A collection of great writings from our Infidel and Apostate friends. Read my newspaper, The Pulp Ark Journal, and my magazine The Pulp Ark Gazette. Come check some nice books from my Scribd library.
“I’m amused,” he said in remarks published Tuesday, “when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”
Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.
It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari.
Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
One might also get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from these Qur’an verses:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women, for Allah has made one superior to the another, and because they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.
According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.
We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.
Islam cannot conceive of itself as a minority in a secular State. Violent Islamists, an active and determined minority of Muslims, refuse integration. In Europe, they not only intend to keep their Islamic identity, but to Islamize the non-practicing and convert by force the natives of the host country that they inhabit. As the Belgian people, and the whole of the Western Europe, wake up to the growing threat of radical Islam, it is clear that the European Union’s comfort-zone has come to an end. The people of Europe are asking themselves, how and why they have so willingly allowed themselves to be blinded to the point of not seeing the proliferation and threat of radical Islam throughout the streets and towns of Europe.
Ever since the day of Napoleon's landing upon the shores of Egypt at the very end of the 18th Century bringing the modern era to the Middle East, Islam has been unable to free itself from the shackles of inferiority and self-destructive primal rage that typifies the hatred of Western civilization by modern day radical Islamists.
Now is the time to consider what makes an Islamic terrorist so barbaric and so hateful of Westerners that they have no reservations about blowing-up and murdering infants, children, women and men as they go about their daily chores. These terror attacks are reminiscent of the indiscriminate killing of Jews and Christians alike before and during the Holocaust. The Islamic terror wave that stalks Europeans to be murdered for no other reason than their Western identity has its roots in Islamic-Nazi ideologies established during the years prior to the Holocaust in Europe. Yet, rather than expose the similarities between Nazi ideology and the Radical Islamic incitement to murder Europeans, the international media chooses to report on the Islamic terror wave exclusively through the prism of a multicultural-politically correct terminology that refuses to demand of Islam to be accountable and take responsible action against the inherent radicalism that so many Muslim young adults have adopted and identify with.
For the Islamic suicide terrorists who blow themselves up, premeditated murder has become a tool for redemption. This current Islamic terror wave can trace its roots to the link between Nazism and the nascent radical Islamic movement during the years prior to World War II. For example, in a Nazi directive of 1943: "The extermination of Jewry throughout the world is the precondition for an enduring peace." Such a statement is remarkably similar, if not identical, to Islamic religious leaders then and now who proclaim at every opportunity that Jews and Christians must be wiped out for Muslims to become Martyrs and reach heaven. A common thread unifies the desire for the total destruction of those that do not accept the Nazi ideology of the past or the Islamist ideology of today; hence the validity of the term Islamo-Nazism. The Nazis spoke of “redemptive anti-Semitism,” namely a form of anti-Semitism that explains all in the world and offer a form of “redemption” by exterminating the Jews. Radical Islamic religious leaders provide the same rationale for murdering non-Muslims: their murder is a bridge that martyrs (Shahid) must cross to reach heaven.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in Mandatory Palestine played leading roles in inculcating the spirit of Nazism into Muslim consciousness. Nazis found refuge after the end of World War II and continued their activities in exile in the Arab world, mainly Egypt. Academicians throughout the world are aware of the Islamic-Nazi connection knowing the historical consequences of redemptive anti-Semitism and its current manifestation in Islamic thinking and Islam as a religion. Yet, rather than exposing this indisputable historical fact, they lend their support to perpetuate the false belief that Islamic newcomers to Europe can be integrated and accept the norms, values, and principles of Western society.
The fact that since 9/11, the hatred of the West has reached truly epidemic proportions in the Islamic world has been also been downplayed or ignored by academicians, politicians, and opinion makers in the media. Overlooked as well in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Islamic Anti-Semitism has long been recognized as the Arab world’s prominent vehicle for the hatred of the Jews. From Islamic academics teaching that Judaism permits murder and rape of non-Jews, to religious leaders teaching that Islam demands the extermination of Jews, Islamic redemptive anti-Semitism is a compelling force driving hatred and terror. Jews are depicted as the archetypal force of evil throughout history. Jews are said to be responsible for all the world’s problems: wars, financial crises, even the spreading of AIDS. In short, Jews are a danger to humanity.
While this paradigm has been used by Nazis before, the Islamists take it a step further, turning the demonization of Jews into the basis for Palestinian denial of Israel’s right to exist and a central component of Islamic thinking and Islamic religious identity. The Anti-Semitic oppression, persecution and expulsions suffered by Jews throughout history are presented as the legitimate self-defense responses of the Nazis then and the Islamic nations of the world today. The ongoing Islamic terror wave in Europe is a testament of the transformation of the Nazis’ redemptive anti-Semitism to an Islamic need to murder innocent non-Muslims for eternal redemption in heaven.
Radical Islam has created a false and deceptive reality that will sooner than later crumble and implode. Over the past five years we have all witnessed how quickly Arab leaders throughout the Middle East have had to flee from their own people due to the eruption of rage and hatred by Muslim believers. The true narrative of the Middle East is that no Islamic state genuinely respects human rights. No Islamic state hosts a responsible media. No Islamic society fully respects the rights of women or minorities, and no Islamic government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings. Blame of Jews and the West has become the opiate of the Muslim world.
Thus is born the obsessive campaign to demonize and de-legitimize all members of Western societies, Jews and Christians alike. Only by spreading the word and exposing the historically lethal link between Nazism and Islamic terror, the modern torchbearers of redemptive anti-Semitism, can we regain the moral high ground in defending Western civilization against the global tsunami of Islamic terror throughout the world.
Recently, Huffington Post published an article by a certain Dr. Craig Considine, a Catholic who says Muhamad was not only a prophet but “an exceptional person” and “the greatest and most influential human being ever to walk the face of the earth.” He said “Prophet Muhammad brought love, peace, and much more to a part of the world that had little of these things.”
Dr. Considine is not alone. There is a bromance between the Catholic Church and Islam that as an ex-Muslim I find disturbing and alarming. I sent this reply to Huffington Post but I do not expect them to publish it. Truth is not in their menu.
The problem is that the above claims are not supported by Islamic scriptures. I was born a Muslim and in my state of ignorance I believed that Muhammad was all the above and more. He was the most perfect human and an example to emulate.
I woke up from that delusional thinking when I read the Quran. While every sura of that books start in the name of Allah the merciful the compassionate, the text of that book portray a ruthless and a bloodthirsty god who enjoins the believers to hate the non-believers, to not take them as friends, to fight them, to be harsh with them, to subdue them, to slay them, and to rape and enslave their women.
While the apologists of Islam claim that the book that repeatedly claims to be a clear book with no doubts in it is misunderstood the voluminous biographies of Muhammad leave no doubt that he was a mass murderer, who raided villages and towns, massacred unarmed men, took their women and children as slaves, and often picked the prettiest and youngest for himself.
In Khaibar, a Jewish town to the north of Medina, Muhammad tortured to death the youthful Kinana to make him reveal the whereabouts of his treasure. He was a goldsmith. He placed glowing coal on Kinana’s chest and blinded his eyes with a hot iron rod, and finally beheaded him.
He then sent after Safiyah, Kinana’s 17 year old wife, who was brought to him by Bilal, the first Black Muslim, accompanied by Kinana’s sister. Upon seeing the mutilated corpse of her brother, the young woman began screaming. Muhammad shouted; “take this she devil away from me.” He then rebuked Bilal, “Don’t you have a heart to bring these women to see their loved ones in this state?” Then the prophet of mercy took Safiyah to his tend to rape her on that very night.
While this is only one of hundreds of such stories, there is more to this tragic tale. Kinana and Safiyah were natives of Yathrib. The Jews used to live in that city for 2000 years. In 450 A.D., a great flood destroyed most of Yemen and forced various Arab tribes of the Saba region to migrate to other parts of Arabia. Two tribes, The Khasraj and the Aus went to Yathrib, and the Jews accepted them as refugees.
In just 170 years these refugees outnumbered the indigenous inhabitants. They made a living by working for the Jews and by highway robbery.
Rejected by his own people Muhammad turned to a group of Khazraj who had come to pilgrimage in Mecca. He told them that he is the prophet that the Jews were waiting for. But if they were to follow him, he would make them victorious over them. He said that God had ordered him to raid and to rob and if they fought for him they would be enriched beyond their imagination. And in case they were to be killed they would go to paradise where they would recline in the shade under canopies, drinking wine and playing with high bosom fair skinned virgins, while being served by young boys like pearl.
These simple minded Arabs accepted what he told them uncritically. After all they were thieves already. Why not steal in the name of God and reap also the afterlife rewards?
As the followers of Muhammad became wealthier their numbers also grew. Islam was the most profitable business in the country. Arabs could gain wealth and women in this world and be rewarded in the next.
Muhammad knew that victory is in deceit and often said so. He always took his victims by surprise. He fought 78 wars in just ten years after migrating to Yathrib, which he named after himself, Madinat al Nabi (Prophet’s Town). His raids are called ghazwa (raid/ambush/sudden attack) or in modern parlance, terrorism.
The Jews however did not convert and Muhammad decided to get rid of them. He banished two of their tribes and massacred the men of the third. Boys’ genitals were inspected and if they had grown pubic hair they were executed with their fathers. The women and children were sold into slavery in exchange for more arms.
Safiya’s father and uncle were among the men that Muhammad beheaded in Medina. She had escaped to Khaibar, only to taste the tyranny of the prophet, the man who according to Dr. Considine brought love and peace, two years later.
These are not baseless allegations. I have read the Quran, all the original books of history of Islam, and most books of hadith. I did not find any love or peace in them. I am offering $50,000 to anyone who can prove me wrong. I go further than that. If anyone can prove me wrong I will surrender myself to Muslims so they can behead me. Everything I said is undeniable truth and I bet my life on it, literally.
Truth is often ugly. But there is no excuse to lie. The majority of Muslims don’t know the truth about their prophet. When they learn the truth they are faced with a dilemma. They must either accept everything and become terrorists or reject Islam altogether.
To be radicalized means to go to the roots. A deepened Muslim is a radicalized Muslim unless he chooses to leave Islam. There is no mystery in how Muslims become radicalized. They read the Quran, the hadith and learn about the life of their prophet.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only one Islam: the Islam of Muhammad and the Quran. The so called moderate Islam is the ignorance of Islam. The less Muslims know their religion the more moderate they are. The more they deepen their knowledge the more radicalized they become.
It is no longer possible to keep the masses of Muslims in the dark. The Internet has made knowledge accessible to everyone. The question is which side will win. My hope is that we the apostates win and I urge non-Muslims to stand with us and not with the terrorists. The more you condone Islam the more you encourage terrorism.
While it is true that millions of Muslims are becoming radicalized, millions are also leaving Islam. You don’t hear from us because most of us are in hiding. Many apostates could be killed by their own family if they came out to the light.
We need your help. We can help other Muslims see the truth and realize they won’t be going to any brothel in heaven if they kill you. That Islam is all a big lie; that Allah is no God and Muhammad is no prophet.
What we don’t need are the likes of Dr. Considine. Not only he is ignorant, he is very much confused. Muhammad cursed the Christians for saying Jesus is the son of God.
The core belief of Christianity is based on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Muhammad denied the crucifixion. He said God tricked the people so that they crucified someone resembling Jesus, who cowardly went in hiding and lived a normal life in anonymity until his old age. Clearly Muhammad Judged the Son of God with his own standard. He was so cowards that he used to wear two coats of mail and hide behind his followers, never fighting in person.
Either Muhammad lied or the Bible lies. How can a Christian claim to believe in both these mutually contradictory beliefs?
When a friend who found Concidine’s article invited him to debate me, he replied “I don’t debate, I dialogue.” Dialogue is conversation between two people. Debate is conversation between two people with opposing views. So basically this gentleman likes to pontificate and not be contradicted. Truth can spark when opposing ideas collide. So much for his interest in truth! Ignorance has a remedy, arrogance does not. I have yet to find a person who likes Islam and has sound reasoning. It is impossible for someone with sound reasoning to become attracted in such an evil faith like Islam. Muslims are born into this demonic cult but even they leave it when they apply their reason. How can one claim to be a Christian and hail also for Muhammad? Is this confusion or taqiyah at work?
We need you to help us the apostates, and to expose the truth so the moderate/ignorant Muslims can be weaned from this religion of hate and terror and join the family of mankind in amity and love. We need truth, we need honesty, not more political correctness and more lies.
More and more Americans are learning the harsh, terrifying and disgusting truths about Islam. On a whole host of issues, Islam is simply not compatible with Western values, whether it be slavery, rape, social/sexual equality, violence, murder or pedophilia – in all these things Islam lines up against justice and morality.
What makes all of this worse and is the reason that Islam cannot coexist with the Western World is that the religion teaches that anything Muhammad did was right, just and moral. So murdering infidels will always be okay, slavery will always be just, rape (in certain cases) legal, and pedophilia strenuously protected. Why? Because Muhammad took part in all of these things. If they are wrong – then he was wrong…. and that just cannot be.
Are you starting to understand why such backwards practices continue in seemingly “civilized” nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc.? If any of these immoral behaviors are wrong, then it throws the entire Islamic religion into chaos, and so a large portion of Islam will ALWAYS defend these heinous and disgusting practices.
For example, a religious leader in Bangladesh argued that child marriages should not be banned because that would make Muhammad look bad.
In April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
The influential Muslim website Islamonline.com argued that not only was Muhammad okay with child marriages, but the Qur’an explicitly supported the practice as well.
The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
In Iran the government says that girls can be engaged at any age and married off at nine!
“Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.” In fact, the most famous, popular and beloved leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year old girl when he was 28. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
This past week, an influential professor and the Director of the Muslim Rights Concern, Ishaq Akintola, once again voiced support for the disgusting practices of forced child marriage, or better understood – pedophilia.
Akinotla, speaking to the online magazine PUNCH, said that age was not a barrier for marriage in Islam. He also argued that “forced marriage” is a misnomer, even if it accurately reflects what is happening when a child as young as 9 is forced to marry a much older man. PUNCH used the story of 14-year old Ese Oruru as the foundation for their discussion. (You can read more about that story here.)
Here’s some of what Akintola told PUNCH:
Q. Is child marriage permitted in Islam, looking beyond the case of Ese Oruru?
Islam is a complete way of life. As a religion, non-Muslims will have to take Muslims as they are, not as they want them to be. Neither Muslims nor their religion should be judged according to other standards. There will never be any inter-religious understanding so long as non-Muslims continue to measure Muslims and their way of life by Christian, Buddhist or Confucianist yardsticks. The simple truth is: Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this, particularly since 99.99 per cent of such marriages are conducted among Muslims themselves. If the man is a Muslim and the girl is also a Muslim and the girl’s parents give their approval, what is the business of any non-Muslim in that? It is sheer interference in the affair of Muslims and an attempt to exert undue influence on them. More often than not, those who interfere in this manner have ulterior motives. It is either for the purpose of smearing the image of Islam or to gain a comparative advantage and score a religious point (for their own faith of course).
We are not unaware of all these antics, yet we patiently endure them. Non-Muslims should therefore keep off Muslims’ affairs. Who are non-Muslims to be the judge of Muslims when every religious group has its own failings? This interference often causes unnecessary strain on Christian-Muslim relationship. Despite the fact that our Christian neighbours sing the hymn ‘I want to be like Jesus…’ repeatedly, they are not behaving like Jesus (peace be upon him). Neither are they following his teachings. There will be peace if they do. But they don’t. Jesus taught Christians to mind their own business and to resist the temptation to judge others. He said, ‘Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure that you give will be the measure you get.’
Q. That means your organisation, Muslim Right Concern, supports child marriage?
I am a Muslim and I support all truly Muslim practices. Our organisation, MURIC, is an Islamic human rights outfit. So naturally we should support all principles of Islam. It promotes Allah-given fundamental human rights as well as Allah-given fundamental rights of all creatures, animals – mammals, invertebrates, birds in the sky, the environment and all natural entities. Everything created by Allah has a right. We promote their rights.MURIC believes in all Shariah-compliant marriages, regardless of the age of the girl. The sensationalisation of intra-Muslim marriages to the so-called minors is uncalled for and, more often than not, done with hidden malice. For your information, we don’t have what you call ‘child marriage’. We have nikah (Islamic marriage). I affirm clearly, emphatically and unequivocally, that what happens among Muslims is strictly a Muslim affair and should remain so as long as it is Shariah-compliant. Non-Muslims have no right to poke their noses into any religious action taken by Muslims for Muslims. Nikah is a marriage of the Muslims conducted by the Muslims for the Muslims. How the Muslims do it is nobody’s business. Do we come into the church to criticise the way marriages are conducted? Have Muslims said anything about gay marriages inside churches? That is the Christian way of life and they should stop attempts to impose their lifestyle on Muslims. We will never allow that. It is an attempt to subject Muslims to public ridicule.
You cannot hold us in contempt and talk about love. It is sheer deceit. It is hypocrisy. Even Jesus (peace be upon him) called those who ignore their own faults to interfere in other people’s matters, hypocrites. He said, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’ when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” So, instead of paying attention to marriages conducted among Muslims, Christians should do something about gay marriages inside churches.
When PUNCH turned the conversation to the increasing acts of violence from Muslim terrorists like Boko Haram, Akintola cried foul and argued that the publication was “making a mountain out of a molehill.”
Q. What is the Muslim community going to do about these alleged abductions (like the one in Sokoto)?
There you go again! Baseless, clueless, unfounded and untenable allegations; rumours, rumours and rumours! Where you have cases, bring them forward. You cannot turn us into suspects overnight. You know where abduction is rampant. I won’t mention states. Why is the Nigerian press so keen on causing distractions? A whole region has turned abduction into family and tribal business. The Nigerian press looks the other way and starts prying into issues that have nothing to do with abduction.
Q. Abductions of female children for sex slavery and forced marriage have become a trend in the country. What’s the way out?
That’s not true. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and I am not under any obligation to answer that kind of question. It is prejudicial. I respect the press and I will continue to cooperate with them but I will not be an accomplice to untruth. Better still, if you must have an answer, the security agencies are the ones who would provide an answer to your question.
These responses are interesting, considering the fact that Boko Haram and other Muslim terrorist organizations have kidnapped and sold thousands of people into slavery in recent years. Several hundred of these kidnappings have been widely reported in the international newspapers, and the handful of young girls who have been recovered all attest to the fact that these occurrences are widespread and growing ever more common.
The fact of the matter is that Islam is simply not compatible with the modern world. And no condescending liberal platitude will change that fact.
On May 8, 2001, a Palestinian brutally beat to death two 13-year old boys exploring a cave – Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran.
On August 9, 2001, a Palestinian walked into a pizzeria in Jerusalem with a guitar case loaded with explosives and blew himself up, killing 15 people, including 7 children and a pregnant woman. One victim is still unconscious.
On Octobr 7, 2004 32 people were murdered in two Sinai hotel resort hotels by Palestinian terrorists who knew that Israelis frequented the hotels. Among the dead, two brothers – Gilad, aged 11, and little Lior, aged 3.
On December 5, 2005, Palestinian terrorists attempted to enter a mall in Netanya but blew up themselves and 5 others at the entrance.
On March 6, 2008, Rosh Chodesh Adar, eight students of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva were murdered by terrorists who entered the school and opened fire.
On March 11, 2011, two Palestinian cousins entered the home of Ruti and Udi Fogel. He murdered the couple and killed three of their children, including four year old Elad, whom they stabbed in the heart, and little Hadas, who was only four months old when they butchered her.
On October 22, 2014, Chaya Zissel Braun, only three months old, and Karen Mosquera were murdered in a ramming attack at the Ammunition Hill train station.
Last week, early Friday morning, a 21-year-old terrorist living in El Azariya – a neighborhood in Jerusalem, left his place of employment (a deli in the mall in Maale Adumim), and used an axe to attempt to murder a Jewish guard. The guard has a name, a family. He is Tzvika Cohen. He is 48 years old. He is married to a devoted wife who is staying by his side, praying for his recovery. He has four children including an 8 year old and a 12 year old who is supposed to be celebrating his bar mitzvah in just a few weeks. He has a community that has rallied together to raise thousands of dollars to try to help the family but what they really need is not something we can give them – they need Tzvika, healthy and whole.
Two days ago, Arab snipers opened fire on a children’s playground. Thankfully, there were no injuries.
Last night, an Arab mob ambushed two soldiers who had taken a wrong turn. The soldiers were able to escape the mob and were finally extricated safely by a massive force of soldiers rushing in to get them. Their jeep was torched and destroyed.
Yes, I’m sure it’s because of the “occupation”…because sheesh, whenever I’m angry and think the world is being unfair, whether I am right or wrong, the first thing I do is pull out my rifle and fire at a playground with children in it, or pick up an axe and start stabbing a father of four children from behind, start up my car and ram it into innocent people. If I see people lost in my neighborhood, of course, I burn their vehicle.
It must be because of the “occupation”, right? The “occupation” that began in 1967, right?
Well, think again. It was happening before 1967. If it wasn’t, why did Palestinians attack a house and murder a woman and her two children in 1953?
Why did they open fire on a synagogue in Shafir in 1956, killing three children and a youth counselor?
Why did they murder a member of Kibbutz Beit Guvrin in 1957, and another from Kibbutz Bonen in 1958, and another from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan in 1959?
And why did they shoot two hikers near Masada in 1959?
Could it be that it was not because of the 1967 “occupation” but because of the 1948 creation of the State of Israel?
Think again. It wasn’t only since 1948. It was happening before that, and if you don’t think so, explain why they murdered 67 people in Hevron, including their peaceful longtime neighbors, 46 yeshiva students and teachers in 1929?
And why did they loot, rape and murder Jews in 1834, in the city of Safed, because…because…because they could?
Perhaps it is only in the land of Israel where Muslims feel threatened and therefore attack Jews?
Well, that was an interesting idea, but history shows you are wrong…
What of the Allahdad incident in Mashhad, Iran in 1839, when Jews were forced to convert to Islam? Or the destruction of Torah scrolls and the burning of a synagogue in Meshed, also in 1839. There, too, the Jews were forced to convert. And there was another massacre in 1867 in Barfurush – all outside the land of Israel, disconnected except for the fact that the hatred was the same and the victims were of the same religion.
In 1465, Arab mobs in Morocco slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive. What happened in 1066 wasn’t because of the “occupation,” just as it wasn’t because of the “occupation” in 1966 and it isn’t because of the “occupation” in 2016. And, on 1066, Muslims murdered an estimated 4,000 Jews in one day. One day…and no “occupation.”
So, here we have a quick review of a just a few of the man instances covering over 1,000 years of attacks on Jews, killing even more than we are experiencing today, innocent Jews who died at the hands of Muslims.
Is it REALLY because of the “occupation?”
Are you ready for the truth?
What happened in 1066 wasn’t because of the “occupation,” just as it wasn’t because of the “occupation” in 1966 and it isn’t because of the “occupation” in 2016. Tzvika is in the hospital, fighting for his life for one reason. Those children were nearly murdered for one reason. My friend’s car was nearly hit with a boulder thrown at her as she made her way home last night, for one reason.
Then, in 1066 and then, in 1966, and now, in 2016 – there is one and only one reason.
We are Jews. We believe. We live our lives dedicated to our beliefs – in one God, in one land for this one people. And the hatred that drove the Cossacks to burn my grandmother’s synagogue in the Ukraine, and the hatred that drove the Nazis to murder my husband’s grandparents and my great-grandmother and great aunts and all of my father’s family that remained in Russia, and the hatred of the Arabs today, and the hatred we see in France and Germany and England and in the United States – none of it ever had anything to do with “occupation.”
We owe it to ourselves, to our children and grandchildren, and to Tzvika, to be honest.
"If a woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself, is at fault. She is only seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed home like a Muslim woman."
- Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Professor of Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia.
Many Germans welcomed with open arms the million, mostly male and Muslim, migrants Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel invited into Germany last September. At train stations, they handed out water bottles to the newcomers, while holding signs stating: “Willkommen!” At first, everything was, as the Germans say, “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen” (“peace, joy and happiness”).
But the good feeling these greeters created, especially among themselves, has somewhat dissipated, primarily due to the increasing number of reported sexual assaults by migrants against women and children. The best known incident was the sexual molestation of hundreds of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve by about 1,000, mostly North African men that included migrants.
The latest such multicultural enriching incident to create similar outrage occurred last Thursday in Kiel, a northern German city in Schleswig-Holstein, a state bordering Denmark. Three teenage girls, aged 15, 16 and 17, were visiting a central shopping mall, the Sophienhof, in “broad daylight” when two young Afghan asylum seekers, aged 19 and 26, began to follow and film them with their cell phones.
“Evidently, the criminals then posted these films on their social networks with the result that more and more men came to a restaurant area of the Sophienhof in order to persecute, sneer at them and to frighten them,” reported the newspaper, Die Welt.
Like the women in Cologne and those participating in the anti-Morsi demonstrations on Tahrir Square in Egypt in 2013, the three Kiel teenagers were at first probably unaware they were being hunted, and that a pack of hyenas was slowly surrounding them.
In total, between 20 and 30 men of “migration background,” as German papers described them, were involved. Police report there were no acts of sexual violence, but papers state the teenagers were “very hard pressed.”
But if no sexual molestation did occur, it is probably only because it was in the middle of the day, in the middle of a shopping mall. Outside and at night, this story most likely would have had a much sadder and more tragic outcome. As it was, it was reported the girls received psychological counselling after their ordeal.
The teenagers’ torment finally ended when passersby noticed their plight and notified security, who in turn notified police. Police then took four men, including the two Afghans, into custody, but not without difficulties.
“As a consequence (of their arrest), the suspects fought fiercely, also at the police station,” Die Welt reported. “The talk is of massive insults, threats and bodily injuries. At the suspects’ medical examination, the police doctor was also threatened and insulted.”
However, thanks to Germany’s “cuddly” justice system, as law-and-order Germans derisively call it, all suspects were released by the following day. Police are currently evaluating mall security videos to lay charges.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect surrounding this awful incident is that Germans are so surprised.
But why, one wonders, are they so astonished when such occurrences as this one and the mass sexual assault of women in Cologne have been going on around them for years in Sweden, France and England?
In England, Muslim men associated with the rape of hundreds of girls in Rotherham, were recently given heavy prison sentences. And Muslim rape gangs in Sweden have contributed to giving that country the second highest rape rate per capita in the world. Only one African country, Lesotho, has a higher rate.
The whole world also witnessed this tactic of surrounding women by large numbers of men in order to sexually molest and/or rape them in 2011 on Tahrir Square in Egypt during Arab Spring demonstrations. CBS’s Lara Logan was its most famous victim. Part and parcel of the culture, it even has a name: “taharrush gamea.” So if some Muslim men behave like this in their own countries, why wouldn’t they do so in other countries, especially in ones full of infidel women?
The Cologne police chief called “taharrush gamea,” a completely “new phenomenon,” one never encountered before. Besides terrorizing women, since the Cologne event it is responsible for turning many against Merkel’s migrant policy.
Also unsurprisingly, after the Kiel incident became known in the city, the local newspaper, Kieler Nachrichten, reported more women came forward to state they had had “similar experiences” at the Sophienhof. A police spokesman said this is “quite typical for this kind of crime marked by shame.”
The Nachrichten states, however, that the hunting of girls is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
“Business people in Sophienhof report an increasing number of thefts,” the paper reports. “Again and again customers are bothered.”
A mall worker, who emigrated to Germany “decades ago” from the Arab world, said young migrants are at the mall practically every evening and that he can tell by their accent that “they are almost all Syrians.”
“What they do here is not right,” he complained to the Kieler Nachtrichten. “As soon as they see a young woman wearing a skirt or some way or other open clothing, they believe they have a free pass.”
At a neighbouring department store, the situation is perhaps even worse. A store clerk there states they have been “experiencing difficult situations here since the end of last year.”
“Sometimes, young foreigners jostle old people,” she said. “They bother young women…, grab them, smack their behinds. They have also shouted abuse at people and spit at them. When they appear in a group, they display a disrespectful approach to others.”
Due to their understandable fear, many women in Germany have changed their behaviour since last September. Some do not go out alone, or only in a group with female friends, in the evening any more. The risk of harassment, or worse, by migrant “street terrorists,” as they are called in Holland, is deemed too great.
However, when women disappear more and more from public, this will have the negative effect of gradually giving Germany the appearance of an Islamic society. In some Muslim countries, women can only venture outside properly covered and with a male relative. Which could be Germany’s future, if the current trend is not reversed.
And with women becoming more hesitant to venture evenings from their homes because of fear, more and more German public space, also like in Islamic countries, will be left to men. In this case, Muslim men. All of which represents a further Islamisation of German society and another step downwards toward dhimmitude status.
After the tormenting of the three teenaged girls, a female journalist reported that last summer in Kiel people “smiled mildly” at several young, male migrants who were standing at a tennis court near their refugee hostel, watching the girls training there. This was just something new to them, they thought.
"However, there were larger numbers every day," she related. "They filmed them (the girls) with their cell phones."
After last week’s incident at the Sophienhof, it is doubtful anyone is smiling any more.
