Terrorism has a Religion, and that is Islam

Politically correct leaders, paid media, and pseudo-secular activists want us to believe that terrorism has no religion. They stress that no religion teaches terrorism, and it should not be linked with any faith. Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali-Gomaa once wrote in his article:jihad-1024x522

“Terrorism cannot be born of religion. Terrorism is the product of corrupt minds, hardened hearts, and arrogant egos, and corruption, destruction, and arrogance are unknown to the heart attached to the divine.  Islam is a religion of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with all of humanity both as individuals and communities. Islam views people as honored creatures without regard for their religion, race, or color. ” 

If you ask any Islamic cleric or the politically correct leader about linking Islam with terrorism, their most probable answer would be, that terror has no religion or color. India’s External Affairs Minister, Mr. Salman Khurshid when asked the same question few months back, he answered:

“Terror does not have religion. We have said this very clearly. And religion should not be associated with color.  This we have said very clearly. It is terror that we have to fight. Terror directed against India that we are fighting.”

Ask this question to any of the above mentioned people, the answer would be absolute same. But the question is, are they factually correct? Does Terrorism really has no connection with any particular religion? Has terrorism no color? In this article I will try to answer these questions using evidences, and teachings from canonical scripture of Islam and by the facts provided by the terrorists (Jihadis) themselves.

There are loads of evidences which proves Islam is the religion of Terrorism, but it cannot be compiled in a single article. So I’ll try to provide some evidences which proves my point.  The Islamic clerics themselves admit that it is OK to kill the Non-Muslims (Kafirs) as per the teaching of Islam. In 2002 [WND], A London-based Muslim cleric has been caught on film urging his followers to kill non-Muslims – particularly Americans – and to commit other acts of terrorism.

Sheik Abu Hamza, affiliated with London’s Finsbury Park mosque, tells an audience that non-believers should be killed or sold into slavery in a tape converted to digital files and smuggled onto the Internet.

The tapes were reportedly given by Hamza to a researcher who posed as a supporter and infiltrated his inner circle. “If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow,” explains Hamza. “Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law.”

Another example is of Ajmal Kasab, the sole surviving gunman from 2008 Mumbai attacks admitted that his AKAS (Islamic Leaders or Preachers) told him that killing ‘Hindu kafirs’ and getting killed while doing so is the most pious way to get to heaven, where a thousand million virgins will be waiting to serve them and take them even higher.

If these two example are not sufficient enough to prove that Islam is the religion of Terrorism, so let’s see what happened in West Gate Mall in Kenya.

According to an Eyewitness News who spoke to the Economist magazine’s Daniel Howden who is in Nairobi.

He said after the initial burst of firing was over, several witnesses said the attackers were calling on Muslims who were inside the mall to identify themselves so they could be allowed to leave.

The above report proves that the terrorists identified Muslims as their own, so they allowed them to leave the mall to kill all the other Non-Muslim inside the mall. As per another report:

“In one instance, it was described to me that an Indian man pretended he was a Muslim and was asked to provide the name of the mother of the Prophet Muhammad. When he couldn’t provide it, he was shot dead in front of everyone.”

It again proves that the terrorists wanted to know the religion of people who tried to escape, and they asked them questions, which are mostly known to Muslims. The Indian man was killed because, he didn’t knew the name of mother of Muhammad, whom terrorists adore as their Prophet, and his religion as their religion.

The evidence against Islam, becomes much stronger by the recent suicide bombing by Muslims in a Church in Pakistan, which was only attended by Christians. The sole intention of suicide bomber was to kill as many Non-Muslim he can.

These terrorist attacks are not alone evidence, there are dozens of verses too, which exhorts Muslims to become terrorists. Although I have discussed it many a times, still I’ll quote few verses which clearly commands Muslims to kill and fight those who accept not Allah as their Lord and Muhammad as his Prophet.

Quran 8:39 says, “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”

The verse is self-explanatory, the author wants Muslims to fight the Non-Muslims until the religion is solely for Allah, i.e. Islam alone. Many Islamic scholars complain us of quoting the verses out of context, but unfortunately the verse itself says to fight the all the disbeliever until religion is only for Allah, which leaves no room for contextual interpretation.

Quran 9:14 says, “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.”

It is amazing to read that it is Allah himself who is using the hands of these terrorists to punish innocent non-believers, still people say that religion should not be linked with terrorism.

Now I believe after going through these evidences, any rational mind, without a shadow of doubt will agree with me, that Islam is the religion of terrorism. Terrorists are born out of preaching of Quran, and yes terrorist have a religion a color, which is Islam.

36 thoughts on “Terrorism has a Religion, and that is Islam

  1. see, even in internet we have war. there will never be peace as long as religions are different, and so would spiritual beliefs. imagine there are no countries, it isn’t hard to do. nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. imagine all the people living life in peace. you may say i’m a dreamer, but i’m not the only one. i hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one. i think the one who said that chose to die because in this world and life we live in, it will never happen simply because nobody would like to give in any time soon.

    Islam is the religion of peace. Islam strictly condemns such subversive activities and actions, which may be devastating and harmful to innocent people. The Muslim strongly believe in the philosophy of to live and let others live peacefully and placidly. Al-mighty ALLAH lays great stress on the right of neighbors and the whole of humanity. But today we see that on the account of the intrigue of our non-Muslim enemies, and the treason of some so called Muslims, the Islamic world is facing the disgusting blames for terrorism, which has brought shameful discredit to the door of Islam.Biased analysts claim that though not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslim. Facts easily disprove this misrepresentation. While Al Qaeda has attracted the most attention since it targets the West, highly egregious terrorism has been committed more frequently by others in recent history. Some even committed it in the name of religion, e.g., the Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa routinely attacks villages, chopping men’s limbs, killing thousands.
    Anti-Muslims resort to a deceitful misrepresentation when they misquote the Quranic verses of the second chapter. They claim that Quran promoted killing the infidels wherever you find them. Indeed, this is true but only if the infidels attack Muslims.

    Islam denounces Terrorism and shows the path to establishing Justice & Peace
    Invoke your Lord with humility and in secret. He likes not the aggressors. And do not do mischief on the earth, after it has been set in order, And Invoke Him with fear and hope; Surely, Allah’s mercy is (ever) near unto the good-doers. (The Qurán 7:55)
    In recent times, ‘violence’ & ‘terrorism’ has unfortunately come to be associated with Islam and Muslims. For a religion called “Islam”, which derives its meaning from the arabic root word “salama” (meaning: peace/submission), and whose followers do not get tired of greeting each other with “assalamu’alaikum” (meaning: peace be on you), association with the term of ‘violence’ is quite ironic.
    Islam is the religion of peace. Its very name is derived from the word ‘salam’. Salam is not only the absence of violence and aggression but it also means total well being and happiness. It means literally ‘to be safe, secure, sound, wholesome, unharmed, unimpaired and intact’. From these meanings in the physical sense it has also acquired the metaphysical and moral meanings, namely, ‘to be blameless, faultless and perfect’.
    Islam is the religion of salam. Salam does not mean ‘peace’ in the sense of being inactive, motionless or quiet. People use the word ‘peaceful night’ when it does not have the activities and noise of the day. People say ‘peaceful ocean’ when it has no waves. Similarly they call the cemeteries ‘the gardens of peace’ because every one is dead there and there is no sign of life. The word ‘salam’ does not mean ‘to be quiet’ or ‘to be motionless’ or ‘to become dead’. Salam is an active and dynamic involvement to keep and to restore the right order. Salam is both an individual quest for peace and harmony for one’s self and it includes the concern for the well being of all people regardless of their races, colors or genders.
    There are three major components in the concept of peace (salam) in Islam. It is
    1. Inner peace and harmony in the life of every individual
    2. Social cohesion in the community
    3. Treatment of tensions and conflicts.

    Islam is a Religion of Mercy
    Mercy is the companion of peace in the salutation of Muslims.
    The Messenger of Islam is a Mercy to the worlds.
    And the slogan of Islam, repeated in every utterance and action is
    “In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.”
    The behaviour between the believers is one of patience and mercy:
    ‘Then he became one of those who believed and recommended one another to perseverance and patience, and (also) recommended one another to piety and compassion.’
    (Surat-al-Balad (90), ayah 17)

    • What do you expect from the follower of a radical? If other religions tell their followers to kill nonbelievers, muslims will not be around today.

    • You mother fucker “muslims”. Your prophet Mohammad baby molester, Married aisha in age of 7. Bloody Rascal, pervert of baby girls and all type of muslim women. You following that person. who even dont have common sense. Killer, your prophet is also M*****r F*****R like u.

  3. Hi Raj, something of a follow up :

    Asaram Bapu sexual assault case: Warden who allegedly sent girl to guru surrenders!!

    The Baba’s bottoms have been pricked again!!!

    Jodhpur: Spiritual leader Asaram Bapu, who is in jail over allegations of sexually assaulting a schoolgirl, may face more trouble with one of his key aides surrendering in a Rajasthan court today.
    The Rajasthan police say she was the one who sent the 16-year-old girl to Asaram Bapu, claiming that she needed a special exorcism ritual. Shilpi has been evading arrest for nearly a month.

    Asaram Bapu’s personal attendant Shiva, who is also in jail, has reportedly told the police that the self-styled godman regularly met women for what he called healing sessions in a room described as his “meditation hut”.

    Doing what?…jig jig jig..jig..with wives and daughters for all those years,,,jig jig…more jig jig and more and more jig jig…….healing their Yonis with his blessed oily Lingam!!

    See how dangerous they are : “The girl and her family have accused the preacher of threatening to hurt them if they reported the alleged assault to the police. The victim’s father has also alleged death threats from the spiritual guru’s followers and has given alleged phone recordings of the threats to his lawyer”.

    All, each and every one of them is a FAKE healer and they bribe the followers to eliminate any dissent. (NDTV)



  4. Mr dear Plum, bad form sir, bad form indeed. As a Muslim scholar I have accepted your answers with good grace not wishing to argue with you. Now as a Christian I have answered your questions without pointing out that your understanding of the Christian faith is at points very limited- for example was Jesus a Jew? ‘yes, he was and every Christian knows and believes this and considers Christianity to be the fulfilment of thousands of years of Jewish prophecy’. Now you may not like my answers or accept them, but they are what Christians believe and teach.

    I have read the Quran and the book ‘Jesus Prophet of Islam’ by Muhammad Ata ur’Rahim and Ahmed Thomson. However, I am not a scholar of Islam and have no intention of becoming one. I think Islam is a corruption of much earlier Christian texts that Muhammed would have heard read in the monasteries along on the trade routes he travelled. Our complete Christian texts pre-date the arrival of Islam and despite the Muslim destruction of the library at Alexandria thousands of early Christian manuscripts exist today.

    I am quite willing to accept that the ‘gurus’ of the Jihadists, the Wahhabi’s, have got Islam wrong. You as a scholar should convince them that their interpretation is wrong and end their evil, then your religion will no longer be known every day in the media for its violence and terrorism.

    Like it or not, the Naxals are influenced by a Maoist ideology that is a form of communist thought not Hinduism and yes I would hold Maoist ideology responsible for motivating and legitimising the atrocities committed by the Naxalites.Though Naxals rarely blow themselves up in their strike as Maoists are atheistic and don’t believe God will reward them for their terrorist service (they fight for reward in this life).

    Again your questions need only one question mark:

    Given that Acts 5:30 is spoken not by Paul but by Peter who followed Jesus for three years, you clearly haven’t read the context of the passage. I recommend you begin by reading the New Testament in translation if English is your first language the New International Version is easier to read than the King James Version and will help you to understand it.

    Peter and John, two of Jesus disciples had been arrested by the Jewish religious authorities and are being interrogated. They are told to stop preaching Jesus to the people and their response is: ‘We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins’.

    Here is some more of Acts 2:22 – 24:

    “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

    Again this is Peter speaking, one of Jesus closest disciples and here he is speaking to the crowds in Jerusalem declaring the message of the Gospel and then calling people to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus. It was for preaching this message that he was arrested later in Acts 5.

    There are two genealogies of Jesus the one you cite by Matthew is the line King David through his son Solomon through to Joseph (who adopted Jesus and raised him as a son being the husband of Mary). Jesus therefore was not an ancestor of Jechonias but only adopted into his line. However, Jesus was directly descended from King David via his Mother Mary whose genealogy is recorded in Luke chapter 3 and which goes through King David’s line via Nathan. Therefore, fulfilling the prophecy without negating God’s curse of Jechonias.

    Matthew missed out very important names, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim, from the generations of the kings. Why?

    On your note about missing generations marks Matthews’ genealogy out as an intentionally abbreviated list – including 26 generations rather than 41 generations in Luke’s genealogy. The omission of these prominent names, probably alerts us to the fact that other unknown generations are missed out. The Greek word used by Matthew is his genealogy, translated ‘begat’ in the King James Version, is not always understood to refer to direct succession but has been known to refer to a later generation of a person’s genealogy.

    You then jump to Jesus crying out in agony from the cross. I have deleted your comment about it being a joke because such a comment seems deliberately offensive. The suffering of Christ Jesus in accordance with the Scriptures for the sins of the world is never a joke!

    Matthew 27:46-47 (1599 Geneva Bible (GNV))

    46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou FORSAKEN me?

    47 And some of them that stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calleth Elijah.

    When Jesus cries out: ‘my God, my God why have you forsaken me?’ he is quoting Psalm 22 which prophecies that soldiers would divide his clothes by lot, that his hands and feet would be pierced, but that God the Father would deliver his soul from death, and that his faithfulness would be vindicated! The fact that the people gathered misunderstood Jesus cry and thought he was calling for Elijah only illustrates how they misunderstood the magnitude of the event that was taking place at that time. It also shows how Jesus was teaching them to the very end that he must suffer so that they can go free.

    We are not told that Jesus had wings in Paul’s vision much later on and I am not going to answer a silly question. Your final question is a repeat and I have answered it so I will not return to that either.

    May you find the grace of God.
    Peace be with you.

    • James Church, dude, it were Christians themselves who hid certain gospels (apocrypha) because they found them contrary to Pauline Christianity. When Muslims burned the Library of Alexandria, it was the reign of Caliph Umar who became the ruler of the Muslims two years after the death of the Prophet. Thus, it’s the Muslims to blame, not the Prophet.

      Islam is a purified form of Judaism and Christianity. Qur’an is an reformed edition of the Bible.

      • OH YOU DUMB, IGNORANT, MORONIC MOHAMMEDAN! HOW DO YOU PURIFY THIS? THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT The Beatitudes 1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying: 3″Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. 10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11″Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Believers Are Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14″You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Christ Fulfills the Law 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Murder Begins in the Heart 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. Adultery in the Heart 27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not commit adultery.’ 28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Marriage Is Sacred and Binding 31 “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Jesus Forbids Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your “Yes’ be “Yes,’ and your “No,’ “No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Go the Second Mile 38 “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. Love Your Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. Matthew 6 Do Good to Please God 1″Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. The Model Prayer 5″And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8″Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. 11Give us this day our daily bread. 12And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. 13And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. 14″For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Fasting to Be Seen Only by God 16 “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. Lay Up Treasures in Heaven 19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The Lamp of the Body 22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness! You Cannot Serve God and Riches 24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Do Not Worry 25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? 28″So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31″Therefore do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?’ or “What shall we drink?’ or “What shall we wear?’ 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Matthew 7 Do Not Judge 1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6″Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. The Narrow Way 13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. You Will Know Them by Their Fruits 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Build on the Rock 24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26″But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” 28And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5 5:1-2. The opening verses of the Sermon on the Mount indicate that this message deals with the inner state of mind and heart which is the indispensable absolute of true Christian discipleship. It delineates the outward manifestations of character and conduct of the true believer and genuine disciple. A dispensationalist, Lawlor writes: “We do not find basic, fundamental Law here, for law cannot produce the state of blessedness set forth herein” (cf. G. Lawlor, The Beatitudes Are for Today, p. 11). Rather, the quality of life herein described is the necessary product of grace alone. As Jesus states the outward legal requirements of the law and then carries His listener beyond the letter of the law to the true spirit and intent of the law, He describes a life-style which no human being could live in his own power. Thus, the life of the believer, described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, is a life of grace and glory, which comes from God alone. To make this quality of life the product of man’s human efforts (as does the liberal) is the height of overestimation of man’s ability and underestimation of his depravity. To relegate this entire message, Jesus’ longest recorded sermon, to a Jewish-only life-style, as do hyper-dispensationalists, is to rob the church of her greatest statement of true Christian living! The depth of spiritual truth proclaimed in this message of the kingdom, however, does not present the gospel of justification by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Pink states; “Its larger part was a most searching exposition of the spirituality of the law and the repudiation of the false teaching of the elders’ (A. W. Pink, An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, p.13). Jesus made it clear that the spirit of Christ goes beyond the outward demand of the law. The Christian, though not under the law, is to live above the law. It has always been difficult to clearly draw the distinction between the relationship of law and grace. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has observed: “Some so emphasize the law as to turn the gospel of Jesus Christ with its glorious liberty into nothing but a collection of moral maxims. It is all law to them and there is no grace left. They so talk of the Christian, that it becomes pure legalism and there is no grace in it. Let us remember also that it is equally possible so to overemphasize grace at the expense of the law as again, to have something which is not the gospel of the New Testament” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, pp.12-i 5). He goes on to note that the Sermon on the Mount and the message of the kingdom do have definite application to the Christian today. It was preached to people who were meant to practice it not only at that time but ever afterwards as well. Boice (p.9) observes that the “World” of the Sermon on the Mount cannot be restricted to life in the future millennial kingdom, since it includes tax collectors, thieves, unjust officials, hypocrites, and false prophets. Embodied in the Sermon on the Mount is a summation of Jesus’ basic ethical teaching of the life of a born-again man. While the Sermon on the Mount is not a way of salvation, neither is it only a message to those under the law, for it obviously goes beyond the law. It is a presentation of Christian discipleship which can be wrought in the soul of an individual only by the power of God. This message does not tell one how to be saved; it tells one what it is like to be saved. It explains the quality of the life changed by the saving grace of God. Its basic truths are reiterated everywhere throughout the New Testament epistles. There is no fundamental contrast between this message and the message of Paul. Both are in agreement that “the just shall live by faith!” In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus states the spiritual character and quality of the kingdom which He wished to establish. The basic qualities of this kingdom are fulfilled in the church which He would establish. Virtually every section of this message is repeated in the substance elsewhere throughout the New Testament. There is nothing here to indicate that this message is to be limited in its application only to the people of Israel. Notice in the opening verse that his disciples had come to Him and he . . . taught them the following message. a. The Beatitudes: Character described. 5:3-20. 3. Blessed means “happy.” This is a basic description of the believer’s inner condition as a result of the work of God. Kent states that it is virtually equivalent to being “saved” (H. A. Kent Jr. Matthew, in Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 15). These Beatitudes, like Psalm 1, do not show a man how to be saved, but rather describe the characteristics of one who has been saved. The poor in spirit are the opposite of the proud or haughty in spirit. These are those who have been humbled by the grace of God and have acknowledged their sin and therefore their dependence upon God to save them. They are the ones who will inherit the kingdom of heaven. It is obvious in this usage that the kingdom of heaven is a general designation of the dwelling place of the saved. 4. Those that mourn . . shall be comforted. The depth of the promise of these statements is almost inexhaustible. Those who mourn for sin shall be comforted in confession. Those who mourn for the human anguish of the lost shall be comforted by the compassion of God. 5. The meek. . . shall inherit the earth refers again to those who have been humbled before God and will inherit, not only the blessedness of heaven, but shall ultimately share in the kingdom of God upon the earth. Here, in the opening statements of the Sermon on the Mount, is the balance between the physical and spiritual promise of the kingdom. The kingdom of which Jesus preached is both “in you” and is yet “to come.” The Christian is the spiritual citizen of the kingdom of heaven now. 6. These future possessors of the earth are its presently installed rightful heirs and even now they hunger and thirst after righteousness. They experience a deep desire for personal righteousness which is, in itself, a proof of their spiritual re-birth. Those who are poor and empty in their own spiritual poverty recognize the depth of their need and hunger and thirst for that which only God can give them. To hunger means to be needy. It is joined with to thirst; the born-again man has a God-given hunger and thirst (inner passion) for righteousness. This hungering and thirsting continues throughout the life of the believer. He continues to hunger and to be filled and to hunger and to be filled. God supplies his every spiritual need daily. This act of hungering and thirsting after righteousness is the by-product of a regenerated life. Lawlor (p.60) rightly states that this is the description of a man who has already been saved. Nowhere does the Bible command unbelievers to hunger after righteousness in order to be saved. Rather, Paul clearly states “there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom 3:11). The biblical writers make it clear that while man must come to Christ for salvation, it is not within man’s normal ability and desire to want to come to God. Therefore, God is depicted throughout the New Testament as the seeking Saviour going after the lost. They shall be filled (Gr chortazδ) refers to complete filling and satisfaction. The psalmist proclaimed: “He satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness” (107:9). This filling comes from God, who is the total source of satisfaction of His people. It comes now and it will continue to come throughout eternity to those who hunger and thirst for it. 7. Those who are merciful . . . shall obtain mercy has reference to those who have been born again by the mercy of God. Because divine love has been extended to them, they have the work of the Holy Spirit in them producing a mercy which defies explanation by unregenerate men. Jesus Himself became the ultimate example of this when He cried from the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk 23:34). The form of proverbial teaching should not confuse the order of these statements; for example, the believer does not show mercy in order to obtain mercy, he shows mercy because he has obtained mercy. In so continuing to show the evidence of the grace of God in his life he continues to receive that grace. In other words, he is not saved simply because he shows mercy and is kind to people. He shows mercy and is kind because he saved. 8. Those who are truly saved shall see God. These are the pure in heart. Their lives have been transformed by the grace God. They are not yet sinless but their position before God has been changed. They have the new birth, saving faith and holiness. The process of sanctification is ever conforming them to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29), which image consists in “righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24). Purity of heart is both the end of our election and the goal of our redemption. We read in Ephesians 1:4, “He has chosen us that we should be holy” and Titus 2:14, “who gave himself for us that he might redeem us unto himself a peculiar people.” To which we add Hebrews 12:14, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” 9. The next description deals with the peacemakers. They are the ones who are themselves at peace with God and live in peace with all men (cf. Rom 5:1). They are called “the” peacemakers for these are not social reformers, but rather the ones reformed by the regenerating power of the gospel. They are peacemakers because they themselves are at peace with God. They have entered into the peace of Christ and thus are able ambassadors of God’s message of peace to a troubled world. Hence, they shall be called the children of God. These only shall be called the sons of God! Throughout the Beatitudes Jesus clearly underscores that only those who have the life-changing qualities herein described are citizens of His kingdom. 10. As Jesus develops His message He makes it clear that such a life causes His people to be in direct contrast to the world in which they live. Therefore He reminds, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The plural use of ye in verse 11 indicates that He foresaw this persecution as touching all His followers. Notice II Timothy 3:12, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” The nature of this persecution (Gr diδkδ) implies a driving chasing away, a withstanding or keeping one from his goal. This does not mean that every Christian will necessarily suffer physical abuse as evidence of true salvation. While many Christians have sealed their faith with their blood, many more have had to withstand the social temptations and pressures of the world in order to live effectively for Christ. 11. Again, Jesus warns that men shall revile you, and persecute you. This became true during His own ministry, in the lives of the apostles and throughout the history of the church. But in Tertullian’s words, “The blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church.” The persecution spoken of here is twofold. First, it involves a physical pursuing of the persecuted and secondly a personal attack of slander against them. Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5 12. Rejoice is the command that grows out of the blessedness of the believer. The phrase “rejoice and be exceedingly glad” means rejoice, but even more exalt! The believer who is the blessed one may not only rejoice in tribulation but he may rejoice exceedingly to the point of exaltation. Therefore, he glories in tribulation even as the Apostle Paul (cf. II Co 12:7-10). Great is your reward in heaven focuses attention upon the eternal, spiritual destiny of all things. If God is as real as He claims, if the Bible is true, if heaven is to be gained there is no temporary earthly trouble or persecution that can thwart the child of God from the eternal glory that lies ahead. In Romans 8:18, Paul proclaimed, “I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 13. The Beatitudes are followed by a summary statement of the basic character of the Christian’s life as salt and light. Ye are the salt of the earth; again the phrase ye are indicates that only the genuinely born-again person is salt and can help meet the needs of the world. The salt adds flavoring, acts as a preservative, melts coldness and heals wounds. Thus it is a very appropriate description of the believer in his relationship to the world in which he lives. The term “lose its savor” refers to its essential saltiness. Jesus was actually saying that if the salt loses its saltiness, it is worthless. The implication of this statement is that if a Christian loses his effectiveness, his testimony will be trampled under the feet of men. 14-16. Ye are the light of the world describes the essential mission of the Christian to the world. He is the condition (salt) to meet the world’s needs and he has a mission (light) to the world. His light is to clearly shine forth into the darkness of human depravity. He is to set it up on a candlestick, not hide it under a bushel, e.g., basket. Inconsistent living and un-confessed sin in the life of the believer will become a basket-like covering which hides the light of God. God provides the light and it continues to shine, but as believers we must keep our lives clean before the Lord in order not to cover up the light which He has placed within us. Darkness is the absence of light and darkness alone cannot dispel the light, but the smallest light can dispel the greatest darkness. Therefore, let your light shine through a clean life before the Lord and before the world in which you live. 17. Having laid the foundation of the message in the summary statements of the Beatitudes, Jesus now proceeds to show the superiority of His message to that of the law of Moses. He makes it clear that He had not . . . come to destroy the law. That is, the New Testament gospel is not contradictory to the Old Testament law; rather it is the ultimate fulfillment of the spiritual intention of the law. Where the law had degenerated into legalism by the Pharisees, Jesus now takes the law beyond mere outward observance to the inner spiritual intention of God. For He had come to fulfill the law and its fullest implications. In his earthly life Jesus accomplished this by meeting its strictest demands and going beyond its mere outward requirements. As our Saviour, Jesus not only bore our sins, but He has also established a perfect righteousness given to us as a gift of God. Our sin was thus imputed to Him and His righteousness was imputed to us (cf. J. Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin). 18. Verily I say is a unique form used by Jesus throughout His preaching to draw attention to the authority of His message. Verily means truly, certainly, or amen. It is used as a designation of authoritative teaching. One jot or one tittle refers to the minutest marks and letters of the Hebrew alphabet. He explained that even the smallest statement in the law must be fulfilled. A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, called yodh. It functions as a “Y” in English and looks similar to an apostrophe. A tittle is a small projection on the edge of certain Hebrew letters to distinguish them from one another. For example, the Hebrew “D” differs from the “R” only by the use of the tittle. 19. Because of the seriousness of the law, Jesus emphasized the importance of keeping even its smallest details. However, in the ultimate plan of God, the law was not to become an extra burden on the souls of men. Rather than pointing the way to salvation, the law convinced men of the need of the Saviour. Therefore, whoever shall teach men so but shall not live what he teaches, he shall be made least in the kingdom of heaven. It is interesting to note that a person may be saved and a member of the kingdom of heaven, yet be hypocritical in his attitude toward the law. But whosoever shall do and teach the principles and precepts of the law shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. This simply means that God will reward the faithfulness and effectiveness of our lives and there will be varying degrees of blessing and reward in the kingdom. 20. Because of the necessity of righteousness as a requirement to enter heaven, Jesus then declared that except their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees they could not enter heaven. The significance of this is seen in the fact that the Jews of Jesus’ day considered these people to be the most religious in all Israel. However, their religion was merely an outward show of self-righteousness. What the Saviour demands is a kind of righteousness that is so godly that it cannot be the product of human effort but must be the gift of God. This righteousness Christ would establish in His life and death would be made available as God’s free gift. This is the righteousness that would exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. b. Six illustrations: Character applied. 5:21-48. In communicating the depth of His message, Jesus used a series of contrasts between the outward demand of the law and the inner attitude of heart desired by God. In this series of contrasts we see the depth and dynamic of the teaching of Jesus Christ, the great Master Teacher. Here we discover the practical application of genuine Christian character to true spiritual living. Here we see the gospel in action. Here is piety on the pavement of life. The Christian may live above the demands of the law and the temptations of the world because he has an inner depth of character which is the product of the divine nature within him. LAW Murder Adultery Divorce Oath-taking Retaliation Hate your enemy SPIRIT No anger No lust Commitment Speak the truth Forgiveness Love your enemy (1). First illustration: murder. 5:21-26. 21-22. Christ begins this series of contrasts by quoting the statement of the law, Thou shalt not kill (Ex 20:13). The reference to killing is clearly understood in its context in both the Old Testament and New Testament as referring to an act of murder. It must be remembered that the God who commanded the children of Israel not to murder one another, also commanded them at times to kill an enemy in order to defend their nation. Jesus goes beyond this outward demand of the law by stating that whosoever is angry with his brother is in just as great danger of judgment as a murderer, for anger is the emotion and inner intention that leads to murder. The term raca (meaning “vain fellow” or “empty head”) was a Hebrew or Aramaic expression of contempt (cf. II Sam 6:20). The council is a reference to the Jewish religious council called the Sanhedrin. Thou fool, (Gr mδros) means “stupid.” We have developed the English word moron from this term. Those using such a malicious expression would be in danger of hell fire. This statement has often caused concern and confusion in the mind of many commentators. What does it really mean? The idea clearly seems to be that if one makes light of his fellow man he will be in danger of slander. But if one makes bitter, damning statements with reference to hell toward his fellow man, he shall actually be in danger of hell himself. The concept is that one making such statements is not likely to be a born-again person. The term hell (Gr geenna) is Gehenna, which was the hellenized form of the name of the Valley of Hinnom at Jerusalem in which fires were constantly burning to consume the refuse of the city. This valley provided a powerful and graphic picture of the ultimate destruction of hell and the lake of fire (cf. Jer 7:31; II Chr 28:3; II Kgs 23:10). Christ locates the root of murder in the heart of the angry man and states that God’s judgment will be just as swift on anger as it will be upon murder. 23-24. Having made a comparison between the command not to murder and the inner motive and heart intention of hatred, Jesus then illustrated the seriousness of this matter by referring to one who would attempt to buy off his conscience by giving something to God without clearing his conscience with his offended brother. He reminded that if thou bring thy gift to the altar without reconciling with the offended party, God will not receive the intended gift. Bringing a gift to the altar refers to bringing it to the Temple in order that it might be consecrated. Therefore if conflict exists between any two people, it is God’s desire that they reconcile the conflict before attempting to give a gift or an act of service unto the Lord. Many people undoubtedly try to suppress the guilt of their sin by an outward act that they hope will please God in some way. Therefore, Jesus commands that we leave our gifts before the altar and first be reconciled to our brother before we offer them. To be reconciled means to be brought back into fellowship or favor with our fellow man. Having resolved the personal conflict, we have then but to return and perform the act of service unto the Lord. The performance of our duty to men does not free us from the obligation of direct service to God. 25-26. The Saviour then went on to remind that even if thine adversary (an opponent at law) disagrees with you, it is to your advantage to reconcile with him before he deliver thee to the judge. Many people make the foolish mistake of assuming that just because they think they are right in a given situation God will necessarily vindicate them. Jesus’ exhortation here is to urge us to go out of our way to avoid legal conflicts before human judges (cf. vs. 40). The payment of debt and the prison referred to here simply mean the normal legal process that one would encounter in a civil suit. The term prison (Gr phylakē) does not, refer to purgatory, as suggested by some Roman Catholic interpreters, but to the full measure of punitive justice. (2). Second illustration: Adultery contrasted to lust. 5:27-30. 27-28. Thou shalt not commit adultery was the demand of the Old Testament law (Ex 20:14). Jesus went beyond this outward command to reveal that its act is the result of an inner attitude of lust. Whosoever looketh characterizes the man whose glance is not checked by holy restraint and results in an impure lusting after women. It has often been argued that there is a difference between an appreciation of beauty and a lustful, lurid look. The lustful look is the expression of a heart attitude that says in essence, “I would if I could.” The act would follow if the opportunity were to occur. By taking his listener beyond the outward statement of the law to its real intention, Jesus was trying to get his attention off the physical and onto the spiritual. Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5 29-30. Most men could claim that they had not committed the sin of adultery but very few could honestly say that they had not committed the sin of lusting, which could easily turn into adultery. Thus, the statement of cutting off one’s hand or plucking out one’s eye definitely is not to be taken literally. What Jesus implied is that if thy right eye offend thee then the logical thing to do would be to pluck it out. His point is not that one should literally pluck out his eye but that one should recognize that the source of lust comes from within the mind and heart of man, not from the physical organ itself. The right eye is not the source of sin; the heart of man is that source. Someone who had plucked out his right eye in an attempt to deal with lust would simply become a left-eyed luster! The real source of the sin of adultery comes from within man’s heart. The seriousness of the sin of lusting is thus illustrated by this graphic comparison. Ultimately, it would be better for a person to be physically maimed than to enter into hell forever. However, doing physical damage to one’s self does not in any way guarantee entrance into heaven. What Jesus simply taught was that man must bring the passions of his heart under control of the Spirit of God. (3). Third illustration: Divorce as contrasted to marriage. 5:31-32. 31-32. It hath been said is again a reference to the 0ld Testament commandment of the Mosaic regulation (cf. Deut 24:1). The normal custom of the ancient Near East was for a man to verbally divorce his wife. The Arab custom was to say “I divorce you” three times and the divorce was consummated without any legal protection of any kind to the wife. In contrast the ancient law of Israel insisted on a writing of divorcement or certificate of divorce. This written statement gave legal protection to both the wife and the husband. Jesus explained elsewhere (cf. Mt 19:8) that Moses’ concession was not intended to be taken as license. In ancient rabbinic Judaism Moses’ statement had been variously interpreted from meaning adultery (Shammai) to the trivial matters of personal preference (Hillel). The only legitimate exception for divorce allowed by Christ is possibly for the cause of fornication (Gr porneia), meaning sexual unfaithfulness. Ryrie (p.14) notes that fornication may mean adultery prior to or after marriage, as well as unfaithfulness during the period of betrothal. These statements make it clear that adultery or fornication is a legitimate grounds for divorce. However, the legitimacy of the divorce does not necessarily establish the legitimacy of remarriage. That one must divorce an unfaithful wife or husband is nowhere commanded in Scripture. To the contrary, there are many examples of extending forgiveness to the adulterous offender (cf. Hos 3:1, Gen 38:26, Jn 8:1-11). Nor does the discovery of premarital fornication on the part of the wife necessarily demand a divorce as is indicated by Atkinson (p. 780). Sexual involvement alone does not necessarily constitute a marriage in the sight of God (cf. the example of Judah and Tamar, who were both widowed at the time of their illicit sexual involvement). Though this temporary union produced twin sons, it resulted in no permanent marriage. Great care needs to be exercised when interpreting the New Testament passages regarding divorce and marriage. It should be remembered that Jesus made His statements about divorce to people who were already married, so that they might take seriously the marriage relationship. These statements were not necessarily made to add an extra burden to the already divorced person. The responsibility of divorce is clearly laid upon the one seeking the divorce. Whosoever shall put away his wife without biblical basis causeth her to commit adultery. Lenski (pp. 230-235) translates “brings about that she is stigmatized as adulterous” and regards the sin of the divorcer as bringing about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee. (4). Fourth illustration: Oath-taking as opposed to speaking the truth. 5:33-37. 33. The basis of Old Testament swearing, or oath-taking, is found in Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 23:21; and Exodus 20:17. To forswear means to swear falsely or perjure one’s self. Oaths taken in the name of the Lord were looked upon as binding and perjury of such oaths was strongly condemned by the law. Such phrases like “as the Lord liveth” or “by the name of the Lord” emphasize the sanctity of such oaths. Ryrie (p.14) states: “Every oath contained an affirmation of promise of an appeal to God as the omniscient punisher of falsehoods, which made an oath binding.” By the time of Christ, the Jews had developed an elaborate system of oath-taking, which often formed the basis of actual lying. For example, one might swear that he had told the truth according to the dome of the Temple, while another might swear by the gold on the dome of the Temple! In other words, there were stages of truth and thus also of falsehood within the system of taking oaths. In our time this custom is found in phrases such as: “I swear by God,” “cross my heart and hope to die,” or “on my mother’s grave. 34.36. All such oath-taking, Jesus would announce, was unnecessary if one were normally in the habit of telling the truth. Thus, His command was swear not at all. This does not have reference to cursing, as such, but to oath-taking. The Christian is not to take an oath by heaven, earth, nor the city of Jerusalem. He is not to swear on the basis of his own head or any other physical feature. He is to speak the truth in such a way that his “yes” means yes and his “no” means no. 37. Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay. When you say yes make sure that that is what you mean. When you say no, make sure that also is what you mean. Mean what you say; say what you mean. Anything that is more than a simple affirmation of the truth cometh of evil. When we add an oath to our regular affirmation of the truth, we either admit that our normal conversation cannot be trusted, or that we are lowering ourselves to the level of a world which normally does not tell the truth. This does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to “swear to tell the truth” in a court of law. The point is that it should be unnecessary in a genuine Christian society to have to swear to tell the truth at all ! (S). Fifth illustration: Retaliation as opposed to forgiveness. 5:38-42. 38. The principle of retaliation, lex talionis, is common in both Jewish and other ancient Near Eastern law codes (cf. the Code of Hammurabi). The judicial penalty of An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is stated in Exodus 2:24 as a means of ending feuds. However, Jesus is clearly saying this method is not a license for vengeance. Many times an offended person will overreact to the offense and retaliate in such a way as to return injury for injury. The idea here is that to the Jews of Jesus’ day it was common to attempt to retaliate upon the offender through the arm of the law, especially in a nation dominated by a foreign power. 39. The Saviour’s point is that we should resist not evil. Evil is seen here, not as a state, but rather as the action of the evil ones or the malicious ones. It represents the evil and sinful element in man which provokes him to an act of evil. Jesus shows how the believer should respond to personal injury. He is not discussing the government’s obligation to maintain law and order. The question of non-retaliation or nonviolence is often discussed in relation to these verses. These passages alone do not mean that a man should not defend his family or his country, but rather that he should not attempt personal vengeance, even through the means of the law, to compensate for a personal injury. Why would Jesus make such a statement? Certainly the words were spoken to remind those who would be His disciples not to expect divine justice from an unregenerate society. All justice ultimately is in the hand and heart of God. As long as human governments prevail, justice will be limited by man’s finite abilities. The disciples of the kingdom are to look to the King Himself for ultimate vindication. The practical application of this truth is that the believer should not attempt to justify himself or inflict vengeance even through legal means. He is to place his total confidence in the ultimate sovereignty of God over the affairs of his life. (See Rom 12:19 where “give place unto wrath” means God’s wrath.) Jesus gives five examples of how the believer should react to unfair or unreasonable treatment. First, in retaliation to physical violence, he is to turn to him the other (side) also. Man’s normal impulse is to strike back, but the disciple is not to be a normal man. He is to “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:2). This is probably one of the most feared statements in all the Bible. People have gone to great lengths in an attempt to explain it away. Nevertheless, it remains the most pungent statement of Jesus’ ethic. The life of the believer is to be lived with such a quality of spiritual verity and justice that he needs no physical retaliation in order to defend or justify his position. There is no greater example of this ethical truth than the life and death of Jesus Himself! 40. Secondly, whether robbed by personal assault or compulsory litigation, the believer is to respond with confidence in that which is eternal, rather than that which is temporal. If the believer is sued in order that the accuser may take away thy coat, he is to also let him have his cloak. The coat (Gr chitδn) is the undergarment or tunic. The cloak (Gr himation) is the more expensive outer garment worn over the tunic. Jesus taught us to have confidence in an almighty God who is completely aware of the injustices done to man and totally capable of evoking ultimate eternal justice. He must be trusted even when legal litigation goes against the believer. In our society, we would phrase Jesus’ teaching, “If someone takes your suit coat, give him your overcoat as well.” 41. Thirdly, in ancient times government agents were in a position to compel forced service upon a subjugated people. A Roman soldier, for example, could compel a Jewish native to carry his armor or materials for one mile, in order to relieve the soldier. Jesus now states that if someone compels you to walk a mile, go with him twain. The believer is to be willing to “go the extra mile.” Doing double our duty not only proves the loyalty and faithfulness of our cooperation to human authority, but likewise proves the spiritual intention of our heart. It also provides an opportunity of conviction in order to witness effectively out of our life message. It would have been foolish for the believer of Jesus’ day to reluctantly go only a mile with a Roman official and then attempt to share the gospel with him. By going the second mile he proved the innermost intention of his heart. 42. The fourth example is that of lending to him that would borrow of thee. Jesus made it clear that a loan should be looked upon as a potential gift. When we lend something to someone, we should not expect to receive in return. Is that not impractical? Yes it is! But that which is spiritual is not always that which is practical. There are many statements in Proverbs against borrowing, lending, and surety (cf. Prov 6:1; 11:15 22:7; 27:13). While we are warned of the dangers of borrowing and lending, Jesus made it clear that the believer ought to be willing to lend to those in need. Finally, even the beggar is to be ministered to through the provision of giving to him that asketh thee. This statement certainly forms the basis of all Christian charity and provides the proper social application of the message of the gospel to the physical needs of man as well as his spiritual needs. (6). Sixth illustration: Love thy neighbor contrasted to love thy enemy. 5:4348. 43. The law of love, sometimes called “law of Christ,” summarizes the ethical principle of the Sermon on the Mount “Love thy neighbor” summarizes the entire second table of the law (cf. Lev 19: l8-34). But the unscriptural addition “hate thin enemy” was a popular concept in Jesus’ day (cf. The Qumran Manual of Discipline lQS 1:4, “hate all that he has rejected”). The admonition love your enemies is one of the greatest statements Jesus ever made. The love enjoined in this passage is that which originates from God Himself! Man is not commanded to attempt to love his enemy on the basis of mere human affection but rather on the basis of a love which comes from God. This kind of love holds a unique place in the New Testament Scripture, for it is the gift of God and the fruit of the Spirit to the believer only. It is not something that man can muster within himself. Rather, it must come from God Himself into the life of the believer (cf. Gal 5:22; I Tim 1:5). 44. How does one love an enemy? Notice that the passage makes it clear that he does not have to attempt to work up an artificial feeling of love. The quality of love commanded here is expressed by giving. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute you. Loving an enemy involves doing good toward that enemy in order to win him over to the cause that you represent. The message of the kingdom, therefore, is that we will win over those who oppose us more readily with love than with hatred. It is not in the divisiveness of contention that we win our greatest converts, but in the application of the heart of the gospel and the love of Christ. 45-47. In summarizing the importance of love, Jesus reminded that love was a necessary proof of salvation: “that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” An initial reading of this text out of its context might seem to imply that loving one’s neighbor automatically makes one a child of God. However, the New Testament is clear that love is an evidence of the one who is already saved by the grace of God (cf. I Jn 3:14). It is a natural tendency of human beings to love those who love them; therefore Jesus reminds that we are to love our enemies as our brethren, for even the publicans love those who love them. Publicans were public officials of Jewish nationality who worked for the Roman government as tax collectors and were generally despised by the people. The idea here is that even the most hated people of the day loved their own friends. Therefore, the true child of the kingdom is to have a quality of love that goes beyond that of the world. 48. This section of the Sermon on the Mount is summarized with the statement Be ye therefore perfect. Since the New Testament makes it clear that even the believer is capable of sin, the term perfect here (Gr teleios) is not to be taken as absolute sinless perfection. Rather, it is used in relation to the matter of love in this context. “As God’s love is complete, not omitting any group, so must the child of God strive for maturity in this regard” (Kent, p. 19). Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 6 C. True spiritual worship: Character expressed. 6:1-7:12. The nature of the true spiritual man previously described is not illustrated in acts of true spiritual worship as contrasted to traditional hypocritical worship. Again, Jesus goes beyond mere outward conformity to the law to the inward conviction of the spirit. The following examples are given to illustrate this point: giving, praying, fasting, serving. (1). First example: Almsgiving. 6:1-4. 6:1. Jesus warns that we do not give alms before men just to gain human recognition to ourselves. That practical righteousness is in view is obvious. The one who does righteousness (or gives of his possessions) to the Lord before men merely to be seen of them has no reward from the Father in heaven. True worship is to result from the desire to serve God, not men, since pleasing God is far more important than pleasing men. Loss of reward is incurred by gaining the reward of human recognition as an end in itself. This does not mean that all human recognition is necessarily wrong. The implication of the text simply states that we are to serve the Lord because we love Him, not just because we desire something from Him. 2. Therefore in all of our giving we are not to sound a trumpet before us in a hypocritical manner of gaining attention to ourselves. This metaphorical phrase means do not “publicize” your righteousness, for such performers are hypocrites (from the Greek, “play actor”). Thus, Jesus warns against “acting like the hypocrites, whose aim is to win human praise…whose parade and pretense are spiritually futile” (Filson, p. 92). Those who parade their righteousness through the streets receive the honor of men and They have their reward, meaning that God will add nothing extra to that reward. But those who are willing to serve Him in secret, God will reward openly. 3. The phrase let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth means that one’s giving of finances to the work of the Lord should be done so freely and spontaneously that his right hand cannot keep up with his left hand. He literally empties his pockets as fast as he can! Such giving is to be so spontaneous as to be unplanned at times. Notice that this passage does not state that it is wrong to give systematically, nor through church envelopes, nor receiving a tax-deductible receipt. What it does teach is that one should not give by those means only. There are ample examples of systematic giving in Scripture in order to build the Temple, to provide for the needs and welfare of the underprivileged, etc. Planned giving is certainly biblical and encouraged; but all of our giving should not be limited to our predetermined plan or system. 4. The real key to success of this kind of giving is found in the phrase: thy Father which seeth in secret. . . shall reward you. Giving by faith, out of a cheerful heart, depends upon our total confidence in that fact that God does indeed see us and knows our needs. The God who is there, sees in secret that which no man may observe, and that God rewards His own. The Christian is to give, not in order to receive reward, but that his love might be expressed to God who shall reward him. Our giving to the work of Christ spreads the message of the gospel throughout the world. Notice again, that these verses certainly do not condemn public giving, but rather they speak against giving out of the wrong attitude and for the wrong motive. (2) Second example: Praying. 6:5-15. 5-6. Praying, like giving, is to he done unto the Lord, not unto man. Many professing Christians, if they were honest, would have to admit that they pray to be heard of men. Jesus said that the people of His day love to pray standing in the synagogues. Both a time and place for prayer were customary in the ancient Jewish synagogue (cf. Mk 11:25). Therefore, Jesus is not condemning the practice of public prayer, but rather the misuse of it! Because of the statement enter into thy closet some have suggested that all public prayer is wrong. This would he contrary to the rest of New Testament statements about prayer, commandments and restrictions regarding prayer, and examples of prayer meetings (cf. Acts 12:12). The principle here is that the believer should not make a show of his prayer nor of the answers he receives to prayer in such a way as to call unnecessary attention to himself. Again, it is the God who sees in secret that rewards us openly. Here the intimate father-child relationship between God and man is clearly emphasized. It is the experience of private devotional prayer that ultimately prepares one to pray effectively in public. Most people who say they cannot pray in public, do not pray effectively in private either! 7. Jesus warned that we use not vain repetitions (Gr battalogeδ denotes babbling or speaking without thinking). Such praying was characteristic of the heathen. A good example of this is found in the ecstatic babblings of the false prophets in the Old Testament and in the prophets of Baal who confronted Elijah on Mt. Carmel (cf. I Kgs 18:26-29), Jesus condemns the use of empty repetition as an attempt to overcome the will of God by wearing Him out. It is not the length of prayer, but the strength of prayer that prevails with God. Jesus Himself prayed all night prior to His crucifixion and on most other occasions prayed very briefly. He is not condemning lengthy prayers, although there is nothing particularly spiritual about them. He is merely emphasizing that prayer must be a sincere expression of the heart, not mere accumulation of verbiage. God is not impressed with words, but with the genuine outcry of a needy heart. 8. Many have questioned the meaning of the statement your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. “Then why should we pray?” they ask. Prayer is not man’s attempt to change the will of God. God’s method of changing our will is to bring it into conformity with His will. More than changing things, prayer changes people. Prayer is not conquering God’s reluctance to answer, but laying hold of His willingness to help! Prayer, in the life of the true believer, is an act of total confidence and assurance in the plan and purpose of God. It is not an expression of panic and desperation. The following sample prayer is given to the disciples as an example of a suitable prayer. It is neither lengthy nor irreverent. It contains a depth of piety and a pinnacle of power. This prayer, often called the “Lord’s Prayer,” is in reality a disciple’s prayer, for Jesus gave it to His disciples as a sample of the true principle of spiritual prayer. In no way does the prayer itself embody all of His teaching about prayer and certainly, having just warned against vain repetition, He did not intend for this particular prayer to be merely recited with empty meaninglessness. This does not mean, however, that this prayer may not be recited as an act of public worship. There are those who feel such recitation is too liturgical, while there are others who feel that the omission of ever repeating this prayer is a failure to grasp its true significance. Certainly if we are to follow its example properly we may benefit from repeating it as it was given by the Lord Himself. To place this prayer under law and eliminate it from Christian usage is to deny the great essence of what the prayer is all about. 9. The very beginning phrase, Our Father, is completely uncommon to the prayers of the Old Testament. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Vol.11, p. 54) has commented: “So when our Lord says, ‘Our Father,’ He is obviously thinking of Christian people, and that is why I say that this is a Christian prayer.” By contrast see the ultra-dispensational approach of Gaebelein who refers to the Lord’s Prayer as one of the rags of popery Luther brought with him from the Catholic church. He evaluates the Lord’s Prayer as “decidedly unchristian!” (A. C. Gaebelein The Gospel of Matthew, p. 139). The two major elements of the prayer are adoration and petition. Hallowed be thy name addresses the attention of the prayer toward God and reverence for His name and His person. Hallowed (Gr hagiazδ) means to be held in reverence and awe of holiness. God’s name was so sacred to the Old Testament Jew that it was never pronounced by human lips. Thus His name is the expression of His very essence. The biblical usage of the concept of a name is a characteristic description of the basic character of the person to whom the name is applied. Since the prayer is directed to our spiritual Father, only a child of God who has been born again can rightly pray this prayer. 10. The phrase Thy kingdom come refers to the eschatological nature of this prayer. Notice that the kingdom is to be prayed for, implying that it has not already arrived. The kingdom represents the full and effective reign of God through the mediatorial office of the Messiah. The disciples were not to think of their own convenience as their foremost expression in prayer, but the full and quick realization of the effective rule of God on earth in the hearts of men. That rule is realized through the regenerating process of the new birth in the lives of individuals. It will reach its pinnacle when the last enemy [sin and death, I Cor 15:24-28) has been destroyed at the Lord’s return. The recognition of Thy will be done emphasizes the idea that prayer is to bring about the conformity of the will of the believer to the will of God. Prayer is an act of spiritual expression which brings us into conformity to the very nature and purpose of God. 11. The section of petitions begins with the request to give us this day our daily bread. Bread (Gr artos) may be applied to the provision of food in general. The term “daily” (Gr epicusios) denotes “indispensable” (Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 296). The concept of daily provision of bread fits perfectly with the Old Testament example of the daily provision of manna to the Israelites while they were wandering in the wilderness (Ex 16:14-15). In a similar sense, while the Christian pilgrim takes his journey through a strange land that he does not yet literally possess, but which has been promised to him, it only stands to reason that God would make a similar provision to this New Testament, gospel-age wanderer. 12. The phrase forgive us our debts refers to sins which are our moral and spiritual debts to God’s righteousness. The request for forgiveness of sin is made here by the believer. In order to be saved one need not necessarily name all of his sins, but must confess that he is a sinner. For continued spiritual growth and cleansing the believer acknowledges his sins in particular. Notice that we seek forgiveness as we forgive, not because we forgive. Our expression of forgiveness does not gain salvation for us. We are to seek forgiveness in the same manner as we forgive others. Forgiveness is the evidence of a regenerate heart. Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 6 13-15. Lead us not into temptation is a plea for the providential help of God in our daily confrontation with the temptation of sin. James 1:13-14 makes it clear that God does not tempt us to do evil, but rather that we are tempted of our own lusts. However, God does test us in order to give us the opportunity to prove our faithfulness to Him. It is never His desire to lead us into evil itself. Therefore if we resist the devil, we are promised that he will flee from us. The prayer closes with a doxology of praise for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen, which is a liturgical interpolation from I Chronicles 29:11. Though omitted in some manuscripts, these words constitute a fitting climactic affirmation of faith. In the first three petitions of this prayer of the Lord, our soul rises directly to God,’ in the three following we face the hindrances of these aspirations; and in the last petition we discover the solution to all these difficulties. Stier (The Words of the Lord Jesus, Vol. I, p.198) draws a unique parallel between the two tables of the Decalogue and the two sections of the Lord’s Prayer. In the first petition the believer’s soul is awed with the character of God, in the second petition with His grand purpose, and in the third petition with His moral condition. In the second part of the prayer the children of God humble themselves in dependence upon divine mercy in the fourth petition; they seek forgiveness in the fifth petition; gracious guidance in the sixth petition; and deliverance from the power of evil in the seventh petition. Thus, this arrangement may be readily suggested by dividing the prayer into two parts: Relationship to God- Hallowed be Thy Name; Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done; Relationship to men- Give us this day our daily bread; Forgive us our debts; Lead us not into temptation; Deliver us from evil. Finally, the rich doxology expresses the certain hope that our prayers shall be heard and that God, in view of His great character, will bring to pass the highest good in our lives. Thus, prayer is the expression of the believer’s confidence in the ultimate plan and purpose of God. In his Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew (p. 124), J. P. Lange has suggested the following comparison between the statements of the Beatitudes and the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: BEATITUDES Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall he comforted Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God Blessed are the peacemakers: etc. LORD’S PRAY ER Hallowed be t
        • Dumbass, first read this :

          Isaiah 45:7 God says : I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

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

          Note with your glaring eyes the words : “19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”;

          So to see if Jesus broke any of the commandments, let us visit Exodus 20 : 3
          Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Do Christians have other gods besides one god?……yes the holy ghost and Jesus-Trinity)

          4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
          ( Christians carry the Cross and make statues of Jesus, Mary and Saints)

          5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. (do the Christians serve other gods besides that one god? ….yes they do)

          8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ( did jesus break that commandment? ..yes he did : John 5:18 (copied from isaiah 29:13 not relating to jesus or any prophecy)
          “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”.

          Jesus abrogated and disobeyed at least four of God’s most authoritative commandments, making him a sinner!!!!

          Matthew 12:8 “For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day”.

          That single statement took him back flying without wings to his Daddy!!!

          The Poor guy, whose tattered khanzu was torn to pieces and “sold through lots”, kept on yelling and yelling but you did not listen…. : Matthew 15:9

          ” But in VAIN they do worship me”!!!!!!!!

          Reply to Jackass


    • Dear James Church, thank you for the reply…I mean heartily…save for two; the “silly” and the “offending” verse remarks.

      Where is the Book of Peter, the closest disciple of Jesus??? Anyway, I very well know that those words were coming from the mouth of Peter, but who wrote the Acts? Wasn’t it Paul the fake Apostle???

      Who were Mark, Luke and John?? Those words of Acts 5:30 and 2:22 have been “attributed” falsely to “Peter” as those are NOT the words of Peter the disciple otherwise he would have taught a lot more about “Jesus” the Story character in the book written by an unknown author called “Book according to Matthews”.

      Surely, Peter the disciple saw “Jesus” being crucified on the Cross(if the story is to go by) and would have NEVER said “whom you slew and hung him on a tree”!! However hard one interprets the TREE and Cross are NOT the same, Nor is the Crucifixion equal to SLAYING.

      Before replying to any further remarks made by you I would like you to go through this that I had posted earlier : Also, your claims of corruption that Mohammed was helped by others and copied material from the Christian texts and monasteries is just but a wild guess.

      Let me ask you to go through this :

      Jesus debunked!!

      1. ‘Jesus’ was a story character “created” in the Book “According to Mathews”. The author of that short book is unknown!!
      2. How was this book, “Mathews”, compiled?…and information collected by who??
      3. Whoever the author, he managed to dupe the World!!!
      4. This anonymous guy copied verses from the Old Bible of the Jews, distorted many, even changed some. to “make” the prophecies be ‘fulfilled’.

      Infact, in some places he even forgot to mention which Prophet had spoken…of that Prophecy. Approximately, there are 300 instances copied from the Old Testament, which would take lots of space and so I shall quote only a few, okay?
      5(a). The similarity with certain Old Testament passages is very profound.
      (b). According to “Mathews” and thus the Christians, every word can be taken as a Prophecy from the Old Testament

      6. He copied the genealogy list, the Virgin birth, casting out devil with finger of god,
      riding on two donkeys, etc.,… and all the “other” material from books of the
      Old Testament.
      7. The author was a Jew hater and to establish that hate he created “Jesus”….and that his extreme hatred of the Jews is portrayed here, very clearly, when the Jews and not the Romans put him on the cross!!!

      8. Notably interesting is the fact that he does not quote from any of the apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books as found in the “Dead Sea Scrolls”!!

      9. “New Testament writers have flouted the proper laws of hermeneutics, have been guilty of artificial and rabbinical exegesis, and thus have repeatedly distorted the meaning of the Old Testament passages which they quote.”

      10. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). Matthews goes up to Solomon the 1st son of David but in Luke Nathan who was the second son of David becomes the father of “Jesus”. How come?? They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.

      11. Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then Joseph’s genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, correct??

      12. The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.”
      13. The contradiction : born of a virgin against seed from the line of David. Explain!

      14. “Genesis 3:15 says ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed.’ So women can pass on ‘seed’. This is where he got the idea of making a virgin girl pregnant in the beginning of writing his book.
      15. He mentions four women in Jesus’s genealogies who were all adulteresses!
      A. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (copied from Genesis 38:12-19)
      B. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (copied from Joshua 2:1).
      C. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (copied from Ruth 3:1-14)
      D. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (copied from 2 Samuel 11:2-5).
      16. He mentioned these four, impregnated women, to purposely add just one more and that would not make any difference!! Then he copied from Isaiah 7 : 14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. Is jesus known as Emmanuel??

      17. Compare : In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David’s throne forever. This clearly contradicts with Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus’ family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household. Explain!

      18. Mathew’s author misquotes : Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6).
      19. Refer to Isaiah 7:14. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek and also the name would be Immanuel and not Jesus. This name “Jesus” he got from Jesse, the father of David, distorted it to make a connection, of his story character, to David.

      20. Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Copied from Jeremiah 31:15. But the context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.

      21. (Matthew 2:15) has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy .
      However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

      22. The author of Mathews searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events to give life to his story character ‘Jesus” to fulfill those “prophecies.”

      23. And finally, he makes the biggest blunder and exposes his work and his character “Jesus”, when he mistook the “comma”(,) for an “and”(+).

      First Refer to where he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, “mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Meaning ONE young male donkey. Now compare that to Matthew 21:1-7 Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, “on them he sat.”. Explain that, as Mathews 21:1-7 does NOT fulfill the Prophecy and that “Jesus” was a mere story character, who never lived in real life.



      • Dear Mr Plum, I shall say I do not have the time to continue this conversation indefinitely, but you clearly have not studied the books of Matthew or Acts or their authors.

        For your information ‘the Gospel according to Matthew’ which we abbreviate to Matthew was written by an educated Jewish tax collector working for the Roman authorities (who gave up his job to follow Jesus).

        The book of the Acts of the Apostles is often called Luke-Acts because it was written by the same author who wrote ‘the Gospel according to Luke’. He relied on eye witness testimony specifically the testimony of Mary the mother of Jesus and whilst writing the book of Acts he followed closely the ministry of Paul. However, Paul was certainly not the author.

        Matthew = was a Jew and a tax collector for the Romans and later gave that up to become a follower of Jesus
        Luke = is a medical doctor / amateur historian relying on the eyewitness testimony of other disciples and particularly Mary the mother of Jesus.
        Mark = translator of the apostle Peter and some think him to be an unnamed witness to Jesus arrest.
        John = brother of James (son of Zebedee rather than James the half brother of Jesus) one of Jesus closest disciples.

        You cannot say the words of Peter are those of Paul because the apostle Paul doesn’t even become a convert to Christianity until chapter 9 of the book of Acts. Initially Paul was a Jewish leader who persecuted the early Christian community.

        In Acts 5: 30 where we see Peter and John speaking to the Jewish religious leaders who want to silence them they declare to them ‘whom you slew by hanging on a tree’ firstly the Greek word for slew there is διαχειρίζω which means to seize and kill (to lay violent hands upon) secondly you ask why Peter would use the phrase by ‘hanging on a tree’ rather than nailing to a cross.

        Well in a letter Peter wrote to the church he writes this:

        He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. – 1 Peter 2:24

        Again we are going back to an essential aspect of Christian theology that Jesus died for ‘our’ sins.

        Deuteronomy 21:22-23 tells us that cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree and what Peter is doing here is reminding these good Jewish leaders of this. For he wants them to come to believe that Jesus took the curse of sin and death for us so that we can go free. For him the cross was a curse that he willingly accepted, taking God’s wrath against unrighteousness for us.

        The apostle Paul uses the same argument in his letter to the Galatians in Galatians 3:13 ‘cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree’. All the writers are in agreement with this.

        Over seven hundred years before this event the prophet Isaiah wrote about God’s Servant King:

        ‘Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.’ – Isaiah 53:4-5

        In other words he came under God’s curse, God’s judgement, God’s punishment for us so that we could be at peace with God – every Gospel writer declares this message, the New Testament is full of this message. You consider him struck down by God, we Jewish people think him struck down by God… but He was punished for our transgressions!

        So when Peter uses language like ‘seized and killed by hanging on a tree’ what he is saying is that all you have been doing has been fulfilling what God had said through Isaiah would happen.

        Matthew is hardly a Jew hater as he was a Jew and only a Jew would have the knowledge and access to the Old Testaments writings to see how Jesus life did fulfil these prophecies.

        The Apocrapha is not considered canonical because the questions surrounding authorship of the books and the date they were written are unclear. Still, Roman Catholics include the Apocrapha in their Bibles as useful supporting text. It is factually incorrect to say that Matthew never quotes from books included amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls because there are parts of every book in the Old Testament amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls (with the exception of the book of Esther which Matthew never quotes from).

        I have already explained the differences between Matthew’s genealogy which is considered to be of Joseph whilst Luke’s genealogy is considered to be of Mary (his direct source). Luke 3:23 states, ‘And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli’. It would not be exceptional for the ‘supposedly the son of Joseph, but the son of Eli’ to mean the ‘son in law of Eli’ and therefore the line to be that of Mary as I have already argued.

        Often the Gospel writers do not formally quote with references the Old Testament but simply allude to a story from the Old Testament or show how Jesus used the Old Testament to illustrate a point (which He did throughout His ministry). This was an accepted practice at the time and you can see it in many Jewish teachers of the same period.

        I cannot take the time right now to complete this as I need to visit someone who is very unwell and bring them comfort. I may not return to this for some time but I hope some of my explanations have given you food for thought and an opportunity to reconsider some of the arguments you have been taught, whilst also giving you a bit more of an understanding about true Christianity.

        Grace and peace to you.

        • Hi James Church, thank you and we wish you well. We have plenty of unanswered questions but that can wait till you come back! Thanks for your time.



    • Hello Mr james church,i can only say religion is bad,fuckin islam done by the sword and christianity done by mental power and i mean scare the shit out of people(see medieval era like total darkness).Im starting to be really interested in this islam thing,never thought about it cause i’m not a religious person but if that makes me a target for crazy fanatics \,we as species have evolved only in science:)
      and i want to read the Coran cause i am really interested if is true that words like kill the non belivers are wrote.This is very very sick,doing so much damage for what ? books? talks? cause no real evidence of God or Allah exist.and if they would exist my opinion is that they or he would be some kind of energy.damn maybe its true allah the bad one and God the good one and with more adepts they grow,the thought have weight..who knows,but i take this very seriously cause always this bastards are fuckin with innocents,why they dont attack prepared non islamists?

      • Mindset, put the goggles of prejudice off your eyes. Then you’ll see for yourself that Islam is a religion of peace.

        Show me ten (so-called) terrorist verses from Qur’an. Show me how Islam is a religion of terror and violence. Prove and make me hate Islam as well. But I know you won’t because you didn’t. You didn’t because you couldn’t. You couldn’t because you’re afraid of us Muslims that we’ll defeat you in every kind of debate.

        • There are dozens of verses that are being interpreted by Islamic fundamentalists to support their actions. It is not us that you have to convince it is them.

          Sadly, in the last 3 days there have been attacks in Kenya, Pakistan, Dagestan, and Iraq killing over 250 people. The terrorists being unafraid of death because they believe Allah will reward their evil. Only they will instead find the terrible judgement of God unless they repent.


          • Hi James Church bin Raj, You are 100% correct >>> when you say, “There are dozens of verses that are being interpreted by Islamic fundamentalists to support their actions’.

            That means the terrorists “interpret” the verses of the Quran THEIR way to justify their evil desires, right???

            Is there any verse in the Quran that REWARDS evil for that they do?

            Please, furnish us further on that, okay?

            21:94 Pickthall: Then whoso doeth some good works and is a believer, there will be no rejection of his effort….

            A few questions to you : Did Jesus pray in any Church?

            Why was Jesus baptised by John if he was sinless??

            Did Jesus have any brothers and sisters???

            Why does Paul not teach what Jesus preached????

            Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?????

            Who planned the killing of Jesus : was it the devil or God??????

            Why do Christians pray different from what Jesus taught???????

            Since clothes of Jesus were left behind how did he go flying to God????????

            Why is the ancestor list of Jesus mentioned linking him to David yet he was son of God????????

            Why is every word of the Old Bible taken as a prophecy?????????????????

            Kindly answer the above questions, James Church, okay?



          • I am not a Muslim scholar nor do I care to be. I accept that they may be misinterpreting the Quran for their own evil ends. You who are Islamic scholars should debate with these people and correct them!

            On my superficial reading of the Roman transliteration of the holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali the case made by the Jihadists certainly seems to have some textual support (as the verses included in the link above seem to show this). I hope you win the argument against the Jihadists and turn them from evil to good.

            Your questions about the Biblical text only need a one question mark, and this is probably not the place to debate each of them. Though since you asked I shall give a few simple answers:

            Did Jesus pray in any Church?

            Jesus taught and blessed groups of believers after the resurrection. ‘Ecclesia’ the Greek word for Church simply means ‘meeting or gathering place’. No churches were built until much later. Most believers met in homes. The Christian community was violently persecuted in the first and second centuries, some larger gatherings of Christians happened in the catacombs underground which were used for secret Christian worship. Even though the Church was persecuted it grew swiftly and spread throughout the Roman Empire. Roman people often worshipped Caesar calling him lord, but Christians declared that only ‘Jesus is Lord!’ They would not compromise their faith in Him.

            Why was Jesus baptised by John if he was sinless?

            Jesus baptism by John is an important identification with humanity in our sinfulness, though he was sinless he bore our sins upon the cross, so that through His death our debt is paid and the Lord made both just and the justifier. Christians believe that God cannot just ignore sin as that would make Him less than holy, righteous, perfect, but He also loved humanity and wanted to show mercy so God became flesh in Jesus and suffered for our sins (showing us that sin really is evil and causes great misery) but also that at great cost to Himself we can be shown mercy, forgiveness, salvation.

            Did Jesus have any brothers and sisters?

            Jesus had half brothers including James and Jude who later wrote letters in the New Testament. Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus, but though Roman Catholic Christians believe she remained a virgin there is no Biblical reason to believe this.

            Why does Paul not teach what Jesus preached?

            Paul almost always teaches what Jesus taught, but he taught in his own way. So Jesus taught that it wasn’t what goes into a man that made him unclean but what came from the heart – greed, sexual immorality, anger etc. Jesus also taught that God came to save sinners (teaching in parables that often revealed the religious leaders to be hypocrites and repentant sinners to be justified and set free). In the same way, Paul taught that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (both the religious hypocrite and the rebel alike) and that this sin warranted God’s punishment but that we can be forgiven through Jesus Christ who in His own ministry presumed to declare forgiveness over people (and whose identification with our sins and suffering on our behalf enables our forgiveness). Many times in Jesus ministry he taught that he would have to suffer and die.

            Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

            Jesus was a Jew. Jewish people look to the promise of the Messiah (Greek word for this is Christ). Christians believe that Messiah was Jesus and that he is the fulfilment of hundreds of Old Testament prophecies (for example: he was born in a Bethlehem, he taught in parables, was opposed by both religious and political authorities, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, suffered an agonising death, rose from the dead, became a light to people of all nations). Almost all the first disciples were Jews and there are many ethnically Jewish Christians today (they are called Messianic Jews and I have a Messianic Jewish friend).

            Who planned the killing of Jesus was it the devil or God?

            Christians do not believe that the Devil is as powerful as God, the Devil is allowed to rebel for a short while within the limits of God’s Sovereign restraint, and God allowed his Son Jesus to be crucified by evil men (He allowed it because He knew it would be for our good). Jesus willingly accepted the will of His Father. Through His death, he conquered our sin, through His resurrection He conquered death. His victory is through holiness suffering in obedience to God and for the love of humanity that we may go free.

            Why do Christians pray different from what Jesus taught?

            In most places of worship today the Lord’s Prayer ‘Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name…’ is prayed every Sunday, but strictly speaking Jesus gave a pattern for prayer (we have other recorded prayers of Jesus that are word for word the same). In different situations Christians offer up different prayers to God but they often follow the pattern Jesus gave us (and other Biblical prayers we see).

            Since clothes of Jesus were left behind how did he go flying to God?

            His grave clothes were left behind as evidence that His body had not been stolen. He had been raised. He had no need for the shroud of death for He is alive. He then appeared to his disciples in new clothes. Those clothes of Jesus were not left behind when he was taken up into heaven.

            Why is the ancestor list of Jesus mentioned linking him to David yet he was son of God?

            Jesus through His mother Mary’s line is a descendant of David again this is a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy because God had said to King David one of your descendants will reign forever. Christians believe Jesus is God’s eternal King.

            Why is every word of the Old Bible taken as a prophecy?

            The risen Lord Jesus said to Cleopas (one of his disciples) and an unnamed friend on the Emmaus road: ‘How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

            There are many later Letters of the New Testament that cite the Old Testament and show how Jesus is the promised Messiah. Christians believe that much of the Old Testament foreshadows the Greater Salvation that would be revealed through Jesus.

            I hope some of these answers help you to understand Christianity a bit better. May you know God’s gracious blessing.

          • Bro Jame Church, looks like you replied to me, dude. Please, start your comment with the name of the one whom you’re answering. There’s not a single verse in Holy Qur’an that incites terror/violence. If you think there is then quote two/three here.

            Leave what terrorists do. People here are saying that Islam is an evil religion. Now you’ve to focus on what Islam teaches us. Let Muslims do what they do. If Islam’s to be judged by adherents then non-Islam must also be judged by adherents.

          • Hi James Church, thank you for your reply, though you have hardly answered any of my questions correctly. Furthermore, i would prefer not to dwell on arguments but to clear certain perceptions!

            As you know Terrorism is not confined to any particular religion but spreads from a single person, tribe, involving even complete Nations terrorising other Nations whether directly or indirectly mainly for political revolutionary and injustice!

            The “Jihadists” are the dudes who have turned into extremists due to the intentful ‘misguide’ by their gurus- the fundamentalists for the reasons to address particular grievances. Such guys popup in every religion in every nation from time to time.

            I do not intend to go into lengthy arguments but would wish to comment thus :

            Quran has no verses mentioning killing of others save for the severe punishment for Treason, fight for Justice and against Corruption, fight against Hostility. Every Nation has a polity and established constitution to defend the rights of it’s citizens and I do not see anything wrong with commands of the Quran, put in very clear terms establishing that polity within its bounds.

            There is NO verse in the Quran that REWARDS evil. That means Quran is against the evils perpetrated on others in any form!!

            Paul was a liar and did not know anything about the story character of Matthew called “Jesus” > ref Acts 5 : 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.(KJV)(Geneva Bible-1599)(Orthodox Jewish Bible)(World English Bible), etc.!!!!!!!!!!

            Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—(KJV)(1599-Geneva bible)…God did HIS miracles through a MAN approved by God… is a Prophet!!!

            Matthew 1:1-17 gave a lineage of Jesus by copying from 1 chronicles, 2 Sam, etc
            Jechonias was an EVIL king and also he was in the royal line of David!!! NO DESCENDANT of Jechonias would sit as king of Israel (Jer 22:24-30).

            But while copying he-whoever wrote Matthews- missed out very important names, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim, from the generations of the kings. Why?????

            “Jesus” the baby of God -did not know his sole purpose on this Earth!!!!

            Matthew 27:46-47 (1599 Geneva Bible (GNV))

            46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou FORSAKEN me?

            47 And some of them that stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calleth Elijah.
            (Verse 47 is a joke!!)

            So, when Paul “SAW” Jesus, did Jesus have wings with clothes having purchased from a shopping Mall in heaven??

            Why is it that every word of the old bible is taken as a word of Prophecy???

            Have you read the Quran? If not then Why???

            Please revert


          • James’ Church(bro of Jesus?), Kindly go through this and reflect on the truth with justice :

            1. Deuteronomy 31:25-29 : Moses predicts the Jews will corrupt the Bible!

            2. Jeremiah 8:8 Jews are NOT wise and their ‘scribes’ DISTORTED the Bible!!

            3. 1 Samuel 15 : 2-4 : slay both man and woman, INFANT AND SUCKILING, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
            4. Numbers 31:17 Kill all, save for yourself virgin girls.
            (why kill innocent babies, women, children…hmmm… like the way Bush did???)

            Quran 2:75 (SI) : Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

            Quran 2:79 (P) : Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

            Is Quran right based upon the confirmation of the above Bible verses??????

            Luke 22:36 Jesus said to them,

            “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

            (Jesus tells his disciples to buy SWORDS!!!…why?…to cut apples???.. Very peaceful this Prince of peace!!!)

            Quran 49:11 Pickthall: O ye who believe! Let not a folk deride a folk who may be better than they (are), not let women (deride) women who may be better than they are; neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith. And whoso turneth not in repentance, such are evil-doers.
            Revelation 2 : 22-23 : 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

            (Jesus WILL KILL!!!–he will STRIKE her children DEAD!!!)

            Quran 17:32 Pickthall: And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way.
            Read this proof of virginity!! Deuteronomy 22:13-18 Father giving proof of virginity!!

            Quran 2:42 Pickthall: Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.

            Psalms 137 : 9 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

            Quran 16:90 Yusuf Ali: Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition.


            Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

            Quran 5:32 Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

            Matthew 10 : 34 “Do NOT suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did NOT COME to BRING PEACE, but A SWORD!!!!!
            (Is that a statement from a Terrorist or a prince of peace??????)

            Quran 46 : 15 Sahih International: And We have enjoined upon man, to his parents, good treatment. His mother carried him with hardship and gave birth to him with hardship.

            Are those evil verses in the Quran??

            And finally,

            Despite all the religious Scriptures doesn’t the Western culture promote gayship, public nudity of their women who expose 80% of their bodies by wearing bikinis in beaches, the night clubs, pornography, immoral relationships with boyfriends and girlfriends, etc… all breed nothing but immoral and sinful societies., in the name of freedom for women’s rights??






            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.


            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.



            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’.


            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.

            (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.


            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.


            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.

        • MM, …ha..ha…that is a good one!!

          They forget that every Hindu fears their own Hindu Terrorist group called the Naxals, the Maoists. Yet they don’t call them “Hindu Terrorists’, why????????

          These dummies, who have always been ruled by others forget that they were brutally colonised by the British and that India became the British Raj Rahul for over 200 years

          They forget that the USA sided with Pakistan in giving Military aircrafts, tanks, ammunitions as well as intelligence in the beginning of 1965 war.

          They forget that their arch rival China due to sour Indo-sino relations- sided with Pakistan and supplied the war weaponry when the USA declined to give further aid!!

          And they alway forget more, more and more that there has never been unity amongst them for the very reason that that their daughters, sisters, wives and mothers are raped and killed on daily basis!!

          Forgetting Besides building Temples, more Temples, more and more Temples thinking the West loves to see the Temples, more Temples, more and more Temples, they forget that those westerners don’t come to see the Temples but to see the looks of those dudes behind such Barbaric, illusory and orthodox beliefs as idols and monkey stories believers existing in this modern era!! They say, “let’s have a look at the baboon and Vagina worshippers at any cost”!!!!!

          They forget those hoodwinkers called Babas who snatch rupees and amass millions from the poor poor people of India!

          Then they forget the essence of Morality required in this modern times that can only be gotten from the Quran.

          They forget that they are falling into the Western philosophical beliefs of gayship and allowing their women to expose their bodies in nudity!!

          And they forget to read the Quran with positive light!!!

          Not Forgetting you


          • Plum, almost all major religions have a terrorist organization of its. But why do people hate Islam only? Because most of the terrorists are Muslims? Then they must know that this is not because of religion that most of the terrorists are Muslims; because of land’n society. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are among the worst societies ever. Because of their evil society, the Prophet had to go their first. If Indians, Afghans, Pakistanis and Saudis were Christians, most of the terrorists would’ve been Christians as well.

          • Thats the problem ,u almost come to kill and conquer me for something some guy said thousand of years ago,man at that time people were halucinating and believed they saw something sacred,maybe ur man ate a shroom,i am human you are human this says a lot,we can build something on values and education,we dont need this storyies to send us on world conquer neither islam or christianity is good,pedophiles in both camps,rapes in both camps ,fear in both camps and worst stupidity and ignorance in both camps ,cause if jessus or mahomed said it,then it like that no need to wonder if they are wrong cause they are jessus and mahomed.Pff it makes me sick we need to conquer the space not the world.and belive me when i say we are part of something bigger,i cant talk nothing to my grandparents cause they only talk about jessus and its (we have an expression in our language “pinned in nails” :d like the ultimate truth ) so should i not be mad on jessus for stealing my grandparents ability to think? when we get over this shit maybe world will change,religion in every civilisation was a political weapon.

        • Bro, James Church, we’re not scholars. We’ere common layman but we’re better than these stupid anti-Muslims who hate Islam because of what Muslims do.

          Terrorists have idiotically misinterpreted Qur’an. Not a single verse in Qur’an legitimates killing of innocents.

          • Dear Mm, we must understand what fosters terrorist acts, that what compels a person to do such evil acts. So, ask yourself, what is the ONE SINGLE main breeding factor to the following?

            1. The injustice caused by interference of another Nation for example of arming the rebels against an elected government., eg., Syria.

            2. For political reasons to have an indirect control of the energy and land resources through the installation of Puppet Military regimes by another country eg., Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen.

            3. Installing a Puppet leader in contrary to the wishes of its people thus forcing dissent, demonstrations, coups and unstable quick regime changes. eg., Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq.

            4. Forcing sanctions on other countries, by hook or crook after making them look evil in others eyes..using their controlled medias and puppet regimes having formed an alliance with them, to make them bend to the will of the sanctioners and abide by their conditions eg., Iran.

            5. Terrorists popup for many other reason as well such as hatred of certain beliefs of others, revenge for interferences in their politics by other countries…eg., Pakistan.

            6. Resistance to foreign occupation and control eg., Sudan, Somalia….etc., etc.

            The question should be asked : Who is behind all that instability in the world, especially in the Islamic countries??????? Who is doing the actual INDIRECT terrorism?????????

            And you will rightfully get the answer to who is the biggest Terrorist in the World???





            [The sources reveal that Muhammad was a thief, a liar, an assassin, a pedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous husband, a rapist, a mass murderer, a desert pirate, a warmonger but a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. It’s certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion.]


            And surely thou hast sublime morals
            (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

            Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
            (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

            Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

            Islam stands or falls on the credibility of Muhammad on which we do not have single evidence but unfathomable doubts because his conduct was immoral. But he successfully twisted the sense of morality of his followers, distorted their sense of ‘Humanness’ and linked “doing good” and “a service to God” to all ungodly things. Briefly, he had given a sacred aura to crime and terrorism.

            Was Muhammad truthful and sincere when he claimed to the title of prophet? Or, was he a vulgar imposter, who posed as a prophet with his eyes upon a throne from the beginning? Where we can find some concrete evidence that Qur’anic revelations were not Muhammad’s delusions or his conscious fabrications? Where is the ‘divine’ verification for ‘divine’ revelations?

            If we put the Qur’an in chronological order and correlate it with the context of Muhammad’s life as was reported in Sira, Sunnah and Hadith we find Allah mirrored Muhammad’s character. Allah was too dumb to be the Creator God and too immoral to be Divine.

            I want to test Muhammad’s claim to the title of messenger of God because I cannot blindly accept his claim. Muhammad may be a true prophet or he may be an imposter. We must test him to see which he is. Anyone who claims to be a prophet must be prepared to have his prophecy tested.

            Towards the beginning of last century, there was a rising interest among the Western scholars to investigate the origins of Islam and its founder, i.e., Prophet Muhammad. For this they had used highest standard of historical scholarship available at that time. Their aim was to collect authentic information about Muhammad and the rise of early Islam by carefully separating the facts from fictions. In some ways the research on Muhammad was inspired by a similar type of investigation of Christianity made famous by Albert Schweitzer’s famous work ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’.

            As Spencer (2006, p.19) commented,

            “Most Western non-Muslims know virtually nothing about the Prophet of Islam”,

            but the question is, how many practicing Muslims know their Prophet well? Has an honest biography of Muhammad yet been written? There are enough pious and totally un-objective traditions of Muhammad preserved by the Muslim religious community, but what is lacking in these sources is honesty. Even today, numerous works in Arabic and other Muslim majority languages appear each year which try to portray Muhammad as a holy man, a seer, visionary and miracle worker. But in reality these are far from the truth. The reason no Muslim can write an honest biography of their Prophet, is that the biography of Muhammad is a subject that is taboo and as Rodinson (1981, p.24) commented,

            “… is permitted only when written as apologetic and edifying literature”.

            Hence, objective historical research on Muhammad has long been severely handicapped both by the resistance of the Muslim societies to Western analysis of their sacred traditions and by the apologetic approaches of many Western scholars, who had compromised their investigation for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities.
            But in recent time, thanks to both Western and ex-Muslim writers; a lot of scholarly work had been produced ‘which could offend certain readers’. With the help of these scholars, we can trace Muhammad’s fluctuation of thought year by year, his actions, his achievements, family life, abnormal sexual behavior, strength and weaknesses.

            If we compare our findings with that of modern development of psychological studies, the image of Muhammad that surfaces is far away from any holy religious figure but that of a person who was suffering from severe mental illness. And if we probe further deep into the mystery of Allah and carefully make a distinction between superstition and science, we have hardly any doubt left that it was his mental illness and hallucinatory experience which was solely responsible for creating Allah, Qur’an and Islam altogether.

            The Flashback of a False Prophet

            Muhammad’s Prophetic Claim

            Islam is a religion which had developed from the Prophetic claim, preaching and life of Muhammad early in the seventh century of the Christian era. During that time, the old Arabian paganism was in a process of slow disintegration and Judaism and Christianity were widely gaining popularity. Several self-proclaimed Prophets had arisen with various degrees of success in convincing people. In the beginning Muhammad was such a self-proclaimed Prophet, but with time he successfully synchronized certain basic elements of Judaism and Christianity with the pagan practices and added some nationalistic Arab pride and it has become a world religion today.

            From the authentic Islamic sources it appears that Muhammad thought of himself as in the succession of the Old Testament men of faith who was sent on a Divine mission by the one and only God, Allah. Like Noah, Jonah, and Elijah he preached a religious message in the name of this Supreme Lord, like Moses he also issued legislation in His name, and like Abraham he was not only a maintainer of righteousness but the founder of a community of the righteous. But unlike Christianity or Buddhism, his religious endeavor was an utter failure unless he was able to draw the sword and use it successfully to impose his religion on others.
            Muhammad declared himself a Prophet of Allah when he was about forty years old. Bukhari’s Hadith (1:3) recorded Muhammad’s first experience with the angel Gabriel.

            But this Divine confrontation was less heavenly and more demonic.

            Once in the cave of Hira, the angel Gabriel came to him with some written messages from Allah and asked him to read. Muhammad replied, “I do not know how to read”. Three times Muhammad expressed his inability to read but Gabriel forcefully gave him the message of Allah, the famous first revelations of Qur’an.

            “Read (Prophet Muhammad) in the Name of your Lord who created the human from a (blood) clot. Read! Your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught by the pen, taught the human, what he did not know” (Quran: 96.1-5).

            So the truth of Allah’s message started descending upon Muhammad in a violent way. This is entirely sufficient for a rational person to seriously doubt about the truthfulness of Qur’anic message and Muhammad’s reliability as a Prophet. Surprisingly, Muhammad himself was the first person to doubt the genuineness of the revelation. He hurried back to his wife bewildered and terrorized,

            “What’s wrong with me?” he asks his wife.

            Just as kids hide under the covers when they are afraid of monsters in the dark, so Muhammad had his wife wrap him in a blanket; he did not want to see the cause of terror again. He thought he was either going mad or possessed by an evil spirit.


            After this first revelation Allah was silent for about three years. Muhammad was so sad that he preferred to commit suicide. Several times he intended to throw himself from the top of high mountains but every time he went up the top of mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and said, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth.” This is how Muhammad began to believe that he was a messenger of God.

            A messenger of such a demonic God who’s influence caused him to attempt suicide.

            Few people are aware of Muhammad’s suicide attempts. Few Islamic leaders will teach this to their fellow Muslims because it casts a stain upon Muhammad; it brings doubt to his trustworthiness and the credibility of his assumed “Prophetic” experience. Some Muslims deny the sources of the story. Other more intelligent Muslims, knowledgeable about the sources, respond by saying that the shock of the experience caused him to attempt suicide.

            According to Qur’an, Muhammad was the seal of the Prophets.
            “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men. He is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. Allah has knowledge of all things” (Quran: 33.40).


            According to Islamic sources (Bukhari: 1.4.189; Muslim: 30.5790; Sunan of Abu Dawud 32:4071), Muhammad had a big mole on his back between the shoulders which was as big as a pigeon’s egg. He claimed that the big mole is the proof of his Prophethood. There is no religious scripture which confirms that a mole between the shoulders is a sign of Prophethood. What he claimed to be a proof of Allah’s seal was a physical deformity which anyone can have. There is no ‘divinity’ in this. It is simply beyond the capacity of a logical thinker how this is supposed to be one of the proofs that convince people of Muhammad’s Prophethood!

            Muhammad gave no solid proof of his Prophethood. He only claimed to the title of Prophet of Allah.

            Did he lie?

            Was he under delusion?

            The validity of Islam is closely dependent on the reliability of Muhammad. If there is no solid reason to conclude that Muhammad was the true messenger of God, we may reasonably suppose that Islam is false. If we can prove that Muhammad was untrustworthy, Islam self-destructs. The scholars, who are most familiar with Arabic sources and had clear understanding of the life and time of Muhammad; like Margoliouth, Hurgronge, Lammens, Caetani are the most decisive against Muhammad’s Prophetic claim. The more we read their valuable research works, the more we find it difficult to disagree with them.

            How can we be sure that Muhammad did not lie?

            Muhammad declared that lying is acceptable if it is used to propagate the cause of Islam by killing the enemy. This particular statement should make us wonder how often Muhammad took advantage of this principle while claiming his title of a Prophet and preaching his message.

            If we take Qur’an as a primary foundation of Muhammad’s Prophethood, the doubt is still not dispelled at all. The next question is to ascertain how firm the ground it provides is. There are serious doubts about the trustworthiness of Qur’an also. Like Muhammad’s Prophetic claim, Qur’an itself is self-declarative. It describes itself by various generic terms, comments, explains, distinguishes, puts itself in contrast with other religious books and claims to be holy. The Qur’anic claims are great, but what is miserable is that, this supposed holy book fails to prove either Muhammad’s Prophetic claim or its Divine origin.

            Ultimately, it becomes a circular reasoning. Qur’an is God’s words because Muhammad said so and Muhammad was God’s messenger because Qur’an says so. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. We are not happy with this.

            The Embarrassment of Satanic Verses

            Traditional Islamic sources admit that Muhammad was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur’an.

            When Muhammad first began preaching in Mecca he thought that the Meccans would accept his religion. But the Meccans were not receptive to him. This made Muhammad angry and he started taunting them for years by insulting their religion and Gods. Meccans refused all dealings with him and his followers. Eventually to appease the Meccans, Muhammad recited the following Qura’nic verses,

            “Have you then considered the al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the last … these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved” (Quran: 53.19-20)

            Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their “intercession is approved”. This made the Meccans very pleased and the boycott was lifted shortly.
            Soon Muhammad realized that by acknowledging the local idols al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat he had made a terrible blunder. He had undermined his own position that as the sole intermediary between Allah and the people and by doing so he made his new religion indistinguishable from pagan beliefs and hence redundant. So he retracted and said the two verses acknowledging pagan idols were satanic verses i.e., the verses inspired by Lucifer, the Biblical Satan. This is Muhammad’s most embarrassing moment.

            Islam crumbled in the wake of the Prophet’s satanic indulgence. Muhammad desperately tried to make amends for the satanic verses and recited the following verse.

            “Surely Allah does not forgive setting up partners with Him; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into remote error. They call but upon female deities. They call but upon Satan, the persistent rebel!” (Quran: 4.116)

            Subsequently, the relevant verses were also modified with the final form what is now in the modern Qur’an,

            “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza. And Manat, the third, the other? Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division!” (Quran: 53:19-22).

            Many of the Muhammad’s followers left him on this account realizing that Muhammad was making up the Qur’an (Sina, 2008, p. 16). Muhammad had to run away from Mecca in shame. The shame of defeat was so much that Muhammad and Abu Bakr had to flee through a window. On their way out of town, both had to hide in a cave for fear the Meccans would find them (Winn, 2004. p. 587).

            “When the Messenger decided upon departure, he went to Bakr and the two of them left by a window in the back of Abu’s house and went to a cave in Thawr, a mountain below Mecca”.
            (Ishaq: 223)

            “The Messenger came back to Mecca and found that its people were more determined to oppose him and to abandon his religion, except for a few weak people who believed in him”.
            (Tabari: VI. 118)

            However, after this blunder Muhammad was more careful not to make the mistake again. He just hammered a nail into his own Prophetic coffin.

            Muslims are very uncomfortable with the satanic verses episode and this had been the subject of endless and bitter controversy (Walker, 2002, p. 111). But if we have to believe the authentic Muslim sources there is no reason to reject this occurrence. This incident was recorded by devout Muslims like Al-Wikidi, Al-Zamakshari, Al-Baydawi, Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa’d and Bukhari. It is unthinkable that such a story would have been fabricated by all of them.

            While this event is well documented in Islamic sources, current day Islamic leaders rarely tell Muslims or the general public about it.

            We can make three logical conclusions from this satanic verses incident.

            Firstly, a Qur’anic verse can be modified or deleted at a later date.

            Secondly, it casts a shadow over the veracity on Muhammad’s entire claim to be a Prophet.

            Finally, Satan proves that Qur’an is not a miracle. Qur’an challenges “bring a Sura like it”. (Quran: 2.23) and Satan took the challenge and did it.

            Did Muhammad carefully plan a ploy to win the hearts of the Meccans, or was it his subconscious that had suggested to him a sure formula which provided a practical road to unanimity?

            The Traditional Sources

            It seems logical, and also agreeable to Muslims, to say that if we have solid reasons to believe that Muhammad was a reliable messenger of God, we may conclude that Islam is a true religion and, in case there are strong reasons to question Muhammad’s trustworthiness, Islam self-destructs.

            In the West, Muhammad’s critics are quick to claim that he was either possessed by demons or suffering from mental illness or he was a conscious fraud. We have no concrete evidence to support one of these claims and discard others; but at least we all agree to the point that, there was certainly something wrong with Muhammad.

            The Western scholars judge the Prophet by the standards of human morality and conscious. But Muslims’ thinking is different. From their point of view they have accepted Muhammad as a ‘superior being’ and ‘the mercy of God among mankind’ (Sina, 2008, p. 6).

            Though Muslims dismiss all attacks on their faith as anti-Islamic polemic and a calculated and deliberate misrepresentation of their religion from Christian prejudice and Zionist-instigated ill will but the irony is that; even if we reject and leave aside all these Western scholars and depend only on authentic traditional sources for information, we still cannot find anything which suggests that Muhammad was a ‘superior being’ or ‘the mercy of God among mankind’ but we have thousands of accounts that do portray him a psychopath criminal.

            But, are the traditional sources reliable?
            The Reliability of Traditional Sources

            Our knowledge and understanding of early Islam and its founder mainly rests on the writings we call Sira, Al-Maghazi, Qur’an, Qur’anic exegesis (Tafsir), Tabari’s history, and Shahi Hadith collections.

            Sira means ‘biography’, and likewise Sirat Rasul Allah is the biography of Muhammad, the messenger of Allah written by Ibn Ishaq (CA 85/704 – 150/767(?)), which is the earliest life of Muhammad of which we have any trace. He was one of the main authorities on the life and times of the Prophet. Amongst the early Muslim critic, Ishaq had a very high reputation (e.g., Al-Zuhri spoke of him as ‘the most knowledgeable man in Maghazi’). Ishaq’s Sira or biography provides the sole account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of his death. The work of Ibn Ishaq is very important for the researchers not only because it is the earliest biography, but also for the reason that Ibn Ishaq was a free thinker and he was free from any influences of later idealizing tendencies. While the character, message, and deeds portrayed within its pages are the direct opposite of Jesus Messiah’s and his disciples, the Sira’s chronological presentation is similar in style to the Christian Gospels. His work contains too much information of a character that is devastatingly unfavorable to the Prophet.
            Al-Maghazi is the early Muslim military expeditions or raiding parties in which Muhammad took part in the Medinan period. But this term seems to have been more or less often used synonymously with term Sira.

            The history of al-Tabari is a mine of information for historical and critical research by Western scholars. This Persian historian was a devout Muslim, a commentator of Qur’an and widely traveled. He had not only devoted much time to history but even mathematics and medicine.

            Tabari derived much of his material from oral traditions and literary sources like the works of Abu Miknaf, al-Wiqidi, Ibn Sa’d and of course Ibn Ishaq.

            Qur’an’s claim to Divine origin rests on the Ahadith (plural of Hadith).

            The Hadith, or the book of tradition, are the records of what Muhammad did, what he enjoined, what was done in his presence and what he did not forbid. Hadith collections also include the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of Muhammad. Muhammad was aware that people were taking note of all his casually uttered words and that stories of what he did were being passed around. He was aware of the dangers and warned against the practice because some of his casually uttered word may get included in Qur’an by mistake (Brahmachari, 1999, p. 131). But the trend once started could not be stopped and was accelerated after his death (Walker, 2002, p. 172) The Hadith contains material from pre-Islamic times also. Much was added to it after Muhammad’s death with fresh material with the growth of Islamic empire.

            It is true that much of the Ahadith was fabricated before Imam Bukhari made his compilation. As example, Ibn Abi-I-Awja (executed 772 CE for apostasy) confessed before his death that he had fabricated more than four thousand Ahadith, in which he forbade Muslims what was in fact permitted and vice versa and he made Muslims to break the fast when they should have been fasting (Warraq, 2003, p. 45). Awja’s case is just one example.

            There are instances where many Ahadith were invented to serve the political purposes of the Umayyad, the Abbasids and later dynasties of Caliphs and handing down of the traditions went downwards to the level of a business enterprise (Goldziher, 1971, p. 169) as a means of livelihood. A large amount of non-Islamic material was drawn into by the compilers which even included sayings of Buddhist wisdom, Roman stories and verses from the Zoroastrians, Jewish and Christian scriptures and even Greek philosophy (Gibb, 1969, p. 51). Soon the number of Ahadith already in circulation and still being invented became unimaginable. As one Muslim authority wrote, ‘in nothing do we see pious man more given to falsehood than in the traditions’ (Nicholson, 1969, p.145).

            So it was urgently necessary to compile an authentic collection. The best-known and most authoritative compilation is by Bukhari. It is said that Bukhari had examined a total of 600,000 traditions. He preserved some 7,000 (including traditions), which means he rejected some 593,000 as inauthentic (Crone, 1987, p. 33).
            But since many of them were repeated, there remained only about 2760 in total. Second only to Bukhari’s collection is the work of Muslim Ibn al-Hajaj, which contains three thousand traditions. These compilations are believed to be Sahih Hadith (authentic traditions).

            With much disappointment to the Muslims, the above five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don’t portray Muhammad a ‘superior being’ or any kind of ‘the mercy of God among mankind’.

            The sources reveal that he was a thief, a liar, an assassin, a pedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous husband, a rapist, a mass murderer, a desert pirate, a warmonger but a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. It’s certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion.

            Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these authentic collections of Bukhari were later additions by religious rivalries. Bukhari was a devout Muslim and his sincerity was beyond doubt.

            Other traditional books were written by pious Muslims, the copies are preserved and certainly it would not be the characteristic of believers to portray their Prophet as a villain. After all Muhammad had promised them Paradise in exchange of their acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet. How can they malign him?
            Similarly the trustworthiness of Christian sources cannot be doubted either. By the time Muhammad received his first revelation early in the seventh century; Christianity was already an established religion and had been in law of the exclusive faith of the Roman Empire, the superpower of the Mediterranean for some two centuries. Christianity also had been planted from Ethiopia to Ireland and Morocco to Georgia and in Mesopotamia, i.e., modern Iraq (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 4, 6). The multiplicity and diversity of the Christian texts stands as a proof of an intellectual life of Christendom within the Roman world. In fact this was a new era when this faith was slowly coming out of the religious orthodoxy. As the grip of the Orthodox Church was relaxed, there was a wave of theological deviants and the contemporaneous Christians evaluated Muhammad and his sect as yet another such group which had gone astray. It was unthinkable to them that Islam might be ‘a new religion’ in the strict sense of the term.

            The Islamic leadership remained on friendly terms with the Christian populations of the land they conquered. Qur’an (29:45) requires Muslims should respect the Ahl al-Kitab, the people of the book, that is to say the Christians and Jews. Hence we hardly have any doubt on the authenticity of early Christian sources. It was too late for the Christian to realize the fact about Islam.

            Discrediting Muhammad using Traditional Sources

            The original book of Ibn Ishaq is lost to history and all we know of it is what is quoted from it by the later writers, particularly Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. These quotations are fortunately quite reliable. Ibn Hisham edited and abridged Ibn Ishaq’s work about sixty-five years later. In his edition, Hisham (Guillaume, 1955, p. 691) wrote,

            “I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people.”

            This particular comment of Hisham speaks volumes. Today we need to know, what were those ‘disgraceful to discuss’ discussions Hisham omitted from Ishaq’s original works and what were those ‘matters which would distress certain people’.

            We understand Hisham’s position. He was actually compromising with the truth to save his life, which was dependant upon not offending the cleric-kings during his time. But he was honest enough to admit that he had compromised with the truth.

            However, a few modern historians have attempted to recover the lost portion of Ishaq’s work. They applied the Biblical criteria of ‘Form and Redaction criticism’ (Form criticism is an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions as example, stories, legends, myths, etc upon which they were based. Redaction Criticism is concerned with when and by what process (of collecting and editing) did a particular section or book of the Bible reach its final literary form) to the basis historical assemblage of Ishaq. To quote Margoliouth (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 340),

            “The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable… for whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of a Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy.”

            The Pagan Meccans were wise enough not to believe Muhammad’s gigantic claim because they had seen many such imposters. There are more than a dozen verses which confirm that Muhammad and the ‘voice’ he had heard were ridiculed by the pagans. They thought that Muhammad was fabricating verses or in the parlance of those days, he was demon-possessed. The contemporaries of Muhammad called him ‘majnoon’ (Lunatic, crazy, possessed by jinn) (Sina, 2008. p. 6) or a soothsayer ‘kahin’. This is very explicit in the ten Qur’anic verses 15.6, 23.70-72, 34.8, 34.45/46, 37.35/36, 44.13/14, 52.29, 68.2, 68.51 and 81.22. In a few instances, there are verses 21:5, 36:69, 37:36/35, 52:30 where an alternative explanation was given that Muhammad was an ambitious but fanciful poet who had merely invented it all.

            To defend himself Muhammad added several references to Biblical Prophets likewise accused of ghost-possession, as example earlier Prophets in general (Quran: 51.52), Noah (Quran: 23.25), Moses (Quran: 26.26/27, Quran: 51.39). Let it be on record that the Bible nowhere mentions such an allegation against Noah, Moses or most other Prophets. The one exception is Hosea, a Prophet apparently unknown to Muhammad:

            “They call the man of the spirit a madman: so great is their guilt that their resistance is likewise great” (Hosea: 9.7).

            Undoubtedly, Muhammad, whose knowledge of the Bible was only sketchy, was merely projecting his own plight onto Noah and Moses.

            Muhammad’s argument was very silly and stands on a slippery ground. His reason was something like this, – ‘I am a Prophet but am not acknowledged by my narrow-minded contemporaries, just as the ancient genuine Prophets were not given due recognition either at first instance. Hence I am also a genuine Prophet’. Muhammad lost many of his followers on this account.

            Bukhari (9:87:111) recorded that Muhammad’s Prophetic mission was confirmed by a cousin of Khadija, a Christian convert from Judaism named Waraqa Bin Naufal. After a few days of confirming Muhammad’s Prophethood, Waraqa died mysteriously. The fact that Waraqa was a Christian had been a source of embarrassment to the Muslims. Hence they often deny it to get rid of this shame. Some overenthusiastic Muslim sources say that, by recognizing the Prophet, Waraqa converted to Islam. However, some modern scholars contend that Waraqa actually rejected Muhammad and the text of Ibn Hisham’s version of the Sira was later corrupted (Spencer, 2006, p. 53). There is no account in voluminous Hadith that Waraqa converted to Islam and the details of his mysterious death. From the Hadith collections we can find minutest details of Muhammad’s activities and the events of early Muslim communities. The conversion of a Christian priest who was a cousin of Muhammad and his wife would have been a momentous event. Waraqa was the most revered holy man in Mecca. Why the cause of his death was not recorded in the Hadith? Today the mainstream Islam accepts that Waraqa recognized
            Muhammad’s Prophetic status, but this is baseless. Nowhere is it recorded that Waraqa’s appreciation was witnessed by anyone.

            Though it appears shocking, but I believe that Waraqa was murdered by Muhammad. This is a possibility which we cannot ignore. After Muhammad and Khadija had used him, he became a liability—someone who could and would profess that Muhammad’s claims were untrue. Once Waraqa was dead, Muhammad felt free to concoct any lies and attribute them to him and the deception continued unabated.

            Strange but true that, even there is mention in Hadith (Bukhari 4. 56.814) that Muhammad was once challenged by a Christian convert who reverted back to Christianity by seeing that Muhammad was actually faking the Qur’anic revelations and declared,

            “Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him”.

            There was a similar type of observation by one of the Muhammad’s scribes; Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write down Allah’s revelations. When Abdullah suggested some changes to Muhammad’s dictation, Muhammad readily agreed with Abdullah. This led Abdullah to suspect Muhammad’s claim of reception of messages from God, apostatized and left Medina for Mecca. He then proclaimed that he (Abdullah) too could easily write the Qur’anic verses by being inspired by Allah (Caner & Caner, 2002, p. 45).

            In the Christian view, the gospel concerning Jesus Messiah was final. The Bible exclusively cautioned that any other teaching is false even if an angel from heaven (here meaning Gabriel) came down to preach it, was not to be accepted (Galatians.1:8). Jesus Messiah specifically spoke of false Prophets yet to come, and warned that if people report that such a one in the desert – ‘do not go there’ (Matthew. 24:26). But in spite of this clear warning in the Gospel, many early Christians did not recognize this false Prophet. Muhammad and his sect were most believably understood as yet another wave of theological deviants of Christendom who had gone astray.

            When Muhammad advised a small group of his followers to flee Mecca, the Christian king of Abyssinia received them and gave them refuge. In biographies of Muhammad, there are many references of a Christian monk named Bahira who is said to have recognized in Muhammad the signs of a Prophet. The idea that Islam might be ‘a new religion’ was in the strict sense of the term was unthinkable to the Christians. When Jerusalem was surrendered to Muslims in 638, Sophronius (Patriarch of Jerusalem), who had negotiated the surrender of the city to the Muslims, explained the invasion of Palestine as Divine punishment for the sins of the Christians. The notion was that the Muslims were the instruments of the God’s wrath (Fletcher, 2003, p. 16). But slowly the early Christians recognized Muhammad as a man of blood and his followers as irredeemably violent.

            Throughout the medieval period, all of the characteristics of Muhammad that confirmed his authority in the eyes of Muslims were reversed by Christian authors and turned into defects. When Christians recognized Islam as a rival religion to Christianity, they simply refused the notion of a new Prophet after Jesus Messiah (Ernst, 2005, p. 14). The traditional doctrine that Muhammad was illiterate, which to Muslims was proof of Divine origin of Qur’an, indicated to the Christians that he must have been a fraud. When challenged by the Meccans to produce miracles, Muhammad said that Qur’an was his only miracle. While Muslims viewed this as proof of the spirituality of his mission, Christian antagonists considered this lack of miracles as clear evidence that Muhammad was a fake.

            In 850, a monk called Perfectus went shopping in the capital of Muslim state of al-Andalus. Here he was stopped by a group of Arabs who asked him whether Jesus or Muhammad was the greater Prophet. There was a trick in the question because it was a capital offence in the Islamic empire to insult Muhammad and Perfectus knew it very well. So at first he responded cautiously. He gave an exact account of the Christian faith respecting the Divinity of Christ. But suddenly he snapped and burst into a passionate stream of abuse, calling Muhammad a charlatan, a sexual pervert and the antichrist himself and a false Prophet spoken of in the Gospel (Foxe, 1827, p. 76¬7). Perfectus was thrown into the prison but later released because the judge realized that he was provoked by the Muslims. However after few days of his release, the Muslims’ pranks provoked him once more and Perfectus cracked a second time and insulted Muhammad in such crude terms that he was again taken and later on executed (Armstrong, 2006, p. 22).
            Few days later, another Christian monk by the name Ishaq appeared before the same judge and attacked Muhammad and his religion with many crude and disgusting words. His insulting words to Muhammad and Islam were so strong that the Judge, thinking him drunk or deranged, slapped him to bring him to his senses. But Ishaq persisted in his abuse and the Judge ordered his execution also. A few days after Ishaq’s execution, six monks from the same monastery arrived and delivered yet another venomous attack on Muhammad. There were executed too. That summer, about fifty Christian monks died this way (Armstrong, 2006, p. 23).

            But those Christian monks had the right to call Muhammad a fake. They were well educated, wise and they had studied Muhammad and his religion thoroughly. The two biggest Christian criticisms of Muhammad were undoubtedly in relation to his military activities, marriages and sexual perversions. For Christians, the celibacy and nonviolent approach of Jesus were generally seen as indispensable characteristics of true spirituality. The cruelty of Muhammad and his sexual perversion were taken as clear proof that Muhammad could not be on the same exalted level as Jesus. The early Christian critics of Muhammad generally described him as motivated by a combination of political ambition and sensual lust. But the success of Islam raised a disturbing theological question: How had God allowed this impious faith to prosper? Could it be that God had deserted His own people?

            The earliest reference to Muhammad in Christian literature is found in the writings of the seventh century. The Armenian ‘Chronicle of Sebeos’ says the Muhammad was an ‘Ishmaelite’, who claimed to be a Prophet. In the coming years many Biblical scholars realized that though Islam and Christianity has many similarities, like, praying, fasting, giving alms, pilgrimage etc, but actually Islam is against Christianity. During the middle ages of Christian Europe, Christians had a very strong negative feeling against Muslims. As example, Bede, a monk and Biblical scholar described Qur’an as ‘a parody of sacred scripture of Christianity [i.e. Bible]’ and Muhammad as a pseudo-Prophet, who and his followers has made war on Christians and seized their Holy places. In a work of Biblical commentary completed in 716, Bede described Muslims as ‘enemies of the Church’ (Fletcher, 2003, p. 19).

            Like Bede, another prolific writer of theology was John of Damascus. He hailed from an ethnic Arab family and whose three generations had served Muslim rulers. He was one of the earliest Christian writers to concern himself at any length and in a systematic way with Islam. John was the first scholar who had explained the Biblical deviation of the Ishmaelites. He went on to castigate Muhammad as a false Prophet who cribbed part of his teaching from the Old and New Testaments and also from the sayings of a heretic Christian monk, Bahira. According to John, Muhammad wrote down ‘some ridiculous compositions in a book of his’ (Chase, 1958, p. 153), which he claimed had been sent down to him from heaven. Somewhere around 745, John composed a play, ‘Dialogue between a Saracen and a Christian’. This dialog envisages a situation in which a Muslim puts awkward questions to a Christian on such matters as the nature of Christ, creation, free will and many others. The Christian parries these questions so skillfully that at the end of the play it is mentioned ‘the Saracen went his way surprised and bewildered, having nothing more to say’ (Seale, 1978 p. 70). John also quoted at length but selectively from Qur’an and mocked the faith of the Ishmaelites.

            During late eighth or early ninth century, a short work was composed probably in southern Spain by an anonymous writer which is known as ‘Ystoria de Mahomet’ where Muhammad was called as ‘a son of Darkness’ who stole some Christian teaching and claimed to be a Prophet. He put together an absurd farrago of doctrine delivered to him by a vulture claiming to be the angel Gabriel. He incited his followers to war. He was a slave to lust, which he justified by laws for which he falsely claimed Divine inspiration. He foretold his resurrection after his death but in the event his body was fittingly devoured by dogs (cited Wolf, 1990, p. 97-9). Like the John of Damascus, this anonymous author was very knowledgeable of Islam. He was well-versed with the Qur’an and often gave fairly recondite references from this book.

            In a Christian work named ‘Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati’ (The teaching of Jacob the newly-baptized) a tract of anti-Jewish literature written in dialog form composed probably in Palestine round about the time of the surrender of Jerusalem. At one point the following words were attributed to one of the speakers, ‘Abraham’ a Palestinian Jews (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 16-7),

            “A false Prophet has appeared among the Saracens… They say that the Prophet has appeared coming with the Saracens, and is proclaiming the advent of the anointed one who is to come. I, Abraham referred to the matter to an old man very well-versed with the scriptures. I asked him: ‘What is your view; master and teacher, of the Prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?’ He replied groaning mightily: ‘He is an impostor. Do the Prophets come with sword and chariot? Truly these happenings today are works of disorder… But you go off, Master Abraham, and find out about the Prophet who has appeared.’ So I, Abraham, made enquiries, and was told by those who had met him: ‘There is no truth to be found in the so-called Prophet, only bloodshed; for he says he has the keys of Paradise, which is incredible’.”

            Muhammad’s Prophetic life can be divided into two distinctive periods, the Meccan period and Medinan period. During the first period i.e., Meccan period, Muhammad was a simple preacher and warner. But his preaching was clearly, from the worldly point of view, an utter failure and as a result of thirteen years of propaganda he had won no more than a handful of converts. But the scene completely changed at Medina where he gained in power and his message lost its beauty. Here he was what one might simply call a robber baron. After conquering Mecca, he entered as a political leader rather than a religious leader, and was recognized by Meccans as such. So Muhammad was changing his colors like a lizard, as situations dictated. Throughout his Prophetic mission, he dealt with Jews and Christians keeping strict political aims in view. At the initial stage, Islam was an absurd truth claim like a practical joke, but when Muhammad was able to draw the sword and successfully used it, the whole thing became serious.

            So while estimating the significance of Muhammad, we should not judge him solely as a mystic or religious reformer, though he may have the elements of both, but rather as a ruthless politician and opportunist pressed with peculiar political problems amongst barbarous people and at a critical moment of history.

            Therefore the picture that emerges of the Prophet in the above traditional accounts is not at all favorable to Muhammad. The Muslims cannot complain that this representation of their beloved Prophet was drawn by an enemy. The early Arabs did not believe in his Prophetic claim and there is sufficient proof that Muhammad was taken aback when those intellectuals of Mecca pointed to the weaknesses of the Qur’an. They fell heavily on Muhammad and pressed him hard demanding answers and explanations to the irrationalities they spotted in the Qur’an, but Muhammad and Allah stood there wordless and powerless like two ‘Divine fools’.

            By seeing the irrationalities, there was apostasy in large scale during Muhammad’s time and after his death. Many early Muslims were just opportunists and not at all religious. They joined Muhammad only for booty and captured women for sex. Those tribal Arabs lacked any deep religious sense. They only wanted worldly successes. Many confessed their belief but had no inclination towards Islam and its dogma and ritual. It is estimated that at the death of Muhammad the number who really converted to Muhammad’ doctrine did not exceed a thousand (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Present day cultists perform much better than Muhammad in gaining followers.

            The Qur’an itself confirms that there were Arab skeptics in Mecca who did not accept the ‘fables’ recounted by Muhammad. They doubted the ‘Divine’ origin of the revelations and certainly, they had every right to do so. They even accused him of plagiarizing the pagan Arab poets. Some verses of the Qur’an were attributed to al-Qays (a.k.a Imra’ul Qays) a famous pre-Islamic Arabian poet (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Muhammad had plagiarized several poems from the work of this poet and added them to his Qur’an. It was the custom of the poets’ and the orators to hang up the composition of their literary work upon the Ka’aba. One day, Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad was repeating two passages from Sabaa Mu’allaqat. Suddenly she met the daughter of Imra’ul Qays, who cried out,

            “O that’s what your father had taken from one of my father’s poems and calls it something that has come down to him out of heaven” (Warraq, 1998, p. 235-6).

            Even today this story is told amongst Arabs. The Qur’anic plagiarism is so prominent that Muslims cannot deny this. But how can they explain this incident? Were the poems of Imra’ul Qays also divinely inspired like the Qur’an?

            Discrediting Muhammad using the Modern-day Sources

            In 1843, a work on the life of Muhammad was published by Gustav Weil. This work was based on historical analysis and the author put forward the idea that Muhammad was suffering from epilepsy. Weil’s conclusion was supported by Sprenger. According to Sprenger, Muhammad was also a psychopath (Schimmel, 1985, p. 248). Another author, Franz Buhl described that, in his Medinan phase, Muhammad revealed the unattractive side of his character: cruelty, slyness, dishonesty, untrustworthiness; someone whose leading principle was ‘the end justifies the means’ (Warraq, 1995, p. 86, 89).

            Muir’s work on Muhammad was based on original Muslim sources and published between 1856 and ’61. Muir specialized in debating Muslim clerics and entertained the suggestion that Muhammad was inspired by the devil. He also adopted the more scientific criticism (originally advanced by the German physician Aloys Sprenger) that Muhammad’s Prophetic experiences were due to epilepsy (Ernst, 2005, p. 22). However another two scholars, Margoliouth and Macdonald believed (cited Walker, 2002, p. 315) that Muhammad’s seizures were artificially produced and those acts were merely a device by which he secured sanction for his revelations.

            In his work Muir had passed a judgment on Muhammad’s character that was repeated over and over again by subsequent scholars. According to him, Muhammad though religiously motivated during the Meccan period but showed his ‘feet of clay’ during Medinan period where he was corrupted by power and worldly ambitions (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 87). The inconsistencies in Muhammad’s character was specifically pointed out by Muir,

            “He [Muhammad] justified himself by ‘revelations’ releasing himself in some cases from social proprieties and the commonest obligations of self restraint”.

            It is of course shocking that Muhammad transformed to a bandit chieftain, who was unwilling to earn an honest living, after he gained power at Medina, as Caetani (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 88) observed,

            “If Muhammad deviated from the path of his early years, that should cause no surprise; he was man as much as, and in like manner as, his contemporaries, he was a member of a still half-savage society deprived of any true culture, and guided solely by instincts and natural gifts which were decked out by badly understood and half-digested religious doctrines of Judaism and Christianity.”

            Jeffrey (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 347) concluded that Margoliouth had done the most brilliant study of the life of Muhammad that has yet appeared. According to Margoliouth, Muhammad was a patriot, keenly alive to the opportunities of his time. Islam was created as a method to unite the Arabs and make them a strong military force. In this process the religious appeal played an important part but there was also a complete absence of moral scruple. On the success of Muhammad, Margoliouth commented that Muhammad’ success was not due to the objective truth of the Qur’an but to his skill as an organizer and military leader. Muhammad was thoroughly familiar with the shortcomings of the Arabs and utilized them to the utmost advantage and he was able to seize opportunities and distrusted loyalty when not backed by interest.

            Hume referred to Muhammad as a ‘pretended Prophet’ and wrote,

            “[The Qur’an is a] wild and absurd performance.”

            Also Hobbes concluded,

            “… [Muhammad] to set up his new religion, pretended to have conferences with the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. ”

            Also, Gibbon (1941, p. 240) concluded that Muhammad’s claim that he was the apostle of God was ‘a necessary fiction’. Will Durant, the famous historian and philosopher had the same opinion. According to Durant, Muhammad was a conscious fraud. He (1950; p. 176) concluded,

            “Muhammad felt that no moral code would win obedience adequate to the order and vigor of a society unless men believed the code to have come from God.”

            Carlyle wrote,
            “His Qur’an has become a stupid piece of prolix absurdity; we do not believe like him that God wrote that” (Warraq, 1995. p. 10, 24).

            Becker, another prominent critic of Islam commented (1909, p. 29) that the companions of Muhammad had very little interest in religion and most of them were utterly ignorant about the fundamental; tenets of the religion preached by Muhammad. For these early Muslims, as Becker commented,

            “… the new religion was nothing more than a party cry of unifying power, though there is no reason to suppose that it was not a real moral force in the life of Muhammad and his immediate contemporaries”.

            It is true that Muhammad’s companions lacked religious values. A Hadith from Bukhari gives us a clue, how Muslims during the time of Muhammad use to keep their mosques.
            Narrated Hamza bin `Abdullah: My father said.

            “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog)” (Bukhari: 1.4.174).

            Elsewhere Becker (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 554) commented,

            “… bursting of the Arabs beyond their native peninsula was, like earlier irruptions in which the religious element was totally lacking due to economic necessities”.

            According to Shaikh (1995, p. 24), Muhammad had a strong dominance urge. He was not only a Prophet but also the builder of an Arab empire and this was an integral part of his supposed to be Prophethood. Islam was built around the sanctity and significance of his own person which he had achieved by various means. Islam is an Arab national movement and Muhammad was possibly the greatest national leader born anywhere on earth.

            Shaikh completely discredits Muhammad as a messenger of God. According to him, Qur’an is highly contradictory. Therefore instead of leading, it misleads the people. Prophethood has nothing to do with guidance; it is simply a political doctrine.

            “God’s messenger is God’s servant by name only. In practice he is God’s superior… Islam is less a religion and more an Arab national movement” (1995, p. 12).

            Rodinson, the latest biographer of Muhammad does not believe in Muhammad’s Prophetic claim. According to him, Muhammad really did experience sensory phenomena translated into words and phrases which he interpreted as messages from God and subsequently he developed an idea of receiving those messages in a particular way. These experiences were his hallucinations. Muhammad was sincere but sincerity is not a proof. At Medina this inspired visionary transformed into an imposter. Rodinson (1980, p. 218) wrote,
            “[Muhammad was] driven by necessity to produce a convenient revelation at the appropriate moment and at no other, in the way the mediums have been known to resort to fraud in similar cases”.

        • None can make a blind to see, none can make a deaf to hear, none can make dumb to speak, but god’s miracle makes it. Only one thing even God can not do , that is to make a Muzzi a wise, peace loving , human, with introspective and logical analytical mind. None can change a Set Mind of muzzi . Without understanding the meaning of Quran in Arabic language as written in original classic arabic, many scholars having re written to suit to add, or modify or drop suras, and depending on mullah’s translations ofQuran, at whimsical fashion , and, only reading arabic script, they will continue to challenge and ask for more proof.

          A different conception of the Koran exists within their own historical tradition.

          The greatest surprise of all is that 28 suras of the Quran are NOT “explained” at all. The sura numbers are as follows; 23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 109. Bukhari explains this away as follows “no hadith were mentioned here.”
          According to the scholars only the Prophet is supposed to be the source of the hadith. The hadith is supposed to explain the Quran. The BIG question is,”Who went on unauthorized holiday for 28 WHOLE SURAS of the Quran ?
          Still searching for answer.

          • THE COSMIC JOKE



            “The Qur’an escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.”
            The present text of the Koran, which all Muslims accept as the only non-falsified holy book, was collected 15-20 years after the death of Muhammad in the time of the Caliph Uthman who ordered all previous collections to be burned.
            But you don’t have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn’t need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn’t deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does.

            Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn’t need a scholastic review of the Qur’anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely.
            Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so he had made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting versions.

            There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages.
            Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism.

            Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq’s Sira, or Biography, stands alone—a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time.

            Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim.

            Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur’an—a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Their message is all that Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur’an are Islam.

            Bragging one day, Muhammad called his surahs a miracle:

            Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’”

            If the Qur’an was his only “miracle,” why would he leave it in such horrid condition? I believe the answer is clear.

            Muhammad knew his recitals had been nothing more than a figment of his less-than-admirable imagination, situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings. Preserving these recitals would only serve to incriminate him, as this Hadith suggests.

            Muslim: C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Qur’an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’”
            A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that Muhammad’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Like today, those who knew the Qur’an were militants. So Abu Bakr feared that large portions would be forgotten. The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield subduing fellow Arabs. In one battle alone, most of the Qur’an’s most knowledgeable reciters were lost, and many Qur’anic passages along with them.

            Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar was present with Bakr. “The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Qur’an on other battlefields. A large part of the Qur’an may be lost unless you collect it.” I replied to Umar, “How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?” Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal.’ Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur’an and collect it (in one manuscript).” By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?”
            Zaid declared that collecting the Qur’an’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. The reason for this rather troubling statement is obvious: Zaid’s search for Qur’anic passages forced him to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But for the most part, he found nothing better than the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying. In other words, the Qur’an, like the Hadith, is all hearsay.
            There were no Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an, Zaid would only have had to write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from men who believed that they had memorized certain segments and then compare what he heard to the recollection of others. Therefore, even the official Islamic view of things, the one recorded in their scripture, is hardly reassuring.
            Worse still, the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. Moreover, it’s obvious he did. Remember:

            Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’”
            the worse it gets.

            Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Qur’an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” [9:128]

            This is incriminating. The 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those revealed twenty-five years earlier were retained. Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra: Most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Qur’an a decade later. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if in fact they ever did?

            Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [whom Muhammad said had 600 wings] recited the Qur’an to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’”

            So there were at least seven Qur’ans.
            • In Bukhari’s Hadith we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day:

            Then Abdallah came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.” This is reasonably clear. The Hadith says that portions of the Qur’an were conflicting, changed, and cancelled.

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

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

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

            UTHMAN’S QURAN
            During Caliph Uthman’s reign, approximately 19 years after the death of Muhammad, disputes arose concerning the correct recitation of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered that Hafsa’s copy of the Qur’an, along with all known textual materials, should be gathered together so that an official version might be compiled. Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith worked diligently to construct a revised text of the Qur’an.

            Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Qur’an in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.”

            Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Qur’an’s credibility. Now all Muslims have is wishful thinking.
            When it was finished, “Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4987). The Qur’an we have today is descended from the Uthmanic codex.

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

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

            One of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Musa, supported this claim when he said that the early Muslims forgot two surahs (chapters) due to laziness:
            Sahih Muslim 2286


            Aisha also tells us that individual verses of the Qur’an disappeared, sometimes in very interesting ways:
            Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep/goat came in and ate it.”
            The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult not in the Qur’an today.

            We know further that large sections of certain chapters came up missing. For instance, Muhammad’s wife Aisha said that roughly two-thirds of Surah 33 was lost:
            Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an—A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today [i.e. 73 verses].”

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

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

            • Ibn Masud advised Muslims to reject Zaid’s Qur’an and to keep their own versions—even to hide them so that they wouldn’t be confiscated by the government! He said:
            Jami at-Tirmidhi 3104—“O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man”—meaning Zaid bin Thabit—and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: “O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them.”

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

            THE BOOK FROM HELL:

            And Allaah revealed other aayahs in a separate soorah, where He says:
            “Say (O Muhammad): “It has been revealed to me that a group (from three to ten in number) of jinn listened (to this Qur’aan). They said: ‘Verily, we have heard a wonderful Recitation (this Qur’aan)!” [al-Jinn 72:1]


            Even the Prophet had a shaytaan with him, his constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn, in the hadeeth which says that the Prophet said:
            “There is no one among you but he has with him a constant companion (qareen) from among the jinn and a constant companion from among the angels.” They said, “You too, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Me too, but Allaah has helped me against him (the devil-companion) and he has become Muslim.”


            The Quran was created by Muhammad, a conquering warlord, as a manual for oppressing his enemies. He knew that religion could be used as a powerful psychological tool, both to gain followers and to oppress enemies. But if you read the many, many explicitly violent passages in the Quran, you will see that it was not written by a holy man:
            Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
            Qur’an (22:19-22) – “These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.”
            Qur’an (33:61) – “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”
            And that’s just a few examples!
            Here are a few more examples:
            Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
            Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
            Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize
            Imperfect Qur’an
            Another reason why the Qur’an fails the criteria as “the word of a perfect God” is because of the imperfections within the Qur’an. The Qur’an is riddled with literary contradictions, scientific errors, and historical inaccuracies.
            An imperfect literary style is used in the Qur’an.
            On the whole, while many parts of the Qur’an undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. …let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who learned them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, “the most beautiful tale,” the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Qur’an. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anancloutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a “when” or “on the day when,” which seem to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a “think of this” or some ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii., for example, “till that” (hatta idha) occurs no fewer than eight times. Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style.

            Nöldeke, Theodor. “The Qur’an,” Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892.
            Plagiarism in Muhammad’s Time
            The Qur’an tells us that Muhammad’s critics caught him plagiarizing traditions, folklore, and Jewish and Christian scripture. Examples:
            We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients” (8:31). “Such things have been promised to us and to our fathers before! They are nothing but tales of the ancients!” (23:83)
            Zoroastrians Traditions
            In regard to the Islamic versions of heaven, a paradise, plagiarism from non-Abrahamic beliefs is also evident.

            None of this, of course, can be found in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, but it is in the writings of the Zoroastrians of Persia, who were a considerable presence in the areas around the Persian Empire before the advent of Islam. According to historian W. St. Clair Tisdall, who did pioneering work on these questions in his monograph “The Sources of Islam,” which he later expanded into a book, and in his other writings, “The books of the Zoroastrians and Hindus… bear the most extraordinary likeness to what we find in the Koran and Hadith.
            Thus in Paradise we are told of ‘houris having fine black eyes,’ and again of ‘houris with large black eyes, resembling pearls hidden in their shells.’… The name houry too is derived from an Avesta or Pehlavi Source, as well as jinn for genii, and bihisht (Paradise), signifying in Avestic ‘the better land.’ We also have very similar tales in the old Hindu writings, of heavenly regions with their boys and girls resembling the houris and ghilman of the Koran.
            Source: The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer (2006)
            Different Qur’ans in Muhammad’s Time
            Islamic sources tell us that Muhammad’s followers would argue because Muhammad provided contradicting versions of the Qur’an. A notable example appears in Bulhari’s Hadith:

            Umar ibn Khattab [the second Caliph] said, ‘I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat Al-Furqan [“Al-Furqan,” the title of the 25th surah, has no meaning in any language.] during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle. I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. So I was on the point of attacking him in the prayer, but I waited till he finished, and then I seized him by the collar. “Who taught you this Surah which I have heard you reciting?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me.” I said, “You are lying. Allah’s Apostle taught me in a different way this very Surah which I have heard you reciting.” So I led him to Muhammad. “O Allah’s Apostle! I heard this person reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way that you did not teach me.” The Prophet said, “Hisham, recite!” So he recited in the same way as I heard him recite it before. On that Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed to be recited in this way.” Then the Prophet said, “Recite, Umar!” So I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed to be recited in this way, too.” He added, “The Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in several different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you.” (Bukhari:V6B61N561)
            Devoid of Context
            The Qur’an in itself as a source for anything is devoid of context and thus arbitrary. Being devoid of context and any understanding, how can it be understood as the word of God?
            We do not have material in the Qur’an to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture, sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries…. The Qur’an give us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered…. The Qur’an is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Qur’an is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.

            Source: Jay Smith, “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”, 1995

            The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales.

            Do your research! The Qur’an is a revised counterfeit of 6th century polytheism, composed of previously existing pagan beliefs, practices and fairy tales.

            For example: The Koran says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

            The Quran repeats fanciful Arabian fables as if they were true.
            “Arabic legends about the fabulous jinns fill its pages” (G.G. Pfander, Balance of Truth, pp. 283).

            “The story of the she-camel who leapt out of a rock and became a prophet was known long before Muhammad” (Suras 7:73-77,85; 91:14; 54:29).
            The story of an entire village of people who were turned into apes because they broke the sabbath by fishing was a popular legend in Muhammad’s day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

            The gushing 12 springs story found in Sura 2:60 comes from pre-Islamic legends.

            In what is called the “Rip Van Winkle” story, seven men and their animals slept for 309 years in a cave and then woke up perfectly fine (Sura 18:9-26)! This legend is found in Greek and Christian fables as well as Arabian lore.

            The fable of the pieces of four dead, cut-up birds getting up and flying was well known in Muhammad’s time (Sura 2:260).

            It is also clear that Muhammad used such pre-Islamic literature as the Saba Moallaqat of Imra’ul Cays in his composition of Suras 21:96; 29:31,46; 37:59; 54:1, and 93:1.

            Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works.

            This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229;

            Jomier, The Bible and the Quran — Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13).

            The source of Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser.
            The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham.
            The source of Sura 27:17-44 is the Second Targum of Esther.

            The fantastic tale that God made a man “die for a hundred years” with no ill effects on his food, drink, or donkey was a Jewish fable (Sura 2:259ff.).

            The idea that Moses was resurrected and other material came from the Jewish Talmud (Sura 2:55, 56, 67).

            • The story in Sura 5:30,31 can also be found in pre-Islamic works from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem.

            The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod’s fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51-71; 29:16, 17; 37:97,98). It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time.

            Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran who did not live at the same time.

            The non-biblical details of the visit of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in Sura 27:20-44 came from the Second Targum of the Book of Esther.

            The source of Sura 2:102 is no doubt the Midrash Yalkut (chapter 44).

            The story found in Sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law came from the Jewish book Abodah Sarah.

            • The making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of the fire fully formed and actually mooed (Suras 7:148; 20:88), came from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer.

            • The seven heavens and hells described in the Quran came from the Zohar and the Hagigah.

            • Muhammad utilized the Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or hell (Suras 42:17; 101:6-9).

            The Quran Was Not Preserved
            “We have sent down the Quran and surely We will protect” – The Quran 15:9
            Surat Al-Ĥijr (The Rocky Tract) – سورة الحجر

            Sahih International
            Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.
            Most Muslims are familiar with the above verse from the Quran, which they consider as the concrete proof that the Quran is perfectly preserved. The verse is clear; Allah pledges to protect his book from corruption, which provides Muslims with a much needed assurance that their holy book is reliable. Such assurance was necessary to Muslims whose confidence in the divine scriptures was shaken after the Quran’s repeated accusations to other nations of tampering with their own scriptures.
            Muslims are taught that preservation of the Quran is an accepted fact that distinguishes Islam from the rest. The claim aims to make the Quran stand out as the only true divine book in the procession of mankind today. The Muslims’ claim is a big lie that has proved to be a very successful selling point to converts who often refer to the Quran in that sense.
            It is not advisable to question the authenticity of the Quran with Muslims unless you are sure of their relative tolerance. The Muslims clouded minds quickly moves into circular logic such as: ”Of course, every word in the the Quran is preserved as Allah revealed it to his prophet, this is an absolute fact because Allah vowed to protect his book from any corruption” It would be a struggle to try to point out that a statement in the Quran can not be accepted as a proof of its authenticity.
            From a scientific point of view, the Quran and Islam wouldn’t stand a chance if subjected to proper historical scrutiny (1). Mohammed’s birth and life, the Quran and the beginning of Islam are all shrouded with a thick coat of vagueness and obscurity. But this article discredits the islamic claim on the basis of the accepted Islamic history.
            How the Quran was preserved
            As all Muslims know, the Quran was not Allah’s first book; a few others were revealed centuries before the Quran. None of those scriptures survived to our day because they were tampered with by the very people to whom they were revealed. Fourteen hundreds years ago, Allah decided conclusively to reveal a scripture, once and for all, which He called the Quran, and vowed to protect it from corruption.
            We do not know the reasons why people tampered with the earlier scriptures. Did they gain anything by deliberately making changes to Allah’s words? Why they did not fear Allah, especially with all the stories in those scriptures, about Allah’s punishments to those who dared to disobey Him. We also do not know why Allah allowed his books to be tampered with. Even human writers do not allow any changes to their works.
            As Allah pledges to protect the Quran, one would think that He would create the ideal conditions for His revelation along with man-proof measures to safeguard the Quran. Well, it doesn’t look to us that way. On the contrary, it looks as if Allah made every effort to make the Quran disappear, even before its revelation was completed.
            Let us examine the circumstances of the Quranic revelation:
            The Nation
            The Quran was revealed in the seventh century to the Arabs, one of the most illiterate nations of the time. It was the Arabs first ever book. Before the Quran the Arabs never authored a book and had no idea how books look like or how to handle them. Revealing the Quran to the Arabs sets the scene for mistakes of all kinds.
            The Timing
            The Quran was revealed before the Arabic script was fully developed. The Arabic script was not yet suitable for writing anything with significance because many letters shared the same appearance. The script problem was only solved, decades after Mohammed’s death, by adding dots to the script. It is only fair to wonder why Allah rushed the Quran before the Arabic script was well developed.
            It looks strange that the Arabs used the same script for multiple letters. But before the Quran, the Arabs only managed to write a few pieces of poetry. Reading the script served as a reminder for the reader of what they already knew by heart. As a matter of fact, the Arabic script still suffers of a similar problem in our time.
            There are many Arabic words (not letters) that share exactly the same appearance, even after adding the dots. It is usually left for the reader to work out, from the context, the proper pronunciation of a particular word. To distinguish those words from each other, printing has to include the diacritical marks ( like fat-ha, kasra, and damma ), which the Arabs started to use more than a century after Mohammed’s death. Although used in the Quran, the diacritical marks are rarely used in every day printing of ordinary books or newspapers because they make the words cluttered and printing more demanding.
            The Illiterate Receiver
            At the time of the Quranic revelations, there were some Arabs who were educated enough to be able to read and write. Out of all the Arabs, Allah appointed Mohammed, an illiterate person, to be in charge of the Quran. This is like appointing an illiterate person to be in charge of editing an important newspaper..
            The Scribes
            Mohammed had some scribes working for him in Medina. After a revelation, Mohammed would ask whoever was available of those scribes to write the revealed verse/verses. The scribe service was not available to Mohammed when he was still a weak person with only a handful of followers in Mecca. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the Meccan verses, over one third of the Quran, were not written immediately by scribes.
            Being an illiterate person, Mohammed had no means to check the work of the scribes for errors that could have been made accidentally or on purpose. Being trustworthy himself is meaningless if Mohammed had to leave the work to be completed by ordinary people without supervision.
            The story of Ibn Abu Al Sarh:
            This is a very important and very little known story about the Quran. Muslim scholars make every effort to tuck it away and keep it out of sight of ordinary Muslims.
            In short: Abdulla Ibn Abu Al Sarh was one of the scribes in Medina. Once Mohammed dictated to him a verse, that has one of the common endings like aleem khabeer or hakeem aleem. When Ibn Abu Al Sarh reached the end of the verse he double checked with Mohammed: “Oh prophet of Allah, is it hakeem aleem?” to which Mohammed said ‘yes, it is’. Ibn Abu Al Sarh became suspicious because he thought it was aleem khabeer. Ibn Abu Al Sarh decided to test Mohammed in future verses and noticed that Mohammed accepts his suggestions of aleem khabeer or hakeem aleem or other endings that do not distort the meaning.
            Ibn Abu Al Sarh concluded that Mohammed was not a prophet but an impostor. He denounced Islam and defected to Mecca and told the Quraysh of what happened. Mohammed became very angry and vowed to kill him once he conquers Mecca, which he was preparing for. When Mohammed conquered Mecca, Ibn Abu Al Sarh was arrested but was saved from the death sentence by Uthman, his brother in breast feeding. Ibn Abu Al Sarh survived and had a successful career under the Umayad dynasty, which speaks volumes of the faith of the Umayads!
            We do not know which verses were scribed by Ibn Abu Al Sarh, but we know that at least those verses were not accurate!
            The materials
            The technology necessary for writing was not well developed in Arabia. The scribes used primitive ink and perishable material to accomplish their work. Consequently, by the time Mohammed died, some verses were unreadable or completely missing from the Quran. According to Aysha, Mohammed’s wife, she used to keep the stoning verse under her bed, but it was eaten by a ‘dajen’ (chicken or domestic animal!)
            Until Mohammed’s death, nobody inspected the work of the scribes, which was left to gather dust until after Mohammed’s death. The moment of truth came about two decades later when Caliph Uthman appointed a committee to start the project of collecting the Quran. Only then the discrepancies in the various writings came to light. Uthman’s solution was to burn all existing copies and keep only the formal five copies which were produced by his committee. Many leading Muslims refused to recognize Uthman’s copies and refused to surrender their own to be destroyed because they believed theirs were the accurate ones. Ibn Massoud, a sahabi whose knowledge of the Quran was renowned and commended by Mohammed, was one of those Muslims who refused to recognize Uthman’s copies and refused to surrender his personal, presumably accurate, collection.
            Preserving the Quran in the Muslims’ chests
            Some Muslim scholars claim that all of the above is irrelevant because the Quran was preserved in the Muslims’ chests as well. (Yes, the Quran associates the heart with intelligence, not a word about the brain, and the Muslims believed it). This claim is coupled to a belief that the early Muslims were humans with extra ordinary intelligence. Of course this is completely unfounded and still doesn’t explain the discrepancies between the various collections of the Quran.
            Mohammed could and should have done more to safeguard the Quran, if he really believed it was Allah’ words and the most important document on earth. He had the resources and the authority, as a leader in Medina, to order a supervised writing and proper collection of the Quran. He should have stamped that authenticated copy (Mohammed had a stamp) and devised a system to take care of it after him. But he didn’t because he was busy fighting wars; over seventy of them in a space of ten years. Besides he didn’t really feel the Quran was that important. He probably found the chaotic situation useful, as it gave him the freedom to contradict the earlier verses without being noticed.
            Many Muslims believe that two of Uthman’s copies still exist today and they seem to be sure about it. They do so because they believe their scholars who propagate this lie with apparent confidence, which is not unusual for Muslim scholars.
            Caliph Uthman sent four of his copies to the governors of the newly conquered states and kept one with him in Medina. Those copies were supposed to have been well looked after but there is no trace of them. How can Muslims afford to lose such important divine documents? This is difficult to fathom considering the way today’s Muslims treat the Quran. Muslims are usually reluctant to dispose of their old copies of the Quran because it is not a straight forward matter; it should be burnt and not mixed with the general waste.
            Until the discovery of the Quran of Sanaa, the oldest two copies of the Quran were thought to be the ones in Tashkent and Istanbul. Both copies are partial, not the full Quran and both were dated to some two hundred years after Mohammed’s death. Therefore they are not Uthman’s copies.
            In the 1970s, manuscripts of the Quran were found in Sanaa, Yemen, and were dated to about hundred years after Mohammed’s death. They are believed to be the oldest copy of the Quran. The Yemini authorities stopped the German researchers from completing their work once they noticed the differences between the manuscripts and the existing Quran. It is also interesting to note that independent researchers have no access to do proper studies on the copies in Tahkent and Istanbul.


    • LuckybinRaj, why do you disable the “reply’ box to your comments?

      You have given a very lengthy list of wars fought by Muslims and Muslim rulers having omitted for your own reasons.. all the wars waged by the Christian Crusaders, Hindu Dynasties, the French revolution, Hitler, USA killings, Destruction and mass murders committed on innocent people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, UK, etc . Can you give the reasons to why you did that??

      How would James Church know the truth if you teach him only one side of the Coin?

      Another point : Can you add a few details -to each war- in your list- as to why those wars were fought and against who…maybe your teachings to James Church will be more clear and will NOT sound as coming from a hater?

      Did you know that the Crusaders even became cannibals??
      Refer to all the atrocities committed by them : http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c9.htm

      And that, James Church should be taught too!!





      • You a good guy plum,sorry my bad english,so what i saw in your talks infinite arguments about which religion is better? my grandparents didnt kill nobody either and they are christians as u dont (i hope) and ou terrorists do,people will always kill religion is excuse and then the endless raws of retard people who take it for granted and do all the damage…i have no religion,i mean i was forcely that water shit that made me a chrstian ,but i am not cause i know i am not,and i am a good guy ,i study i never fuck nobody withput a solid reason ,i forgive, you know regular good guy things…i dont need to go to church and listen that crap to understand its not ok to hurt humans.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s