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.
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.