Nonsense from the Koran

[3.65] O followers of the Book! why do you dispute about Ibrahim, when the Taurat and the Injeel were not revealed till after him; do you not then understand?
[3.66] Behold! you are they who disputed about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows while you do not know.
[3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.
[3.68] Most surely the nearest of people to Ibrahim are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe and Allah is the guardian of the believers.

How could the Torah and the Gospels be revealed before Abraham lived if he lived before both of them?

Why shouldn’t the Jews and Christians dispute about Abraham because the Torah and the Gospels were revealed after he lived?

It would have been impossible to dispute about Abraham unless the Torah and the Gospel and the other biblical scriptures had been revealed would it not?

So we see that the Koran has been written by a madman. Enough said.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Myth: Muhammad Would Never Approve of Rape, a post from

“Our Prophet (peace be upon him) always held women in the deepest respect.” 

The Truth:

It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.  They met their enemy and fought with them.  They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.  So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn’t Muhammad, but “Allah the Exalted” who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands – which is all the more reason to think of Islam differently from other religions.

Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle.  This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves.  (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women – yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed.  In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant.  Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?”  The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)

As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

As one might imagine, Muhammad’s obvious approval of raping women captured in battle and his own personal participation as recorded in many places is of intense inconvenience to the Muslim apologists of our time.  For this reason, some of them attempt to explain away these many episodes and Qur’anic references to sex with captives by pretending that these are cases in which women have fled bad marriages and sought refuge with the Muslims.  Some apologists even refer to them as “wives,” even though the Qur’an makes a clear distinction between “those whom thy right hand possesses” and true wives (see Sura 33:50).

Beyond the desperation of the 21st century apologist however, there is absolutely nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history.  The women of the Banu Mustaliq were sold into slavery following their rape:

“We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter” (Sahih Muslim 3371)

In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity by Muhammad and his band of devoted followers:

“Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)

Is it Islamic to sell one’s wife for horses?  Clearly these were not wives!

More importantly, by definition a “captured” woman is not one who is fleeing her husband.  She is fleeing her captor (ie. the Muslim slave raider).  This hadith describes a typical raid, in which the women and children are captured as they are attempting to flee the attacking Muslims:

“…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought.  Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners.  I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance].  I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain.  When they saw the arrow, they stopped.  So I brought them, driving them along” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The Muslim narrator sees the women trying to escape (following the massacre of their men) and cuts off their route by shooting an arrow into their path.  These aren’t women trying to seek refuge with the Muslims.  They are trying to avoid capture by the Muslims.

The same hadith goes on to recount that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize.  So we arrived in Medina.  I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

The prophet of Islam and his companions used war to collect women for personal sexual use and for trading.  Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone’s wife, the woman became a sex slave.  In no case was her fate tied to anything that she had personally done, nor was she given a choice about her future.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Myth: Muhammad Only Waged War in Self-Defense, a post from

“Our Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade offensive attacks of all forms. He only permitted fighting in self-defense.” 

The Truth:

The myth that warfare is only justified in Islam under the condition of self-defense is disproved by the account of the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them.  The case for aggressive warfare is also supported by the fate of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, who were cleansed because they had rejected Muhammad’s claims of prophethood (and because the Muslims wanted their possessions).

Consider also the fate of the Banu Mustaliq, an Arab tribe:

“The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives” (Bukhari 46:717)

Although there are many reliable accounts from the Hadith and Sira that mention the Mustaliq grazing cattle, not one mentions Muhammad making any effort at peacemaking.  In this case, Muhammad’s men raped the women (with his approval) after slaughtering the men (Sahih Muslim 3371).  What does raping a female captive have to do with self-defense?

In many situations, Muhammad waged war for the purpose of revenge, such as the attack on the Lihyan, in which the people were clearly not prepared for war and saved themselves only by fleeing into the hills (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718).  Muhammad also attacked the people of Taif as soon as he had the opportunity to avenge their rejection of him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 280 & 872).

Also disproving the myth that Muhammad only fought in self-defense is the account of his first attack on the Christians.  There was no compelling reason for him to send an army to Muta (in Syria, where they met with disaster at the hands of the Byzantines).  Had this been a matter of self-defense, then the enemy would surely have followed the routed army back to Arabia, but this was not the case (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 791).

Near the end of his life, the prophet of Islam directed military campaigns for the mere purpose of spreading Islamic rule. He knew that some cities would resist and others would not. He left instructions to his people for dealing with each case:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it.  If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)

As can be seen, those who were not at war with the Muslims are to be subjugated anyway, and their property seized.  The only distinguishing factor is the extent of Muslim entitlement following the victory.

Military campaigns to extend Islamic domination include the raid on Tabuk, which was a second incursion into the Christian territory of Syria, in which Muhammad forced the local populace to pay him tribute after ambushing and killing local civilians to assert his authority (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 903).  Another example would be the “convert or die” mandate given to an Arab tribe, the Banu al-Harith:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)

Obviously self-defense was not a factor in any of these cases (even though some Muslims are prone to embellish the record with imaginary details not found therein).  As with the capture of Mecca in 630, these early Muslims had clear military superiority and the target of their aggression was in no position to defend itself.

In fact, the first part of the 9th Sura, the most bellicose chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed shortly after the Muslims had established military dominance in Mecca.  Consider one of the more violent verses:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them (9:5)

The words, “when the forbidden months are past,” precludes the possibility that this was a matter of self-defense.  The Muslims had already been given the divine right to fight during the sacred months, and it is simply implausible that they would have suffered attacks over a four month period without defending themselves.  That they were not under attack is consistent with the historical context, in which the Haj period was a traditional time of peace and tolerance throughout Arabia. Although not under attack from the pagans, Muhammad ordered his men to chase and kill the unbelievers following the Haj.  The pagans who agreed to become Muslim (ie. practice the pillars of Islam, zakat and salat) would be allowed to live following their conversion.  Verse 9:29 offers a separate rule for Jews and Christians, allowing them to keep their religion as long as they pay protection money to Muslims and acknowledge the inferiority of their faith.  Should they resist, then they should be killed.

One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar.  This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups.  The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed.  This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad.  The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets.  When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad.  They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning.  If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked.  We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him.

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war.  His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah’s Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?”  Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious.  As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot.  The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764).  Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758).  The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops.  They were eventually altogether for their faith:

“Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.” (Malik 45:18)

The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under.  The rare verses of peace in the Qur’an were “revealed” in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases).  The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is Allah the Name of the God of Islam?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Prince – Tovia Singer Exposed

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Myth: Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 3, a post from website

The Banu Qurayza

The Truth:

Verses 5:45-48 of the Quran affirm the Old Testament rule of “an eye for an eye,” but also add the Christian principle that forgiveness is more noble than retaliation.  If ever there was proof that these words do not necessarily apply to the treatment of non-Muslims, however, it is in Muhammad’s conduct toward the Jews in general and the Qurayza tribe in particular.

Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs.  In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate.  Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting his opponents divisions.

The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully.  He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict.  He also knew that the third would not assist the second – due to a dispute over “blood money.”

The last tribe to remain was the Banu Qurayza.  Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight.  Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.

Over 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists.  It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.

It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial.  Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience.  Others are unaware of it altogether.  But, not only is the incident well documented in the Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad), there is even a brief reference to it in the Quran (verse 33:26).

Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate.  They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.

Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth.  In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.

Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding the merchant caravans traveling to and from neighboring Mecca.  He would steal their property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425).  The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this.  Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free climate.  They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.

After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad’s gang.  In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).

The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by a Meccan emissary and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).

The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the Meccan envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674).  Once there, the Meccan began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent.  The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:

When Ka’b heard of Huyayy’s coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen… Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]… This so enraged Ka’b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, “Good heavens, Ka’b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army… They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. “Ka’b said, “By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am.” (Ishaq/Hisham 674)

After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict.  He would neither contribute troops to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers.  The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Meccans.

The first twenty days of the conflict passed “without fighting” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench.  A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side.  However, the Qurayza refused, ironically enough, thus prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege.

A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench.  Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) – none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza.

With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original constitution of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier.  The original language of this ‘treaty’ is not known, however, and later guesses as to what it might have said seem suspiciously tailored.

It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair.  At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97).  Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes – parties to the same agreement – looting their property and then evicting them from their land.

It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality – along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans.  From Kab’s perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims.  In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza.  In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.

According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza.  After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam.  As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).

Another misconception is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it.  There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad clearly attempted to offload responsibility onto another party.  However, from the narrative, it is obvious that Muhammad clearly approved of the subsequent massacre – a fact further verified both by his choice of “arbitrator” and his subsequent reaction.

First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of “one of their own.”  In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench.  Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment.  According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying “unbelievers” even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).

Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval.  In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).

Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims often assure us he was.  In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?

Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope.  He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches.  In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies were pushed down into the ditch.

There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter.  Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.”  The Arabic “you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.

In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the slaughter, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly “widowed” and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).

Other women were not quite as compliant.  The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:

“I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed” (Abu Dawud 2665)

(One can forgive Aisha’s obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, the wife of Muhammad was only 12-years-old).

Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty.  The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes.  Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390).  There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none.  There had been no combat!

Muhammad parceled out the widows and surviving children as slaves to his men for sexual servitude and labor. The wealth accumulated by the Qurayza was also divided.  Since the tribe had been a peaceful farming and trading community, there were not enough weapons and horses taken to suit Muhammad’s tastes, so he obtained more of these by trading off some of the Qurayza women in a distant slave market (Ishaq 693).

In addition to the main question as to why people who had not killed anyone were put to death and enslaved, there are several others raised by Muhammad’s massacre of the Qurayza.  For example, the Quran says that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Quran 53:38) yet every member of the tribe was punished for a decision pressed on one reluctant member.

And what of the places in the Qur’an where violent passages are sometimes mitigated by the occasional admonishment to cease killing those who stop fighting?  The surrendered Qurayza had never even fought in the first place.

While Muslim apologists grapple with the challenges posed by this episode, the fate of the Qurayza is only the first of many such massacres that the Religion of Peace has provided the world.  Whether it be the 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, the 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, or the million or so Christian Armenians in the early 1900’s, untold tens of millions of innocents have perished in mass executions at the hands of Islam’s dedicated disciples…

Yet, there has never been, nor will there ever be in the future, an apology from those who follow Muhammad, since the massacre of infidels was the example personally set by their prophet at Qurayza.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Myth: Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 2, a post from

The Banu Nadir

The Truth:

Muhammad evicted the second Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, less than a year after evicting the first.  The circumstances under which this occurred are a strong testimony to the double-standards by which the early Muslims treated others (as laid out in the Quran: 48:29).

In 625, one of Muhammad’s soldiers murdered two men in their sleep who were from a tribe that had “an agreement of friendship” with him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 650).  It was decided that blood-money would be offered to satisfy this debt (although Muhammad held non-Muslims to the highest standards, he never put his own men to death for killing non-Muslims).

Rather than take care of this debt himself from the substantial wealth that he acquired from raiding Meccan caravans and confiscating Jewish property, Muhammad went to a Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, to request their contribution, even though the tribe had nothing to do with the murder (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652).

Once he showed up with his men, Muhammad made his demands and then waited outside the wall of their house for the money.  Later, he claimed that Allah spoke to him during this time and told him that the Jews were going to assassinate him by dropping a rock from the roof of the house onto his head:

As the apostle was with a number of this companions… news came to him from heaven about what these people intended (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652)

Muhammad left, then returned with an army and laid siege to the entire community, forcing them to surrender without a fight.

As with the Qaynuqa (the Jewish tribe before them), the people were evicted with the clothes on their back and what they could pack on their camels.   Another revelation from Allah (relayed through Muhammad, of course) allowed the prophet of Islam to personally confiscate all of the remaining property for himself (Bukhari 52:153).

For the skeptic, there are a couple of problems with Muhammad’s justification for evicting an entire tribe of people, even within the boundaries of the account.  In the first place, it is suspicious that he demanded that another tribe pay for what his own men had done – and that he went personally to collect the money.  Given what Allah supposedly knew, one wonders why Allah didn’t just save His “messenger” the trip.

As for Muhammad’s assertion that his god spoke in his ear, thus enabling him to confiscate the wealth of an entire community for his personal gain… well, let’s just say that it is curious at best.

Revelations of convenience were quite common in Muhammad’s life, providing him with wealth from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, along with eleven wives and unlimited sex with female slaves.  He operated with the impunity of a cult leader.

But the largest problem is that Muhammad justified his attack on the Banu Nadir by saying that they had planned to assassinate him.  By this standard, the Jews would have been acting entirely within their rights, given that the prophet of Islam had carried out several assassinations against their own community by that time!

A Banu Nadir Jew named Ka’b al-Ashraf was actually murdered on Muhammad’s order just a few months before the entire tribe was attacked.  The excuse was that he had lamented the killing of the Meccans at the Battle of Badr and responded by composing crude poems about the Muslim women:

Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said…”Who will rid me of al-Ashraf?” [Another Muslim} said, “I will deal with him for you O apostle of Allah. I will kill him.” He said, “Do so if you can.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 550)

Muhammad gave the man permission to take any measures necessary to murder the poet, including lying.  The assassin gathered a group of Muslims and tricked al-Ashraf to come out of his house, alone and unarmed, by pretending to be interested in obtaining a loan.

The murder took place in the dark and was a messy affair.  al-Ashraf began screaming as he was being stabbed:

Meanwhile the enemy of Allah had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust [the dagger] into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of Allah fell to the ground. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 552)

These two events demonstrate that the Muslims of Medina operated under a different standard than what they held to those around them.  Muslims were allowed to kill others when they felt insulted or in danger, but others were not allowed to even defend themselves.

Muhammad was in a position to deny others the same sympathy and tolerance that he demanded for himself because of the control that he managed to establishe within his first two years of arriving in Medina.  He used his newfound power to order assassinations and evictions, thus putting dissenters in fear.

Keep in mind that when Muhammad was in Mecca, he told the elders there that he would bring them “slaughter” (Tabari Vol 6, 102) and they subsequently evicted him.  Yet, instead of recognizing their justification, Muhammad complained incessantly about his ignominious ouster and eventually returned with a conquering army.  He also behaved with extreme hypocrisy toward those who spoke out against him, regardless of what sort of threat they actually posed.

For today’s Muslims, who prefer to believe that Muhammad was an unselfish man of perfect character, the fate of the Banu Nadir is but a minor inconvenience.  It does not bother them that an entire tribe of Jews was evicted on the basis of a hypothetical assassination plot following the very real assassination of one of their leaders.  Jews are not Muslims.  Hence they are not entitled to be treated with the same respect.

Islam is the ultimate supremacist ideology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Myth: Muhammad Lived at Peace with the Jews Part 1, a post from website

The Banu Qaynuqa

The Truth:

The early part of the Quran was written while Muhammad lived in Mecca, a town with very few Jews and no Jewish tribes.  At the time, he presented himself to the Meccans as a Jewish prophet based on the stories that he learned from those Jews whom he met on his travels – and from his cousin Waraqa, a convert from Judaism (the Quran actually addresses this accusation, as “Allah” denies it).

When Muhammad relocated to Medina, there were three Jewish tribes living there already whose good graces he needed to stay in (initially) since he and his small band of Muslim immigrants were in a position of relative weakness.  He tried to convince these Jews that he was the last in the succession of their own prophets and even changed the Qibla (direction of prayer) toward Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish world.

The Jews at Medina were not impressed with Muhammad’s esoteric claims, particularly since there were obvious discrepancies between their Torah and his version of the same stories.  (In the Quran, history from the Bible is presented immaturely, and sounds more like a series of fairy tales with the same redundant moral – believe in Muhammad’s claims about himself or face earthly destruction and eternal torment).

When asked why he didn’t provide proof of his prophethood by performing some sort of miracle, as the prophets of the past had done, Muhammad came up with a clever excuse by saying that there was no point in doing so since the Jews had “rejected” past prophets anyway (Quran 3:183-184).  Thus, Muhammad had nothing to offer but his own testimony.

The prophet of Islam did not handle the Jewish rejection well, particularly since his people had been relying heavily on his many claims of being a prophet in the same mode as Moses, Abraham and Jesus.  Muhammad “resolved” his dilemma by claiming that the Jews of Medina were heretics and he arbitrarily dismissed their version of the Torah by claiming that they had corrupted it and “hidden” the verses that supported his claims of being a prophet.  (Interestingly, despite the many Jews who converted to Islam, either out of compulsion or free will, no one ever produced the “uncorrupted” Torah that was supposed to have existed).

Following Muhammad’s victory against the Meccans at Badr, his wealth and power had increased to the point of being able to take care of his “Jew problem.”  The words of the Quran become noticeably harsher toward the “People of the Book” in the Medina portion of the text, and his actions become confrontational.

Although much is made of the “Constitution” of Medina, the treaty that Muhammad created for all of the local tribes on his arrival, contemporary Muslims are often reluctant to admit the injunction that cancelled out this treaty less than two years later:

“While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” (Bukhari 53:392)

Having announced his intentions, Muhammad looked for an excuse to take land from those Jews who refused to convert to Islam.  His first target was a tribe that had recently been aligned in a conflict against the other two.  Muhammad guessed correctly that the other Jewish tribes would not come to the assistance of the Banu Qaynuqa if he laid siege to them.

Muhammad’s excuse is said to be an incident in which a Muslim was killed by an angry Jewish mob.  That the mob was angry because the Muslim in question had just murdered a Jewish merchant over a woman’s honor is sometimes conveniently forgotten by contemporary apologists, who nonetheless admit that Muhammad chose to lay siege to the Qaynuqa stronghold rather than mediate a peaceful resolution to the agitation.

This point is important.  According to Muslim historians, the first blood shed was when a Jew was murdered by a Muslim for playing a prank on a Muslim woman (by lifting her dress).  The Muslim was killed in retaliation by those who had just witnessed the murder.

On what basis is physical violence – much less murder – justified by a prank of this sort?  Moreover, if Muhammad believed in the Old Testament law of “an eye for an eye,” why did he not recognize the legitimacy of the second killing against the disparity of the first?

In any event, the self-proclaimed prophet of God responded with self-serving force against a people that had welcomed him to their community less than two years earlier.  Unprepared for battle, the Qaynuqa surrendered to their former guest without a fight.

Muhammad wished to slay the entire tribe outright, but was talked out of it by a mutual Arab friend, who was horrified by his intentions:

Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, “O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients” (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off.  He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle’s robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black.  He said, “Confound you, let me go.”  He answered, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients.  Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning?  By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change”’  The apostle said, “You can have them.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 546)

Muhammad was thus talked into allowing the Jews of Qaynuqa to escape only with a few tools and the clothes on their back.  He confiscated their wealth and land, taking a fifth for himself and giving the rest to the other Muslims.  (According to the Qur’an, this was their punishment for not believing in Muhammad 3:10-12).

The man who had saved the lives of the Jews was later called a hypocrite by Muhammad, and it is evident that he deeply regretted his decision not to slay the Qaynuqa.  One of the nine Quranic verses that prohibit Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as friends was “revealed” at this time.

Thus was Muhammad able to fulfill his own promise that “those who resist Allah and his Messenger will be humiliated” (Quran 58:20), further solidifying his credibility with the Muslims – and inspiring fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad in the name of following his example.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Myth: Muhammad was a Brave Warrior Who Trusted Allah to Protect Him, from website

“Our Prophet (peace be upon him)
was without fear of death.” 

The Truth:

So strong is the cult of personality in Islam that most Muslims fail to recognize the contrast between Muhammad’s word and deeds. There are many places where Muhammad says that he trusts Allah to protect him:

O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord, for if thou do it not, thou wilt not have conveyed His message. Allah will protect thee from mankind. Lo! Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk. (Quran 5:67, see also 8:30)

Nor can a soul die except by Allah’s leave… (Quran 3:145)

He also encourages his men to believe that they will be safe, even to the point of being reckless in battle:

[Auf bin Harith asked] “O Allah’s apostle, what makes Allah laugh with joy at his servant?”  He answered, “When he plunges into the midst of the enemy without mail. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 445)

As it turns out, Auf took his advice and did exactly that:

Auf drew off the mail-coat that was on him and threw it away: then he seized his sword and fought the enemy till he was slain. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 445)

Auf’s fate at the Battle of Badr must have made an impression on Muhammad because the next time the prophet of Islam went into battle (at Uhud) he was sure to put on two coats of armor beforehand! (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 560).

Other parts of the Battle of Uhud seem to support the idea that Muhammad was having second thoughts about the ability of Allah and his angels to protect him.  He not only planted himself firmly at the rear of his army, but also made sure that he was surrounded by a small group of bodyguards.  This was a strategic decision that actually backfired when the enemy unexpectedly outflanked the Muslims and advanced directly into his area.

Allah’s angels were nowhere to be found, and Muhammad, desperate to save his own skin, began selling paradise to the men around him in exchange for their lives:

It has been reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that (when the enemy got the upper hand) on the day of the Battle of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was left with only seven men from the Ansar and two men from the Quraish. When the enemy advanced towards him and overwhelmed him, he said: Whoso turns them away from us will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise.  A man from the Ansar came forward and fought (the enemy) until he was killed.  The enemy advanced and overwhelmed him again and he repeated the words: Whoso turns them away, from us will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise.  A man from the Ansar came forward and fought until he was killed.  This state continued until the seven Ansar were killed (one after the other). Muslim 19:4413)

As the passage relates, seven men stepped forward, one-by-one, to be slain in defense of Muhammad on the promise that they would be his “companion in paradise.”  (None appeared to question why Muhammad himself was so anxious to avoid the wonderful hereafter).

One man named Abu Dujana “made his body a shield for the apostle” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 573). According to the account, his back literally bristled with arrows until he fell over dead.

For his part, Muhammad managed to flee the battle for the safety of a nearby mountain:

“The apostle made for a rock on the mountain to climb it. He had become heavy by reason of his age, and moreover he had put on two coats of mail so when he tried to get up he could not so.  Talha squatted beneath him and lifted him up until he settled comfortably up on it.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 577)

As one might expect, the period immediately following the rout of the Muslims at Uhud was somewhat of an awkward moment for the self-proclaimed prophet, given the smack that he had been talking after the victory at Badr (See Sura 8).  Many Muslims had been killed at Uhud and their bodies mutilated afterwards.

Even Muhammad, the apostle of mighty Allah, had been injured in the face from a thrown rock (perhaps as he was peeking out from behind the others in search of somewhere to run).  The blood seemed to be at odds with his pretentious claim of being Allah’s chosen one, given that his god obviously declined to catch the rock in midair.

At first Muhammad appears to try to regain the confidence of his people with a boastful war story to distract attention from his facial injury.  He claimed to have killed the man who did it:

[Muhammad] used the water to wash the blood from his face and as he poured it over his head he said: “The wrath of Allah is fierce against him who bloodied the face of His prophet” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 576).

Muhammad also forbade the dead from being brought back and buried at Medina, which would have deepened the humiliation of his fledgling religion and further undermined confidence in him (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 586).

What ensued next was a series of excuses to explain the defeat at Uhud, which are detailed in the third sura of the Qur’an.  The weakest excuse offered is that the debacle was necessary to “test” the believers so that “Allah may know those who believe” (3:140).  Perhaps someone then asked the obvious question of how an omniscient Allah was otherwise unable to know this, which inspired several additional excuses.

Muhammad’s next try was to blame a contingent of “hypocrites” who failed to accompany them into battle (3:167).  But this had also been the case at Badr, where the Muslims had been victorious due to Allah’s angels (seen only by Muhammad, of course).  Why no angels this time?

Finally, Muhammad simply blamed the sin of the people for their own defeat and told them to beg for his forgiveness.  They had pushed him into a battle that he did not want, and then fought poorly, even “abandoning the messenger” (3:153) whose presence Allah had been so generous in blessing them with (3:164).  Clearly the people had let Muhammad down, but he and Allah promised to be magnanimous if the people acknowledged their error (3:152).

For good measure, Muhammad also added that the Devil made them do it (3:155).

The master of psychology eventually regained the confidence of his people, particularly after a fresh series of raids against Meccan caravans that continued the flow of pilfered goods into the community.

Muslim sycophancy remains to this day.  Compare the historical account of Muhammad’s desperation and flight at Uhud with this commentary by 20th century translator, Yusuf Ali that is downright hilarious against the eyewitness account:

“There was no rout… Had it not been for [Muhammad’s] firmness, courage, and coolness, all would have been lost.” (Yusuf Ali margin note #442).

Yeah…  As for Muhammad, he was no longer taking chances on “Allah’s protection.”  In fact, he actually immortalized the obligation of his people to protect him with their weapons in the Qur’an, even to the point of allowing his bodyguards to carry them into a mosque if he was present:

When thou (O Messenger) art with them, and standest to lead them in prayer, Let one party of them stand up (in prayer) with thee, Taking their arms with them: When they finish their prostrations, let them Take their position in the rear.  And let the other party come up which hath not yet prayed – and let them pray with thee, Taking all precaution, and bearing arms… (Quran 4:102)

Although part of Allah’s “eternal word” to man, these instructions concerning his personal bodyguards have absolutely no relevance today, unless it is to encourage Muslim fundamentalists in their persistent practice of hiding weapons at mosques and even staging terror attacks from them.Finally, there is strong evidence that Muhammad died from having been poisoned, or at least that he thought this was the case.  His death was not pleasant.  According to his biographer, “he suffered much pain” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 1006).

Perhaps one reason that contemporary Muslims are unwilling to accept this account is that it contradicts the claim of divine protection.  But even the Quran mentions that by then “Allah’s apostle” was relying on his own security service.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

US-backed Syrian “rebels” screaming “Allahu akbar” behead small boy as “spy”, a post from the Robert Spencer website

These are the “vetted moderates” to whom Obama has given US taxpayer money and weapons bought with taxpayer funds. The Obama administration can’t possibly distinguish “moderates” from “extremists,” as it claims to be able to do, because it doesn’t even recognize the reality of the Islamic jihad. How can it possibly vet for the presence or absence of an ideology that it refuses to admit even exists?


“And these are the ‘good guys’! Sickening video shows US-backed Syrian rebels taunting and then brutally beheading a young boy because he was a ‘spy,’” by Gareth Davies, Mailonline, July 19, 2016:

Fighters from a US-backed Syrian militant group have been filmed brutally beheading a child as young as 11.

The video captures Nour al-Din al-Zenki fighters in the back of a truck with a child they claim is an al-Quds soldier supporting Assad’s Syrian forces.

One of the fighters shouts ‘Allahu Akbar’ meaning ‘God is great’ after taking a small knife to the boy’s throat and cutting off his head in the Palesinian refugee Handarat Camp in Northern Aleppo.

The child, who is clearly under the age of 12, was arrested by the Islamist militants for allegedly being Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds, al-Quds Brigade fighter, according to Russia News Now.

Sickening footage shot immediately before the boy is slaughtered shows him in ragged clothes surrounded by bearded militants in the back of a pick-up truck.

One of them holds him by the hair and slaps him in the face.

Judging by his ragged clothes and the marks on his arms, it appears the boy was impoverished and may have been tortured before he was murdered in the video, seen by MailOnline.

The boy is placed face-down in the back of the truck with his arms tied behind his back when the executioner is handed a small knife by a fellow fighter.

He then cuts the boy’s throat before shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and holds his head aloft.

Before the video ends, he places the head on the boy’s back before jumping down from the SUV.

Liwaa Al Quds is a pro-Syrian government Palestinian paramilitary faction made up of the Palestinians who have been driven out of their homes in the Handarat Camp once Islamist militants took over the neighbourhood.

Today, the group is fighting alongside the Syrian Army to retake the camp.

Nour al-Din al-Zenki is part of the Levant Front, and its allies the Islamic Front and the Free Syrian Army are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime.

It is also battling ISIS and the U.S government supplied the group with money and anti-tank missiles.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment