Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for the ‘Islam’s Child Brides’ Category

A Pakistani Love Story

Posted by paulipoldie on November 14, 2011

From the Sultan


It’s still quite a while till Valentine’s Day in the United States, but in Pakistan the day of love came early as a Romeo named Ahmed Yusuf threw acid in the face of his 9 year old Juliet, his wife/cousin causing extensive burns over her body.

Ahmed Yusuf couldn’t have known any better. Throwing acid at a woman in Pakistan is their culture’s version of roses and chocolate. And since he was only 10 years old, his father and brothers were happy to help out.

After the father who had married off a 9 year old girl to her 10 year old cousin noticed the acid burns, which the family tried to pass off as a skin condition, he earned a “Father of the Year” trophy by taking her back home, but that didn’t dissuade his brother and nephews who showed up and thew acid on her again.

Now the acid burned girl and father are on the run with the Pakistani police in hot pursuit because the local law favors turning the girl back to her husband. The whole thing might end in an honor-killing or charges of adultery, a term that in the Muslim world covers everything from marrying without a father’s permission to being gang raped in an alley.

What could a 9 year old girl possibly have done that would result in multiple acid attacks from her own uncle/father-in-law and her child husband? The answer is simple. She was a 9 year old girl in a culture where weakness only inspires cruelty, where animals are routinely tortured and people are treated like animals.

This whole lovely scene took place in Faisalbad, one of Pakistan’s largest cities built up by the British as Lyallpur after Sir James Lyall that was later renamed Faisalbad, after King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The new name is far more fitting than the old, Lyall for all his faults was not known to rape and torture nine year old girls.

Quite a lot of Pakistan is named after that old Saudi prune, who was a backer of its Islamist ruling thug, General Haq and his Hudood laws which made any woman bringing a rape complaint guilty of adultery. 9 out of 10 female prisoners in Pakistani jails are there under the Hoodud laws.

When Faisal was finally put down by one of his own nephews who had gone to Berkeley, dropped acid and decided that maybe modernization was the way to go, he left behind a legacy of Saudi power used to leverage Islamism around the world.

When the defenders of the Tunisian and Libyan regimes who are rushing to eliminate all family laws that contradict Sharia explain that “Political Islam is a necessary gateway for Middle East democracy”, what they really mean is that you have to break a lot of 9 year old girls to make a democratic omelet.

Don’t fear the Islamists in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Turkey and Libya. They’re well intentioned folks who want democracy. A democracy under which 9 year old girls are property to be bought and sold by the acclamation of the voters, who just happen to be doing the buying and selling.

Saddam may have had his rape rooms and Mubarak’s thugs may have assaulted women, but under the Islamists every house has its rape room and every marriage is an assault.

Men like Austria’s Josef Fritzl or America’s Phillip Garrido are not an aberration under Islam. They are the norm, as mainstream as a white picket fence and chapel. And as Islam becomes mainstream in the West, the end of the protection extended to children is also coming to an end. It was a long battle to raise the age of consent in the UK with the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the 19th century, but as London turns to Londonistan, it will go the way of female rulers, cartoons and ham sandwiches.

There are plenty of love stories like these coming out of Faisalbad. A 12 year old girl was sold off in marriage to an 82 year old man, whose third wife he had murdered by the girl’s father. The father got out of jail and got five acres of land, and a girl who in America would be going trick or treating ended up in a nightmare that her American counterparts could not even begin to imagine.

As the 82 year old landlord put it, he was “owed a wife” and it doesn’t much matter where you get the wife from. Since his murdered third wife had been a cousin of her murderer, it was all kept in the family. The only good news here is that he might be too arthritic to throw acid in her face.

According to the police no laws were broken, “because the girl is an adult as per Islamic Law and Shariah. She is 12-years-old and that is not too young for marriage” Being an adult doesn’t mean that she can get married on her own, or drive a car or vote– it just means she’s eligible to be raped every night by an 82 year old man. That’s the only adult status allotted to Muslim women.

Don’t get the idea that Pakistani law enforcement is completely useless. When a 5 year old was married off, they did intervene to the bafflement of the fellow who was sanctifying the love match.    “This marriage is allowed in Islam and it is not against the law.” And he does have a point. The prophet of Islam married a 7 year old, though he may have waited as long as two years before sexually assaulting her.

The difference between a 5 year old, a 7 year, a 9 year old and a 12 year old is one of those things that you have to be an Imam to properly understand. What did it matter that, “the child had no idea what was happening. She didn’t know she had gotten married or that her father was also getting married to her new sister-in-law.” Aisha was playing with dolls until her father traded her for a top spot in Mo’s brand new religion. The nameless 5 year old girl’s father traded her for a marriage to her husband’s sister.

Why does all this matter to us? Pakistan isn’t just over there, it’s over here. Jessie Bender, a 13 year old girl from California, ran away before she was set to be taken to Pakistan and married off by her mother’s Pakistani boyfriend. How many other girls like her never got the chance to run away? How many of them weren’t 13 but 9 or 7 or 5?

We’re not discussing the quaint customs of some distant country anymore, as Islam grows the tribal savagery of a land where little girls are bought and sold right here in our backyard by people whose religion tells them that women are chattel.

What does a 13 year old American girl go for in Pakistan? Three thousand dollars. You might want to remember that number the next time another episode of Mosque on the Prairie airs or an expert says that we shouldn’t fear the rise of political Islam in Libya or Tunisia or London. The next time you see a cheerful news report on a local Muslim community celebrating Eid, remember the number.

Three thousand dollars or three thousand lives, it doesn’t matter much. Once we agree to let Islam in then all the talk about moderates and standards is a matter of setting the price. The question is do we want to bargain for the lives and rights of our children?

Posted in Honor Killings, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islam's Child Brides, Must Read, Sharia | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

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

Posted by paulipoldie on March 22, 2011

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. […]

Posted in Islam, Islam's Child Brides, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

The Pedophile Pirate

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2011

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.

Posted in Islam, Islam's Child Brides | Leave a Comment »