The Misunderstanding of “the Messiah” in Islam and Its Ramifications, a post from Answering Muslims by Tony Costa

JESUS the MESSIAH

The irony with Islam and its relationship with Christianity and Judaism is that, it agrees on the one hand with Christianity that Jesus is the Messiah over against Judaism, which denies Jesus is the Messiah. However, Islam agrees with the Jews that Jesus was not the Son of God over against Christianity.

Muslims believe Jesus was the Messiah, but then agree with Judaism in trying to eradicate the messianic prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah!

As I noted before, the Qur’an never defines what “Messiah” means which demonstrates that Muhammad simply appropriated that title to Jesus as he heard Arab Christians use it as we would use “Jesus Christ”.

There is no indication in the Qur’an that Muhammad even knew what “Messiah” or its Greek equivalent “Christ” meant. Yet the Qur’an claims to be clear in its explanation of its contents, “We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things” (Q 16:89; Yusuf Ali). If this is so, why is Messiah never defined?

What is strange however is that in the Qur’an 4:157 where it records the denial of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, it has the Jews claim that Jesus was the Messiah,

“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain” (Pickthall; italics mine).

We know the “their” is referring to the Jews because in verses 154-156 of surah 4 the Jews are the intended referents. In Q 4:154 (cf. Q 2:63; 7:171) we have the story of Allah raising the mountain over the heads of the Jews and threatening to crush them if they do not keep the Sabbath according to the covenant Allah made with them. This story of course is nothing new as the Jews of Medina would have known about it as it is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zarah 2b-3a), centuries before Muhammad, and the Jews of Medina would have relayed the story to Muhammad.

In Q 4:155 it speaks of the Jews slaying the prophets and being disbelievers except for a few. Then in Q 4:156 it mentions the Jews “speaking against Mary [the mother of Jesus] a tremendous calumny” (Pickthall). Where in the Qur’an does it mention this “tremendous calumny” against Mary? Nowhere. But scandalous statements are made against Mary (and Jesus) in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a,b; Shabbath 104b; Yebamoth 49b) including charges of adultery and licentiousness, which again Muhammad would have heard from the Jews of Medina.

In Q 4:157 we have a strange confession of the Jews that they slew “the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary”. While it would be understandable for the Jews to have said we slew the false Messiah Jesus, they do not according to the Qur’an. Which Jew in his / her right mind would have knowingly killed their Messiah, the King and Redeemer of Israel? Some Qur’anic translators have noted this peculiarity in the wording of the Qur’an to the point that they have tried to change the sense of 4:157 to mean that the Jews made this claim “in boast”. Notice of all the translations below of Q 4:157, they all correctly translate the verse but Yusuf Ali and Hilali-Khan insert the phrase “in boast” which I have highlighted in bold below.

Pickthall And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
Yusuf Ali That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”; – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Hilali-Khan And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]:
Shakir And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Sher Ali And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
Khalifa And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
Arberry and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’ — yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty — no indeed;
Palmer and for their saying, ‘Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God’…. but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure!
Rodwell And for their saying, “Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.” Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him,
Sale and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented [by one] in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this [matter], and had no [sure] knowledge thereof, but followed only an [uncertain] opinion. They did not really kill him;

Why was the word “in boast” added by Yusuf Ali and Hilali-Khan? Obviously because these two translators saw a problem that you and I see. Which Jew with full knowledge would have killed their Messiah? None. However, if the Jews wanted to mock Jesus as a false Messiah they would have boasted with sarcasm much like the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus as King by crowning Him with a crown of thorns, placing a robe on Him, and giving Him a reed as a mock scepter (Mark 15:17-19; Matthew 27:28-30; John 19:2-4). To add the word “in boast” is to add to the Qur’an words that are not in the original Arabic text which Muslims always tell us is the true and authentic Qur’an. Are these translators guilty of corrupting the text of the Qur’an? The Qur’an claims to be “clear” as we see in Q 11:1, “Alif Lam Ra. A Bookwhose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware” (Arberry; italics mine). Did you notice the Arabic letters at the beginning of this verse, “alif”, “lam”, and “ra”? What do they mean? Hilali-Khan states about these letters, “These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings”. This is an incredible statement as these letters appear in the same verse that says the verses of the Qur’an are “clear” and yet the meaning of these Arabic letters are ….unclear! You will also notice that the translator Khalifa in his translation above tries to avoid the problem by not translating the quote of the Jews in the first person plural as the Arabic has it, “we” killed, slew, have slain Jesus the Messiah. Khalifa translates the phrase as a reference to the Jews in the third person plural, “And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus (italics mine)”. Notice the quote by the Jews in the first person plural is missing. Is Khalifa guilty of corrupting the Arabic text of the Qur’an here?

One of the reasons that Q 4:157 claims the Jews slew their Messiah knowingly is most likely due to the fact that Muhammad merely assumed that “Messiah” (al-Masih in Arabic) was simply another name or title for Jesus and that Muhammad was completely and utterly unaware of the doctrine of the Messiah in the Old Testament much less the Talmud including its ramifications. The ‘redeemer’ aspect of the Messiah in Judaism was completely unknown to Muhammad. He clearly did not understand the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah, and even much worse, he did not understand the New Testament understanding of Jesus the Messiah. As a result, Islam presents a Jesus who is completely foreign to the historical Jesus and has reduced Him to a copy cat of Muhammad. As a result Islam has given Muslims “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

According to Jesus John the Baptist is greater than Islam’s second-greatest prophet Abraham. Which religion is telling the truth?

Matthew 11 v 11

King James Bible
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7 v 28

King James Bible
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And John testifies that Jesus is greater than him:

John 1 v 30

King James Bible
This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jesus puts his fingers into a man’s ears and spits his saliva on to his finger and touches the man’s tongue with his finger to show that the power to heal him comes from him and that he is the God who heals

Jesus Heals a Deaf and Mute Man

(Isaiah 35:1-10; Matthew 9:32-34)

Mark 7 v 31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. 32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him. 33 And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue; 34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. 35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it; 37 And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

King James Bible

Deuteronomy 32 v 39:

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Isaiah 35

4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will comewith vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Jesus uses little children to show that we cannot earn salvation through any works of our own

The Pharisee and Tax Collector

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Some islamic apologists make much of this scripture to prove that man is forgiven by God’s mercy alone in response to our repentance. But then they go on to insist, somewhat paradoxically, that their own works must be added to the ingredients of the paradise cake that they want to bake by quoting such scriptures as these:

Ezekiel 20:11 I gave them my decrees and made known to them my

Then I gave them My statutes and explained My ordinances to them–the person who
does them will live by them. The one who carries them out will live by them!
//biblehub.com/ezekiel/20-11.htm – 16k

Leviticus 18:5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys

Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them.
//biblehub.com/leviticus/18-5.htm – 16k

The question is do these scriptures mean eternal life when they say that man will live by being obedient to these laws?

There is no question that if any man can keep all the laws of God continually from the beginning of his life to the end he must go to heaven. He cannot go to hell. He is sinless. So in that sense these scriptures are true. But if we have a partial obedience and forgiveness for the sins that we have committed is that enough to enable us to go to paradise as a reward for our works? Islam answers with a resounding yes here. In this case our partial obedience plus forgiveness through God’s mercy would be enough to make us righteous enough to earn the reward of paradise. Salvation, in the islamic model is a synergy between mans works and God’s mercy. Is this the case in Christianity? It is clearly not the case but that is a topic for another post. Right now let Jesus reply to those who claim that they can use their own works in any way, shape or form, to earn them a place in paradise. He clearly refutes this idea:

Jesus Blesses the Children

(Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16)

15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Little children do not have any power or strength to perform work to earn the things that they need in life such as food, clothing and shelter. They must receive these things as a gift. Just so is it with our salvation. We have no power or strength to do any works that would earn any merit that would place God in debt to us to reward us with paradise. We are like these children Jesus invited and welcomed in to his loving arms. We can do nothing which is meritorious to earn our salvation, to justify us before God. We conclude that salvation is:

  • Sola Fide, by faith alone.
  • Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
  • Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
  • Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
  • Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Is Mark “Confused” About the Location of the Feeding of the Five Thousand? A post from Answering Muslims by Jonathan McClatchie

Muslim YouTube polemicist Yahya Snow recently excerpted a clip from one of my apologetics webinars, in which Dr. Mike Licona, the guest speaker that week, stated that the most difficult apparent discrepancy between the gospels is the location of the feeding of the five thousand miracle, and on this point Mark seems to be “confused”.

According to Luke 9:10, the event of the feeding of the five thousand took place in Bethsaida. However, according to Mark 6:45, following the feeding of the five thousand miracle, Mark tells us,

Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.

This presents an apparent contradiction. If Jesus and the disciples were already in Bethsaida, why does he tell his disciples to get into the boat and go to the other side of the lake, to Bethsaida? At first glance, it looks like a contradiction between the accounts. A closer inspection, however, reveals that it is no such thing.

The first thing to note is that we have independent confirmation that the event occurred in a deserted area near Bethsaida. In John 6:5, Jesus turns to Philip to ask where they should go to buy bread. John 1:44 and 12:21 tell us that Philip was from Bethsaida. It is Luke’s account that tells us that the event took place in Bethsaida, thus explaining why Jesus turned to Philip in John’s gospel. Luke does not tell us that Jesus turned to Philip, but rather that he turned to “the disciples” (Luke 9:14). This hand-in-glove fit, or undesigned coincidence, provides an independence of attestation.

Thus, there is good reason to believe that the feeding of the five thousand miracle took place in Bethsaida.

Moreover, in Matthew 11:21, Jesus says,

“Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”

This is paralleled in Luke 10:13. It is thus among the Q sayings of Jesus (those sayings of Jesus that are attested in Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, suggesting that they go back to an early source). There is no other record of mighty works in or near Bethsaida, but the feeding of the five thousand is said to have occurred after a day of healing miracles as well.

The greek text says that the disciples were to enter into the boat and προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν (proagein eis to peran pros Bēthsaidan). The greek word pros can mean “over against.” Another possibility is that, in going over to the other side (to the Capernaum side) they were going to pass Bethsaida–that is, that the actual location of the feeding was slightly to the east of Bethsaida itself. Hence, when they left in Mark to go to the other side, they could have been going “toward” Bethsaida. Either of those interpretations of pros will work in Mark.

There is yet further confirmation of the location of the miracle as being somewhere “across the top” of the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum. It is Mark himself who says that they didn’t even have leisure to eat before the feeding, because there were “many coming and going” (Mark 6:31), and that they got into the boat to get away from the crowds. That fits well with their being in the region of Capernaum prior to going away. There is still a further undesigned coincidence involved there which connects Mark and John. It was just before the Passover (John 6:4), and there would have been crowds coming through Capernaum, travelling down to Jerusalem. Thus, the picture is well-explained by their going from the Capernaum region (on the top west coat of the Sea of Galilee) across the top of the region around Bethsaida, and then, when they returned “to the other side”, returned to the northwest side. In fact, Mark explicitly says (Mark 6:53) that they landed at Gennesaret when they had crossed over! Thus, this actually, far from contradicting, confirms the idea of which direction they were going. If they were really crossing over “to Bethsaida” as if to land at or near Bethsaida, they couldn’t have landed at Gennesaret!

Thus, pros Bēthsaidan, even within Mark itself, cannot be taken to mean that the feeding of the five thousand occurred in a radically different location from the region of Bethsaida named explicitly in Luke and otherwise confirmed by undesigned coincidencces.

3 comments:

steve said…

My response to Licona:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/08/was-mark-confused.html

ANNOYED PINOY said…

Steve Hays addressed the topic in his blogpost here:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/08/was-mark-confused.htmlI addressed it here:
http://bibledifficultiesanswered.blogspot.com/2016/08/from-bethsaida-to-bethsaida.html

steve said…

Lydia McGrew addressed the same issue:

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2016/08/but-wait-theres-more-refuting-claim-of.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Original Sources Koran Stole its Stories From

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Paul qualifies the edict of James and corrects Peter. Contrary to the teachings and tenets of Islam nothing in God’s creation is unclean by nature and physical contact alone, until the commandment of God ascribes uncleanness to this thing, it cannot by itself make the spirit of man unclean. This is islamic superstition to enforce islamic apartheid and promote the islamic superiority mindset

Do All to the God’s Glory

1 Cor 10 v 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Acts 15 v 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Peter’s Vision

(Leviticus 11:1-47; Deuteronomy 14:1-21)

Acts 10 v 9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

The Defiled Bread

Ezekiel 4 v 9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. 10 And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. 11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. 12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. 13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. 14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. 15 Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.16 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: 17 That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

In FrontPage today I show how Sadiq Khan’s new initiative against “hate speech” demonstrates how the Left serves the Islamic supremacist agenda:

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain  - 11 Oct 2012

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force — and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caught classifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.

Quantcast

Comments

  1. Debi Brand says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:27 am

    Prime example of why, in our fight against those that have so awfully “twisted” a “noble and praiseworthy” peace ensuing “religion,” we must empower, and amplify the voices of, and thus press into leadership positions, the “Moderate Muslim.”

    It is by them, and by our leaders and laymen who fall prey to the myth of two Islams in the “Book of Allah,” we will know safety and peace from the “radicals,” as we learn Allah’s limits and the Sunnah of the “beloved prophet” of Islam, and thus, learn, and adjust accordingly to our terms for peace.

    As did proud strong nation after proud strong nation before us.

  2. worldcitizen1919 says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:29 am

    Just like the west wants the world to accept democracy and freedom so the Muslim world is working to build societies based on Islamic principles.

    So we are faced with two main prospects, a western democratic world order or an Islamic Shariah Order or something in between.

    But neither will accept the other completely as we have seen , so it will probably be a mix.

    • G. R. Gunning says

      August 18, 2016 at 3:57 am

      Like oil and water. Our governments are trying to effect the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan as we speak, yet no-one ever mentions it in the press or TV/radio. Even mentioning it in some newspaper comments gets it “moderated” – that is to say not accepted. It’s not going to work – oil & water do not mix – so we will land up with two parallel populations – one living in the 21st. Century and one in the 7th. Century. And it’s purpose is ……….. what exactly?.

  3. Georg says

    August 18, 2016 at 3:54 am

    When he’s not busy with the Muslim preoccupation of saving females from suggestive advertistising, he’s making sure nobodys critical of Islam on the internet. He’s exactly the Islamic entryist evolution would expect: He’s only as overt as he can be… no more and no less. Khan’s not held back by his intentions, but by Western concepts of general sensibility; as those erode, the Islamic will advances.

    Freedom of speech, as many point out, is really about the freedom of unpopular speech; in effect, it’s about the ability to criticize and instigate. If we’re unable to forefully criticize something as outlandish as Islam, we’re in a lot of trouble and better go back to the fundamentals of the civics that made for Western civilization and its prosperity that is the envy and attraction of the world.

    Here one can immediately see the sensibilities and aspirations of a Khan:

  4. Jay Boo says

    August 18, 2016 at 4:04 am

    He is declaring SHARIA war.
    When this literally all blows up in their faces they will whine how the backlash they instigated is not FAIR.

  5. Charli Main says

    August 18, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Coming soon. London’s Muslim mayor orders all Metropolitan women police offices to wear burkas. while conducting their duties on the streets of London.

  6. islam the religion of killers says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:16 am

    And how long has this muslim been in charge, I thought it would have been a woman’s right to be in advertising, an advertisers right to advertise wherever it can and a viewers right to not look at public displayed imagery …

    Next thing we’ll me like all muslims with Mohamid telling us how to wipe our ass….

  7. Kumi Ho says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:23 am

    I spoke with my cousin living in London. She thinks this is a common sense decision because ‘children have suicided because of online bullying’. She doesn’t see it, this creeping, cultural Sharia.

  8. Son of the West says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:25 am

    This is where poor education and intellectual laziness have created such fertile soil for civilizational disaster. There is a gulf between bigotry on one hand, and genuine criticism of policy and practices of a group of people on the other. No one had a problem understanding that opposing communism was not the same as being bigoted against Russians. Likewise, people should be able to understand that opposing Islam is not the same as anti-Arab bigotry, especially since anyone can be a Muslim. (Either way, bigotry should not be a criminal offense, just poor manners)

    However, when the intellectually stunted mind of the average Western citizen is confronted with the truth about Islam, they experience cognitive dissonance, and react with scorn or anger to the person who makes the comment that has caused this condition in their minds. It doesn’t matter how nicely you present the truth, how well reasoned your points are, they have been told over and over by the media and elites that Islam is a peaceful religion, etc, and hold on to this idea as a gospel truth. You will especially notice the irrational nature of their reaction, as you will never get a coherent counter argument out of them. At best, it will be some incoherent bromides about the crusades or how all religions are violent or something.

    I point this out to bring some hope. As much as the scale is tilted toward the Religion of Hate in the media, it means there is little substance in the minds of most why they should favor Islam, as there is no good truth to back of the propaganda coming from Muslims and their fellow travelers and useful idiots. Even if the discussion is forced offline, there is still ample opportunity to communicate the truth in person, by physical media such as posters and print, and so on.

    • Lesley says

      August 18, 2016 at 6:00 am

      @Son of the West:
      Hear, hear!

      I lost a budding friendship with a neighbor who in the scenario you described about Leftist emotional over reaction to logic could only talk about how she had Muslim neighbors 20 years ago when she lived in another state, and they were so nice.

      Never mind that there were Islamists a few years ago weapons training in our rural area and arrested for a Muhammad- approved evil plot.

      No matter how I agreed with her that I’m sure her neighbors had been nice, and reiterated over and over that I was talking about the ideology and not her old neighbors, she couldn’t hear me.

      I offered her a link to read the Koran and Hadith online for herself, and suggested that as a better idea rather than swallowing the narrative the mainstream media is feeding us; read their texts and make up your own mind.

      She was suddenly very offended and upset, and I was not upset and kept trying to redirect the conversation back to facts and ideas.

      It all started with me expressing concern about safety in our area, and the news I had found about the Islamists a few years back; very strange:-/

  9. mortimer says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:34 am

    The Islamic war against freedom of expression is now out in the open. What will the British people do now? The barbarians are taken the capital city of the UK will the help of British insiders who have no idea they will be the next victims of the totalitarians they aid and abet.

  10. mortimer says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:38 am

    Sadiq Khan has revealed to anyone with the power of thought that Islam is incompatible with freedom of expression and incapable of reasoned debate. He is imposing totalitarianism with the help of Leftist useful idiots.

    • Lesley says

      August 18, 2016 at 6:12 am

      @Alex:
      Yes, they voted Khan in, but the problem with the “suck it” attitude is that the less we care about the free world shrinking in another place, the less vigilant we may be about our freedoms shrinking in our own countries.

      I really hope I’m wrong, but I think this time is a lead-in to another world war to save the civilized world. Every war requires allies to help each other, and the UK is starting to look crippled…

  11. Angemon says

    August 18, 2016 at 5:51 am

    The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

    I suspect it was no accident that the left pushed for removing pics of attractive women in bathing suits rather than forcing companies to make ads with “size plus” models in bathing suits. You know, to make chubbier women feel good about their bodies and stuff.

  12. StuartG says

    August 18, 2016 at 6:32 am

    Incredible, but unsurprising. His first action as Mayor is to use public money to stop people being critical of Muslims.

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Russia: Muslim leader defends FGM after it’s discovered in Dagestan, a post from JihadWatch.org, with comments

Female genital mutilation “is a Central African problem. Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It’s a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It’s a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue.” — Reza Aslan

Oops. Wrong again, Reza, and not just about Eritrea and Ethiopia being in Central Africa.

FGM is widely reputed to be a “cultural” practice, but actually it is sanctioned by Islamic law: “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — ‘Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

fgm

“Russian Muslim official defends female circumcision after researchers discover its practice in Dagestan,” Govorit Moskva, August 15, 2016:

Earlier today, Ismail Berdiev, the chairman of the North Caucasus Muslim Coordinating Center, told the radio station Govorit Moskva that female circumcision is a healthy, “purely Dagestani custom.”

“As far as I know,” Berdiev explained on air, “it’s done to calm a woman’s zeal somewhat. There’s absolutely no health problem here.”

Berdiev was responding to a new report by the organization “Legal Initiative,” which found that female circumcision is practiced in the certain areas of Dagestan, one of Russia’s predominantly Muslim republics in the North Caucasus. Legal Initiative found cases in remote villages where girls under the age of three (and sometimes as old as 11) were circumcised.

The ritual—removing all or part of the clitoris and sometimes the labia—is carried out of reduce sexual sensitivity, in order to “prepare” women for their role as wife in a patriarchal family. The surgery is conducted at home by a religious figure….

 COMMENTS
  1. Linde Barrera says

    August 15, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Bernie is an idiot when he says “FGM reduces a woman’s zeal.” It actually makes her vagina an open hole, or cavity, with no feelings of sexual arousal. If women were designed and created like this by God (I believe God or a higher, superior power created mankind) why does the limited Muslim mind want to remove it? 😈

      • mortimer says

        August 16, 2016 at 12:38 pm

        It’s about women’s chastity and male ‘honor’. If she has no feeling ‘down there’, she is supposed to be safe from straying…like hamstringing cattle to stop them from roaming.

        • NOTOISLAM says

          August 16, 2016 at 4:14 pm

          There is WRONG —and —-RIGHT —-
          fgm IS WRONG!
          Time to turn the tables and castrate the men —and then kill them!

      • maghan says

        August 16, 2016 at 7:49 pm

        Ninety seven(97) percent of Egyptian women have experienced FGM. It is practiced too in Saudi Arabia(clandestinely), Turkey, Iran, Iraq and other parts of West Asia.

    • kazbah says

      August 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm

      Importantly, this practice has terrible medical implications when giving birth…Britain alone has 4 medical centers which are designed to treat pregnant women who have had an FGM..that’s Britain can you imagine the implications in other countries? I learned this from Ann Marie Waters..A british activist against the ideology of Islam.

    • Kathy Brown, Esq. says

      August 16, 2016 at 1:09 am

      Donning my nurse’s cap for the moment I would like to tell all here the sequellae of FGM:

      The clitoris is carved off with an unsterilized knife. Because the clitoris is located so close to the urinary meatus (opening), that area too is affected.

      The mutilated area is ‘sewn up’ with over-large dirty needles (not much smaller than knitting needles). Sterility is of course not observed. A crude hole is ‘fashioned’, smaller than the normal vaginal/meatal opening; only big enough to exit menstrual blood and urine.

      The agony of this induces shock at times. If shock is not reversed, death follows.

      But let’s be optimistic. Let’s say this poor child does not die of shock. Let’s say she becomes septic, aka massive septicemia. Then she still dies, in agony. Septicemia takes 3 or 4 days to kill: esp. when the pt. is young-and otherwise healthy. Organ by organ, the body shuts down.

      I mean AGONY. For it goes w/o saying, that the barbarians who engage is such atrocities, have no notion of antibiotics or ‘post-op’ care.

      And here is what those who live, ‘recover’ to: For the rest of her life, she is prone to chronic UTI’s (urinary tract infections). This occurs because the fragile mucosa (mucous membranes) guarding the meatus NEVER regenerate. And the infection present at the meatus ascends. Where our urine exits the body is, so to say, the bottom of our urinary system. Our kidneys are the top. Because there is constant infection at the bottom, the ureters which ascend from the meatus carry infection to the kidneys. So the child’s kidneys begin to fail…

      And we haven’t even gotten to sex yet, have we?

      Because that is when the real horror begins. The vagina is designed, not only to deliver a baby; but to admit a penis. Almighty God in His creation of man and woman has seen to it that we are ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’. But His design is butchered in FGM, and ever after sexual intercourse for these poor young women is agonizing. I do not exaggerate. The vaginal lubrication which normally attends sexual arousal, DOES NOT OCCUR. That is because the clitoris normally triggers this.

      But there is no clitoris, so there is no arousal/lubrication. So every time a young woman (wait-these are muslims. What am I thinking. It could just as well be a 9 year old child) ‘has sex’, she tears. Vaginally. In time, there is permanent scarification. Which only adds to her agony…

      Every woman here knows the pain of a UTI. In like manner we know the pain of vaginal tearing.

      But we are western women, so our husbands love us. The last thing they want to do is hurt us. And since they are real men, not sadistic perverts, they desire our pleasure because-again due to God’s perfect plan-our pleasure makes possible their own.

      But muslim ‘men’ are not men. Their only concern is their own ‘pleasure’. So every night that comes they rape and tear and assault their ‘wives’.

      I heard Trump’s speech today on foreign policy. Then I read of the thousands of cases, now here in our country, of FGM. And I cried out to God, ‘How long oh Lord? How long before we may blot out these monsters in our midst?’

      • Linde Barrera says

        August 16, 2016 at 1:32 am

        To Cathy Brown, Esq.- Your comprehensive and detailed comment about FGM should be sent to all Islamic men and women worldwide, as a reference source. I guess the internet would be the only way to convey this info to so many millions of people. Then, at least they would have a very specific account of what FGM does. After reading your comment, they would most likely think twice, I would hope. God bless you for your concern. I wonder why feminist groups never criticize those who advocate for and practice FGM. 😈

        • Veka Fitzfrancis says

          August 16, 2016 at 5:51 pm

          Funny thing is the first time I went through University, the feminist groups on campus WERE justifiably angry and vocal about this. The second time I went through, a mere decade later, for my Masters, they had gone silent, and instead of the occasional brightly patterned head scarves I was seeing full on nabiqs on campus by the Saudi female students. I have since heard of this ‘third wave’ feminism, and given how closely it resembles Sharia on free speech, and promotes segregation, and the building of safe spaces and victimhood, I cannot but help to think that Feminists have been subsumed by their Islamist masters.

      • bob says

        August 16, 2016 at 4:20 am

        Thank you for such an in depth insight into FGM. God created our bodies and humans destroy it. Muslims?? No idea where they get their ideas from.

        • John spielman says

          August 16, 2016 at 9:32 am

          Dear Bob; muslims get their ideas from Satan because allah of the Koran and hadiths IS Satan of the Bible
          if one does a thorough research of the attributes of allah of the Koran and hadiths of muhammed you will see that allah is the “best of deceivers and loves to kill and steal and torture people. In the Bible, Jesus ( who is truly God incarnate and whom muslims denigrate to a mere man) describes Satan as a ” murderer thief and liar from the beginning”

        • maghan says

          August 16, 2016 at 7:57 pm

          Where they got it from? The esteemed Prophet Muhammad as their Supreme Guide recommended it. Anything he prescribed must be followed.

          According to the Islamic Trilogy “women are like tilth and could be plowed and seeded anytime–even on a camel’s hump(no pun intended). FGM is merely a foolish practice that says “mine is mine” and “yours is yours” provided that they are enshrouded, kept under wraps and keenly supervised.

      • Jac says

        August 16, 2016 at 4:55 am

        I agree…..your very accurate report of this obscenity SHOULD be forwarded to muslim authorities as well as our ‘spineless’ politicians and journalists in the west.
        Thank you for your expert information and courage in posting these facts.

      • mortimer says

        August 16, 2016 at 12:53 pm

        Thank you, Kathy, esq., for your graphic description. I would like you in future some time, to explain to this audience what happens when children (in Islamic child marriages) have babies… i.e. vagino-anal fistula.

        We must stop these barbaric Islamic practices of FGM and child marriages out of compassion for the women victims.

      • gravenimage says

        August 16, 2016 at 2:50 pm

        Kathy, it is even worse with Type III FGM–practiced in places like Somalia–where the vagina is actually sewn up. In order for a woman just to have intercourse, she must be *cut open with a knife*.

        This renders intercourse both horrifically painful and subject to dangerous infections. Such women often develop fistulas in childbirth, where the fetus punches through the artificially narrow birth canal into the rectum. This often results in incontinence and sometimes in deadly infections. Even the women who survive are often–grotesquely–rejected by their husbands.

        Charitable Infidels have set up Fistula hospitals in Africa. The victims insist they be have their vaginas sewn up again on discharge, or their husbands would never accept them back.

        http://hamlinfistula.org/

  2. Kay says

    August 16, 2016 at 12:29 am

    It’s incredible that there even has to be discussion about this gross physical abuse. Even the name of it– mutilation– says it all. Even if there weren’t health problems (and there are), the psychological wounds that go along with such abuse would be extremely difficult to overcome.

  3. Rob says

    August 16, 2016 at 12:52 am

    I suggest this dope read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s account of the forced rupturing of her closed vagina on her wedding night.
    Beyond sickening. A woman’e ‘zeal’?
    A woman’s right to her sexuality.
    The WHO would prefer to devote its one 2016 censure to Israel and ignore anti-female practises like FGM.
    And the WHO is run by a woman!!

  4. sham says

    August 16, 2016 at 1:50 am

    Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Yazid Al-Ansari: “The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 654)”

    Malik said, ‘The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that when the doctor performs a circumcision and cuts off the glans, he must pay the full blood-money. That is because it is an accident which the tribe is responsible for, and the full blood money is payable for all that in which a doctor errs or exceeds, when it is not intentional.’ (Translation of Malik’s Muwatta, Blood-Money, Book 43, Number 43.5.4a)”

    Circumcision for females is not allowed in Islam:

    The following Hadith (Saying of Prophet Muhammad) was given to me by sister “Muslimah” on my Message Board; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with her.

    Narrated Jafar bin ‘Amr bin Umaiya: “I went out with ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi Al-Khaiyar. When we reached Hims (i.e. a town in Syria), ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi said (to me), “Would you like to see Wahshi so that we may ask him about the killing of Hamza?” I replied, “Yes.” Wahshi used to live in Hims. We enquired about him and somebody said to us, “He is that in the shade of his palace, as if he were a full water skin.” So we went up to him, and when we were at a short distance from him, we greeted him and he greeted us in return. ‘Ubaidullah was wearing his turban and Wahshi could not see except his eyes and feet. ‘Ubaidullah said, “O Wahshi! Do you know me?” Wahshi looked at him and then said, “No, by Allah! But I know that ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar married a woman called Um Qital, the daughter of Abu Al-Is, and she delivered a boy for him at Mecca, and I looked for a wet nurse for that child. (Once) I carried that child along with his mother and then I handed him over to her, and your feet resemble that child’s feet.” Then ‘Ubaidullah uncovered his face and said (to Wahshi), “Will you tell us (the story of) the killing of Hamza?” Wahshi replied “Yes, Hamza killed Tuaima bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khaiyar at Badr (battle) so my master, Jubair bin Mut’im said to me, ‘If you kill Hamza in revenge for my uncle, then you will be set free.” When the people set out (for the battle of Uhud) in the year of ‘Ainain ..’Ainain is a mountain near the mountain of Uhud, and between it and Uhud there is a valley.. I went out with the people for the battle. When the army aligned for the fight, Siba’ came out and said, ‘Is there any (Muslim) to accept my challenge to a duel?’ Hamza bin ‘Abdul Muttalib came out and said, ‘O Siba’. O Ibn Um Anmar, the ************one who circumcises other ladies! ********Do you challenge Allah and His Apostle?’

    Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: “A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: *********** Do not cut severely *********as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 41, Number 5251)”

    • Roger says

      August 16, 2016 at 8:38 am

      Quoting from the Koran is pointless, since other passages contradict; and saying female circumcision is not allowed does not mean it is not being done. Clearly it is and one wonders how many survive the surgery? I have seen the statistics on fatalities in creating eunuchs (a much better comparison than to male circumcision)–those wanting to create a eunuch typically did ten boys in order to have one survive. And I should not make eunuchs a practice of the past, since that still goes on in barbarous parts of the world as well.

    • Mirren10 says

      August 16, 2016 at 9:26 am

      sham, apart from being a real *sham*, you’re also an idiot.

      First you attempt to say female circumcision is forbidden in your foul cult, and then you quote a hadith where your repulsive ‘prophet’ says; ”A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: *********** Do not cut severely *********as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.”

      So which is it ? Forbidden, or just cutting less ‘severely’ ?

    • Nigel GFF says

      August 16, 2016 at 10:30 am

      “The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: *********** Do not cut severely *********”

      Cut but not severely, eh.

      “Circumcision for females is not allowed in Islam:”

      May I humbly suggest that you read your words before posting.

    • gravenimage says

      August 16, 2016 at 3:14 pm

      The vile sham wrote–or, more likely, cribbed from elsewhere:

      Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Yazid Al-Ansari: “The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 654)”
      ……………………………….

      Only Infidels consider this savagery mutilation–Mohammedans justify it, so the above is not pertinent.

      More:

      Malik said, ‘The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that when the doctor performs a circumcision and cuts off the glans, he must pay the full blood-money. That is because it is an accident which the tribe is responsible for, and the full blood money is payable for all that in which a doctor errs or exceeds, when it is not intentional.’ (Translation of Malik’s Muwatta, Blood-Money, Book 43, Number 43.5.4a)”
      ……………………………….

      This is when *male* circumcision goes wrong. It has nothing to do with mutilating girls.

      More:

      Circumcision for females is not allowed in Islam:

      The following Hadith (Saying of Prophet Muhammad) was given to me by sister “Muslimah” on my Message Board; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with her.

      Narrated Jafar bin ‘Amr bin Umaiya: “I went out with ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi Al-Khaiyar. When we reached Hims (i.e. a town in Syria), ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Adi said (to me), “Would you like to see Wahshi so that we may ask him about the killing of Hamza?” I replied, “Yes.” Wahshi used to live in Hims. We enquired about him and somebody said to us, “He is that in the shade of his palace, as if he were a full water skin.” So we went up to him, and when we were at a short distance from him, we greeted him and he greeted us in return. ‘Ubaidullah was wearing his turban and Wahshi could not see except his eyes and feet. ‘Ubaidullah said, “O Wahshi! Do you know me?” Wahshi looked at him and then said, “No, by Allah! But I know that ‘Adi bin Al-Khiyar married a woman called Um Qital, the daughter of Abu Al-Is, and she delivered a boy for him at Mecca, and I looked for a wet nurse for that child. (Once) I carried that child along with his mother and then I handed him over to her, and your feet resemble that child’s feet.” Then ‘Ubaidullah uncovered his face and said (to Wahshi), “Will you tell us (the story of) the killing of Hamza?” Wahshi replied “Yes, Hamza killed Tuaima bin ‘Adi bin Al-Khaiyar at Badr (battle) so my master, Jubair bin Mut’im said to me, ‘If you kill Hamza in revenge for my uncle, then you will be set free.” When the people set out (for the battle of Uhud) in the year of ‘Ainain ..’Ainain is a mountain near the mountain of Uhud, and between it and Uhud there is a valley.. I went out with the people for the battle. When the army aligned for the fight, Siba’ came out and said, ‘Is there any (Muslim) to accept my challenge to a duel?’ Hamza bin ‘Abdul Muttalib came out and said, ‘O Siba’. O Ibn Um Anmar, the ************one who circumcises other ladies! ********Do you challenge Allah and His Apostle?’
      ……………………………….

      This challenge is not offered, of course, because this person performs FGM. The reference to “one who circumcises other ladies” just serves to identify the person.

      More:

      Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: “A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: *********** Do not cut severely *********as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 41, Number 5251)”
      ……………………………….

      This is, of course, the main Hadith Muslims use to *justify* FGM, not to oppose it.

      Certainly, many Muslims practice this barbarism.

      If sham *really* believed that his coreligionists were getting Islam so very, very wrong here, he would take it up with them, instead of pestering the good Infidels here at Jihad Watch.

      • maghan says

        August 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

        The Prophet forbade “robbery”. How so? That man was the biggest robber and thief in Islamdom. He robbed, murdered and raped his way through Arabia like a knife through butter. Classic case; that of Safiyya bint Huyayya. Muhammad murdered Kinana, her husband, then robbed him of his gold, then raped Safiyya, sanctioned by a sham marriage.

  5. Jay Boo says

    August 16, 2016 at 2:38 am

    The Boston Bomber’s Mom and Sister????

    Dagestan
    Homeland of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
    Maybe that explains why their sister and their mother are bitter hateful bitches.

  6. Angemon says

    August 16, 2016 at 7:04 am

    Russian Muslim official defends female circumcision after researchers discover its practice in Dagestan

    O Christianblood, where art thou?

  7. duh swami says

    August 16, 2016 at 8:55 am

    FGM is Allah’s way of saying ‘ II love you’, which is a good reason to stay as far away from Allah as you can get…

  8. aaron morand says

    August 16, 2016 at 9:11 am

    freaking monsters ….Genesis 16…read it for yourself re Abraham/Sara/Hagar/Ishmael…..and God
    said re Ishmael (the progenitor of the Arabic/Muslim peoples…(Ishmael) will be a wild ass of a man
    (unreasoning/violent), his hand will be against every man and every mans hand will be against him
    and he will live with his brothers ………does this describe the muslim ..oh yes…and are they at war with
    the world…oh yes….do they fight among themselves re their religion…oh yes…..there is NO appeasement
    for the Muslim…it is my opinion that even the most peaceful of them would in a heart beat take up
    and set into motion a fight/tumult of some kind if a non-believer were to “insult” mohammed…..TRUST
    NONE of THEM!!!!!!

  9. gravenimage says

    August 16, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Russia: Muslim leader defends FGM after it’s discovered in Dagestan
    …………………………

    Despite false claims that this is just an “African custom”, you find it in Indonesia, in Iraq, in Iran, in Russia, and now, increasingly, in the West–wherever Muslims go,

    Moreover, attempts to quash this barbarism are always opposed by Muslim clerics, on Islamic grounds.

  10. Iftikhar Ahmad says

    August 16, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    Female “circumcism pre-dates Islam among certain Arabic and African tribes, and still exists among those surviving tribes as well as Islam. Check your hadiths and you’ll find Mohammed cursing a Meccan as “son of a clitoris cutter.”

    FGM is nothing to do with Islam. It was a common practice even before the advent of Islam in Africa and in some tribes in the Middle East

    What’s the point of the legal age being 16 when you are being taught at school that it’s ok as long as you practice safe sex. Nothing about love, respect, serious relationships or more importantly abstinence! Oh and something needs to be done about BOYS, too! Girls can’t be the only ones responsible for resisting pressure you know. More sex education in schools = more teenage pregnancies= more abortions. One of the problems is that now in schools we are taught safe sex at an early age, and not abstinence. The message was basically that sex at a young age is fine as long as it’s practiced safely. It should be taught that at such a young age, neither protected or unprotected sex is ok. The message is simply not clear enough.

    The rising numbers of girls having under-age sex is alarming. It is not a cost-free phenomenon. It poses public health policy challenges and social challenges. The underlying cause must be the purification of British culture and the increasing sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls. Sex education in many schools has had the effect of breaking down the natural inhibitions of children with regard to sexual conduct, and the age of consent is rarely enforced, so young people no longer have any fear of legal proceedings. On top of that, the ready availability of contraception means that a girl’s fear of pregnancy is no longer considered a good enough reason for rejecting her boyfriend’s advances, and confidentiality policies mean that a girl need not worry about what her parents would think about her being sexually active, obtaining contraception, being treated for a sexually transmitted infection or even having an abortion, because they don’t have to be told.

    Although Britain’s teenage pregnancy rates have recently started to fall, they still remain among the highest in Europe. In 2009, there were 38,259 pregnancies in girls under 18 compared with 41,361 in 2008, a decline of 7.5 per cent. Every year around 3,700 girls under 16 have an abortion. There is concern that society is becoming increasingly ‘sexualised’. When children are taught at age 8-10 that sex is a fun thing that two people do when they “love” each other what do we expect!!! And if the sex education people in schools have their way this will continue to rise.

    This message is to all the girls who think its ok to sleep around, have one night stands and think….do I really need to be used as a public toilet, letting men dump their load and zip up without saying thanks. Please have some respect for yourself and buck up your morals. It’s degrading, end of..

    AS A father or MOTHER IT IS MY DUTY to teach the sacred nature of chastity. Promiscuity will be the downfall of our nation.There is nothing of greater worth than the chastity of a man or woman. Bring back and encourage virtue into our homes and we will bring back honour and integrity . Also les pressure on STD clinics which are rife with appointments each day. Male circumcision — a medical procedure in both Judaism and Islam that has nothing to do with female genital mutilation or “female circumcision,” which is not required by the Koran, and which has no medical benefits, only medical liabilities — could well be the latest victim of misguided political correctness, despite massive medical evidence that male circumcision is “cleaner,” meaning that the area involved becomes less prone to harbouring infections and transmitting diseases. British Establishment and society should concentrate on the evils of their own society and stop trying to change the way of life of Muslims. Muslim community does not want to integrate with the British society, indulging in incivility, anti-social behaviour, drug and knife culture, binge drinking, teenage pregnancies and abortion. Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

    • Angemon says

      August 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm

      Iftikhar Ahmad posted:

      Check your hadiths and you’ll find Mohammed cursing a Meccan as “son of a clitoris cutter.”

      Hadiths, eh?

      Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”

      Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.

      Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

      FGM is nothing to do with Islam.

      Other than being part of the fitrah.

      What’s the point of the legal age being 16 when you are being taught at school that it’s ok as long as you practice safe sex.

      What does that have to do with FGM? And isn’t the legal age in islamic law 9?

      More sex education in schools = more teenage pregnancies= more abortions.

      Ah, I take it you’re one of those people who thinks sex ed is telling students to go out and have sex? Please explain how explaining the use of contraceptives means more teenage pregnancies. Also, explain if you oppose teenage pregnancy on an ideological level or if you’re OK with it when it is, for example, the 14-year-old child wife of a 60-year-old muslim “man”. Hey, if you’re going to derail this topic with unrelated themes, I’m going to get the most out of it.

      The rising numbers of girls having under-age sex is alarming. It is not a cost-free phenomenon. It poses public health policy challenges and social challenges.

      Case in point: the muslim rape gangs in Rotherham.

      The underlying cause must be the purification of British culture and the increasing sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls.

      No, I’m sure that Rotherham was caused by serial rapists preying on vulnerable children.

      Sex education in many schools has had the effect of breaking down the natural inhibitions of children with regard to sexual conduct

      Citation needed.

      and the age of consent is rarely enforced, so young people no longer have any fear of legal proceedings.

      Which is a non-issue when both parties are under the age of consent.

      Muslim community does not want to integrate with the British society

      Then you can leave. Anyone who does not wish to integrate with their host society has no business being there to begin with. Foreign muslims should be booted back to their countries of origin. Natives… well, let’s just say that if the choice was to integrate and work for a living (no jizyia for you!), or starve, the problem would sort itself out.

      indulging in incivility, anti-social behaviour

      Like sharia patrols? Muslim rape gangs?

      drug and knife culture

      Like the muslim rape gangs who drugged girls and forced hem to have sex at knife-point?

      binge drinking

      Like all those islamic suicide bombers who spent their last night partying?

      teenage pregnancies and abortion.

      Like the victims of the muslim rape gangs?

      Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods.

      “State-funded”? Not in a sane society – I’d love to say that if you want your special needs class for your special needs children you should pay it out of your own ass, but I’m a firm believer in not discriminating against anyone if it can be avoided, so your children should have the exact same education given to a non-muslim children. No more, no less.

    • maghan says

      August 16, 2016 at 8:11 pm

      Fool, if it has NOTHING to do with Islam, why isn’t the practice HARAM? It is an Islamic practice through and through. Ritual animal sacrifice and banging heads on the ground while praying predate Islam too but both are part of Islamic lore now.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Sam Harris on the example of Mohammed

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment