a passive homosexual. The same goes for the caliphs Othman Ibn Affan, Muawiyya, Yazid, and the rules and sultans of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, as well as some of the rulers and sultans of our day and age.

    For example, the king of Morocco bears this title. This is how you know that he is a passive homosexual. This is in addition to the evidence revealed by Western media, which showed that the current king of Morocco is indeed a passive homosexual who belongs to the homosexual community. This was leaked from his palace by his assistants, his servants, and his ‘boys,’ whom he would penetrate and who would penetrate him. They fled to Europe, sought asylum, and exposed all this.

    CLERIC YASSER HABIB EXPOSES UMAR

    It is told (in the hadith) that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus, a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him…
    A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless. he is penetrated again and again.

    The Shiites are undoubtedly protected from this disease, and from committing this abominable and hideous act. As for the Nasibis (who hated the prophet Muhammad’s family), they are definitely afflicted with this homosexuality.
    One of the devils is present at the birth of every human being. If Allah knows that the newborn is one of our Shiites, He fends off that devil, who cannot harm the newborn. But if the newborn is not one of our Shiites, the devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn, who thus becomes a passive homosexual. If the newborn is not a Shiite, the devil inserts his index finger into this newborn’s anus, and when he grows up, he becomes a passive homosexual.
    If the newborn is a female, the devil inserts his index finger into her vagina, and she becomes a whore. At that moment, the newborn cries loudly, as he comes out of his mother’s womb. Note that some children cry normally at birth, while others cry loudly and incessantly. You should know that this is the work of that devil, according to this narration.”

    Islam is NOT a religion, but an insane political system and sex cult populated by the severely mentally impaired.”

    When cleric Yasser Habib “says ‘passive homosexual’, he is referring to the receptive, submissive, female-equivalent partner. Dominant, inserting male homosexual activity is universally accepted in Islam. He has no problem with that. It’s grown men ‘catching’ that he has a problem with.”
    Hey, all you gays-lesbians-bisexuals-trannies and “liberated” women of the “Progressive” Left!According to a cleric of the religion you so vehemently defend, you had all been butt-f*cked by the devil at birth!
    THERE ARE NO INNOCENT MOHAMMEDANS! THEY ARE ALL CLOSET PERVERTS

    The recent film “Innocence of Muslims” has sparked outrage in the cult following of Islam. In a religion that states that those who insult its “prophet” Mohammad should be put to death, the insanity is self evident. Muslims have cornered the market on cult insanity. If Muhammad was a respectable individual, then maybe this would not be such an issue. The problem lies in the Quran’s documentation of its “prophet”, and the Islamic belief that the Koran is without fault or mistake. “Not one word is incorrect in the Quran”, My Mohammedan friend Ahmed tells me.
    My first response is always…”What about Aisha”????
    You see, Muhammad was a documented Pedophile. He forced his friend Abu Bakr to give him his daughter. He said he had a dream about her and since Allah made him dream about this SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, then it was “gods will” that they be married. Not wanting to offend Allah, Abu Bakr gave his six year old daughter over to Muhammad to be raped.
    (Yes! Any sex with a six year old is rape. There is no possibility for comprehension or consensual sex with a six year old.)
    So the Prophet of Allah had Pedophile dreams about a six year old girl and used god as an excuse to get her into his tent for nightly rapes.
    That is all anyone needs to know about Islam. End of story. Its a sick cult with a perverted old man originating the sick, war loving religion.
    Now let’s look at what the Quran says about the events of the criminal Pedophile act.
    First he took her from her family and married her at six years old:

    Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
    An Examination of Muhammad’s Relationship with a Nine-Year-Old Girl

    For the Western mind, perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a “pedophile.” This is, of course, extremely offensive to Muslims, who view Muhammad as the ideal servant of God and as the greatest example of what a man should strive to be. Nevertheless, Muhammad’s relationship with a young girl presents a problem for Muslims, especially for those who want to share their faith with others.
    Since much of the following information will come as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with this issue, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about Muhammad. Pedophilia is one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against a person, so the term “pedophile” should not be used lightly. We must also remember that, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a “sexual predator,” as the term “pedophile” implies. Christians especially should be wary of flippant name-calling. With that said, let us carefully examine Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, recalling the Western principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

    FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.
    Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:
    The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]

    RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.
    The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]
    Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. 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 consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]
    Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]
    Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]
    Aisha (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.[6]
    This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.

    In addition to traditions regarding Aisha’s age, the Hadith also provides details about how the relationship began and progressed:
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said: ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.’”[7]

    After having this dream about Aisha, Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to agree. Aisha was later taken to Muhammad’s house:
    The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said: “But I am your brother.” The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”[8]

    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet (the blessing and peace of
    Allah be upon him) married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Madina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.[9]

    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: When the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.[10]

    Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for treatment equal to that of Aisha:[11]
    The wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) were in two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him). The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) loved Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give it to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had come to Aisha’s home . . . The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. . . .

    [Muhammad replied]: “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspiration did not reveal it to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.” . . . Then the group of Umm Salama called Fatimah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and sent her to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to say to him: “Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms.”[12]

    Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. The Hadith offers a certain amount of support for this view:

    When I took the permission of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he asked me whether I had married a matron. He said: “Why hadn’t you married a virgin that would play with you, and you would play with her?” I replied: “O Allah’s Apostle! My father died and I have young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them.”[13]
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[14]

    Nevertheless, it must be noted that, if Muhammad had truly been obsessed with young girls, he could have taken many others as his wives. Muhammad eventually held complete power in Medina and later in Mecca, yet he didn’t build himself a harem of young girls. Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the charge that Muhammad had a perverted obsession with prepubescent girls, critics should be careful when making such a claim.

    To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear (1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young, (2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he dreamed about her, and (3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data reporting the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny Muhammad’s relationship with her only do so out of embarrassment.

    SECOND MUSLIM DEFENSE: Morality is relative to one’s culture.
    Another method of defending Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is the Muslim appeal to moral relativism. According to this view, since different cultures have different standards of morality, it is wrong to criticize the standards of others based on one’s own ethical system. Consider the following responses by Maqsood Jafri and Abdur Rahman Squires:
    The Arabs practiced polygamy. In the wake of custom the Prophet Muhammad married some ladies. Hazrat Khadijah was fifteen years older [than] him at the time of marriage. Most of them were his age sake. In his fifties he married Hazrat Aiysha, the daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr when she was just bloomed to youth. Hinting this marriage some of the orientalists charge Prophet Muhammad as a “pedophile”. It was not only the Prophet Muhammad who had married a young girl [but] even the father of Hazrat Aiysha, Hazrat Abu Bakr had also married a young girl in his sixties. It was . . . part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom. Hence not to be taken seriously.[15]

    The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can be consummated is at the onset of sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today—it is certainly not something that Islam invented.[16]
    Thus, since the practice of marrying young girls was “part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom,” it is “not to be taken seriously” as a criticism of Islam.

    RESPONSE: Islam is utterly inconsistent with moral relativism.
    This defense is truly amazing, for, when defending Muhammad’s moral perfection, Muslims often maintain that Muhammad condemned the Arab culture for the prevalent immorality:

    After spending his life in such chaste, pure and civilized manner, there comes a revolution in [Muhammad’s] being. He wearies of the darkness and ignorance, corruption, immorality, idolatry, and disorder which surround him on all sides. . . . He wants to get hold of that power with which he might bring about the downfall of the corrupt and disorderly world and lay the foundations of a new and better one. . . . He wanted to change the whole structure of society which had been handed down to them from time immemorial.[17]

    Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, “We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!” Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, “Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl.”
    This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.

    THIRD MUSLIM DEFENSE: Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s plan.
    Muslim apologists have developed another answer to Muhammad’s critics, namely, that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s divine plan (i.e. God had an important reason for it):
    It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hazrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was developing both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam. Moreover, she was the only virgin lady to enter the House of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and was thus very competent to share the feelings of other ladies of younger age who had numerous questions to ask from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with regard to sexual ethics and morality. These ladies felt shy of asking them through the elderly wives of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) out of modesty. They could speak out their minds comparatively more freely to Aisha who was more or less of their own age group.[18]
    Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already a cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in).[19]

    Here Muslim apologists argue that Muhammad married Aisha for a divine purpose. Young girls who had questions about sex needed someone to talk to, and who better for this task than the young wife of the Prophet? Further, Muhammad wanted to establish puberty as an appropriate age for marriage, so he decided to demonstrate this rule by marrying Aisha.

    RESPONSE: Muslims have failed to offer a sufficient reason for God to ordain the marriage.
    There are numerous problems with this defense. First, such a response could be used to justify nearly any behavior. Consider a husband on trial for beating his wife. When he takes the stand, he explains, “Your Honor, many women are victims of spousal abuse, and they need someone to talk to. Out of the kindness of my heart, I decided to beat my wife, so that she would be able to comfort other women whose husbands beat them.” Such an explanation would never be accepted (except, perhaps, in countries under Islamic rule, where the Qur’an guarantees a husband’s right to beat his wife[20]). Besides, if Muhammad had outlawed sex with children instead of becoming a willing participant, little girls wouldn’t have to worry about sex, and they wouldn’t need to question Aisha.

    Second, it isn’t necessary for a lawgiver to institute laws by performing actions that create a precedent. In other words, Muhammad didn’t need to marry a young girl in order establish a law about marrying girls who had reached puberty. Muhammad, as Islam’s lawgiver, could have simply issued a decree. For instance, Muhammad allowed husbands to beat their wives. Was it necessary for Muhammad to beat his wives in order to establish this as a law? Certainly not. Similarly, when an American lawmaker says that killing someone in self-defense is acceptable, no one argues that the lawmaker must go out and kill someone in self-defense if his law is to stand. Hence, the argument that Muhammad needed to marry a young girl to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage completely fails.

    Third, the Muslim claim that Aisha was a “precocious child” strains the evidence. Aisha herself reports that, when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she was playing on a swing with her friends. She was also still playing with dolls. Based on the evidence, Aisha sounds like a normal little girl, not like a young adult. Besides, Muhammad didn’t marry her because she was precocious; he married her because he was dreaming about her.

    Fourth, it is unlikely that God was using Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since the Qur’an itself seems to allow marriage to prepubescent girls. According to Surah 65:4, a man must wait three months to divorce a wife who hasn’t yet reached menses. If Islam allows a man to divorce a girl who isn’t old enough to have her period, it follows that Islam also allows a man to marry a girl who hasn’t yet reached menses. And if the Qur’an allows marriage to prepubescent girls, then Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would in no way rule out such a practice. (In the spirit of interpretive charity, I’m open to alternative interpretations of the Qur’an here. That is, I’m willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt if they offer another reasonable view of this passage. Based solely on 65:4, I would say that several interpretations of the text are possible. However, if we consider early Muslim commentaries on the verse, the understanding I give above appears strongest.

    Fifth, Muslims search for reasons to justify Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha because they are convinced that everything Muhammad did had a divine purpose behind it. When critics point out Muhammad’s numerous murders and assassinations, Muslims claim that these violent acts were just. When critics note the extent of Muhammad’s polygamy, or his participation in the slave-trade, or his countless robberies,[21] Muslims provide answers based on the view that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example. Similarly, when Muslims are confronted with the evidence for Muhammad’s sexual encounters with Aisha, they assume that there must have been a reason for it. They then invent reasons for Muhammad’s behavior (i.e. the other little girls needed someone to talk to about sex), and they offer these reasons as a defense of Muhammad’s morality. However, non-Muslims do not share this confidence in Muhammad’s moral perfection. Indeed, when non-Muslims hear about Muhammad’s violence, his greed, his polygamy, and his support of spousal abuse, we aren’t as quick to say “He must have had a reason” as Muslims seem to be. Because of this, Muslim justifications for Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha sound hollow when presented as a logical defense of his actions.
    Finally, Muslim explanations for Muhammad’s behavior fail to take into account the dangers that accompany sex at a young age. Many Muslims claim that, as soon as a young girl gets her first period, she is ready to bear children. This “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” mentality, aside from being disgusting, is completely false. A nine-year-old girl isn’t ready for sex or children, even if she reaches menses earlier than other little girls. Children that young are still growing; when they become pregnant, their bodies divert nutritional resources to the developing fetus, depriving the growing girls of much-needed vitamins and minerals. Further, complications often result from adolescent pregnancies, because the bodies of the young girls simply aren’t ready to give birth.

    The West has discerned the dangers posed by adolescent pregnancies. Muslim apologists often claim that marriage to young girls was common in biblical times. This may be correct, but it is because these marriages were part of the culture, not because God endorsed them. Whereas many Christian countries have recognized the potential harms brought on by pregnancies among adolescent girls and have raised the legal age for marriage, Muslim countries are often kept from such advancements because of Muhammad. This is very interesting, for Muslims often claim that Muhammad was scientifically enlightened and that the Qur’an is a scientific masterpiece.[22] In reality, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is injuring young girls across the Middle East and North Africa. The dangers have even been noted by the United Nations, which issued the following report in an attempt to curb the practices supported by Islam:

    Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them.

    Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents’ home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed.

    Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing.

    Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother’s own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women.

    In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer “status” on a woman.
    An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly.[23]

    Contrary to Muslim claims, a nine-year-old girl just isn’t ready for sexual intercourse or for its possible ramifications (i.e. pregnancy, giving birth, breast-feeding, and raising a child). It is unnecessarily dangerous, for a much safer relationship could be crafted if the marriage were to take place several years later, when the girl reaches her late teens. Muslims may respond to this by arguing, “But Aisha never became pregnant, so none of this matters.” Yet it does matter. Every year, countless young girls, still playing with dolls, are taken to live with much older husbands. If these husbands were to be challenged, they wouldn’t respond by saying, “But it’s part of Arabic culture”; instead, they would reply, “It can’t be wrong, because Muhammad did it.” In other words, even if we grant the bizarre claim that Aisha was somehow ready for sex and marriage, most nine-year-old girls aren’t ready for sex and marriage. Yet the practice of marrying children continues to this day in many Muslim countries, largely because Muslims hold up Muhammad as their highest role model.

    FOURTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: The average lifespan in Muhammad’s day was so low that people had to marry young.
    Osama Abdallah argues that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was understandable because people in Muhammad’s day needed to marry early:
    Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. From my personal knowledge, the average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.[24]
    On this view, since people could die at any time in the “hot desert,” they would get married at a very early age to make sure they had as many years together as possible.

    RESPONSE: Muhammad was already more than fifty years old when he consummated his marriage to Aisha, so there was no need for him to marry such a young girl.
    Abdallah’s claim might make sense if Muhammad had been nine or ten years old when he married Aisha. But the Prophet of Islam was already well advanced in years. He was far closer to death than any young woman he might marry, so why not marry a young woman instead of a young girl? Why not marry a fully developed twenty-year-old instead of a little girl playing on a swing? By marrying Aisha when she was so young, Muhammad was, in effect, condemning her to a life of widowhood, for the Qur’an prohibited the marrying of Muhammad’s widows (33:53). Beyond all this, Abdallah’s argument ignores the facts. Muhammad didn’t marry Aisha because the average life span was fifty years old; instead, he married her because (1) he had been dreaming about her, and (2) he had the power to persuade Abu Bakr to give him his daughter in marriage.

    FIFTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: Other people have done it too—even Christians!
    Abdallah also employs an “everybody’s doing it, so it’s okay” defense:
    Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl, it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind. In non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been “BETROTHED” to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. Therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was “BETHROED” to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the “Holy Ghost” of the Bible, that “Impregnated” Mary as a “Rapist” or “Adulterer.”.[25]

    RESPONSE: Besides committing the “tu quoque” fallacy, this defense misses the point of the criticism against Muhammad.
    Tu quoque is a type of fallacy that attempts to ignore a criticism because of some hypocrisy found in the critic. For instance, suppose I’m a thief. One day, I catch someone stealing my car, and I say, “Stop, Thief!” If the person stealing my car turns to me and says, “But you’re a thief too, so it’s not wrong for me to steal,” he will be committing the tu quoque fallacy.

    Muslims rely heavily on the tu quoque. When people criticize Islam for terrorism, it’s common to hear Muslims say, “But Americans are killing Arabs!” as if this were a meaningful response to the charge. Likewise, when someone says, “Look at all the people Muhammad killed,” Muslims respond by saying, “But people were killed in the Bible too.”
    To say that Joseph married a young girl in the Bible does nothing to address the problem of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. At best, such a defense would only show that Christians are being inconsistent. But in reality, the Muslim defense doesn’t even show this, since their comparison fails for several reasons.
    First, there is no real historical data reporting the age of Mary when she married Joseph. True, given the custom of the time, she was probably fairly young, perhaps as young as twelve or thirteen. But since we have no historical references to her age, we can’t rule out the possibility that Mary was twenty years old. The point here is this: people criticize Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha based on what we know (i.e. that Aisha was nine years old), whereas Muslims reply based on what we don’t know (i.e. the age of Mary).

    Second, we must not forget that thirteen years old is very different from nine years old. Nine-year-old girls typically haven’t reached menses. In a best case scenario, a girl that young may have entered the beginning stages of puberty. A thirteen-year-old girl, on the other hand, may be coming to the end of puberty. Thus, even if we grant a young age for Mary, there would still be a world of difference between her and Aisha.

    Third, Muslim apologists seem to miss the fact that Joseph is not the standard of morality in Christianity. When critics point to the age of Aisha, they are arguing something like this: “You’re trying to tell me that Muhammad was the greatest moral example of all time and that I should believe everything he says? I can’t believe that a person who would have sex with a little girl was the greatest man ever.” More simply, Muhammad is foundational to Islam. If there is a problem with Muhammad, there is a problem with Islam. If Muhammad was immoral, then it becomes difficult to take his teachings seriously. Thus, it makes no sense for a Muslim to say, “Well, Joseph married a young girl too.” Joseph isn’t foundational to Christianity. If an ancient text were found tomorrow, and this ancient text proved that Joseph was a thief and a murderer, this wouldn’t affect Christianity at all, because Christians don’t consider him to be a prophet, or a bringer of revelation, or even an important figure in Christianity. Thus, if Muslims want to show that Christians are being inconsistent, they need to show that Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or someone central to Christianity, did the things that Muhammad did. Fortunately, Jesus was sinless, and the apostles lived exemplary lives once they had committed themselves to Jesus.

    The internet is filled with examples of Muslims responses of this sort. Muslim websites constantly note that young girls are married in various countries and that these young girls sometimes give birth. No one doubts this. The problem is that this has nothing to do with whether or not marriage to a nine-year-old girl is morally acceptable for a mighty prophet. The fact that Muslims are forced to resort to an “everyone’s doing it” defense shows that they have run out of responses.

    ASSESSMENT: While the evidence isn’t enough to condemn Muhammad as a “pedophile,” his sexual relationship with Aisha is unacceptable.
    Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia in numerous writings, sermons, and conversations. We have seen that the earliest Muslim traditions offer support for this view. However, the evidence sustaining the charge of pedophilia is perhaps too limited to warrant such a harsh conclusion. We know that Muhammad had a sexual relationship with a young girl, and that this was reprehensible. Yet we must take cultural differences into consideration in formulating an accurate appraisal of a person’s character. In Muhammad’s society, sexual intercourse was acceptable when a girl reached menses, and Muhammad may have waited until Aisha had reached this age. (Note: There’s no good historical evidence that Muhammad waited for Aisha to reach menses. However, I think it’s important to be generous in our interpretations as much as possible, so I’m willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Aisha had reached puberty.)
    Similarly, we don’t have enough information to call Muhammad a “pervert.” While Muhammad’s sexual acts may seem startling, we don’t know enough about the nature of these acts to condemn him as a sexual deviant or a predator.

    Nevertheless, Muslims are too hasty in dismissing Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha. We can’t simply ignore a prophet’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muslims view Muhammad as the highest example of a moral life, but his marriage to Aisha conflicts with that view. If they want to put Muhammad forward as the standard of morality, Muslims need to come to terms with the many questionable things Muhammad did, as well as the awful impact of these actions.

    There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.

    If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.

    Notes:
    [1] Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet (St. Lambert: Payette and Sims, 1993), pp. 183-184.
    [2] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, tr. (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2002), Number 5133. See also 5134.
    [3] Ibid., Number 3896.
    [4] Ibid., Number 5158.
    [5] Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 3310.
    [6] Ibid, Number 3311.
    [7] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 3895. See also Number 5078.
    [8] Ibid., Number 5081.
    [9] Ibid., Number 3894.
    [10] Ibid., Number 5160.
    [11] The Qur’an commands husbands to treat their wives equally (4:3), a command that Muhammad clearly violated. Of course, the same verse also forbids husbands to marry more than four women, but Muhammad received a revelation granting him immunity from this law (33:50).
    [12] Ibid., Number 2581.
    [13] Ibid., Number 2967.
    [14] Ibid., Number 6130.
    [15] Professor Maqsood Jafri, “On The Character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”
    [16] Abdur Rahman Squires, “The Young Marriage of Aishah.”
    [17] Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North America, 1986), pp. 53, 56.
    [18] Sahih Muslim, Note 1860 (p. 716).
    [19] Squires, “The Young Marriage of Aishah.”
    [20] According to the Quran, “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great” (v. 4:34, M.H. Shakir Translation).
    [21] For references, see “Islam Beheaded.”
    [22] For more on this, see “Talking Ants and Shrinking Humans.”
    [23] Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights, Fact Sheet No. 23, “Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.” (Online source) The actual report is much longer than the selections quoted here.
    [24] See http://www.answering-islam.com/aisha.htm.
    [25] Ibid.

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