Muslims WorldWide

Richard Dawkins, ‘the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Middle Ages’


Professor Richard Dawkins embroiled in Twitter row over Muslim comments

Richard Dawkins has been forced to defend controversial comments he made online after saying the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Middle Ages.

 

Professor Richard Dawkins causes Twitter row with Islamic barbarian jibe

Professor Richard Dawkins

10:00PM BST 08 Aug 2013

Prof Dawkins, the bestselling author of The God Delusion, wrote on Twitter that all the world’s Muslims had won fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.

He went on to argue that although Muslims were responsible for many achievements during the Dark Ages, including alchemy and algebra, their contribution since then was questionable.

<noframe>Twitter: Richard Dawkins – All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.</noframe>

His comments sparked outrage from many high-profile writers and journalists including author Caitlin Moran and Channel 4 News Economics Editor Faisal Islam.

Moran tweeted: “it’s time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again. Something’s gone weird.”

Writing on Twitter on Thursday, Prof Dawkins said: “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”

While in response to another Twitter user who wrote that Muslims were responsible for alchemy and algebra, he replied: “Indeed, where would we be without alchemy? Dark Age achievements undoubted. But since then?”

He later tried to justify his comments by saying he talked about the number of Muslim prize winners because we often hear “boasts about their total numbers”.

He wrote: “Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.”

He added: “A statement of simple fact is not bigotry”.

<noframe>Twitter: Richard Dawkins – Why mention Muslim Nobels rather than any other group? Because we so often hear boasts about (a) their total numbers and (b) their science.</noframe>

Prof Dawkins has gained worldwide attention for his outspoken criticism of organised religion, and argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed that a harder line must be taken with believers.

In 2010, he sparked controversy after labelling the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock” in an article for The Washington Post. A year later, his comments provoked uproar once again when he called the Catholic church “evil”.

Previous Twitter comments have also caused a stir, including one in which he wrote: “”Don’t ask God to cure cancer & world poverty. He’s too busy finding you a parking space & fixing the weather for your barbecue.”

Earlier this year, speaking about the damage caused to a library in Timbuktu, in Mali, during the uprising he described those who burnt it down as “Islamic Barbarians”.

His comments were interpreted as being derogatory to Islam and insulting to followers of the religion by some on Twitter.

Trinity College, Cambridge, has 32 Nobel laureates, as against 10 Muslims listed in Wikipedia.

But Channel 4 News journalist Islam tried to debunk some of Prof Dawkins’ Nobel Prize claims, saying that he shouldn’t have included Nobel Prizes awarded for economics.

He said over the last two decades, “it’s 8-4 against trinity.”

“I say this as a Muslim alumnus of Trinity College, Cambridge”.

He added that if Prof Dawkins “had any clue what he was talking about, he’d know to strip out the Economics Nobels, which aren’t quite real”.

Prof Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.

 

34 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins, ‘the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Middle Ages’

  1. Pingback: Athiest Professor Richard Dawkins: we are winning the war against religion | 'I Am NOT Ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!

  2. Pingback: Richard Dawkins is Right | David's Commonplace Book

  3. When you factor in the Muslim destruction of the largest university and library in the world (look up Nalanda on Wikipedia) and countless others, the most recent example being Timbuktu, you have to conclude that net Muslim contribution to world knowledge is negative. Their net contribution to culture is even more disastrous, and their blind iconoclastic fury makes force 9 earthquakes seem benign in comparison. Far from being humbled by this fail score, they let their own boasting go to their heads and tweet themselves into false fact frenzies. Boring.

    Like

  4. Qur’an (3:151) “We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”

    THE CRIMES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD

    THE PERFECT MUSLIM

    And surely thou hast sublime morals
    (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

    Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
    (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

    Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.
    Muslims are sanctified by the blood of murdered kafirs.
    What is important to understand is that none of these depraved, criminal acts are crimes to Muslims. They are all holy, divine acts to be emulated by all Muslim men. They are all Sunna [The traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad’s words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims].
    • Molested his wife – six-year-old Baby Aisha. One of Baby Aisha’s wifely duties was to clean semen stains from the prophet’s clothes. The prophet would take a bath with Baby Aisha and thigh with Baby Aisha taking his penis and rubbing it up and down her thighs. Being a man of mercy he did not penetrate Baby Aisha until she was nine.
    HOW TO THIGH
    Now let us see how it is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith, which was quoted earlier, mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

    Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
    According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

    Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

    Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

    Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

    The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

    After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

    That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

    Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

    Mohammed heard one of his wives was leaving him, so he rushed home where he found her on the carpet in front of the tent with her belongings; he sat down beside her & said, “I heard you were planning to leave me?”
    She replied, “Yes, I heard your other wives saying, you were a pedophile!”
    Mohammed thinks for a minute or so & then responds,
    “that’s a mighty big word for a 6 year old child.”

    • Raped Baby Aisha when she was nine (texts can have been altered to change the age. Koranic texts claim he married her when she was six and he may have consummated the marriage then as well. Reason for this being that other indications in the Hadith shows that Mohammed was a pedophile). Advocated sex with baby girls.

    Sahih Muslim
    Book 031, Number 5981:
    ‘A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

    Sahih Muslim
    Book 008, Number 3311:
    ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
    Aisha owned dolls (which as we know is NOT allowed in Islam (if you have reached puberty)

    SOME MEN PREFER BLONDS, MOHAMMED PREFERRED VIRGINS!
    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:17

    He said, “Did you marry a virgin or a matron? I replied, “A matron.” He said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you may play with her and she with you?” When we were about to enter (Medina), the Prophet said, “Wait so that you may enter (Medina) at night so that the lady of unkempt hair may comb her hair and the one whose husband has been absent may shave her pubic region.
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:16
    • Raped a retarded woman. Murdered a woman. Had sex with his dead aunt.
    • Captured women and raped them. Kept women as sex slaves. Muhammad had sex with 61 women: many he raped. There is no consensual sex between a child girl and a man. There is no consensual sex between a master and his sex slave. There is no consensual sex between a woman conquered in war and her husband conqueror. All such sexual acts are rape.

    RAPE IS RAPE.
    • Had eleven wives at one time. Sexually abused his wives. Raped his wives. Forced sex during their menstruation including Baby Aisha. Mentally abused his wives. Can you imagine taking a child (or any aged woman) and molesting with your hand/fist her menstruating vagina?
    • Beheaded his enemies. 600/900 Jewish men at one massacre. Had Jewish boys as young as 13 years old beheaded after pulling down their pants and inspecting groin for pubic hair.
    • Ordered the murder, torture, terrorization of Christians and Jews if they did not convert to Islam. Forced Christians and Jews from Saudi Arabia (the mass exile).
    • Assassinated people for insulting him or Islam. Established totalitarian rule. Had followers and their families burnt alive in their homes for missing prayer.
    • Ordered the extermination, torture and terrorization of kafirs. Instigated 60 massacres and personally participated in 27 of them.
    • Owned and sold slaves. Enslaved women and children.
    • Called his black slaves pug noses and compared them to Satan.
    • Treated his black slaves as beasts of burden.
    • No befriending Christians and Jews.
    • Subjugated and oppressed Muslim women. Required them to cover their faces.
    • Married his daughter – in – law.
    • Approved prostitution.
    • Encouraged the rape of women in front of their husbands.
    • Recommended wife beating. Hit his wife – Baby Aisha.
    • Murdered prisoners of war. Committed acts of terror.
    • Advocated suicide attacks.
    • Executed apostates and homosexuals.
    • Beat children who didn’t pray. Abolished adoption.
    • Honor killings of Muslim women and children.
    • Beat alcoholics. Lied.
    • Stoned adulators to death. Stoned a woman to death after she had given birth.
    • Ordered thief’s hands/feet chopped off.
    • Tortured a man out of greed.
    • Looted and plundered.
    • Preached hate for people of other religions.
    • Extorted money from other religions
    • Forced conversions to Islam
    • Allowed his companions to execute, behead, rape and enslave.
    References: [h/t Craig]
    – Muhammad’s marriage to 6yr old Aisha-(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234 and 236).
    – Aisha cleans Muhammad’s semen stains-(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229-233),
    – Muhammad fondling Aisha during her ‘Menses’- (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298-300, Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0270)
    – Muhammad liked to have intercourse with Aisha and his other wives when they were menstruating (Sahih Muslim, Book 003, Number 0577-0579),
    – He also loved to recite the Quran when his wives were in Menses while lying between their legs!-(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 296), (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 639)
    – Muhammad married his adopted Son’s wife called ‘Zaynab’ after lusting for her and then banned Adoption in Islam- (Surah 33:37,Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 305, Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3330, Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 516,The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 2-3)
    – Muhammad having sex with his dead Aunt in the Grave-( “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers, by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.)
    – ‘I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib’… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali. “The Arabic word used here for slept is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “Lay down to have sex.”
    – Muhammad and the Quran sanctioned sex with your wives and ‘married’ slave girls-(Quran – 70:22-30, 23:5,6, 4:24, 33:50), — Muhammad speaks of sex with Slave Girls- (Sahih Bukhari – Volume 3, #432, Volume 9, #506, Volume 5, #637, Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, #3371)
    – Muhammad disagreed with ‘coitus interruptus’ with slave girls- he supported RAPE.
    – Muhammad forces a 17 yr old Jewish girl called Safiyyah to marry him and rapes her on the same day her husband and family are killed in the battle of Khaibar (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).
    – Al Tabari reported in his (‘The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam’, Translated by Michael Fishbein) that even some of Muhammad’s wives and companions were shocked that he forced Safiyyah to marry him after beheading her husband, brother and father.
    MUHAMMAD WAS A SEX MANIAC

    MOHAMMAD’S PERVERSENESS:

    You are looking at Zakaria Botros, a Christian priest out of Egypt residing in America. Zakaria uses his newly found freedom of speech to shine the Light of his knowledge upon the many evils of Islam:

    Consequently, a large bounty is offered for his death. There are probably ten thousand Fatwa’s self righteous Muslic clerics have issued somewhere in the world to promote themselves.

    Sixty million is probably a humble estimate of the total. Collecting ten cents from anyone in the Muslim world is another story. The money would have to come in secret wouldn’t it?

    So a Fatwa is not a contract governments would help the murderer collect. It is a promise from the mob Islam is.

    Zakaria Botros is the foremost rebuker of Islam globally, not only in knowledge of the Koran, but in courage and wisdom. In the following document he exposes Mohammad for the sex pervert he was as the founder of Islam. Muslims everywhere are trained to become incited to hostility upon any opposition to Islam, but Zakaria is speaking the truth in love out of concern for their souls.

    Botros illustrates his points from references in the Koran and Islamic literature with such skill he confounds Muslims everywhere to win them to salvation in Christ the Lord or bring their bad fruit out on the tree they are in this world so believers can see them more clearly and answer them in the faith.

    By making himself a target for the Muslim “Fatwa” we know is certain to be on the hit list from the Islamic Mafia worldwide, Zakaria’s video’s are of great interest to Muslims seeking to enrich themselve by collecting the reward of sixty million dollars for him dead.

    Islam has concealed its wickedness behind walls of bloodshed through the centuries from its conception, but Zakaria Botros has broken through to the whole world and Muslims are stunned by the force of his revelations of truth concerning THE REPROBATE’NESS OF ISLAM.

    Zakaria Botros is the kind of hero believers in Christ yearn for in this present world. When he speaks in regard to the Islamic menance, Americans should listen and support him with whatever he needs. He is also the Islamic expert governments should consult for advice on how to handle the Muslim problem in their nation and in the world.

    Botros recently spoke on a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed this central question: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

    He began by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, evaluating the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded many so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography and deeds, and see if he is found worthy of the title.

    Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

    He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet You follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.

    First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

    Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim’s wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

    That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50).

    Father Botros has a carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad. Zakaria Botros is a true scholar.

    Zakaria Botros: According to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her.

    Zakaria Botros went on to explain from his vast knowledge of Islam: According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

    Mohammad used his dictatorial powers over the people he ruled to rape any woman against ‘her will in the realm of his worldly authority one way or another by force. This is hardly a recommendation for Mohammad to become the guide of a billion people worldwide.

    You have been deceived!

    The co-host abruptly interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

    Botros dropped his face in his hands, “So you still insist we discuss Mohammad’s sexually perverse behaviour?”

    The Co-host said, It is for the good of Muslims’ own good to know everything about their religion good or bad.

    Zakaria Botros profusely apologized to Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, ……declaring: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books!

    If Muslims don’t like it, they should go and burn these books.”

    The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

    According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare “the prophet loves me,” said one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him.”

    Another suspect hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man kissing his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

    Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

    Would you trust this unidentified Muslim leader with your child’s soul?

    “Surely there’s more?” said the co-host:

    Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls”…

    PART II:

    Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

    Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Botros also added the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the godly priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s ‘activities’ with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

    With a disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera saying: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who ON RECORD used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

    “More!” the Co-host declared enthusiastically!

    “Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom. “Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!” the godly Priest declared to the listening audience.

    At this point, the Priest looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him:

    “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

    Brother Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

    Sure proof Mohammad was filled with lust for human flesh sensually.

    The Co-host went on to quote the Priest saying: “Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age to which the Priest exclaimed,

    “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

    Zakaria Botros told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

    “What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the dynamic Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds?!”

    It was late in the night, yet Botros was not done presenting his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits.

    PART III:

    Co-host talking: Last we left the Coptic priest, he was reading from hadith reports stating that the prophet of Islam “admired” a 2-3 year old girl (saying that he hoped to live long enough to make her his wife), and “laid” in the grave with a dead woman.

    In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Father Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

    Zakaria Botros replies: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

    Botros offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

    Father Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.”

    Father Botros to Muslims: “So this is your prophet—the most morally upright man? Instead of being preoccupied with, say, prayer or good deeds, he was preoccupied with women?”

    He next read from Faid al-Qabir (3/371), wherein Muhammad is on record saying, “My greatest loves are women and perfume: the hungry is satisfied after eating, but I never have enough of women.” Another hadith: “I can hold back from food and drink—but not from women.” After reading these hadiths, Father Botros would just look at the screen in silence, shaking his head.

    He next read an interesting narrative (contained in Umdat al-Qari and Faid al-Qabir).

    Allah sent Gabriel with some sort of celestial food (called al-kofid) to Muhammad, commanding the latter to “Eat!”—identical to when Gabriel came to Muhammad saying “Read!” (i.e., iqra, the word for Koran). The report goes on to quote Muhammad saying that the food given to him “gave me the sexual potency of 40 heavenly men.”

    This is the same thing someone experimenting with drugs would say regarding their sexual experience under the influence.

    Father Botros next read from the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, where it says that the “heavenly man” has the sexual potency of 100 mortal men.

    Wondered the priest: “So, doing the math, 40×100, we can conclude that Muhammad, whenever he ate his heavenly aphrodisiac, had the sexual potency of 4000 men? Really, O umma, is this the claim to fame of your prophet—that he was a raving sex maniac?” Then, less seriously, “Imagine the surprise when Westerners find out, once again, it was Muhammad who first discovered Viagra!”

    Zakaria Botros went on to read from more sources, such as Sunan al-Nisa’i, wherein Muhammad used to in a single night “visit” all his women, without washing in between.

    Asked the priest: “Why even record such obscene and embarrassing things?”

    Perhaps most entertaining, Father Botros spent time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation from this lengthy account:

    After conquering the Jews of Khaybar, and plundering their belongings, among other things, a donkey fell into the lot of the prophet, who proceeded to ask it:

    “What is your name?”

    The donkey answered, “Yazid Ibn Shihab. Allah had brought forth from my ancestry 60 donkeys, none of whom were ridden on except by prophets. None of the descendants of my grandfather remain but me, and none of the prophets remain but you and I expected you to ride me. Before you, I belonged to a Jewish man, whom I caused to stumble and fall frequently so he used to kick my stomach and beat my back.”

    Here, chuckling, the priest added, “a taqiyya-practicing donkey!” He continued reading, “The prophet said to him, ‘I will call you Ya’foor. O Ya’foor!’

    Ya’foor replied, ‘I obey.’

    The prophet asked, ‘Do you lust after females?’

    The donkey replied, ‘No!’”

    Cried the priest: “Even the donkey blushed for shame concerning your prophet’s over-sexed inquiries! Here we have what is supposed to be a miracle—a talking donkey; and of all things to communicate to this animal, your prophet’s most urgent question was whether the donkey lusts after females?”

    Next, reading from Sahih Bukhari (5/2012), Fr Botros relayed an account where Muhammad went into the house of a young woman named Umaima bint Nua’m and commanded her to “Give yourself to me!” The woman responded,

    “Shall a queen give herself to the rabble?” Shaking his fist, Muhammad threatened her, and then sent her off to her parents.

    Zakaria Botros: “You see, people, even back then, in those dark ages, there were still people who had principles, who did not give way to threats and coercion. However, the real question here is, why was Muhammad contradicting the commandments of his own Koran—“if a believing woman gives herself to the prophet” (33:50)—trying to coerce this young lady?”

    Finally, with a most distasteful look on his face, the priest read from a hadith in al-Siyuti (6/395), where Muhammad asserts that, “In heaven, Mary mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives.”

    “Please, O prophet,” quoth the Coptic Orthodox priest, “do not implicate our saints with your filthy practices…”

    PART IV:

    Fr Botros then lamented how for 1400 years barriers have been erected around Muhammad so no one—Muslim or infidel—could critique his life: “But the time has come, my friends; the barrier is broken!”

    Next he recapped the past three episodes dealing with Muhammad’s sexual habits—including (but not limited to) his sucking the tongues of boys and girls, kissing the breasts of his daughter Fatima, “lusting” after 2-3 year-old girls, laying with a dead woman, homosexual inclinations, receiving revelations while dressed in women’s clothing, copulating with nine women in a row without washing in between (and then bragging about it), greeting people while in the nude, and proclaiming that he will copulate with Mary the mother of Jesus in heaven. (To this latter one, the priest, with a disgusted look on his face, said, “Come on, guy! Get real.”)

    He began this episode by saying that no less than 34 books, including the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi and Sahih Muslim, record that Muhammad used to “fondle”—Botros scowled at the screen—“kiss and have sex while fasting, though he forbade others from doing so.”

    Said the host: “Interesting. But we know that prophets have special dispensations: Do you have anything more explicit?”

    Fr Botros: “Fine. How’s this: the prophet used to visit [copulate with] his women when they were menstruating — so sorry for this disgusting topic! Forgive me, people!”

    He then pointed out that the main problem with this is that the Koran (2:222)—“Muhammad’s own words,” as he put it—forbade Muslims from going near menstruating women.

    He went on to quote from a number of hadiths affirming that Muhammad freely had sex with menstruating women, including from Sahih Bukhari (v.5, p. 350), which said that if Muhammad desired a menstruating woman, he placed a sheet around her and proceeded with his business, to which the priest cried:

    “Come on man! Couldn’t you find another one of your 66 women? It just had to be the one menstruating?”

    Then, earnestly looking into the camera: “But seriously, people: are you not ashamed of these things? I know I am—just mentioning them. And this is your ‘prophet’—the ‘exemplary man’?”

    He then read a hadith, narrated by Aisha, and contained in the canonical six, wherein the prophet’s young wife recounted how, whenever she was menstruating, if the prophet “wanted her,” he used to “command” her to have sex with him, to which the priest exclaimed—“Commanded! This is rape! Who is this character you are following?”

    He read from a number of other hadiths, all demonstrative of Muhammad’s sexual proclivities toward menstruating women—which the Koran forbids—adding, “People, if this is how the ‘prophet of God’ behaves, what can we expect from the average man?”

    Asked the host: “Well, could other men behave this way?”

    Fr Botros: “Sure, the prophet was always generous to his followers, giving them ways out. According to eight hadith compilations, Ibn Abbas relayed that Muhammad said if a man cannot help himself and copulates with his menstruating wife, all he has to do is pay one dinar in atonement; if he sleeps with her towards the end of her cycle, when she isn’t bleeding as much, he need only pay half a dinar—a discount!” [saying “discount” in English and laughing].

    Host: “As you pointed out, since Muhammad had so many women, why did he even feel the need to resort to the ones that were menstruating?”

    Fr Botros: “Ahhhh. I see you are wisely connecting the dots. The simple reason, my friend, is that Muhammad used to like smelling”—here he went sniff, sniff—“menstruation blood.” He then quoted from al-Siyuti, where Aisha relayed that Muhammad said to her “Come here,” to which she replied, “But I am menstruating, O prophet of God.” So he said “Expose your thighs”; she did so and “he proceeded to lay his cheek and chest on her thighs.”

    Fr Botros: “Help me people! How can such perverse behavior come from a prophet—the ‘greatest role model’?”

    He then read a Sahih Bukhari hadith (v.6, p.2744) relayed by Aisha where she said that, while menstruating, the prophet used to lay his head on her thighs and recite the Koran.

    Fr Botros: “While reciting the Koran!!”

    Next he read from Ahkam al-Koran (v.3, p.444) where a woman declared that she used to cup water from a well that had, not just menstruation blood, but dog flesh, and all manner of filth, and give Muhammad to drink.

    Fr Botros: “What happened to Koran 2:222?! Yet the ‘seal of the prophets’ can drink such foul water?”

    Then, while shaking his head with eyes downcast: “O Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad…”

    PART V:

    “This is all from your own books, O Muslims!”

    Last we left the Coptic priest, he was discussing Muhammad’s predilection for menstruating women—even though the Koran itself (as Fr Botros put it, “his own words”) forbid men from getting near to menstruating women.

    Here, the priest was interested in examining Muhammad’s faithlessness towards his wives (though one would have thought the plural renders the notion of faithfulness moot), his sexually exploitative behavior, and his reliance on very obscene language.

    First, Fr Botros spent some time discussing the well known story where the prophet betrayed his wife Hafsa with a slave-girl (Unfortunately, one cannot capture the hilarity with which the priest recounted this tale.)

    In short, after sending Hafsa to visit her father, the latter, halfway there, realized that it was “her day”—that is, the day when, of all his wives, Muhammad would visit her for “conjugal relations.” She hurried back (Fr Botros added “She knew him well: if she wasn’t there on her day, he would go crazy and grab the first female passing by!”).

    In fact, Hafsa caught Muhammad with a slave-girl on the former’s bed. Muhammad quickly evicted the slave-girl and told Hafsa that if she kept this between them, he would henceforth refrain from the slave-girl.

    To no avail: Hafsa gabbed and soon all of Muhammad’s wives revolted against his incessant philandering; As Fr Botros put it, “When things got critical, Muhammad decided to drop a ‘new revelation’ on them; so he threw surat al-tahrim (66: 1-11) at them, wherein Allah supposedly chastises Muhammad for trying to please his wives by not sleeping around, threatening the wives to get in line lest the prophet divorce them—indeed, lest they all go to hell.”

    Then, looking at the screen, Fr Botros asked, “Imagine, dear lady, if your husband asked you to go on errand and then you return before your time only to find him in bed with another woman? What sort of man would that make him in your eyes? Yet it’s worse—it’s your prophet, whom you all extol as the most perfect human, to be slavishly emulated!”

    He then pointed out that “clever little Aisha knew him [Muhammad] well”: whenever such verses were revealed rescuing Muhammad, Aisha would often observe that “Verily, your lord (Allah) is ever quick to fulfill your whims and desires (e.g., al-Siyuti v.6, p.629).

    Next the priest relayed an account portraying how the prophet sexually exploited a “retarded” woman. According to 23 sources (e.g., Sahih Muslim vol.4, p.1812) a feeble-minded woman came up to Muhammad saying, “O prophet of Allah! I have something for you.” He clandestinely met her out back and took this “something” from her.

    Added Fr Botros: “I fear now that many believers will want to implement this sunna—don’t do it, guys, this is just to illustrate…. Listen you Muslims: don’t hate me for revealing all this to you; don’t lie in wait to kill me. I am merely revealing what your books contain. And, as always, we humbly await the great sheikhs and ulema to address these issues and show us where we went wrong.”

    Next, Fr Botros discussed the sort of foul language Muhammad — the “greatest example” — employed: “Sorry, so sorry to reveal to you the sort of despicable language Muhammad used—language I am too ashamed to even mention. In fact, your prophet said one of the most obscene Arabic words—the equivalent of the ‘f-word’ [he counseled his Arabic viewers to google the “f-word” to understand what he was talking about]. “

    Refusing to pronounce or spell this word, which he said appears in 67 books, including Sahih Bukhari, the text containing this word, “inkat-ha” — or, in context, Muhammad asking a man about a woman if he “f***** her” — was portrayed on the screen for all to read.

    Then, “Quick! take that filth down! What would you Muslims do if the Sheikh of al Azhar went around using such language? Worse — it’s your prophet, the ‘greatest creation.’”

    The host asked if Muhammad used any other foul language, to which the priest responded, “Oh, boy, did he ever; unfortunately this program is way too short to list them all.”

    According to Qaid al-Qadir (v.1, p.381), Muhammad told Muslims to retort to uppity infidels by saying things like — again, he didn’t pronounce it, but the text appeared on the screen — “Go bite on your mother’s clitoris!” or, according to Zad al-Mi’ad (v.3, p305), “Go bite on your dad’s penis!”

    Then, once again while shaking his head in sheer disappointment, “O prophet of Allah…prophet of Allah….Would that you would’ve heeded your lord Jesus’ counsel: ‘The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks’ (Luke 6:45).”

    Like

    • This is ridiculous. I can’t post on Jihad Watch because Spenser doesn’t like atheists. But this fruitcake gets a free hand here.

      At least I’m concise and post my own writings.

      Like

      • FWIW, atheism provides a better perspective (I think). They are quite a spectacle, these hirsute anachronisms, adorned in pajamas midday, asserting that the superiority of their make-believe requires the world to recognize their entitlement to the planet.

        Like

  5. he Arabs did not invent nzmbers — the Indians did. The Arabs did not invent Algebra, the Indian Brahmin priests did, in order to build their altars perfectly. The Arabs did not discover zero, the Indian mathemetician Brahmagupta did in the 7th Century.
    The Arabs came out of the desert and didn’t invent anything, they overtook all the inventions of the peoples they conquered and claimed they were Arabic. Muslims are plagerrsts and stupid.

    Like

    • To be fair, yes a few muslims did get the Nobel Peace Prizer.
      Anwar Al-Sadat (Egyptian President, for his (mutual) peace offer to Israel)
      Yasser Arafat (for his determination to destroy Israel)
      Mohamed Elbaradel(anti nuclear weapons activist) Egypt
      Mohammad Yunus, Bangladesh, for what exactly?
      BARACK OBAMA !!!, for fucking up the Middle East.
      Malala Yousafzai, Pakistan, for being shot in the head but still remaining a fervent apostle for Islam.
      Burka wearing Tawakkol Karman(Yemen) for…???

      Like

  6. Islam is a disease inflicted on the world, beginning in 622 AD, when Muhammad was kicked out of Mecca (accoording to Islamic tradition.) You think Naziism was bad? Naziism was a secular totalitarian ideology – Islam is a ‘sacred’ totalitarian ideology, ordained by that non-existing ‘gaseous vertebrate’ (Huxley) al-Lah, which makes it far more dangerous…Oh, and anything a Muslim tells you about Islam is usually a lie. Taqiyya, the ‘holy lie’, is a Muslim obligation, permitted as long as it serves to advance the faith…

    Like

  7. @Henry Thoreau: actually, I think that the number zero comes from India, the old ayur vedic texts about mathematics. The arabs invaded India and burned their libraries, but “stole” the number zero from them and claim that it is a muslim invention.

    Like

  8. Aren’t “Arabic Numerals” traceable to Northern India, being adopted, because of their utility, by every party along trade routes?

    Weren’t the works of Ptolemaic scholars appropriated as fruits of jihad (also known as loot, swag or lolly) and distributed under an Arabic claim of authorship, that author’s name being corrupted into the word algebra?

    Isn’t their claim to the development the astrolabe belied by its existence before the time of the Prophet?

    The only things they’ve shown the world are their reprehensible behaviors and self-obsession. Their only gift to us is the obligation to expunge them from our midst for our internal security, while we ponder how we will deal with a nuclear-tipped Caliphate in the future.

    There is no spirit world, no gods, demons, angels, jinns, whatever, and every purported prophet, whether delusional or a conman was and is a fraud. There are no exceptions.
    And until the devote Muslims abandon belief, they are the enemy of every other person upon the planet, and this is by their design.

    I’m old. But I’m seeing a future develop much more weird than anything I encountered reading science fiction a half-century ago.

    Like

  9. What did Muslims do during the middle ages besides invade half of Europe? I thought they just invented the number Zero, or maybe that was before Mohammed raped a 9 year old. I can’t keep track. But inventing 0 is very important, as it represents all that they can be.

    Like

    • The Islamic world made important advances in science, such as in algebra, chemistry, geology, spherical trigonometry, etc. which were later also transmitted to the West.[1][5] Stefan of Pise translated into Latin around 1127 an Arab manual of medical theory. The method of algorism for performing arithmetic with Indian-Arabic numerals was developed by the Persian al-Khwarizmi (hence the word “Algorithm”) in the 9th century, and introduced in Europe by Leonardo Fibonacci (1170–1250).[6] A translation by Robert of Chester of the Algebra by al-Kharizmi is known as early as 1145. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen, 980–1037) compiled treatises on optical sciences, which were used as references by Newton and Descartes. Medical sciences were also highly developed in Islam as testified by the Crusaders, who relied on Arab doctors on numerous occasions. Joinville reports he was saved in 1250 by a “Saracen” doctor.[7]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

      Like

      • I’m a fan of Dawkins and Atheist and it was the Dawkins link that brought me here. I have no love for Islam but history does show that early Islam did contribute some things to civilization and that was what Dawkins was referring to in his comment thus the link I posted. So I have no problem giving credit when credit is due especially when history shows different. I don’t expect ANY religion today to move humanity forward and certainly not Islam.

        Like

  10. Seriously amused that “economics Nobels aren’t quite real”. What about the Nobel peace prize then? That one is seriously unreal, or at least surreal.
    Take that one out as well and the Muslims lose 6 out of their 10!
    So the decision goes back to Trinity, Mr.Alumnus.
    Thus I think that Faisal Islam is being very careful in what he considers to be “real” Nobels!

    Like

  11. Notice how they attack Dawkins for saying this, because they do not seem to be able to show that what he said was incorrect, untrue or invalid. It seems this view is held by a lot of top scientists around the world, for example this one :

    “I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.” – Steven Weinberg – Noble Prize for Physics in the “The Atheism Tapes (2004)”
    Interview in 2003, broadcast as Episode 2

    Dawkins is very mild compared to what other scientists think about Islam and it’s impact on the world. And these scientists should come out and say what they are thinking. Islam has nothing to offer the world, and certainly the Qur’an has nothing of value that non religious people do not already use in their daily lives.

    Show that Dawkins has made an incorrect statement, or accept that you can not because it is a true statement.

    Like

    • YO MIKE,

      This is what you are up against:

      THE PERFECT MUSLIM

      And surely thou hast sublime morals
      (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

      Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
      (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

      Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

      Muhammad fantasized about baby Aisha before soliciting her from her father

      Sahih Bukhari 9.140 Narrated ‘Aisha:

      Allah’s apostle said to me, “you were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘if this is from Allah, then it must happen.

      Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 7, book 62, number 17 Narrated jabir bin ‘abdullah:

      When I got married, Allah’s apostle said to me, “what type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron.” he said, “why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s apostle said, “why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?”

      Muhammad, 50, marries baby Aisha at age 6

      Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234

      Narrated Aisha: the prophet engaged (married) me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, um ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.

      …….she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some ansari women who said, “best wishes and Allah’s blessing and a good luck.” then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

      Bukhari vol 8, bk 73, no 151

      Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, & my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join & play with me. (the playing with the dolls & similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)

      PREPUBESCENT BRIDES

      Quran 65.4 “and those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘iddah (prescribed divorce period), if you have doubts (about their p The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy. Al-Qaradawi sounded matter-of-fact, indicating no moral conflict, nor even hesitation, about this policy in Islam. On the contrary, he asserted the legitimacy of Islamic laws in relying on vigilante street justice through fear, intimidation, torture & murder against any person who might dare to leave Islam.
      (Periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. They are still immature) their ‘iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] .

      And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens) (give birth) and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to him, he will make his matter easy for him.”

      Sura (65:4) lays down rules for divorce and sets the prescribed period for divorce. It clearly says, Muslim men can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age. This means that Muslim men were allowed to marry baby girls. This is the eternal word of god. This is an eternal law of Allah. All Muslims must believe in this teaching. Otherwise, they are no longer Muslims but apostates of Islam.

      HOW TO THIGH

      Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith, which was quoted earlier, mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

      Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
      According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

      Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

      Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

      Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.“Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

      The inquirer asked the following:‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’
      After the committee studied the issue, they gave the following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

      That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers’” (Fatwa No. 31409).

      Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

      Mohammed heard one of his wives was leaving him, so he rushed home where he found her on the carpet in front of the tent with her belongings; he sat down beside her & said, “I heard you were planning to leave me?”
      She replied, “Yes, I heard your other wives saying, you were a pedophile!”
      Mohammed thinks for a minute or so & then responds,
      “that’s a mighty big word for a 6 year old child.”

      YOU TUBE
      Pedophilia in Islam , thighing children , fondling underage girls pedophilia – whole film

      by Hoplit300•

      What is “thighing”?

      by neotropic9•

      **Thighing**Mufakhathat

      by bigtone1979Taiwan•

      Thighing of Female Children In Islam
      by Thomas Ahmed•
      Child Bride in Islam.

      Sure 65:4 Mufa’ Khathat – thighing ISLAM

      by Merauder2000•
      wwwislamqacom wwwislamqacom wwwaltafsircom schnellmannorg

      Muhammad Aisha Pedophile Child Rape Muslim Marriage Law 1 Muhaddithorg
      by AwesomeIslam•

      The Qur’an and Marrying Little Girls

      Islam does allow you to marry pre-menstruating girls. The following verse is from At-Talaq (or Divorce). Islam’s main concern during a divorce is knowing who the father is (in case of a pregnancy). The waiting period is known as iddah.

      65.4 Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO COURSES (it is the same): for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make things easy for them.

      Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Commentary)
      And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have NOT YET MENSTRUATED, because of their YOUNG AGE, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.

      Tafsir Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahid
      (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan Abu’l-Azhar Asbat ibn Muhammad Mutarrif Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those WHO ARE TOO YOUNG [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.

      Islamic Websitehttp://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12667
      “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise…”

      Tafsir ibn Kathir (Read at your own leisure)
      http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54223

      SHARIA LAW:

      A FATHER CANNOT BE EXECUTED FOR MURDERING HIS WIVES OR CHILDREN.
      In Saudi Arabia, the human rights group “Women to Drive” is protesting the light sentence given a Muslim preacher for the torture, rape and murder of his five-year old daughter, on suspicion that she was not a virgin. According to various reports, it is said that according to sharia law, a father cannot be executed for murdering his children, nor a husband for murdering his wives.

      The following ruling is promulgated by orthodox Sunni Islam; a parent is “not subject to retaliation” (or, retribution) “for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” Jihad Watch attributes the worldwide epidemic in honor killings to the spread of Muslims worldwide. According to some Islamic scholars, honor killings predate all the major contemporary religions of the world, and are part of the common primitive, tribal and patriarchal prehistory of mankind.

      However, international surveys indicate that many Muslims believe their religion sanctions honor killings. The recent ruling from Saudi Arabia indicates honor killing continues to be countenanced by Muslim jurists in majority Muslim countries. As to the meaning of “blood money,” it pertains to paying for the economic loss suffered by the victim or next of kin.

      According to the Talmud, in the case of a loss due to simple negligence, it is equal to three components: (A) medical expenses, (B) the loss of wages, and (C) the amount a person of similar status would pay to avoid the pain and suffering. In the case of a loss due to criminal negligence short of premeditated murder, the law of retribution (“eye for an eye”) pertains, although the victim could exercise mercy and accept only blood money. In the case of premeditated murder, there can be no mercy. That there is a distinction between simple negligence (such as an industrial accident) and criminal negligence is made clear in Deuteronomy Chapter 19.

      The law of retribution is thus confined to crimes as opposed to mere torts; and even in the case of criminal negligence, mercy might be exercised. While we are on the subject of “eye for an eye,” I will comment briefly of what Jesus had to say. He said “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Being hit on the right check is to be hit with the left or weak hand of the offender. It’s a Jewish idiom for being insulted. Jesus said do not return insult for insult, but see if an actual harm follows. In my Army days, we put it this way, don’t get into a pissing contest. (Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would put it that way.) Why even school children know this. They say, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

      Getting back to the law retribution, we could say that a parent is presumed to love his children and, so, in the absence of strong evidence, will only be held liable for blood money when responsible for the death of a child. If sharia law merely establishes a refutable presumption, it would make sense. Indeed, if you think that both revelation and reason are witnesses to the truth, reason would guide your interpretation of the Koran. This is how conservative Jews approach the Bible. We say you have to realize the texts come from a culture and literary style where allegory, exaggeration, sarcasm and humor are often employed, even where there are degrees of “no.” But, in Islam, the orthodox have been in charge for a long time now, and they almost insist that sharia law is to be followed even if it contradicts reason. I will conclude with a consideration of how faithful the Islamic scholars are the principle of restitution. As a forensic economist, I have numerous times offered my expert opinion to courts of law dealing with economic loss calculation. To be sure, I would adjust my calculation according to any specific information regarding the earnings potential or life expectancy of a particular person. In the absence of such information, I can only go by averages. Considering the per capita GDP of Saudi Arabia ($25,000), her work life expectancy (from 21 to 62), and the time value of money (at 6%), the economic loss suffered by the girl’s death is approximately $400,000. Not the puny amount $50,000 that has been reported! Those who claim they are doing justice are liars. And that they claim to do justice in the Name of God, they are damn liars! The man who killed this girl should, according to sharia law, be sold into slavery if he cannot pay $400,000, even if it accepted that he killed the girl out of a simple negligence. But, it is obvious that more than simple negligence was involved.

      Saudi Arabia’s Royal Family has intervened in the case of a leading cleric who raped and tortured his five-year-old daughter to death, causing outrage at home and abroad.
      Lama al-Ghamdi was admitted to hospital in the town of Hotat Bani Tamim in November with a crushed skull, broken back and shattered ribs. Social workers said that she had been repeatedly raped and her body burnt.

      REMEMBER Lama al-Ghamdi

      Lama al-Ghamdi a five year old child, was raped & tortured to death by her celebrity cleric father Fayhan al-Ghamdi.
      Lama al-Ghamdi’s back was broken and she had been raped and burned. She died in October from her injuries after seven months in hospital. Her father Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a prominent Islamist preacher, admitted beating her. Her mother Syeda Mohammed Ali, has said she will bring a case against her ex-husband.

      5 Feb 2013

      The mother of a five-year-old Saudi girl who was tortured to death by her ‘celebrity cleric’ father, has said she wants him brought to justice.
      Lama al-Ghamdi died in October having suffered multiple injuries including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm as well as extensive bruising.
      It has been alleged that she had also been repeatedly raped and that the injuries she sustained from the sexual abuse had been burned.

      Lama suffered multiple injuries including a crushed skull, broken ribs and back, bruising and burns. She had been raped repeatedly and died of her injuries in October
      It was previously reported that her father Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a prominent Islamist preacher who regularly appears on television in Saudi Arabia, had been released after paying ‘blood money’ to his ex-wife, and Lama’s mother, Syeda Mohammed Ali.
      It has now emerged that Lama’s mother is bringing her own case against al-Ghamdi, who is still in prison.

      ‘Even BABIES must wear the burka’: Saudi cleric says newborn girls should have their faces veiled to help ward off sex attacks
      Taliban shooting victim Malala, 15, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for ‘commitment so threatening to the extremists they tried to kill her’
      Welcome to Bin Laden Land! Pakistan plans £19million amusement park with zoo, mini-golf and ski ramp in town where Al Qaeda leader was killed
      ‘My dear child is dead, and all I want now is justice so I can close my eyes and know she didn’t die in vain,’ Syeda Mohammed Ali, told CNN, adding that her daughter was ‘brutally tortured in the most shocking ways.’
      She is divorced from al-Ghamdi who is remarried and has two more children, and claims the torture happened whilst Lama was in her father’s care in March last year.
      ‘The state needs to even consider taking his two children from him and his wife away because I fear for their lives,’ she added.

      Torture: Saudi preacher Fayhan al-Ghamdi admitting beating his daughter with a cable and is said to have been concerned about his five-year-old daughter’s virginity
      ‘These are not some unfounded accusations, but everything is based on the medical examination by the hospital and the team of physicians who treated Lama when she was first admitted.’
      She said al-Ghamdi had voiced concerns about five-year-old Lama’s virginity.
      According to the Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, al-Ghamdi has been imprisoned for the past eight months and that the case is still under review.
      Syeda Mohammed Ali said her ex-husband has admitted to the torture and will face justice when the next hearing in the case takes place in two weeks.
      Activists from the group Women to Drive said the preacher had doubted Lama’s virginity and had her checked up by a medic.
      Randa al-Kaleeb, a social worker from the hospital where Lama was admitted, said the girl’s back was broken and that she had been repeatedly raped and her injuries burned.
      It was reported that al-Ghamdi agreed to pay £31,000 ($50,000) in blood money, a fact denied by Lama’s mother who says al-Ghamdi did not rape Lama.
      Activists say under Islamic laws a father cannot be executed for murdering his children. Husbands can also not be executed for murdering their wives, the group say.
      Three Saudi activists, including Manal al-Sharif, who started the women’s right to drive campaign, have raised objections to the case as it highlights the urgent need for legislation to protect women and children from domestic abuse.
      Manal al-Sharif has launched a campaign on Twitter using the hashtag ‘Ana Lama’, which is translated as I am Lama, calling for an improvement on the judicial treatment of women and children.
      Local reports say public anger in Saudi Arabia is also growing and authorities have said they will create a 24-hour hotline to take calls about child abuse.

      Like

      • TL;DR…do you actually think that anyone will read that disjointed heap of cut-and-paste idiocy? That’s not a constructive contribution at all.

        Like

    • MIKE YO YO,

      People like you are ignorant of the teachings of Mohammed & his Cult of Death. Before you discuss any aspect of Mohammedanism, you must know what they really teach & not the Western version of Mohammedanism. Everything I post is 100% correct & hopefully people will see what we are dealing with, when its “converts” attempt to call the Cult of Death, the Religion of Peace.

      How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
      Defeating Jihadist Terrorism

      Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam’s dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur’an is against believers deceiving other believers—for “surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar”[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur’anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.
      Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one’s religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi’i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

      Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam’s code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

      The Doctrine of Taqiyya
      According to Shari’a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,[2] based on Qur’anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.[3]

      This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi’i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.[4] Taqiyya allowed the Shi’a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.
      However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that taqiyya is not limited to Shi’a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:

      Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]

      Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi’i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi’a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity[6]). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi’a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that made taqiyya integral to Shi’ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

      The Articulation of Taqiyya
      Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”[7]

      Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur’an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:

      If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[8]

      Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur’an, writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”[9]

      Other prominent scholars, such as Abu ‘Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi ‘d-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a Muslim: “Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire.”[10]

      Deceit in Muhammad’s Military Exploits
      Muhammad—whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be followed in every detail—took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one’s wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, “The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”[13]

      Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn al-‘Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”[14]

      This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na’im ibn Mas’ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist’s conversion, he counseled Mas’ud to return and try to get the pagan forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, “For war is deceit.” Mas’ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.[15] Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by evoking their prophet’s assertion that “war is deceit.”

      A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Ka’b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt God and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka’b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka’b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka’b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka’b’s guard was down, killed him.[16]

      Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as “God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr.”[17]

      In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others.”[19]

      Taqiyya in Qur’anic Revelation
      The Qur’an itself is further testimony to taqiyya. Since God is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he is by default seen as the ultimate perpetrator of deceit—which is not surprising since he is described in the Qur’an as the best makar, that is, the best deceiver or schemer (e.g., 3:54, 8:30, 10:21).

      While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur’an is the only holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in the Qur’an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the Shari’a worldview—the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over earlier ones whenever there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur’an’s verses evolved (known as an-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).
      But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength, verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly “revealed”—in principle, sent down from God—always commensurate with Islam’s growing capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages: passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.[20] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.

      Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two year period, the Qur’an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.[21] Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad’s career—such as, “Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it”[22]—would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.

      However interpreted, the standard view on Qur’anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one’s intentions.[23]

      War Is Eternal
      That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, “All’s fair in love and war.”[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur’an, “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.”[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily.”[26]

      Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur’an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including “every other verse in the Qur’an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers.”[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse.”[28]

      Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the “realm of submission,” the world where Shari’a governs; the second, dar al-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day. The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:

      In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[29]

      Finally and all evidence aside, lest it still appear unreasonable for a faith with over one billion adherents to obligate unprovoked warfare in its name, it is worth noting that the expansionist jihad is seen as an altruistic endeavor, not unlike the nineteenth century ideology of “the white man’s burden.” The logic is that the world, whether under democracy, socialism, communism, or any other system of governance, is inevitably living in bondage—a great sin, since the good of all humanity is found in living in accordance to God’s law. In this context, Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to a glorious end—Islamic hegemony under Shari’a rule, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

      This view has an ancient pedigree: Soon after the death of Muhammad (634), as the jihad fighters burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They memorably replied as follows:
      God has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of God, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of God.[30]

      Fourteen hundred years later— in March 2009—Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

      As a member of the true religion, I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Shari’a], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.[31]

      And it should go without saying that taqiyya in the service of altruism is permissible. For example, only recently, after publicly recounting a story where a Muslim tricked a Jew into converting to Islam—warning him that if he tried to abandon Islam, Muslims would kill him as an apostate—Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri called it a “beautiful trick.”[32] After all, from an Islamic point of view, it was the Jew who, in the end, benefitted from the deception, which brought him to Islam.

      Treaties and Truces
      The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] “By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike.”[34] Hence “the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims].”[35]
      Even though Shari’a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: “If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better.”[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God’s word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]

      In short, the prerequisite for peace or reconciliation is Muslim advantage. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni legal text, Umdat as-Salik, written by a fourteenth-century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: “There must be some benefit [maslaha] served in making a truce other than the status quo: ‘So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost [Qur’an 47:35].'”[40]

      More recently, and of great significance for Western leaders advocating cooperation with Islamists, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a mosque in Johannesburg where he justified his actions: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca.”[41] In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once “something better” came along—that is, once the Palestinians became strong enough to renew the offensive and continue on the road to Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Hudaybiya has appeared as a keyword for radical Islamists. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front had three training camps within the Camp Abu Bakar complex in the Philippines, one of which was named Camp Hudaybiya.[42]

      Hostility Disguised As Grievance
      In their statements directed at European or American audiences, Islamists maintain that the terrorism they direct against the West is merely reciprocal treatment for decades of Western and Israeli oppression. Yet in writings directed to their fellow Muslims, this animus is presented, not as a reaction to military or political provocation but as a product of religious obligation.
      For instance, when addressing Western audiences, Osama bin Laden lists any number of grievances as motivating his war on the West—from the oppression of the Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women, and even U.S. failure to sign the environmental Kyoto protocol—all things intelligible from a Western perspective. Never once, however, does he justify Al-Qaeda’s attacks on Western targets simply because non-Muslim countries are infidel entities that must be subjugated. Indeed, he often initiates his messages to the West by saying, “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice” or “Peace to whoever follows guidance”[43]—though he means something entirely different than what his Western listeners understand by words such as “peace,” “justice,” or “guidance.”

      It is when bin Laden speaks to fellow Muslims that the truth comes out. When a group of prominent Muslims wrote an open letter to the American people soon after the strikes of 9/11, saying that Islam seeks to peacefully coexist,[44] bin Laden wrote to castigate them:
      As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We [Muslims] renounce you [non-Muslims]. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in God alone” [Qur’an 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi, or protected minority], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! … Such then is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.[45]

      Mainstream Islam’s four schools of jurisprudence lend their support to this hostile Weltanschauung by speaking of the infidel in similar terms. Bin Laden’s addresses to the West with his talk of justice and peace are clear instances of taqiyya. He is not only waging a physical jihad but a propaganda war, that is, a war of deceit. If he can convince the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault, he garners greater sympathy for his cause. At the same time, he knows that if Americans were to realize that nothing short of their submission can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be quickly compromised. Hence the constant need to dissemble and to cite grievances, for, as bin Laden’s prophet asserted, “War is deceit.”

      Implications
      Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of ‘Ali Mohammad, bin Laden’s first “trainer” and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army’s military intelligence unit. After 1984, he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with “fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism.”[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God’s word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating “incredible self-confidence” when lying.[47]

      Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today’s multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God’s word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.

      It must, therefore, be accepted that, contrary to long-held academic assumptions, the doctrine of taqiyya goes far beyond Muslims engaging in religious dissimulation in the interest of self-preservation and encompasses deception of the infidel enemy in general. This phenomenon should provide a context for Shi’i Iran’s zeal—taqiyya being especially second nature to Shi’ism—to acquire nuclear power while insisting that its motives are entirely peaceful.
      Nor is taqiyya confined to overseas affairs. Walid Phares of the National Defense University has lamented that homegrown Islamists are operating unfettered on American soil due to their use of taqiyya: “Does our government know what this doctrine is all about and, more importantly, are authorities educating the body of our defense apparatus regarding this stealthy threat dormant among us?”[48] After the Fort Hood massacre, when Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-Muslim who exhibited numerous Islamist signs which were ignored, killed thirteen fellow servicemen and women, one is compelled to respond in the negative.
      This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God’s will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God.”[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: “So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem.”[50]

      In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of “war and peace” as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of “war and deceit.” For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

      Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.
      [1] Qur’an 40:28.
      [2] Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi, At-Tafsir al-Kabir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2000), vol. 10, p. 98.
      [3] Qur’an 2:195, 4:29.
      [4] Paul E. Walker, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, John Esposito, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), vol. 4, s.v. “Taqiyah,” pp. 186-7; Ibn Babuyah, A Shi’ite Creed, A. A. A. Fyzee, trans. (London: n.p., 1942), pp. 110-2; Etan Kohlberg, “Some Imami-Shi’i Views on Taqiyya,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95 (1975): 395-402.
      [5] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author’s translation.
      [6] Devin Stewart, “Islam in Spain after the Reconquista,” Emory University, p. 2, accessed Nov. 27, 2009.
      [7] See also Quran 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28, verses cited by Muslim jurisprudents as legitimating taqiyya.
      [8] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.
      [9] ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.
      [10] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 30-7.
      [11] Imam Muslim, “Kitab al-Birr wa’s-Salat, Bab Tahrim al-Kidhb wa Bayan al-Mubih Minhu,” Sahih Muslim, rev. ed., Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2000).
      [12] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar, 2003), p. 304, author’s translation.
      [13] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, p. 32.
      [14] Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 142-3.
      [15] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 32-3.
      [16] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 367-8.
      [17] Shihab ad-Din Muhammad al-Alusi al-Baghdadi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim wa’ l-Saba’ al-Mithani (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 2, p. 118, author’s translation.
      [18] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 11-2.
      [19] Ibid., pp. 41-2.
      [20] Ibn Qayyim, Tafsir, in Abd al-‘Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa ‘s-Sunna (Riyahd: n.p., 2003), pp. 36-43.
      [21] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, p. 20.
      [22] Qur’an 2: 216.
      [23] Yahya bin Sharaf ad-Din an-Nawawi, An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths, p. 16, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
      [24] John Lyly, Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit (London, 1578), p. 236.
      [25] Qur’an 8:39.
      [26] Emile Tyan, The Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1960), vol. 2, s.v. “Djihad,” pp. 538-40.
      [27] David Bukay, “Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2007, pp. 3-11, f.n. 58; David S. Powers, “The Exegetical Genre nasikh al-Qur’an wa-mansukhuhu,” in Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur’an, Andrew Rippin, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 130-1.
      [28] Jalil, At-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa ‘ s-Sunna, p. 7.
      [29] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah. An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958), vol. 1, p. 473.
      [30] Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests (Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2007), p. 112.
      [31] “Saudi Legal Expert Basem Alem: We Have the Right to Wage Offensive Jihad to Impose Our Way of Life,” TV Monitor, clip 2108, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Mar. 26, 2009.
      [32] “Egyptian Cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri Recommends Tricking Jews into Becoming Muslims,” TV Monitor, clip 2268, Middle East Media Research Institute, trans., Aug. 10, 2009.
      [33] Denis MacEoin, “Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008, pp. 39-48.
      [34] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 220.
      [35] Ahmad Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina, p. 461, author’s translation.
      [36] Ibid., p. 469.
      [37] Muhammad al-Bukhari, “Judgements (Ahkaam),” Sahih al-Bukhari, book 89, M. Muhsin Khan, trans., accessed July 22, 2009.
      [38] Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton: Woodstock Publishers, 2006), p. 148.
      [39] Ahmed Akgündüz, “Why Did the Ottoman Sultans Not Make Hajj (Pilgrimage)?” accessed Nov. 9, 2009.
      [40] Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 605.
      [41] Daniel Pipes, “Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad’s Diplomacy,” Middle East Quarterly, Sept. 1999, pp. 65-72.
      [42] Arabinda Acharya, “Training in Terror,” IDSS Commentaries, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, May 2, 2003.
      [43] “Does hypocrite have a past tense?” for clip of Osama bin Laden, accessed Aug. 1, 2009.
      [44] Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Shahwan, et al, “Correspondence with Saudis: How We Can Coexist,” AmericanValues.org, accessed July 28, 2009.
      [45] Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43.
      [46] Steven Emerson, “Osama bin Laden’s Special Operations Man,” Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International, Sept. 1, 1998.
      [47] For lists of other infiltrators of U. S. organizations, see Daniel Pipes, “Islamists Penetrate Western Security,” Mar. 9, 2008.
      [48] Walid Phares, “North Carolina: Meet Taqiyya Jihad,” International Analyst Network, July 30, 2009.
      [49] Qur’an 8:39.
      [50] James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations: A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities (Clark, N.J.: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005), p. 124

      Like

    • I even wonder if I should post this, or remain silent. I’m putting this here so it can be encountered before “YO MIKE”,

      This is not a reply to Rita, but a question regarding the reply post to Mike below headed “YO MIKE,”. Is this the gift of a schizophrenic or an attack on the site?
      It seems that the one reply is 80+% of the page’s word count. I don’t question its veracity, but its seemingly documented salaciousness. Why…?

      FWIW, this reminds me of unmonitored poker blogs of a decade ago: exceptional bouts of insight were ultimately replaced by endless rantings, and valuable contributors stopped posting.

      Like

  12. “‘the last time Muslims contributed something worthwhile was during the Middle Ages’”

    I object to this statement: what have the muslims contributed that was worthwhile during the Middle Ages”?? Come to think of it (discarding the islamisation of the narrative), what have they EVER contributed that was worthwhile??

    Like

Published under FAIR USE of factual content citing US 17 U.S.C. § 107 fair use protection, Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and UK Section 30(1) of the 1988 Act.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s