Geert Wilders: How to Turn the Tide

Thank you to Gates of Vienna for posting this

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders last night (March 25) at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome.

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide

Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends,

Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.

Psychologist: Western Quran schools are “terrorist factories”

EuropeNews 23 February 2011
By Dr. Nicolai Sennels, psychologist and author
http://europenews.dk/de/node/40482

How to turn normal human beings into murderous and hateful psychopaths who blindly obey their totalitarian systems and its authorities suppressing and killing innocent people? In short: How to create a terrorist?

Violent and murderous political, ethnic and religious regimes have used the same effective methods throughout history all over the world. The procedure consists of two simple steps that are repeated again and again:

1) You force a person to repeat the system’s doctrine again and again for months and years until he or she knows every word by heart and it pervades his or her whole way of thinking and it is the only truth they believe in.

2) You beat and scare the person (best if this is done randomly and severely), thus forcing him or her to become insensitive and unempathic in order to be able to bare the physical and psychological suffering and in order to increase feelings of anger, frustration and fear – feelings that are then directed against the system’s enemies.

In this way you will create a person whose whole being is pervaded by the system’s doctrine and who has lost the ability to feel both his own and others’ pain. You will have an emotionally cold person that blindly follows his authorities and their political or religious doctrine. If you use this method on a child who is in the process of developing its personality, the learned doctrine will simply become a part of the child’s personality. The psychological impact of the physical abuse will also be deeper. As children and youth are dependent on acceptance from adults, they are easier to influence.

Being a child psychologist I was shocked to realise that this is exactly what is done to millions of Muslim children in both the Muslim world and the West. Tens of thousand of madrassas and Quranic schools all over the world are making their students repeat the Quran and the Hadiths again and again, until they know them by heart. They are told to believe every word and never to question neither the way nor the goal.

It is normal in these schools that the defenceless and innocent children are randomly beaten and humiliated by the teachers and older students – who themselves are emotionally destroyed beings who have been abused the same way as they now use against their pupils. They personify the goal: The abused becomes the abuser.

Britain has more than 2,000 madrassas, where more than 200,000 children aged from four to their mid-teens are taught the Quran on weekday evenings.

Investigations show that extreme violence is common in the British madrassas: “Students have been slapped, punched and had their ears twisted, according to an unpublished report by an imam based on interviews with victims in the north of England. One was “picked up by one leg and spun around” while another said a madrassa teacher was “kicking my head – like a football” … Hiba, 7, was slapped across the face so hard by her madrassa teacher that her ear was cut. It later became inflamed and she had to have emergency medical treatment.” The teachers are reported to punish the children whenever they mispronounce a word or forget a verse of the Quran. One private investigator reported that “the victims had grown to accept the abuse. ‘They all joked about it. There’s a culture that accepts it.’”

Another investigation disclosed that the children are taught to hate non-Muslims: “‘You’re not like the non-Muslims out there,’ the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. ‘All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking . . . you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.’” The same investigation reports that during less than three hours of lessons the teacher beat children as young as six at least ten times. In one occasion during the secret filming one child is held down by an elder student while another elder student threatens to beat him with a small table.

These reports are from the West, where thousands of madrassas exist and millions of Muslim children are learning the traditional Islamic teachings by heart, many of them being physically and psychologically traumatized. Research show that in Muslim culture “moral education seems to be neglected in favour of punishment” which may explain the wide acceptance of the abuse by the childrens parents. Everybody is welcome to look for videos on e.g. YouTube about madrassas in Muslim countries, where the conditions and are even worse.

Seen from the perspective of a child psychologist, the many thousands of madrassas and Quran schools, are literally terrorist factories creating an army-like Muslim population of youths and adults inside the Western countries. From early age they have been brainwashed to think that every word of the Quran should be taken literally and they have been made hateful and emotionally cold by the physical and psychological punishments. Making the schools non-violent will include emmense amounts of year long of control.

This also includes changing a central pattern of the Muslim culture – child raising – and the Muslim cultures massive failing of integration into non-Islamic cultures has proven that changing basic cultural values and behavior within the Muslim communities are almost impossible. Should we in spite of the emmense challenges be able to remove the wide spread abuse, the children are still learning the Quran by heart and are taught to take every word at face value, which is exactly what Islamic terrorists do. Millions of children attend the madrassas and when they and their subsequent generations grow up, the consequences will be big.

Historikerin Bat Ye’or zur “Revolution” in Ägypten

Danke an PI

 

“Die Muslimbruderschaft wird nicht den Islam modernisieren, sie wird die Moderne islamisieren”, sagt die in Ägypten als Jüdin geborene berühmte Autorin und Historikerin Bat Ye’or (Foto) in einem Interview mit dem norwegischen Blog document.no, das wir nachfolgend in deutscher Übersetzung veröffentlichen. Darin vergleicht die 77-Jährige die Ereignisse in ihrem Geburtsland mit denen der Revolution im Iran 1979.

Bat Ye’or, danke, dass Sie sich von Document.no interviewen lassen. Es gab vor kurzem eine Revolution in Ihrem Heimatland Ägypten. Alle waren offensichtlich vom Sturz des Mubarak-Regimes überrascht, Sie auch?

Ja, natürlich.

Die wenigsten Kommentatoren haben offenbar eine klare Vorstellung davon, wie es weitergeht mit Ägypten. Die jüngsten Ereignisse werden sowohl mit dem Fall der Berliner Mauer 1989 als auch mit der Revolution im Iran 1979 verglichen. Auf welchem Weg ist das Land Ihrer Meinung nach?

Wir sind auf dem Weg zu Letzterem, fürchte ich, weil die Muslimbruderschaft die einzige gut organisierte und strukturierte Bewegung mit klaren Zielen und einer internationalen Machtbasis ist. Es scheint auch so, dass sie fast unbegrenzten Zugang zu Finanzierung hat. Ich bin der Meinung, dass jeder Vergleich mit westlichen Revolutionen überflüssig ist, weil wir es mit einer Scharia-Gesellschaft zu tun haben, die innerhalb einer Wirklichkeitsauffassung lebt, die unsere Grundauffassung ablehnt. Ich habe auch mit großer Sorge bemerkt, dass die Angriffe und Morde an Kopten zugenommen haben.

Ausländische Korrespondenten sagten, dass die Demonstrationen ein Schrei nach Gerechtigkeit waren, und sie erkannten Positives in dem Aufstand. Aber die Vorsichtigeren meinen, dass man darauf keine Gesellschaft bauen kann, da es leichter ist, sich gegen etwas zu versammeln, als den gemeinsamen weiteren Weg zu finden. Kann alle diese jugendliche Energie positive Auswirkungen haben, oder ist sie zu schlecht organisiert?

Ich stimme mit den Korrespondenten überein. Aber Demokratie, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Arbeitsplätze können nur entwickelt werden, wenn sie die richtigen Institutionen entwickeln und Ökonomie Fuß fassen kann. Ägypten ist ein armes Land mit mehr als 80 Millionen Einwohnern, von denen sind ein großer Prozentsatz Analphabeten und den Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts nicht gewachsen. Ich zweifle nicht an den Fähigkeiten der Bildungselite, aber die sozialen Probleme sind so riesig. Der allgemeine Trend hin zu einer traditionell religiösen Gesellschaft, die auf den Koran baut, wird auch nicht zur Modernisierung beitragen.

Wünschen sich die ägyptischen Massen Demokratie im tieferen Sinn des Wortes oder fehlt es ihnen an Wissen, worum es sich dabei handelt?

Ganz sicher wünschen sie sich Demokratie, aber wenn man ihnen zuhört, wirkt es so, als wenn sie etwas greifen und mit sich nehmen wollen, und nicht, dass es eine abstrakte Idee ist, die Zeit braucht und Anstrengungen erfordert, damit eine ganze Nation sie verwirklichen kann. Demokratie ist nicht nur die Herrschaft der Mehrheit. Sie enthält eine politische Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, gleiches Recht für alle – auch für Nicht-Muslime und nicht-arabische Minderheiten wie Kurden, Assyrer und Berber – mitsamt der Meinungsfreiheit und die Akzeptanz des Pluralismus und der Kritik. Aber all dies wird sowohl durch die Scharia als auch durch die Kairoer Erklärung der Menschenrechte von 1990 im Islam verboten. Um die Demokratie zu erreichen, muss man zuerst die Scharia beseitigen.

Professor Bernard Lewis sagt, dass es etwas in der muslimischen Tradition gibt, das vage an die Demokratie erinnert, also diese beratenden Gruppen bestehend aus Schlüsselpersonen, Clanführer etc. Ist ein solches Kompromiss-Modell das Beste, worauf man hoffen kann?

Solche Treffen, wo ausgewählte Stammesführer ihre Entscheidungen treffen, haben nichts mit einer modernen Demokratie, wie wir sie kennen, zu tun.

Die Kopten waren nicht sehr zufrieden mit der Wahl des Führers des Verfassungsausschusses. Befürchten Sie, dass die Verfassungsänderungen den Weg für die Bruderschaft ebnen werden?

Bereits im Jahr 1971 verdeutlichte der Artikel 2 der ägyptischen Verfassung, dass die Prinzipien der islamischen Rechtsgrundsätze eine der Hauptquellen der Gesetzgebung sind. Dieses Prinzip wurde am 30. April 1980 verstärkt, als das Parlament es dahingehend änderte, dass die Scharia die Hauptquelle der Gesetzgebung ist. Ägypten behielt viele islamische Gesetze bei: Polygamie, die Diskriminierung von Frauen, die fehlende Anerkennung der Bahai als Religion, Strafe für Apostasie und Blasphemie sowie Einschränkungen der religiösen und zivilen Rechte von Christen. Ich bin sicher, dass der Einfluss der Bruderschaft sowohl den Christen als auch liberalen Muslimen ein noch schwierigeres Leben bereiten wird, wenn sie ins Parlament kommen. Im übrigen wird es keine Demokratie geben ohne die volle Anerkennung von Israel in seiner historischen Heimat, oder wenn der ideologische Jihad gegen Nicht-Muslime nicht aufhört.

Besteht die Gefahr, dass sie hoch gewinnen können in einer baldigen Wahl?

Ja, denn die anderen in der Opposition sind eine amorphe Masse ohne Führer, und die politischen Diskussionen zeigen bisher keine Anzeichen von modernen Vorstellungen von Regierung, Institutionen oder Geopolitik.

In Europa wird die Bruderschaft hin und wieder als eine relativ moderate Bewegung dargestellt, weil sie eine weniger gewaltsame Rhetorik gewählt haben. Nach dem Angriff auf die koptische Kirche nach Neujahr hörte man sogar, dass einige ihrer Mitglieder sich als menschliche Schutzschilder außerhalb der Kirche anboten. Ist das ein taktisches Manöver, oder gibt es eine Chance, dass die Bruderschaft ihre Ideen verändern werden?

Hier handelt es sich um die persönlichen Neigungen einzelner Mitglieder. Die Bruderschaft hat ein politisches Programm: die Umsetzung der Scharia in der ganzen Welt, beginnend in den muslimischen Ländern, und wir wissen, was die Scharia ist. Die Gläubigen behaupten, dass sie perfekt ist, weil es Gottes Wille ist, und ist daher ohne Änderung und ohne Kritik anzuwenden. In der globalen Politik verfolgt die Bruderschaft eine Jihad-Theologie.

Wie gefährlich ist die Bruderschaft?

Sie ist sehr gefährlich, denn sie hat sich eine westliche Sprache angeeignet, um den Westen zu unterminieren. Ihr Ziel ist es, die Moderne zu islamisieren, nicht den Islam zu modernisieren. Ihre Gründer und Führer fördern den Jihad zur Einführung der Scharia, von der sie glauben, dass sie alle Aspekte des Lebens, persönliche sowie soziale und politische, umfassen soll.

Hier und da sagt man, dass das Militär ein Garant gegen die Islamisierung ist. Aber das kann doch nicht ohne Islamisten in seinen Reihen sein? Könnte das Militär in einer nationalen Krise gespalten werden?

Das sagte man auch über die Türkei, aber dort wurde eine islamistische Regierung gewählt, die es sich zum Ziel machte, das Militär zu schwächen. Diese ägyptische Revolution verursachte ja eine nationale Krise, aber selbst wenn das Militär Islamisten in seinen Reihen hat, spaltete es sich nicht. Aber wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass Scharia-Schulen, Medien und Filme schon Generationen mit Hass gegen den Westen vergiftet haben, gegen Israel, das das Herz der westlichen Werte ist, und gegen die Bibel, die die westliche Spiritualität und Zivilisation geformt hat.

Gibt es etwas, das der Westen tun kann, um auf das, was jetzt in Ägypten geschieht, konstruktiv Einfluss auszuüben?

Ja, der Westen kann die Unterdrückung der Kopten und anderer Minderheiten verurteilen und sollte die großzügige finanzielle Unterstützung an Bedingungen knüpfen, damit das Land reelle demokratische Strukturen aufbaut und mit der Hasskultur gegen Israel aufhört, die ein Indikator für eine mörderische Intoleranz gegen Juden, Christen und andere darstellt. Die Gesellschaften im Westen sollten diese Dinge von ihren Regierungen verlangen, weil es ihre Steuergelder sind, die in die arabischen Länder fließen.

Die Verfolgung von Minderheiten, einschließlich der Christen, hat eine ziemlich lange und oft vergessene Geschichte in Ägypten, aber jetzt ist das Phänomen zumindest Anlass für eine internationale Besorgnis. Europa und der Rest der Welt betrachtet Ägypten mit mehr Aufmerksamkeit, wohlwissend, dass es sich um einen Zivilisationskonflikt handelt, den wir auch im eigenen Land haben. Vielleicht könnte das die Situation der ägyptischen Minderheiten verbessern?

Es ist schwer zu sagen. Europa hat schon lange die Verfolgung von indigenen und nicht-muslimischen Minderheiten ignoriert und so getan, als ob es Israels Schuld wäre, wenn Muslime die Christen verfolgen. Die europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs sind nun verpflichtet, den Christen eine gewisse Aufmerksamkeit zu widmen, denn der Öffentlichkeit ist bewusst geworden, was da vorgeht. Das Thema wurde im Internet diskutiert, lange bevor die Medien es aufgriffen, Jahrzehnte wurde es geheimgehalten. Als ich begann, darüber zu schreiben, wurde ich heftig kritisiert, sogar bestraft und verleumdet. Das Problem ist vor allem, dass die Christen in muslimischen Ländern wie Geiseln gehalten werden. Wenn sie (die Muslime) das Gefühl bekommen, dass der Westen versucht, sie zu schützen, wird es von Seiten der Fanatiker noch mehr Angriffe geben. Der Westen hat seit langem eine nachgiebige und unterwürfige Haltung gegenüber der muslimischen Welt gehabt, und es wird nicht leicht sein, jetzt Muskeln zu zeigen. Dies hat auch dazu beigetragen, Europa in Eurabia zu verwandeln. Indem man Israel verraten hat, hat man Europa verraten. Weder die Obama-Regierung noch die politische Klasse, die wir im Moment in Europa haben, können eine neue, härtere Politik einsetzen. Was wir brauchen, ist ein Bündnis von muslimischen Kräften, die den Fundamentalismus ablehnen, die den Minderheiten religiöse und nationale Rechte für Gleichheit und Autonomie einräumen, und den Pluralismus in einem Nahen Osten, der vom Islam und Jihad kolonisiert wurde, akzeptiert. Das sind die Voraussetzungen für einen globalen Frieden.

Lassen Sie uns zum Schluss etwas mehr über Europa reden. Um Ihre Terminologie zu verwenden, bekam dieser Teil der Welt eine Art Dhimmistatus, den die Öffentlichkeit kaum bemerkte. Aber jetzt, da die drei mächtigsten Führer in Europa den Multikulturalismus für tot erklärt haben, und David Cameron sogar den islamischen Extremismus als ein großes Problem benannt hat, kann es da sein, dass reelle Veränderungen in der alten Welt stattfinden?

Das bleibt abzuwarten. Es wird sich zeigen, ob diese Aussagen nur benutzt wurden, um die allgemeine Unzufriedenheit zu besänftigen und um ihre Stimmen zu behalten oder ob sie durch konkrete Maßnahmen den Europäern ihre Meinungsfreiheit, Sicherheit und Würde zurückgeben werden, indem man von allen, einschließlich Migranten, Respekt vor den Gesetzen und der Kultur der Länder, in die sie einwandern, einfordert, anstelle mit Hilfe des Multikulturalismus zu islamisieren. Es muss betont werden, dass Europas Dhimmstatus durch die Politik der Weltregierenden entstanden ist. Sie hätten sich weigern können, auf etwas einzugehen, das unsere ganze Kultur erschüttert hat, wo die Wahrheit durch die Lüge ersetzt wurde, um unseren Untergang vorzubereiten. Viele muslimische Einwanderer haben auch unter dieser unverantwortlichen Politik gelitten, zumindest diejenigen, die in den Westen geflohen sind, weil sie dessen Kultur und universielle Werte schätzen.

Sie sind ein genauer Beobachter von Frankreich. Umfragen dort deuten darauf hin, dass Marine Le Pen die erste Runde der Präsidentschaftswahlen im Jahr 2012 gewinnen könnte, obwohl sie am Ende kaum gewinnen wird. Das bedeutet wohl, dass die französischen Wähler mit Sarkozys Einsatz nicht zufrieden sind. Wird er in der Wählergunst dadurch scheitern, dass er sich nur rhetorisch der Front National annähert? Verlieren die Franzosen ihre Geduld und verlangen echte Veränderungen?

Frankreich war der Motor in der islam-freundlichen und anti-israelischen Mittelmeer-Politik. Das Land hat zusammen mit Deutschland die ganze EU in diese Dhimmikultur hineingeführt. Als Resultat hat es auch die größte muslimische Einwanderung. Die Franzosen rebellieren jetzt gegen die allgegenwärtige Islamisierung der Schulen, der Wirtschaft – ich denke an das Scharia-Banking-System – der Lebensmittel d.h. Halal-Fleisch, Verlust der Meinungsfreiheit, Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts in Krankenhäusern, Ehrenmorde, Blasphemie-Gesetze, Zensur der Medien, fehlende Sicherheit und andere soziale Konflikte. Also ja, die Franzosen sind dabei, genau wie andere Europäer die Geduld zu verlieren.

Viele sind zu Recht entsetzt über die antisemitischen Äußerungen, die der alte Le Pen in seiner Zeit tätigte. Könnte seine Tochter in der Lage sein, die Nationale Front zu einer reifen und glaubwürdigen politischen Partei zu machen, die die Leute aus Verzweiflung mangels anderer Alternativen wählen?

Sie muss zuerst die Rassisten loswerden, die die Partei beschädigt haben. Aber es gibt viele Elemente in der Sozialistischen Partei, Kommunistischen Partei und den Extrem Linken Parteien, die genauso rassistisch, antisemitisch und gefährlich sind.

(Übersetzung: Alster)

In Europa herrscht Meinungsfreiheit – solange nur eine Meinung geäußert wird

24.03.2011 | 18:31 | CHRISTIAN ORTNER (Die Presse)

Wer den Islam besonders kritisch sieht, muss sich neuerdings darauf gefasst machen, als Kranker oder gar als Krimineller diskreditiert zu werden. Woran erinnert das bloß?

Quergeschrieben

Nachdem er in einer TV-Diskussion behauptet hatte, die Mehrzahl der Drogendealer seien „Schwarze oder Araber“, wurde der französische Kolumnist Eric Zemmour („Le Figaro“) unlängst von einem Pariser Strafgericht wegen „Anstiftung zum Rassismus“ verurteilt. Dass selbst der – sozialistische – Ex-Innenminister Jean-Pierre Chevènement dazu erklärt hatte, Zemmour habe lediglich „die Realität ausgesprochen“, beeindruckte den Richter nicht.

Ebenfalls vor Gericht verantworten musste sich heuer der dänische Journalist Lars Hedegaard für seine im privaten Rahmen gemachte Äußerung, Frauen hätten im Islam „keinen Wert, außer als Gebärmaschinen“ (Freispruch, freilich bloß aus formalen Gründen). Verurteilt hingegen wurde bekanntlich in Österreich Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf, weil sie sich über das Geschlechtsleben des Propheten Mohammed in justiziabler Weise geäußert hatte.

Sogar der eher biedere Polizeipräsident von Hannover, Uwe Binas, kam kurz in die öffentliche Kritik, weil er die jugendliche Ausländerkriminalität in seiner Stadt mit der saloppen Formulierung „offenbar neigen diese Tätergruppen zu anderen Konfliktlösungsstrategien als Deutsche“ kommentiert hatte. Doch Binas behielt immerhin seinen Job – anders als Thilo Sarrazin, den seine Ansichten bekanntlich den Job als Bundesbank-Vorstand gekostet haben.

Je mehr derartige Fälle publik werden, um so stärker wird in der Öffentlichkeit der Eindruck, die Meinungsfreiheit im Europa des 21. Jahrhunderts sei durchaus endenwollend; und dies ganz besonders, wenn es um den Islam und die – überwiegend muslimische – Migration nach Europa geht. (Dass jemand seinen Job verloren hat, weil er sich über den christlichen Herrgott unpassend ausgelassen hat, ist ja schon länger nicht mehr vorgekommen.)

Der Eindruck ist leider nicht ganz falsch. Auf der einen Seite wird in den meisten europäischen Staaten die Freiheit der Meinung durch diesbezüglich immer restriktivere Gesetze immer mehr eingeschränkt, meist unter dem Prätext des Schutzes vor Diskriminierung. Auf der anderen Seite droht in der öffentlichen Auseinandersetzung die Moralkeule „Islamophobie“ jedem, der es irgendwie nicht okay findet, dass für manche hier lebende Muslime die westlichen Werte eher entbehrlich erscheinen.

Und „Islamophobie“, so hat uns der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdoğan erklärt, sei ja „ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit“. Wer also Kritik am Islam übt, ist islamophob. Oder zumindest ein „Panikmacher“, wie der FAZ-Feuilletonchef Patrick Bahners seine jüngst erschienene Brandschrift wider die angeblich wuchernde „Islamophobie“ zu nennen beliebt.

Es ist leider der Sache des offenen „republikanischen Diskurses“ (Jean-Pierre Chevènement) nicht wirklich dienlich, wenn Kritik am Islam – und sei sie im Einzelfall auch überzogen – bestenfalls als Krankheitsbild („Phobie“) abgetan und schlimmstenfalls als Straftat („Anstiftung zum Rassismus“) sanktioniert wird. Als Geisteskranke und/oder Kriminelle wurden zu Zeiten des Kommunismus sowjetischer Prägung Dissidenten bezeichnet. Dem liberalen europäischen Rechtsstaat steht nicht zu, das Vertreten von Meinungen, und seien sie im Einzelfall auch noch so abwegig, mit ähnlichen Methoden zu verfolgen.

The Sharia Catechism

by Roland Shirk, Jihadwatch

I must admit that when I first began studying Islam and its political manifestations, I found myself puzzled and put off by the sheer foreignness and apparent complexity of the issues—in much the same way that patriotic Americans who supported the free market and a free society felt when confronted (during the 1930s) with the growth and influence of the global Communist movement. Did one really need to learn German—and the science of economics—in order to read Karl Marx, then Russian to master the subtleties of Leninist and Trotskyite theory?

If you wanted to be an academic you certainly did, but the average American who became an informed opponent of Communism was loath to dedicate so much of his time and energy to the intimate study of worldviews he knew—on the face of it—were incompatible with all his deepest values and the best interests of his country. What is more, he felt he could judge a tree by its fruits—the nature of which was clearly apparent to any honest observer (but not to dupes) from reports by escapees from Soviet Russia. Does one really need to master the thousands of pages of bad economics and clunky, reductionist philosophy penned by Marx and his minions to know that an economic system based on obliterating property rights and forcing men to abandon their inherent self-seeking was doomed to famines and tyranny?

Surely it helped that men like Ludwig von Mises provided devastating analyses of the flaws in Marxist theory—such as Mises’ classic essay on how any form of socialism destroys the price system, that elegantly efficient method of matching human work with human wants, and can only hope to replace it by reshaping civilization on the model of a termite colony. But a simple knowledge of history and human nature would have pointed the same conclusion.

Even monasteries populated by men who have voluntarily renounced property, progeny, and freedom of action—by embracing the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience—have frequently failed in their mission. The reason the world came to have so many Benedictine orders—the Cluniacs, the Trappists, the Cistercians—is that the original ideal was so hard to live, that monasteries quickly became corrupt, and had to give way to new “reform” branches that promised (this time!) to really live up to St. Benedict’s Rule. Much the same story unfolded among the Franciscans and even the Carmelites. If voluntary recruits to self-selected communities upheld by contemplative prayer cannot reliably hold to such anti-instinctual standards of behavior, what conceivable earthly power could enforce them on the mass of men? Only an all-encompassing tyranny more comprehensive than any the world had yet seen. A simple reading of The Communist Manifesto would have revealed its final program: godless monasticism, enforced at the point of a bayonet. The real essence of socialism was exposed by a wistful socialist, George Orwell, whose depiction in 1984 of the ideology he called “Oligarchical Collectivism” unveiled the ideology in its essence: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” His Ingsoc Party indeed favors an infernal, secular parody of monasticism, opposing on principle prosperity, eros, and liberty. Intelligent observers of Soviet policies could—and many did—draw such conclusions.

Likewise, honest readers of the Qur’an and other authoritative Muslim texts can draw certain conclusions, which all the evasions and obfuscations of pseudo-moderate Muslims (remember Eurocommunism? Anyone? It was all the rage in respectable liberal circles while I was in college in the 80s.) cannot obscure. Let me lay out my own no-nonsense take on the question, in a form I’ll call the Sharia Catechism:

What does Islam teach? Islam teaches that it is the final revelation from God, and the only legitimate world religion. All other faiths, or secular world views, are either idol-worship, blasphemous parodies of Islam, or degenerate perversions of it.

When was Islam founded? Islam was founded when Abraham made his covenant with God. The Jews who claimed that this covenant constituted Judaism are lying (as is their wont), and relying on faked scriptures that their scheming ancestors crafted to suit their own ethnic aggrandizement.

Where are the original scriptures recounting the history of Abraham, Moses, and other early Muslims? These original scriptures no longer exist. They were destroyed and replaced by the crafty Jews.

Who was Jesus? Jesus (Isa) was a Muslim prophet who came as the Messiah to recall the faithless Jews to their Muslim faith. The true accounts of his life and message were altered beyond recognition by the scheming Christians—who also spread the lie that he was crucified, and rose from the dead.

Where are these original Gospels? These original Gospels were destroyed by the early Christians (who were also, we must remember, Jews), shortly after they were written—in order to cover up their clear predictions of the coming of Muhammad.

Will Jesus come again at the end of the world? Yes, Jesus will come again to destroy Christianity, kill all the pigs in the world, and end dhimmitude—by forcing all Christians either to convert to Islam or be killed (like the pigs).

What is the proper treatment of non-Muslims? When Muslims are weak, they should practice tolerance of unbelievers, and ask for similar tolerance. As they grow in numbers, they must harden their attitudes as Muhammad hardened his once he commanded an army in Medina. Muslims should spread their faith by conquest; by preaching; and by emigrating to non-Muslim countries and demanding tolerance—then once they are strong enough, they should impose the true faith on the government where they can. Polytheists should then be allowed to convert or else be killed; monotheist infidels such as Jews and Christians should be offered a third option: Utter, willing subjection to Muslims, with their obedience binding on pain of death. These non-believers must pay a special, heavy tax and keep quiet about their religion, not trying to spread it.

So if Jews accept their proper role as dhimmis, they are in theory welcome in Muslim societies? Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, no. The atrocity of Zionist control of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem is so great that no Jews should remain in Muslim countries. They are simply too crafty and dangerous.

Is sharia law an intrinsic part of Islam? Yes, it is as basic to Muslims as the Torah is to Jews and the sacraments are to Orthodox and Catholics. It is how Muslims live out their faith in the world.

Must Muslims seek to impose sharia? Only where it seems likely they will succeed. Until then, they should deceive the unbelievers, as Islamic ethics allow.

What about Muslims who oppose sharia and religious discrimination? They are bad Muslims, and they will burn in hell with all the Christians, Jews, and idol-worshippers. But we should not say this openly until we are strong enough throughout the West. Until then, it benefits us to highlight such people, and claim that they are representative.

What about those who oppose Islam? They are enemies of God who deserve death in this life and eternal punishment in the next. However, if it helps us fight them more effectively, we can call them “racists,” “xenophobes,” and “Islamophobe.”

What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is someone who opposes sharia, and is unwilling either to convert or beg for the protection of dhimmitude.

Whom should we call an Islamophobe? Anyone who gets in our way.

Fatwa: “It Is Permissible to Have Sexual Intercourse with a Prepubescent Girl”

Fatwa: “It Is Permissible to Have Sexual Intercourse with a Prepubescent Girl”From Jihadwatch

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).” — Bukhari 7.62.88

Islamic apologists in the West routinely claim that Aisha was older at the time of her marriage to Muhammad and its consummation. Here is evidence that mainstream Muslims understand otherwise, and consider child marriage to be completely justified by the Sharia.

“Fatwa: ‘It Is Permissible to Have Sexual Intercourse with a Prepubescent Girl,'” from Translating Jihad, January 14:

This is another fatwa from IslamOnline.net, which again is the sixth most popular Islamic website on the internet, according to Wikipedia. As the author of this fatwa points out, this ruling is entirely based on the Qur’an and the example of the prophet, who is considered the perfect example for Muslims in all ages. How many young girls have been and continue to be abused due to Muhammad’s perverse actions in having sex with a nine-year-old, which now must be made permissible for all Muslims? (See the original Arabic here.)

Title: Is it permissible to restrict the age at which girls can marry?Submitted by: Ahmad

Date: 24 Dec 2010

Question: What is your opinion of the calls from more than one Islamic country to prohibit girls from marrying before the age of eighteen? Which is nearest to Islam–these calls or not specifying a certain age for marriage the nearest to Islam? Is it correct that Islamic scholars permit the father to marry off his young daughter (I mean, a child)?

Answer: In the name of God, praise to God, and prayers and peace be upon the prophet of God, etc.

Scholars very nearly agree that it is the right of the father to marry off his young, immature daughter. This is owing to his authority over her, for as he is responsible for directing her and providing for her, he is also responsible for doing what he believes is in her interest on the issue of marriage. […]

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet (PBUH) entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari. […]

Yusuf al-Qaradawi: “The Islamic Shari’ah Governs All of the Actions” of Muslims

from: Translating Jihad

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, explains in his book “Al-Din wal-Siyasa” (Religion and Politics) that religion and politics in Islam are inseparable:  “The Islam which was initiated by Allah did not set aside any of the facets of life without committing itself to its legislation and guidance for it–by its nature–is comprehensive in all aspects of life:  material and spiritual, individual and society.”

Al-Qaradawi begins this section of his book by citing the efforts of “the Islamic reformers [to] blend politics with religion.” Among these reformers are such notables as Ibn ‘Abd-al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, and al-Mawdudi. He explains that all of them strove to put into practice the comprehensiveness of Islam, for three reasons:  first, the comprehensiveness of the doctrine of Islam; second, Islam rejects the partitioning of its rulings; and third, life is an indivisible and inseparable unit, and so is man.

I plan to write about this in greater detail at a later date, but I think one important thing to take from this is that Islam, being a complete and comprehensive religiopolitical system as al-Qaradawi explains below, leaves no room for Western systems of law. Islam is not like Christianity which can separate between what is God’s and what is Caesar’s. In Islam, everything belongs to Allah, even and perhaps especially political power and the right to legislate. Thus the problem is not just that Islam is incompatible with Western liberal democracy, but in essence it chokes it out, leaving no room for it. This obviously does not bode well for those hoping for any type of democratic reform in the Middle East (at least one which respects the human rights and equality of all its citizens), especially considering a recent poll shows that a huge majority of Egyptians want more Islam, not less, in politics.

(Source:  Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf. 2006. Al-Din wal-Siyasa, pp. 45-48. Doha.)

The Idea of the Comprehensiveness of Islam

Why did the Islamic reformers blend politics with religion?:

The issue (of the comprehensiveness of Islam), which is denied and rejected by the modernists, secularists, and Marxists in an overall sense, is an idea agreed upon by all Islamic scholars. We have seen the Islamic reformers in the modern era, beginning with Ibn ‘Abd-al-Wahhab, al-Mahdi, Khayr al-Din al-Tunsi, al-Sanusi, Prince ‘Abd-al-Qadir, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, then up through al-Kawakibi, Muhammad ‘Abduh, Shakib Arslan, Rashid Rida, Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, Ibn Badis and his brothers in Algeria, ‘Allal al-Fassi in Morocco, al-Mawdudi in Pakistan, and others. All of them embraced the comprehensiveness of Islam in doctrine and law, da’wa and the state, and religion and politics. They were not satisfied with merely reporting this in theory, but instead they plunged right into the hardships of putting politics into practice, and faced its risks and troubles, and suffered its trials and afflictions. They did this for three reasons:

1. The Comprehensiveness of the Doctrine of Islam

First: The Islam which was initiated by Allah did not set aside any of the facets of life without committing itself to its legislation and guidance, for it–by its nature–is comprehensive in all aspects of life: material and spiritual, individual and societal. Almighty Allah spoke to His Messenger, saying: “We have sent down to thee the book explaining all things, a guide, a mercy, and glad tidings to Muslims” [Qur’an 16:89].

The Qur’an which says, “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you…” [Qu’ran 2:183], is the same which also says in the same surah, “O ye who believe! Retaliation for the slain is prescribed for you…” [Qur’an 2:178], and also, “Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to reasonable usage…” [Qur’an 2:180], and also, “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you…” [Qur’an 2:216]. The Qur’an expressed the imposition of all of these things with a single phrase: “prescribed for you.”

All of these things are among those which were prescribed, or rather imposed, by Allah upon the believers: fasting, from (the area of) rites of worship; retaliation, from criminal law; bequest, from what are called “personal affairs”; and fighting, from international relations.

All of them are obligations of the shari’ah, and by carrying them out the believers express their veneration for, and come closer to, Allah. A Muslim would not think to accept the obligation of fasting, and (at the same time) reject the obligation of retaliation, or bequest, or fighting.

The Islamic shari’ah governs all of the actions of those who are obligated (to it). There is no act or occurrence which exists without a corresponding ruling from one of the five shari’ah rulings (obligatory, recommended, prohibited, reprehensible, or permitted). This has been confirmed by fundamentalists and scholars from every faction and school of thought associated with Islam.

The Qur’an and the Sunnah have provided evidence for the comprehensiveness of Islam. The Most High said, speaking to His Messenger (peace be upon him): “and We have sent down to thee the book explaining all things, a guide, a mercy, and glad tidings to Muslims” [Qur’an 16:89]. He also said concerning the Qur’an: “It is not an invented story, but confirms that which went before it, and explains all things, and a guide and a mercy for people who believe” [Qur’an 12:111].

This proves that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not leave anything which would bring us closer to Allah without commanding the same, nor did he leave anything which would move us away from Allah without forbidding the same. He even left us the bright path: “Its night is as its day, no one deviates from it except he perish.”

Islam is the message for all of life, for all men, for all the world, and for all time.

Whoever reads the books of the Islamic shari’ah, I mean the books of Islamic jurisprudence, in its different schools of thought, will find that they comprise all of the affairs of life, from the jurisprudence of purity, to that of the family, society, and the state. This is very clear for every elementary student, not to mention those in the world who are more capable.

2. Islam Rejects the Partitioning of Its Rulings

Second: Islam itself rejects the partitioning of its rulings and teachings, and taking some of it without the rest.

The Qur’an harshly rebuked the children of Israel for this behavior. The Most High said, speaking to them: “Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do” [Qur’an 2:85].

When some of the Jews wanted to enter into Islam on the condition that they would keep some of the Jewish laws, such as sanctifying the Sabbath day, the Messenger forbade them from doing so, unless they would enter into all of the laws of Islam.

On that, the saying of Allah Almighty was sent down: “O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy” [Qur’an 2:208].

Almighty Allah spoke to His Messenger (peace be upon him), saying: “So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee” [Qur’an 5:49].

Here Allah warns His Messenger against the non-Muslims, that they may not turn him away from some of the rulings of Islam, and this is addressed to everyone who will lead the people after him.

The truth is that the teachings and rulings of Islam in doctrine, in the shari’ah, in morals, in acts of worship, and in social dealings–they do not bear their fruit unless they are taken in whole, for they need each other. It is similar to a medical prescription, with a complete (regimen) consisting of a full array of foods, various types of medicines, dieting and abstaining from some things, and some exercise. In order for the prescription to achieve its goal, it must be executed fully. If a part of it is left out, the entire end-result may be affected.

3. Life Is an Indivisible and Inseparable Unit, and So Is Man

Third:  Life is an inseparable and indivisible unit.

[…]

Sharia Law for Non-Muslims

This is a Must Read for everyone.

German translation to follow soon.

Shariah Law for Non-Muslims

The Pedophile Pirate

from: The Prophet of Doom

“When the Prophet married Aisha she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.”

Chairman Muhammad settled into his public housing project and immediately began to act like the fool he had become. Ishaq:235 “In the year of the Prophet’s arrival, Abu Umamah died from a rattling in the throat. The Messenger said, ‘His death is an evil thing for the Jews and the Arab Hypocrites for they are sure to say, “If Muhammad were really a prophet his companion would not have died.” But truly, I have no power with Allah either for myself or for my companions.'” Truer words were never spoken.

Muhammad had no morals either. 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.” Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.” Tabari VII:6 “In May, 623 A.D./A.H. 1, Allah’s Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha.” He would be dead in ten years; she hadn’t lived that long. Pedophilia was, and continues to be, child abuse. The abused had come full circle; he was now an abuser.

Accusing a prophet of being a pedophile sounds outrageous. Yet the evidence is undeniable: Tabari IX:128 “When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.” This is how it happened: 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.” Given a choice, I believe most people would prefer to get their spiritual inspiration from someone who wasn’t a sexual predator.

Muhammad struggled to justify his behavior. Bukhari:V9B86N98 “The Prophet said, ‘A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.’ ‘O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.’ He said, ‘By remaining silent.'” Bukhari:V9B87N139-40 “Allah’s Apostle told Aisha, ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams [a.k.a. sexual fantasies]. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”‘” Allah not only approved pedophilia, he insisted upon it. That makes the Islamic god as perverted as his prophet.

Since fifty-three-year-old pedophiles are not prophet material, I want to give Islam every possible opportunity to clear this up. The next Hadith is from Aisha. Tabari VII:7 “There are special features in me that have not been in any woman except for what Allah bestowed on Maryam bt. Imran [She was referring to Mary, the mother of Jesus, although she didn’t know her name or her father’s name, and none of the “features” applied]. 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 [she was a babe]; the Messenger married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine [she was abused]; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him [she was a child]; inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket [she “inspired” him]; I was one of the dearest people to him; a verse of the Qur’an was revealed concerning me when the community was almost destroyed [she inspired Allah]; and I saw Gabriel when none of his other wives saw him [she lied].'” Think about the implications of what she just said. Muhammad was “inspired” – a Qur’an surah was handed down while the prophet was having sex with a little girl. Allah didn’t find pedophilia the least bit troubling.

The following confirms that the first Muslims were consumed by greed, the prophet was inspired by the body of a child, and the circumstances surrounding Qur’an revelations were as perverted as the scripture itself. Bukhari:V5B57N119 “The people used to send presents to the Prophet on the day of Aisha’s turn [to have sex with him]. 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 [Qur’an surahs] never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman among you except her.”‘” If there have been any skeptics who have made it this far without acknowledging that the Qur’an was inspired to satisfy Muhammad’s cravings, rather than to save men’s souls, welcome to the realm of reason.

Earlier, I accused the victim of pedophilia of lying. I want to explain why. Her eighth divine gift was contradicted during one of the bedroom revelations. Bukhari:V4B54N440 “The Prophet said, ‘Aisha, this is Gabriel. He sends his greetings and salutations.’ Aisha said, ‘Salutations and greetings to him, and Allah’s Blessings.’ Addressing the Prophet she said, ‘You see what I don’t see.'”

This Hadith reveals how perverted Muhammad was and how sane other Arabs were by contrast. Bukhari:V4B52N211 “I participated in a Ghazwa [raid] with the Prophet. I said, ‘Apostle, I am a bridegroom.’ He asked me whether I had married a virgin or matron. I answered, ‘A matron.’ He said, ‘Why not a virgin who would have played with you? Then you could have played with her.’ ‘Apostle! My father was martyred and I have some young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl as young as them.'” It’s obvious who corrupted whom.

Muhammad’s behavior would be considered criminal in every civilized nation on earth. No moral society has ever condoned old men having sex with young children. If you are caught, you’re locked up, separated from decent people. Pedophilia is so heinous, convicted felons torment child abusers – even they can’t stand to be in their presence.

Such a grotesque act disqualified Muhammad from his alleged calling. What’s more, his personal perversity had a lasting legacy. Muslims follow his example. While most of what happens in the Islamic world escapes our purview, as Islam is hostile to all freedoms, including press and inquiry, we have gained glimpses in Afghanistan and Iraq. There, virginal young girls are frequently raped by Muslim men. And as you would expect in a culture influenced by Muhammad, the victims are shamed, not the perpetrators.

It is little wonder Muhammad’s contemporaries called him “mad,” “insane,” and “demon possessed.” It is little wonder Islamic clerics try so hard to hide this stuff from the world. It is why Muhammad assassinated a score of poets, the journalists of their day, who had the courage to expose him. It is why Muslim rulers issue fatwas today.

Decadent egomaniacs like Muhammad are deeply troubled and tortured souls. Their insecurities drive unbridled lusts for power, sex, and money. Their feelings of inadequacy cause them to be shy, yet their outward manner overcompensates making them abusive and purposely deceptive. They need others to bow down to them in submission, and they require unquestioned obedience. Muhammad was a textbook case (as was Adolf Hitler, his modern twin). Bukhari:V4B56N762 “The Prophet was shier than a veined virgin girl.” Bukhari:V9B89N251 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.'” Pedophilia, incest, and rape are all perverted manifestations of a thirst for power and control. Insecurity is the cause.

I apologize for dragging you through this muck. I realize the material we just covered would be illegal, even in a pornographic movie. And we are not done. We have yet to deal with the prophet’s other depravities: incest and rape. But at least you now know why this control freak’s paradise was a brothel filled with ever-attentive young virgins ready to be conquered.

Muhammad, like his religion, was fixated on the flesh. According to the Qur’an, bodies were reassembled so that skin could be singed in hell and teased in paradise. Man’s spirit was incidental. I believe this is because the religion was made in the prophet’s image. It reflected his character and desires.

To appreciate Islam’s elevation of body over soul, we must look at the source of his inspiration. Muhammad was right when he described the angel that visited him as a slave. Bukhari:V4B54N455 “So (Allah) conveyed the Inspiration to His slave (Gabriel) and then he (Gabriel) conveyed (it to Muhammad).” Angels, fallen or heavenly, demonic or godly, have no choice. To borrow another line from Islam, “They must submit and obey.” Islam’s dark spirit knew all about angelic submission, because he once was one: Qur’an 7:11 “It is We who created you and gave you shape; then We ordered the angels to fall and prostrate themselves to Adam.”

The same passage goes on to correctly implicate Satan and suggest angels are eternal. Qur’an 7:19 “Satan…said: ‘Your Lord only forbid you this tree, lest you should become angels, immortal, living forever.'”

Satan, like all angels, is a four-dimensional construct. That is to say, he can maneuver in time – the fourth dimension. While this may sound complex, we have known since Einstein that space has a fourth axis, an infinite aspect that we cannot yet navigate. In this regard, angels are superior to men as we are trapped in three-dimensional bodies, stuck in time. Yahweh is not, which is why his name means “I Am,” or “I Exist.” He is immortal and timeless; his infinity exists in the fourth dimension. This explains how Yahweh predicts the future. He knows the future not because he has ordained it but because he has already been there and witnessed the culmination of our choices.

Now, put yourself in Lucifer’s wings for a moment. He knows that his spirit is inferior to ours for two reasons. We are made spiritually in God’s image. And we have choice. With choice we have the capacity to be creative and to love. This is why God created us. These attributes remain his and our most powerful qualities. So Lucifer doesn’t want to compete with us spiritually. He can’t win.

But when he competes bodily, he can’t lose. We are three-dimensional – he is four. The difference is infinite, just as it is between two- and three-axis realms. The comparison is like a cartoon rendering of Mickey Mouse competing with Walt Disney – or more accurately, with Walt’s secretary. This is why Islam is focused on the body. It’s why the covetous Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet.

The arrival of the first child born to Muslims after the Hijrah was celebrated: Tabari VII:9 “The Messenger’s Companions cried, ‘Allahu Akba.’ [Allah is Greater than Yahweh, was the implication], when she was born. This was because a story was current among the Muslims that the Jews claimed that they had bewitched them so that no children would be born. The Muslims praised Allah that he had falsified the Jew.’ claim.” They were saying that their “god’s” magic spells were more powerful then the Jewish God’s. Even if they were right, it made Islam wrong.

The next seven section heads in Tabari’s The Foundation of the Communit y, begin with “Expedition.” The Arabic word is “Maghazi,” which is translated “Raid” in the Sira. It actually means invasion. It’s synonymous with “Jihad,” defined by Bukhari as “Holy fighting in Allah’s Cause.” A more complete explanation is provided in the Book of Jihad , on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari : “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”

Memorize this paragraph. Shout it out to all who will listen. Every word was derived from the Qur’an. Every word was lived by Muhammad. It accurately represents fundamental Islam, so much so, each of the 150 Hadiths that follow this definition of Jihad speak of fighting; none suggest a spiritual struggle. Among them, Muhammad says that the most important deed is Jihad, fighting in Allah’s Cause. (Bukhari:V4B52N44) And the Qur’an agrees, saying peaceful Muslims are hypocrites, destined for hell. They are “the worst of creatures,” “the most vile of animals.” (Qur’an surahs 3 and 33.)

So that there is no question regarding the appropriateness of using Bukhari as a source, here’s what the Islamic scholars had to say in the preface: “Al-Bukhari’s Hadith is the most authentic and true book of the Prophet.” The translators said, “I am perfectly sure that the translation, with Allah’s help and after all the great efforts exerted in its production, has neared perfection.” The imams from the cradle of Islam, the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, said, “It has been unanimously agreed that Imam Bukhari’s work is the most authentic of all the other sources in Hadith literature put together. It is second only to the Qur’an.”

That leaves you and me at the crossroads of destiny. If we don’t deal with the awesome gravity of Islamic Jihad, our future will vanish before our eyes. If we wish to avoid the abyss of world war we must expose the doctrine committed to world conquest. We must liberate Muslims from Islam.

“The Expedition Led by Hamzah” was the first Maghazi. Hamzah, a huntsman in Mecca, was now a “Mujahid” (plural – Mujahidun), “a Muslim warrior in Jihad.” Tabari VII:10 “In Ramadhan, seven months after the Hijrah, Muhammad entrusted a white war banner to Hamzah with the command of thirty Emigrants. Their aim was to intercept a Quraysh caravan.” Seven months after fleeing Mecca in shame, the pedophile prophet has become a pirate and terrorist.

So that there is no misunderstanding, let’s define these less than admirable characterizations. Pirate: a renegade who, along with others under his command, uses force of arms to steal the property of others. Terrorist: a person who violently attacks civilians, destroys their property, and disrupts their economy as a means to achieve a political objective.

The flag Muhammad handed to Hamzah was a war banner. It was one of the many symbols the prophet borrowed from his patriarch Qusayy. Hamzah was a warrior. He was given the command of thirty men. Their aim was to intercept a caravan, a civilian economic enterprise owned by the people Muhammad had promised to slaughter because they had teased him. Although we are told: “they separated without a battle,” the intent was piracy and terror. Their failure didn’t change what they had become – what Islam had done to them. At this point in the profiteer’s career, there were simply more good guys than there were bad guys, and he was as inept a pirate as he was a prophet.

Turning to Muhammad’s biographer, we learn more about the mindset of the first Muslims. Ishaq:283 “Hamza’s expedition to the seashore comprised thirty riders, all Emigrants from Mecca. He met Abu Jahl who had 300 riders. Amr, intervened for he was at peace with both sides. Hazma [Muhammad’s raider] said, so they allege: ‘Wonder at good sense and at folly, at a lack of sound counsel and at sensible advice. Their people and property are not yet violated as we haven’t attacked. We called them to Islam [surrender] but they treat it as a joke. They laughed until I threatened them. At the Apostle’s command, I was the first to march beneath his flag, a victorious banner from Allah. Even as they sullied forth burning with rage, Allah frustrated their schemes.'”

Abu Jahl, a pagan businessman, responded to the Muslim militants: Ishaq:284 “I am amazed at the causes of anger and folly and at those who stir up strife by lying controversy. They abandon our fathers’ ways. They come with lies to twist our minds. But their lies cannot confound the wise. If you give up your raids we will take you back for you are our cousins, our kin. But they chose to believe Muhammad and became obstinately contentious. All their deeds became evil.” As always, the Meccans understood Islam.

Ibn Ishaq believed: Ishaq:281 “The Raid on Waddan was the first Maghazi.” He said, “The Expedition of Ubayda Harith was second. The Apostle sent Ubayda out on a raid with sixty or eighty riders from the Emigrants, there not being a single Ansar among them. He encountered a large number of Quraysh in the Hijaz. Abu Bakr composed a poem about the raid.” Some of the most memorable lines include: “When we called them to the truth they turned their backs and howled like bitches. Allah’s punishment on them will not tarry. I swear by the Lord of Camels [Allah?] that I am no perjurer. A valiant band will descend upon the Quraysh which will leave women husbandless. It will leave men dead, with vultures wheeling round. It will not spare the infidels.” To which a pagan named “Slave-to-Allah” replied: Ishaq:282 “Does your eye weep unceasingly over the ruins of a dwelling [Allah’s House] that the shifting sands obscure? Is your army and declaration of war firm enough that we should abandon images venerated in Mecca, passed on to heirs by a noble ancestor [Qusayy]? Are your steeds panting at the fray, are your swords polished white, are they in the hands of warriors, dangerous as lions, or are you conceited? Are you here to quench your thirst for vengeance? Nay, they withdraw in great fear and awe.”

Of the raid, the historian reports: Tabari VII:10 “Eight months after the Hijrah, Allah’s Messenger entrusted a white war banner to Ubaydah and ordered him to march to Batn Rabigh. He reached the pass of Marah, near Juhfah, at the head of sixty Emigrants without a single Ansari (Medina Muslim) among them. They met the polytheists at a watering place called Ahya. They shot arrows at one another but there was no hand-to-hand fighting.”

The prophet is now a repeat offender. Eight months into the Islamic Era he has ordered multiple attacks. Muslim apologists profess that Muhammad was forced into defending Islam and that he was neither aggressor, pirate, nor terrorist. But that position is indefensible. Nothing is known about the Muhammad of history – no independent records exist. All that is known about him is contained in these Hadiths. If they say he attacked a civilian caravan and then ordered men to march and fight in another town, he did. Therefore, he was the aggressor. There isn’t even a hint of self-defense in these Traditions, nor do they try to explain away the prophet’s motives. They were after money, not armies – booty, not converts.

You may be wondering why none of the Ansari joined the Muslim Emigrants from Mecca on either raid. I believe that the answer is that they hadn’t been Muslims long enough and therefore still knew right from wrong. Islam had already corrupted the Meccan Muslims to the point that they thought piracy and terror were justifiable, even admirable. Kind of reminds us of the modern day Islamic terrorists.

Ishaq:285 “Then the Apostle went raiding in the month of Rabi u’l-Awwal making for the Quraysh. He returned to Medina without fighting. Then he raided the Quraysh by way of Dinar.” Tabari VII:11 “In this year the Messenger entrusted to Sa’d a white war banner for the expedition to Kharrar. Sa’d said, ‘I set out on foot at the head of twenty men. We used to lie hidden by day and march at night, until we reached Kharrar on the fifth morning. The caravan had arrived in town a day before. There were sixty men with it. Those who were with Sa’d were all Emigrants.'” Muhammad is now a serial offender, a committed pirate and terrorist, albeit a failed one.

Tabari VII:11 “The Messenger of Allah went out on a raid as far as Waddan, searching for Quraysh. In the course of which, the Banu Damrah made a treaty of friendship with him. Then Muhammad returned to Medina without any fighting and remained there for the rest of the month.” This time Muhammad took command himself with the express intent of finding the Quraysh and robbing them. And while it is noble that he inked a treaty of friendship, even this was the wrong thing for a prophet to do. Treaties are political, not religious. Muhammad was now considered a “fellow chief” commanding a band of armed men – hardly prophet-like. Besides, the Qur’an would ultimately say that treaties with unbelieving infidels weren’t binding on Muslims. This alliance was with pagans.

Tabari VII:12 “During this stay he sent Ubaydah at the head of sixty horsemen from the Emigrants without a single Ansari among them. He got as far as a watering place in Hijaz [Central Arabia], below the pass of Marah. There he met a greater band of Quraysh, but there was no fighting except Sa’d shot an arrow. Then the two groups separated from one another, the Muslims leaving a rearguard.” Islamic raiders marched with the intent to plunder and kill. The only thing that stopped them from achieving their objective was the sight of a superior force. As we seek to defend ourselves today we would do well to keep this in mind.

Tabari VII:13 “Muhammad led an expedition in [the month of] Rabi al-Akhir in search of Quraysh. He went as far as Buwat in the region of Radwa and then returned without any fighting. Then he led another expedition in search of the Meccans. He took the mountain track and crossed the desert, halting beneath a tree in Batha. He prayed there. [What on earth was he praying for? “O God, please help me rob and kill people. Thank you. Amen.”] After a few days the Prophet went out in pursuit of the Kutz.”

The Islamic Era was but a year old, yet Muslims were fully committed to the path of piracy and terror. Forget for a moment that this was supposed to be a religion. There was nothing noble, moral, or redeeming about raiding parties seeking to plunder civilian caravans or expeditions marching off to terrorize unsuspecting villagers. Just as there was no redeeming surah in Mecca, there is no virtuous behavior in Medina. I haven’t cherry-picked the ugly parts out of a sea of pious religious activities. I have reported everything.

The second year of the Islamic Era began as the first one ended. The opening headline reads: Tabari VII:15 “Expeditions Led by Allah’s Messenger,” This was followed by: “In this year, according to all Sira writers, the Messenger personally led the Ghazwa of Alwa. [A Ghazwa is an Islamic Invasion in Allah’s Cause consisting of a large army unit led by the Prophet himself.] He left Sa’d in command of Medina. On this raid his banner was carried by Hamzah. He stayed out for fifteen days and then returned to Medina.” This was the eighth failed terrorist attack in as many months.

There are two interesting subtleties here. First, Sa’d, Chairman Muhammad’s most fierce warrior, was left in “command” of Medina because the “prophet” had become a warlord. And considering the nature of the Islamic world today, that made him a role model. Second, the “religion” of Islam actually coined a word to define an armed raid personally led by its prophet. There is something very perverse about that.

“According to Waqidi, the Messenger went on a Ghazwa at the head of two hundred of his companions in October, 623 and reached Buwat. His intention was to intercept a Quraysh caravan with a hundred men and twenty-five hundred camels.” This expedition was neither a military operation nor was it defensive. And it most assuredly wasn’t religious. It was an act of terrorism against a civilian economic activity. The pirate was after booty.

The Hadith reports: “In this year Muhammad sent forth the Emigrants to intercept a Quraysh caravan en route to Syria. His war banner was carried by Hamzah.” It also failed. The score was Muslim Militants 0, Infidels 10. Unfortunately, Islam would get better at this game than they ever got at religion.

Ishaq:286/Tabari VII:16 “Ali and I were with the Messenger on the Ghazwa of Ushayrah. We halted on one occasion and saw some men of the Banu Mudlij working in one of their date groves. I said, ‘Why don’t we go and see how they work.’ So we went and watched them for a while; then we felt drowsy and went to sleep on dusty ground under the trees. Muhammad woke us, arriving as we were covered in dust. He stirred Ali with his foot and said, ‘Arise, O dusty one! Shall I tell you who was the most wretched man? Ahmar of Thamud for he slaughtered the she-camel and he shall strike you here.’ Muhammad put his hand to the side of Ali’s head, until it was soaked from it. Then he grabbed his beard.” The Qur’an claims that the Thamudic nation was destroyed by Allah because someone hamstrung a camel. While it’s odd he liked camels more than men, there was a bigger perversion still in this tale of misplaced ambition. The Muslims were so unfamiliar with honest labor they went to watch someone work. And they were so lazy, they fell asleep doing it.

Ultimately, that was why the pirates were there in the first place. When the bedraggled Muslim refugees migrated north they became dependent upon handouts. They were physically able to work, since they went off on raids. And the oasis town of Yathrib was a bustling agricultural and commercial center, so there was plenty of work being done. All of which leads to a conclusion: something in Islam made the Muslims unwilling to work. And it affects them to this day. Islamic states have the lowest per capita productivity in the world. Islam politically and economically is as faulty as the religion is false. Lose, lose.

Ishaq:286 “Meanwhile the Apostle sent Sa’d on the raid of Abu Waqqas. The Prophet only stayed a few nights in Medina before raiding Ushayra and then Kurz.”

Let’s review Bukhari’s Book of Maghazi to get a better feel for what’s happening: Bukhari:V5B57N1 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A time will come when a group of Muslims will wage a Holy War and it will be said, “Is there anyone who has accompanied Allah’s Apostle?” They will say, “Yes.” And so victory will be bestowed on them.'” Bukhari:V5B57N51 “The Apostle said, ‘Tomorrow I will give the flag to a man whose leadership Allah will use to grant a Muslim victory.” Bukhari:V5B59N569 “I fought in seven Ghazwat battles along with the Prophet and fought in nine Maghazi raids in armies dispatched by the Prophet.”

There was nothing “spiritual” about fundamental Islam: Bukhari:V5B57N74 “I heard Sa’d saying, ‘I was the first Arab to shoot an arrow in Allah’s Cause.'” Bukhari:V5B59N288 “I witnessed a scene that was dearer to me than anything I had ever seen. Aswad came to the Prophet while Muhammad was urging the Muslims to fight the pagans. He said, ‘We shall fight on your right and on your left and in front of you and behind you.’ I saw the face of the Prophet getting bright with happiness, for that saying delighted him.” Bukhari:V5B59N290 “The believers who did not join the Ghazwa and those who fought are not equal in reward.” Bukhari:V5B59N320 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘When your enemy comes near shoot at them but use your arrows sparingly (so that they are not wasted).'” Bukhari:V5B59N401 “Allah’s Wrath became severe on anyone the Prophet killed in Allah’s Cause.”

While the terrorist raids were hardly religious, religious symbolism and rewards were used to solicit and inspire the new combatants: Bukhari:V5B59N456 “Muhammad led the Fear Prayer with one batch of his army while the other (batch) faced the enemy.” Bukhari:V5B59N330 “The Prophet said, ‘This is Gabriel holding the head of his horse, equipped with arms for the battle.'” Bukhari:V5B59N440 “Allah’s Apostle used to say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allah Alone because He honored His Warriors and made His Messenger victorious. He (Alone) defeated the Infidel clans; so there is nothing left.'” Bukhari:V5B59N377 “A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘Can you tell me where I will go if I get martyred.’ The Prophet replied, ‘To Paradise.’ The man fought till he was martyred.”

There are no such bargains in the Gospels. Killing is not an express ticket to heaven. Yahshua never asked his followers to “slay” anyone. Yahshua mentions killing only once. He tells a parable about a ruler in the final days of the Tribulation to encourage Christians to be productive, not destructive.

In the Torah, Yahweh asked the Israelites to kill once, as well. He told Moses and Joshua to remove those poisoned by the Canaanite religion from the land. They were like Muhammad’s Muslims: immoral, terrorizing, plundering, enslaving, and murdering. Their religion was as corrupt as Islam – equally demonic. Yahweh recognized it was more compassionate to exterminate some Canaanites than it was to allow them to seduce millions. He made the right call, but the Jews failed to execute his order.

Let’s consider Yahweh’s moral justification for fighting. Imagine that you were God and knew the thousand people most responsible for the September 11th suicide bombings. You know that they have been poisoned to believe that mass murder is a service to you. Left alone, they will corrupt and murder thousands. Would you kill them before they perpetrated these crimes or would you let them go ahead?

Now move back in time to the dawn of the 20th century. As usual, the world is full of bad people and bad ideas, but two doctrines are especially lethal – Communism and Nazism. Because you’ve read their maifestos and have maneuvered in time, you know what is going to happen. Within their first three decades, these dictatorial, intolerant, and violent dogmas will lead directly to the annihilation of over fifty million people and to the indoctrination of a billion more. Given the opportunity, would you exterminate a few thousand aspiring Communists and Nazis to save the lives of the fifty million their regimes butchered? Would you do it to save a billion people from being forced into submission – forced to live in civil, religious, intellectual, and economic poverty? Would you do it to keep them from growing strong enough to kill you, your neighbors, and your children? What is the most moral, just, and compassionate choice?

Perhaps now you know why Yahweh ordered his people to slay the practitioners of a doctrine virtually identical to Islam. But don’t get carried away. His last command to kill was 3,200 years ago. His command wasn’t open ended. It was directed at a specific group of people, in a specific time and specific place. Apart from self defense, that’s the end of the story.

So, when you hear Muslims defend their violent doctrine, saying that the Bible is equally warlike, you’ll know the truth. Yahweh asked once. He identified the reason and the people. The order wasn’t open ended, either. And, even if it were, there are no Canaanites to kick around. What’s more, the Jews were expressly forbidden from taking a spoil. When the walls of Jericho fell, its storehouses remained filled. Children were not sent off into slavery; women were not raped as if they were booty. The Judeo-Christian scriptures have to be corrupted to inspire such horrible acts.

Allah, by contrast, gave Muslims hundreds of commands to kill. His orders were open-ended – surviving throughout time. And his intended victims were many: those who worshiped the one true God, many gods, or no gods at all. Allah especially hated Christians and Jews, ordering Muslims to fight them until they were “wiped out to the last.” This is fundamental Islam – the very core of Muhammad’s message.

That said, there is one Bible verse that appears to be both open ended and to encourage violence. As such, Psalm 149 became the rallying cry for the Crusades. In actuality it is prophetic, speaking of what’s called the “Tribulation,” and of the return of the Messiah. In the fashion of Hebrew poetry, the Psalm presents a series of nine couplets – pairs of phrases that say the same thing in different words.

Let’s review them. The first couplet speaks prophetically of the new millennium, of the church and saints: “Praise Yahweh. Sing unto Yahweh a fresh song, and sing his praise in the congregation of saints.” The second celebrates the end of the Tribulation, and the Messiah’s return: “Let Israel rejoice in Yahweh who made them, let the Children of Israel be joyful in their King.” Then, “Let them praise Yahweh’s character in dance, let them sing praises unto Yahweh with the tambourine and harp.” Speaking of the Messiah’s gift of salvation, the next reports: “For Yahweh is pleased with his people; He will glorify the meek with salvation.” The fifth couplet reveals: “Let the saints be joyful in this glorious honor; let them shout from their resting place.” At Christ’s return the souls of the saints will be raised from their graves.

A Catholic Pope misinterpreted the sixth verse to advance his personal agenda: “Let the exaltation of the Almighty be in their mouths, and a two-edged sword be in their open hand.” A two-edged sword is the Bible’s metaphor for divine judgment or rendering a godly verdict. That’s why it’s in an “open hand,” which could not wield an instrument of violence. Its pair in the couplet references the exalted words of the Almighty, suggesting an oral verdict, not a slashing weapon. The seventh pair proclaims: “To advance vengeance upon the nations and punishment upon the people.” This speaks to the final judgment of Yahweh on those who attack Israel during World War III, midway through the Tribulation. Interesting, in that the predicted Magog war against Israel is perpetrated entirely by Islamic states.

This is followed by: “To yoke kings together, bringing them forth, and those who are severe will be tied with iron twine.” In other words, following God’s verdict, the purveyors of false doctrines, those who are severe, will be restrained. The final couplet reveals: “To advance the verdict upon them, prescribed by the splendor of his saints. Praise Yahweh.” The entire Psalm is prophetic, speaking of the final judgment of nations following the Messiah’s return in power and glory. There is no command to fight or kill anyone.

Since Islam’s principle defense is to claim that Christians have performed no better, especially during the Crusades, I want to bring your attention to two incredibly important historical facts. First, Pope Benedict IV: he reigned in 1033 A.D., precisely 1,000 years after Yahshua’s resurrection. Benedict became like Muhammad, demonic, fixated on the occult, demented, delirious, and lascivious. The Church became corrupt, fixated on rituals, suppression, and money. With power-hungry men at the helm, it splintered, ultimately causing cleric and king to send men off on fool-hearty crusades.

The second historical fact is that the Crusaders weren’t Christians. They couldn’t have been. Four centuries had passed since the last sermon was given in a language common to the people of Europe. The first Bible to be printed in the vulgar tongue, John Wycliffe’s, wouldn’t find quill for another four centuries. To be a “Christian” one must know the Messiah. He could not have been known to the men who fought. They carried his symbols, nothing more.

Returning to 7th-century Medina, Muhammad was back on the warpath: Tabari VII:18/Ishaq:287 “The Messenger sent Abd Allah out with a detachment of eight men of the Emigrants without any Ansari, or Helpers, among them. He wrote a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had traveled for two days. Then he was to carry out what he was commanded to do. When Abd Allah opened the letter it said, ‘March until you reach Nakhlah, between Mecca and Ta’if. Lie in wait for the Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing.'” The letter suggests there was treachery among the treacherous. One or more Muslims was spilling the beans and tipping off the Quraysh before the militants could rob them.

“Having read the letter, Abd Allah said, ‘To hear is to obey.’ He told his companions, ‘The Prophet has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and lie in wait for the Quraysh.” To “lie in wait” was an order to kill. I present Allah as an authority. Qur’an 9:5 : “When the prohibited months for fighting are over, slay the pagans wherever you find them. Take them captive and besiege them. Lie in wait for them in every likely place.”

Abd Allah tells his fellow militants: “The Prophet has forbidden me to compel you, so whoever desires martyrdom, let him come with me. If not, retreat. I am going to carry out the Prophet’s orders.'” Martyrdom – the word that manufactures terrorists faster than the world can rid itself of them, was spoken for the first time. No word has ever held such dire consequences for abused or abuser.

The Islamic concept of martyrdom was twisted. Muhammad took a good word and made it bad. Prior to Islam, a martyr willingly sacrificed his or her life to save others, not kill them. A Christian martyr sought nothing. Their lives served as a living witness so that others might know the value of their faith. They died with scripture in their hands, not swords. The Greek word martus, from which martyr was derived, means “witness.” Yet at Muhammad’s direction it came to mean “murderer.” Muslims obtained martyrdom by terrorizing others – murdering millions. Muslim martyrs are mercenaries, wielding swords in pursuit of plunder.

I believe that this is Lucifer’s signature once again. He is the world’s most acclaimed counterfeiter. Martyrdom is good, but not as a pirate. Money is good, but not when it is plundered. Sex is good, but not as an act of pedophilia. Prophets are good, but not when they are motivated by profit. Scripture is good, but not when it’s perverted. Prayer is good, but not when one prostrates oneself to the Devil.

Ishaq:287 “His companions went with him; not one of them stayed behind.” A second Hadith says: “Whoever desires death, let him go on and make his will; I am making my will and acting on the orders of the Messenger of Allah.” Tabari VII:18 “They made their way through the Hijaz until Sa’d and Utbah lost a camel which they were taking turns riding. They stayed behind to look for it. The rest went on until they reached Nakhlah. A Meccan caravan went past them carrying raisins, leather, and other merchandise, which the Quraysh traded. When they saw the Muslims they were afraid of them. Then Ukkashah [one of the Muslims] came into view; they saw that he had shaved his head, and they felt safer. The Quraysh said, ‘They are on their way to the umrah (lesser pilgrimage); there is nothing to fear.'” The pagan umrah had become part of Islam. However, shaving one’s head was used to venerate Al-Lat, not Allah. So the Quraysh were as confused as I am. Why would a Muslim militant venerate a pagan idol while perusing plunder in Allah’s name?

Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab.” Rajab, like Ramadhan, was a holy month on the pagan calendar. Fighting, looting, and general mayhem were prohibited. It is troubling that the observance of a pagan rite was a limiting factor, while thievery and murder were not. This says a great deal about the nature of Islam. “One of the Muslims said, ‘By Allah, if we leave these people alone tonight, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and they will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.'” The debate was between paganism and criminal behavior. Islam had nothing to do with Muhammad’s mission.

Tabari VII:19 “They hesitated and were afraid to advance on them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them.” This isn’t the least bit ambiguous. The first Muslims – Muhammad’s disciples – were about to conduct a terrorist raid with the intent to loot and kill.

“Waqid ibn Abd Allah shot an arrow at Amr and killed him. Uthman ibn Abd Allah and al-Hakam surrendered, but Nawfal ibn Abd Allah escaped and eluded them. Then Abd Allah and his companions took the caravan and the captives back to Allah’s Apostle in Medina.” Islam had drawn first blood. The score was now Islam 1, Infidels 11. The Hadith says: “This was the first booty taken by the Companions of Muhammad.”

Reading the passage carefully, we find there were four Slaves-to-Allah in the raid – two were Muslims and two were infidels. It is yet another drop in an ocean of evidence that Allah was a pagan deity, a common rock idol.

Abd Allah said of his adventure: Ishaq:289 “Our lances drank of Amr’s blood and lit the flame of war.” Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:287 “Abd Allah told his Companions, ‘A fifth of the booty we have taken belongs to the Apostle.’ This was before Allah made surrendering a fifth of the booty taken a requirement.” Qur’an 8:41, a verse from a surah dedicated to booty, says that Muhammad was entitled to one fifth of whatever Muslims looted. The 69th verse proclaims: “The use of such spoils is lawful and good.” The fact Abd Allah announced this partitioning of booty years in advance of the Qur’anic endorsement suggests that the idea was Muhammad’s, and that he made up a verse to ratify his claim. Money is a powerful motivator.

“He set aside a fifth of the booty for Allah’s Messenger and divided the rest between his Companions.” If there was any doubt as to why the first Muslim militants were off on their twelfth raid in twelve months, it should have been eliminated with this line. Their mission had nothing to do with religion. Nor did Muhammad’s. It had always been about money. Religion was simply a tool, a veil, a distraction – a means to legitimize murder and mayhem. Muhammad’s raiders weren’t religious zealots; they were mercenaries at best, pirates at worst. And lest we forget, they were now murderers, kidnappers, and thieves.

When the raiders returned to Yathrib, they were blindsided by a raging controversy. Both the Emigrants and Helpers were horrified – deeply troubled by the breach of the holy month protections. Even the most despicable bandits refrained from thievery during Rejab. And, I suppose, they may have been bothered by the fact they had murdered, robbed, and kidnapped their kin.

This societal disdain put the wannabe prophet in a quandary. Muhammad was broke, and poor dictators don’t last long. But if he accepted the booty, he would trash his already shaky religious credentials. He was on his heels and teetering from the Quraysh Bargain, the Satanic Verses, the Night’s Journey, and the Migration of Shame. Stooping to the depths of a scoundrel, a murderous pirate, and a two-bit terrorist so desperate for money he would steal during Rajab, was one blow too many. So what to do?

His first ploy was to betray his troops, something Muslim suicide bombers should keep in mind the next time they contemplate murdering their way to paradise. Tabari VII:20 “When they reached the Prophet he said, ‘I did not order you to fight in the sacred month.’ He impounded the caravan and the two captives and refused to take anything from them.” The prospect of “martyrdom” and “lying in wait” confirms that Muhammad had sent his Muslim raiders out to fight, as did the requirement of making out their wills. The “division of spoils” agreement indicates he had given his authorization for them to steal. The lying prophet was buying time, which is why he didn’t send the booty back. He was trying to find a way to keep the money and maintain his dwindling prestige.

“When Allah’s Messenger said this they were aghast and thought that they were doomed. The Muslims rebuked them severely for what they had done. They said, ‘You have done what you were not commanded to do, and have fought in the sacred month.'” To salvage his reputation, and thus cling to his position of power, Muhammad made his men scapegoats. His letter confirmed his complicity. He had sent them out in Rajab, the idolater.’ sacred month. The act made him an accessory to murder and a thief; the denial made him a pagan and a liar, something far more lethal to someone pretending to be a prophet.

Tabari VII:20/Ishaq:288 “The Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad and his Companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood, seized property, and taken men captive.’ The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, ‘Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our companion in Rajab.'” The pagans knew that breaking treaties, murder, kidnapping, and thievery were wrong. It’s a shame that Islam’s lone prophet didn’t

I find it especially revealing that when the Meccans told the truth about what had just happened, they were called “lying slanderers.” This has devastating implications for the totality of the Qur’an. Its second most repetitive theme is the never-ending argument. The Meccans said that Muhammad was a demon-possessed liar, not a prophet. They said that he had forged the Qur’an to serve his personal ambitions. They appeared to be right and yet Islam’s dark spirit called them “lying slanderers.” In this circumstance, the Meccans were absolutely right and yet Muhammad deployed the same strategy. At the very least, this suggests that the Hadith and Qur’an had the same speechwriter, the same agenda, and the same wanton disregard for truth. It also tells us that those who knew this “prophet” far better than we could possibly know him today, saw him as a terrorist raider, an immoral thug, and as a liar.

Tabari VII:21 “The Muslims who were still in Mecca refuted this.” It was embarrassing. It meant that they had placed their trust in a man unworthy of it. Ishaq:288 “The Jews, seeing in this an omen unfavorable to Muhammad, said, ‘Muslims killing Meccans means war is kindled.’ There was much talk of this. However, Allah turned it to their disadvantage. When the Muslims repeated what the Jews had said, Allah revealed a Qur’an to His Messenger: ‘They question you with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say, “War therein is serious, but keeping people from Islam, from the sacred mosque, and driving them out is more serious with Allah.’ [Qur’an 2:217] The Muslims now knew that seduction was worse than killing.” Considering the facts, this was an inane excuse for violating treaties, kidnapping, theft, and murder. The Meccan merchants were minding their business. They weren’t seducing anyone. And once again, the prophet behaves badly and it’s the pagan.’ fault, not his own.

Ishaq:288 “When the Qur’an passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom, but the Prophet said, ‘We will not release them to you on payment of ransom until our companions (Sa’d and Utbah) get back, for we are afraid you may harm them. If you kill them, we will kill your friends.’ They came back, however, and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment of ransom. When the Qur’an authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.”

Mercy for murderers. Rewards for raiders. Loot for profiteers. “Allah’s Cause” has been defined for the first time, and it’s directly linked to a terrorist raid – one in which Muslim militants attacked civilians. They committed capital murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery. Islam was not preached. Instead, Islam was used to motivate the bandits and reward the prophet. The “religion” prompted barbarism rather than discourage it.

This incident alone destroys Islam’s religious credentials, Muhammad’s authority, and Allah’s credibility. God justifying violent criminal acts to satisfy a prophet’s financial lust is unfathomable. If we are to believe Muhammad, Allah approved murder, terror, thievery, and kidnapping for ransom. Forget for a moment that this dark spirit was demented. This is immoral. An immoral god cannot be trusted. An immoral deity isn’t worthy of a religion, devotion, sacrifice, or martyrdom.

The same is true for an immoral prophet. Muhammad had sent out armed brigades in search of Quraysh hoping to terrorize them and rob their caravans. When his militants succeeded, he betrayed his mercenaries to save his own hide, yet he still took the money. He threatened to kill his kin and ransomed them back to his tribe. Then he claimed that his god approved this hellacious behavior, which was the biggest crime of all.

The only thing more devastating than a man professing situational scriptures to legitimize terror, murder, robbery, and kidnapping for ransom is to lure billions to their doom by implying these words were inspired by God. By doing so, Muhammad confirmed my theory. Islam was nothing more than the Profitable Prophet Plan. According to the Sira, Muhammad was a con man.

There have been millions of murderers, millions of kidnappers, millions of terrorists. There have been millions of sexual predators. Thieves are a dime a dozen. And there have been a score of men who have done these things while claiming to be anointed by God. Yet only one invented a “religion” and falsified “scripture” to satiate his demonic cravings. This is why Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived.

Sharia and the US Constitution

This is for all those who think that the United States Constitution is strong enough to protect against the imposition of shariah law:

Thanks to ACT! for America for this analysis

March 18, 2011

Florida Judge orders Muslims to follow sharia law!

The eyes and ears of ACT! for America are everywhere. Make sure you’re sitting down when you read what we became aware of this week!

In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding.

Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

You can read the judge’s ruling here.

Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!

This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.

In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.

Last October, ACT! for America aired a radio ad across Oklahoma in support of the referendum preventing Oklahoma judges from using sharia law in their decisions. The referendum won with 70% support.

The point we made then, which now bears repeating, is that such legislation protects non-Muslims AND Muslims alike from being subjected to sharia law.

When someone claims that opposition to sharia law in America is “anti-Muslim,” make sure you tell them about the New Jersey woman and the mosque leaders in Tampa.

Jihadwatch adds:

What was that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups were saying about how it was utterly fanciful that Sharia would ever be used to judge cases in American courts?