The Meccans drove Mohammed out of Mecca after he persistently harassed and disrupted their worship of false gods. This did not cause Mohammed any serious or lasting injury. In response to this Mohammed commanded his followers to kill as many Meccans as they could. Who gave him the right to act in this manner? Did he not know his followers would be breaking the law of Moses if they obeyed him? This is one thing, among others, that exposes Mohammed as a false prophet. Does God allow us to kill those who are worshipping false gods?

  1. [22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

The Quran doesn’t say that permission is given for physical self-defence. Rather permission to fight and kill is given in response to religious and political oppression which is a form of non-violent warfare. The bible, on the other hand, expressly forbids violence as a response to non-violent forms of aggression. Islam allows and actually condones, encourages and commands it. Islam is a martyr cult where martyrs are glorified. A martyr who did not try to kill any infidels is not a martyr in Islam.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Islam and Inbreeding, a video by Bill Warner

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

All those who deny the plain and simple truth of these words will burn forever in hell

1 John v 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

According to Mohammed persecution of Muslims ( non-lethal resistance of non-Muslims to Muslims who are trying to force repressive Sharia laws upon them ) is worse than Muslims slaughtering non-Muslims as they forcefully attempt to make them subject to Sharia law. This is a reversal of the order of the law of Moses where non-lethal religious repression does not justify the taking of human life in order to be liberated from it.

The Cow

  1. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
  2. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
  3. [2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever– these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide.

The Accessions

  1. [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
  2. [8.73] And (as for) those who disbelieve, some of them are the guardians of others; if you will not do it, there will be in the land persecution and great mischief.

Jonah

  1. [10.85] So they said: On Allah we rely: O our Lord! make us not subject to the persecution of the unjust people:

Abraham

  1. [14.12] And what reason have we that we should not rely on Allah? And He has indeed guided us in our ways; and certainly we would bear with patience your persecution of us; and on Allah should the reliant rely.

The Spider

  1. [29.10] And among men is he who says: We believe in Allah; but when he is persecuted in (the way of) Allah he thinks the persecution of men to be as the chastisement of Allah; and if there come assistance from your Lord, they would most certainly say: Surely we were with you. What! is not Allah the best knower of what is in the breasts of mankind.

The Scatterers

  1. [51.14] Taste your persecution! this is what.you would hasten on.

What does the true Moses of the bible say to all this?

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Another Myth about Mohammed, a post taken from TheReligionOfPeace.Com website

The Myth:

Muhammad
Raided Caravans to
Retrieve Stolen Property

“Our Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade his people from attacking innocent caravans and only took what had been taken from his people by the polytheists.”

The Truth:

After his eviction by the Quraish in Mecca, Muhammad and his Muslims found refuge many miles away in Medina where they were not being bothered by their former adversaries.  Despite this, Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one – whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time:

[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, “They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them.”  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424, Ibn Kathir V.2 p.242)

The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers.  However, Islam was a different sort of religion from what the Meccans were used to:

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.  Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him…  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425; see also Ibn Kathir V.2 p.243)

According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months:

The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)

Faced with losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his hut and emerged with a convenient and timely revelation “from Allah” that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use):

They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter (Quran 2:217)

Notice that the Quran does not say that the Meccan Quraish were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were “persecuting” them by preventing them from the ‘sacred mosque’ (the Kaaba).  The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries.  This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense.

For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs – rather than exacting revenge and stealing.  Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town.  (The 1976 movie, “The Message,” perpetuates this misconception).

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as a paragon of virtue); nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft.  A larger problem is that there is no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were “taking back what was theirs”; in fact, it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad’s biographer, Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, but nowhere does he mention the contents of the caravan as being Muslim property.  In fact, Ishaq explicitly describes the goods as belonging to the Meccans:

A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424)

Note also that the cargo plundered from the caravan included raisins, which would have long since perished had they been from grapes grown and dried by the Muslims before they left Mecca nearly a full year earlier.  Moreover, a fifth of the loot was given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 425).

Most of the Muslims living in Mecca had few assets to begin with, having come largely from the lower rungs of the social ladder, but those who did would have had several years to liquidate their assets or transport them to a new location.  As the instigator of the discord, Muhammad was the only Muslim literally forced to flee Mecca in the dead of night, but even his business affairs were sewn up on his behalf by Ali, his son-in-law:

Ali stayed in Mecca for three days and nights until he had restored the deposits which the apostle held.  (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 335, also Ibn Kathir v.2 p.155)

” Restoring deposits” means returning property to people who had left them in Muhammad’s care, similar to a bank returning money to depositors.  This would not have been possible had Muhammad’s wealth been confiscated.  Given that his had not been, it is unlikely that anyone else’s was either, since he was the primary interest of the Quraish.

So, if the Muslims at Medina weren’t trying to recover stolen goods, why were they plundering Meccan caravans?  Muhammad explains the real reason for the looting and the killing:

“If you have killed in the sacred month, they have kept you back from the way of Allah with their unbelief in Him, and from the sacred mosque, and have driven you from it when you were its people.  This is a more serious matter with Allah then the killing of those of them whom you have slain. ‘And seduction is worse than killing.’   They used to seduce the Muslim in his religion until they made him return to unbelief after believing, and that is worse with Allah than killing.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426)

Thus, the justification for killing the Meccans and stealing their goods is purely religious. The only thing stolen from the Muslims was their ability to enter the sacred mosque (ie. complete the Haj ritual at the Kaaba).  The innocent caravan drivers were fair game for Muhammad’s deadly raids simply because Muslims felt “kept back from the way of Allah” by the “unbelief” of the Meccan leadership. This is all the more apparent by the next major episode in which Muhammad sent his men to plunder caravans, which precipitated the Battle of Badr:

When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)

In this case the Meccans were returning to Mecca from a business trip to Syria.  Any goods they were carrying would have been purchased from the Syrians.

Over the next nine years, the principle source of income for Muslims was wealth forcibly extracted from others.  The targets of misfortune expanded well beyond the Meccans.  By the time Muhammad died, his men were finding excuse to raid and steal from many other Arab tribes, Jews and even Christians.  Like the mafia, a protection racket gradually evolved where other tribes were allowed to live peacefully provided they paid tribute to Muslim rulers.

Further Reading:

Holy War or Plundering Raids? (Video from Islam Watch)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Egypt: Muslim TV host says jihad massacres of Christians “okay,” but not jihad massacre in mosque, a post from JihadWatch.org, with comments

“We saw attacks by terrorists on the police and army, and we said this is mutual violence. These extremist groups have attacked churches and we said that they think it is a [different] religion, not Islam, and it is hostile to them, and then we said it is okay, but how [can these groups attack] Muslims?,” Magdi said.

It is good that she was suspended, but where did she get this idea in the first place? Straight from the Sharia. In Islamic law, Muslim lives are explicitly worth more than those of non-Muslims. The Shafi’i Sharia manual ‘Umdat al-Salik dictates: “The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” (o4.9)

The Shafi’i madhhab is not the only school of Islamic law that teaches this. The Iranian Shi’ite Sufi Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh explains: “Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“Egyptian TV host suspended over comments on N. Sinai mosque attack,” Al-Masry Al-Youm, November 26, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Owner of Sada al-Balad Media Group Mohamed Abu al-Enein has suspended one of its TV hosts Rasha Magdi and referred her to an internal investigation over inappropriate comments she made on air regarding Friday’s terrorist attack on the al-Rawda mosque in North Sinai.

Magdi went off script during her show on the privately-owned Sada al-Balad TV channel on Friday, describing terrorist attacks against the army and police as “mutual violence,” while suggesting that attacks against Christians are more understandable than attacks against Muslims.

“We saw attacks by terrorists on the police and army, and we said this is mutual violence. These extremist groups have attacked churches and we said that they think it is a [different] religion, not Islam, and it is hostile to them, and then we said it is okay, but how [can these groups attack] Muslims?,” Magdi said.

When Magdi worked for the state television network, several legal cases were filed against her for inciting hatred against Egypt’s Copic Christians, particularly regarding the killing by the Egyptian army of more than 25 Christians during what has become known as the Maspero massacre….

Canada: Ottawa library cancels planned screening of documentary on Muslim migrants in Europe
UK police letting suspects go and “hoping for the best” as “hateful comments” arrests rise 877%

COMMENTS

  1. Pet Charles says

    These are the people who are immigrating to America and crying Islamophobia? I can’t imagine what their views towards Black people must be like.

    • RichardL says

      my wife’s Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood relatives are flying to New York to have their Mohammedan anchor babies delivered there. The insanity of this loop hole is just mind boggling.

    • David Cameron says

      The English, word they use for blacks is “slave” Ignorant African Americans to this day give their children Arabic names. If they only knew.

  2. Jaladhi says

    Muslims have justification for every terror attack on human beings!! Nothing surprises me when Muslims justify killing of non-Muslims, it is all there in their unholy book Quran!

    • Jay Boo says

      COEXIST
      Stanford Students should take their diversity training here where Muslims don’t even bother to hide their true feelings about non-Muslims.

  3. RichardL says

    ooops, islam slipped out of her mouth without her wanting to be truthful about how she feels.

    Egyptians are as a rule disgusting people and Rasha Magdi (her last name makes her suspicious to Mohammedans because it is mostly a Christian name) is just your average Gyppo punter.

    • WorkingClassPost says

      Interesting that her name might be Christian, because my take on what she said is a bit different…

      It looks to me, as though she’s highlighting their cruel hypocrisy:-

      “We saw attacks by terrorists on the police and army, and we said this is mutual violence. These extremist groups have attacked churches and we said that they think it is a [different] religion, not Islam, and it is hostile to them, and then we said it is okay, but how [can these groups attack] Muslims?,”

      The question is clear, would she have been suspended if she’d personally said it was OK to attack Christians?

  4. R Russell says

    I wonder if she really is as uninformed as she makes out? Sufis are apostates to ISIS thus they had to go.
    The Religion of Peace carrying out the dictates of their Holy Books.

  5. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    This comment puts ex-Prez Barack Hussein in an odd position. He favored the uber jihad terror outfit the Mo-Bro-Hood but al-Sisi took over and called for reform of Islam. Meanwhile, then Prez Hussein was importing Moslems from the Levant as “refugees” even as Christians and Yazidis were being mass murdered and turned into sex slaves, and would’ve been *real* refugees, but were not allowed in.

    It’s all become one very confused serial of Good Cop, Bad Cop.

  6. Infidel says

    Did U all notice: They do not have a single shred of mercy for their infidel victims…Such is their hatred ..

    • Cortez says

      The hatred of others is a natural result of a religion based on legalism, double standards and hypocrisy.

      • mortimer says

        Cortez is right. Islam contains a double standard called ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ (allegiance to Muslims and disavowal of kafirs). It is Islamic apartheid.

        TV personality Rasha Magdi clearly condoned and even approved the persecution of Coptic Christians. It is tantamount to encouraging the perpetrators of the persecutions.

        This knee-jerk approval of Islamist terrorism is shared by many (but not all) Muslims. It appears that few Muslims would actually risk their lives to save kafirs in a terror attack, but such notable examples have been reported in news stories.

        Rasha Magdi is another case of JIHADISM found in ‘moderate’ Muslims. Jihad and apartheid are ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES of Islam, rather than aberrations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Killing a male child with pubic hair, which Mohammed did to the Jews, is not killing children according to Islam

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Michael Hansen on the cancelation of the movie Killing Europe

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Prince on the Sufi Mosque Massacre and how a Muslim man can become a father in paradise

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Prophet Muhammed explains stuff

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment