MO-HAM-MAD
THE SINNER
ANSWERING THE CALL OF NATURE BY MO-HAM-MAD
MO-HAM-MAD THE INGENIOUS FIRST INSURGENT
MO-HAM-MAD "DO NOT FART" COMMANDS
MO-HAM-MAD CURSING COMMANDS
QUESTIONS FOR MO-HAM-MAD
MO-HAM-MAD CARTOONS
MO-HAM-MAD'S LIFE
Qur'an
18:110 Say: I am only a mortal like you - it is revealed to me that your God is
one God. So, whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and join
no one in the service of his Lord.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
Hebrews
4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Qur'an 40:55 So be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true; and ask
protection for your sin and celebrate the praise of your Lord in the evening
and the morning.
Qur'an
footnote: The words istghfir-li-dhanbi-ka occurring here, and repeated in 47:19, do not
negate the claim made repeatedly that the Prophet was sinless.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
2
Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we
might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Qur'an 47:19 So know that there is no God but Allah and ask protection for your
sin and for the believing men and the believing women. And Allah knows your
moving about and your
staying.
Qur'an
footnote: Not only the Prophet but every believer is told here to keep praying
to God for being protected from sins, for himself and for all the believers,
men as well as women.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
1
Peter 2:21-24 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us,
leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: "Who committed no
sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not
revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to
Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the
tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness; by whose
stripes you were healed.
Qur'an 48:1-3 Surely We have granted you a clear
victory, that Allah may cover for your shortcomings in the past and those to
come, and complete His favor to you and guide you on a right path, and that
Allah might help you with a mighty help.
Qur'an
footnote: In the first place dhanb means any
shortcoming, not necessarily a sin.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
1
John 3:5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him
there is no sin.
Qur'an 93:7 And find you groping, so He showed the way?
Qur'an
footnote: Hence he was unable to see way by himself, and the word dall signifies one who is perplexed and unable to
see his right course. The true significance of the word is thus that Allah
found the Prophet in quest of the way, but unable to find the way himself. Therefore He guided him by Divine light. In this manner was
the Prophet told not to chide any petitioner, but to render help to him as
Allah had helped him.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
John
14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through Me."
Qur'an 66:1 O Prophet, why do you forbid yourself that which Allah has made
lawful for you? Seek you to please your wives? And Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
Qur'an
footnote: This verse is said to contain a reference to the Prophet's conjugal
relations with Mary, the Coptic lady, which, it is alleged, being discovered by
his wife Hafsah, the Prophet's swore not to have anything more to do with her.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
1
Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like
silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot.
Qur'an 33:37 And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom
you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and keep your duty to Allah; and
you concealed in your heart what Allah would bring to light, and you feared
men, and Allah has a greater right that you should fear Him. So
when Zaid dissolved her marriage, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there
should be no difficulty for the believers about the wives of their adopted
sons, when they have dissolved their marriage. And Allah's command is ever
performed.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad quickly married a divorced woman who he was attracted to.
Matthew
5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason
except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a
woman who is divorced commits adultery."
Qur'an 9:88 But the Messenger and those who believe with him strive hard with
their property and their persons. And these it is for whom are the good things
and these it is who are successful.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
Matthew
6:31-33 "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What
shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the
Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things
shall be added to you."
Qur'an 7:188 Say: I control not benefit or harm for myself except as Allah
please. And had I known the unseen, I should have much of good, and no evil
would touch me. I am but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who
believe.
Qur'an
footnote: The simplicity and nobility of this statement as indicating the
mission of a prophet is unsurpassed. He gives glad news of triumph to those who
believe, warns the evil-doers of the evil consequences of their deeds in this
life as well as in the next, but he does not claim the possession of Divine
powers.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad proclaimed that he was just an ordinary sinful man or mortal unlike
Christ.
Matthew
8:26-27 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little
faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a
great calm. So the men marveled, saying, "Who can
this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
Colossians
1:16-17 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all
things, and in Him all things consist.
Hadith Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha:
The
Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and
stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then
I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my
hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me
while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends.
She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She
caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was
breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright,
she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into
the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best
wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to
them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came
to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I
was a girl of nine years of age.
Note:
Mo-ham-mad was a sexual predator that traumatized Aisha when she was six years
old.
Matthew
18:6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it
would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were
drowned in the depth of the sea."
Hadith Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha:
that
the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine
years (i.e., till his death).
Note:
Mo-ham-mad was a sexual predator that raped Aisha when she was nine years old.
Mark
9:42 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck,
and he were thrown into the sea."
Robert Spencer Deconstructs Islam
American
Thinker
September 12,
2021
“A thorough
review of the historical records provides startling indications that much, if not
all, of what we know about Muhammad is legend, not historical fact,”
writes Robert Spencer in
his new edition of Did
Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. Therein this
bestselling author, scholar, and world-renowned “Islamophobe” details
numerous factual, fatal objections to the received faith-based narrative of
Islam’s founding by a prophet named Muhammad.
Spencer
surveys the historical record of various of various societies like the
Byzantine Empire that bore the brunt of Arab invasions in the Middle East and
North Africa following Muhammad’s supposed death in 632. The surprising
documentary result:
No one who
interacted with those who conquered the Middle East in the middle of the
seventh century ever seems to have gotten the impression that a prophet named
Muhammad, whose followers burst from Arabia bearing a new holy book and a new
creed, was behind the conquests.
Spencer notes
that “this silence is extremely strange. Islam, in its canonical texts, is an
unapologetically supremacist religion.” Tellingly, “coins minted in the 650s
and possibly as late as the 670s” by early Islamic caliphs like the
Damascus-based Umayyads make no
“reference to Muhammad as Allah’s prophet or to any other distinctive element
of Islam.” Some of these coins even feature crosses, but “it is hard to imagine
that such a coin would have been minted at all had the dogmatic Islamic
abhorrence of the cross been in place at the time.”
Muhammad’s
normative biography raises grave doubts for Spencer, based as it is largely on
the hadith, or canonical narratives about Muhammad’s words and actions. Spencer
observes that Islamic orthodoxy holds that the hadith passed from Muhammad’s
lifetime to the ninth century in an uncorrupted oral tradition before Islamic
scholars verified and transcribed hadith. “Seldom, if ever, has such a feat of
memory been documented,” Spencer skeptically comments.
While
theologically the short Quran’s sparse content is Islam’s primary document,
“functionally, if not officially, the Hadith are the primary authority in
Islam,” Spencer notes. This particularly results from the doctrine in Quran 33:21 and other verses that Muslims should emulate
Muhammad, whose biography the hadith minutely chronicles in “dizzyingly
voluminous collections.” Additionally, to a large extent, even the “Muslim holy
book—not just its Arabic neologisms and turns of phrase -- would be
incomprehensible without the Hadith,” Spencer analyzes, which “detail the
occasions for the revelation of every passage in the Qur’an.”
The resulting
potential for hadith fraud surrounding a holy lawgiver Muhammad is enormous,
Spencer observes. Thus, “with Muhammad held up as an exemplar, the Hadith
became political weapons in the hands of warring factions within the Islamic
world. And as is always the case with weapons in wartime, they began to be
manufactured wholesale.” “The consequence of all this was inevitable: utter
confusion,” Spencer concludes; the “Hadith is riddled with contradictions.”
Parallel
problems plague the Sira or Islamic biography of Muhammad that canonically
supplements the hadith in Islamic Sunna or tradition. All accounts of Muhammad
ultimately derive from a biography written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 833
almost exactly two centuries after Muhammad, a historian who in turn edited
portions of a Muhammad history compiled by Ibn Ishaq,
who died in 773. As Spencer notes, “there is simply no alternative to Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham if one wishes to record what the earliest
available Islamic sources say about Muhammad.”
This
evidentiary record is obviously deficient, Spencer assesses. “Material that
circulated orally for as many as 125 years, amid an environment in which
forgery of such material was rampant, is extremely unlikely to have maintained
any significant degree of historical reliability.” Yet “if Ibn Hisham is not a
historically trustworthy source, what is left of the life of Muhammad?” Spencer
questions.
Moreover,
Muhammad’s orthodox biography is hardly flattering. “The Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham is not a
peaceful teacher of the love of God and the brotherhood of man but rather a
warlord who fought numerous battles and ordered the assassination of his
enemies,” Spencer reviews. Muhammad is “more of a cutthroat than a holy man.”
Muhammad’s
biography is not holy writ by any standard, yet his supposed revelation, the
Quran, is no better. “For Muslims, the Qur’an is a perfect copy of the perfect,
eternal book -- the Mother of the Book (umm al-kitab)
-- that has existed forever with Allah in Paradise,” Spencer observes. “This
perfect and miraculous book is, however, decidedly imperfect, as even some
Muslims have begun to note publicly,” he caveats.
“The Qur’an
is, like the Hadith, riddled with contradictions,” Spencer writes, as the
example of alcohol across several Quran verses demonstrates. “Alcohol started
out as permitted, and then containing some benefit but also leading the
believer into sin, with the sin outweighing the benefit, and finally alcohol is
the work of Satan,” he notes. This suggests that the Quran was “written by
committee, the product of the combination of numerous divergent traditions.”
Even more
critically, the “earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an do not contain most
diacritical marks,” Spencer notes. He insightfully explains:
Many Arabic
letters are identical to one another in appearance except for their diacritical
marks -- that is, the dots that appear above or below the character. In fact,
twenty-two of the twenty-eight letters in the Arabic alphabet depend entirely
on diacritical marks to distinguish them from at least one other letter.
Early Quran
manuscripts are not even “consistent in the sets of identical letters they
choose to distinguish from one another,” Spencer observes. “The implications of
this confusion are enormous,” he correctly concludes. “It is entirely possible
that what is taken for one word in that canonical text may originally have been
another word altogether.”
Diacritical
marks are even more essential for the Qur’an “insists on its Arabic character
so often that Islamic theologians have quite understandably understood Arabic
to be part of the Qur’an’s very essence,” Spencer notes. In reality, the
“Qur’an contains numerous indications of a non-Arabic derivation, or at very
least considerable non-Arabic influence.” As the Islamic scholar Christoph Luxenberg, many of the Quran’s
notable “oddities become clear when the text is reread in light of the Syriac language
and other possible substrata,” Spencer observes. “Many words in this
self-proclaimed clear Arabic book are neither clear nor Arabic,” he summarizes.
Reviewing
Islam’s canonical farrago, Spencer surmises that the “realm of political
theology, then, offers the most plausible explanation for the creation of
Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an.” “Every empire of the day was anchored in a
political theology. The Romans conquered many nations and unified them by means
of the worship of the Greco-Roman gods. This Greco-Roman paganism was later
supplanted by Christianity,” Spencer notes. Similarly, the “Arab empire
controlled, and needed to unify, huge expanses of territory in which different
religions predominated.”
Spencer’s
analysis easily “explains why Islam developed as such a profoundly political
religion.” Likewise, Muhammad “had to be a warrior prophet, for the new empire
was aggressively expansionistic.” This clearly found “theological
justification” in “Muhammad’s teachings and example.”
Spencer has
provided indispensable insight on Islam. As Islamic scholar Volker Popp noted
in the book preface, the “material culture of an Islamic past is never judged
on its own merits, but only by its usefulness for validating the Islamic myth.”
Yet Spencer realized “it was time to get back to real scholarship unhampered by
political correctness and the corruption of Saudi money,” stated his colleague Ibn Warraq.
There is a
“long scholarly tradition of inquiry into the historical Jesus,” Ibn Warraq noted, but equivalent investigations into Muhammad
are far more fraught. “Some of the bold scholars who have investigated the
history of early Islam have even received death threats. As a result, some
publish under pseudonyms, including scholars of the first rank” like Warraq and Luxenberg, Spencer noted. May more brave
individuals follow in his footsteps in uninhibited examination of Islam.
Was
Muhammad a False Prophet?
WILLIAM KILPATRICK
FEBRUARY
17, 2016
CRISIS
MAGAZINE
Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are
ravenous wolves (Mt. 7:15).
Would “false prophets” include Muhammad? It’s an impolitic question to ask in
these politically correct times, but, thanks to political correctness these are
also highly dangerous times. Since a good deal of the danger emanates from the
religion Muhammad founded, it seems reasonable to ask if he was a false
prophet. And if he was, does that mean that Islam is a false religion?
And if it is, why are Catholic leaders so keen on declaring their solidarity
with Islam?
It’s a case of either/or. Either the New Testament account of Jesus is true or
Muhammad’s account is true. Since they contradict each other, they both can’t
be true.
In the gospel accounts, Jesus is rather insistent that he is the Son of God,
and the Koran is rather insistent that he is not. Assuming that you know of the
many instances in the gospels where Jesus asserts his divinity, here are some
Koranic passages that say the opposite:
God is but one God. God forbid that he should have a son! (4:173, trans
Dawood).
The Messiah, the Son of Mary, was no more than an apostle (5:75, Dawood).
Christians call Christ the Son of Allah…. Allah’s curse be on them: how they
are deluded away from the truth! (9:30, trans Yusuf Ali).
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of the three in a Trinity (5:73, Yusuf
Ali).
Ralph Sidway, the author of a recent piece on the
“same God” question, puts the either/or nature of the choice in perspective:
Based on these brief examples alone, Christianity and Islam cannot both be from
the same source which is what the Same God Question ultimately boils down to.
If we treat each truth claim with respect, that each faith springs from a
self-revelation of God, then it is clear the Allah of Islam is directly, and in
a specific, vigorous manner, opposed to the revelation from the Christian God.
And Jesus’ own emphatic testimony about himself excludes any alternate
revelation concerning the nature of God.
So the author of the Koran unambiguously rejects the
Christian belief in the Trinity. Moreover, he declares that a “grievous penalty
will befall” those who persist in saying that “Allah is one of three” (5:73). As
Sidway puts it, “Allah is so vehement in these
condemnations of Christian dogma that it amounts to what I term a ‘Theological
Jihad’.”
Why the vehemence? I have my own theory about that. As I wrote a few years
back:
Muhammad’s purpose in introducing Jesus into the Koran is to discredit the
Christian claim that he is divine in order to enhance Muhammad’s claim to
prophethood.
In other words:
If Christ is who Christians say he is, then there is absolutely no need for
another prophet or another revelation.
So Muhammad created his own version of Jesus—one in
which Jesus is cut down to size. In effect, Jesus is assigned the role of John
the Baptist: he must decrease so that Muhammad can increase. In the Koran,
Jesus is given a relatively minor role to play. He is occasionally brought on
stage to make a point, and then is promptly ushered off. Muhammad succeeds in
convincing his audience that this lackluster Jesus couldn’t possibly be God.
The trouble is, his Jesus is so poorly drawn, so lacking in substance and
individuality that it’s also difficult to believe in his humanity. He is more
like a disembodied voice than a person.
But, whatever Muhammad’s motivation, the fact is that the Jesus of the gospels
and the Jesus of the Koran are irreconcilable. How can both revelations
possibly be from the same God? If Christ is God, then the Koranic account is a
false account and Muhammad is a false prophet.
That may seem a harsh way to put it. And if you go around saying such things,
you likely won’t be invited to your parish’s next interfaith outreach program.
But there it is. The only alternative is to say that Muhammad is a true
prophet. Do you really want to go there?
Well, I suppose one could conjure up another alternative. One could say that
Muhammad was a so-so prophet: he got some things right and some things wrong,
and he was part of the Abrahamic faith tradition, and so on and so forth. It’s
true, of course, that Muhammad did get some things right. But, on the point of
Christ’s divinity, the New Testament doesn’t seem to allow for any
half-right/half-wrong compromise position.
Is the Allah who supposedly wrote the Koran the same God who revealed himself
in the Incarnation? Sidway reminds us of two passages
from the First Letter of John:
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who
denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son
does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father
also (1 Jn 2:22-23).
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of
God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know
the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ
has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist,
which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 Jn 4:1-3).
According to John, the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Son. But Islam not
only denies the Son, it brands belief in the Son as a
sin. And not just any sin, but the worst of all possible sins—shirk (the sin of
attributing partners to God). So the central belief of
Christians is, from the Islamic point of view, the greatest sin conceivable.
It can be argued that other religions fail to acknowledge the Sonship of
Christ, but there is a difference. For example, while Jews don’t believe in the
divinity of Christ, that, for obvious chronological reasons, is not part of the
revelation to the Jews. Nor is denial of Christ’s divinity a central tenet of
Judaism. On the other hand, the “revelation” to Muhammad came six hundred years
after the birth of Christ and one of its central messages is the denial of the
Sonship of Jesus. As Joel Richardson puts it in his book The Islamic
Antichrist:
While many religions and systems of belief exist that do not agree with the
doctrines of Christianity … only Islam fulfills the role of a religion that
exists to deny core Christian beliefs.
It’s difficult to square the scriptural evidence with the currently fashionable
notion that Christianity and Islam are close cousins. It’s harder still to
reconcile it with the assertion that we believe in the same God and revere the
same Jesus.
But is it really necessary to open old wounds? Isn’t it better to emphasize the
things that unite us rather than the things that divide us? In commenting on
the Church’s relationship with Muslims in Nostra Aetate, the Synod fathers
urged all to forget the “quarrels and hostilities” of the past. Shouldn’t we
heed their advice?
But just how far in the past are the “quarrels and hostilities” mentioned in
Nostra Aetate? They are still with us today. And what is the source of those
hostilities, except that Christians refused and still refuse to accept the
revelations given to Muhammad. From the Islamic point of view, Christians who
persist in unbelief merit the “grievous penalty” that follows.
“Beware of false prophets who … inwardly are ravenous wolves.” “Ravenous”
certainly seems an apt description of Muhammad. While it’s not known exactly
how many people he killed in the course of spreading
Islam, it is known that on one occasion he presided over the beheading of
between 600 and 900 captured men. “Ravenous” also seems to fit most of his
successors. Islam’s’ 1400 year history is largely a
record of conquest and subjugation. By one estimate, approximately 170 million
people have been killed in the name of Allah, making Islam the greatest killing
force in history by far.
So, there is good reason to beware of false prophets. There is also good reason
for Catholics to revisit the simplistic and dangerously misleading notion that
Muslims and Christians share the same beliefs and values.
It’s understandable, of course, that many Catholics might think that
Christianity and Islam are more closely aligned than they really are. It’s
uncontestable that Islam does bear a superficial resemblance to Catholicism.
Muslims pray daily, they emphasize modesty, their clerics wear long robes, they
go on pilgrimage to shrines, and their mosques are often beautiful structures
which convey an atmosphere of deep spirituality. Moreover, Islam even finds
room for Jesus in its pantheon of prophets.
None of that, however, negates the reality that Islam is based on a false
revelation. When warning of false prophets, Christ said “you will know them by
their fruits”—not by their appearances. After all, the warning would not be
necessary except that the wolf is disguised in sheep’s clothing. Unfortunately,
too many Catholics and too many of their shepherds seem to live in a bucolic
dream world where thoughts of wolves and false prophets are never entertained.
Mohammed was a Thug
July 25, 2005
by
Alan Burkhart
I recently set out to learn more about Islam. I had no agenda at the time
except to broaden my knowledge on the subject. What I have learned sickened me.
I had previously been accepting of the notion that Islam was a peaceful
religion and that the Muslim terrorists who inflict so much pain and death
around the world represented a fringe element outside of mainstream Islam. I
was wrong.
The Islamic deity, Allah, is a false god. While the term "Allah" does
indeed carry the same meaning as "God," Mohammed's Allah is nothing
more than a construct of a vile false prophet who sought to create an empire
upon the rotting corpses of his enemies. Let's review some history...
In 621 A.D. Mohammed was in Mecca preaching to any who would listen that he
alone was the Divine Prophet of the One God, Allah. Meccans eventually grew
tired of his ranting and demanded that he cease and desist. With a tiny band of
followers, Mohammed sneaked out of Mecca in the dead of night and traveled to
the Jewish city of Medina. He and his followers were sick, tired, and hungry
and the Jews there took them in and nursed them to good health.
Unfortunately Mohammed was consumed with rage over his
being booted out of Mecca and began plotting his revenge. It was this plan that
became the basis for the religion of Islam. In January of 623 A.D. Mohammed
ordered his band of thugs to attack four unarmed merchants who were
transporting their wares to Mecca. All four were brutally murdered and their
merchandise (raisins, animal skins, and honey) was stolen. Claiming a Divine
Right, Mohammed received one fifth of the take.
Mohammed began to preach to his followers that it was mandated by Allah that
nonbelievers (like his perceived enemies in Mecca) were "the worst kind of
beasts" and that they must be slain. This cruel rhetoric attracted the
sort of people who enjoy such depraved activities and soon Mohammed had an army
numbering in the hundreds. Rape, robbery, and murder were all sanctioned as
being the Divine Will of Allah, and Mohammed reaped a fortune as his growing
army raged across ancient Arabia.
Poets and politicians alike who spoke out against him were tortured and
murdered. Even the Jews of Medina, who had shown him such kindness, were
eventually driven from their homes while Mohammed's Muslim band pillaged the
city. With each new raid, Mohammed would claim to have had yet another
"revelation" from Allah that justified their actions. In short,
Mohammed led a tribe of barbarians who truly believed that they were doing
Allah's will by destroying pre-Islamic Arabia. In all, Mohammed would order 86
raids upon the innocent, 26 of which he led himself. In 630 A.D. Mohammed
marched triumphantly into Mecca with 40,000 followers. His revenge was
complete, but the horrors of Islam had only begun.
Mohammed's sole purpose in everything he did was to feed his enormous ego and
satisfy his perverse sexual needs. In all, Mohammed had eleven wives, nine of
them simultaneously, with the youngest being only ten years old. Eye-witness
accounts claim that Aisha brought her toys with her when she was delivered to the
Prophet of Allah.
Mohammed regarded women as nothing more than sexual toys and servants, and of
course justified his actions by proclaiming that it was Allah's will that women
always be subjugated to men. Seeing him as their spiritual guide and role model,
other Muslim men treated their women accordingly. A cycle of abuse that still
endures today in many parts of the world had thus begun.
By the time Mohammed died at age 63, the face of the Middle East had changed
from a civilized and prosperous world to one of fear, poverty, and deprivation.
Gone was any semblance of free expression or religious freedom. Mohammed and
his followers had turned the known world upside down.
The Twelfth-Century Crusades were in fact a response by England, France and Germany
to the growing Muslim violence against Christians. It is quite appropriate to
state that the Crusades against "Mohammedism"
constituted the first War on Terror. A coalition of like-minded nations,
setting aside their political differences for a time, engaging a barbaric and
bloodthirsty Muslim enemy on its own soil. Sound familiar?
As time passed, the Crusades came to an end due as much to internal bickering
as success. The beast that is Islam had been diminished but not defeated. As
the years rolled by Islam once again spread its leathery wings to darken the
civilized world. Through violence and deception Islam has spread to virtually
every nation on Earth.
In current times, Islam still commits acts of unthinkable barbarism against the
innocent. With videos of beheadings transmitted all over the world, the
devastating attack in New York on September 11, 2001, the recent bombings in
Madrid and London… haven't we had enough? Isn't it time that we recognize that
Islam is not a religion, but rather a means of world conquest? It doesn't
matter if people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein actually believe in
Allah. In truth I doubt that Mohammed believed. Mohammed saw an opportunity to
become a world power and twisted the minds of men to serve his evil purposes.
He was a fraud and I find it incredible that 1400 years after his death, that
fraud is still being inflicted upon the world.
The time has come to cease being tolerant of Islam. It is a false religion,
based upon a false god and the teachings of a false prophet. We absolutely must see Islam for what it is: The Enemy of All Humanity.
SHOULD MO-HAM-MAD HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION?
February 12, 2006
BY
MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have
blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll
called Mustafa Shag."
Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not
yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in
order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some
confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading
exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid
modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just
another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to
say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the
title al-Mustapha.''
In a world in which Danish cartoons insult the prophet and Disney Piglet mugs
insult the prophet and Burger King chocolate ice-cream swirl designs insult the
prophet, maybe it would just be easier to make a list of things that don't
insult him. Nonetheless, the Muslim Association wrote to the Ann Summers
sex-shop chain, "We are asking you to have our Most Revered Prophet's name
'Mustafa' and the afflicted word 'shag' removed."
If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and
"humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex
blowup males but to so many real blowup males: The leader of the 9/11 plotters?
Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif
Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The
former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker
Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney
gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I
were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the
preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of
the earth.
But apparently that's not as big a deal as Mustafa Shag. When Samuel Huntington
formulated his famous "clash of civilizations" thesis, I'm sure he
hoped it would play out as something nobler than shaggers vs. nutters. But in a sense that's the
core British value these days. If it's inherent in Muslim culture to take
umbrage at everything, it's inherent in English culture to turn everything into
a lame sex gag. The "Mustafa" template is one of the most revered in
the English music-hall tradition: "I've been reading the latest scholarly
monograph -- 'Sexual Practices of the Middle East by Mustapha Camel.'" If
they wanted to appease the surging Muslim demographic, the British could
conceivably withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan but it's hard to imagine they
could withdraw from vulgar sex jokes and still be recognizably British. They are,
in the Muslim Association's choice of words, "afflicted" with shag
fever.
In theory, this should have been the perfect moment for Albert Brooks to
release his new film ''Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World.'' Instead, life
is effortlessly outpacing art. Brooks had an excellent premise and, somewhere
between studio equivocation and his sense of self-preservation, it all got
watered down, beginning with the decision to focus the plot on a trip to India.
Which is a, er, mostly Hindu country. But the Arab world refused to let Brooks
film there, and, even if they had, he'd have been lucky to get out alive.
Needless to say, the movie doesn't mention that. So a
film whose title flaunts a bold disdain for political correctness is, in the
end, merely another concession to it.
You can't blame Brooks, not in a world of surreal headlines like "Cartoon
Death Toll Up to Nine" (the Sunday Times of Australia). Instead of
''Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World,'' the Muslim world's come looking for
comedy in the West and doesn't like what it's found. If memory serves, it was
NBC who back in the '70s used to have every sitcom joke about homosexuality
vetted by a gay dentist in New Jersey. Apprised of this at a conference on
censorship, the producer of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" remarked,
"You mean there really is a tooth fairy?" Alas, the Islamist Advisory
Commission on Quran-Compatible Humor will be made of sterner stuff, and likely
far more devastating to the sitcom biz.
And the good news is that that body's already on its way. The European Union's
Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, said on Thursday that the
EU would set up a "media code" to encourage "prudence" in
the way they cover, ah, certain sensitive subjects. As Signor Frattini
explained it to the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world
the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free
expression. . . . We can and we are ready to
self-regulate that right."
"Prudence"? "Self-regulate our free expression"? No, I'm
afraid that's just giving the Muslim world the message: You've won, I
surrender, please stop kicking me.
But they never do. Because, to use the Arabic proverb with which Robert
Ferrigno opens his new novel, Prayers for the Assassin, set in an Islamic
Republic of America, "A falling camel attracts many knives." In
Denmark and France and the Netherlands and Britain, Islam senses the camel is
falling and this is no time to stop knifing him.
The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of
the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as
it has been in all these loony tune controversies going back to the Salman
Rushdie fatwa, is the point at which a free society musters the will to stand
up to thugs. British Muslims march through the streets waving placards reading
"BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM." If they mean that, bring it on. As my
columnar confrere John O'Sullivan argued, we might as well fight in the first
ditch as the last.
But then it's patiently explained to us for the umpteenth time that they're not
representative, that there are many many
"moderate Muslims.''
I believe that. I've met plenty of "moderate Muslims" in Jordan and
Iraq and the Gulf states. But, as a reader wrote to me a year or two back, in
Europe and North America they aren't so much "moderate Muslims" as
quiescent Muslims. The few who do speak out wind up living in hiding or under
24-hour armed guard, like Dutch MP Ayaab Hirsi Ali.
So when the EU and the BBC and the New York Times say
that we too need to be more "sensitive" to those fellows with
"Behead the enemies of Islam" banners, they should look in the
mirror: They're turning into "moderate Muslims," and likely to wind
up as cowed and silenced and invisible.
"Show
me just what Mo-ham-mad brought that was new, and there you will find things
only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he
preached." - Manuel II
FALSE PROPHECIES BY MO-HAM-MAD
Volume
3, Book 34, Number 425: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's
Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will
shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the
Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims,
who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be
abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.
Volume
4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's
Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the
Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim!
There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Volume
4, Book 53, Number 401: Narrated Auf bin Mali:
I
went to the Prophet during the Ghazwa of Tabuk while
he was sitting in a leather tent. He said, "Count six signs that indicate
the approach of the Hour: my death, the conquest of Jerusalem, a plague that
will afflict you (and kill you in great numbers) as the plague that afflicts
sheep, the increase of wealth to such an extent that even if one is given one
hundred Dinars, he will not be satisfied; then an affliction which no Arab
house will escape, and then a truce between you and Bani Al-Asfar
(i.e. the Byzantines) who will betray you and attack you under eighty flags.
Under each flag will be twelve thousand soldiers.
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808: Narrated
'Ali:
I
relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from
the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing
which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's
Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some
young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all
people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam
as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their
throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief),
so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward
on the Day of Resurrection."
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657: Narrated
Abu Huraira:
Allah's
Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son
of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just
Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims).
Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single
prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and
whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite
(this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of
the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before
his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a
witness Against them."
ALLAH = SATAN
Jesus
said to him, "It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord
your God.’" Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high
mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he
said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and
worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is
written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall
serve.’" Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and
ministered to Him. Matthew 4:7-11