Quantcast

«

»

Sep 14 2013

I Get Mail – Pat Condell and Bigotry and Dan

This one’s from Dan who posted a comment in support of Pat Condell’s stance on Syria.

Pat Condell’s stance on Muslims has gone “fights Islam” to “bandies bullshit”. There is no other words for that and the problem is we as atheists lose our humanity when we agree with such a notion.

We don’t have to help our fellow man.

But if you don’t then no one else will. Jesus and his league of super best friends don’t help humans no matter how much we claim they do. It’s bog standard, mundane humans. And for the most part our lives are short, brutish and ugly. But we have created a heaven of sorts at our feet. We find things that make us happy whether it be a nice meal or love or the smell of fresh cut pine. Or cat pictures.

Whatever it is we try and make heaven at our feet. But for many that is impossible. They live in hell. And for them we need compassion. Of all the virtues we associate with “being human” compassion is the one we link most to humanity.

Pat unfortunately seems to let Atheism take a front seat to that. And I am afraid Dan hasn’t noticed his prior videos including one on the So Called 9/11 Mosque which was no where near the site of 9/11 and wasn’t a Mosque but a community centre. But no, Pat was brave and fought against the non-existent plan to build a Mosque at “Ground Zero” as it were. Never mind the facts.

And it is in fact that we must defend my stance.

“Would you like to know what WHOPPING amount of people have been given Asylum?

8000.

Not 2,000,000. A number 0.4% of what Pat Condell flogged.”

You’re arguing with a position Pat Condell doesn’t hold.

It’s pretty clear he means that, in theory, 2 million Syrian refugees could be allowed into Sweden. 

In theory? Still No.

Sweden’s position is EXPLICITLY clear and has been explicitly clear. Sweden has accepted 15,000 refugees from Syria to date. Roughly 7000 had already received unlimited leave to remain in Sweden as they possessed skills and job qualifications that benefitted the Swedish Economy.

The remainder were in limbo. After the deployment of Chemical Weaponry, Sweden altered the status of refugees to high risk and so gave the remaining 8000 complete asylum.  Sweden has a habit of such causes including giving asylum to Taslima. In fact she holds Swedish Citizenship should India decide to “send her home”.

Good on Sweden.

However this information that Sweden has given asylum to existing Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Sweden is from Reuters. In fact the official Swedish stance seems to be “All Refugees Officially Taken By Sweden Are Given Leave To Remain and Asylum”.

Not 2 million. Want to know something? Roughly 2 million of those refugees are taken in by neighbouring nations. The Inhuman Muslims we so decry have shown a greater moral stance and indeed greater humanity than Pat.

And remember more people read and support Pat than do me. If we were to try and get people to read this they would simply ignore it.

So let’s get this absolutely straight. Nowhere has Sweden Said “TAKING ALL SYRIANS! LOL K THANX BAI”, it’s said that 15,000 Syrians who it has taken as refugees will be given asylum as they cannot see a possible return for them. Should these Syrians wish to go back they can do so or if they chose to become Swedes they can do so too. The world is their Oyster unlike the Syrians who were back in Syria.

Oh these 2 million refugees COULD be allowed into Sweden. Or they COULD be sent to India or to Spain or to the USA or to Canada or made into a giant human pyramid and then set on fire because if we are living in fear of improbable things then we may as well not draw any lines. This entire rumour is based on hearsay and gossip and people fearmongering and preying on for want of a better word… Islamophobia.

Just so we understand the foundation is non-existent for this argument. No Reputable News Source seems to think 2 million refugees have been accepted by Sweden which means that Pat and indeed Dan both subscribe to the alarmist group of news sources that seem to think that a day without a scare about something actually harmless is a day wasted. Think of this news source as the sort that goes “TV’s for Convicts? What next binoculars and free candy for paedophiles?”.

Not going to happen, but it does show how utterly reckless the Swedish government is that they would open the door to this. Just to put things into perspective, Sweden has a population of 9.5 million people. A theoretical introduction of 2 million more people (raised in a radically different culture no less) would be a disaster for the country. Swedish culture as you know it would be in danger. If you think this would be a non-issue, you’re naive. Borders were made for a reason.

No it would not.

Swedish youths aren’t suddenly going to wear disdashas and keffiyah and go “Where my arabs at?”. Sweden’s taste of metal won’t suddenly be replaced by a taste for cheesy arab pop music and souped up Toyotas. Even if you bring in 2 million Syrians which incidentally is nearly a fifth of Syria.

It’s Sweden, not the Sioux Nation. It’s not black african americans or australian aborigines or south american natives. These are groups who’s culture was specifically hunted down and destroyed to make them stop identifying with those groups. We are talking about giving aid and succour to people who need it.

I mean this is arguing stupidly. Sweden’s taken in 15,000 refugees. Not 2.5 million. That’s like someone responding to “I bought a £15,000 car with fears about how you are going to be £2.5 million in debt”. It’s utterly bonkers.

And a nation’s borders are just territory. The same as dogs marking territories except we use fences, mine fields, GPS and the threat of blowing shit up. It’s an extension of urinating on trees. You  may think Swedes are some magical fairy people but honestly they are pretty much the same as Syrians. They share the same hopes and dreams and wants and needs and internally they are nearly identical.

The rest of the article is just the usual leftist propaganda. You accuse him of racism, even though this is an issue of culture and religion rather than race.

Culture and Religion attached to Arabs and so discrimination on that basis. No one ever discriminates against Muslims through the cunning cut and thrust of Koranic Debate but by following brown people telling them to go home (Which was particularly  puzzling since the last time that happened, I was on a tram home and had to inform the lovely gentleman that I was on my way home. Which was why I was on a tram).

It’s why immediately after the Boston Bombing people started looking for the nearest “Brown” person and wound up harassing Sunil Tripathi’s family because “Brown = Terrorist”. You may claim that this isn’t racism but from where I am sat, I have had to take my pants off an awfully large amount of times in airports while white people have not had to do that. You  may claim it’s not racist but in application I am afraid this is.

Leftist Propoganda? Oh dear.

I suppose your rebuttal to my points are “main stream media”.

Furthermore I would argue that countries have a right to keep to themselves and are under no obligation to accept immigrants if it’s not in their best interest (especially in large numbers, from cultures that aren’t even remotely similar).

You say: “The Irriational and Incorrect Fear of a Non Existent Threat from Islam with heavy misrepresentation of the facts.”

I think I have categorically proven that you do have an irrational and incorrect fear of Islam with heavy misrepresentation of facts coupled with a dose of fear mongering.

I have heard that argument before in passing. I was burning with fever and needed medicine. I contracted malaria on my voyage through the desert and I was turned away. Because 5 year old Indian boys with Malaria would have destroyed the very culture of Israel.

Others showed compassion.

There is no profit in helping refugees and while you are blessed with stability and wealth, not everyone is. If you cannot show and ounce of compassion and willingness to share then I am sorry but I am sad to be part of the same community since atheism has made me compassionate.

Excuse me? So the institutionalized discrimination of non-believers as dhimmis, discrimination against women and other authoritarian aspects of Islam is “non existent”? This is almost always the case when Islam is a majority religion because mainstream Islam is inherently authoritarian.

And the same when ANY bloody religion is in the majority. Islam isn’t unique in this respect.

When Israel turned me away it was Jordanians and Palestinians who “saved me”.

Islam may discriminate but many Muslims do not.

Finally about this whole “what’s wrong with compassion?” nonsense, again more leftist propaganda. Accept our leftist policies or you’re an evil bigot, which only reinforces the notion that leftists don’t really want to argue the points, they just want to dismiss your humanity if you disagree with them on any subject.

I see.

This is where we must diisagree most vehemently.

My entire atheism is founded on compassion. Compassion I felt when I watched Muslims die for no reason because of “peaceful Hindus”. I grew up reading Hindu mythos as fables and like all fables you can learn something from them even if you don’t believe.

I learnt what duty was and decided what my rules in life are. What I am willing to do. Then India showed me what compassion is. I could harden my heart and I often have to but I still feel the wish to help others.

You may not wish to but that’s your path in life. It’s not for me to say whether it is better or worse than mine. But to be free of compassion for others is to be guilty of the same sort of bigotry that leads to people turning blind eyes to real suffering

And I repeat. What Point. You are arguing a highly hypothetical situation rather than the reality.

I’ll tell you what’s wrong. You think it’s compassionate for Syrian refugees and that’s the end of it. You don’t think about whether or not it’s compassionate for Swedish people and culture and you don’t think about the long-term consequences of unrestricted mass immigration.

Funny you should say that.

People say that I steal jobs from “hardworking white boys” (never girls though), people say that I make the UK unsafe, people say a lot of things. Funny thing though when I ask which people are these the number of people is frighteningly small. I destroy British Culture? I heard all those arguments before too. They are painful arguments to hear.

I ask this question a lot and it boggles the mind. What is British Culture. And how has my presence “ruined” it. I think the only parts of British Culture “Ruined” By my presence are apartheid and hooliganism but frankly those are bad parts of the culture.

And I think Sweden will be proud of many of it’s Syrians. And both Sweden and these Syrians will change and grow because Culture isn’t stagnant. It’s not  this unchanging monolith. Culture grows with influences. Indian culture is such an amalgam and is not monolithic either. British Culture is a misnomer with different parts having different cultures and the UK hasn’t broken apart with different cultures coming in. Fish and Chips hasn’t vanished because you can get pizza, Chinese, Indian and Sushi. The Ballet hasn’t vanished now that you can go watch Kabuki. No what has happened is everyone partakes in each other’s culture and something new happens.

To date not one person worried about “British Culture” was doing anything to protect it. So forgive me if I am skeptical about the benefits of your determination to not help a handful of refugees solely because you fear that Sweden will suddenly turn into Swedenistan, I hear that argument from idiot racists all the time and it’s as stupid coming from you as it is from them.

And I have heard all these arguments before aimed specifically at me.

But then this year something amazing happened. I heard people stand up for me and stand with me.

An entire tram of strangers stood up for me in Manchester and I it moved me to tears.

We are all capable of good. And evil happens when good people don’t speak up or act. I have heard your arguments before. And I have heard Pat’s arguments before. And this year Manchester asked me what I did and were proud of me.

Why? Because you are so worried about the bad things that may  happen that you forget that most people live quiet and benign lives and most people do rather a lot of good in the world.

“This idea that simply an increase in the *number of self-identified Muslims* in a country (as opposed to, say, an increase in fundamentalism, or an increase in the percentage who believe in creationism, or who discriminate based on their religion, etc.) is dangerous and going to *ruin the country* is one of the things I find so blatantly discriminatory.”

I wouldn’t use the term fundamentalism, Islam (mainstream Sunni Islam that 80-85% of the Muslim world claims to believe in) is inherently authoritarian. There are plenty of manuals of Islamic jurisprudence that describe in great detail how society should be organized, it’s both religion and political ideology. So I would use the term religiosity instead. There are some extremely religious Christians who are not on the same level of insanity (or even close) as their extremely religious Muslim counter-parts.

No. It’s just that we are more likely to put the crazy idiot waving a burning flag screaming “DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN” on TV than the calm quiet man.

Or indeed the Islamic Poet quoting Muslim making music for another Muslim to dance on a train to.

One of the things I learnt from being a refugee is to look beyond the stereotype. It is in our interest to have portrayed Muslims as terrifying barely literate savages because that fits our narrative. It’s easy to grab a picture of some backwards tribesman in the same way that it’s really easy to portray the USA as entirely filled with poverty stricken mid western americans who have a penchance for banjo music and marrying their cousins.

Plenty of Muslims fall in that category, polls after polls show that the radicals are not some “tiny 0.1% minority”, but come to half (and in some parts of the world over half) and Muslim majority countries tend to be the least free of all.

Same with Christian Majority Nations. I am sorry? My patients have better access to contraceptive advice, care, usage and abortion than women in the USA because  “Christianity”.

And polls? Seriously? We have had Polls to name bridges John Stewart. Trust me, a poll means nothing about what people are really like.

And again, you seem to think that Syrians existing in Sweden will somehow steal away Swedish Freedom or something.

And I repeat this all boils down to your initial highly incorrect premise.

24 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Loqi

    We white folks are still struggling to recover from the last time the Muslims tried to destroy “the culture” by inventing the mathematical concept of zero. Surely we would not survive a small influx of people who speak a different language (or the same language, but with a different accent). ‘Tis a fragile culture, you see, and we are easily confused by things and people who are slightly different than us.

    /snark

  2. 2
    Larry Silverstein

    HISTORY LESSON FOR IGNORANT ATHEISTS:

    REAL ISLAM & JIHAD

    Early History of Peaceful Islam:

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

    Some recorded massacres of Muslim history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Chronology of early Islam

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

    • 577 – Muhammad’s mother dies.

    • 595 – Muhammad marries, starts to have children.

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

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

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

    • 615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraysh.

    • 619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha

    • 620 – Institution of five daily prayers .

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

    • 623 – Battle of Waddan

    • 623 – Battle of Safwan

    • 623 – Battle of Dul-‘Ashir

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

    • 624 – Zakat becomes mandatory

    • 624 – Battle of Badr

    • 624 – Battle of Bani Salim

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

    • 624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’

    • 624 – Battle of Sawiq

    • 624 – Battle of Ghatfan

    • 624 – Battle of Bahran

    • 625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims killed.

    • 625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad

    • 625 – Battle of Banu Nadir

    • 625 – Battle of Dhatul-Riqa

    • 626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra

    • 626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal

    • 626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah

    • 627 – Battle of the Trench

    • 627 – Battle of Ahzab

    • 627 – Battle of Bani Qurayza

    • 627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan

    • 627 – Battle of Ghaiba

    • 627 – Battle of Khaibar

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

    • 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.

    • 630 – Battle of Hunain.

    • 630 – Battle of Tabuk

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

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

    • 633 – Battle at Oman

    • 633 – Battle at Hadramaut.

    • 633 – Battle of Kazima

    • 633 – Battle of Walaja

    • 633 – Battle of Ulleis

    • 633 – Battle of Anbar

    • 634 – Battle of Basra,

    • 634 – Battle of Damascus

    • 634 – Battle of Ajnadin.

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

    • 634 – Battle of Namaraq

    • 634 – Battle of Saqatia.

    • 635 – Battle of Bridge.

    • 635 – Battle of Buwaib.

    • 635 – Conquest of Damascus.

    • 635 – Battle of Fahl.

    • 636 – Battle of Yermuk.

    • 636 – Battle of Qadsiyia.

    • 636 – Conquest of Madain.

    • 637 – Battle of Jalula.

    • 638 – Battle of Yarmouk.

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

    • 638 – Conquest of Jazirah.

    • 639 – Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.

    • 641 – Battle of Nihawand

    • 642 – Battle of Rayy in Persia

    • 643 – Conquest of Azarbaijan

    • 644 – Conquest of Fars

    • 644 – Conquest of Kharan.

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

    • 647 – Conquest of Cypress island.

    • 644 – Uman dies, succeeded by Caliph Uthman.

    • 648 – Byzantine campaign begins.

    • 651 – Naval battle against Byzantines.

    • 654 – Islam spreads into North Africa

    • 656 – Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.

    • 658 – Battle of Nahrawan.

    • 659 – Conquest of Egypt

    • 661 – Ali is murdered.

    • 662 – Egypt falls to Islam rule.

    • 666 – Sicily is attacked by Muslims

    • 677 – Siege of Constantinople

    • 687 – Battle of Kufa

    • 691 – Battle of Deir ul Jaliq

    • 700 – Sufism takes root as a sect.

    • 700 – Military campaigns in North Africa

    • 702 – Battle of Deir ul Jamira

    • 711 – Muslims invade Gibraltar

    • 711 – Conquest of Spain

    • 713 – Conquest of Multan

    • 716 – Invasion of Constantinople

    • 732 – Battle of Tours in France.

    • 740 – Battle of the Nobles.

    • 741 – Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa

    • 744 – Battle of Ain al Jurr.

    • 746 – Battle of Rupar Thutha

    • 748 – Battle of Rayy.

    • 749 – Battle of lsfahan

    • 749 – Battle of Nihawand

    • 750 – Battle of Zab

    • 772 – Battle of Janbi in North Africa

    • 777 – Battle of Saragossa in Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE QURAN’S VIEW OF JEWS & CHRISTIANS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE QURAN ON RELATIONS WITH NON-MUSLIM FAMILY MEMBERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE INESCAPABLE INFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Muslims who Leave Islam:

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

    Bukhari, volume 9, #17

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

    Bukhari volume 9, #57

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

    Bukhari volume 9, #64

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

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

    THE MURDER OF KABAA BIN AL-ASHRAF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THAT WAS NOT A CRIME!

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

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

    This was the extent of his alleged crimes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. 3
    Larry Silverstein

    HISTORY LESSON FOR IGNORANT ATHEISTS:

    PART 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and the hadith reported by Muslim,

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

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

    THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TRUCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

    010.0 .THE SPOILS OF BATTLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. 4
    Larry Silverstein

    HISTORY LESSON FOR IGNORANT ATHEISTS:

    PART 3

    FINANANCING TERROR

    Where do terrorist organizations get their money? The devastating attacks can not be accomplished at relatively low cost. There must be some reliable financial support to the terrorist organizations world wide. But before we move further I would like to quote a verse from Quran, which says:

    Quran 9:111:- Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed.

    Muslims follow the above verse literally and perform Jihad on innocent, and those who can’t participate, help with their property, in form of Obligatory Charity. One of my friend, suggested me a link, according to which:-

    Saudi Arabia is the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism and is unwilling to cut off the money supply, according to a leaked note from Hillary Clinton.

    The US Secretary of State says in a secret memorandum that donors in the kingdom still “constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide” and that “it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority”.

    In a separate diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks last night, the militant group which carried out the Mumbai bombings in 2008, Lashkar-e-Toiba, is reported to have secured money in Saudi Arabia via one of its charity offshoots which raises money for schools.

    Saudi Arabia is accused, along with Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, of failing to prevent some of its richest citizens financing the insurgency against Nato troops in Afghanistan. Fund-raisers from the Taliban regularly travel to UAE to take advantage of its weak borders and financial regulation to launder money.

    However, it is Saudi Arabia that receives the harshest assessment. The country from which Osama bin Laden and most of the 9/11 terrorists originated, according to Mrs Clinton, “a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Toiba and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during the Haj and Ramadan”.

    These pilgrimages, especially the Haj, are described as a “big problem” in another cable dated 29 May 2009. Detailing a briefing from the Saudi interior ministry to Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, it notes: “The Haj is still a major security loophole for the Saudis, since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia.”

    It also quotes one of the officials admitting that the Haj is “a vacuum in our security”. The huge annual influx of Muslims from around the world offers a prime opportunity for militants and their donors to enter the kingdom to exchange funds, launder money through front companies and accept money from government-approved charities.

    The memo underlines that the US supports the work of Islamic charities, but is frustrated that they are so easily exploited to fund terrorism.

    “In 2002, the Saudi government promised to set up a charities committee that would address this issue, but has yet to do so,” Mrs Clinton’s cable reads, before seeming to admit with disappointment that merely “obtaining Saudi acknowledgement of the scope of this problem and a commitment to take decisive action” has proved hard. [Source]

    This is not all, according to report of Gulf Daily News, In Islam, zakat — the alms required of every Muslim — can and should be given to further the jihad. The report says:-

    HUNDREDS of millions of dollars a year are being channeled into the hands of the Taliban – much of it from the Gulf, an expert told the GDN yesterday.

    Shady charities in the GCC continue to funnel cash to Afghanistan to fund insurgents, said Afghanistan Centre for Research and Policy Studies director Haroun Mir.

    He accused Gulf countries of not doing enough to monitor bogus charity operations, which he accused of filling terrorists’ coffers with cash to buy weapons, equipment and conduct operations.

    “The Taliban gets $200 million a year to carry out its activities and recruit young people to spread terror across the world,” he said on the sidelines of the Manama Dialogue, which ended yesterday at the Ritz-Carlton Bahrain Hotel and Spa.

    “This huge amount of money is coming from somewhere and one main channel is bogus charities in GCC and Arab states, which collect funds that are used for illegal activities instead of noble causes.”

    Mr Mir said people in the region were being conned into parting with their money by those misinterpreting Islam.

    “Terrorists are using narratives based on grievances of people and misinterpreting Islam,” he said.

    “The funds are flowing via ghost charities.”

    The Muslim faith requires followers to make donations to the needy as part of an Islamic tax, known as “Zakat”.

    However, Mr Mir said there was still no official authority that monitored where the moneywas going.

    “Nobody has an idea where this money goes as it is being used by extremist groups to purchase weapons or recruit suicide bombers,” he claimed…..

    Now I can say without a shadow of doubt, the terrorists and their financial supporters, who are equally responsible for thousands of deaths every year follow the real Islamic teaching, and their prophet Muhammad. Let’s end this with another verse from Quran, which commands:

    Quran 9:41:- Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah . That is better for you, if you only knew.

    Money Jihad:
    Saudi Arabia remains the world’s top financier of terrorism and sponsor of fundamentalist Islam throughout the Arab Spring. U.S. media and Treasury officials don’t really like to discuss it in public, but a report earlier this fall from France 24 gives further confirmation, if you needed it, of the fact that Saudi petrodollars are behind the latest Salafist inroads in the Middle East.
    How Saudi petrodollars fuel rise of Salafism

    SINCE THE 2011 ARAB REVOLTS, A LOOSE NETWORK OF UNDERGROUND ZEALOTS HAS EVOLVED INTO A POTENT AND HIGHLY VOCAL FORCE. BEHIND THE REMARKABLE RISE OF SALAFISM LIES THE WORLD’S LEADING PRODUCER OF OIL – AND EXTREMIST ISLAM: SAUDI ARABIA.
    When protesters incensed by an anti-Muslim video scaled the walls of the US embassy in Cairo on September 11, tearing down the Stars and Stripes, a black flag could be seen floating above the battered compound. From Sanaa, in Yemen, to Libya’s Benghazi, the same black banner, emblem of the Salafists, soon became a ubiquitous sight as anti-US protests spread like wildfire across the Arab world. The 2011 Arab uprisings have served the Salafists well. With the old dictators gone, a once subterranean network of hardliners has sprung into prominence – funded by a wealthy Gulf patron locked in a post-Arab Spring rivalry with a fellow Gulf monarchy.
    The ‘predecessors’
    A puritanical branch of Islam, Salafism advocates a strict, literalist interpretation of the Koran and a return to the practices of the “Salaf” (the predecessors), as the Prophet Mohammed and his disciples are known. While Salafist groups can differ widely, from the peaceful, quietist kind to the more violent clusters, it is the latter who have attracted most attention in recent months.
    In Libya and Mali, radical Salafists have been busy destroying ancient shrines built by more moderate groups, such as Sufi Muslims. Fellow extremists in Tunisia have tried to silence secular media and destroy “heretical” artwork. And the presence of Salafist fighting units in Syria has been largely documented. Less well known is who is paying for all this – and why.
    ‘Export-Wahhabism’

    For regional experts, diplomats and intelligence services, the answer to the first question lies in the seemingly endless flow of petrodollars coming from oil-rich Saudi Arabia. “There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that Saudi money is financing the various Salafist groups,” said Samir Amghar, author of “Le salafisme d’aujourd’hui. Mouvements sectaires en Occident” (Contemporary Salafism: Sectarian movements in the West).
    According to Antoine Basbous, who heads the Paris-based Observatory of Arab Countries, “the Salafism we hear about in Mali and North Africa is in fact the export version of Wahhabism,” a conservative branch of Sunni Islam actively promoted and practised by Saudi Arabia’s ruling family. Since the 1970s oil crises provided the ruling House of Saud with a seemingly endless supply of cash, “the Saudis have been financing [Wahhabism] around the world to the tune of several million euros,” Basbous told FRANCE 24.
    Opaque channels

    Not all of the cash comes from Saudi state coffers. “Traditionally, the money is handed out by members of the royal family, businessmen or religious leaders, and channelled via Muslim charities and humanitarian organizations,” said Karim Sader, a political analyst who specializes in the Gulf states, in an interview with FRANCE 24.
    Until the Arab Spring revolts upended the region’s political landscape, these hidden channels enabled the Salafists’ Saudi patrons to circumvent the authoritarian regimes who were bent on crushing all Islamist groups. These were the same opaque channels that allegedly supplied arms to extremist groups, particularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Western intelligence officials.
    Free education

    Other, slightly less shadowy recipients of Saudi petrodollars include the numerous religious institutions built around the Arab world to preach Wahhabi Islam, as well as the growing list of Saudi satellite channels that provide a platform for radical Salafist preachers. A large share of the booty also goes to Arab students attending religious courses at the kingdom’s universities in Medina, Riyadh and the Mecca.
    “Most of the students at Medina University are foreigners who benefit from generous scholarships handed out by Saudi patrons, as well as free accommodation and plane tickets,” said Amghar. “Once they have graduated, the brightest are hired by the Saudi monarchy, while the rest return to their respective countries to preach Wahhabi Islam”. According to Amghar, the members of France’s nascent Salafist movement follow a similar path.
    Direct funding

    Exporting its own brand of Islam is not the only item on Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy agenda. “While they see themselves as the guardians of Islamic doctrine and have always generously financed Muslim missionaries, the Saudis’ priority is not to ‘salafise’ the Muslim world,” explained Amghar. “Their real aim is to consolidate their political and ideological influence by establishing a network of supporters capable of defending the kingdom’s strategic and economic interests.”
    Since last year’s Arab revolutions, these supporters have benefited from more direct – and politically motivated – funding. “With the region’s former dictators out of the way, Salafist groups have evolved into well-established parties benefiting from more official Saudi aid,” said Sader, pointing to the spectacular rise of Egypt’s al-Nour party, which picked up a surprising 24% of the vote in January’s parliamentary polls.
    “The Saudis were genuinely surprised by the Arab Spring revolts,” said Mohamed-Ali Adraoui, a political analyst who specialises in the Muslim world. “Riyadh’s response was to back certain Salafist groups (…) so that it may gain further clout in their respective countries,” Adraoui told FRANCE 24.
    Gulf rivalries

    The Saudi strategy is similar to that adopted by its arch Gulf rival Qatar – a smaller but equally oil-rich kingdom – in its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood, the other great beneficiary of the Arab Spring. “When it comes to financing Islamist parties, there is intense competition between Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” said Sader.

    Money Jihad: How Islamists Finance Their Operations
    November 11, 2012
    by: Ryan Mauro
    The author of the Money Jihad blog wishes to remain anonymous. The daily blog documents how Islamists finance their operations. The author previously served in military-intelligence and has been blogging about terrorism financing for three years.
    The following is RadicalIslam.or’s Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with the author of the Money Jihad blog about how the Islamist terrorism continues to be lavishly funded 11 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Ryan Mauro: What legal loopholes are the Islamists using to finance their operations worldwide?
    Money Jihad: Saudi Arabia’s approach to terror finance is a giant loophole in and of itself. The Islamic zakat tax, what some call “Islamic charity,” is a massive source of jihadist revenues. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency is supposed to approve charitable zakat transfers overseas, but it’s a fig leaf; the Saudis still fund the spread of radical Wahhabism abroad. Also, it took Saudi Arabia’s Senior Ulema Council nine years after 9/11 to criminalize the financing of terrorism. Whenever the Council comments on terror finance, it vigorously defends zakat in the same breath. The Council won’t even define terrorism to include suicide bomb attacks against Israel.
    In the U.S., we need a totally different approach to regulating hawala, the traditional Islamic system money transfer system that has helped fund terrorists. But on balance I would say that most of the terror finance shortcomings in the West involve inadequate enforcement of existing laws rather than a lack of laws.

    Ryan Mauro: What laws aren’t being enforced and why?
    Money Jihad: First, the Patriot Act prohibits providing material support to terrorism such as transferring money to Hamas. The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial revealed that Islamic organizations such as the North American Islamic Trust and the Islamic Society of North America worked closely with HLF. The Bush administration never intended HLF to be their final prosecution, but they ran out of time to pursue HLF’s associates. Especially now that HLF’s final appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, this would be a great time to enforce the material support provisions of the Patriot Act against HLF’s unindicted co-conspirators.
    Second, the Foreign Agents Registration Act isn’t being enforced with respect to CAIR which engages in political activities in the U.S. but is funded from abroad.
    Third, the nonprofit provisions of the Internal Revenue code are being abused by Islamic organizations that claim to be charities but are actually engaged in business activities. For example, Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) is a certifier of halal foods. It gets most of its revenues from inspecting food manufacturers that seek a halal certification label, but IFANCA claims tax-exempt status on the false basis of receiving revenues from charitable donations and grants, which is discredited by a simple review of their tax forms. Canada does a better job than the U.S. of stripping bogus charity fronts of their tax-exempt status.
    Fourth, Bank Secrecy Act and Treasury regulations require money services businesses, includinghawala dealers, to register their business with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. One study showed that about 85 percent of hawala businesses simply ignore the requirement.
    As to why these laws aren’t being enforced, I think it’s political.
    Ryan Mauro: What methods are the Islamists using today to raise money, besides soliciting wealthy donors?
    Money Jihad: Well, it’s not just about zakat from wealthy donors. Folks like Amina Farah Ali in Minnesota, Shabaaz Hussain in London, and Irfan Naseer in Birmingham have fundraised for relatively small donations from individual Muslims to support jihad overseas. A few thousand dollars from the West goes a long way to fund a holy warrior on the ground in Somalia.
    But apart from zakat donations, there are a whole host of other Islamic taxes that receive less attention but are huge revenue stream for jihad. Western reporters call it extortion, but themujahideen don’t look at it that way.
    Take for example two terrorist organizations with a ground game: Al-Shabaab and the Taliban. They have fighters on the ground and control definite territory. Organizations like that rely to a great extent on levying Islamic taxes on the people under their jurisdiction. The Taliban still gets money from ushr, the Islamic tax on harvests, which includes poppy yields. Al Shabaab imposes harbor taxes, checkpoint taxes (a practice from the early days of Islam up through Ottoman times), and a zakat on the lucrative Somali charcoal trade.
    Ransoms, which are also permitted against infidels by the Koran, are a major revenue source for organizations like AQIM and Abu Sayyaf. For Hezbollah, the West focuses on their drug money, but they get a lot of money from khums, the Shia Muslim tax on individual profit.
    Counterfeiting, Sharia finance, street crimes, welfare fraud — those are all being used as well in different parts of the world to fund terrorism, individual Islamists or both.
    Read more at Radical Islam
    Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

    The Savagery of Islam

    The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has ruled that ten year old girls can be married off, because in his words, “Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age.” The Mufti, who also recently called for destroying churches in the Arabian Peninsula, is descended from Mohammed Wahhab who gave birth to Wahhabism and his descendants have controlled the Saudi religious establishment, which has given them control of Islam around the world. For all his power and influence, the Mufti is blind and hasn’t seen a thing in the last 52 years, an apt metaphor for his entire religion.
    Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, still tries and executes witches. What sort of religion can come out of a place that marries off ten year old girls and murders old women on charges of witchcraft? Exactly the sort of religion you would expect to fly planes into skyscrapers, murder teenage girls for using Facebook and base their entire society on a ladder with Muslim men at the top, Muslim women a few rungs below and everyone else somewhere at the bottom.

    The Saudis are not some aberration, they are Islam in its purest and truest form. This is where Islam originated, these are the people whose brutality and cunning spread it across the world, whose clans killed each other, then killed or enslaved minority groups, and then embarked on a wave of conquest that destroyed countless cultures and left behind seeds of hate that linger to this day.

    Unlike Egypt or Syria, they were never colonized by European powers and the impact of Ottoman influence was limited. Oil has brought in massive amounts of money, but it has changed very little. There are limousines instead of camels, the slaves have foreign passports, though they are often still slaves, there is still a brisk trade in imported luxury goods, harems for princes and clans staggering under the weight of their indolent progeny.

    Religiously, Wahhabism has done its best to recreate the “pure” Islam of its origins. Economically, oil has allowed the Gulf Arabs to prosper without reform or change. And if Mohammed were to ride out of the desert tomorrow, he would have little trouble fitting in, as soon as he developed a taste for Porsches. Anyone who wants to see the world as it was in Mohammed’s day can visit Saudi Arabia and see inbred clans, slave labor, veiled women and thugs enforcing the will of Allah on every corner.

    But you don’t even need to visit Saudi Arabia because diluted forms of it can be found everywhere from Cairo to London and from Islamabad to Los Angeles. A hundred and fifty years after the United States freed its slaves, Muslim immigrants have brought back slavery, importing young girls to live as their slaves. Ninety years after American women won the right to vote, the ghosts of Islam tread the streets in sheets that hide their personhood and mark them as property.

    The religious wars of the desert have not stayed there as the immigration Hegira has brought them here and everywhere. And that is the source of the Clash of Civilizations. Immigration has brought Muslims into closer contact with different cultures and religions who don’t defer to them or give Islam the privileged status that its adherents are used to enjoying.

    To know the truth of this all you have to do is measure the respective tolerance levels of America against the average Muslim country. There is no comparison with even the more secular Muslim countries, not in law and not in public attitudes. The sole benefit of the Arab Spring has been to expose the fraud of the moderate Muslim country. Egypt’s transition to theocracy reminds us that a moderate Muslim state is a completely unrepresentative dictatorship. The alternative is majority Muslim rule.

    The endgame of the Arab Spring and the immigration Hegira is to reduce the entire world to the level of Saudi Arabia. And that means eliminating outside influences in a long march to purification. Islamists know that they cannot enjoy complete cultural dominance over their own people until their rivals in the West are obliterated. To turn Egypt and Malaysia into Saudi Arabia, and to purify Saudi Arabia, the infidels must be brought down, their religions subjugated and their nations replaced with proper Islamic states.

    Islamic leaders are under no illusion that religion is a spiritual matter, they know that it is a numbers game. Wage enough wars, terrorize enough nations, marry enough barely post-pubescent girls and use them to crank out an endless supply of babies, intimidate or trick enough infidels into joining up and you win. That was how Islam took over so much territory and spread around the world, that is how it is doing it again now.

    Islam is not a spiritual religion, even its paradise is a materialistic place, a fantasy harem where the physical pleasures of life can be enjoyed without restraint. That gives it an advantage over Judaism and Christianity, just as it gives the Saudis and the Pakistanis an advantage over the Americans and Israelis. There is no angst in Islam, no spiritual seeking and no room for doubt. The marching orders are always clear and individual deeds and thoughts matter less than a willingness to always obey.

    Islam came out of the desert and it has never left the desert, instead it has brought the desert with it along with its codes, its deep hatreds, its constant deprivation, its deceptiveness and its nomadic expansionism. Where Islam goes, the desert rises, its tents, its red knives and its insecurities. It was backward even at the time of its birth and it has only become more so, but its singlemindedness is an advantage in an age of effete leftectuals and eurocrats dreaming of a transnational world.

    While the leftectuals dream of windmills, the Saudis hire foreigners to pump their oil and then sell it to them, the money goes to fund the Hegira, its mosques in every city from Dublin to Moscow to Buenos Aires and Toronto, the fatwas, the bombs, the websites where the masked faithful hold up AK-47′s, the Islamic science courses and sessions on learning to love the Hijab and then the Burqa,

    The Saudis just want what everyone wants, for everyone to acknowledge their greatness and live like them. They can hardly be blamed for that when the West spends almost as much money promoting democracy and its own way of life to people who still execute witches and blasphemers. They may be savages, but they fell ass backward into enough black gold to fuel a global religious war, and they’re using it cleverly and cunningly to transform our societies and wage war against us even while attending dinners at the White House. It’s smoother work than our diplomats are capable of.

    You can hardly blame the desert bandits for being what they are, but you can blame the apostles of reason for preaching about a golden age of tolerance and enlightenment from every purloined pulpit and then turning away the heartland to a religion that is nakedly brutal and intolerant at home.

    An honest look at Saudi Arabia, at its cruelty, its slaves, its intolerance of other religions and even of women, should be enough to tell even the dimmest Eton or Harvard grad exactly what the West is in for. No matter how many specialists in Muslim tolerance show up at universities, there is the Grand Mufti explaining that Mohammed commanded the eradication of Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore there can be no churches allowed there.

    Even few apologists for Islam will defend Saudi Arabia for the simple reason that it is indefensible. The media will run the occasional story about the House of Saud’s commitment to reform, much as Charles Manson keeps committing to becoming a better person, but even they don’t really believe it. Yet even though Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Sunni Islam, and its fortunes shape and control mosques and teachings around the world, they insist on treating Islam and Saudi Arabia as two separate things.

    It is brutally telling that the two centers of Islam, Saudi Arabia for the Sunnis and Iran for the Shiites, are genuinely horrifying places. Neither can remotely be associated with tolerance or human rights. It is simple common sense that the spread of Islam will make Western countries more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, rather than less like them.

    If Saudi Arabia is not an example that we wish to emulate, then why must we bodily incorporate the religion of Mecca and Medina into London and Los Angeles? What other possible outcome do we imagine that there will be but fewer rights and more violence, dead women, abused children, bomb plots and polygamy?

    There are two Islams. The real Islam of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and an imaginary Islam that exists only in the mosques of air and card table korans of academics apologists and political pundits who have decided that Islam cannot be bad, because no religion can be bad, not even one which kills and kills, it must just be misunderstood.

    But then why not tell the Grand Mufti that he has misunderstood his own religion, the religion that he and his ancestors have dedicated themselves to purifying and reforming back to its roots? Telling him that would be a dangerous thing on his own turf, but it would also be foolish. The Grand Mufti’s controversial statements contain nothing that Mohammed had not said and can the founder of a religion misunderstand his own teachings?

    Islam is savage, intolerant, cruel and expansionistic, not due to a misunderstanding, but because it is what it is and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise. We have opened the door to the desert and a hot wind blows through into the northern climes. Either we can shut the door or get used to living in the Saudi desert.

    Moderate Islam

    Travelers across the vast stretches of the Arabian Desert have been known to get lost and, in their thirst and exhaustion, hallucinate oases with palm trees and flowing water. Western policymakers lost in the vast stretches of madness that define the Muslim world are even more wont to hallucinate the oasis of a moderate Islam to take refuge in. Whether you’re dying for a drink or a way to reaffirm your reality, a mirage is sometimes the only way you can find it.

    Moderate Islam is a mirage, a projection by desperate Westerners of their own values and culture onto an entirely different religion and culture. It is a mirage that many Muslims are eager to uphold, in the same way that desert merchants might sell goblets and bowls of sand to passing travelers foolish enough to confuse water with dust. And, like travelers who think they are drinking water, when they are actually swallowing sand, it is a deception that will eventually kill the deceived.

    When the Western cultural elite look at Islam, they see what they have to see to avoid falling into crisis mode. Like the traveler who would rather choke on sand, than face up to the fact that he is lost in a desert, they would rather keep most things as they are, even at the cost of the extinction of the nations they preside over, than confront the full scope of the threat surrounding them. A threat that they had a hand in nurturing and feeding in the name of goals that seemed to make sense at the time.

    It is easier to segregate a “Bad Islam” composed of a tiny minority of extremists from the generally “Good Islam” of the rulers of the Muslim world and the waves of Muslim immigrants washing up on their shores. This segregation has no objective reality, and is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism against experiencing the full reality of a disaster. From the Titanic to World War II, there are numerous similar situations in which the people in charge chose to ignore a growing crisis at a horrific cost.

    The two primary paradigms through which Western political elites see Islam, are that of tyranny on the right, and that of the evils of Western foreign policy on the left. Bush employed the former when he defined the problem as being one of tyranny, rather than Islam. Having defined the problem in terms of a majority of “Good Muslims” oppressed by “Bad Tyrants”, Bush tried to liberate the former from the latter, only to discover that there was a good deal of overlap between the two. Under Obama, we have seen the left implement its own construct of Islam, as popular resistance movements against colonial oppression, who are reacting to the evils of American foreign policy. This knee-jerk Marxist formula goes one worse than the Bush Administration by defining terrorists as “Good Muslims” and moderates as “Yankee Puppets”.

    But the only item of true significance to emerge from the contrast of these worldviews is the revelation that American political leaders from both sides of the spectrum still view Islam in terms of the old Cold War struggle between Communism and Capitalism. Like many generals who fight every war in terms of the last war, the political leaders of the West still see Islam in Cold War colors, which prevents them from seeing it for what it is.

    While Islam shares some common denominators with Communism, as well as Nazism, it is also a quite different entity than either one. For one thing it is not Western in any sense of the word. It does not rely on a centralized leadership. It has had over a thousand years to seep into the culture of the regions it has conquered. That has made Islam into an identity in a much more profound way, than Adolf or Vladimir could have ever managed with their own crackpottery.

    Islam predates the political movements such as Communism and Nazism that arose to fill a vacuum of faith in a secularizing West with dreams of racial and economic utopias. It is the original sin of the East, a ruthless religion based on stolen beliefs and stolen property. Its moment of religious transcendence was not that of the law or the spirit, but the sight of tribal rivalries uniting under a single green banner. The banner of Islam.

    The powerful appeal of Islam has been rooted in that dream of unity, an idea that is hard for more civilized peoples to understand because they take unity for granted. Yet any European need only turn to the fierce struggle for an independent and united German nation in the 19th Century, or for an independent and united Italy around the same time. An eventual outcome in which both nations ruled by nationalist regimes faced off together against England and France during WW2 could be traced back to that false sense of destiny which papered over national insecurities with blood.

    But nationalism requires meaningful national identities, while the Muslim world only has artificial borders drawn by colonial administrations, differences in Arabic slang and bitter familial rivalries. Despite the best efforts of Arab Socialist autocrats like Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein, the vaunted unity of the Arab nation failed to materialize. While Nasser admired Hitler and Hussein admired Stalin, neither was able to turn their respective countries into anything even as barely functional as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Instead, Nasser got by on Soviet aid and Saddam Hussein on oil money.

    Glance at a map, and you will see the Muslim world defined in terms of borders and politicians, but, as Allied troops along the Afghan-Pak border are discovering, the actual Muslims on the ground define themselves in terms of tribe and family, not nation. The Muslim world is a hodgepodge of dispossessed ethnic groups crammed into artificial nation states created by the UK and the UN. Nation states that have a vote at the UN, an embassy off Turtle Bay and little tangible reality.

    If that sounds farfetched, consider that there is an actual debate among foreign policy experts over who really runs Pakistan. Many European observers of Turkey have a similar debate going there as well. Most of the Muslim world is run by families, like the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Some are run by dictators who took part in military coups and hold power using the military and the secret police. These are the only forms of stable government in the Muslim world that matter.

    Without a dictator or a powerful ruling family, or clique of them, civil war follows. Yemen has been torn apart by such tribal civil wars for a long time now, the latest phase of the war is being conducted with the participation of Al Queda. Anwar Al-Awlaki, the infamous Imam, did not join Al Queda merely out of anger or ideology, he did it because his Awlaki family is allied with the local Yemeni Al Queda. Think about that for a moment, and you begin to see the byzantine maze of loyalties and alliances in the vast desert of the Muslim world.

    Empires and kingdoms combined church and state in order to insure that there would be no contradiction between religion and the authorities, that the will of the king would also be the will of god. Mohammed tried to make the same leap in the multicultural environs of Mecca, eliminating all religions but the one he had newly created in order to glue together the warring families and tribes. That act was and is the essential basis of Islam. Everything else is borrowed glamor from the other religions that he had subjugated and destroyed to make way for Islam.

    For Muslims, that initial bloody butchery is the only true act of religious significance that matters. Because for a brief shining moment, the internecine quarrels were brutally suppressed, and thousands of backstabbing desert tribesmen came to see themselves as something larger and greater. Of course that false unity collapsed back into warring families and tribes. Which has made it all the more of an unattainable dream. It is why Jihad is the ultimate religious act for a Muslim, and why the Caliphate is the great religious goal.

    In the face of this understanding, any talk of a moderate Islam is nothing but a farce. To Muslims, Islam is what the Thousand Year Reich was to Nazis and a United World is to socialists. A perfect form of global unity that must be achieved at any cost.

    A moderate Muslim might pursue such a goal “peacefully” through Dawa or missionary work, but successful Muslim mass conversions have taken place either directly or indirectly through the sword. Even Muslim missionary successes in the West take place in the context of Muslim terrorism. There is no Islam without the sword, because it has no meaning or identity without violence. A non-violent Islam is nothing but a collection of tribal mores and borrowed religious ideas. It quickly recedes to the secular and the cultural, driving the Islamists to revive its core ethos through acts of violence and terror.

    This is what Western political and cultural leaders do not understand. The Right is correct that Islam, like Communism, can be weakened by capitalism, but it cannot be destroyed that way. Because Islam is not incompatible with business; it originated among merchants after all. The fruits of capitalism can help secularize Islam, but not without empowering the very same type of merchants who helped create it. That is why American capitalism has helped create the terrorist threat by enriching the new rulers of Mecca, the House of Saud, which has expanded its own power by funding a new Islamic invasion against its best customers in the West. And so history repeats itself again.

    The Islamists have shown that they can quite effectively exploit Capitalism and Democracy to further their aims. Capitalism brought down the Soviet Union, but it could not give Russians a meaningful identity. Instead, it financed the rise of a new Russian totalitarian regime of KGB bosses and oligarchs who had grown wealthy on the profits from Western business. Even Communist China has shown that it can incorporate Capitalism and only become more of a threat by doing so.

    The fundamental error conservative American political leaders made was to assume that Capitalism and Democracy were absolute forms of good, in reality they’re simply tools and prisms which different cultures use to express their potential in different ways. The Bush Administration showed the limits of applying Cold War rhetoric to Islamic realities. Or treating 1.5 billion Muslims as the demographic equivalent of 1500 nuclear bombs, without ever admitting the attitude behind the diplomacy.

    The Left, however, is even more wrong, falling back on its old habit of treating all enemies as resistance movements against capitalism, globalism and all the isms that they associate with First World nation states. If the Right is still echoing Ronald Reagan, the Left is still stuck on the Philippine–American War of the 19th Century. And while the Right has shown that it can learn, the Left has only shown that it can shout the same self-destructive thing even louder. The Obama Administration is an exercise in national self-hatred. A ritual purging for the sins of Western success similar to an anorexic vomiting after every meal.

    If the Right has some ideas for dealing with Islam, the Left has decided that Islam is right. There is no logic behind this, but that of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, along with unhealthy doses of orientalism and the fetishization of the Noble Savage.

    American foreign policy triggers Muslim rage, as do cartoons in Europe, Jewish housing in Israel, Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, British female tourists in Dubai, a teddy named Mohammed in Sudan, and countless other “irritations”. But none of these excuses is the true cause. The chief cause of Islamic outrage is that these displays of anger allow Muslims to feel a sense of power. Anger empowers small men, whether they are beating their wives or blowing themselves up in cafes. The excuses, “She made me do it”, “She shouldn’t have walked in front of the TV” or “She should have had dinner ready”, are just that. Excuses. The real cause is the sense of power that comes with the anger. The sense of suddenly being larger than life. That anger is its own cause and its own reward. And that is what Islam gives to the Muslim. The Jihad. The Caliphate. Anger in the name of Allah.

    In America, Democratic and Republican leaders primarily differ on how tiny that “tiny minority of extremists” really is, and who’s to blame for their extremism. The reality that their entire view of Islam is based on a mirage is not something they are willing to accept. But to talk of the Taliban or Al Queda without speaking of Islam is as absurd as discussing the Gulags without mentioning Communism. It means that not only can the problem never be solved, but it can never even be addressed. Because we have never stated the cause.

    Instead, we try to fight Islamic terrorism by cultivating alliances among the constantly churning factions of governments, militias, warlords and tribal elders, hoping to use them– only to be used as pawns in their own games instead. That is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has happened among the Palestinian Arabs and the Yemeni government, in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else we try to apply Western policymaking.

    The Muslim world has technology, but no civilization. Western nations have given to the Islamic East, the appearance of nationhood and the fruits of industry, without ever acknowledging that they were tossing pearls before swine. A pig wearing a pearl necklace is still a member of the porcine family. Only now it is a well-dressed pig. We have dressed up the Muslim world, but underneath it is not so different from the warring tribes that Mohammed tried to glue together with Islam. And that is why Islam retains the power that it does. Islam does not have a separation of Mosque and State, because there is really no state, only the mosque. The great dream of over a millennium of a transcendent global Muslim unity. A Great Leap Forward across the chasm of tribal savagery and into a Caliphate, which will undo all the achievements of all other peoples, and demonstrate once and for all that the Muslim is supreme over all the rest of the world.

  5. 5
    DsylexicHippo

    @ Loqi, #1: As to the mathematical concept of zero, it was not the Muslims.

    “The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol for separation is attributed to India, where, by the 9th century AD, practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division.The Indian scholar Pingala (circa 5th–2nd century BC) used binary numbers in the form of short and long syllables (the latter equal in length to two short syllables), making it similar to Morse code. He and his contemporary Indian scholars used the Sanskrit word śūnya to refer to zero or void.” – Dr Google.

    However, their contribution to mathematics, science and astronomy is well documented so point taken from a broader point of view.

  6. 6
    Alex

    Come on Larry, don’t be shy, tell us what you really think!

  7. 7
    DsylexicHippo

    Sorry you ate the wrong kind of Shawarma today but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to unload here and aggravate my dyslexia.

    Let me guess. Your concise version is: “me don’t like Muslims”.

    Diarrhea stinks. Even the verbal kind.

  8. 8
    DsylexicHippo

    I was a tad too concise there. That was for tongue-tied Larry, of course.

  9. 9
    Wojo

    @ Larry Silverstein

    Wow, I’ve never had to scroll so far to ignore three posts.

    I’m not ignoring it because I don’t believe it. I’m sure its all true and well researched. I’m ignoring it because it is using history in order to rationalize one racism. You will probably say its not racism cause it is their religion that you are being horribly prejudice against. But racism fits.

  10. 10
    Al Dente

    tl;dr

  11. 11
    Scr... Archivist

    Hey, Larry,

    Here’s a free tip: Don’t copy and paste huge swaths of text in your comments. No one will read it if you do.

    At the top of the program you use to read web pages (a program called a “web browser”), there should be a white bar with a string of words. The long string often starts with “http://”.

    That string of words is called a URL, which is short for “uniform resource locator”, and it is a kind of address for a webpage. I know you already know how to copy text. Just do the same thing, but with the URL. Copy that into your comment instead, perhaps with a brief explanation of why we would want to read it.

    In fact, it’s almost like you’re copying the entire article in just that one line. It’s like hyperspace, but with words. What you might call a kind of “hypertext”.

    Use this advice and you’ll have a better chance of getting people to read your recommended material, and you will be a better neighbor on the information superhighway.

  12. 12
    Laila Rasheed

    MUHAMMAD, THE PROPHET OF ISLAM
    PART 1

    MECCA

    An Arab is regarded as an old man, a sheik, when he is fifty.
    Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old (6) in Mecca and she joined him in Medina three years later when he was 53.

    THE PERFECT MUSLIM

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

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

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

    Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father

    Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha:

    Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

    Muhammad, 50, marries baby Aisha at age 6

    Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234

    Narrated Aisha: the prophet engaged (married) me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, um ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.

    …….she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some ansari women who said, “best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

    Bukhari vol 8, bk 73, no 151

    Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, & my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join & play with me. (the playing with the dolls & similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)

    HOW TO THIGH

    Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

    Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
    According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

    Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

    Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

    Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

    The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’
    After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

    That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

    Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

    AISHA WASHING SEMEN FROM MUHAMMED’S CLOTHES

    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

    Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

    I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    as above (229).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

    Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

    I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

    He began having sex with Aisha when she was 8 and 9 months old and still playing with dolls.
    This is the original story told by the ONLY valid biographers of Muhammad and Islam, Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, and the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Refer also to the works of the Qur’an commentators Ibn Kathir and Ibn Qayyim. (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume II, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Limited, UK. The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 2000. pp. 93-94)
    (Ibn Qayyim Al-Juaziyyah, Zad-ul Ma’ad fi Hadyi Khairi-l ‘Ibad (Provisions for the Hereafter, From the Guidance of Allah’s Best Worshipper) translated by Jalal Abualrub, [Madinah Publishers & Distributors, December 2000] Volume I, pp. 157-158)
    Muhammad said that he had dreamed of Aisha before demanding her from her father, and his own brother in Islam, Abu Bakr, claiming special ‘prophets rights’ when Abu Bakr was reluctant to give her to him.
    Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 235: Narrated ‘Aisha: That the Prophet said to her,
    “You have been shown to me twice in my dreams. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said to me, ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.”
    Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated ‘Ursa:
    The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother!”
    The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
    Marriage to a female already offered to another was illegal in Arab law. Abu Bakr had already arranged for Aisha to marry Djubayr Mutim.
    Muhammad married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad) translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, p. 792)
    Tabari VII:7
    “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.”
    Tabari IX:128
    “When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.”
    [The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community] translated by M.V. McDonald annotated by W. Montgomery Watt [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], Volume VII, pp. 6-7) (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany 1990], Volume IX, pp. 129-130)
    Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: Narrated Hisham’s father:
    Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
    PART 2
    MEDINA
    Ishaq:281
    “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.”
    “In May, 623 A.D./A.H. 1, Allah’s Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha. This was in Dhu al-Qa‘dah (May-June 623) eight months after his arrival in Medina according to some accounts, or in Shawwal (April-May 623) seven months after his arrival according to others. He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or according to other accounts, seven years old”.
    [The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, Volume VII, pp. 6-7]
    “The Prophet married ‘A’ishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old. According to Ibn ‘Umayr al-Waqidi: ‘A’ishah was asked when the Prophet consummated his marriage with her, and she said: The Prophet left us and his daughters behind when he immigrated to Medina. Having arrived at Medina, he sent Zayd b. Harithah and his client Abu Rafi’ for us. I was sitting in the litter together with my mother, and she started exclaiming “Alas, my daughter, alas you bride!” We then arrived at Medina, and I stayed with Abu Bakr’s children, and Abu Bakr went to the Prophet. The latter was then busy building the mosque and our homes around it, where he later housed his wives. We stayed in Abu Bakr’s house for a few days; then Abu Bakr asked the Prophet “O Messenger of Allah, what prevents you from consummating the marriage with your wife?” The Prophet said “The bridal gift (sadaq).” Abu Bakr gave him the bridal gift, twelve and a half ounces of gold, and the Prophet sent for us. He consummated our marriage in my house, the one where I live now and where he passed away.”
    The History of Al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, Volume XXXIX, pp. 171-173
    Tabari IX:131
    “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”
    Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha:
    “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six years. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew again and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me for the marriage. Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
    ‘A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her”.
    [Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5981]
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151: Narrated ‘Aisha:
    “I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty”.)
    (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163, 118: Narrated ‘Aisha:
    “The Prophet was screening me with his Rida’ (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. I continued watching till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl who has not reached the age of puberty who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect”.
    Muhammad claimed that he received his revelations from Allah while he was in bed with this little girl and while he was wearing her clothes…
    Tabari VII:7 Aisha said,
    “There are special features in me that have not been in any woman except for what Allah bestowed on Maryam bt. Imran. I do not say this to exalt myself over any of my companions.’ ‘What are these?’ someone asked. Aisha replied, ‘The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him; Inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket”.
    Bukhari:V5B57N119
    “The people used to send presents to the Prophet on the day of Aisha’s turn [for sex]. Aisha said, ‘His other wives gathered in the apartment of Um Salama [wife number two] and said, “Um, the people send presents on the day of Aisha’s turn and we too love the good presents just as much as she does. You should tell Allah’s Apostle to order the people to send their presents to him regardless of whose turn it may be.” Um repeated that to the Prophet and he turned away from her. When the Prophet returned to Um, she repeated the request again. The Prophet again turned away. After the third time, the Prophet said, “Um, don’t trouble me by harming Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman among you except her.”
    Sahih Bukhari, Hadith Number: 2393 Volume Title, “Grace and its Virtues.” Chapter Title, “What was Granted to the Companions and the Wives.” Narrated by Ismail, narrated by his brother, narrated by Sulaiman, narrated by Hisham Ibn Urwah, narrated by his father, narrated by Aisha, who related that the wives of the prophet were divided into two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiya and Sawdah while the other group consisted of Um Salamah and the rest of the women that belonged to the prophet. The Muslims had learned of the great love that the prophet had for Aisha so that if one of them had a gift he desired to give to the prophet, he would delay giving it until the prophet came to Aisha’s house. Then the group who sided with Um Salamah came to Um Salamah and asked her to tell the prophet that he should command the people that if any of them had a gift to give to the prophet, they should give it him in whatever house of his wives the prophet was in at the time. So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds. Then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was wearing a woman’s clothes (Thowb) except that of Aisha.” http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2393&doc=0
    Years later, fat and elderly, Muhammad wanted to claim A BABY GIRL.
    Ibn Ishaq: Suhayli, 2.79: In the riwaya of Yunus Ibn Ishaq recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said,
    ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ (ref.10, p. 311)
    Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said,
    “If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her.”
    (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636)

    THE QURAN
    &
    MARRYING LITTLE GIRLS

    Islam allows you to marry pre-menstruating girls. The following verse is from At-Talaq (or Divorce). Islam’s main concern during a divorce is knowing who the father is (in case of a pregnancy). The waiting period is known as iddah.

    65.4 Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO COURSES (it is the same): for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make things easy for them.

    Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Commentary)
    And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have NOT YET MENSTRUATED, because of their YOUNG AGE, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.

    Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahid
    (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan Abu’l-Azhar Asbat ibn Muhammad Mutarrif Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those WHO ARE TOO YOUNG [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

    Islamic Websitehttp://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12667
    “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise…”

    Tafsir ibn Kathir (Read at your own leisure)
    http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54223

    Had Aisha reached puberty at age 9 when Muhammad, in his fifties, consummated the marriage with her? No...

    Canonical hadiths say Muhammad (in his fifties) consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine (lunar) years old

    A lunar year is about 355 days long, which means that at consummation, Aisha may actually have been as young as 8 years and 9 months old (in 365-day years).

    Some examples from al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

    Narrated 'Aisha:

    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
    _____________________________

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:

    Narrated 'Aisha:

    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."
    _____________________________

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:

    Narrated 'Ursa:

    The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
    _____________________________

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

    Narrated Hisham's father:

    Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

    Consider Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:

    Book 008, Number 3311:
    'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
    In the next hadith, we learn that playing with dolls is only permitted for prepubescent children:

    From Sahih al-Bukhari, a canonical hadith collection:

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

    The parenthetical statement is not mine -- it's in the University of Southern California's Sahih al-Bukhari online, as you can see by clicking on the link above. So, from the two canonical hadiths just cited, we find that 1) when Aisha, at the age of nine lunar years, entered Muhammad's house as a bride, her dolls were still with her, and 2) playing with dolls is permitted only to prepubescent children.

    And then of course there is the increasingly infamous Qur'an verse 65:4, which specifies a waiting period for prepubescent females to remarry after being divorced. A waiting period before remarriage is required only if the dissolved marriage was consummated. (See Quran 33:49.) Thus Qur'an 65:4 assumes consummation with prepubescent girls.
    Qur'an Chapter 65, Verse 4:

    And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation [because post-menopausal], if you have a doubt, their prescribed [waiting] time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses [because prepubescent]; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

    Aisha & her flying horse doll

    Book 41, Number 4914:

    Narrated By ‘Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: When the Apostle of Allah (صلى الله عليه و سلم) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her. He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, & asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse.

    He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (صلى الله عليه و سلم) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth. [Sunan Abi Dawd: 4932]

    Abu Talha reported Allah’s Apostle () having said: Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. [Agreed upon; Sahih Muslim: 2106 and Bukhari: 3144]

    Narrated By Abu Hurairah: The Apostle of Allah said: Gabriel came to me and said: I came to you last night and was prevented from entering simply because there were images at the door, for there was a decorated curtain with images on it in the house, and there was a dog in the house. So order the head of the image which is in the house to be cut off so that it resembles the form of a tree; order the curtain to be cut up and made into two cushions spread out on which people may tread; and order the dog to be turned out. [Sunan Abi Dawd: 4158]

    Claim : Many Muslims argue that Ayesha was older than 9 when Muhammad married her and older than 6 when he molested her.

    My response:

    A. Hadiths from Aisha about her age

    B.Hadiths from Aisha showing that she was not pubescent.

    C.Verse from Quran on how to divorce your wife if she is a child.

    D.Tafsirs of those verses

    E.Anwers o common excuses

    Hadiths Regarding Aisha’s Age:

    *These hadiths are from Sahih Bukhari, (Sahih = authentic in Arabic) (Bukhari = Name of the guy who collected these hadiths)

    *The chain of narration is strong for two reasons;

    1.The narrator is Aisha herself.

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

    2.Quran also says ;

    Quote:

    33:6 The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers. And the owners of kinship are closer one to another in the ordinance of Allah than (other) believers and the fugitives (who fled from Mecca) except that ye should do kindness to your friends. This is written in the Book (of nature)

    Quote:

    33:32 O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech

    Quote:

    33:33 And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

    List of Sahih Hadiths :

    Sahih Bukhari :

    Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234,

    Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236,

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64,

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:65,

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:88,

    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:163,

    Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151,

    Sahih Muslim :

    Sahih Muslim 8:3309,

    Sahih Muslim 8:3310,

    Sahih Muslim 8:3311,

    Sahih Muslim 31:5981,

    Sahih Muslim 31:5982,

    Sunan Abu Dawud

    Abu Dawud 2:2116,

    Abu Dawud 3:4913,

    Abu Dawud 41:4915,

    Abu Dawud 41:4916,

    Abu Dawud 41:4917,

    Abu Dawud 41:4918

    Ask him these questions and right them down;

    when did he make his message public answer: 43

    How old was Muhammad when khadija died? Answer 50
    How many years after that he married Aisha? Answer 3 years

    So Muhammad married Aisha at 53 and he spread Islam at 43,…10 years gap

    so from the time Muhammad made his message pubic to marriage to Aisha there is a 10 year gap, so if Aisha was older than 10 then she could have remembered a time when her parents were non Muslims but we read ,

    Sahih Bukhari

    Quote:

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    (the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), and (I don’t remember) a single day passing without our being visited by Allah’s Apostle in the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were put to test (i.e. troubled by the pagans),….

    Muhammad received the first message when he was 40, 10 years later Khadija died. He was single for three years then he married Aisha at 53 years of age

    Even More Consistent Hadiths :

    1. Muhammed died at the age of 63, and married Aisha at 53. (9 years later)

    So if he married Aisha when she was nine, you would expect her to be 18 when Muhammad died.

    Quote:

    Bukhari

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 242:

    Narrated Ibn Abbas:

    Allah’s Apostle started receiving the Divine Inspiration at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, receiving the Divine Revelation. Then he was ordered to migrate and he lived as an Emigrant for ten years and then died at the age of sixty-three (years).

    Quote:

    Sahih Muslim

    Book 008, Number 3311:

    ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

    Aisha owned dolls (which as we know is NOT allowed in Islam (if you have reached puberty)

    Quote:

    Sahih Muslim

    Book 031, Number 5981:

    ‘A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

    Quote:

    Book 41, Number 4914:

    Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

    When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.

    He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.

    Description of Aisha from herself and other when she married:

    A long hadith, Muhammad is asking people about Aisha, after he suspected that she has cheated on him:

    Quote:

    Sahih Bukhari

    Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829: and

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274:

    Narrated Aisha:

    …….On that Allah’s Apostle called Buraira and said, ‘O Burair. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?’ Buraira said, ‘No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.’

    ……I was a young girl and did not have much knowledge of the Quran. I said. ‘I know, by Allah, that you have listened to what people are saying and that has been planted in your minds and you have taken it as a truth.

    Evidence from other HADITHS :

    Sahih Bukhari

    Quote:

    Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63:

    Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
    While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, “Marry her to me O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet asked (him), “Have you got anything?” He said, “I have got nothing.” The Prophet said, “Not even an iron ring?” He Sad, “Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half.” The Prophet; said, “No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?” He said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur’an (as her Mahr).” ‘And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the ‘Iddat (the time you have to wait before divorcing your wife) for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

    Tafsirs :

    Quote:

    065.004

    Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

    Surah 65 (Talaq) which means Divorce talks about ,obviously, divorcing your wife and how you have to wait 3 months after her menstruation before divorcing her. Ayah 5 talks about divorcing women whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age and the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation.

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir (most widely accepted Tafsir in Islamic World)

    The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses

    Quote:

    Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;

    http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196

    Tafsir al-Jalalayan (another creditable tafsir)

    Quote:

    And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.

    http://www.altafsir.com and search for 65:4 and 5

    Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

    Quote:

    (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well.

    http://www.altafsir.com and search for 65:4 and 5

    Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi

    Quote:

    (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

    Sahih Bukhari

    Quote:

    Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63:

    Narrated Sahl bin Sad:

    While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, “Marry her to me O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet asked (him), “Have you got anything?” He said, “I have got nothing.” The Prophet said, “Not even an iron ring?” He Sad, “Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half.” The Prophet; said, “No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?” He said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur’an (as her Mahr).” ‘And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the ‘Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

    And the ‘Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamental … 2.sbt.html

    It’s OK to marry prepubescence orphan (evidence form the Quran and Tafsirs)

    Some times Muslims want to use this verse to shows that marrying children is not allowed in Islam;

    Quote:

    004:002To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin

    Quote:

    004.006

    Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.

    Few problems with this verse:

    First of all it doesn’t specify age of marriage; it’s about when you should give the inheritance to orphans.

    And as you can read it says;

    Quote:

    Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them since the it says IF THEN , age of marriage has nothing to do with being sound in judgment.
    It’s about male orphans not the girls.

    The verse concerning the FEMALE orphans;

    Quote:

    004.127

    YUSUFALI: They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: Allah doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.

    Tafsir of That verse :

    Ibn Kathir Explains :

    Quote:

    The Ruling Concerning Female Orphans

    Al-Bukhari recorded that `A’ishah said about the Ayah,

    [وَيَسْتَفْتُونَكَ فِى النِّسَآءِ قُلِ اللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِيهِنَّ]

    (They ask your instruction concerning women. Say, “Allah instructs you about them…) until

    and few lines later it shows that it’s possible for caretakers and guardians to MARRY the orphans ,which is more evidence for my argument.

    Quote:

    (whom you desire to marry…) “It is about the man who is taking care of a female orphan, being her caretaker and inheritor. Her money is joined with his money to such an extent, that she shares with him even the branch of a date that he has. So he likes (for material gain) to marry her himself, and hates to marry her to another man who would have a share in his money, on account of her share in his money.
    http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=12381

    supporting Hadith

    Sahih Bukhari

    Quote:

    Volume 7, Book 62, Number 2:

    Narrated ‘Ursa:

    that he asked ‘Aisha about the Statement of Allah: ‘If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (the captives) that your right hands possess. That will be nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.’ (4.3) ‘Aisha said, “O my nephew! (This Verse has been revealed in connection with) an orphan girl under the guardianship of her guardian who is attracted by her wealth and beauty and intends to marry her with a Mahr less than what other women of her standard deserve. So they (such guardians) have been forbidden to marry them unless they do justice to them and give them their full Mahr, and they are ordered to marry other women instead of them.“

    Dealing with the most common apologetic arguments :

    Quote:

    Morality of Muhammad’s time is different from what we have now, traditions were different so you can’t judge him.

    Well, based on this verse Muhammad received his wisdom from Allah;

    Quote:

    3:164 Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error

    so either :
    a.in Allah’s wisdom it’s ok to marry 6 year olds and have sex with them when they are nine.

    b. This verse is fabricated, which makes the Quran wrong.

    c. Muhammad marriage to Aisha (mother of all believers was a mistake)

    Quote:

    Abu Bakr, or other people, asked Muhammad to marry Aisha

    It was Muhammad who asked Abu Bakr for the marriage :

    Quote:

    Sahih Bukhari 007.062.018

    Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:

    Narrated ‘Ursa:

    The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

    and even if Abu Bakr asked for the marriage , Muhammad could say no.

    Quote:

    Marriage was for political reasons

    Then why Muhammad had sex with Aisha, when she was nine? Was it a political move?

    Quote:

    The word in 65:4 (NISA) is referring to women, so it can’t be regarding the infants;

    Let’s see what female infants are called in the Quran;

    Quote:

    004.127

    YUSUFALI: They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: Allah doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.

    ‏ويستفتونك في النساء قل الله يفتيكم فيهن ومايتلى عليكم في الكتاب في يتامى النساء اللاتي لاتؤتونهن ماكتب لهن وترغبون ان تنكحوهن والمستضعفين من الولدان وان تقوموا لليتامى بالقسط وماتفعلوا من خير فان الله كان به عليما

    and meaning of the word LAM means never before as seen in verse

    Quote:

    فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ فَرِجَالًا أَوْ رُكْبَانًا ۖ فَإِذَا أَمِنتُمْ فَاذْكُرُوا اللَّهَ كَمَا عَلَّمَكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُوا تَعْلَمُونَ

    2:239But if you are in danger, [pray] walking or riding; [228] and when you are again secure bear God in mind – since it is He who taught you what you did not previously know.

    Fatwas :

    Islam Online

    Quote:

    Islam does not specify a certain minimal age for marriage; rather, it placed a certain age for shouldering religious obligations in general. This age is the age of puberty, either by natural sign (the ability to ejaculate semen for a boy and menstruation for a girl) or by reaching the age of 15 lunar years. However, reaching this age is not necessary for validating the marriage contract, for it is up to the guardians to conduct marriages before [the bride or groom or both] have reached this age.

    http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Sate … 9503547512
    IslamWeb

    Quote:

    As regards, the age of getting married for a girl, it is when she becomes physically fit for sexual intercourse. However, she can get married before this time, but the husband should not consummate the marriage with her unless she becomes physically fit.
    It is confirmed in Sahih Al Bukhari that the Prophet ( sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention )) married Aisha, may Allaah be pleased with her when she was 6 years of age, and consummated the marriage with her when she was 9 years of age.

    The guardian of a girl should take the initiative to marry her off if he finds a suitable person who has the required characteristics that the Prophet ( sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention )) illustrated when he said: If any man whose religion and character are satisfactory proposes to marry one of your women, marry him, otherwise there will be great mischief and corruption on earth”. (Al-Thirmidhi and others).

    http://quran.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/Sh … on=FatwaId

    IslamQA

    Question :

    Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

    I have not yet reached the age of puberty. Is it correct that a girl could get married before her menses start, or is that just a traditional myth?.

    Praise be to Allaah.

    Firstly:

    Marriage to a young girl before she reaches puberty is permissible according to sharee’ah, and it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.

    http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12708

    AIN’T GONNA FOLLOW NO CHILD MOLESTER

    They try to tell me my religion is wrong

    They try to tell me to follow Islam

    They said their prophet was a righteous dude

    But I found out none of their words were true

    I read the Quran and I read the hadith

    And the sickness of Muhammad was apparent to me

    He justified perversion in the name of Allah

    When he married a girl too young for a bra

    II

    She was playing with dolls when the prophet came

    Her childhood was stolen in Allah’s name

    Aisha was nine when he took her to bed

    Don’t tell me that fool’s not sick in the head

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    III

    The sickness of the Islamic mind

    Has caused the Mullahs to be blind

    To justify their prophet they would justify sin

    So the sins of the prophet are repeated again

    All over the world in Islamic states

    9 year old girls suffer cruel fate

    Sold into marriage to twisted men

    And Aisha’s sad story is repeated again

    IV

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    Do you care about women all over the world?

    Do you care about those little girls?

    Then stand up and fight for human rights

    Speak out against the laws of Islam

    V

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

  13. 13
    Avicenna

    @1. Loqi – I am afraid I have to correct you there! Zero as a mathematical concept is Hindu rather than Muslim.

    Arabic Numbers are called as such because they were gotten from the Arabs, but in the Middle East they are called Hindu Numbers because they were borrowed from India.

  14. 14
    angharad

    I read a little of the first one, and I bet you all the imaginary internet money that you could find a Christian massacre of Jews for every one listed as being committed by Muslims. And you’ll note the references several times to Jewish viziers – no Christian country in Europe allowed Jews to hold a position of influence or power during the middle ages. And that’s without even getting into those guys that no one expects…

  15. 15
    Allan Frost

    And a nation’s borders are just territory. The same as dogs marking territories except we use fences, mine fields, GPS and the threat of blowing shit up. It’s an extension of urinating on trees. You may think Swedes are some magical fairy people but honestly they are pretty much the same as Syrians. They share the same hopes and dreams and wants and needs and internally they are nearly identical.

    ^^This is just awesome. I’m so happy I started reading your blog.

  16. 16
    Holms

    @2 Larry Silverstein
    I read a small fraction of that ridiculous novel you copy-pasted from elsewhere (are you ‘Kafir Murtad’ or just copying him?), before I realised just how overblown your reply was. Brief as my perusal was however, I did notice these glaringly biased ‘points’:

    But there are three major differences and distinctions that can be drawn between those crimes and the acts committed in Islam’s name.

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

    Bullshit.

    I notice that you treat christianity and islam blatantly differently here. Regarding christianity, the two thousand year history of mistreatment and war in the name of god is broken up into discrete ‘unfortunate events’ (what a laughable term!), each with a start and end date. And yet, despite a passing acknowledgement that such a history exists, there is a complete absence of any such corresponding list of christian influenced events, glossing over them entirely. But with regard to islam, you treat the 1,400 year history as a single gargantuan period of unending misery and atrocity.

    This characterisation doesn’t just fly in the face of your comprehensive list of discrete islamic events, but also – most tellingly – completely changes the character of each religion. It buys straight into the idea that islam is some kind of monolithic, unified entity, allowing you to place the blame for every single event at the feet of islam… but completely avoids this for christianity, allowing you to diminish and hence dismiss each corresponding christian event as the aforesaid ‘unfortunate event’.

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

    Bullshit again.

    For every abhorrent, bronze age injustice endorsed by the koran, there is an equivalent in the bible. Whether the act fulfils or violates either religion therefore comes down to selective quote mining. Remember, there are swathes of the bible that enthusiastically endorse murder at the level of genocide, and swathes of the koran that specifically prohibit murder, and vice versa.

    The third dissimilarity is that people from Christian cultures who perform terrorist acts against others are recognized as criminals, not worshiped as heroes.

    Bullshit hatrick!

    This is basically the same flavour of bullshit as the ‘second dissimilarity’: the different characterisation fo criminal acts is simply a matter of which interpretation a person has of biblical or koranic law. The mere fact that there are people who will murder Planned Parenthood staff is just one small example of christians taking a stance against something at the behest of their religion and their community. Where one acts to commit such a crime, there are many more accepting, even encouraging their actions in the name of Jesus.

    Likewise, yes there are islamic communities that fully endorse the ‘death to the decadent west’ sort of thing… but you completely omit the other islamic communities that flatly condemn such crime. Again, your treatment of the two faiths is utterly slanted.

    Now, with that said, I do agree with what you said in a very limited sense: there is a more violent, more socially conservative atmosphere seen in islamic theocracies than in christian theocracies. However, I do not consider this to be a difference inherent in the two religions; rather, I see both theocracies as roughly equally oppressive.

    The difference in opression stems not from one religion being kinder than the other, but from the fact that one has existed for far longer and has had that extra time to become moderated by secularism. Christianity started with roughly the same oppressive atmosphere, but has become less christian.

    Islam is less progressive not because it is extra evil, but because christianity had a head start in the slow but inevitable loss to secular humanism.

    @12 Laila Rasheed

    Blatant sock puppetry…

    We didn’t buy blatantly biased bullshit before, bugger (b)off.

  17. 17
    Marcus Ranum

    Hey, look, a post about the stupidity of religious hatred – brought out a bunch of stupid religious haters.

  18. 18
    Marcus Ranum

    Kafir Murtad is indonesian for infidel apostate

  19. 19
    Pen

    I don’t know if it’s even worth leaving a comment after these ‘essays’ but I think Avi is right. Syria’s very sad loss will be Sweden’s gain, just as Britain has gained immeasurably from becoming more multiracial and multicultural.

    I have a story of a Syrian setting the example for tolerance and friendship which seems worth sharing now. We went into our local Syrian restaurant years ago in France for mezzes and the owner said to my husband ‘you look Arabic, where are you from?’ My husband, who is both innocent and honest said ‘actually I look like this because I’m Jewish’. This was at a time when Israel was really hammering on Syria. Nevertheless, our host said ‘We are all friends here and I am very glad to welcome you’ I guess he meant it because he gave us free coffee and dessert for the next ten years until we moved! That’s a bit of hospitality to live up to! If only we could keep the weirdos like Connell away from any new arrivals…

  20. 20
    Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    Nowhere has Sweden Said “TAKING ALL SYRIANS! LOL K THANX BAI”, it’s said that 15,000 Syrians who it has taken as refugees will be given asylum as they cannot see a possible return for them. Should these Syrians wish to go back they can do so or if they chose to become Swedes they can do so too.

    Although speaking as a Yank, and insofar as I impart such concepts to abstract entities, I hold that simple humanity dictates the succour of refugees, but furthermore that the U.S., assuming it wishes to live up to its stated ideals, has an absolute moral duty to welcome 2 million Syrian refugees, or 20 million for that matter, (although that would mean the entire population of Syria wanted to move here, which I count as unlikely).

    angharad #14
    Frankly, I’d bet I could find a Christian massacre of Muslims for every one mentioned on the list. The Crusades and the Reconquista offer fertile grounds for that sort of thing. (Massacres by Christians of other Christians are no less common, nor of Muslims by Muslims, not to mention the endless massacres of members of non-Abrahamic religions by the above and by each other. Fanatics+political power=massacres.)

  21. 21
    clamboy

    Thank you for this post, I have nothing to add except:

    Dil Se!!!! I love that movie.

  22. 22
    oursally

    >infidel apostate

    can you be both infidel and apostate at the same time? I mean, be an unbeliever and then stop believing?

  23. 23
    Larry Silverstein

    THE SEALED NECTAR

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

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

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

    Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father

    Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha:

    Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

    Muhammad, 50, marries baby Aisha at age 6

    Bukhari vol 8, bk 73, no 151

    Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, & my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join & play with me. (the playing with the dolls & similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)

    HOW TO THIGH

    Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

    Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
    According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

    Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

    Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

    Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

    The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

    After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

    That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

    Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

    AISHA WASHING SEMEN FROM MUHAMMAD’S CLOTHES

    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

    Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

    I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

    From the Hadith of Bukhari:

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    as above (229).

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

    Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

    I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

    Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:

    I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

  24. 24
    Jafafa Hots

    troll is a troll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>