The Wrong Way to Fight Jihad

by Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, who is currently running for the U.S. Congress as a Republican candidate for Tennessee 5th Congressional District. The Primary vote comes on August 5 of this year, and the General Election is on November 4. When he ran before, in 2008, he received about 30% of the vote in Republican Primary. His website is kumarforcongress.com. Visit his blog at kumarforcongress.net.

FP: Vijay Kumar, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

You are one of the rare individuals running for office in America who is actually making the issue of Islamic Jihad a significant part of your campaign. Tell us your view of Islamic Jihad and the background you have to make you see it the way you do.

Kumar: I am a native of Hyderabad, India, which is where I first encountered the Muslim culture. We have a substantial number of Muslims there, a higher percentage than most other parts of India, and I began to observe things that troubled me. Later, I traveled a number of Islamic nations, and I lived in Iran from 1976 to 1979, during the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. I immigrated to the United States in 1979. All my life, I have been interested in political thought. During my travels, I came to realize that Islam is unlike any of the other world religions for a variety of reasons, and they summate to the Islamic ideology behind Jihad.

First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination.

Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.

Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.

In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.

All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.

FP: More dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined? Please explain this perspective.

Kumar: Nazism was in power for 15 years or so. Communism was in power for about 70 years. Today, Germany, Japan, and Russia, our former adversaries, are now our allies. Also, they are liberal democracies.

Nazism, Communism, and Islam are all three totalitarian ideologies. Communism and Nazism, though, lack a system of transcendental metaphysics, which Islam has. Nazism and Communism do not claim to be religions, and there is no threat of hell-fire to hold over its adherents. By contrast, Islam is a totalitarian form of governance that also claims to be a religion, and so has proved to be far more sustainable than any other form of aggressive totalitarianism.

The doctrine and politics of Universal Jihad have been assaulting the world for 1,400 years. It is exactly what launched the Christian Crusades, which were an attempt to save European civilization from the relentless onslaught and wholesale murder of invading Muslim forces.

Under Universal Jihad, non-Muslim civilizations have been annihilated. To mention just a few examples: Turkey was Christian; Iran was Zoroastrian; North Africa and the Middle East were predominantly Christian; Afghanistan and Central Asia were Buddhist; Pakistan was Hindu; Egypt was Coptic, orthodox Christian. All have fallen prey to invasion by Islam.

Today, Universal Jihad has been brought to the West–not just by overt violence, but through every strategy and tactic conceivable. Islam is not just the faith of another immigrant group; it is a complete political and paramilitary ideology. Political Islam is here to Islamize the Western nations, and that includes the United States.

So Universal Jihad is a permanent form of warfare against the infidels, their nation-states, and every non-Islamic form of government in the world. It has been Islam’s mandate for 1,400 years that other cultures must submit to it. Islam is devoted to an eternally-unchanging doctrine: it is obligated to conquer entire world.

No one needs to take my word for it. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi, a Pakistani, was arguably the most influential Muslim theologian and thinker of the 20th Century. He said the following point-blank:

“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program . . . [T]he objective of Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”

Any Muslim or apologist who claims otherwise, or who insists that Islam is just “a religion of peace” is not arguing against me: they are arguing against their own most revered leaders and experts on Islam and its true purpose. They are spreading Islamic propaganda that has no other purpose than to lull the infidel into a false sense of friendship and security.

Such propaganda is a primary and vitally important tool of Islam’s psychological warfare. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi also spelled out clearly how many different ways Universal Jihad is to be waged against ”the infidels”:

“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”

Unlike any other religion anywhere in the world, Islam’s clear, inarguable overarching purpose is Universal Jihad and global conquest, using any means. It is not waged just through terrorism and violent conflict. That is an extraordinarily naive view. Islam also uses psychological warfare, propaganda, covert operations, infiltration, and demographic saturation.

Universal Jihad exists and no amount liberal “political correctness” is going to wish it away. It is here on the soil of the United States right this minute. Its openly-declared goal is to destroy the United States as a system of government, to tear up our Constitution, and subject us all to Islamic totalitarianism under Sharia law.

FP: Let me ask you this: World War I was won in four years, World War II was won in six years. But the Israel/Palestine and the India/Pakistan conflicts have not resolved after 62 years. Why do you think?

Kumar: It’s simple: Muslims do not want peace, they want conquest. When they enter into an alleged “peace accord,” it is only a ploy to buy time to build their position for ultimate conquest. This is by their own creed: in Islam’s system of “ethics,” it is perfectly acceptable to lie to mere infidels.

In the case of Israel, the West has never been 100% behind Israeli sovereignty. Both the West and Israel have always only wanted to buy truce with the Islamic nations–never peace. It is an endless case of appeasement that puts Neville Chamberlain to shame.

As I have said before, and as history proves conclusively and invariably, Islam does not recognize pluralism, and Islam never wants a lasting peace with any non-Islamic people or states. When Muslims are in a relatively weak position they may offer truce–a temporary agreement–but never lasting peace. Even a cursory study of the treaties made by Muhammad proves at once that every Islamic treaty is merely another tactic toward ultimate conquest and domination. He set the standard for using treaties as a path to conquest.

Since then, Islam has been waging a relentless war for the past 1,400 years against every non-Muslim within their reach. In the last century, technological advances have extended the reach of the Muslim world considerably. Anybody who believes that it’s suddenly going to change–for any reason, through any amount of “diplomacy”–is either grossly uninformed or delusional.

Islamic imperialists have no desire at all for peaceful coexistence with Israel. They want to annihilate the “Zionist Entity.” By the way, during the last 60 years, Israel has absorbed more than a million Sephardic Jews from Arab countries. The Arab nations, on the other hand, refuse to absorb two million Palestinians. It’s a sad irony that two million Palestinians are considered so important while at the same time the suffering inflicted upon 50 million Kurdish people by Muslim nations goes almost unnoticed, unremarked.

Muslims do not recognize the right to existence of either Israel or India. They simply consider them roadblocks to world conquest that need to be removed, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes. Universal Jihad is infinite, endless war against the infidel. It has been formally, blatantly declared. To the Muslim, Jewish Israel and Hindu India are nothing more than inferior infidel nation-states that must be torn down and brought under Islamic control.

Remember this: Kashmir was a Hindu land continuously for 5,000 years. That’s over twice as long as the time that has passed since the birth of Christ. Islam went there as an imperial force, subjugated the local people, and conquered them, both politically and demographically, after 5,000 years of Hindu peace and civilization. Hence, today the Kashmiri Hindus are refugees in their own land. They have been reduced to a minority.

It is not Kashmir alone. Now Muslims of India wants Mughalstan, the Land of Mugal empire. They want to build an Islamic state from Pakistan to Bangladesh that includes the entirety of north India.

Every year, we are paying Islamic tribute to Pakistan, Egypt, and Palestinians in hopes of maintaining a tenuous truce. We are not really giving them “aid.” It is nothing but Islamic tribute to keep them at bay.

It’s really too simple for anyone to try to complicate it: Islam wants the entire world to submit. India and Israel are simply two obstacles or roadblocks to that goal. If they can get Israel and India to disappear from the face of earth, Islamic Umma–community, or “nation” in the larger sense–would be one unified imperialism from Morocco to Indonesia. Then it would be Europe’s turn to be annihilated.

FP: How do we best win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in your opinion?

Kumar: It can’t be overstated or said too many times that these are merely the current fronts of open conflict in Universal Jihad. In fact, it plays into the purposes of Universal Jihadists for the Western world to be fixated on isolated actions in various geographical locations, and thereby never see the bigger picture.

Universal Jihad is an ideology, a doctrine, that is fixed and unchanging. Waging battles of force and military action alone– especially on Islam’s home turf–and continuing to send troops out as reaction to the latest flare-ups or hot-spots in Islam’s endless war will never succeed. Never.

That’s also why the idea of a “War on Terror” is absurd. Terrorism is nothing more than one of the many technique and tactics used to advance Islam’s political ideology. On this subject of terrorism, groups like the Taliban are a bunch of obedient foot soldiers. They are what Karl Marx called the “lumpen-proletariat.” Allow me to direct your attention to the fact that we never see Islamic Imams–religious leaders–blowing themselves up. If martyrdom is such a high holy act, as Islam’s leaders preach, why aren’t they the ones strapping on the explosives? It’s a curious case of “do as I say, not as I do.”

Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan form the Axis of Universal Jihad. Unless and until we address the leaders of this Axis of Jihad, and the militaristic ideology of world domination that is their chief export, there is no possibility for peace in the future for humanity.

The real power behind Universal Jihad, in all of its manifestations, lies with the Pakistani ISI–the intelligence services of Pakistan–along with the Pakistani military, the Pakistani feudal elite, and the Islamic theological leaders. As a nation-state, Pakistan exists for two reasons: its pathological hatred of India and Hindus, and its parasitic dependence on American aid. Their leaders’ battle cry is always “Islam in danger” when they want to stoke the fires of Jihad, and of course Muslims are commanded by the Quran to go forth immediately when called to fight by their Islamic leaders.

Make no mistake: you can only solve the problem of Afghanistan when you address the problem of Pakistan, because Afghanistan is a client state of Pakistan. And you can only solve the problem of Pakistan when you address the problem of Saudi Arabia, because Pakistan is a client state of Saudi Arabia.

The Pakistanis are being sponsored by the hedonistic rulers of Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers are materialistic hedonists in their practice, but preach Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist doctrine to the world.

The bottom-line is this: The hedonist Saudi ruling elite form the epicenter for global terrorism, because it is they who fund all mosques and madrasas around the world–and that includes the United States.

They export oil and worldwide Islamic fundamentalist revolution.

That fundamentalist revolution is Universal Jihad, and its entire force comes solely from its ideology, an ideology that was born right in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the only real war, and the war that is winnable, is against the ideology that is the doctrine of Universal Jihad.

All three of these nations that make up the Axis of Jihad are ready for internal revolutions. We, the West, are not taking advantage of that situation.

In Iran, for example, a majority of the Iranian population is under 25 years old. They were born after the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. All of those young men and women are ready to be liberated from the totalitarianism that prevails at the hands of the Ayatollahs. We must appeal to their reason and their own human desire for freedom, liberty, and the right to free will.

Similarly, the Saudi regime is ready to collapse because of its own corrupt system. It is beginning to come under assault from Islamic fundamentalists for its hedonistic life style. Instead of kowtowing to the Saudis, we should be shining a bright light on the rampant hypocrisy.

FP: What do we do then to confront Jihad effectively?

Kumar: To reach a lasting solution to Universal Jihad, and to all the violence and terror and misery it causes throughout the world, the goal of the Western world should be to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize the Axis of Jihad. Anything short of that goal is like putting a band-aid on leprosy. For starters, we should do the following things:

1. Stop all immigration from the Axis of Jihad nations.

2. Stop paying Islamic tribute–so-called “aid”–to Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinians.

3. Support those moderate, secular, Muslims–there are many—against theological fundamentalists.

4. Build a United Front of Victims of Jihad. That is where Jew and Gentile, Saxon and Slav, Hindu and Buddhist, Norwegian and Nigerian, Catholic and Protestant, Evangelical and Orthodox, have common ground. All can unite to contain the extremist ideology, because all historically have been victims of Universal Jihad.

The United States and Israel have many allies and friends in this cause. All we have to do is look around.

Together, there are many ways we can fight the ideological war and win it with reason, and with appeal to the human quest for freedom. That is our strongest ally.

The first ideological hurdle to overcome is a clear recognition by our own leaders that the only real enemy is Universal Jihad and the three seats of its power: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It is an existential crisis for all non-Muslim nations, and for all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. This transcends all ethnic, cultural, religious, and political boundaries. Islamic imperialism draws no distinctions between “infidels.” Until we win this war, we are all targets for takeover.

FP: You mention immigration. Expand on your thoughts on demographics when it comes to Islam.

Kumar: Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of Islamic conquest. Before the expansionism of Islam, by force and infusion, Egypt, North Africa, and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria, Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia–now Iran–was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now.

The fatal flaw of every one of these nations that has fallen before Islamic invasion has been to open its arms to Islam, only to be stabbed in the back.

Islam primarily is a political and military doctrine, dedicated to world conquest, that wears the cloak of religion. The religious cloak is the Trojan Horse it uses to infiltrate the cultures and nations and civilizations it seeks to destroy and replace with Islamic totalitarianism.

Liberals and progressives in those target nation-states become the water-carriers for Islam’s demographic tactics, demanding that immigrant Muslims be granted all the “rights” they need to kill off the host country and take over. The irony is that the liberals who tout the Islamic cause are the first victims when Sharia takes its grip around the throat of a nation. But this appeal to liberals for sympathy and support is a key part of Islam’s ideological war.

Unrestrained legal and illegal immigration is tearing apart the very fabric of Europe and the United States and Canada. To survive, the West must ban immigration from all Muslim nations where Sharia is the law of the land. The only exceptions should be apostates and refugees from Islam. We must pass laws to denaturalize and deport all those advocates of Sharia from the West. Europe is already becoming Eurabia, and in Europe multiculturalism means submitting to Islamic supremacy.

FP: Your perspective on Islam’s dualistic ethics?

Kumar: The Quran, the Islamic holy book, has two sets of ethics. One set of ethics is for believers, the other set of ethics for the Kaffirs–their name for infidels, non-Muslims. The Quran has no good news for the infidel.

In Islam ethics are based upon a simple formula: “good” is whatever advances the cause of Islam, and “evil” is whatever resists the cause of Islam.

In Islam, all Muslims are brothers who should be kind and honest to each other. But Allah hates the infidel; Allah plots against the infidel, so Muslims should, too. Over 60% of the Quran is devoted to the Kaffir, and every mention is negative, demeaning, insulting, or hateful. It teaches war in the name of peace, hate in the name of love.

“Ethics” in Islam is an ideology of double standards, internally warring dichotomies, and endless contradictions. Even its own Imams war among themselves on what is correct “interpretation.” That is why it can be fought with reason and overcome.

FP: Let’s finish up by talking some more about what can be done. Expand on the best way that free peoples who want to remain free can defend themselves against Sharia and Islamic Jihad. What is the wrong way to do it? What are the consequences?

Kumar: The wrong way to do it is for the liberal media and politicians to keep inhaling the opiate of Islamic propaganda about “peace, peace, peace, peace be upon you,” and blowing that toxic smoke all over the world. If we don’t shake them out of their narcoleptic slumber, their own children, or their children’s children–and ours as well–are going to be bowing in submission before the tyranny of Islamic domination and Sharia law on our own soil.

Here’s how the liberals and progressives can help: they should start an organization like the Peace Corps, called Free Americans for Islamic Rehabilitation–F.A.I.R.–that sends volunteers to all Islamic nations to demand tolerance and equal rights in those nations for all other religions, for women, for minorities, and for homosexuals. Now there would be true liberalism in action. We’ll see how far they get putting their money where their mouth is in an Islamic nation.

Meanwhile, those of us who are already awake have got to energetically build a coalition of free nations and people around the globe, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, politics, or religion, and begin an information campaign that is more relentless and eternal than Universal Jihad. That sums up why I am running for Congress. I want to help build that coalition and help raise people’s awareness.

Our leaders have to come to grips with the fact that the seats of power of Universal Jihad are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These are the command centers. They are openly declared enemies of every principle our nation was founded upon. We must treat them as such, or Universal Jihad will continue unabated around the world, flaring up endlessly as we pour more money and innocent blood down the drain.

We can win this war, and we can win it decisively, but we have got to recognize and name the true enemies of mankind and freedom, and take effective action in combating the ideology that drives them. Right now, our own State Department and government agencies are spending enormous amounts of dollars and energy defending the very ideology that wants to wipe them and our whole form of government from the face of the earth!

This is why I say repeatedly, as a central part of my campaign, and why I fully believe that war against Universal Jihadists can be won globally in less than five years, that it can be won for less than one billion dollars, and that can be won without any more loss of American or Western lives.

There are two great forces at work in this war. One is the totalitarian ideology of Islamic theocracy, which permits of no separation of church and state, no true freedom of thought, freedom of speech, or equal rights under the law. The other is our own Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which proclaim and guarantee human freedom, sovereignty, dignity, and basic inalienable human rights.

These two ideologies are diametrically and irrevocably and irreconcilably opposed. It is a war of ideas. It is a war of philosophies. They are mutually exclusive. One of them is going to win over the other.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Which will it be?

FP: Vijay Kumar, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.



Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is Showdown With Evil. He can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Read More:
Front Page Magazine

Muhammad, Islam and Terrorism

by Silas

INTRODUCTION

The actions of Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world are well known. Islamic terrorists have bombed and destroyed buildings, planes, and vehicles. Additionally, during the last 20 years, Muslim terrorists have targeted and murdered tens of thousands of males, females, adults, and children. All over the world, in Kenya, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, France, South America and America, etc., Muslim terrorists have attacked and murdered those they felt were a threat to their aims. No one has been spared by these treacherous people.

Not surprisingly, examination of the websites that deal with terrorism show that about one half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature.

Why are these groups Islamic? What does the religion of Islam have to do with terrorism? Is there a link between the two? How do these groups justify murdering civilians based upon Islamic values? Are terrorism and murder actually allowed under Islam?

This article examines the basis for Islamic terrorism found within Islam. Starting with Muhammad and reviewing his teachings and his actions, and then visiting what other Muslims have taught, the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism will be examined.

NOTES

1) My comments or source references will be in [ ] type brackets. Other writers comments will be in the ( ) type brackets.

2) When I talk about terrorist actions, I am talking about motive and action. Crime exists in every society, and I am not including all crimes as examples of terrorism. I am focusing on the violent actions Muslims carry out in the name of Islam. For example, in Egypt some years ago, a Muslim man murdered an American woman. He killed her then robbed her. His motive was greed, not the furtherance of Islam. I would not call that an Islamic terrorist action. On the other hand, Muslims who carry out bombings, like the ones in Kenya and Tanzania - in which hundreds of innocents died, do so because they feel they are attacking their enemies and have Allah's sanction to do so. That is a terrorist action.

Additionally, there are many kinds of terrorists who engage in violence. There are political terrorists operating in South America, there are terrorists who murder doctors who perform abortion. There are Communist terrorists, capitalist terrorists, right wing terrorists, left wing terrorists, etc. In America, there are gangs who operate like terrorists. However, in this writing, I am focusing on terrorism based upon what Muhammad taught and did. I am focusing on Muslims, who for the sake of Islam, commit violent acts of terrorism. But I want all readers to know that I note that there are many non-Muslim terrorists operating in the world. Some of these other terrorists are every bit as vicious as Muslim terrorists.

3) A "terrorist" is defined as "one who engages in acts of terrorism". "Terrorism" is defined as "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

MUHAMMAD'S EARLY ACTIONS AND TEACHINGS

When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam he was not violent. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas - Islam - and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Some of Muhammad's followers were tortured. Things were so bad for him and his few followers that he sent many of them to Abyssinia [Ethiopia] for refuge. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Yathrib [Medina], where some members of two Arab tribes wanted Muhammad to be their prophet.

BEGINNING OF MUHAMMAD'S VIOLENCE

Just prior to Muhammad's leaving for Medina, he received a "revelation" allowing him to fight the Meccans. He knew that in Medina, he had a group of armed men who would support him. Furthermore, in Medina, would be more distant from the Meccans and their attempts to oppress or kill him. The following is from "The Life of Muhammad", page 212, by A. Guillaume, which is a rendering of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah", a biography of Muhammad written by an early Muslim scholar.

THE APOSTLE RECEIVES THE ORDER TO FIGHT

The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Muhammad and his followers from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a leading group of Meccans] had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly......[a]

The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's,", i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."

END OF QUOTE

Note: two passages from the Quran are referenced:
[a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and
[b] Sura 2:193]

Two critical points here:

1) in Mecca, where Muhammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the Meccan's religions. But it was just prior to his leaving for Medina, where he had a limited amount of armed men to support him, that he received this "revelation" and began to use violence to further his desires. Islamic history shows that as Muslims grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.

2) At the end of the quote, it says that Muslims are to fight those who do not worship Allah.

I also comment on Ibn Ishaq's work. When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Muhammad's departure, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Muhammad was finally given permission to fight back.

The problem with this is that Muhammad had been severely persecuted prior to this and that Muslims had been abused well before their departure. In other words, the quoted passage is apologetic work on Ibn Ishaq's part. Earlier, well before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were so bad for Muhammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek their help and protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 192]. The Taifians rejected and abused him. Things were so bad for Muhammad in Mecca, Muhammad had to beg three men for their protection [Guillaume, op cit, page 194].

In Mecca, Muhammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet and he was abused all the more. He never received any "revelations" to fight at that time.

Eventually, good fortune fell into Muhammad's lap and just as in Adolph Hitler's case, his persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh [Guillaume, op cit, page 205]. Now Muhammad knew he had an able and armed following. It was only when he had a following who could defend themselves, and his people were migrating north to Medina, and that he knew he was going to leave town, that suddenly "Allah" gave Muhammad his "revelation" to fight. Muhammad's circumstances changed, and Muhammad's Allah changed with them. Muhammad went from being only a "warner" to being an aggressor.

MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS

After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.

The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew who comes under your power".

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"

END OF QUOTE

This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

END OF QUOTE

This murder was committed upon Muhammad's command. Note that this Muslim murderer would have killed a family member at the drop of a hat. Muhammad was no better than a bigoted criminal boss, ordering his men to wantonly murder Jewish people. Hitler did this. Muhammad's command to murder Jews puts him in the same category as Hitler, and others who have persecuted Jews throughout history.

A quote from an Islamic scholar - Wensinck writes in his, "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina", page 113:

"It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad's most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and he attack upon Qurayzah. Allah's conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures."..... Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.".

This incident is also documented in Tabari's History, page 97 of volume 7.

This shows that Muhammad had unsuspecting people, those who even had good relations with Muslims, murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish. There was no justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Muhammad's followers. These actions were the work of Muhammad's terrorists committing murder.

The second terrorist incident involves another one of Muhammad's requests: this one for his men to murder an old Jewish man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years. Abu Afak had urged his fellow Medinans to question Muhammad.

From Guillaume, op cit., page 675:

SALIM B. UMAYR'S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

"Long have I lived but never have I seen

An assembly or collection of people

More faithful to their undertaking

And their allies when called upon

Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,

Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,

A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)

"Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.

Had you believed in glory or kingship

You would have followed Tubba

[NOTE: the Tubba was a ruler from Yemen who invaded that part of what is present Saudi Arabia: the Qaylites resisted him]

The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad![Muhammad]

By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!

A "hanif" gave you a thrust in the night saying

"Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!"

Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

END OF QUOTE

Additional information is found in the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (Book of the Major Classes) by Ibn Sa'd, Volume 2, page 32:

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 622 AD], 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.

END OF QUOTE

From a contemporary Muslim scholar - Ali Dashti's "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", page 100:

"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."

Prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:

"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax."

REVIEW

Here another man was murdered upon Muhammad's command. This man was 120 years old. He was no physical threat to Muhammad and he did not urge people to commit violent acts against Muhammad or the Muslims. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, there was no dialogue with Abu Afak; it was just an outright murder of another one of Muhammad's critics. Abu Afak urged the people who lived in Medina to doubt and leave Muhammad. Abu Afak found that Muhammad's sayings were strange and dictatorial. He chided the Arabs who put their faith in Muhammad. Muhammad heard of this and viewed the 120 year old man as a threat to his credibility, not to his life. Nowhere does it say that Abu Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or harm Muhammad. Yet for speaking his mind, for the benefit of his friends, this man was murdered by Muhammad.

The last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya's verse reveals something though:

"Though I knew whether it was man or jinn

Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)."

This statement displays that the Muslims knew exactly what they were doing. They knew it was cold-blooded murder that they were committing upon Muhammad's request. They wanted to keep it secret, they wanted to hide their evil deeds from the populace at large. That's why Umama said he wouldn't reveal who murdered Abu Afak.

When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. How would an Iraqi be treated if he spoke out about Saddam? Amnesty International just reported that over 1500 political prisoners were executed in Iraq last year.

Or take the Ayatollah Khomenni. His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.

The third incident involves Muhammad's request for his men to murder a woman named Asma b. Marwan.

Quoting from Guillaume, pages 675, 676.

UMAYR B. ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN

"She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

"I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit

and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.

You obey a stranger who is none of yours,

One not of Murad or Madhhij.

Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs

Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?

Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise

And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

Hassan b. Thabit answered her:

"Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma

Are inferior to B. al-Khazraj.

When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,

For death is coming.

She stirred up a man of glorious origin,

Noble in his going out and in his coming in.

Before midnight he dyed her in her blood

And incurred no guilt thereby."

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" Umayr b. 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 God 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 B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] 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 B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader", and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam."

The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin."

END OF QUOTE

And from Ibn Sa'd's, "Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" [op cit] volume 2, page 31.

"SARIYYAH OF UMAYR IBN ADI"

Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. 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 two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

END OF QUOTE

DISCUSSION

Let's sum this up and put it in perspective. Muhammad had al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit killed. This upset Abu Afak, so he spoke out against it. So, likewise, Muhammad had Abu Afak murdered. This offended Asma b. Marwan and she spoke out against that evil deed. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had said, he had her killed also. At first glance, this order to kill Asma might seem justifiable. Asma was calling for someone to kill Muhammad. It is understandable for Muhammad to be bothered by that.

But let's look deeper at the event and examine the context of Asma's relationship to her tribe.

1) First of all, Asma has seen Muhammad in action. She had seen him for what he was, a cold blooded murderer. Of course she spoke out against a murderer. Second, her tribe was not under Muhammad's rule. Perhaps they had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. Either way, this women was free to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and if Muhammad thought that she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her tribe's leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or dealt with the situation.

2) What's more noteworthy about this event is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said "Two goats won't butt their head about her", meaning no one will care about her death. (Well except her children and her family). Also note, that there were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her. The point is this: if no one really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her people also knew about Muhammad having Abu Afak murdered, and they didn't care about that either. Even in that light, no one would take her serious enough to listen to her urgings to murder Muhammad, who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words. The bottom line is that Asma b. Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Muhammad. She didn't scare him, she was not the leader of her tribe, and she had little or no influence. She was little more than a nuisance to him. And one wonders why Muhammad didn't kill her himself? It was always easier for Muhammad to have someone else do his killing.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Throughout the Middle East, there are Muslims who call America the Great Satan. These Muslims have called for the violent destruction of America. Frequently great crowds have gathered to chant "death to America, or death to one of its presidents." At times these people have even murdered Americans. Now, if America, or its president, were to use Muhammad's standards, they would engage in killing multitudes Muslims, because Muslims criticized America. America could justify its action by appealing to Muhammad’s standards of treating those who criticized him. But we know that the chanting of a crowd of hot-heads does not necessitate the use of violence against them. There are better ways to deal with critics and criticisms. Frequently, in the passion of youth, people do and say things they don't intend to act out, or are not able to carry out. Given time, people can change, and pursue peaceful dialog. But if one applied Muhammad's standards, American would be justified in bombing Tehran; Israel would be justified in wiping out hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims.

The only conclusion is that this lady troubled Muhammad and he wanted her silenced. Again, like Abu Afak, she was murdered in the night while she slept. What type of people murder those that sleep? Criminals!
Top of Page

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

1) What alarms me the most about Islam is its disposition to violence and use of violence as a standard of God's will. Umayr is a perfect example of this. Here is a Muslim man, a friend of Muhammad's, acting upon Muhammad's request and going into a woman's home under the cover of night. He comes upon the women, sleeping in her bed with her child, and murders her by plunging a sword through her body.

Afterwards, Muhammad tells the man that he has "helped God and his apostle". If Allah were really threatened by this woman, I think He could have killed her Himself, don't you? Does God need men to sneak around in the night and murder sleeping women?

2) What kind of religion is Islam really? Soon after Umayr murdered Asma, he went to her family and mocked them! He was laughing in their faces that he had murdered their mother and that they were powerless to do anything about it! Here is the quote again:

"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."

3) Finally, similar to observation #1, look at the power of Islam. Here is the quote:

"That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma..... The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam."

So then, the power of Islam is to go about and murder sleeping women in the night, and get away with it? Does "might make right" ring true in Islam? Is it "he who has the biggest sword is from Allah? The only people I know who respect that kind of power are criminals. Criminals who go out in the night and murder people while they sleep. We know that there are good and bad in all religions, but this case is different. This event reflects upon the man who started Islam: Islam is built upon Muhammad's words and deeds. We see here that Muhammad had a woman brutally murdered. She was killed because she spoke out against him, and she was merely a nuisance.

The fourth incident involves a Muslim man who murdered his own slave. From the Hadith of Abu Dawud [6]. Book 38, Number 4348:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: 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.

Here we see here that Muhammad allowed people to murder others just for insulting him. Here a slave women, who was used as a concubine by her Muslim master, paid for her criticism of Muhammad with her life. Note here that one man murdered his own slave, who was the mother of two of his children! A slave lady made fun of Muhammad and was brutally murdered and that action received Muhammad's sanction. Now then, was that slave a threat? Were Muslims going to leave Islam because of a slave women’s criticisms? Of course not! Muhammad could not long tolerate any personal criticism, he didn't want his credibility undermined, so he allowed his followers to murder anyone who expressed different views. Oh, by the way, before we move on, let me continue to quote from Abu Dawud. The note #3800 states:

"This shows that even if a Jew of any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet he will be killed. This is held by al-Laith, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Ishaq."

When Jesus said His followers had to hate their families, even their own lives to follow Him, everyone knew He meant it as a comparison to their love for Jesus. In addition, Jesus commanded people to honor their fathers and mothers and to love their enemies. But Muhammad allowed his followers even to murder members of their own families!

The fifth incident involves another Muslim man named Amr Umayya, who was sent out by Muhammad to murder Muhammad's enemy Abu Sufyan, (Guillaume, op cit, page 673). However, his assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep, and thereafter:

"as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck." p. 674.

Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He relates,

"He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me". p. 675.

So, Muhammad blessed one of his men who murdered a one-eyed shepherd while he slept. Another person who didn't want to follow Muhammad, another murder in Islam's name. Muhammad's trail of blood continued to grow.

The sixth incident involves the actions of Muslims who were sent out by Muhammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Fazara initially defeated the Muslims. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account from Guillaume, op cit, page 665:

"....and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old women, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly (Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.)

Here, Muhammad's companions went out and attacked people, took some prisoners, then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These men were so destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! When one reads of the horrible things the Serbs have done, one is offended. But I wonder how many Muslims know that Muhammad's companions did such things. Muhammad was every bit as brutal as the Nazis.

The 7th incident involves another slave woman who was murdered, upon Muhammad's command because she had mocked Muhammad some time earlier. From Guillaume, op cit, page 550, 551:

"Another [to be killed] was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him."

Let's stop here and examine this paragraph. Muhammad ordered that a man who apostatized, and his two slave girls, be killed. Khatal was ordered to be killed not because he killed his male slave, a Muslim, but because he apostatized. Islamic law does not allow a Muslim man to be put to death for killing a slave. Muhammad also ordered two slave girls to be killed for singing satirical songs about him. They sung satirical songs about Muhammad probably at least a year or more earlier. Now, after Muhammad conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay those slave girls back. These slave girls were not threats to Islam, or to the new Islamic state. They were only slave girls. They were ordered to be executed only because they sang a silly song about Muhammad. Page 551 finishes the story of the slave girls:

"As for Ibn Khatal's two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her."

Needless to say, if the second slave girl didn't ask for "immunity", Muhammad would have had her murdered also. How do you feel when you hear of Serbs murdering Bosnian and Kosovo women? Yet Muhammad did exactly that - he had women murdered just for making fun of him. If a Muslim justified Muhammad's murder of slave girls, then by their standards, they have to justify what the Serbs did in Kosovo.
Top of Page

SUMMARY

We see that Muhammad had many people murdered. By request, by command, by implication, Muhammad had many people murdered, many killed while they slept. There were no trials, no judgments, no dialog, if you insulted Muhammad, if you doubted his credibility and if you spoke out, you were murdered. Men and women, young and old, all were killed because of Muhammad's hatred. Here is a summary of the seven terroristic murders committed at Muhammad's requests or efforts:

1) Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish man who was murdered because he was simply a Jew
2) Abu Afak, a 120 year old man, murdered while he slept
3) Asma Marwan, mother of 5 children, murdered while she slept
4) A slave women, mother of two children, murdered while she slept
5) A one-eyed shepherd, murdered while he slept
6) A very old women, literally ripped in half by Muslims who captured her on a raid.
7) A slave girl, who was murdered because she poked fun at Muhammad.

I will add that there were many more people who suffered a similar fate. I choose not to list them here because of space limitations. Make no mistake about it: Muhammad was a terrorist. Today's Muslim terrorists follow his actions. Like prophet, like followers; today's Mohammadan terrorists commit their acts based upon what Muhammad did.
Top of Page

QUESTIONS

1) What kind of man was Muhammad who would have peaceful Jews, a 120 year old man, a mother of 5 children, slave girls, etc. murdered because they disagreed or criticized him?

2) Is it right to murder others simply because they disagree with you, or even mock you?
Why couldn't Muhammad handle some criticism? Do people who disagree with others deserve to be murdered, in cold blood, in the night, secretly, while they sleep? Don't corrupt politicians or organized criminals do that?

3) Isn't this type of action similar to the actions of Muslim terrorists today?
They operate secretly, they kill unsuspecting people, they murder without law or justice. They kill those who merely disagree or even verbally oppose them.

4) Are these "Islamic" values compatible with our values in America?
Should Americans who criticize Muhammad expect to have their freedom of speech threatened, or should they live in fear of being killed for speaking their mind? Remember, Muslims in America have already begun to murder Americans for the sake of Islam.

5) If Muhammad put this system in place, i.e., the murdering of people who disagree and criticize him, how does it affect Islamic society? How does it relate to what we have seen done in Islamic societies such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Sudan? The end result has been brutal massacres, murders, tortures, etc. This is all traceable to Muhammad's actions.

6) If Muhammad were alive today, and you knew about the people he murdered, what would you say?
Shouldn’t we want this type of criminal to pay for his crimes, put in jail for life, or possibly even forfeiting his life for his capital crimes? Who feels sympathy for a white racist who is sentenced to death for dragging a black man behind an automobile and killing him? Yet Muhammad tortured a man then murdered him, just to get money. Muslims are called to follow Muhammad's "lifestyle" and Islamic law. Murdering others, in Allah's name, is part of that style and system.

7) Don't we have the right to evaluate Muhammad’s actions according to decent standards of morality?
He claimed to be the last prophet of God. He claimed his system was God's final revelation for all humankind. So by any common moral standards, wasn’t what Muhammad did was terribly evil? If normal human standards of morality are far better than his behavioral standard, then how does the morality of this self-asserted "prophethood" rate? Why do our moral standards eclipse those of God's alleged final prophet?

8) Doesn't this sound exactly like what the Serbs are doing?
We see the Serbs committing some of the most brutal atrocities in history. Yet Muhammad did the same things. The Serbs have murdered the Kosovars simply because they were not Serbs. This is exactly what Muhammad ordered when he urged his follower to murder the Jews. We see the Serbs taking the possessions of the Kosovars. This is exactly what Muhammad did to the tribes of people he attacked. We see the Serbs raping Kosovan women. Muhammad allowed his soldiers to rape female slaves. If Muhammad were alive today, we'd call him a Serb or a Nazi!

9) Why wouldn't Muhammad murder her himself? Why is it that every time Muhammad wanted someone killed, he always got someone else to do his killing?

10) Look at this dark side of Islam. This is the Islam Muhammad practiced. When the founder of a religion has to have powerless women murdered in the night for opposing him, how can that religion be described?

11) Where are "human rights" now in Islam? If Muhammad denied freedom of speech to others, how does that reflect upon Islam and what we see occurring in the Islamic world today?

12) Why is it that the more fundamental a Muslim nation becomes, the more oppressive it becomes toward all basic human rights? Take the Taliban for instance. They have been great fighters. But once in power, they began to oppress the populace, and especially Afghan women. Initially, they said it was only temporary, but it has continued to get worse, not better for Afghani women. The RAWA organization has a website that exposes their oppression.











Muhammadanism.Org

Sources of the Qur'an

Muslim believes with all of his heart that the rituals and doctrines of Islam are entirely heavenly in origin and thus cannot have any earthly sources.

Middle East scholars have demonstrated beyond all doubt that every ritual and belief in Islam can be traced back to pre-Islamic Arabian culture. In other words Muhammad did not preach anything new. Everything he taught had been believed and practiced in Arabia long before he was ever born.

Jewish Sources of the Qur'an

Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works that already been written in 200 CE.

This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229; Jomier, The Bible and the Quran -- Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13).

1. The source of Sura 3:35-37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion's James the Lesser.

2. The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham.

3. The source of Sura 27:17-44 is the Second Targum of Esther.

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

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

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

7. The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod's fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51-71; 29:16, 17; 37:97,98).
It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time. Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran
who did not live at the same time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sabean Sources of the Qur'an

Muhammad incorporated parts of the religion of the Sabeans into Islam (Encyclopedia off Islam (ed. Eliade), pp. 303ff.; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pp. 1:219ff.).

He adopted such pagan rituals as:

1. Worshiping at Kabah
2. Praying five times a day towards Mecca (Muhammad chose five of the same times the Sabeans prayed).
3. Fasting for part of a day for an entire month.
4. The Crescent Moon Symbol- The symbol of the worship of the moon god in Arabian culture and elsewhere throughout the Middle East was the crescent moon.
5. Allah - The Quraysh tribe into which Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon god, and especially to Allah's three daughters who were viewed as intercessors between the people and Allah.
6. Astral Religions - In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars such as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah! (Islam, p. 7).

Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called "the daughters of Allah." These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.

Eastern Religious Sources

Muhammad derived some of his ideas from Eastern religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. All of these things were in existence long before Muhammad was born.

The Quran records the following things which are ascribed to Muhammad but in reality were previously known stories now attributed to him for the first time (Sell, Studies, pp. 219ff.).

1. The story of a flying trip through seven heavens.
2. The Houries of paradise.
3. Azazil and other spirits coming up from Hades.
4. The "light" of Muhammad.
5. The bridge of Sirat.
6. Paradise with its wine, women, and song (from the Persians).
7. The king of death.
8. The peacock story.

The Mercy of Allah

Qur'an 13:13 - "He flingeth the thunderbolts and striketh whomsoever He will."
Qur'an 16:70 - "Some are sent back by Us to a feeble age, so that they know nothing after having known much."
Qur'an 21:11 - "How many were the populations We utterly destroyed because of their iniquities."
Qur'an 64:11 - "No kind of calamity can occur, except by the permission of Allah."
Qur'an 2:10 - "In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is their Penalty."
Qur'an 2:20 - "Allah can take away the faculty of hearing and seeing; for Allah hath power over all things."
Qur'an 2:65 - "To those who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath, We said to them: "Be ye apes despised and rejected."
Qur'an 2:213 - "Allah guides whom He will to a path that is straight."
Qur'an 2:253 - "If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations should not have fought among each other (over religion)."
Qur'an 2:269 - "He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth."
Qur'an 2:284 - "Allah forgiveth whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases."
Qur'an 3:6 - "He it is Who shapes you in the womb as He pleases."
Qur'an 3:47 - "Allah createth what He willeth."
Qur'an 4:89 - "If they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them."
Qur'an 5:33 - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messengers ' is execution or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides."
Qur'an 5:38 - "As to the thief, male or female cut off his or her hands."
Qur'an 5:45 - "We ordained for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, wounds equal for equal."
Qur'an 5:60 - "Those who incurred the wrath of Allah ' He transformed into apes and swine."
Qur'an 6:65 - "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below."
Qur'an 6:95 - "And He is the One to cause the dead to issue forth from the living."
Qur'an 6:137 - "If Allah had willed, they would not have done so. (slaughtered their children)."
Qur'an 6:165 - "It is He Who hath made you ' inheritors of the earth: He hath raised you on ranks, some above others: that He may try you in the gifts He hath given you."
Qur'an 8:12 - "Allah called on the angels to "smite all their finger tips off them. (the unbelievers)"
Qur'an 10:88 - "And send hardness to their hearts so they will not believe until they see the grievous Penalty."
Qur'an 10:99 - "If it had been the Lord's Will they would have all believed."
Qur'an 13:8 - "Allah doth know what every female womb doth bear."
Qur'an 13:26 - "Allah doth ' grant ' the sustenance to whom so He pleases."
Qur'an 14:7 - "But if ye show ingratitude, Truly My Punishment is terrible indeed."
Qur'an 17:13 - "Every man's fate We have fastened on his neck."
Qur'an 17:46 - "And We put coverings over their hearts lest they should understand the Qur'an."
Qur'an 17:68 - "Do you feel secure ' that He will not send against you a violent tornado."
Qur'an 17:69 - or that "He will not send a heavy gale to drown you at sea because of your ingratitude."
Qur'an 19:86 - "And We shall drive the sinners to Hell, like thirsty cattle driven to water."
Qur'an 21:15 - "And that cry of theirs ceased not, till We made them as a field that is mown, as ashes silent and quenched."
Qur'an 23:41 - "Then the earthquake overtook them with justice as We made them as rubbish of dead leaves - so away with the people who do wrong."
Qur'an 24:2 - "The woman and the man guilty of zina (fornication) flog each of them with a hundred lashes ' and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment."
Qur'an 28:40 - "So We seized him and his hosts and We flung them into the sea."
Qur'an 28:81 - "Then We caused the earth to swallow him (Qarun) up and his house '"
Qur'an 30:34 - "Then enjoy your brief day, but soon ye will know your folly."
Qur'an 35:45 - "If Allah were to punish men according to what they deserve He would not leave on earth a single living creature."
Qur'an 40:5 - "It was I that seized them. And how terrible was My Requital."
Qur'an 40:85 - "And even thus did the rejecters of Allah perish utterly."
Qur'an 42:49 - "He leaves barren (of children) whom He will."
Qur'an 44:16 - "One day We shall seize you with a mighty onslaught: We will indeed then exact Retribution."
Qur'an 47:4 - "When ye meet the Unbelievers in jihad smite at their necks."
Qur'an 47:23 - "Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for He has made them deaf and blinded their sight."
Qur'an 47:34 - "Those ' who die rejecting Allah, Allah will not forgive them."
Qur'an 48:17 - "And he who turns back (in the jihad) Allah will punish him with a grievous Penalty."
Qur'an 56:55 - "Indeed ye shall drink (the Boiling Water) like diseased camels raging with thirst."
Qur'an 82:8 - "In whatever form He wills does He put thee together."

The source counted 817 cruel/ ambivalent verses in the Qur'an. Many of them are similar to each other.
Fundamentalists literally believe in the above scripture. Modernists must seriously consider the Reformation of the Qur'an.

We fear that such negative attitudes towards mankind in the Qur'an can affect men who are dispossessed, damaged or perhaps inadequate, to hold life in low esteem and engage in the terrible acts which presently characterize Islam, many in the name of Islam.

Muhammad and Tolerance of Other Religions:

Qur'an 43:66 - "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims."
Qur'an 48:29 - "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other."
Qur'an 60:4 - "Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone."
Qur'an 8:39 & 2:193 - "Make war on them until idolatory does not exist any longer and Allah's religion reigns universally."
Qur'an 9:123 - "Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you."
Qur'an 9:5 - "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, capture and besiege them and prepare for them every kind of ambush."
Qur'an 5:72-73 - "For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode ' a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer."
Hadith Sahih Muslim 43:63 - "You (the Jews) should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle and I wish to expel you from this land (Arabia)



You Might Also Like:

The Ancient Allah

Allah - The Moon G-d

Allah - The Moon God

Astral Religions:

In Arabia, the sun G-d was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male G-d. As has been pointed out by many scholars such as Alfred Guilluame, the moon G-d was called by various names, one of which was Allah! (Islam, p. 7).

The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon G-d, in addition to other titles that could be given to him. Allah, the moon G-d, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called "the daughters of Allah." These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.

The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" G-ds. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities."Along with Allah, however, they worshipped a host of lesser G-ds and "daughters of Al-lah" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61)"



The Crescent Moon Symbol:

The symbol of the worship of the moon G-d in Arabian culture and elsewhere throughout the Middle East was the crescent moon. Archaeologists have dug up numerous statues and hieroglyphic inscriptions in which a crescent moon was seated on top of the head of the deity to symbolize the worship of the moon G-d. In the same fashion as the sun is pictured above the Egyptian deity, while the moon was generally worshiped as a female deity in the Ancient Near East, the Arabs viewed it as a male deity.



The G-ds of the Quraysh Tribe:

The Quraysh tribe's Allah corresponded to the god Bel, which is another name of the Assyrio-Babylonian gods En-lil and Marduk. It has the same meaning as Baal. The Arabic today translates the word Allah as "G-d". Muhammad's father's name was "Abd-Allah" (or slave of Allah).

The Quraysh tribe into which Muhammad was born was particularly devoted to Allah, the moon G-d, and especially to Allah's three daughters who were viewed as intercessors between the people and Allah. The worship of the three goddesses, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, played a significant role in the worship at the Kabah in Mecca. The first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah.

The literal Arabic name of Muhammad's father was Abd-Allah. His uncle's name was Obied-Allah. These names reveal the personal devotion that Muhammad's pagan family had to the worship of Allah, the moon G-d.

When Muhammad says there is only one G-d - Allah - now you have an idea what his background/ thinking was...

Summary:

In short, this Allah is not the God of the Jews or the Christians. Allah is in fact a Meccan Moon god idol. To confess that Allah is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses is to deny Jehovah G-d!

Allah was nothing more then a moon G-d, and your Mohammed was a pathetic excuse for a man. He started the cult of pedophilia, murder and theft! He was an immoral, criminal, and violent! Mohammed was a thief, liar, assassin, mass murderer, terrorist, warmonger, and an unrestrained sexual pervert engaged in pedophilia, incest, and rape. He authorized deception, assassinations, torture, slavery, and genocide.



You Might Also Like:

The Ancient Allah

The Mercy of Allah

Islam's Useful Idiots

To quote Sir Winston Churchill:
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. "

The problem for us is these back-bending appeasers of muslims are enabling the crocodile/Islam to eat us too.





Islam's Useful Idiots:

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also live in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naïve, they are foolish, they are ignorant of facts, they are unrealistically idealistic, they are dreamers and they are willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy. They are anarchists, they are aspiring revolutionaries, they are neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population. Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions of which they disapprove.

But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and State are one and the same—the mosque is the State. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha, leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia.

The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheiks purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.

Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pall over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.




The Opinionator