Amillennialist

Archive for the ‘Deceiving non-Muslims’ Category

While open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman making the pitch is selling the destruction of all you hold dear

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on June 29, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Anthropophagic alien invaders or Islamic spokesmen?
Six of one, half-dozen of the other

When Muslims wage soft jihad (with words, not weapons), the more skilled practitioners require a translator for the benefit of most non-Muslim audiences.  We wouldn’t want any “infidels” to misunderstand the Religion of Pathological Deception, would we?

In response to Michal’s lengthy propaganda effort.  He begins:

We are Muslims, Ambassadors of PEACE and we are NOT terrorists

The only problem is, our idea of “peace” means that you don’t try to slaughter, rape, or enslave us, and we won’t have to defend ourselves against you. Unfortunately, Muhammad’s idea of “peace” was the kind that comes from (literally) killing the competition:

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

As for “terrorism”? Of course, not all Muslims carry out or condone terrorism. But what’s the best you can expect when “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)?

Who will define who a “sweet” person from other religions is?

How about Muhammad? He said of non-Muslims in general (and Jews and Christians, and perhaps Zoroastrians and others — it depends on whom you ask):

“Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire” (Qur’an 3:10).

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews” (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

Michal continues:

No-one needs to [define “sweet non-Muslims], as it is already defined by the socially accepted norms.

As evidenced by just the few citations above, Islam’s “socially accepted norms” are not humanity’s “socially-accepted norms.”

All the things a decent person would not do in real life should also not be done sitting behind a computer.

Because how can a devout Muslim murder someone for insulting Muhammad when he doesn’t have even an ip address? Makes one long for the Good Old Days, when an uppity infidel was just stone’s throw or dagger thrust away:

“Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No . . . ” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Michal adds:

Islam has a fundamental principle that asks humans to treat their fellow humans just the way they would like to be treated themselves.

Michal’s confusing Islam with Christianity. Jesus said, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” Muhammad said, “fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

Therefore we all should exercise our freedoms with care, consideration and concern for our fellow human beings. Freedom is not and therefore should not become an assault on others.

Which is Muslimspeak for: Don’t say anything we don’t like . . . or else:

“A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [. . .] and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it.

“He assembled the people and said: ‘I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.’ Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

“He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: ‘Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.’

“Thereupon the Prophet [. . .] said: ‘Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'” (Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

Michal whines:

[Facebook] seems to allow mockery of religions it has an issue with… The caricatures of the prophet Mohammed were uploaded, and instead of taking any consideration and action, they came out and said they were supporting it.”

Do you think that nearly 16,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone might have something to do with the urge to mock Muhammad? I’m willing to bet — I’m going out on a limb here — that if your coreligionists stop blowing up, raping, and enslaving non-Muslims, non-Muslims will stop telling the truth about Muhammad.

All Muslims love all humans including non-Muslims (Yes and you might be surprised at this due to popular misconceptions).

If “Muhammad – the messenger of GOD – and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves” (Qur’an 48:29), where’s the “misconception”?

Now Muslims believe that our non-Muslim cousins are misguided yet are sensitive to their religious sensitivities.

Really? “the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Nothing oozes “religious sensitivity” like warfare against all who refuse conversion or dhimmitude.

per Islamic orders non-Muslims are allowed to practice their faith freely non-publicly. This is because of the reasons mentioned below

As in the Pact of Umar?

As per Islam, Muslims DO NOT insult our non-Muslim cousins, their religion and Idol Gods (as applicable), despite knowing that they are misguided and their beliefs largely false, just for the sake of harmony and respecting their beliefs.

Like this? “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65).

Or this? “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (Qur’an 5:73).

Or this? “Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak” (Qur’an 4:76).

All things considered, I’d take insults over genocide any day.

Islam and therefore Muslims love all humans and our non-Muslim cousins. Now as per Islam they are proceeding towards eternal failure and hell fire. Islam doesn’t want that for them.

So, enslaving, raping, and beheading those who refuse conversion might cause some to convert [anyway], which makes those crimes expression of “mercy,” right?

Therefore Islam directs believers to spread the message of peace (Islam) and call all to the One true God (Allah) and eternal success.

Just like Muhammad, right?

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

there is no pressure in religion

No, of course not. It’s either conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or war. No compulsion at all.

an environment needs to be created for our non-Muslim cousins so that they can find it less difficult socially to heed to the call of their True and ONLY creator.

Yes, removing a person’s freedom, money, wife, daughters, limbs, and head tend to create that “environment,” don’t they, Michal? You’re quite a liar for Allah.

This is the reason why Islam, though respects and allows the practice of the religion and beliefs of our cousins at personal levels, it is not allowed for them to do this publicly in an Islamic Country so that it is easier for those non-Muslim cousins who want to come to the true path to embrace success.

Of what are you so afraid? If Islam were as wonderful as you pretend, you wouldn’t have to lie, obfuscate, or censor opposing viewpoints. Persuasion at the point of a sword, gun, or nuke is coercion, not faith.

as Devil’s best weapons include deception, false pretences and material & social fears.

That’s ironic, coming from someone promoting “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, religious and gender apartheid, wife-beating, polygyny, deceit, and blasphemy as “true religion.”

Don’t you see? How can someone promoting the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule be from heaven and not from hell itself? What is it about Muhammad that screams out to you “prophet of god,” the beheadings or the pedophilia?

I hope this answers your questions and that you will consider them with an open heart and mind. Once again thanks for your interest and the queries

Thank you for highlighting the fact that while open hearts and minds are good, credulity is not, especially when the salesman [making the pitch] is selling the destruction of all you hold dear in the name of his “religion.”

Advertisements

Another unintentional practitioner of Islamic irony

In Deceiving non-Muslims, The truth about Islam on June 5, 2010 at 8:25 AM

It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.  T. Behrend slithers:

“someone filled with hatred finds it wherever they seek it, and projects it whenever they speak. There are few posters here more bilious or intense in expressing hatred for the Muslims of the world than you. It’s a frightful thing to observe you on this unreflective crusade”

Rather than address the genocidal pedophile’s crimes against humanity and their glorification in your texts, you attack . . . me. Dishonest, but typical.

Muhammad commanded the slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam, but I’m “filled with hate”? Muhammad had those butchered those who wrote something he didn’t like, but I’m “bilious”? I quote your own religious texts, which Muslims around the world have been fulfilling to the tune of more than 15,000 documented attacks since 9/11 alone, but I’m “expressing hatred for Muslims”? I condemn genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example, but I’m on a “crusade”?

(Actually, since the word “crusade” comes from cross, and since the first Crusade was called in defense of Christians victimized for centuries by Islam, I’ll accept that as a compliment. And wait ’til the West wakes up. You’ll wish for Medieval European Christians then.)

As for “unreflective”? That’s the pot calling the ivory “black.”

A. Hussien first denies Muhammad began raping little, prepubescent Aisha when she was nine, then he says child rape was "common in that time and was not non-familiar"

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Mohammed the pedophile, The truth about Islam on June 5, 2010 at 8:04 AM

You can’t have it both ways.  Either the Islamic texts mean what they say — and Muslims have understood them to say for nearly one and one-half millennia — or they do not.  If they do, then Allah is the devil and Muhammad is its apostle.

A. Hussien begins with:

“I’ve never called you a liar”

Suggesting that I’ve never read Qur’an but instead just copy-and-paste from “anti-Islam” sites is impugning my character and attributing to me dishonesty.

“I’ve adequate knowledge of my religion’s instructions which allows me to assist you to understand what you may not understood correctly.”

Great. Then you should acknowledge that what I’ve written of Muhammad and cited from your own “sacred” texts is accurate.

“I’m glad that you’re using USC’s MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts (Noble Qur’an) as it’s the same one I use when I post translated verses”

USC’s MSA’s translations are by Pickthal, Shakir, and Yusuf-Ali. The “Noble” Qur’an I referenced is the translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan.

“my heart reassures when I read it and it doesn’t derive from it but peace, knowledge, good and beauty”

How can you derive from “sacralized” slaughter, rape, and slavery anything but horror, revulsion, and rage?

“and how it has a negative impact on you”

You call commands to behead us and rape and enslave our wives and children “negative.”

“Islam is not for everybody”

Not decent people, at least. Or non-Muslims or Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

“and people do not think in the same way.”

That’s an basic difference between you and me: You think that people can disagree on whether or not to brutalize, violate, and vivisect “unbelievers.” I don’t.

“Who’s the author of the copy you own of sirat rasul Allah?”

There’s only one of author of that biography [Ishaq], of course. Being an expert on Islam, you should know that.

“I didn’t lie, – now who’s calling the other a liar?”

Anyone who claims to know Islam well enough to teach me but denies its barbarism and depravity is a liar.

“God revealed all these verses to Mohammed peace be upon him in times of war.”

Are you so unfamiliar with the genocidal pedophile’s history? You must know that Muhammad received his first “revelation” when he was out in solitude performing a pagan religious ritual. Terrified that he was possessed by a demon (he was right), it was Khadijah who assured him that Allah was going to protect him.

It is true that in the beginning Muhammad’s message was not well-received, but neither name-calling nor rejection justify violence, and there was no “war” until Muhammad had an army and began waging it. Essentially, you’re blaming non-Muslims for defending themselves against Muhammad.

“But do not forget that Islam prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day.”

Yes, today we slaughter any man who surrenders and rape and enslave his wife and children (our leaders getting first pick of whom to rape AND a fifth of the spoils — greedy!). No, wait! That was Muhammad. Well, at least we wage offensive warfare on religious grounds. No, sorry again! That, too, was Muhammad. Okay, let me try one more time: We pin nursing mothers to the ground with large blades through their chests for mocking our prophets. Oh! That was Muhammad, too!

“Unsurpassed”? In hellishness? Yes.

“Part of his instructions to the Muslim army was: “. . . Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees . . . .”

An expert on Islam like yourself would know that Muhammad made exceptions to Allah’s rules whenever it suited him, such as . . .

. . . killing women and children:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

. . . slaughtering the elderly:

“Then occurred the “sariyyah” [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad].

Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, ‘I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him.’ He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, (2), p.32).

. . . murdering women for mocking him:

“When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.

In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, ‘You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!’ When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

“Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan [. . .] She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina.

The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No . . . ” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

“A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet [. . .] and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [. . .] and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

When the morning came, the Prophet [. . .] was informed about it. “He assembled the people and said: ‘I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.’

Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. “He sat before the Prophet [. . .] and said: ‘Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.’

“Thereupon the Prophet [. . .] said: ‘Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'” (Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

. . . destroying trees:

“It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: ‘So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: “Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers”‘” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

A. Hussien continues with Muhammad allowing those he’d conquered to “Go your way, for you are free,” Which, of course, does nothing to negate his beheading 600-900 who had surrendered to him [or the plethora of verses commanding blood].  Then . . .

“Those are the people who tortured him, insulted him, tried to assasinate him, chased him out of Mecca, and caused the killing of many of his followers, would you do the same thing if you were in his place?”

Would I slaughter, rape, and enslave over insults? No. And if my greed, bloodlust, and just-lust led me to war against my neighbors, I would NOT claim victim status and blame them for resisting. A problem with your relations at Mecca? Fine. Keep it all in the family. But expanding your “revelations” to include offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to convert or submit is evil.

“Yes I know the Doctrine of Abrogation, but would you please provide some of these passages?”

You’re an expert. You know that 9:5 abrogates all the former, more peaceful verses that contradict it.

Here’s Muhammad admitting that he changed his story to suit his immediate goals:

“The Prophet said, `If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur’an 2:106)?

Hussien continues:

“Once again, read the verses before and after the ninth verse and you’ll find the answer.”

Fifth verse. And no, I’m not taking the verse “out-of-context.” (Remember, I asked you to save time by refraining from trying the Top Ten Ways to Trick Ignorant and Gullible Non-Muslims into Thinking that “‘Islam” Means ‘Peace.'”)

“Honestly, I still haven’t developed a complete opinion on that matter yet. As there’re a lot of debates going on right now on the issue of Jihad and its provisions. So I really can’t give an answer to that question.”

That’s more honest than most Muslim apologists will admit. I commend you.

“Nope, because none of that happened” [in response to my asking, “Is it Muhammad’s genocide or his pedophilia that scream out “prophet of god!” to you?”].

Except when it did.

“who were those with the most enmity to the Prophet? The non-believers is not it?”

Because he was raping, enslaving, and decapitating them.

“why history never tells us that the non-believers denounced the Prophet’s mirriage to Aisha?”

The Islamic texts brag about it, Muslims endorse it. Do you think the fact that Muslims kill non-Muslims for merely telling the truth about Muhammad might have something to do with an alleged lack of criticism?

“these marriages were common in that time and was not non-familiar.”

Which is it, Hussien? First, you deny Muhammad raped little Aisha, then you’re saying it was common. You can’t have it both ways. Now you’re justifying raping prepubescent nine-year-olds and claiming “the devil made me do it.” What are you going to write next? Aisha liked it?

“These things come under the customs and traditions and not religion.”

Being an expert on Islam, you must know that whatever Muhammad said and did — or saw and allowed — is “religion.”

“Of course, our time is changed now, and this kind of marriages must not be allowed at all.”

Thank you for stating that. Again, I commend you. What will you do to convince your coreligionists to remove that from shari’a?

“And what kind of genocide are you talking about?”

Killing non-Muslims on religious grounds. Since no society was Muslim before Islam warred against it, massive numbers of people of various ethnic backgrounds were murdered by Islam.

That’s genocide.  Religiocide.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but one ounce of common human decency would have been more appreciated

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Bangladesh, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, India, Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 29, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Muslim outreach after prayer. Coming to sidewalk near you, sooner or later.

From here, by way of Atlas. Be sure to learn the lesson Muslims and their Useful, Idiot Dhimmis like Mayor Bloomberg demand of you: It is not the rape, slavery, and slaughter in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example that is the problem, it’s you for resisting it.

In response to those who’ve learned that lesson well, I ask:

What sort of religion inspires its followers to murder after prayer? This kind:

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

So don’t blame the victim or those reporting the evil. Stop the evil Muhammad preached and practiced.

“Chemical Sister” wrote:

“why don’t you highlight the evils of Hinduisms as well like untouchability?”

If only Islam would stop “touching” non-Muslims, there’d be no atrocities like the one above to photograph.

Stop trying to divert attention from the anthropophagic elephant in the room. Tu quoques, straw men, red herrings will do nothing to stop jihad.  The problem is Islam.

[. . .]

How does denying the evil in which your coreligionists-of-peace engage “heal” anyone or anything (except, perhaps, your cognitive dissonance)? In effect, your strategy is: If we deny it, they won’t come.”

Fourteen hundred years of barbarity in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example — including more than 15,000 documented jihad attacks since 9/11 alone — prove otherwise.

And to Nashbloom:

I quote Muhammad, yet you chastise: “We have had enough of you spreading hatred messages towards one religion.”

That’s why I quote Muhammad. I want Islamic hatred toward all other religions to end. I want non-Muslims to realize what motivates the global jihad against them so that they might defend themselves. I want truly decent Muslims to confront and denounce the evil which they worship (and perhaps, save themselves).

If I quote Muhammad and you call that “hate,” what does that say about what YOU believe regarding Muhammad’s words?

And when you write, “Killing someone in name of religion is mindset of poor ignorant people who don’t know the true God,” aren’t you calling Muslims “poor ignorant people”, and aren’t you denying that Allah is “the true God”? Because Muslims who butcher non-Muslims in Allah’s name and in accord with Muhammad’s example have ample justification from their “sacred” texts for doing so.

Being an Islamic scholar, you already knew that.

A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what Muhammad’s followers were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense

In Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, The truth about Islam on April 11, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Offered in response to another lying Muslim here:

ihsaan,

You call a genocidal pedophile “the best example to mankind,” and I’m the “nutjob”?

(Don’t think that we all didn’t notice your inability to deny Muhammad’s genocide and pedophilia. There’s a kind of honesty in your silence on that, at least.)

Just in case anyone is tempted to give any credence to your mendacity . . .

Ibn Kathir is my source for Ibn Kathir, of course.

As for implying that I am misrepresenting or are unfamiliar with your “sacred” texts, I posted several passages demonstrating Muhammad’s wanton bloodlust, along with specific citations. Anyone who can read can determine for themselves whether or not I’m “ignorantly fear mongering.”

Nowhere do I claim that Muslims are commanded to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately as you seem to suggest. Everyone knows that Allah has rules for how to butcher “infidels”: First, “invite” them to convert; if they refuse, then demand the jizya; if they refuse that, then war. If that sounds familiar, then that’s because I posted it above, along with the special “accommodation” for the “People of the Book” (Qur’an 9:29). Perhaps you ought to read before ranting about my “ignorance” of exceptions for Jews and Christians (and later, other non-Muslims).

As for “later peace agreements,” demanding money from non-Muslims in order to protect them from yourselves is not a “peace agreement;” it’s extortion. (Those “agreements” were “later” because Muhammad realized that slaves are more profitable than corpses, and most Muslims preferred raping the living rather than the dead — even Muhammad.)

And thanks for admitting (accidentally, no doubt) that your texts are vile, murderous refuse: The fact that your pedophile prophet was ordered to fight against ANYONE AT ALL because of their “unbelief” proves incontrovertibly that Muhammad served hell. Claiming that the order to kill was abrogated by “later peace agreements” demonstrates that the obvious reading of the text is the correct one: It was an order to war over religious belief. How do “later peace agreements” make commands to genocide on religious grounds acceptable, again?

It is absurd in the highest degree to argue that “The passage doesn’t say to kill because later texts replaced (abrogated) it saying ‘Don’t kill them!'” You realize that a command to genocide’s being limited by later “peace agreements” proves that the former command is murderous, don’t you?

Finally, you defend “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) and then lie to everyone here about it, but then claim that I’m the one “increasing hate for non-muslims from muslims.” How sad. A non-Muslim’s stating plainly what your coreligionists were too shameless to hide isn’t “fear mongering,” it’s self-defense. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

You think that you’re serving God, but you’re serving hell. Christ committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected. He commanded His people to love even their enemies.

On the other hand, Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, mutilation, torture, rape, slavery, extortion, theft, wife-beating (endorsed only?), polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy, claimed “allah made me do it!” and commanded others to do the same. In other words, Muhammad “sacralized” the violation of all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Turn from hell and trust in the Son of God, Who died for all your sins to give you peace with His Father.

Regards,

Amillennialist

Common Sense, Addressed to the non-Muslim Inhabitants of America

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Media jihad, The truth about Islam on March 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM

In an article that should be titled “Muslim Students want “Our Lord” phrase off diplomas,” the efforts by several students — including two Muslims named in the piece — are noted. Several comments from readers (cbc13 in particular) regurgitate the same politically-correct poison: If you criticize Islam or resist its advance, you’re a hateful, bigoted, racist xenophobe. Such “critiques” are obliterated easily with basic facts and a little . . .

COMMON SENSE;

Addressed to the non-Muslim

INHABITANTS

of

AMERICA

on the following interesting

SUBJECTS

To oppose Hate is not “hate.” Instead of insulting those resisting genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in Allah’s name (all of which are commanded or endorsed by Muhammad and his allah), you ought to be joining them.

Islam sends Muslim souls to hell and creates for non-Muslims (and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls) hell-on-Earth. Why do you tolerate, obfuscate, and apologize for such barbarity?

If you are a Christian, how can you defend blaspheming the Son of God?  (If you’re not, do you think your god gets treated any better?)

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (Qur’an 5:73). “The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Why do you support murderous anti-Semitism?

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him”‘” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe [. . .] “he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina [. . .] “It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).”

Why do you advocate dismembering non-Muslims?  Ibn Kathir says of the following verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief”:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33)?

Why do you defend murdering those who would leave Islam?

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

Why do you support raping the wives of non-Muslims who’ve been made into sex slaves?

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24)?

Why do you tolerate Allah-ordained pedophilia?

“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65)?

Why do you defend genocide on religious grounds?

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5)?

Why do you obfuscate for those advancing an ideology that would take your heads and rape and enslave your wives and daughters?  Instead, defend our unalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Where’s your Common Sense, America?

The Minnesota Daily denying access to the truth, or Refuting common Islamic deceptions

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, The Minnesota Daily, The truth about Islam on March 29, 2010 at 2:08 PM

All accounts “moderated” now (saw an “Access Denied” message once), indicating either that all posts are now being censored or the site is filtering my IP address (there are ways around that!)

Update 3/30: Moderation was disabled, so the post below is up on the site.  The truth will out, anyway.  In response to the inaptly named justice786:

In your zeal to serve Allah, you do a disservice to God and Man. Below are (again) refutations of your many half-truths, logical fallacies, and outright lies.

“It is interesting that you quote the verse that you did because it shows again that you only use English translations.”

Arabic is a human language. “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) is not a mistranslation.

“In the Quran (chapter 3, verse 28) . . . The term God is using in this verse . . . is “aulia” which actually means “supporter” . . . .”

“helper” is synonymous with “supporter,” none of which negates verse after verse of brutality toward non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Besides that: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Qur’an 5:51), and, “Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

“So you see my dear friend Muhammad, if you understood the original arabic of the Qur’an, you would know that you can still be my friend, though not my ally.”

I pointed out that you are not my “friend,” because however one might define the term, butchery and slavery are not elements of its definition.

“I have many friends from the Christian and Jewish religions as well as other faith-based communities, and we have a great relationship.”

The master-dhimmi relationship is great . . . for the master. If Islam ever gains the ascendancy here, I doubt they’ll share your opinion.

“Yes, several posts ago, Muslims were told to go home.”

Not by me, which is what you said. Changing your language to “were told” from “you told” is a tacit admission that you were wrong, but you don’t have the decency to admit that.

“My wife is a former born again Christian”

Whatever the deficiencies of American Evangelicalism, that’s still a fall from heaven to hell.

“and native American . . . my Navy son . . . .”

And if we were in Australia, they’d be aborigines. You must be quite a fisherman, since that’s another a red herring: The issue is not national origin or ancestry, but your genocidal pedophile’s commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and your eagerness to advance that by deceiving others.

“Actually, you have changed the topic everytime I clarified a point”

I was responding to comments made here, including yours. Don’t be silly.

“Your comments on the above article had nothing to do with Muslims in business in Minnesota.”

Your comments here are obfuscations for jihad. Jihad and shari’a are “Muslim business,” in Minnesota and everywhere. That’s the problem.

“You love quoting from the Qur’an or from Hadiths without any understanding of the original arabic, or the context of the hadith, or actually of the Seerah (life and example of the Prophet (s).”

It should be clear that I understand your religion very well. Using Islamic translations of Islamic texts written in a human language is legitimate. And you’ve yet to demonstrate where I’ve taken anything “out-of-context.”

What context makes “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) not murderous refuse, again?

“You do not unfortunately have any understanding of fiqh or of the Shari’ah. It is easy when one uses a cut and paste approach to anything to show what you perceive to be total contradictions when in fact there are not.”

A false ad hominem and an outright lie. Apparently, you confuse “basic human decency” with “understanding.” Just because I don’t agree with Allah’s bloodlust, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

Neither do I “perceive total contradictions;” you’re only hoping to create in the minds of those unfamiliar with Islamic texts, tenets, and timelines the perception of misunderstanding.

As for contradictions, naskh, the doctrine of abrogation, is your false prophet’s idea, not mine: “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427), and, “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it . . .” (Qur’an 2:106)?

And those are proof texts, so that non-Muslims (and Muslims of good will) can see just what it is that Allah requires.

“I have already answered your question about apostasy. Again, no one was killed only for being an apostate during the life of the Prophet (s). Traitors were killed and some of them happened to be apostates. Killing someone for “apostasy” would be against verse 2: 256 in the Qur’an, the final source of revelation and the word of God.”

Two problems there: Leaving Islam is considered treason because Muhammad was a totalitarian warlord, and Muhammad ordered the deaths of those who committed apostasy: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“Islam itself is tolerant of other faiths. Look at how Islam talks about the “People of the Book”, Jews and Christians, allows Muslims to eat of the food of the People fo the Book, and even get married to people of the book without their having to change their faith. Some of my best friends are Muslims married to Christians or Jews.”

You even get to rape the People of the Book. Muslim men marry non-Muslim women (making them stupidly “Muslim-Christians,” etc.), but the opposite is not allowed.

I’ve posted several passages showing Muhammad’s special love for Jews and Christians, which you cannot refute. Murdering and enslaving those who refuse to convert to Islam is not “tolerance.”

“Arabic is the language of the Qur’an. How many versions of the bible do you have?”

One Bible. I use several translations, all of which are good. None of them contradict the others on points of doctrine. Regardless, that’s just another red herring.

“There is only one correct version of the Qur’an and it is the Arabic version .”

After the other, competing versions were destroyed. And don’t forget the Satanic Verses. (Shouldn’t verses commanding genocide on religious grounds be considered “incorrect”?)

“I demonstrated to you in #1 above that your ignorance of Arabic”

No, you demonstrated your contempt for the non-Muslims who frequent this site, and what you presume is our ignorance.

Unfortunately, like so many in the West, I’m too familiar with Arabic. Islam is just like Nazism: two murderous cults ruining perfectly good human languages (Arabic and German) used for centuries by Christians. What a shame.

You’re assertion is irrational and self-contradictory: Either you grew up speaking Arabic or you did not. If you did and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then how can you know that the English is in error, since you know English only through translation? If you grew up NOT speaking Arabic and accurate translation is impossible as you claim, then you don’t know what the Arabic actually says.

And that’s the unintentional irony of the murderous and deceitful. Well done!

“and reliance on translations has led you to misinterpret what the Qur’an says, and to castigate Muslims when it is inappropriate.”

You’ve not demonstrated that I’ve misinterpreted anything. And I’ve only castigated you for lying in defense of genocide, pedophilia, and slavery. If instead of obfuscating for Allah’s tyranny you oppose it, I’ll commend you.

“Islam has a very clearcut etiquette when it comes to war. No killing of old people, children and women.”

Except when it doesn’t: “The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256). And not to mention Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and others.

“No scorched earth approach. War is only for two reasons: defense or to free people from oppression.”

You hope that no one here knows that “unbelief in Allah” is considered “oppression” by Muslims. The mere existence of non-Muslims is considered an obstacle to Islam and an oppression of Muslims.

And there is, of course, this: “Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“There is no pedophilia in Islam (some cultures marry women at a younger age than the US where the age of sexual consent is as low as 12 years old in some states).”

That’s a clumsy tu quoque. Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct” Muhammad did it, so you should too: “Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

And don’t forget the Qur’anic stipulations on divorcing prepubescent females: “And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

“Show me a verse in the Qur’an where rape, mutiliation, or torture are allowed.”

I have, repeatedly. Clearly, you don’t care to deal with this subject matter or me truthfully, or you would not lie shamelessly, even when I’ve already exposed your mendacity.

Raping sex slaves (not to mention Muhammad”s raping numerous captives, and little prepubescent ‘Aisha): “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

Mutilation and torture (not to mention Muhammad’s torturing a captive Jew for the location of hidden wealth): “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

“Islam came to put an end to slavery, and there are many examples of the Prophet (s) freeing slaves. This is contrast to even my country the US where it took a civil war to put an end to slavery.”

Freeing his own slaves (he was entitled to one-fifth of the booty from a razzia. Which means he was a practitioner. And what do you think the dhimma system was but a system of religious discrimination, humiliation, and extortion?

And playing a tu quoque meant to shame into silence is dishonest and ineffective. You ought to be embarrassed. But I suppose that in worshiping a bloodthirsty devil, one must compromise not only one’s intellect but one’s conscience.

“Show me where the Qur’an advocates theft and extortion.”

Jizya and dhimma are extortion (“Pay us and we’ll protect you . . . from ourselves!”): “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Misinterpreting the verse about disciplining your wife is a favorite hobby of people who attack Islam.”

But not something of which I am guilty. Your own authorities teach it. “Beat” is “beat.”

“There is no record of the Prophet (s) ever laying a hand on any of his wives”

Which is why I use the words “commanded” and “endorsed.” But he did teach beating wives from whom you fear disobedience, and ‘Aisha, the pedophile prophet’s favorite “wife,” lamented at the suffering of Muslim women.

“there are hadiths where he talks about the best of Muslims being those who are the best to their women.”

You know as well as I that being “the best to their women” would include beating them, since the purpose would be to discipline them for Allah and Paradise (possibly).

“surely the protection afforded by a polygamous marriage is better than none or potential sexual promiscuity.”

Especially when victims of rape get murdered for adultery. (I”ll save you the need to lie about this one: Because Muhammad wanted to protect himself from an awkward situation with ‘Aisha, he required four witnesses to adultery. So a Muslim woman who reports being raped but lacks the witnesses is admitting to unlawful sexual intercourse. What’s a devout Muslim to do, but punish such “mischief”?

And there’s this: “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

“There is no religious apartheid in Islam”

Dhimma. Pact of Umar.

“men and women have equal but not identical rights.”

Yes, women have the right to be raped beginning at age nine (even on a camel’s saddle!), to receive half the inheritance of a brother, to possess a lesser standing in court, to be beaten for “fearing” disobedience, etc.

“Deceit and blasphemy are not supported by any verse that I know in the Qur’an.”

Deceit in Qur’an: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah” (Qur’an 3:28).

Deceit in ahadith: “War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268), and, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes,’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it’ (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

Blaspheming YHWH: “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary . . .” (Qur’an 5:17), “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (Qur’an 5:73), and “the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

“In the end, it is very easy to make accusations when one studies another person’s faith at the surface, does not understand the language in which the Qur’an was revealed, and cobbles together their own cut and paste approach to Islam.”

Which has nothing to do with me. Stay on topic.

“When I talk to my Christian or Jewish friends, I don’t talk to them about my perception of their faith. I let them tell me about how they perceive and practice their faith.”

If I want to know the truth about Islam, I’ll go to its god, founder, “sacred” texts, and history, not a maliciously-deceitful propagandist.

“Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA, and will continue to be the fastest growing religion, God Willing.”

He is not.

“If you don’t believe me, just go to the website, http://www.Islamicity.com, and watch how many American men and women of different faiths and backgrounds are embracing Islam every hour of every days.”

Muslims would never, ever lie, right?

“the Qur’an says in Chapter 109, “Say, O you that reject faith. I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.’

But you said translations were useless.

The Minnesota Daily censoring and obfuscating for jihad

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Minnesota, The Minnesota Daily, The truth about Islam on March 26, 2010 at 3:17 PM

In an article detailing another step in sharia’s advance here in the United States, a lively exchange between Muslims and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis and decent human beings got off to a good start.

Now, at least my comments are moderated. Whether or not my words exposing the vile dishonesty of jihad’s agents will be censored remains to be seen; in the event that The Minnesota Daily lacks the decency to post my most recent comment in response to someone referring first to his “Muslim wife” serving in the military and then going into full Obfuscation Mode and revealing himself to be the most shameless of dhimmis or a Muslim himself, it is posted below (with minor editing).

[Update 11:38 PM: Using another account to post, no moderation.  So, apparently The Minnesota Daily only allows lies in service to Allah to go unmoderated.  Update 1:04 AM: Another account “moderated.”  At least I got a few choice lines in.]

Here’s justice786’s falsehood-filled response to my earlier comments:

Actually you are wrong. It is not a non-sequitur. My wife, an American Muslima, served on the staff of an admiral during the Iran hostage crisis, and is of native American origin. When you tell her to go home, she is right at home. What about you? Which foreign country do your forefathers come from? Shouldn’t you go back there?

You also changed subject from the topic of the article. That is all right. To answer your comment, Islam is for freedom of religion. If you read the Qur’an yourself and understood arabic (not the English translation) instead of cutting and pasting from websites, you would understand the verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” from Surah 2, verse 256. Islam through the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet (s) has never ordered Muslim to establish Islamic law over all humanity. Again you are misinterpreting the Qur’an because you do not understand the original arabic source.

My reply:

Where did I tell anyone to “go home”?

And my ancestors were here millennia before yours, so even if yours were not a silly and intellectually-vacuous “argument,” you’d still lose on that point.

I see that you passed Obfuscation for Infidels 101, so let me expose your duplicity:

1. I did not “change subject from the topic of the article,” I responded to several comments here, including yours, which is what you do in a Comments section. So my words are on-topic.

2. Islam is not “for freedom of religion.” Muhammad declared, “If anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him” (Sahih Bukhari). Surahs 2, 8, 5, and 9 also put the lie to your claim.

3. Arabic is a human language, just like any other, so it can be translated. Sure, on occasion subtle nuances can be lost, but “kill the pagans wherever you find them” is not a mistranslation of “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Besides that, numerous English translations by Muslims show your assertion to be nonsensical.

4. The “no compulsion” verse is trotted out often by apologists for jihad. The only problem is — and you must know this since you’re obviously practiced in lying for Allah — that numerous other passages command or endorse violence against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And even if that verse is not abrogated (the doctrine of naskh) by the later Verses of Blood, you know as well as I that inner belief cannot be forced, but outward obedience is another thing entirely, so technically, of course, “there is no compulsion in religion.”

5. Your own “sacred” texts demonstrate your mendacity; since Muhammad is the “Ideal Man” and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for those who want to please Allah, his words and actions are definitive:

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

And,

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

6. The only website from which I “copy and paste” is my own. Every passage I post I’ve verified for myself. I provide specific citations so that honest readers can determine the facts for themselves and not be deceived by shameless dissemblers like you.

Even if your embarrassing ad hominem were true — it is not, obviously — that still doesn’t take away from the fact that Muhammad commanded or endorsed and practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy and claimed “Allah made me do it, and so must you!”

You may find a significant concentration of the ignorant and gullible in media and government, but the American people are educating themselves. Your days of pulling the niqab over non-Muslim eyes are at an end.

Muslim doctor pulls the hijab over the eyes of non-Muslims by obfuscating for Muhammad’s demonic hatred of women (and little girls)

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic misogyny, Qanta Ahmed, The truth about Islam on March 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Qanta Ahmed, making deceit in service to Muhammad’s vile misogyny look fashionable.

In a post full of fatal, fetid falsehoods, Qanta Ahmed advances Allah’s War Against Humanity by feeding one half-truth after another to non-Muslims.  (Thanks to CNN for helping her!)  Here are a few of the more criminal bits, with commentary:

A judge in Saudi Arabia has said husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi newspaper reported this past weekend. In one fell swoop, the judge debased Islam, vilified the kingdom and disregarded the ideals the Saudi monarch himself embraces.

That’s reassuring!  Islam and true Muslims are against wife-beating, right?  Here comes more of the dissembling non-Muslims afraid to examine Islam’s texts, tenets, and timelines for themselves swallow whole:

Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for “overspending” and a judge “upholding justice” by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam’s ideals of compassion and justice.

How can a “religion” which commands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert be considered either “compassionate” or “just”? Regardless, Muhammad claimed that his god told him, “. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

The good doctor continues:

There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife’s spending pattern.

Of course, Muhammad’s wife-beating is not “abuse,” it’s Allah-pleasing, since Islam’s deity calls the prophet from hell “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21).

Last year, in his annual speech marking Saudi Arabia’s National Day, the king first described threats to Islam from within its ranks.

By which he meant either truly decent people who through no fault of their own find themselves Muslim and work against its monstrous doctrines, or those devout Muslims waging war against hypocrites like him.

In March, more than 1,600 academics from more than 30 countries convened in Riyadh at the first symposium studying domestic violence in the kingdom. Together, international academics examined, measured and evaluated the growing reports of domestic violence and child abuse in the kingdom with a view to formulating solutions.

How does a Muslim “solve” what Muhammad and his allah committed, commanded, and condoned?  Here is one of Islam’s “solutions”:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

The prevaricating practitioner adds the old “slavery is freedom” line:

In my time working in Saudi Arabia as an intensive care specialist, I came to learn that for most Saudi women, the abbaya is not a tool of oppression but rather one of liberation.

And that “freedom” is due to the insanely insecure and jealous Muhammad’s hiding his property from others’ view, realizing that since he desired to rape anything that moved, so must his followers:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

Here’s more insulting nonsense, as if being able to work as a physician negates centuries of absolute barbarism and degradation of women and little girls:

For the observant Saudi lady who has often been raised in an environment that highly prizes securing the beauty and guarding the modesty of their womenfolk, donning abbayas allows them to work as chemical engineers at Aramaco or as fellow intensive care physicians in intensive care units at the nation’s state-of-the-art hospitals.

My Saudi female colleagues could therefore replace valves and fix aneurysms even if they couldn’t make a three-point turn. I found them perfectly capable of managing the critically ill on mechanical ventilators and dialysis machines, all the while uncompromising of their values, maintaining their privacy in their veiled garments underneath their sterile gowns.

And a last insult.  To Ahmed, it is the victims of 9/11 who are guilty of persecuting Muslims (“Islamophobia”), rather than Islam itself being directly and solely responsible for one-and-one-half millennia of sending Muslim souls to hell and creating hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims:

This act of stupidity unfairly depicts the kingdom as draconian at a time when the tides of progressive reform are now waist-deep and rising. Such narrow perspectives only serve to fuel global Islamophobia that has greatly increased in the West post-9/11. Muslims around the world and within the kingdom can no longer tolerate this stance, and the king, the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam, isn’t likely to, either.

Considering Muhammad’s words and deeds and the totalitarian, savage ideology derived from them, “Islamophobia” is only possible among devout Muslim males.  To non-Muslims, apostates, Muslims who are not Muslim-enough, women, and little girls, no “fear” of Islam can ever be considered “irrational.”

The world is “waist-deep and rising” in something from Islam, but that is neither “progress” nor “reform.”

"Slaughter the Muslims!"*

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Islamic Anti-Semitism, Khaybar, Noor Rashid, Oxford, The truth about Islam on February 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Robert Spencer reports on a Muslim who, after disrupting an address by an Israeli minister at Oxford with shouts of “Slaughter the Jews!” claims that he was “misunderstood” and explains why that defense is more offensive and ominous than it might appear at first glance.  Note the vile filth Muhammad’s depravity and barbarism, which included raping the wife of a man he had tortured and decapitated earlier that day:

another sleazy Islamic supremacist claims he was “misunderstood.” You would think that after awhile they’d be too embarrassed to bring out this tired, lame excuse yet again, but they seem to be immune from embarrassment.

And compounding the problem here is that his explanation hardly makes matters better. He is counting on his audience not knowing anything about Khaybar. Among jihadis the slogan is familiar: “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud” — that is, “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.”

Khaybar. As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews — many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation. One of the Muslims later remembered: “When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him….We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.'”

The Muslim advance was inexorable. “The apostle,” according to Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.” Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa’d, reports that the battle was fierce: the “polytheists…killed a large number of [Muhammad’s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them….He killed ninety-three men of the Jews…” Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants’ wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him. Kinana’s wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims’ caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry. The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually. Muhammad agreed: “I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.” He warned them: “If we wish to expel you we will expel you.” They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators’ land. A hadith notes that “the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.”

Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, as this hate mailer did indirectly by echoing the familiar chant about Muhammad’s Army, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.

That’s what Noor Rashid is now claiming that he did say. This is supposed to reassure us.

*If you think you read, “Slaughter the Muslims!” then clearly, you misunderstood.
It’s okay to threaten and actually harm and kill Jews, but don’t tell the truth about Muhammad!

If you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny was a "golden age," then you’ve got good times ahead

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Ottoman Empire, The truth about Islam, Treasonous dhimmitude, Turkey on February 11, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Since all people are born with a natural knowledge of God, why is it that only Muslims think it is a holy thing to enslave, rape, and slaughter for their deity?

In response to someone who needs to work on his social skills, here:

Being neither Greek, Turkish nor a believer in any of the 3 middle Eastern religions I would like to make the admittedly trite point that which if any of those faiths you happen to follow depends almost entirely upon where you happen to be born. (This observation is not an invitation for Amillennialist to give me a theological treatise on why the Creator chooses to separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.)

On a purely factual point, the Ottoman Empire did not require its citizens to convert to Islam. The Millet system gave a large degree of autonomy to other cultural and religious groups. That is why the Orthodox Church and the Greek culture survived intact during 500 years or so of Turkish domination and kept the dream of Byzantium alive.

That’s an interesting rhetorical technique. Do you find that insult as a form of introduction is effective in making friends and influencing people?

If not an invitation to a dissertation, your uncharitable and arrogant nescience is certainly an invitation to correction.

First, the God of the Bible does not “separate the righteous from the infidels at birth.” YHWH gives life to all, Christ died to pay completely for the sins of all, and the Holy Spirit brings the saving Gospel message to all. So, it is not God who separates and condemns, it is those who persist in evil who condemn themselves. Since all people are born with a conscience, an innate understanding of right and wrong (even though it is fallible in all of us, it’s there), there’s no way on Earth that a Muslim doesn’t know that it’s wrong to enslave, rape, and butcher others solely on the basis of religious belief.

Second, the whole “3 middle eastern religions” nonsense is a false construct set up by Muhammad and Muslims in order to confuse, propagandize, and deceive non-Muslims into either conversion or submission, for how can you criticize another religion just like yours, unless you’re some kind of “Islamophobe,” some kind of racist?

Finally, considering the history of jihad, its resurgence, and the fact that you reject the “3 middle eastern religions,” you should know that when Islam comes to town in full force, you’ll be one of the first under the sword. As a pagan/atheist/agnostic (?) you will not be afforded the “protections” (against Muslims) granted the “People of the Book,” those mythological creatures you’ve been propagandized into thinking enjoyed such a golden age under Ottoman rule.

I suppose if you think that the second class status forced on the dhimmi peoples under Islamic tyranny — which includes constant degradations, humiliations, oppressions, and violations of you and yours, including genocide and rape — is acceptable, then you’ve got good times ahead.

He’ll be enjoying them alone.

How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, Justification, The truth about Islam on February 11, 2010 at 3:23 AM

A little more in reply to this:

I have serious problems with what Islam teaches, as you do. We must resist jihad and its attempts to attack, subvert and convert. That said we must resist the the human response of demonizing our adversaries or even more importantly, ALL Muslims.

Thank you for your courteous reply, Stavros.

I must ask, where did I “demonize ALL Muslims”? I referenced merely what Muhammad said and did and what his followers have done (and do) in obedience to him.  I even noted, “to the degree that his followers’ knowledge, zeal, and resources allow.”

If that’s “demonizing ALL Muslims,” then what does that say about their god? About those who knowingly follow such a demon?

You believe in Jesus. Then you have a responsibility to say what He says. Jesus did not preach that “living according to Christian principles” earns any favor with Him. Christ and His Apostles declared, “No one comes to the Father but by Me,” and “all have sinned and . . . are justified freely by His grace . . . it is by grace you have been saved . . . not by works . . . .”

How can you think that anyone who calls Christ a “blasphemer” — for Muhammad declared that anyone who claims that allah has a son is a blasphemer, and Christ called Himself the Son of God — can please Him? How can anyone who extols as the “Ideal Man” (Muhammad) someone who committed genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery in his god’s name please the Living God? How can those who humiliate, enslave, rape, and butcher the Bride of Christ please her Groom?

Muhammad lied. He was a liar and murderer from (almost) the beginning of his “prophetic” career. When he claimed to represent the God of the Bible, he did so in order to gain credibility among the Jews and Christians of Arabia. When they rightly rejected his blasphemy — and after he had achieved sufficient military capacity — he went to war against them.

When you equate Muhammad’s allah with the Son of God, you blaspheme Him. To someone who knows Jesus’ words and works that should be obvious, unless you’re unfamiliar with what Muhammad actually said and did. If that’s the case, then here’s a bit on that (linked previously):

“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .'” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

[Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “‘Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”]

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

By the way, I thought you might be interested in this.

Burying your head in the sand just presents to the enemy a larger and more attractive target

In 'Umdat al-Salik, Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Jihad, Jihad in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Non-violent jihad, The truth about Islam on February 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Denial and obfuscation worked for 1930’s Europe, didn’t it?

Notice the pastor’s reaction to the truth about Islam: “It’s people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence.” Good thing he isn’t jumping to any conclusions.

Let’s be perfectly clear: Those who commend, command, and commit genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife abuse, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, deceit, and blasphemy in the name of Allah and in accord with Muhammad’s example aren’t the problem, it is those who point out those commands and that example who “escalate the violence.”

In other words, non-Muslims’ reading of Islamic texts causes jihad.

Apparently, this “pastor” believes that if we bury our heads in the sand, then the problem will just go away, when what we’re really doing is just presenting a larger and more attractive target to Allah.

Educate yourselves in Islam’s texts, tenets, and timelines. Educate others. We cannot defeat an enemy we do not know and our “leaders” refuse to name.

From here (emphasis added):

An expert on the advance of radical Islam in the United States says the Muslim Brotherhood is effectively employing a strategy of presenting ‘Islam lite’ to organizations, including Christian churches.

Dorothy Cutter, coordinator for the Hartford, Conn., chapter of Aglow Islamic Awareness, part of a national chain of Christian fellowships that study how Islamic law motivates Muslims to participate in jihad, said she heard of a United Church of Christ congregation where an Islamic speaker was a guest.

She contacted the church to see if she would be allowed to present some of the harsher truths about Islam.

‘The pastor pushed the material back at me and said, ‘It’s people like you who are responsible for an escalation of the violence,” Cutter said.

[. . .]

The Muslim disinformation methodology is illustrated by the 2006 controversy over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensberg, Germany.

The pope quoted from Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who was one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” the pope said, citing the emperor.

Objecting vehemently to the pope’s remarks, a group of 38 imams wrote an open letter to the pontiff.

“We would like to point out that ‘holy war’ is a term that does not exist in the Islamic languages,” the imams said. “Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force.”

That makes it all better, doesn’t it?

One of the imams was the Islamic scholar Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who translated the classic book on Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveler.” The book states in section 09.0, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

In Al-Andalus, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Hijab, Maheen Siddiqi, Maimonides, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, The truth about Islam on November 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Offered in response to a “rebuttal,” from here.* I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam’s “violent past.” Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade [“]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[” (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.

Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps [Moses ben Maimon] didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .

[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).

Similarly our sages instructed/ us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .

All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.

No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]

Al-Andalus [or any other Muslim-dominated land] was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain.

In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides’ reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly-gifted young man.

He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-‘Arab al-Mu’ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides’ family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

Death or Islam?  Wandering for twelve years?  Trying to pass as Muslims?  Shared the fate of his friend, executed for “relapsing from Islam”?

So much for that “Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus.”

*Updated November 16, 2009 a.D.  Originally posted 05/11/09 at 12:28 AM
A visit to Ms. Siddiqi’s  site shows that she never had the decency to post my incisive and irrefutable rebuttal.

Considering Muhammad’s rabid feminism, why would a woman — or little girl — ever want to leave?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Islamic "honor" killings, Mohammed the pedophile, Muhammad the feminist, The truth about Islam on November 8, 2009 at 12:47 AM

In response to more Muslim misrepresentation of Muhammad’s malignant malice and misogyny here:

Hey, Bob, Leigh14 is practicing taqiyya. You’ve just been had.

If you define Islam as a religion based on the Qur’an, these men are not Muslims, either. The Qur’an is the most liberal and supportive toward women of the three Abrahamic religious books.

This is true only if the definition of “liberal and supportive” includes rape, child-rape, wife-beating, considering a woman’s testimony worth only half of a man’s, valuing a daughter so little that she receives half the inheritance of a son, and requiring a rape victim to have four witnesses — which, of course, she will not, and so will she be executed for [admitting to] sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

[On the other hand, Christ commands His people to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” He declares through His apostle: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).]

Here is what Sunni Islam has to say about “honor killings”:

“A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that ‘retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.’ However, ‘not subject to retaliation’ is ‘a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.’ (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).”

Speaking of ‘Umdat al-Salik:

“There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language.” Dr. Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought (Herndon, VA; December 1990).

“…We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a).” al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991).

Leigh14 is correct about the “Christians” noted above; no one can murder, rape, or torture in obedience to Christ’s commands.

On the other hand, not only the command of Allah — Qur’an — but the life of Muhammad — recorded in [a]hadith and sira — [is] considered authoritative by Islam.

Following is some of what Qur’an says regarding the treatment of females [. . .]

“Paradise” is a cosmic brothel:

“As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security, Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade, they will face each other; So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes” (Qur’an 44:51-54).

Allah-ordained child-rape:

“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

Beat your wives if “you fear desertion.” Considering Muhammad’s vile sadism, why would a woman — or little girl — ever want to run?

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

Rape your wife at will:

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur’an 2:223).

A woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s:

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282).

Polygamy, and raping your female slaves:

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

Murdering women accused of “lewdness”:

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

A daughter receives only half of what a son does:

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

Why women must be hidden like someone’s property:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

Raping married slaves:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Here are a couple of ahadith regarding Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha. He was in his fifties when he “married” her.

She was six.

And Aisha was a little, prepubescent nine-year-old when he began raping her:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

But Christ warned:

“whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).

Muhammad must be in a special part of hell.

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

Wake up, America

In Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, Non-violent jihad, Resisting Jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Pat Condell understands Islam (it’s too bad he wrongly equates Christianity with Islam and the freedom Christ gives with tyranny and violence. Pat, Western notions of Liberty have at its core the teachings of Christ.  “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).)

If we do not defend our liberties against Islamic and Domestic Tyranny, we will lose them.

No man can produce a chapter equal to Qur’an’s Sura 9

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Not even Hitler, and I’m sure he would have if he could have.

No, the source of Sura 9 and its supporting texts is something more . . . diabolical.

(Notice the red herring introduced slyly by the Muslim below.)

akhter wrote:

produce a chapter similar to the one in the glorious,you say Mohammad wrote the book

No, Muhammad was illiterate.

And a chapter like Sura 9?

You’re right. I cannot produce anything approaching the level of “glory” to which Qur’an 9 descends.

No man can produce a chapter equal to Qur’an’s Sura 9

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Not even Hitler, and I’m sure he would have if he could have.

No, the source of Sura 9 and its supporting texts is something more . . . diabolical.

(Notice the red herring introduced slyly by the Muslim below.)

akhter wrote:

produce a chapter similar to the one in the glorious,you say Mohammad wrote the book

No, Muhammad was illiterate.

And a chapter like Sura 9?

You’re right. I cannot produce anything approaching the level of “glory” to which Qur’an 9 descends.

Will he argue — as he did for Muhammad’s raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old — that that camel liked it?

In Christ vs. Allah, Deceiving non-Muslims, Mohamed Fadly, Mohammed the pedophile, The deity of Christ, The truth about Islam on October 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Posted at a patriot’s site:

(Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794): Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of ‘Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Hello, Mohamed.

I’ve had a lot of time to think over what I might have done wrong in order for you to forbid my posting at your site and to delete my comments quoting your allah and its prophet.

If what I was saying was false or in error or just plain nonsense, that should have been easy to demonstrate. You could have left up my words and your refutations of them in order to shame me publicly into perpetuity.

But you didn’t. Why not?

It’s a little ironic, isn’t it? I disallowed Underclassed’s comments for gratuitously and undeservedly insulting Reb and for his virulent use of profanity-as-argumentation, but you ban me for . . . telling the truth?

What does that say about you, Mohamed? Your arguments? Your god? Your prophet?

I have a question about Muhammad the Physician: Since he prescribed drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes, do you also drink camel urine (when the climate doesn’t suit you, that is. We mustn’t take anything out-of-context!)?

If not, how can you defend him as the Perfect Man, as Allah’s “beautiful pattern of conduct”?

If you do, will you argue that camel urine used to provide a health benefit, but that only Muslims, and not other civilizations, noticed?

Will you argue — as you did for Muhammad’s raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old — that that camel liked it?

Or will you argue that infidel science has yet to determine the salutary effects of that magic elixir?

As far as convincing proofs go, Jesus did not turn clay into doves; that is an apocryphal story, not historical fact (as in the canonical books).

But if He had, Jesus would not have needed “the help of God,” as if He were not God Incarnate Himself, which is your implication, is it not?

Finally, since Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world (including you and me) — and Himself resurrected and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses on many occasions over 40 days — why do you not believe Him?

Instead you defend as “holy” Muhammad, who blasphemed the Living God you claim to worship, lied, stole, destroyed, enslaved, raped, mutilated, and slaughtered gratuitously. You defend all of it as “divine,” going so far as to assert as scientific fact incidents that no one in the world ever witnessed.

What is it about Muhammad that convinces you to believe him? Is it the deceit? The genocide? The torture, The mutilation?

Is it his having assassinated poetesses while they nursed? His beheading prisoners of war? His murdering apostates?

Is it his anti-Semitism? His hatred for Christians? Animists? Hindus?

Is it the sex slaves? The rape?

Is it the Allah-ordained pedophilia that moves you so?

Obama advancing Allah’s tyranny with shari’a apologist appointee Dalia Mogahed

In Barack Hussein Obama, Dalia Mohaged, Deceiving non-Muslims, Liberals aid jihad, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on October 8, 2009 at 10:20 PM

What a sick, lying, murderous wretch.

Her too.

If Obama is such a smart guy, and he attended Qur’an classes as a Muslim in Indonesia, and he visited “Paw-kee-stawn” (as he likes to intone) as a college student when Americans were not allowed into that country, then how can he not know what shari’a is? What Al-Azhar is about? The meaning of jihad and Islam for non-Muslims?

America, you’re being deceived — and slow-cooked.

From here:

Obama First Female Veiled Islamist Appointee, Dalia Mogahed, Promotes Sharia, Says it’s “Misunderstood” – Atlas Shrugs:

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood Telegraph (hat tip Andrew Bostom)

President Barack Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was ‘oversimplified’ and the majority of women around the world associate it with ‘gender justice’.

If by “justice” one means rape (including child-rape of victims as young as nine), wife-beating, polygamy, marital rape, starvation, stoning for suspected “lewdness,” and legal and economic discrimination, then yes, Islam is all about “gender justice.”

Here’s some of that justice:

VIII. MOHAMMED THE PEDOPHILE

Pedophilia as Muslim orthodoxy? In speaking of divorce:

“And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him” (Qur’an 65:4).

Why? Because Allah ordained it, and his apostle practiced it.

On Mohammed’s raping of his nine-year-old “wife”:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

“Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).

“A’isha . . . reported: Allah’s Apostle . . . married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old” (Muslim Book 8, Number 3310).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).

“Narrated ‘Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88).

“Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consum[mat]ed that marriage when she was nine years old” (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236).

“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Apostle of Allah . . . married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter” (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4915).

“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine” (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4917).

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

“‘A’isha . . . reported that Allah’s Apostle . . . married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old” (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

IX. MOHAMMED THE MISOGYNIST, POLYGYNIST, AND WIFE-BEATER

‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715).

But feminists and other liberals love him.

On beating wives, “plowing the field,” the legal value of a woman’s testimony, polygamy (and raping your slaves), the penalty for “lewdness,” a daughter’s inheritance, and what to do with a woman caught in adultery:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur’an 2:223).

“Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur’an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur’an 4:3).

“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . .” (Qur’an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11).

“There came to him [Mohammed] a woman from Ghamid and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He [Mohammed] turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).

“‘When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him [Mohammed] with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He [Mohammed] entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle [. . .] heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle . . . .'” (Muslim Book 17, 4206).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces‘” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

Mohammed on female leaders of state:

“Narrated Abu Bakra: ‘During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler“‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219).

Where are all the feminists?  In bed with Allah?

Wait ’til you see him in the morning.  It won’t be what you expected.

The deceitful Salam Al-Marayati obfuscates for Rifqa Bary’s murder

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Rifqa Bary, Salam Al-Marayati, The truth about Islam on October 3, 2009 at 1:15 AM

And the Muslims at the site hosting the lie engage in false moral equivalences, ad hominem attacks, and false tu quoques rather than admit that their god and prophet are murderous, vile beasts.

Al-Marayati condescendingly, stupidly, and shamelessly lies regarding murder for apostasy:

“No it’s not, sweet little Rifqa. It’s not in the Quran. Whoever told you that is either ignorant or a liar. You should look it up yourself before claiming it’s in the Quran.”

Al-Marayati is going to hell.

His lie is two-faced, like he is: First, death for apostasy is in Qur’an. Second — and here is where Muslims are so successful at their diabolical, little half-truths — the ahadiths considered traditionally most reliable by Muslims record clearly that Muhammad commanded that apostates be murdered. Since Allah calls Muhammad a “beautiful pattern of conduct,” whatever he said and did “pleases” Allah:

Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them” (Qur’an 4:89).

It shouldn’t be surprising then when Muslims believe it is their duty to kill those who leave Islam.

Remembering 9/11*

In 9/11, Barack Hussein Obama, Deceiving non-Muslims, Israel, Jihad, Jihad in America, The truth about Islam on September 11, 2009 at 8:11 AM

While it is fitting and proper that we should remember those who fell on 9/11 and their families and continue to support our political, law enforcement, and military personnel who work to defend us, to continue to lie about or deny why the attack occurred is suicidal.

The command of Allah and the example of Muhammad require the faithful to use [any] means necessary, including violence, to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind (see for yourself here).

Muhammad offered non-Muslims three options: Conversion, slavery as dhimmis, or death.

Nowhere do you hear our political, media, or academic elites state this basic fact. Instead, you’ve got the president of the United States apologizing to Islam (in a “speech” from Al-Azhar University, whose president endorses suicide bombings), bowing to Muslim tyrants (the Saudi king), and negotiating with Islamic terrorists working to secure nukes (Iran), all while abandoning the only decent, free nation in that part of the world, Israel.

Islamic tyranny and intimidation must be resisted.

Islamic obfuscation and propaganda must be exposed and dispelled.

It is not racism to evaluate a set of beliefs. It is not phobic to state facts about what a text says. It is not intolerant to expose and condemn genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, deceit, and religious and gender discrimination [carried out] in the name of a “god.”

Many resources are available on-line. Jihad Watch is highly recommended. [I happen to like this site also.]

Here is just a taste of what Muhammad and his allah intend for you, and whether out of ignorance, cowardice, deceit, or simple human decency, the fact that Muslims you know do not advocate such behavior does nothing to negate what Muhammad [commanded] and practiced:

“kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Qur’an 9:29).

Remember 9/11, but not with helpless, limp-wristed, self=indulgent expressions of ignorance and confusion.

Remember 9/11 with an accurate understanding of the enemy, an ancient foe which seeks to devour all that you hold dear.

Remember 9/11 and honor our dead by determining to expose, denounce, and punish all who through ignorance, perversion, malfeasance, or deceit would hamper our efforts at effective self-defense.

Fourteen hundred years of global jihad. Fourteen thousand terrorist attacks in Allah’s name since 9/11 alone. Innocent victims of Muhammad’s bloodlust (and lust) cry out around the world.

What will you do when they want to put your children in the oven?

*Will Obama be eating ice cream, playing golf, or playing the fiddle?

If Muhammad lied in order to advance Islam, then you shouldn’t be surprised when Muslims do too

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on August 30, 2009 at 4:25 AM

On what basis can a non-Muslim trust a Muslim, exactly?

Since Allah called Muhammad a “beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the best that you can hope for from one of his devotees is apostasy, heresy, or ignorance.  What else can a reasonable person expect?

Here, once again, is our good friend Ibn Kathir exposing Muslim deceit — both the individual’s practice of it in denying taqiyya and the “divine” mandate for such deception — in his explanation of a chunk of Sura 3:

“(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardlybut never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.””

Word frequency is the other god’s best defense

In Appeasers and Useful Idiot Dhimmis, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Ignorant and gullible Infidels, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on August 8, 2009 at 10:14 AM

But DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, pay attention to what the words actually mean.

In response to more Islamic apologia in the Comments here at ACM:

Rory,

I didn’t realize it was you, Graycrow.

So, “in the interests of fairness and LOVE,” you libel the Son of God, defend doctrines from hell “sacralizing” blasphemy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit, and defame Reb.

You’ve gone from saying “Christianity is just as bad as Islam,” to “Mohamed used a word twice as much, so he wins.”

That is not progress.

You’ve got one problem:

Jesus commanded, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad commanded and practiced, “kill the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Jesus poured out His blood for the sins of all.

Allah demands the blood of all who refuse to submit be poured out.

Jesus died on a cross to give Heaven to all.

Allah promises Paradise to all who kill for him.

And you count words. Why would you do that?

Such “analysis” is antithetical to truth.

Using your criterion, since Mr. Fadly and I were discussing the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad, his double use of the word “love” means that Mohamed was only half-as-truthful as I was.

But then, this little exercise was not about me or Mohamed (it is dishonest of you to engage in ad hominem).

This debate was about what Muhammad and his allah commanded and practiced as defined by Islam’s “sacred” texts.

Though how often a word is used means nothing apart from how that word is used, a search of Qur’an at The Compendium of Muslim Texts turns up 70 passages using the word “love.”

A search of the ESV turns up the word 552 times.

Does that mean that YHWH is almost eight times more loving than than Allah?

One God died for the sins of all.

The other god requires that “unbelievers” die for him.

The other god commands blasphemy against the God Who is love.

The other god commands genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit against all who refuse the “invitation” to its religion.

Is that love?

Devout Muslim terrorists say, “We love death.”

According to your “analysis,” they’re winners.

Speaking of an “existential wasteland.”

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Tafsir ibn Kathir, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

So, I say “filthy things” about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam’s authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying “filthy things,” doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad’s vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I’ve written (straw man “arguments”).

How does the fact that Muhammad didn’t kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn’t enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful — but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all — negate Muhammad’s brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up “no compulsion in religion,” but never mention, “invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah.”

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in “self-defense,” but they never point out that even “disbelief” is considered “opposing” and “waging war against” Allah,” the punishment for which is “execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding “captives” — slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war — and by misinterpreting Qur’an 5:33.

Here’s all you need to know about Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men — 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and “converted” to Islam — were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, “She wanted it!”

Indeed, I’ve found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies’ man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur’an; “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-” A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it’s fine to rape your slaves, even if they’re married to another. At least they’re well-fed:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don’t apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn’t kill ‘Aisha and her dad, or he’d have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

It says, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . .”

How can you crucify someone “waging war” against you unless they’re captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they[‘ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you’ve highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; “Go you’re free.” after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He “conquered” Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet’s prayer to the other warring party; “O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.”, after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad’s minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

“O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) ..” 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly ..” 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it’s okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who’s not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, ..” 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That’s verse 61. Here’s the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Mohamed continues:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion, ..” 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That’s a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

“…he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

“He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

“He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

“He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

“‘I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” so he did so'” (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky “exceptional incidents.”

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM

So, I say “filthy things” about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam’s authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying “filthy things,” doesn’t that make Islam’s prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad’s vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I’ve written (straw man “arguments”).

How does the fact that Muhammad didn’t kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn’t enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful — but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all — negate Muhammad’s brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up “no compulsion in religion,” but never mention, “invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah.”

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in “self-defense,” but they never point out that even “disbelief” is considered “opposing” and “waging war against” Allah,” the punishment for which is “execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding “captives” — slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war — and by misinterpreting Qur’an 5:33.

Here’s all you need to know about Muhammad’s treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men — 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and “converted” to Islam — were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, “She wanted it!”

Indeed, I’ve found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies’ man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur’an; “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-” A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it’s fine to rape your slaves, even if they’re married to another. At least they’re well-fed:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don’t apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn’t kill ‘Aisha and her dad, or he’d have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur’an 5:33).

It says, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . .”

How can you crucify someone “waging war” against you unless they’re captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they[‘ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.”

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you’ve highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; “Go you’re free.” after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He “conquered” Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet’s prayer to the other warring party; “O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.”, after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad’s minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

“O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) ..” 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, “kill the pagans wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly ..” 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it’s okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who’s not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, ..” 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That’s verse 61. Here’s the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

“Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'” (Qur’an 8:12).

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Mohamed continues:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion, ..” 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That’s a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

“…he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

“He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

“He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

“He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

“‘I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” so he did so'” (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky “exceptional incidents.”

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write “only.”

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows “asylum” for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can’t point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn’t kill as proof he wasn’t a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim’s apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you’re pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write “only.”

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows “asylum” for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can’t point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn’t kill as proof he wasn’t a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim’s apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you’re pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn’t shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, “killing” verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah’s War Against Humanity:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, Qur'an 9:5 The Verse of the Sword, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, “killing” verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah’s last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.”

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah’s War Against Humanity:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

“Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them 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” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of "YHWH is great!" and 13,694 other acts of Judaic terrorism

In Canaan, Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Vapor. Fiction. Islamic fantasy.

The post title puts the lie to Muslim claims of moral equivalence.

Mohamed complains:

you claimed that it’s false that Islam prohibited killing women and children . . . exceptional incidents in exceptional conditions

No, I pointed out that Muhammad changed [or ignored] the rules whenever it was to his advantage:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

Funny how many “exceptional conditions” Muhammad faced!

That poetess Asma bint Marwan with her nuclear-tipped verse would have oppressed and slaughtered thousands of Muslims with just one line!

Thank Allah for Umayr!

Mohamed continued:

About these texts in the Bible, Old Testament; We Muslims believe . . . The same messages of peace, love and forgiveness . . . we believe that such texts are made by Jewish rabbis who distorted and corrupted the Bible . . . So, these brutal commands in the Bible didn’t came from God. Allah, Our Creator, The Most Merciful wouldn’t order to kill infants and sucklings!

This is self-contradictory: You don’t believe that YHWH gave Israel the command to complete the dispossession of Canaan (killing all who remained in the cities they approached), but you do believe that Allah commands, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” and “Fight against the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Sura 9).

That’s odd: You reject a one-time, one-place, one-target Divine judgment for great evil (including child sacrifice), but swallow whole open-ended, universal commands to enslave and slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — including women, children, old men, and trees, when necessary.

(A side note: We have the Bible Jesus used, and He said the Law and the Prophets “cannot be broken,” so no, your scholars are wrong about the Bible being “corrupted.”

That puts your prophet in a bad spot, doesn’t it?)

As for your shaded attempt at tu quoque and false moral equivalence: Point out from the Biblical texts even one command for offensive warfare against all non-Hebrews to make the world Israel.

Find a report of Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of “YHWH is great!” then find another 13,694 acts of Judaic terrorism.

Then we’ll have something to talk about.

Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of "YHWH is great!" and 13,694 other acts of Judaic terrorism

In Canaan, Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Vapor. Fiction. Islamic fantasy.

The post title puts the lie to Muslim claims of moral equivalence.

Mohamed complains:

you claimed that it’s false that Islam prohibited killing women and children . . . exceptional incidents in exceptional conditions

No, I pointed out that Muhammad changed [or ignored] the rules whenever it was to his advantage:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

Funny how many “exceptional conditions” Muhammad faced!

That poetess Asma bint Marwan with her nuclear-tipped verse would have oppressed and slaughtered thousands of Muslims with just one line!

Thank Allah for Umayr!

Mohamed continued:

About these texts in the Bible, Old Testament; We Muslims believe . . . The same messages of peace, love and forgiveness . . . we believe that such texts are made by Jewish rabbis who distorted and corrupted the Bible . . . So, these brutal commands in the Bible didn’t came from God. Allah, Our Creator, The Most Merciful wouldn’t order to kill infants and sucklings!

This is self-contradictory: You don’t believe that YHWH gave Israel the command to complete the dispossession of Canaan (killing all who remained in the cities they approached), but you do believe that Allah commands, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” and “Fight against the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya” (Sura 9).

That’s odd: You reject a one-time, one-place, one-target Divine judgment for great evil (including child sacrifice), but swallow whole open-ended, universal commands to enslave and slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — including women, children, old men, and trees, when necessary.

(A side note: We have the Bible Jesus used, and He said the Law and the Prophets “cannot be broken,” so no, your scholars are wrong about the Bible being “corrupted.”

That puts your prophet in a bad spot, doesn’t it?)

As for your shaded attempt at tu quoque and false moral equivalence: Point out from the Biblical texts even one command for offensive warfare against all non-Hebrews to make the world Israel.

Find a report of Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of “YHWH is great!” then find another 13,694 acts of Judaic terrorism.

Then we’ll have something to talk about.

If you don’t agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don’t defend Muhammad’s words and deeds

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he’s worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he’s a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he’s probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn’t agree with “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad’s words and deeds.

Actually, he’s not defended them, he’s only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

In obedience to Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of “you” (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of “you.” Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn’t like this, either:

You don’t understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all — including Muslims — might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you “paradise,” with your perpetual virgins and boys “like pearls”:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this:

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

“When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here’s another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here’s what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, “unbeliever,” “cursed by Allah,” and “deluded,” for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

“[. . .] Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Either Allah is not YHWH– contrary to Muhammad and Muslim’s claims — or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

If you don’t agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don’t defend Muhammad’s words and deeds

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he’s worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he’s a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he’s probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn’t agree with “sacralized” genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad’s words and deeds.

Actually, he’s not defended them, he’s only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his “faith” as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who “kill children and attack innocents.”

In obedience to Allah’s command and Muhammad’s example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

“The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of “you” (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of “you.” Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn’t like this, either:

You don’t understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all — including Muslims — might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you “paradise,” with your perpetual virgins and boys “like pearls”:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this:

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

“When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,’ so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here’s another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here’s what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, “unbeliever,” “cursed by Allah,” and “deluded,” for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

“[. . .] Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!

Either Allah is not YHWH– contrary to Muhammad and Muslim’s claims — or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there; They weren’t terrified, just absent

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The "Battle" of Tabuk, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency — discuss Muslims “make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere.”

The key words are “everyone” and “everywhere.”

The texts state clearly — as do I, because I report what those documents say — that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a “Person of the Book” — Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) — is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is “beautiful” though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad’s Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that “Terror”. You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don’t have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don’t own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don’t obliterate the “Palestinians,” despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That’s because Muslims don’t make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they’re weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it’s about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they’d do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet’s life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You’re talking about the “Battle” of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there.

They weren’t terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there; They weren’t terrified, just absent

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Dialogue with Muslims, Jihad, Mohamed Fadly, The "Battle" of Tabuk, The truth about Islam on July 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to Islam — and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency — discuss Muslims “make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere.”

The key words are “everyone” and “everywhere.”

The texts state clearly — as do I, because I report what those documents say — that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a “Person of the Book” — Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) — is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is “beautiful” though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad’s Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that “Terror”. You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don’t have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don’t own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don’t obliterate the “Palestinians,” despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That’s because Muslims don’t make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they’re weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it’s about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they’d do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet’s life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You’re talking about the “Battle” of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn’t there.

They weren’t terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

When someone’s "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:

the abrupt wording Mr “A” has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my “abrupt wording” is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam’s “sacred” texts — the written records of Allah’s commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad — always lead, since Mr. Fadly’s “deep belief-structure” includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that’s the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were “paranoid” and “jealous.”

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad’s own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly’s reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad’s words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah’s apostle heard someone say something he didn’t like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur’an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari’a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to — besides violence — name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a “butcher” (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine — at Allah’s ordaining! — is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak “nicely” about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here’s conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet’s commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly’s integrity?

Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist’s wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed’s contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything…

(B) Mr “A”s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral…

1. “Mr. Fadly’s ‘deep belief structure’ includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad…when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?”

2. “If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.”

When someone’s "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Dialogue with Muslims, False Muslim civility, Mohamed Fadly, The truth about Islam on July 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:

the abrupt wording Mr “A” has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my “abrupt wording” is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam’s “sacred” texts — the written records of Allah’s commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad — always lead, since Mr. Fadly’s “deep belief-structure” includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that’s the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were “paranoid” and “jealous.”

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad’s own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly’s reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad’s words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah’s apostle heard someone say something he didn’t like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur’an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari’a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to — besides violence — name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a “butcher” (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine — at Allah’s ordaining! — is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak “nicely” about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here’s conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet’s commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly’s integrity?

Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist’s wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed’s contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything…

(B) Mr “A”s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral…

1. “Mr. Fadly’s ‘deep belief structure’ includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad…when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?”

2. “If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I’ve written something false, I will retract it.”

Beware treasonous CAIR and their affiliates

In CAIR, Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, The truth about Islam on July 21, 2009 at 11:18 PM

A quick reminder from Jihad Watch regarding CAIR.

That any government official or media outlet does anything less than expose, shame, and denounce them publicly is incompetence bordering on malfeasance, or worse.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.

Besides CAIR and their buddies ISNA and MPAC (and coreligionists Jamaat ul-Fuqra, with compounds all over the United States, and the Islamic Thinkers Society), add to your watch-list:

Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Association of Muslims Social Scientists—North America (AMSS-NA)

Whichever politicians are responsible for importing (Somali) jihad into Minnesota

And Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has gone public in Chicago.

They’ll be conducting mandatory public re-education sessions soon at a community center near you.

I wonder, How much longer until Obama pronounces the shahada during a press conference or State of the Union?