It may come to as a surprise to many that Mohammad was a Bandit and a war lord. Muslims are urged to consult qualified Islamic scholars, not Imams and Mullahs.
The following are just a few of many citations. Of course Muslims will deny this and say this is Western propaganda:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/7558012.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general
http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/060630hutchison.htm
The expansionist DNA is embedded in the Muslim gene, much as the oppressive gene is embedded in the white dominated Christian community. In the past, the white race travelled the world and established their domineering presence in every single continent. In Africa they oppressed the Blacks. In North and South America, they oppressed the Natives. The Spaniards massacared the entire Inca race in Peru. In Australia they oppressed the Aborigines, in New Zealand-the Maoris. In South Asia, they ruled over the Indians, Malaysians, Indonesians and Singaporeans. Over time, the white race has acknowledged their past lapses and things are getting better.
Muslims too have resorted to war and violence to expand their dominion. Muslims need to accept their past and come to terms with this, instead of getting indignant and defensive.
Furthermore, Mohammad was persecuted in Mecca and had to flee to Medina. The pesecution complex is very much alive and prevalent in many a Muslim today. They keep citing IRAQ as an example of Christian domination over Islam. They cite the Palestine situation too, and in that there is some legitimacy to their claims. However, that is a struggle between Israel's survival and Palestinian rights.
If the terrorist Muslims were to lay down their arms in Iraq, there would be peace and harmony there. The US is not the enemy. ISLAM is the ENEMY in IRAQ!
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Mohammed and Ayesha
It is generally accepted that Mohammad married Ayesha a 6-7 yr old, in his fifties and consumated the marriage when she reached puberty around 9 or 11 years. See a detailed explanation by a Muslim scholar: http://www.jamaat.org/qa/ayeshara.html & mention in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Marriages_and_children
There is a refutaion of this by obfuscating and calling upon all kinds of sources: http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html
The fact is that child marriages were common in those times. Tribes in Africa got their women pregnant when they reached puberty. It was an accepted practice then. Girls reach puberty at the age between the age of nine and twelve and the tradition was to get them married off to avoid children out of wedlock. OK then, not now.
Mohammad marrying a virgin child has been harped upon and derided by non-Muslim scholars. Some Muslims get defensive and upset by this and resort to denial.
Instead, why not just accept that Mohammad lived by a code of conduct that was acceptable then, but not now. It was right then, but not right now. There are writings in the Koran that made sense then, but not necessarily now.
Also, in those times there were many widows due to men being killed in wars and the reason for Mohammad to advocate multiple wives is to take care of widows. It was a respectable thing to do then. Not an accepted practice now, except in Islam and with Mormans.
Today, it is an excuse to legitimize a mistress and have sex with more than one woman. If one wants to do so, do it with mutual consent of all parties concerned rather than using God/Allah as a convenient excuse and proclaim that it is God's/Allah's will!
At the age of twenty five, Mohammad married Khadija who was fifteen years older than him and was monogamous till her death, twenty five years later. After Khadija's death, he married a total of nine or thirteen wives. http://www.allaboutturkey.com/muhammed.htm
The number of children he had is said to be somewhere between 6 and 8. All but one of his daughters died at an early age, including two sons. Allah was not very kind to Mohammad's children. The fact that he left no heir is the cause for the conflist between the Shia's and the Sunni's to this date. They all agree on who was Numero Uno, but continue to kill each other over the dispute between who is Numero Dos.
Again, it is not clear whether these eleven or so were his wives or in his care. Six of his children were supposed to be borne by Khadija. What at the age of fifty, with his preaching and fighting he surely must have been exhausted and it is understandable that he had no time for sex.
There is a refutaion of this by obfuscating and calling upon all kinds of sources: http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/Ayesha.html
The fact is that child marriages were common in those times. Tribes in Africa got their women pregnant when they reached puberty. It was an accepted practice then. Girls reach puberty at the age between the age of nine and twelve and the tradition was to get them married off to avoid children out of wedlock. OK then, not now.
Mohammad marrying a virgin child has been harped upon and derided by non-Muslim scholars. Some Muslims get defensive and upset by this and resort to denial.
Instead, why not just accept that Mohammad lived by a code of conduct that was acceptable then, but not now. It was right then, but not right now. There are writings in the Koran that made sense then, but not necessarily now.
Also, in those times there were many widows due to men being killed in wars and the reason for Mohammad to advocate multiple wives is to take care of widows. It was a respectable thing to do then. Not an accepted practice now, except in Islam and with Mormans.
Today, it is an excuse to legitimize a mistress and have sex with more than one woman. If one wants to do so, do it with mutual consent of all parties concerned rather than using God/Allah as a convenient excuse and proclaim that it is God's/Allah's will!
At the age of twenty five, Mohammad married Khadija who was fifteen years older than him and was monogamous till her death, twenty five years later. After Khadija's death, he married a total of nine or thirteen wives. http://www.allaboutturkey.com/muhammed.htm
The number of children he had is said to be somewhere between 6 and 8. All but one of his daughters died at an early age, including two sons. Allah was not very kind to Mohammad's children. The fact that he left no heir is the cause for the conflist between the Shia's and the Sunni's to this date. They all agree on who was Numero Uno, but continue to kill each other over the dispute between who is Numero Dos.
Again, it is not clear whether these eleven or so were his wives or in his care. Six of his children were supposed to be borne by Khadija. What at the age of fifty, with his preaching and fighting he surely must have been exhausted and it is understandable that he had no time for sex.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Truth About Mohammad
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Hardcover) by Robert Spencer (Author)
Book Description:
In this startling new book, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer, provides a warts-and-all portrait of the Prophet of Islam and draws out what his life implies for reforming Islam and repulsing Islamic terrorists. Spencer relies solely on primary sources considered reliable by Muslims and evaluates modern biographies to show how Muhammad has been changed for Western audiences, lulling them into consoling but false conclusions.
From the Inside Flap
Muhammad: a frank look at his influential (and violent) life and teachings
In The Truth about Muhammad, New York Times bestselling author and Islam expert Robert Spencer offers an honest and telling portrait of the founder of Islam-perhaps the first such portrait in half a century-unbounded by fear and political correctness, unflinching, and willing to face the hard facts about Muhammad's life that continue to affect our world today.
From Muhammad's first "revelation" from Allah (which filled him with terror that he was demonpossessed) to his deathbed (from which he called down curses upon Jews and Christians), it's all here-told with extensive documentation from the sources that Muslims themselves consider most reliable about Muhammad.
Spencer details Muhammad's development from a preacher of hellfire and damnation into a political and military leader who expanded his rule by force of arms, promising his warriors luridly physical delights in Paradise if they were killed in his cause. He explains how the Qur'an's teaching on warfare against unbelievers developed-with constant war to establish the hegemony of Islamic law as the last stage.
Spencer also gives the truth about Muhammad's convenient "revelations" justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam-or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule.
In The Truth about Muhammad, you'll learn:
Book Description:
In this startling new book, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer, provides a warts-and-all portrait of the Prophet of Islam and draws out what his life implies for reforming Islam and repulsing Islamic terrorists. Spencer relies solely on primary sources considered reliable by Muslims and evaluates modern biographies to show how Muhammad has been changed for Western audiences, lulling them into consoling but false conclusions.
From the Inside Flap
Muhammad: a frank look at his influential (and violent) life and teachings
In The Truth about Muhammad, New York Times bestselling author and Islam expert Robert Spencer offers an honest and telling portrait of the founder of Islam-perhaps the first such portrait in half a century-unbounded by fear and political correctness, unflinching, and willing to face the hard facts about Muhammad's life that continue to affect our world today.
From Muhammad's first "revelation" from Allah (which filled him with terror that he was demonpossessed) to his deathbed (from which he called down curses upon Jews and Christians), it's all here-told with extensive documentation from the sources that Muslims themselves consider most reliable about Muhammad.
Spencer details Muhammad's development from a preacher of hellfire and damnation into a political and military leader who expanded his rule by force of arms, promising his warriors luridly physical delights in Paradise if they were killed in his cause. He explains how the Qur'an's teaching on warfare against unbelievers developed-with constant war to establish the hegemony of Islamic law as the last stage.
Spencer also gives the truth about Muhammad's convenient "revelations" justifying his own licentiousness; his joy in the brutal murders of his enemies; and above all, his clear marching orders to his followers to convert non-Muslims to Islam-or force them to live as inferiors under Islamic rule.
In The Truth about Muhammad, you'll learn:
- The truth about Muhammad's multiple marriages (including one to a nine-year-old)
- How Muhammad set legal standards that make it virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries
- How Muhammad's example justifies jihad and terrorism
- The real "Satanic verses" incident (not the Salman Rushdie version) that remains a scandal to Muslims
How Muhammad's faulty knowledge of Judaism and Christianity has influenced Islamic theology--and colored Muslim relations with Jews and Christians to this day.
Recognizing the true nature of Islam, Spencer argues, is essential for judging the prospects for largescale Islamic reform, the effective prosecution of the War on Terror, the democracy project in Afghanistan and Iraq, and immigration and border control to protect the United States from terrorism.
All of which makes it crucial for every citizen (and policymaker) who loves freedom to read and ponder The Truth about Muhammad.
About the Author:
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and author of the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to Islam (and the Crusades), as well as four other books on Islam and terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the WorldÂ’s Fastest Growing Faith and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, as well as eight monographs and hundreds of articles. He lives in a secure, undisclosed location.
Karen Armstrong criticizes Robert Spencer criticizes the book as follows:
Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact. Even more damaging, he deliberately manipulates the evidence.[4]
(It is interesting to note that in her own book, she mentions that Mohammad was a Bandit and a War Lord)
To this Spencer replied:
This is, of course, a familiar tactic of Leftists, jihadists, and those who sympathize with them: characterize any accurate report of their activities as "hatred." Never mind that my book works strictly from the earliest extant Islamic sources, and only reports what they say. If there is any "hatred" in it, it comes from those sources, not from me. [...] Reading this, I doubt Armstrong actually read the book. Or maybe she just wants to make sure no one else reads it. In fact, anyway, the beginning of chapter three, and many other passages throughout the book, are devoted to explaining "the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia." [5]
Finding Out the Truth About Muhammad
by John Hawkins
Posted: 11/22/2006
Yesterday, I interviewed Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about his new book, “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion” (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.
John Hawkins: Now, Muhammad was around for quite a long time before he claimed to see visions and became a religious leader, wasn't he?
Robert Spencer: Muhammad was about 40 when he first claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. According to the earliest Islamic traditions he did not actually start preaching immediately. He only told his wife and a few people who were very close to him for the first couple of years after that. But, then he got the command to begin to preach. It was at that point he began to develop a...following.
John Hawkins: Now, I've heard that Muhammad borrowed heavily from the pagan religion many Arabs worshipped at the time, as well as Judaism and Christianity. Is that true?
Robert Spencer: Yes, there are clear signs in the Koran of influences from not only the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but also Jewish and Christian oral traditions and from the teachings in particular of Christian heretical groups, most notably the Gnostics, who denied the crucifixion of Christ and said that Judas had been made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. (That) notion appears in the Koran, in Chapter 4, where it says that they did not kill or crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. In Islamic tradition it is identified also here with Judas, that it is he who is on the cross, not Jesus.
John Hawkins: Now, by today's standards, would Muhammad be considered a pedophile?
Robert Spencer: By today's standards, he probably would because you're talking about a man who did, according to the earliest Islamic traditions about the incident, consummate a marriage with a nine year old when he was in his early fifties. Now, that being the case, however, it is also true that he is the supreme example for human behavior within Islam; he is imitated in this. That means that you have child marriage being very common all over the Islamic world where it is also not regarded as pedophilia today.
John Hawkins: Now in his time, was it regarded as pedophilia or unusual for a man his age to marry a nine year old?
Robert Spencer: No. In his time, it was taken for granted. No one criticized him (for) it. No one felt like he was doing anything wrong by doing this. Only the fact that he is imitated makes it problematic.
John Hawkins: Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader, similar to the sort of bad actors we have in Afghanistan today?
Robert Spencer: Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.
John Hawkins: Along similar lines, would it be fair to say that Muhammad lied, pillaged, murdered, and condoned rape and the murder of infidels?
Robert Spencer: He said, "War is deceit." He ordered his followers to pillage and the Koran contains very detailed instructions, both in a chapter called the Spoils of War and elsewhere in the book, for dealing with the results of that plunder. ... Murder is certainly in the aspects of the invitation to infidels that I mentioned just now. He said to his followers that they should offer non-believers conversion or subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law or death. So obviously, murder is condoned in that context. Also, he ordered the assassinations of some of his enemies—including several poets who had made fun of him in their verses and rewarded the killers, including the killers of a ... pregnant woman and a man who was according to the Islamic traditions, over 100 years old.Muhammad ... took for granted that his followers would be having sex with the women that they captured in these battles—the wives of the pagan warriors that they had killed and the wives of the Jewish tribes that they had killed. ... In the Koran actually, it says that a Muslim may marry up to four wives and have sex with the captives that his right hand possesses, which refers to slave girls captured in battle.John Hawkins: Now, images of Muhammad—we've got them on the Supreme Court, for example. There are plenty of them out there. When did that get to be such a big deal?
Robert Spencer: Well, it's really a big deal when a non-Muslim makes them. Images of Muhammad are rather common in Shiite Islam. Sunni Islam tends to reject that kind of image making. But really, the main offense in the Danish cartoon controversy and also an earlier controversy that CAIR tried to stir up about that (frieze) at the Supreme Court is that non-Muslims are transgressing the limits proscribed for them within Islamic law and are not to depict Muhammad or insult Allah or Muhammad in any way. So, you have a situation where these kinds of protests, the cartoon protests in particular, the murders of innocent people and riots worldwide, were ... an element of a larger effort to impose Islamic standards of behavior onto the non-Muslim world.
John Hawkins: So, a big part of the issue was not necessarily the images, but that infidels had made them, right?
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: The Shiia and Sunni (branches of Islam) came about in a dispute over succession to Muhammad. Is that correct?
Robert Spencer: Yes, exactly.
John Hawkins: Can you explain to people how that came about?
Robert Spencer: The prophet Muhammad died rather suddenly and he did not leave clear instructions as to his successors, as to who would succeed him as leaders of the community. The Party of Ali it was called or the Shi'at Ali believed that only a relative of Muhammad could legitimately take over his role as the leader of the Muslim community that he created. The other party believed that it was not necessary that somebody be a member of the Prophet's family, but only that the best man be chosen.So Ali was not chosen, was passed over for the first three times in the choice for the succession to the leadership, and finally was chosen but was rather shortly thereafter murdered and his sons also were murdered. ... These became the cardinal incidents for Shiite Islam and are celebrated today, yearly, in extravagant displays of mourning of which you've seen pictures. ...
John Hawkins:... People cutting themselves with swords ...
Robert Spencer:... Yes, people cutting their heads with swords in mourning for Hussein, the son of Ali. Really, there's not much difference between Sunni and Shiite practice of Islam although the Shiites do tend to be more spiritually minded—have more of a mystical tradition—and are certainly more emotional and extravagant in their piety and have a little bit more of an emphasis on, let's say, the cult of the Saint. But otherwise, certainly in terms of jihad warfare against infidels, there's not any significant difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.
John Hawkins: One last question: Tell us a little bit about the 12th Imam that (Ahmadinejad) seems to be so enamored with.
Robert Spencer: The 12th Imam is, in Shiite Islam, the 12th successor of Muhammad. In Shiite Islam, the Imams, beginning with Ali, have some of Muhammad's prophetic powers and some of his luminous spirit, such that they are infallible in matters of faith and are to be regarded with this quasi-mystical devotion. However, the 12th Imam, the 12th successor to Muhammad, is supposed to have disappeared as a child, is said to be still alive, and will return at a moment of great persecution and hardship for the Muslims. There's great excitement in Shiite Islam today and it seems to be held by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that these are the times when the persecution of the Muslims is coming to the breaking point that will hasten the return of the 12th Imam who will come back to destroy the enemies of Islam and institute the rule of Islamic law over the world.
Mr. Hawkins runs Right Wing News, a conservative blog. He writes a weekly column for Human Events Online. You can also e-mail him at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com.
Friday, September 28, 2007
An Interview With Robert Spencer by John Hawkins
Robert Spencer is the author of "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion."
John Hawkins: Why haven't moderate Muslims been able to stop the spread of violent Islam?
Robert Spencer: While there are moderate Muslims, moderate Islam is something else again. There are Muslims who are very peaceful people, who would never wage jihad, and who don't approve of those waging jihad in the name of Islam today. But the fact is that the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do. They're able to intimidate moderates into silence because if the moderates speak out, they're labeled as disloyal to the religion.
John Hawkins: Given that, do you see Islam moderating anytime soon?
Robert Spencer: The only way it can is if there is a large scale, multi-national movement from Muslims themselves to repudiate violent jihad and all the doctrines and laws that go along with it once and for all. This would be a large scale reformation and no, I don't see any chance of that happening in the near future. But very surprising things have happened in history and I won't say it could never happen.
John Hawkins: You know, when I interviewed Daniel Pipes he even told me that he thought moderate Islam was actually on the retreat.
Robert Spencer: I would agree. The problem is as I said that moderates don't have a strong theoretical foundation within the classic Islamic texts. That being the case, they're not able to sustain a large scale movement. That's because they're constantly placed on the defensive by people who go back to the text and quote these passages that radicals use to justify violence. If they say, "We simply don't take that as being our marching orders for today" they're charged with disloyalty. So this is why moderate Islam is in retreat, because the radicals are so explicitly & persistently explaining what they do in light of the classic teachings. So there are millions of moderate Muslims, but moderate Islam is something that is only formulated by particular individuals in particular places. Most of the Muslims who are moderates are simply just ignoring the other aspects of the religion without confronting and refuting them on Islamic grounds.
John Hawkins: When I interviewed congressman Tom Tancredo, he said the following "People ask me, "Well of the Islamic Community, how many would you say are really terrorists?" I say, "There are relatively few, less than 10% of the Muslim population that you could categorize as (supporters of) terrorists." Now how many people in their heart of hearts in that community want to see the demise of this country? How many would cheer, not out loud maybe, but in their heart when things like 9/11 occur and I'll tell you; it's a majority among them." Do you think he was on target with that?
Robert Spencer: I would say the congressman is entirely, 100% right. There are very few who are going to act, but the theological foundations of radical Islam make it so that a much larger number of Muslims are in sympathy with what the radicals do even though they would never do it themselves.
John Hawkins: So I guess that would explain why there were polls that showed Osama Bin Laden was very, very popular after 9/11 in many Islamic countries?
Robert Spencer: That's correct and he still is. I could take you online right now and take you to jihadist websites from all around the world with pictures of Osama in prominent places, obviously celebrating what he has done and glorying in it.
John Hawkins: Now I understand of course why militant Islamists would support Osama, but why is he so popular among Muslims who are thought of as moderate?
Robert Spencer: Well, there are a great many answers I could give to that. One is rooted in everything I've been saying so far about the strong foundations of radical Islam in traditional theological and legal concepts of Islam. But also, it's simply because there is a great hatred of America. The hatred of America makes Osama a hero, because he's the one who struck a blow against the "Great Satan".
John Hawkins: Now speaking of that, some people may believe that the loathing of America in the Middle-East is a largely a reaction to President Bush's actions after 9/11. Is that the case?
Robert Spencer: No. Certainly, there is some anger at America that has to be attributed to that and also to the propaganda that distorts the actions of the President after 9/11 in the Muslim world and consistently portrays what he's doing, despite his own best efforts, as a war against Islam. Nonetheless, the hatred of radical Muslims for the United States goes back much further than the administration of President Bush. You'll find that Osama Bin Laden himself declared jihad against the United States twice during the Clinton administration.
Back to the 1920s, certain radical Muslim theorists, particularly Hasan Al Banna & Syed Qutb, taught that no government had any legitimacy unless it obeyed Islamic law and that it was the duty of Muslims around the world to wage war against those governments that did not, Muslim and non-Muslim, until Islamic law was established. Those people would consider America to be their primary foe because America is offering a different model for the world. A model that involves freedom, equality, dignity, & rights for all, Republican government and so on. This is their chief competition.
John Hawkins: Speaking of the war on terrorism, do you think Iraq can be turned into a democracy, and if so, how long will it take?
Robert Spencer: I think that Iraq could be turned into a democracy, but that it will always be a difficult process and Iraq will from the beginning as a democracy be threatened by Muslims who believe no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys Islamic law. The problem is that Islam has been conceived of as a political and social system, not just as an individual faith. So democracy is viewed by many in the Muslim world as a Western import that has no legitimacy in an Islamic context and is in fact a competitor to the establishment of Islamic law. So democracy in Iraq, it could be established, but it's going to take a large scale change of political and theological attitudes in Iraq for it to get deep roots and thrive there.
John Hawkins: Well let's say it does. Let's say we get a functioning democracy going in Iraq and it gets more stable and prosperous each year. What do you think the effect on the surrounding region would be?
Robert Spencer: Well if that were to happen, it would be positively transforming and it might well become the linchpin for the kind of reformation I've been saying is necessary. This is I think our great challenge and our great opportunity at the same time. It might not be as easy as we'd like and the people in Iraq might not be as thirsting for Democracy as the President might want or hope, but there's no doubt that if Democracy can succeed there it would be a major challenge to all the Islamic states in area, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran.
John Hawkins: Let me ask you this; Let's say President Bush came to you and said, "Robert Spencer, what should we do to make America more popular in the Middle-East," what would you say to him?
Robert Spencer: Consistency, first thing, consistency in the war on terror. The President declared a war on terror and said, "you're either with the terrorists or with us" and any country that is supporting terrorism can consider itself to be an enemy of the United States. Yet, we have not seen the consistent application of those declarations particularly in regard to Saudi Arabia. Now Saudi Arabia is reaping what it has sowed and we see that the radicals have turned against the House of Saud itself and are trying to topple it even though the House of Saud has been one of radical Islam's chief sponsors of Wahabi Islam around the world for years. It would seem that is ultimately self-defeating for us to continue to treat the Saudis as allies. If we are going to regard them as allies, they're going to have to become more cooperative in anti-terrorist efforts. But of course, at this point (the Bush administration) is afraid that they're going to be forced out altogether and I can't say that isn't a real possibility.
John Hawkins: Of course, there's no discussion of the Middle-East and Islam that can be considered complete without talking about Israel. To begin with, do you think that it's fair to say that there are "Naziesque" levels of anti-semitism in much of the Muslim world?
Robert Spencer: Oh, no doubt about it, yes. I believe in the two state solution and I think that the Palestinians have to a certain extent, a legitimate claim. There are people and I know some of them personally, who were forced out of their homes in the 1940s. But, the full truth of this is rarely publicized. The fact is that the neighboring Muslim states refused these people asylum and the right to settle and build homes in their countries, because they wanted to use them as a stick to beat Israel with, and they have. So both sides have really mistreated the Palestinians and the Palestinians have hurt their own cause by targeting innocent civilians with suicide bombing which is a direct result of the radical jihadest rhetoric that comes out of the mosques and also from the state organs of the Palestinian authority.
But yes, there's no doubt that it's also fueled by, as you say "Naziesque" levels of anti-semitism. For example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulate widely in the Muslim world. They were actually made a TV serial in Egypt, they were serialized in a New Jersey Arabic language Muslim newspaper, they're taken seriously by millions of Muslims. They think that there is a Jewish world conspiracy. We saw that with the prime minister of Malaysia.
John Hawkins: Since we're talking about the two state solution, let me ask you if you think a Palestinian state living beside of Israel in peace and harmony is realistically possible within say the next decade or so?
Robert Spencer: No, because of the jihad ideology that has completely poisoned any possibility for genuine negotiations there.
John Hawkins: Yeah, that's my opinion too. So on to Israel's not so distant neighbor, Iran. Their former President, Hashemi Rafsanjani once said that "In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims. Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map." Do you think his sentiments are common?
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: They are?
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: Are we just talking about the Islamo-fascists who run Iran here or are we talking about around the region?
Robert Spencer: If any Muslim country (in the region) gets hold of a nuclear bomb and the ability to fire it, then we're all at great risk because they will use it.
John Hawkins: Wow.
Robert Spencer: Radical Islam does not believe in the equality, dignity, and rights of all people. There is a sharp difference in the Koran between the believers and the unbelievers. The Koran says in Surah 48:29, "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers". This kind of dichotomy runs throughout Islamic theology and law. There have been many prominent Muslims who have questioned the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" from the United Nations because they simply don't believe in the declarations of freedom, equality, the freedom of religion, and so on that are enshrined in that document. That being the case, the idea that they would use a nuclear bomb against unbelievers is eminently believable.
John Hawkins: You mentioned Muhammad and of course, there have been a lot of things said about him. But did he lead armies into battle, force captured cities to convert to Islam, and have hundreds of helpless prisoners of war massacred? Is that something that's true, something that Islamic scholars largely agree on?
Robert Spencer: Everybody agrees that he lead armies into battle. You will find Islamic apologists saying that he fought only defensive battles, but if you go back into the sources that doesn't turn out to be the case. The earliest sources that tell about the life of the Prophet Muhammad have him leading quite a few offensive battles and raids and so on.
He did on several occasions enslave prisoners and on some notorious occasions he had all those who were captured massacred and this kind of behavior became enshrined in Islamic law as per the provision that if a city resists the Muslim conquerors, it's to be dealt with harshly. But if it does not, then it's to be treated with gentleness. This kind of thing is rooted in the behavior of the prophet himself.
John Hawkins: Let me change directions here. I saw a statistic mentioned in one of your articles that really jumped out at me. According to Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian advocacy group for Muslim women, in Pakistan "three out of four women in prison...are (there because they're) rape victims." Is that the case...
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: ...does it apply to other Muslim countries, and what is the thinking behind that supposed to be?
Robert Spencer: It varies from country to country depending on to what extent they obey the Sharia. However, it is deeply rooted in the canons of Islamic law which stipulate that a woman who is raped, her testimony is disallowed in the first place. The only way that the rape charge can be proven is by the testimony of four male Muslim eyewitnesses to the crime itself.
John Hawkins: (Laughs at how ridiculous that is)
Robert Spencer: (Laughs) I know, it sounds absurd, but this is the law. So, these women are not ordinarily able to prove that they have been raped. In some cases, the accusation itself becomes a confession of adultery. Particularly if the woman has a child as we saw in some of the celebrated cases in Nigeria recently, then the child is proof that there has been unlawful sexual activity. The man denies any involvement, the woman's testimony is disallowed, there are no witnesses, so there's no way to sustain the rape charge. That means she's guilty of adultery which can be a stoning offense.
John Hawkins: Where is this sort of thing going on? Nigeria, Pakistan...
Robert Spencer: ...Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere where the Sharia is in full force. It's also enforced in relative, secondary ways in other countries. For example, in Dubai, there was a case of a French woman who was jailed after claiming she was raped. It's a moderate Muslim country though, so they weren't going to stone her to death, they were just going to imprison her. An international outcry eventually resulted in her being freed, just as in Nigeria the women were not stoned. But stonings for adultery happen all the time in Saudi Arabia & Iran and they don't make any headlines.
John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about your book, "Onward Muslim Solder -- How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West".
Robert Spencer: Yes, "Onward Muslim Soldiers" is an in depth study of Jihad because when I wrote my first book, "Islam Unveiled," I had people say, "You're just taking a few verses of the Koran out of context and you can do that with any religion and make something out of it". I also heard a lot of people saying that jihad is a spiritual struggle and ultimately a peaceful thing and then I would see Osama Bin Laden saying, "wage jihad against the United States". In the latest tape from Saddam Hussein, we have him saying "Wage jihad against the United States" and I don't think he meant work on your soul for self-improvement.
So, I thought it was necessary to provide an in depth study of jihad from the Muslim sources themselves, from the teachings of radical Muslims around the world, to show how radicals use those sources to recruit and motivate terrorists. "Onward Muslim Soldiers" shows how these radicals are able to get recruits around the world and I show how from the Muslim sources, which is very important because it's still happening. Until we understand how it is that these movements are becoming so widespread, we won't be able to wipe them out.
John Hawkins: Are there any blogs or websites you could recommend to our readers?
Robert Spencer: Well, I have my own, Jihad Watch which is a weblog, but is intended to be much more depending on what kind of funding we're able to get. We're hoping to make it into an advocacy organization to raise people's awareness about global and domestic jihad movements, the dhimmitude which continues world wide, the subjugation of Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims under Islamic law, and to the distortions and whitewashes put out to the culture at large by American Muslim advocacy groups.
Also, indispensable in terms of weblogs is Little Green Footballs which is an immense clearinghouse for finding important news stories about these matters. There is also MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute. That page is a goldmine of translated material from the Arabic speaking world which really gives one some amazing insights into what our opponents in the war on terror are thinking.
John Hawkins: Last but not least, is there anything else you'd like to say or promote before we finish up?
Robert Spencer: I guess not, I think we've covered it all.
John Hawkins: Thanks for your time!
John Hawkins: Why haven't moderate Muslims been able to stop the spread of violent Islam?
Robert Spencer: While there are moderate Muslims, moderate Islam is something else again. There are Muslims who are very peaceful people, who would never wage jihad, and who don't approve of those waging jihad in the name of Islam today. But the fact is that the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do. They're able to intimidate moderates into silence because if the moderates speak out, they're labeled as disloyal to the religion.
John Hawkins: Given that, do you see Islam moderating anytime soon?
Robert Spencer: The only way it can is if there is a large scale, multi-national movement from Muslims themselves to repudiate violent jihad and all the doctrines and laws that go along with it once and for all. This would be a large scale reformation and no, I don't see any chance of that happening in the near future. But very surprising things have happened in history and I won't say it could never happen.
John Hawkins: You know, when I interviewed Daniel Pipes he even told me that he thought moderate Islam was actually on the retreat.
Robert Spencer: I would agree. The problem is as I said that moderates don't have a strong theoretical foundation within the classic Islamic texts. That being the case, they're not able to sustain a large scale movement. That's because they're constantly placed on the defensive by people who go back to the text and quote these passages that radicals use to justify violence. If they say, "We simply don't take that as being our marching orders for today" they're charged with disloyalty. So this is why moderate Islam is in retreat, because the radicals are so explicitly & persistently explaining what they do in light of the classic teachings. So there are millions of moderate Muslims, but moderate Islam is something that is only formulated by particular individuals in particular places. Most of the Muslims who are moderates are simply just ignoring the other aspects of the religion without confronting and refuting them on Islamic grounds.
John Hawkins: When I interviewed congressman Tom Tancredo, he said the following "People ask me, "Well of the Islamic Community, how many would you say are really terrorists?" I say, "There are relatively few, less than 10% of the Muslim population that you could categorize as (supporters of) terrorists." Now how many people in their heart of hearts in that community want to see the demise of this country? How many would cheer, not out loud maybe, but in their heart when things like 9/11 occur and I'll tell you; it's a majority among them." Do you think he was on target with that?
Robert Spencer: I would say the congressman is entirely, 100% right. There are very few who are going to act, but the theological foundations of radical Islam make it so that a much larger number of Muslims are in sympathy with what the radicals do even though they would never do it themselves.
John Hawkins: So I guess that would explain why there were polls that showed Osama Bin Laden was very, very popular after 9/11 in many Islamic countries?
Robert Spencer: That's correct and he still is. I could take you online right now and take you to jihadist websites from all around the world with pictures of Osama in prominent places, obviously celebrating what he has done and glorying in it.
John Hawkins: Now I understand of course why militant Islamists would support Osama, but why is he so popular among Muslims who are thought of as moderate?
Robert Spencer: Well, there are a great many answers I could give to that. One is rooted in everything I've been saying so far about the strong foundations of radical Islam in traditional theological and legal concepts of Islam. But also, it's simply because there is a great hatred of America. The hatred of America makes Osama a hero, because he's the one who struck a blow against the "Great Satan".
John Hawkins: Now speaking of that, some people may believe that the loathing of America in the Middle-East is a largely a reaction to President Bush's actions after 9/11. Is that the case?
Robert Spencer: No. Certainly, there is some anger at America that has to be attributed to that and also to the propaganda that distorts the actions of the President after 9/11 in the Muslim world and consistently portrays what he's doing, despite his own best efforts, as a war against Islam. Nonetheless, the hatred of radical Muslims for the United States goes back much further than the administration of President Bush. You'll find that Osama Bin Laden himself declared jihad against the United States twice during the Clinton administration.
Back to the 1920s, certain radical Muslim theorists, particularly Hasan Al Banna & Syed Qutb, taught that no government had any legitimacy unless it obeyed Islamic law and that it was the duty of Muslims around the world to wage war against those governments that did not, Muslim and non-Muslim, until Islamic law was established. Those people would consider America to be their primary foe because America is offering a different model for the world. A model that involves freedom, equality, dignity, & rights for all, Republican government and so on. This is their chief competition.
John Hawkins: Speaking of the war on terrorism, do you think Iraq can be turned into a democracy, and if so, how long will it take?
Robert Spencer: I think that Iraq could be turned into a democracy, but that it will always be a difficult process and Iraq will from the beginning as a democracy be threatened by Muslims who believe no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys Islamic law. The problem is that Islam has been conceived of as a political and social system, not just as an individual faith. So democracy is viewed by many in the Muslim world as a Western import that has no legitimacy in an Islamic context and is in fact a competitor to the establishment of Islamic law. So democracy in Iraq, it could be established, but it's going to take a large scale change of political and theological attitudes in Iraq for it to get deep roots and thrive there.
John Hawkins: Well let's say it does. Let's say we get a functioning democracy going in Iraq and it gets more stable and prosperous each year. What do you think the effect on the surrounding region would be?
Robert Spencer: Well if that were to happen, it would be positively transforming and it might well become the linchpin for the kind of reformation I've been saying is necessary. This is I think our great challenge and our great opportunity at the same time. It might not be as easy as we'd like and the people in Iraq might not be as thirsting for Democracy as the President might want or hope, but there's no doubt that if Democracy can succeed there it would be a major challenge to all the Islamic states in area, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran.
John Hawkins: Let me ask you this; Let's say President Bush came to you and said, "Robert Spencer, what should we do to make America more popular in the Middle-East," what would you say to him?
Robert Spencer: Consistency, first thing, consistency in the war on terror. The President declared a war on terror and said, "you're either with the terrorists or with us" and any country that is supporting terrorism can consider itself to be an enemy of the United States. Yet, we have not seen the consistent application of those declarations particularly in regard to Saudi Arabia. Now Saudi Arabia is reaping what it has sowed and we see that the radicals have turned against the House of Saud itself and are trying to topple it even though the House of Saud has been one of radical Islam's chief sponsors of Wahabi Islam around the world for years. It would seem that is ultimately self-defeating for us to continue to treat the Saudis as allies. If we are going to regard them as allies, they're going to have to become more cooperative in anti-terrorist efforts. But of course, at this point (the Bush administration) is afraid that they're going to be forced out altogether and I can't say that isn't a real possibility.
John Hawkins: Of course, there's no discussion of the Middle-East and Islam that can be considered complete without talking about Israel. To begin with, do you think that it's fair to say that there are "Naziesque" levels of anti-semitism in much of the Muslim world?
Robert Spencer: Oh, no doubt about it, yes. I believe in the two state solution and I think that the Palestinians have to a certain extent, a legitimate claim. There are people and I know some of them personally, who were forced out of their homes in the 1940s. But, the full truth of this is rarely publicized. The fact is that the neighboring Muslim states refused these people asylum and the right to settle and build homes in their countries, because they wanted to use them as a stick to beat Israel with, and they have. So both sides have really mistreated the Palestinians and the Palestinians have hurt their own cause by targeting innocent civilians with suicide bombing which is a direct result of the radical jihadest rhetoric that comes out of the mosques and also from the state organs of the Palestinian authority.
But yes, there's no doubt that it's also fueled by, as you say "Naziesque" levels of anti-semitism. For example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulate widely in the Muslim world. They were actually made a TV serial in Egypt, they were serialized in a New Jersey Arabic language Muslim newspaper, they're taken seriously by millions of Muslims. They think that there is a Jewish world conspiracy. We saw that with the prime minister of Malaysia.
John Hawkins: Since we're talking about the two state solution, let me ask you if you think a Palestinian state living beside of Israel in peace and harmony is realistically possible within say the next decade or so?
Robert Spencer: No, because of the jihad ideology that has completely poisoned any possibility for genuine negotiations there.
John Hawkins: Yeah, that's my opinion too. So on to Israel's not so distant neighbor, Iran. Their former President, Hashemi Rafsanjani once said that "In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims. Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map." Do you think his sentiments are common?
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: They are?
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: Are we just talking about the Islamo-fascists who run Iran here or are we talking about around the region?
Robert Spencer: If any Muslim country (in the region) gets hold of a nuclear bomb and the ability to fire it, then we're all at great risk because they will use it.
John Hawkins: Wow.
Robert Spencer: Radical Islam does not believe in the equality, dignity, and rights of all people. There is a sharp difference in the Koran between the believers and the unbelievers. The Koran says in Surah 48:29, "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers". This kind of dichotomy runs throughout Islamic theology and law. There have been many prominent Muslims who have questioned the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" from the United Nations because they simply don't believe in the declarations of freedom, equality, the freedom of religion, and so on that are enshrined in that document. That being the case, the idea that they would use a nuclear bomb against unbelievers is eminently believable.
John Hawkins: You mentioned Muhammad and of course, there have been a lot of things said about him. But did he lead armies into battle, force captured cities to convert to Islam, and have hundreds of helpless prisoners of war massacred? Is that something that's true, something that Islamic scholars largely agree on?
Robert Spencer: Everybody agrees that he lead armies into battle. You will find Islamic apologists saying that he fought only defensive battles, but if you go back into the sources that doesn't turn out to be the case. The earliest sources that tell about the life of the Prophet Muhammad have him leading quite a few offensive battles and raids and so on.
He did on several occasions enslave prisoners and on some notorious occasions he had all those who were captured massacred and this kind of behavior became enshrined in Islamic law as per the provision that if a city resists the Muslim conquerors, it's to be dealt with harshly. But if it does not, then it's to be treated with gentleness. This kind of thing is rooted in the behavior of the prophet himself.
John Hawkins: Let me change directions here. I saw a statistic mentioned in one of your articles that really jumped out at me. According to Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian advocacy group for Muslim women, in Pakistan "three out of four women in prison...are (there because they're) rape victims." Is that the case...
Robert Spencer: Yes.
John Hawkins: ...does it apply to other Muslim countries, and what is the thinking behind that supposed to be?
Robert Spencer: It varies from country to country depending on to what extent they obey the Sharia. However, it is deeply rooted in the canons of Islamic law which stipulate that a woman who is raped, her testimony is disallowed in the first place. The only way that the rape charge can be proven is by the testimony of four male Muslim eyewitnesses to the crime itself.
John Hawkins: (Laughs at how ridiculous that is)
Robert Spencer: (Laughs) I know, it sounds absurd, but this is the law. So, these women are not ordinarily able to prove that they have been raped. In some cases, the accusation itself becomes a confession of adultery. Particularly if the woman has a child as we saw in some of the celebrated cases in Nigeria recently, then the child is proof that there has been unlawful sexual activity. The man denies any involvement, the woman's testimony is disallowed, there are no witnesses, so there's no way to sustain the rape charge. That means she's guilty of adultery which can be a stoning offense.
John Hawkins: Where is this sort of thing going on? Nigeria, Pakistan...
Robert Spencer: ...Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere where the Sharia is in full force. It's also enforced in relative, secondary ways in other countries. For example, in Dubai, there was a case of a French woman who was jailed after claiming she was raped. It's a moderate Muslim country though, so they weren't going to stone her to death, they were just going to imprison her. An international outcry eventually resulted in her being freed, just as in Nigeria the women were not stoned. But stonings for adultery happen all the time in Saudi Arabia & Iran and they don't make any headlines.
John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about your book, "Onward Muslim Solder -- How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West".
Robert Spencer: Yes, "Onward Muslim Soldiers" is an in depth study of Jihad because when I wrote my first book, "Islam Unveiled," I had people say, "You're just taking a few verses of the Koran out of context and you can do that with any religion and make something out of it". I also heard a lot of people saying that jihad is a spiritual struggle and ultimately a peaceful thing and then I would see Osama Bin Laden saying, "wage jihad against the United States". In the latest tape from Saddam Hussein, we have him saying "Wage jihad against the United States" and I don't think he meant work on your soul for self-improvement.
So, I thought it was necessary to provide an in depth study of jihad from the Muslim sources themselves, from the teachings of radical Muslims around the world, to show how radicals use those sources to recruit and motivate terrorists. "Onward Muslim Soldiers" shows how these radicals are able to get recruits around the world and I show how from the Muslim sources, which is very important because it's still happening. Until we understand how it is that these movements are becoming so widespread, we won't be able to wipe them out.
John Hawkins: Are there any blogs or websites you could recommend to our readers?
Robert Spencer: Well, I have my own, Jihad Watch which is a weblog, but is intended to be much more depending on what kind of funding we're able to get. We're hoping to make it into an advocacy organization to raise people's awareness about global and domestic jihad movements, the dhimmitude which continues world wide, the subjugation of Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims under Islamic law, and to the distortions and whitewashes put out to the culture at large by American Muslim advocacy groups.
Also, indispensable in terms of weblogs is Little Green Footballs which is an immense clearinghouse for finding important news stories about these matters. There is also MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute. That page is a goldmine of translated material from the Arabic speaking world which really gives one some amazing insights into what our opponents in the war on terror are thinking.
John Hawkins: Last but not least, is there anything else you'd like to say or promote before we finish up?
Robert Spencer: I guess not, I think we've covered it all.
John Hawkins: Thanks for your time!
Message for militant muslims
I wish to thank you militant Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq for bashing each other over your heads and killing each other. The fewer of you the better. Militant extremist fundamentalist muslims are giving Islam a bad name.
More Idiocy...
A Muslim can divorce his wife by mutering Talak, Talak, Talak. Yeah, just like that! Now having done so, if he wishes to take her back, he can only do so if his ex-wife marries another man, has sex with him and after her new husband divorces her by muttering Talak, Talak, Talak.
Shoaib Malik Quote: I want to thank you back home in Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world"! Bad English!
A fatwa was issued against Salmaan Khan for participating in a Hindu festival!
Shoaib Malik Quote: I want to thank you back home in Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world"! Bad English!
A fatwa was issued against Salmaan Khan for participating in a Hindu festival!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Rewards?
The reward of great pleasures and paradise for dying defending Islam is widely accepted by Muslims. The reward of lots of virgins is debated. There are convincing arguments made for and against this. Nevertheless, this does depict the stupidity of this belief.Mohammad was persecuted from the start and was exiled from Mecca to Medina. This persecution complex seems to be embedded in the DNA of the Muslim clergy. There appears to be an inferirotity complex steeped in the Mullahs who believe that the world is out to crush Islam. That is a ridiculous notion. The world is out to rid itself from Islamic extremism that is creating problems in many places including Pakistan.
Mohammad was also a warrior and won many wars against the Bedouin tribes if that region. It appears that an expansionist tendency is also embedded in the Islamic DNA.
Furthermore, the Mullahs prey upon poor uneducated Muslims and are exhorting them to embrace fundamentalism and live my a strict code of conduct which is often distorted or misinterprets the Koran.
The persecution complex coupled with the expansionist tendency and the exhortation to fundamentalism is spawning hatred, violence and terrorism in the name of defending Islam.
The spoils of a Raid?
Muhammad would often lead raids on caravans heading to Mecca. Read Karen Armstrong's book, "Islam, A Short History". http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/karmstrong.html
An interview with Karen Karen Armstrong can be viewed at : http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong02.htm
On close examination the donkey has resemblance to a Devil. Yup that's what drives fundamental Islam.
Brethrens?
Abraham had an "illegitimate" son Ishmail, borne of his maid, with his wife's consent, since his wife couldn't concieve. His wife then gave birth to Isaac. She then forced Abraham to send Ishmail and his mother away, due to her intense jealousy. Abraham founded Judaism. In his old age, Abraham relented and longed to see Ishmail and heard he was in Mecca. The Muslims claim that together they built the Kaabah. Did Abraham loose his faith in Judaism? When Mohammad the Bandit, learned about this he bade all his followers to turn their heads towards Mecca. He also snuck into Mecca and then proceeded to destroy the idols in the Kabbah. Mohammad then established the Kaabah as the holy shrine of Islam. Since both Islam and Judaism had their origins in the same region, it is often not possible for a layman to distinguis an Orthdox Jew from a Muslim.
Blind Justice?
The women are forced to wear a burkha, and are treated like dirt. The men are free to do whatever they want. And Mohammad the Bandit Prophet killed at will.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Rubbish in Scriptures
Just about all the early scriptures had a whole lot of rubbish in them. And any self respecting, rationale human being would admit, that there are things in the scriptures than they believe in, that ought to be ignored. Such is the case in the Hindu scriptures, the Torah, the Bible and the Koran.
The Bible calls out homosexuality and mastrubation as sins. Moderate Christians will admit this as a fallacy.
The Bhaghvad Gita (1-41) chastises inter-caste marriages. Moderate Hindus will this is ireelavant in this day and age.
The Hindu scriptures, the Torah, and the Bible have both narratives and rules. It is full of God did/said this and God did/said that. So and so killed so and so. So and so incurred the wrath of God for doing such and such. So on and so on. The Koran on the other hand appears to be predominantly a set of rules.
Each religion has its idiosyncrasies about the path to salvation and “heaven”. The Hindus partake in all kinds of rituals. Christians are expected to go to Church every Sunday, not eat meat on Fridays. Catholics go to confessions and wash their sins away with hail Marys etc. Jews have rituals and observe various religious events. The Koran is very explicit in outlining what is and what isn’t acceptable behavior. It appears that the Koran does the thinking for the Muslims and the Muslim just has to follow it. The mullahs preach that if the Muslims follow the Koran to the letter and bob their heads five times a day towards Mecca and go the Mosque on Fridays, they will go to heaven. Therein lies the problem. The Koran is sprinkled with violence. How can one claim it is a peaceful religion when it riddled with violent words? For instance the Koran states, “When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)”.
Marx said religion is the opium of the masses. This is particularly true in fundamental Islam, where the Mullahs are preaching the Koran As Is. And the situation is getting worse.
What are moderate Mdoing about this while Islam is being maligned by the mullahs? They ought to engage with these radical mullahs and put pressure on them to stop this idiocy. Radical Islam has to be fought within the religion. Moderate Muslims should take an active role in stemming this scourge or risk being tainted with the rest. There is no pride in being a Muslim today in the diverse community at large, only shame. People's tolerance is being stretched and if this continues, muslims will start seeing some form of discrimination, in tolerant secular societies.
The Bible calls out homosexuality and mastrubation as sins. Moderate Christians will admit this as a fallacy.
The Bhaghvad Gita (1-41) chastises inter-caste marriages. Moderate Hindus will this is ireelavant in this day and age.
The Hindu scriptures, the Torah, and the Bible have both narratives and rules. It is full of God did/said this and God did/said that. So and so killed so and so. So and so incurred the wrath of God for doing such and such. So on and so on. The Koran on the other hand appears to be predominantly a set of rules.
Each religion has its idiosyncrasies about the path to salvation and “heaven”. The Hindus partake in all kinds of rituals. Christians are expected to go to Church every Sunday, not eat meat on Fridays. Catholics go to confessions and wash their sins away with hail Marys etc. Jews have rituals and observe various religious events. The Koran is very explicit in outlining what is and what isn’t acceptable behavior. It appears that the Koran does the thinking for the Muslims and the Muslim just has to follow it. The mullahs preach that if the Muslims follow the Koran to the letter and bob their heads five times a day towards Mecca and go the Mosque on Fridays, they will go to heaven. Therein lies the problem. The Koran is sprinkled with violence. How can one claim it is a peaceful religion when it riddled with violent words? For instance the Koran states, “When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)”.
Marx said religion is the opium of the masses. This is particularly true in fundamental Islam, where the Mullahs are preaching the Koran As Is. And the situation is getting worse.
What are moderate Mdoing about this while Islam is being maligned by the mullahs? They ought to engage with these radical mullahs and put pressure on them to stop this idiocy. Radical Islam has to be fought within the religion. Moderate Muslims should take an active role in stemming this scourge or risk being tainted with the rest. There is no pride in being a Muslim today in the diverse community at large, only shame. People's tolerance is being stretched and if this continues, muslims will start seeing some form of discrimination, in tolerant secular societies.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Mohammad the Bandit (Muhammad)
Mohammad the Bandit Prophet
Mohammad orphaned as a lad
His uncle took him in
When he came of age
A rich older widow married him
Mohammad was in Mecca
Where he had a vision
Allah bade him to
Start a new religion
He was exiled to Medina
Accepted there as a pundit
To feed his followers
He became a bandit
From caravans to Mecca
He took at will
Leading his followers
Often times he killed
This ignited Meccan’s ire
Twice they did attack
Mohammad and his followers
Triumphed in fighting back
With that his stature rose
From bandit he did rise
Soon to be a Warlord
The Kaabah became his prize
From bandit, to war lord, to prophet
His power over people did grow
With conquests this came to be
The Islam that we all know
Shiites and Sunni both agree
That Mohammad was number one
But the fight goes on today
Over who is the second one
Four wives a muslim can take
says the holy Koran
Talak, Talak, Talak,
To rid him of his woman
The primitive Islam moral code
For man raping his daughter-in-law
Is a decree to marry her
Such is Islam law
Look at Pakistan and Afganistan
Non-muslims face constant threats
People converting away from Islam
Fear of being put to death
Americans in Iraq
Are cause for muslims ire
Muslims killing muslims
Americans caught in cross fire
The people who believe
In the Koran "as is"
Are the root cause of
The increasing Islamin Menace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)