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

Iranium - The Movie

Iran’s nuclear program presents a threat to international stability. Yet successive American administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—have misread the intentions and actions of the Iranian regime.

How dangerous is a nuclear Iran, even if it never detonates a weapon? What are the guiding principles of the Iranian leadership? To what lengths would the regime go to carry out its agenda? How far have Iran’s leaders already gone to fund the world’s most powerful terrorist organizations? And why have American leaders failed to gain the upper hand in relations with Iran during the past 30 years?

In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now face using rarely-before seen footage of Iranian leaders, and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on: Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

* Iranium documents the development of Iran’s nuclear threat, beginning with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the ideology installed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
* Iranium tracks Iran’s use of terror as a tool of policy, beginning with the 444 day seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, through Iran’s insurgent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Iranium details the brutal nature of the Iranian regime to its own citizens, and the Iranian people’s desire to rejoin the international community.
* Iranium outlines the various scenarios the greater Middle East and the Western world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold.

Understanding Taqiyya

Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah

by Warner MacKenzie

Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]

The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart. (See endnotes)

Like many Islamic practices, taqiyya was formed within the context of the culture of Arab tribalism, expansionary warfare, Bedouin raiding and inter-tribal conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse, confound and divide 'the enemy’.

A favoured tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; used to persuade the enemy that preparations for a raid were not aimed at them but at another tribe altogether. The fate in store for the deceived enemy target was an unexpected plunderous raid, enslavement of the women and death to the post-pubescent males.

The core foundation of hyper-masculine Arab culture is bound up in perceptions of "honour and shame". At all times, he (it's usually a male) must avoid having his face "blackened" by words or actions which are a slight upon, a challenge or affront to, his status in the family or broader social / tribal group. To be open, frank and forthright or to make self-damning admissions in his dealings (particularly with the infidel enemy) is to leave himself open and vulnerable to humiliating shame and to the subsequent disrespect from his peers. Tongues will wag in the bazaar’s coffee shops and rumours will rapidly spread that so-and-so has lost his "manliness" and status. In short, he is no longer worthy of deferential respect; to an Arab, this is worse than death itself.

The higher one is placed in the social order (or rather, on how important the individual perceives himself to be), the more imperative it becomes to strenuously avoid “loss of face”. The male's perceived loss of honour and status, must be redressed and his face "whitened", i.e. his honour regained and restored, at any cost; even to the extent of (as in the honour killing of daughters) murdering the person “responsible” for causing the initial humiliation. When taqiyya is used to avoid making an admission or concession it is simply an essential means of ensuring that ones honour and standing remain intact and untarnished. Blood feuds and vendettas, caused by an ancient humiliation of a long dead ancestor, can persist, fuelled and propelled by shame and honour, for generations. Muhammad, who is promoted as every Muslim’s exemplar, set the precedent for vengeful retaliation when he ordered the murder of those who mocked or satirised him and, as he was an Arab, caused him potential loss of face. [See link, “Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society”]

Outwitting:

Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of 'outwitting'. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.

The claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out of context”. The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past, disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.

Consider the following statement by Mr. Trad on the February 24 2006.

Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, told Reuters that Australian Muslims

agreed with Costello's (Australia’s Treasurer, Peter Costello) sentiments about being good, law abiding citizens.

"But to continually single out the Muslim community like this is very unhelpful, it's very divisive and it does stir up Islamophobia”,

Trad said.

"We're proud to be Australian and our religion strongly stipulates that if you make an oath, whether it's an oath of citizenship or any other oath, that you honour it, abide by it."

However, the Prophet Muhammad seems to have a different idea on the subject.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "

Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the 'the victims'. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and 'outwitting'….. Defence by offence.

Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:

Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) 'condemning' the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .

Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.

(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)

Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?

However, a direct question requiring a simple "YES" or "NO" reply is rarely forthcoming and is usually deflected by responding with a tangentially irrelevant rejoinder or, in an attempt to neutralise the original question, counter-challenging with another question such as “are you in favour of killing children in Iraq?”…..Touché and Checkmate!

Diversion, deflection and "tu quoque”:

Questions relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will usually be diverted by either making outrageously wild conspiracy claims “the CIA did it to give the U.S. an excuse to attack Muslims,… Mossad was the perpetrator… No Jews came to work at the World Trade Centre on September 11” etc. or by making an irrelevant counter reference to “the plight of the Palestinians”,.. Iraqis,.. colonialism,.. the crusades, or US foreign policy’s support for Israel” as the 'root causes' of terrorism.

Then, of course, there’s the ever popular, specious allegation that George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

Diversionary “tu quoque” response ploys usually start with the words “but” or “what about…?” in an attempt to turn, and transfer an equal culpability back on their interlocutor.

Demanding 'evidence':

Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as 'cognitive denial' by repetitive and persistent demands of 'where is the evidence!' and 'prove it!' whenever there is Muslim complicity in terrorist acts, evidence, which they know very well, for security or legal sub-judice restraints, can not be disclosed. If indeed the “evidence” were to be publicly presented, they would then move on to the familiar “prejudicial to the defendant receiving a fair trial--grounds for a mistrial” default position.

Tactical denial:

Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a subject under discussion can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will flatly deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, "It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist”; this semantic argument is purely a matter of definition, because radical Islamists don’t define their violent attacks as terrorism, but jihad. (i.e. holy war in the way of Allah) .Another popular assertion is that 'Islam forbids suicide', which is true, but by virtue once again of definition, irrelevant, because suicide bombings are regarded as “martyrdom operations” and are therefore not forbidden, but on the contrary, admirable and praiseworthy. Muslim spokesmen are also fond of using extreme hyperbole. Their refutations regularly include the word “percent”. e.g. “I am 150% certain that Jews orchestrated September 11”…. “I guarantee the accused is 200% innocent”.

Exploiting cognitive dissonance:

Islamic spokesmen regularly perplex and baffle interviewers and their audiences as they resort to double talk, 'clichés and platitudes' concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance (i.e. holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them) is therefore induced in viewers and readers as they attempt to mentally process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion despite the indisputable evidence before them of Islamist involvement in terrorist acts or criminal conduct.

The Islamic 'defence' script:

Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable duplicitous clichés concerning Islam in Europe, as do their counterparts in Australia and America. They appear to follow a well prepared script as they repeat "Islam is tolerant and peace loving”. In instances where they find themselves presented with, and cornered by, undeniable evidence that murderous radicals are indeed guilty as charged the spokesman will then fall back on the old chestnut that the culprits are only a “small minority” and not “true Muslims” anyway. Islamic spokeswomen use taqiyya when making the somewhat Orwellian claim that wearing the hijab, niqab, burqa etc. is “liberating” and “empowering”, and that, for reasons known only to them, these symbols of submissive exclusion offer them more freedom than Western women, thereby implying that women in Muslim countries are somehow 'freer' than women in the West. This ruse is designed to preclude further examination into the well documented inferior status of females in Islamic societies. Being put on the spot, and having to admit their true obedient and subservient status, would be embarrassing and therefore shame inducing so resorting to denial and exaggerative taqiyya is their only option.

There’s a common and oft repeated lie that “Islam” means peace”, it doesn’t, it translates as “submission” (to Allah).

Islamic falsehoods are echoed uncritically by Western politicians and other apologist dupes, for example "A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great and noble religion”. This timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the 'hijacking' of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic 'spokesman' in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has become an “accepted fact” repeated, ad nauseum, ever since.

The "Islam has been hijacked” myth is now a clichéd media and political reference which serves to deflect attention from the empirical proof of a fourteen hundred year continuity of the doctrinal, political and religious nature of Islamic jihad.

A related theme that “a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism” is utterly irrelevant as terrorism is always perpetrated by 'small minorities' or more accurately small groups or cells. Surveys consistently reveal that between 10-15% of all Muslims sympathise with the aims and methodology of this radical strain of Islam which has been “hijacked”. This means, that within an estimated world population of 1.2 billion Muslims, there are 120-180 million people prepared to fund, facilitate and in general, give moral and financial assistance to the jihadists….. “a small minority”?....you decide!

The indisputable truth is that there has been no “hijacking” of Islam. Islamic extremists can, and do, find ample inspiration, justification and encouragement for their violent ideology in the Quran and Hadith.

Taqiyya as impressions and perception management

Pathos and the tactical use of children:

Australian television viewers may recall that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and AFP (Australian Federal Police) frequently featured women in hijabs holding small children or a crying baby as they plaintively protested their husband's innocence and attested to his innate piety, decency and kind-hearted nature.

Trembling fingers and quavering voices pointed out damage, disruption and disarray to the family home. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying any involvement in, or knowledge of, radicalism .

Sheikh Hilali’s daughter, in a newspaper interview, played the taqiyya pathos card by claiming that, because the cold northern winter was imminent, her father was traveling to Lebanon to “hand deliver” thousands of blankets to “orphanages” and homeless victims of the war between Israel and Hizbollah.

In the same Israel /Hezbollah war, a photojournalist filmed a Lebanese man, strewing, for the purpose of emotional impact, the contents of a large cardboard box full of children’s stuffed toys amongst the wreckage and debris. This was obviously for the benefit of a large contingent of international TV film crews who were about to be taken on a guided tour of the bombed buildings later that morning.

Photos of carefully placed baby’s bibs and dummies (pacifiers) also appeared to be extraordinarily abundant on the internet, as were “staged” photos of a “body” being removed from the piles of collapsed concrete. One sequence of photos clearly shows the “body” in question, alive and well, walking around with his “rescuers” before and after the “retrieval” of his dusty, “lifeless body”. This is taqiyya by imagery!

The above are examples of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management and are designed to, dupe, play on the emotions of, and elicit sympathy from, the compassionate, unwitting public.

Taqiyya and the Deceptive definition of Jihad:

The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is “Jihad of the sword” and not the peaceful internal struggle for spiritual improvement as their spin-doctors would have us believe. Islamic fundamentalists consider jihad to be the sixth pillar of Islam, a binding duty and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state to become a better person is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means – HOLY WAR - against the unbelievers and it is in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals and other radical preachers use and refer to jihad.

The study of taqiyya is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Its use ranges from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of 'intelligence chatter' for the purpose of throwing national defense groups into confusion. Terrorist in captivity resort to taqiyya during interrogation. It is most frequently used by Muslim 'spokesmen' whilst intentionally making misleading public statements concerning Islam and terrorism.

The Arabs have a story which exemplifies subtle, semantic dissimulation (taqiyya) perfectly. Legend has it that Mohammed’s nephew, son-in-law and future Caliph, Ali, was sitting on a stool outside his dwelling when one of his allies ran red-faced and gasping into the village and hid in Ali’s home. Perceiving that the man was being pursued, Ali promptly got up and sat on another nearby stool. A few minutes later, a group of angry pursuers ran into the encampment and asked Ali if he had seen the man they were pursuing. Ali responded with the statement “AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS STOOL I HAVE SEEN NO ONE”

This story demonstrates why nothing an Islamist says can be taken at face value. Every statement and utterance needs to be thoroughly analyzed, or “unpacked”.

After yet another violent incident in Sydney, involving “Males of Middle-Easter Appearance”, a spokesman for the Muslim community appeared on a Sydney television evening newscast. In the brief soundbight he defensively declared “our religion teaches us that we must be kind to one another” ….and indeed it does, it simply depends on how we are to interpret the words “one another”, as these verses from the Quran demonstrate:

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. – (Q 48:25)

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers*. – (Q48:29)

So, was this spokesman lying?

Or was he telling the truth?

The answer is both, YES,… and NO! –Or, perhaps neither, and if you are confused by this apparent contradiction?,. You’re meant to be, because he was practising taqiyya; ……where the devil is ALWAYS in the detail.

* The precise identity of the “unbelievers” in the above references requires no further explanation.

Endnotes

1. Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.

When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

2. Bukhari Vol 3: 857 “Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba”:

That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

3. Bukhari Vol 4: 269 “Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

4. Bukhari Vol 5: 668 “Narrated Zahdam:

“When Abu Musa arrived (at Kufa as a governor) he honored this family of Jarm (by paying them a visit). I was sitting near to him, and he was eating chicken as his lunch, and there was a man sitting amongst the people. Abu Musa invited the man to the lunch, but the latter said, "I saw chickens (eating something (dirty) so I consider them unclean." Abu Musa said, "Come on! I saw the Prophet eating it (i.e. chicken)." The man said "I have taken an oath that I will not ea (chicken)" Abu Musa said." Come on! I will tell you about your oath. We, a group of Al-Ash'ariyin people went to the Prophet and asked him to give us something to ride, but the Prophet refused. Then we asked him for the second time to give us something to ride, but the Prophet took an oath that he would not give us anything to ride. After a while, some camels of booty were brought to the Prophet and he ordered that five camels be given to us. When we took those camels we said, "We have made the Prophet forget his oath, and we will not be successful after that." So I went to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle ! You took an oath that you would not give us anything to ride, but you have given us." He said, "Yes, for if I take an oath and later I see a better solution than that, I act on the later and gave the expiation of that oath"

5. Bukhari Vol 6: 138 Narrated Aisha:

“That her father (Abu Bakr) never broke his oath till Allah revealed the order of the legal expiation for oath. Abu Bakr said, "If I ever take an oath (to do something) and later find that to do something else is better, then I accept Allah's permission and do that which is better, (and do the legal expiation for my oath ) ".





Islam Watch

Islam Is a Trojan Horse

by Amil Imani

“Europe will be Muslim in a dozen years,” promises the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Guide (dictator) who is racing full-speed ahead to make as many bombs as possible with long-range missiles capable of delivering their payload anywhere in the world.

A couple of years ago, Yunis al-Astal, a leading Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament, declared on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV that "the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital," would soon be conquered by Islam and Rome become an advance post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas.”

The Islam hydra, with Saudi Arabia and the oil-money bloated Emirs and Sheiks of the Persian Gulf leading the Sunni charge from one side and the end-of-the-worlder bomb-seeking Shiite of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its proxies of Hamas, Lebanon Hezbollah and the Sadrists in Iraq closing from the other side will devour the free world.

Free people: are you listening?
Free people: do you care?
Free people: are you doing anything?

Disguised as religion, Islam has penetrated the democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with the barbarism of theocracy and Sharia. Islam’s multi-prong attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.

It is generally assumed that religion addresses issues of importance to daily life as well as matters that transcend it. Religion claims to exercise a civilizing influence by ordering the social life and promoting spirituality, as well as advancing an array of human virtues. Zoroaster, for instance, based his faith on the triad of goodly thoughts, goodly speech and goodly deeds. Moses framed the fundamentals of his faith in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus placed love at the core of his faith.

Yet, all is not well with religion. Purveyors of some religions advocate and promote ideas and practices that are harmful to the general well-being of mankind. It is imperative that a society institutes measures that guard against any and all organizations and ideologies, be they religious or otherwise that harms it.

As things stand now, our lives are governed by numerous boards at all levels of government, business, and community. All these boards are charged with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the people they serve. The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, must pass on the safety and quality of the food we eat; the Aviation Safety Board works to ensure safe flights; a local school board strives to create the environment that best serves the education and safety needs of the pupils. Every community and business of any size is served by boards.

There are, however, no oversight boards that would check against things that contaminate the mind and present a clear threat of unraveling our democracy’s social compact as we know and cherish it. Shouldn’t these dangers to our beliefs and way of life be monitored and combated or should they be given a pass to work their damage?

Presently, America is faced with a formidable enemy in a Trojan horse called Islam. This imminent danger makes it imperative to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and make the necessary changes to legally defeat Islam’s subversion of the democratic system.

Muslims in Western democracies, most of them escapees of the misery of Islamic countries, exhibit such incredible gall and audacity as to shamelessly demand that their benevolent hosts surrender their liberty and legalize and adopt the Sharia in their societies.

The Muslims’ presence in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden represents the tip of the sword of the Islamists protruding from the Trojan horse.

Once Sharia is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule, not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Sharia, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will and automatically have custody of the children.

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and some do so at significant costs to others.

Islam was birthed by primitives of some 1400 years ago and over time invaded much of the world at the point of the sword. Presently, Islamists, with their treasuries flush with petrodollars, are in a great position to realize their perennial dream of bringing the world under the rule of Muhammad’s Ummeh
.
On the one hand, Pakistan is already a nuclear power and the Islamic Republic of Iran aims to be one before very long. On the other hand, Muslim governments and wealthy Sheikhs are funding Islamic schools, centers and front organizations in the West to work from within at the unraveling of the non-Islamic democratic systems. In a parallel attack, the “Legal Islam” is exploiting every provision of the law in free societies to promote Islam and silence its critics through expensive legal shenanigans.

Islam is incompatible with democracy and subversive of the way of life that blesses this nation. It is imperative that we fight Islamofascism with the same determination that we fought other enemies of freedom such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is, therefore, imperative that the Constitution be revisited in such a manner that it no longer grants a pass to any cult simply calling itself a religion.

Bluntly speaking, no one can be a faithful Muslim and an American at the same time. As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine the democratic rule.

The hydra of Islam is lashing out by its jihadists, sophisticated and well-funded lawyers, terrorist groups, and terror-sponsoring governments who have the bomb and those that are racing non-stop to acquire the ultimate weapon. There is no time to waste. Steadfastly confronting Islam is the only way to defeat a fanatical enemy who does not believe in negotiation or compromise. For Islam, it is winner take all. And the way that permissive, oblivious, and well-meaning free societies are reacting does not bode well for liberty.

Islam must be recognized for what it is: a Trojan horse carrying in its belly what will assuredly slaughter all who stand everything that is precious to free people.

Islam is Fear

Islam incites its followers to commit violence!

by Bob Smith (bob311w9@yahoo.com)

Would you wear a T-shirt with a Mohammad cartoon printed on it?

You might in Montana. Don’t try it in Mecca.

Why?

Because, Islam trains a small number of its most devout believers it’s OK to kill. And Islamic killers have been trained to kill anyone who insults Allah and/or Mohammad.

In Montana you’d have a good chance none of these Islamic killers would see you.

In Mecca you wouldn’t last five minutes. One of Islam’s killers would come from out of nowhere and kill you. It is that simple.

You don’t believe me? Ask any Muslim!

This article is about these Islamic killers and the fear they generate.

Islamic society is caught up in a self-replicating, endless cycle of violence and fear, driven by its most devout believers. The cycle goes like this.

The Violence

Each generation’s most devout believers train a small percentage of the next generation’s most devout believers that it is OK to commit violence in the name of Islam. This becomes an endless cycle because, these devout believers are also instructed to kill anyone who tries to modify or stop the teaching of this violence.

The Fear:

Because
(1) these potential killers are trained everywhere within Islam and evenly distributed throughout the greater Islamic population (ummah) and...
(2) because they cannot be easily identified, it means any devout believer anywhere could be the next killer. Every Muslim is aware of this potential threat (fear) from these most devout believers. As a result all Muslims suffer from the same fear that drives the system.

The violence and fear created by these devout believers has a profound effect on Islam. It is at the core of what Islam has become. The violence/fear cycle is responsible for all the irregularities of Islamic society. It is why Muslims seem so pious (fear of a negative response from the most devout believers). It is why Muslims don’t leave the faith and why they don’t integrate when they emigrate. (The killers are trained to kill anyone who leaves the faith). It is why moderate Muslims never speak up (the killers are trained to kill anyone who questions the faith). It is why Muslims from Morocco to the Philippines riot over a handful of cartoons or a simple comment from the Pope. (The killers’ riot and others go along in order to look pious.)

This violence/fear cycle leaves a deep psychic scar on Muslim society and is responsible for what Islam is. Understanding this violence/fear system is the ultimate key to understanding Islam. No attempts to deal with Islamic violence will ever succeed unless they address the cause of this violence/fear cycle.

Describing this violence/fear system - the Islamic killers - and their cyclical nature is difficult for a number of reasons. First and foremost the violence/fear system is huge. Even though it is in plain sight, its sheer size and uniqueness makes it difficult to see. Additionally most Muslims (and non-Muslim apologists) deny the existence of these killers. Furthermore because these killers are widely and evenly distributed throughout Islamic society and usually never seen until they commit their acts of violence, it is difficult to connect these independent killers into any kind of Islamic cyclical system. Also because the system is cyclical, the starting point of the discussion is difficult to identify.

Let’s start by discussing the fear created by these killers.

Islamic Fear:

Islamic fear is easy to understand and feel if you know what to look for. Let’s look closely at two Islamic fear scenarios. The first is the case of the Mohammad cartoon T-shirt mentioned above. The second is the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam and the subsequent publication of the Mohammad cartoons.

The Mohammad Cartoon T-Shirt Scenario:

It is easy to understand how a person living in Montana could comfortably wear a Mohammad cartoon T-shirt. There are few, if any, Muslims in Montana. The chance of being spotted by one of these Islamic killers is slim. As a result, most people would not be intimidated. The Islamic fear factor in Montana – low.

But in Dearborn Michigan the situation is different. Dearborn has a fairly large Muslim population. Wearing a Mohammad cartoon T-shirt in Dearborn Michigan could have some risk. Somewhere in the Muslim community, a devout believer might take offence. And that offence might lead to violence. As a result, some people might be intimidated. Islamic fear factor in Dearborn – medium.

Now take the same Mohammad cartoon T-shirt scenario to an even larger Muslim population – say the Muslim section of London. The Muslim section of London has a population of over one million. You can be sure, somewhere in this community there are a number of Islamic killers. Considering the recent transit attack that killed over 50, and the failed bombing attempts, it is easy to imagine a deeply devout Muslim taking offence. As a result, a large percentage of people might be intimidated. Islamic fear factor in London – high.

Finally, let’s imagine the fear you would feel in a nearly 100% Muslim society. Imagine wearing the Mohammad cartoon T-shirt in Mecca, Cairo or Tehran. The fear would be over powering. The simple fact is – as I said above - you would not last five minutes. One of Islam’s killers would come from out of nowhere and kill you. As a result, most reasonable people would be intimidated. Islamic fear factor in Mecca, Cairo, or Tehran – exceptionally high.

Two notes:
(1) In a nearly all-Muslim population such as Mecca, Cairo or Tehran, the killer would, more than likely, walk away a free man. He would not be prosecuted for his act. At the local mosque he would be treated with respect for defending Islam.
(2) If you are a non-Muslim in Mecca you would be killed outright – non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca.

I have chosen this T-shirt scenario for two simple reasons. First, it is real. (I challenge anyone to prove otherwise with the following straightforward method. Simply wear a Mohammad cartoon T-shirt in a prominent place in Tehran. Make a short video and post it on YouTube.) Second, it is easy to understand. Montana – almost no Muslims – no Islamic fear. Mecca, Cairo and Tehran - almost all Muslims – exceptionally high Islamic fear. If you look at this Mohammad cartoon T-shirt scenario it becomes quite clear - the greater the percentage of Muslims in a given situation - the greater the Islamic fear factor.

The most important thing to remember about this Mohammad cartoon T-shirt discussion is this. What exactly is it that causes this fear? The answer is this. There is a real fear that some deeply devout Muslim believer will come from out of nowhere and kill you. (This is an important detail. Keep it in mind.)

The Murder of Theo Van Gogh and the Mohammad cartoons:

Now, let’s look at the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam and the subsequent reason for the publication of the Mohammad cartoons.

Theo Van Gogh had made a film that was critical of how Islam treats women. Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic killer named Mohammed Bouyeri. According to published reports, Mr. Bouyeri, at his trial told the court, Van Gogh had insulted Islam. "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith," Bouyeri said, "I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet."

Mr. Bouyeri in reality had done two things. First he had killed Theo Van Gogh. But even more importantly he had helped spread this same Islamic fear (the fear that some deeply devout Muslim believer will come from out of nowhere and kill you) throughout those parts of Western Europe where many Muslims (though only a minority of less than 10%) now live.

The Islamic fear spread by the murder of Van Gogh was part of the reason why Flemming Rose, the publisher of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, published the “Mohammad cartoons”.

Mr. Rose said in a Washington Post article February 19, 2006, he “commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. … Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”

Flemming Rose was describing a form of the Islamic fear factor. (The fear some deeply devout Muslim believer will come from out of nowhere and kill you.) Similar to what I point out in the T-shirt scenario above.

Islamic Fear by the numbers:

Now let’s look at this European Islamic fear reality as described by Flemming Rose and see if it can help us understand the fear inside a nearly 100% Muslim society.

Keep in mind that Muslims make up less than 10% of Western European population. Yet, even when Muslims only represent this small percentage of the general population, the potential presence of Islamic killers has had the effect, according to, Flemming Rose, of creating “self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”

Think of this reality. Western Europeans, who have grown up believing in free speech, living in their own free and open societies, are afraid to talk critically about Islam when Muslims make up less than 10% of the Western European population.

So now think of what it must be like inside a Muslim society where essentially 100% of the population is Muslim. The fear factor must be at least 10 times greater.

Imagine a nearly 100% Muslim society, a Muslim society where unseen religious killers, like Bouyeri, roam literally everywhere. Free expression and critical discussion of Islam within Muslim society is essentially shut off. Shut off by Islam’s dark force of fear. Shut off by the fear of the unseen religious killers.

This inability to talk critically about Islam inside Islamic society is one of the main reasons why Islam is stuck in its endless cycle of violence. Muslims can clearly see the violence surrounding them. But they know all too well, any critical discussion on the issue might draw the attention of a killer like Mohammed Bouyeri. As a result most Muslims live in fear of a system that keeps them quiet. Inside a system they have no control of.

So now we have a beginning idea of what the Islamic fear is, let’s move on and discuss who these Islamic killers are.

Who are the killers?

In order to start the discussion on the Islamic killers let’s look at a trait common to all religions. Religious believers come in all degrees of belief. Some are only marginal believers, and some are quite devout. For the sake of this discussion, let’s arrange a horizontal line called a “Belief Index” scale. On it, we can spread out the believers from least devout to most devout.

It goes like this. On the far left you have the least devout believers. Some of these have so little belief they might be considered secular. On the right side we find the most devout.

Let’s give the “belief index” scale numeric values from 1 to 10. Where 1 equals least devout and 10 equals most devout.

------------------------------Belief Index-----------------------------
Least Devout ------------------------------------------Most Devout
---- 1-----2-----3----- 4-----5----- 6-----7-----8-----9-----10 ---

Islamic killers come from the ranks of Islam’s most devout believers. On the “belief index” scale these believers fall somewhere in the 9.75 to 10 range. These believers, under the right combination of facts and situation would be willing to commit violence in the name of Islam.

These most devout believers have been religiously trained to believe numerous calls to violence found within Islamic teachings. The Koran, Hadith, and Sunnah, the foundational base of Islam, all have numerous calls to violence. Additionally, Islamic scholars, the mullah infrastructure, fatwas and societal norms support violence in the name of Islam. Islam’s most devout believers, accept as true, they have a God given authority to commit violence for the benefit of Islam. (Just as Mr. Bouyeri stated above.)

In actual numbers these most devout believers – those willing to commit violence in the name of Islam - represent most likely somewhere between 1/10th of 1% and 10% of the general population. That is between one out of a thousand and one out of ten.

The Muslim population is presently about 1.3 billion. That means the number of potential killers ranges from as little as 1.3 million to as many as 130 million. Even at the lowest estimate, the 1.3 million killers becomes a huge threat. At 130 million the threat is hard to imagine.

This wide variation in the number of potential killers in the general population is due to a number of factors. First, the majority of these killers never really “sign up” to be part of an Islamic force per se, so it is impossible to know how many there actually are. Additionally, most act out of a deep religious conviction that could change from day to day. Also, the structure of Islam has no central authority; so on any given day any devout believer might independently decide to fulfill his religious destiny. Furthermore, certain important Islamic issues (such as defending Islam from perceived threats – as in Iraq) might persuade a larger percentage of devout believers to fulfill their religious obligation.

To make matters worse, even though the numbers of these most devout believers – the ones willing to commit violence for Islam - might be limited, there is second group who augment and amplify the effect of these killers. These are the sympathizers and supporters of religious violence.

These sympathizers and supporters (8-9.75 on “belief index” chart) in reality act as the eyes and ears of the killers. Even though the sympathizers might not be willing to commit violence, they are willing to support it. They are also willing to talk about what they see. When the sympathizers and the most devout gather at the mosques or other social situations, they engage in small talk and conversation, which brings new data to the killer’s attention. This spreads the fear factor far and wide.

In sheer numbers, the combination of the sympathizers and the most devout, most likely make up about 20% of the general Muslim population. That means about one out of five individuals is either a killer or a sympathizer. Because their identities are transparent or unknown, the sympathizers’ presence adds to the fear factor discussed above.

(Imagine being Muslim in this scenario. Each time you get together with 5 or more friends you could statistically be with one of these devout killers or sympathizers. Would you be willing to talk candidly about issues of religion unless you were really “sure” about your friends?)

Because of the Islamic principle of taqiyya (deception in the furtherance of Islam) Muslims for the most part refuse to acknowledge this “group” of killers. Furthermore, the killers would kill anyone who would shed light on or criticize them. Non-Muslims usually do not acknowledge these killers because of some combination of ignorance and political correctness. Additionally the veil of religious legitimacy given to Islam further confuses the issue.

These killers can be independent, unorganized individuals like Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. These independent killers act like self-appointed “free agents”. Under Islamic law they are independently empowered to enforce Islamic sharia law. Because of their (1) “free agency”, (2) their ability to remain unnoticed until they act, (3) their even distribution within Islamic society, and (4) their sheer numbers - these “free agency” potential killers are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fear within Muslim society. When these “free agent’ killers do their work in the non-Muslim world, their actions are usually seen as criminal acts, unrelated to Islamic calls to violence.

Islam’s killers can also be organized into all sizes and types of groups - from two man cells to large organizations like al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations. These groups can act independently or in conjunction with other groups or individuals. Their actions require no central authority but may be coordinated with other groups. Any independent “free agent” can start his own organization. Size and reach is only limited by the organizational skills of the individuals involved. Any and all of these groups can help or receive help other groups. Muslim governments routinely provide clandestine support for many of these groups at the same time claiming these groups are “non-governmental actors.”

While most of the killers come from the extreme right side of the religious index chart, some of the less devout believers may succumb to what has been called “sudden jihadi syndrome”. That is, under the right set of circumstances, they could be swayed to commit violence.

Islam’s killers can act anonymously. Like the killers who leave bombs in public places or the motorcyclist tossing a grenade into a crowd. Other killers proudly come out and do their work in public, like Mohammed Bouyeri the killer of Van Gogh.

Some Islamic killers are often quite easy to see. They can routinely be found in the news. The 19 men on September 11 were Islamic killers. The endless stream of Iraqi and Afghani suicide bombers are Islamic killers. The men in London who bombed the transit system were Islamic killers. The murderers in Belson were part of the group.

In Thailand Islamic killers decapitate schoolgirls and gun down plantation workers. In the Philippines they bomb markets and ferries. In Spain they bombed the transit system. In Jordan they bomb weddings and gun down college professors. In Egypt they shoot tourists at the pyramids, bomb hotels and murder former president Anwar Sadat.

In India the killers have hit Mumbai a number of times and make life miserable in Kashmir. In Africa, Islam’s killers work in Kenya setting off bombs at the US embassy. In Sudan they are responsible for the killing in Darfur. In Lebanon they launch missiles into Israel. In Argentina they bombed the Israeli embassy.

In Western Europe the killers work within the Muslim ghettos making sure that Muslims don’t leave the faith. In France they bomb the subways and help incite the riots of 2006.

Even in the US, Islamic killers do their work. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood, John Allen Muhammad shot ten people in the Washington DC area. In Salt Lake City Sulejmen Talovic killed five people in a shopping mall. In Seattle Naveed Afzal Haq killed one and wounded four. At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, a recent graduate from Iran, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, drove his SUV into a crowd of students. In NJ six killers made plans to attack Fort Dix. (Note here. Conventional wisdom would have us believe these acts were all independent criminal acts. The reality is this. These acts were all part of what you should expect from Islam’s violent cyclical system.)

Any place on the face of the globe where you find Muslims you will also find Islam’s killers. Because these killers are relatively evenly dispersed throughout Islamic society, the more Muslims, the more killers.

The type of work these killers do depends on the percentage of Muslims in the society they are working in.

Inside Muslim society, their primary task is to keep Islam alive. They do this by killing anyone who:

(1) insults Allah or
(2) insults Mohammad or
(3) questions or tries to change Islam, or
(4) tries to leave the faith. (This is why Muslims seam so pious, don’t leave the faith and moderates don’t speak up.)

Additionally in Muslim society their task is to enhance adherence to and enforce Islamic Sharia law. In Afghanistan the killers blow up girls schools to enforce their ideal of a true Islamic state. In Egypt they killed Anwar Sadat because he had gone against Islamic law by trying to make peace with Israel.

In those places where Islamic society comes into contact with non-Muslim society, such as the situation now in Western Europe, one of their primary tasks is to make sure Muslims do not assimilate into their host society. (Again making sure that Islam is kept alive.) Their other tasks include terrorizing non-Muslims into conversion to Islam or acceptance of Islamic Sharia law. This terrorization can take the form of criminal behavior or, a constant low-grade gorilla war like conflict. Examples of the latter are Kashmir, the Balkans, Thailand, the Philippines, sub Sahara Africa, and now even Western Europe.

The killers are overwhelmingly young and male. Women have become a small number of recent killers. They come from all economic and educational strata. Poverty is not a cause, but does work to the advantage of devout believers looking for new “recruits”.

This system even finds a way to harness the destructive power of its young male social misfits. They can practice their destructive ways on non-Muslims in the form of rapes, muggings, and general mayhem and receive positive feedback from the most devout. This is why Western European jails have such a high percentage of Muslim inmates.

The sad reality about Islam’s killers is this; Because Islam makes a continuous claim of religious legitimacy, Islam, as a system, can rely on a huge, unpaid, unseen, unorganized, individually acting, empowered to act, widely distributed group of highly motivated devout believers who are willing to kill in order to keep Islam the way it is.

These devout believers in reality represent an unconventional unseen phantom army. An army where no one needs orders and each soldier knows exactly what to do. An army where no one is really in control. An army as deadly as any on earth.

How does the system continuously train the killers?

So now we know a bit about Islamic fear. We also have an idea of who some of the Islamic killers are. Let’s look at where the killers come from and some of the rules, regulations, social traditions and societal norms that create Islam’s self-replicating endless cycle of violence.

(This selection of rules, regulations and such, represents on a tiny fraction of the directives controlling Islam. In reality the Islamic system comes together like the “perfect storm”, with literally thousands of directives working to keep Islam the way it is. The directives I have chosen to mention here are some of the easiest to see and understand.)

Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a complete social system. (Numerous writers have called it a totalitarian system.) Islamic Sharia law includes rules for almost everything from birth to death. And a large portion of these rules work to perpetuate the Islam itself.

One key rule states; all children born to Muslims are automatically Muslim. This means all Muslims (except converts) have no say in their own participation in Islam. It also means that all parents have no say in whether or not their children are Muslims. It also insures a continuous crop of new potential devout believers – the next generation of Islamic killers.

Another important rule says “Islam is more important than family.” Because Islamic extended families are usually large, it is hard to imagine a family without either a deeply devout (potential killer) or a sympathizer. This means, within every extended family, the most religiously devout believers make sure the rest of the family is properly Islamic. It also means parents, will receive pressures from other family members making sure all children are exposed to Islamic dogma. As a result, all children receive Islamic training from birth on.

Once a child reaches school age the training becomes institutionalized. This starts at the lowest grades and continues throughout all of a child’s education. While not all schools are strictly Islamic, all schools in Islamic society require all students to study Islamic subjects.

In poorer Islamic countries where government run schools may not exist or may not be free, there are usually Islamic schools. Most of these Islamic schools are free. These schools teach a more intense Islamic curricula.

In addition there are also thousands of madrassas (20,000+ in Pakistan alone) teaching millions of students spread throughout Islam. These madrassas teach an unyielding form of Islam. It can include rote memorization of the Koran, and teaching of the Islamic passages calling on devout believers to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Within the educational system, the devout believers and sympathizers again make their presence felt. Anyone trying to moderate the teaching of Islamic materials, risks the wrath of an unseen killer.

By the time children become adults, a small percent become their own generation’s most devout believers, and about 20% become the sympathizers. Because this educational system is spread evenly throughout Islam, these devout believers and sympathizers are, as pointed out earlier, spread everywhere. And the violence/fear cycle continues.

(Note: It is bad enough that Muslims teach this hate inside their own societies, but immigrant Muslims teach the same hate under the noses of gullible western hosts. The London transit bombings of 2005 are a perfect example. I do not believe the young Islamic killers of this incident got their motivation inside the politically correct British educational system. The same thing can be said about the recent foiled June 06 terrorist plot in Canada. They did not learn their hatred of Canada inside the Canadian school system. Additionally, numerous investigative reports on this issue confirm this issue.)

Unfortunately, the training of children is only the beginning of a continuous process that assures everyone is properly Islamic. Within Islamic society, additional training and continuous reinforcement of Islamic dogma is literally everywhere.

Let’s look at some of the common beliefs and practices that are part of the cyclical system. Keep in mind. –
(1) All of these issues are hot issues that would draw attention of the unseen killers.
(2) Because of the fear of the unseen killers, no one ever questions any of these issues.

Five times a day Muslims are called to prayer. These prayer callings are a constant reminder to the most devout that it is their responsibility to ensure the purity of Islam. It is also a constant reminder to the least devout – don’t question Islam – potential killers are everywhere. These prayer calls help keep the fear quotient high.

In Muslim society, because everyone is aware of the unseen killer, virtually no one ever speaks up on any issues counter to Islam. This process takes place literally on every level of society. From market place to office, from grocery store to shoe shop, from camel race to car race, from the library to the garden center no one ever speaks ill of anything Islamic.

Newspapers, radios and televisions in Muslim societies continuously put forth stories that convey the proper Islamic perspective. Because of a wide potential audience, media reporters risk dealing with numerous potential unseen killers for even small errors of judgment. Hence none are willing to take the risk or even the slightest questioning of Islamic issues.

To make matters worse, the media also takes an active role in furthering Islamic dogma. Numerous independent organizations, which monitor Islamic media, report articles inciting Muslims to violence, and instilling hatred toward non-Muslims.

The following is a list of items, reinforced daily, no one ever questions – out of fear:

* The Koran is the “perfect word of God.” - This means it can’t be questioned or changed.

* Mohammad was the perfect human. - The fact he was a murderer, mugger, rapist, child pedophile and thief is ignored. The inability of Muslims to talk about this rationality is responsible for the erratic behavior Muslims sometimes exhibit.

* All men should strive to be like Mohammad. This leads devout Muslims to fanatical and erratic behavior.

* Lying in the furtherance of Islam is OK. – More reason for erratic behavior.

* Islam is the only true religion. All others are “not true.” – This belief is driven into the collective Muslim consciousness to such a high degree that even only marginal believers will agree.

* Islam includes a form of 1984 style double talk. Islam is the freedom of God. Democracy is the tyranny of man.

^ Muslim superiority. Muslims have a rightful place ahead of others. – Believed by large percentage of Muslim population. Even believed by only marginal believers.

* Non-Muslim inferiority. – Believed by large percentage of Muslim population. (Of course non-Muslims can change their position by converting to Islam.)

* All the world must be Muslim. God said it – it must be true.

* Any degradation of Islam, Mohammad, or the Koran is cause for death – at the hand of an unseen killer.

* Islam is perfect - No questions, No changes, Can’t quit— All are warned if they do any of these—they could be killed.

* Islam is more important than family.

* Family members kill members who stray from Islam.

* Family members, if they are non-believers, have nothing in common with you and should be abandoned or ignored.

* Killing and other crimes in the name of Islam are usually never punished.

* Trusted friends can only be Muslim. – This is one reason why Muslims don’t integrate when they emigrate to non-Muslims societies.

* All Muslims have obligation to spread or help spread Islam.

* If a Muslim cannot fight in jihad, Islamic law says he must aid the jihad in some way.

* Islam is a political entity - Islam is the state.

* This system elevates religion – Islam - to the ultimate pinnacle of Muslim consciousness.

* And then there is the Mosque/Mullah infrastructure.

The mosques and mullahs have an important role to play in the cyclical system. The mosques act as constant reminder of Islam’s presence with their call to prayer five times a day. The Mullahs act as a center point to most devout believers and sympathizers. The mullahs’ position is to reinforce Islamic dogma (including the items above) and encourage devout believers to ensure it is upheld.

One of Islam’s strangest phenomena is as follows. These mosques become dangerous intellectual cesspools of Islam think. Only the most devout believers work their way into leadership positions. These people are the most likely to believe Islamic calls to violence. The inability to rationalize anything about Islam is at its height inside the mosques. There are numerous cases of mullahs being murdered by their own co-religionists for having not been conservative enough.

Let’s look at how the fear, the killers, and the rules, create a complete cycle:

So, all of these items come together in a random fashion. The order is not important. Everyone gets indoctrinated as a child. Indoctrination continues in adults. Everyone always talks good of Islam. No one ever speaks badly of Islam. There is a continuous preaching of the flaws of the non-Muslim world. There is a consistent preaching of Islamic perfection.

Family members watch families. Friends watch friends. The mullahs keep stoking the cyclical system. The most deeply devout - along with the sympathizers - make sure all Muslims stay within the expected norm. Reasonable questions never get asked. Unreasonable beliefs are reinforced. And all the time an unseen army of devout killers makes sure all of this happens.

So here is the self-replicating cycle. The fear leads to no one questioning the system. No one questioning the system leads to de-facto acceptance on issues of Islam. Because all accept the system the, system must be right. Because believers vocalize praise for Islam, everyone only hears praise for Islam. No one ever hears anything bad about Islam. No one quits. No one questions. No one criticizes. All children become part of the system.

Over and over and over, like a stuck phonograph. The system does the same thing again and again. Just like a computer caught in a software endless loop. Islam, as a society, is trapped in a self-replicating cycle of violence and fear.

Why Now?

This cyclical system, as described, has been going on inside of Islam since the time of Mohammad. And like most systems, there is a control mechanism. The fear that drives Islam, directly responds to the amount of money available to the mullah/mosque infrastructure. Since the first oil embargo of the 70’s the amount of money pumped into Muslim oil producers has gone up hundreds of times. This has allowed the rich Muslim oil states to dump untold billions into the worldwide mullah/mosque infrastructure.

These monies have been used for a huge expansion of mosques throughout the Muslim world. This includes the thousands of new mosques built in Western societies. These monies have also been used to train and send out conservative mullahs throughout the world to preach the most conservative form of Islam.

When you step on the gas pedal of a car there is a slight lag time – about 1/4 second - and the car goes faster. When oil rich Muslim states pump monies into the mullah/mosque infrastructure there is a slight lag time – about 20-30 years – and your get more of the super devout.

So today we are reaping the harvest of violence grown from the seeds of hate and fear planted over the past 30 years.





Islam Fatal Flaw @ Blogspot