Totalitarianism

Before the Beginning Before Christmas

Before the Beginning – Before Christmas

Safiyah the Jewish Wife of Muhammad

Safiyah, the Jewish Wife of Muhammad

The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty.  Muhammad ordered Kinana, the young husband of Safia to be tortured to death to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasure of the town. On the very nigh of that murder, he took Safia to his bed and claimed that young girl as his trophy. This story is reported by Tabari in detail. It can also be found in Sira of Ibn Ishaq.  The following is reported in the Book of Tabaqat  compiled by Ibn Sa’d and is published in the Islamic site http://www.muslimunited.org/topics/prophet/wives.html   Two years earlier, Muhammad had beheaded Huyeiy, the father of Safia along with 900 men of Bani Quraiza.

Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story.

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu ‘I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi’ to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account”. The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. “Why?” asked the Prophet. “I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!”

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character. However as for the rest of the story we are not sure whether it is true or was fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe the impression of rape. But this is all we have and to find the truth we have to rely on these biased documents written by Muslim historians. The story goes on to say that Abu Ayyub was concerned for the safety of the prophet because he (Muhammad) had killed Safiyah’s father, husband and many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a woman after killing her loved ones. But Safiyah’s excuse for rejecting Muhammad’s advances towards her seems unreasonable. When Muhammad took this young girl into his tent, he had already killed many Jews and was winning the war. If there were any Jews left, they probably were more worried for their own lives than Safiyah’s chastity. Also she was already in the tent alone with Muhammad, how the Jews would have known if they were engaged in sex or not? I wonder what other excuse could she make to a man who was the murderer of her father, husband and many of her relatives to let her alone at least that night?

“The next day a Walima (wedding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet… 

Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the prophet as he had his Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married.

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 )

The above verse shows that the Holy prophet did not believe that slaves have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own life, but if Muhammad and his devout followers attacked your town and captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahid who would rape you all with Allah’s blessings.

This is confirmed in another place.

(Q. 23: 1-7)

1-The believers must (eventually) win through,-
2- Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
3-Who avoid vain talk;
4- Who are active in deeds of charity;
5- Who abstain from sex,
6- Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
7- But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-

Let us continue with the story of Safiyah. 

“The other wives of the Prophet showed their jealousy by making slights upon her Jewish origin. But the Prophet always defended her. Once Safiyah was vexed to the extreme by the taunts of all the Arab wives of the Prophet. She took the complaint to the Prophet, who felt great compassion for her. He consoled her. He encouraged her. He equipped her with logic. He said: “Safiyah, take courage and be bold. They are in no way superior to you. Tell them: I am a daughter of the Prophet Harun, a niece of the Prophet Musa, and a wife of the Prophet Muhammad”.  

When she was brought along with other prisoners-of-war, the Prophet said to her, “Safiyah, your father always maintained enmity with me until Allah made the final decision.” She said, “But Allah does not catch one for the sins of another.” 

This of course contradicts Muhammad’s own behavior who annihilated the entire Bani Qainuqa with the pretext that few of them had killed a Muslim in retaliation . That is despite the verse that says “Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Q. 53:38)  Also it was not Allah who made the final decision. Safiyah’s father was killed by Muhammad’s men not by Allah. This would be the same as Hitler claiming that God killed all the Jews in the holocaust. If God wanted to kill all those people that Muhammad and his army killed He could have done it on his own. God needs no mercenaries to do his will.

“The Prophet then gave her the choice of joining her people after freedom or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with him” 

We have to remember that Muhammad killed most of her people and banished the rest of them. So giving the choice to join her people is not much of a choice.

“She was very intelligent and gentle and said, “O Allah’s Messenger, I had hoped for Islam, and I confirmed you before your invitation. Now when I have the honour to be in your presence, I am given a choice between kufr and Islam I swear by Allah, that Allah and His Messenger is dearer to me than my own freedom and my joining with my people.” (Tabaqat). 

Was this confession, if true, sincere? Was she safe to speak out her mind? She was enslaved by a man who had exterminated her family and could do with her the same. See the reference made to her “freedom”. This shows clearly that she was not free. In fact she must have been very intelligent to fabricate those lies to save her own life.

“When Safiyah was married, she was very young, and according to one report she was hardly seventeen years old and was extremely beautiful. Once A’isha said a few sentences about her short stature, at which the Prophet said, “You have said a thing that if it were left in the sea, it would mix with it (and make its water dirty). ” (Abu Dawud). She not only deeply loved the Prophet but also greatly respected him as Allah’s Messenger, for she heard the conversations of her father and uncle after they went to Medinah. When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them said, “What do you think about him?” He replied, “He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures.” Then the other said, “What is to be done?” The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might.” 

Is this story, narrated by Abu Dawud, credible? How can two Jews recognize Muhammad as the prophet foretold by their scriptures and decide to oppose him with all their might? It defies all logic. It takes a “deficient in intelligence” to believe in this nonsense. It is not clear whether Safiyah lied to conform and make her self accepted among her enemies or it is another fabrication of a zealot believer. Why would someone decide to oppose with all his might the one who he has found out to be the promised one of his own scriptures? But this is not all! Where in the Bible it says anything about Muhammad? How come Safiyah’s father and uncle could decipher their scriptures and find about Muhammad while for 1400 years all Muslim scholars have been unable to do it?

“So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of. This is evident since she came into his presence after the fall of Khaibar.” 

See how the writer contradicts himself in one page? Just a few lines above we read that she was captured and was taken to Muhammad as a prisoner. She didn’t come on her own. She was taken to the prophet because she was young and the prettiest of other women captured.

“The Prophet had a slight grievance against her for she had refused when the Prophet wanted to have privacy with her at the previous stage (of the journey). At the next halt, the Prophet had privacy with her and spent all night with her. When she was asked by Umm Sulaim, “What did you see in Allah’s Messenger?” She said he was very pleased with her and did not sleep at all but was talking to her all night. He had asked her, ‘Why did you refuse at the first stage when I desired privacy with you?’ She had said, ‘I was afraid for you because of the nearness of the Jews. “‘This thing further increased my merit in his eyes.” (Tabaqat). 

Bukhari also has recorded some Hadithes telling the invasion of Kheibar and how Muhammad met Safiyah.

Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz:
Anas said, ‘When Allah’s Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, “With his army.”) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’ Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her.”

Thabit asked Anas, “O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?” He said, “Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her.” Anas added, “While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .  (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Mahr or dowry is a money that a bride receives from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. Of course the irony is that he did not buy her but enslaved her by raiding her town. This story is significant because it gives us an insight into the moral and ethical values of the Prophet of God (Peace be upon his immaculate soul).

Our modern sensibility makes us cringe with stories like this, yet amazingly Muhammad taught that he is going to receive two rewards by marrying Safiyah. One for manumitting someone whom no one but himself had enslaved and the other for marrying the prettiest girl who was 40 years younger.

Abu Musa reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about one who emancipated a slave woman, and then married her, that for him there are two rewards. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3327)

Also in another part

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’. (Sahih Bukhari V.5 B.59 N.512)

STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA

I highly recommend this book that clearly explains the truth about the threat of Islam to the USA and what to do to defend her from Islamization of America. It is written by one of the true patriots alive today and she does not sugar coat the truth!

Paul

Today Islamic supremacists are demanding more accommodation of Islamic principles and practices than ever, and daily growing more aggressive in eroding our freedoms—with politically correct public officials only too happy to oblige them. Speaking from the fruit of her experience as the national leader of the fight against the Ground Zero mega-mosque and numerous other initiatives, Geller’s guidebook provides a much-needed wake-up call about a sinister agenda that could do nothing less than destroy the United States – with unique instructions about how we can, and must, fight back now to defend our nation and civilization.

Packed with current information drawn from Geller’s front-line experience in the struggle against Islamist organizations and creeping Shariah in the United States, Stop the Islamization of America is an indispensable guidebook for everyone committed to defending American liberty.

Here is just a small sampling of what you’ll find in this book:

Startling new information about the full extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the Department of Justice, and its brazen pro-Muslim activities, including its “Monthly Outreach Meetings” with Muslim and Arab groups at the Civil Rights Division — and the 14,000 documents the DOJ won’t release that reveal the full, shocking extent of this cooperation.
A primer for protest against Islamic supremacist mosques and other initiatives in your local area.
A primer for how freedom fighters can deal with an adversarial media.
The shocking details of the travesty that is the 9/11 victims memorial, which is planning to put the unidentified remains of 9/11 victims seven stories underground inside a museum that charges admission — and which will include lavish profiles (above ground, of course) of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Sheepshead Bay mosque initiative and other mega-mosque initiatives nationwide: the sinister forces behind them and their insidious agenda.
Never-before-released details of the Islamic honor murders of the Texas teenagers Amina and Sarah Said.
The American Bar Association’s coverup of its work to resist anti-Sharia initiatives.
The Islamic schools that receive public money.
The truth behind Virginia’s failing to mail military ballots in time for them to be counted in the election of 2008.
Links between the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the Muslim Students Association.
AND MUCH MORE
Praise for Stop the Islamization of America:

The First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee is central to America’s character and our fundamental liberties. Equally important, and stemming from the same philosophical roots, is the Amendment’s twinned protection of religious freedom and its prohibition of establishing religion. These pillars of liberty are under attack around the world, and even here in America. If you want to preserve the Constitution, read this book. — John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations.

Americans are searching for ways to get involved in stopping the encroachment of Shariah law on the US Constitution and the takeover of our nation by the Muslim Brotherhood. Pamela Geller provides practical steps for every American to get involved in stopping the attack on our nation by the forces of evil. I hope that every concerned American reads and heads this book. — Lt. General Jerry Boykin, former United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He has played a role in almost every recent major American military operation, serving in Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, Author, Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to The Crossroads of Faith and Freedom.

This book fills an urgent need. Pamela Geller has brought together all her experience fighting the stealth jihad and Islamization to create the first practical guide to stopping the spread of Sharia and Islamic supremacism in America. Every patriot, everyone who loves the freedom we enjoy in America, must get this book and use it to equip themselves for the great struggle that lies ahead. — Dr. Wafa Sultan, former Muslim and author, A God Who Hates.

Among Westerners dedicated to human rights, freedom of speech and religion, Geller is a forceful and courageous voice, providing in this powerful book a democratic defense to fight the stealth jihadist threat against civilization. — Bat Ye’or, eminent historian, author of eight books including Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, and The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam.

Only Pamela Geller could have written this book. She has stood on the front lines against Islamic supremacism and Sharia encroachment with unparalleled courage and insight, formulating unique and innovative strategies to put the enemies of freedom on the defensive and fight effectively for human rights. The wisdom she has gleaned from her experience is all here, making this an essential handbook for every freedom fighter. — Robert Spencer, author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor, and publisher of AtlasShrugs.com. She is the executive director of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), as well as the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), and is a regular columnist for WND, the American Thinker, Human Events, and other publications. She is the author of “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.”

Product Details:
•Hardcover: 198 pages
•Publisher: WND Books (September 6, 2011)
•Language: English
•ISBN: 978-1-936488-36-0
NOTE: Purchasing “Stop The Islamization Of America” from WND’s online store also qualifies you to receive a FREE 3-month trial subscription to our immensely popular monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.

Product Reviews

Score: 5
Submit Your Review

Name: C Galloway
Review Date: 11/4/2011 9:15 am
Rating: 5

a must read
If you love America and do NOT want to see her downfall into a Sharia law nation . . . you MUST read this book !!
Thank you Pamela Geller for your time spent in research to expose the truth of Islam.

STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE RESISTANCE, By Pamela Geller

Book review: ‘The King James Bible and the Restoration’ provides some remarkable insights

http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/705394919

False Claims of Victory by generalthc

It is rather amusing when someone claims a “victory” because another will not or can not meet that person’s time line. Enjoy the hollow and false victory. Such a diminished self view that it needs to be bolstered by this kind of “victory” is regrettable. The bravado that bolsters an individual’s ego is obviously on display. And attempting to post your “rant” or comment repeatedly across my many posts demonstrates a deep desire for my approval for reasons I can not imagine. Yes, I deleted the 20+ attempts to post these comments without once responding to them. SO? You may have time to do so, but some of us have real lives, real commitments that preclude jumping through hoops that an individual “such as yourself” (read into that what you will) wish to impose on others without invitation.

Oh, and I concede nothing. I did not even bother reading your comment that I deleted over 20 times. Thus, I can not say that there is anything worthy or not of my limited time for which I could have chosen to respond. But, as you think so little of yourself that you outwardly portray an oversized positive opinion to convince others of your superiority, I decline to assist you in this. Please seek professional counseling for these issues of low self worth and possible anti-social personality disorder.

Paul

PS. The extra publicity for my blog is appreciated.

11/26/11 UPDATE:  In response to this posting, our poor deluded friend has made additional postings.  While I do appreciate the extra traffic to my blog, I stand by my heart felt recommendation to seek professional psychiatric help.  And, a very minor point, I 100% state as a fact that you gave a time limit as you posted that I could not answer your posting in the time given before you posted “victory”.  I do congratulate you for being able to use a search engine to come up with the term “projection”.  Nicely attempted as a deflection from your insecurities.  As for calling me names, that, sir, is simply childish.  But, please keep your postings coming as your rants toward me neither matter to me, nor are in the least bit convincing as ego bolstering for you.  If you find it cathartic to do so, please do so.  In addition, I decline to respond to your original multi-posting simply because I can and if I choose to do, may or may not refute any points you may or may have not made.  You see, I don’t need your approval or disapproval, and thus can dismiss your postings without any additional thoughts regarding them.  As there is no contradictions in the Holy Word of God, I merely state this and it is fact without wasting the time to prove it to you or the few people who read your blog and then visit mine from yours. No one, in 2000 years has ever proven the error free Holy Bible to even one contradiction or error, and you did not either.  Though, I’m sure that which ever website or other source you copied you list from says different.  That you fail to understand the Holy Bible or parts of it, or even a single verse is nothing to be ashamed of.  Great minds have spent a life time studying the Holy Word of God and still can not know and understand it all.  Be at peace my friend and know that the One True God and His Son Jesus will reveal to you His understanding as you diligently and sincerely search His words.

Related articles

• Emotional Alchemy: A Borderline/Narcissistic Woman Reveals Her Rules of Life (psychologytoday.com)
• Anger and Borderline Personality Disorder (showard76.wordpress.com)

Will I Have A Body In Heaven

Will I Have A Body In Heaven?

The simple answer is Yes! It will be a spiritual body—one that is far more appropriate for the new dimension in the new cosmos in which we will be living. It will be a body tailor-made by God, “eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 5:1). Just as God formed our physical substance and frame in the womb, and had a plan for our days on earth, (Psalm 139:13-16) so will He craft a spiritual body for us in the heavens. We are not our bodies—not our earthly bodily frame nor our future heavenly one. A body simply enables us to function in a dimension of the cosmos.

According to Jesus, it is intolerable for any spirit to be without a body-home. (Luke 11:24) Part of what makes us frightened about dying is that we do not want to be left unclothed, without a body. (2 Corinthians 5:4) Our uneasiness about whether or not we really will have a body to be in, coupled with understandable curiosity, gives rise to the questions, “What kind of body will it be? What will it be like”. The exact kind of answer we would like to have to those questions is not given in the Bible. When we think of the sort of body we would like to have, we tend to think in terms of physical features. Our heavenly bodies are not described in the Bible, at least not their appearance or outward features.

But we can surmise several facts about the bodies we will have after death.

Since we were made in God’s image to begin with, most likely our heavenly bodies will resemble our earthly bodies—only in a more glorified manner. This view is supported by Jesus’ appearance after his resurrection. Before He ascended out of physical sight and into the [invisible] third heaven, His glorified body was similar to His earthly body. The main difference between His earthly and heavenly bodies was not in appearance but in capabilities. In His spirit body He could function in the earthly realm—speaking, walking, eating, etc.—but He also moved in the realm of the spirit—vanishing from sight, (Luke 24:31) walking through walls, (John 20:26) and being received up into the third heaven.

Several of the people who saw Jesus on earth after He had risen from the dead thought He was a ghost, not a real person:

But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. And while they still could not believe it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:37-43

One of His disciples, Thomas, who had not seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes, conjected that the other disciples had only seen a spirit. After Jesus appeared to all the disciples again and allowed Thomas to touch the places on Jesus’ body that had been wounded by the spikes and the spear during the Crucifixion, Jesus says to Thomas, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (John 20:27).

Jesus had been functioning in both the earthly and the spiritual realms throughout His life—walking on water and being transfigured on the mountain when Peter, James and John beheld Him conversing with Moses and Elijah. (Mark 9:1-8) When Jesus was transfigured [metamorphosed], His whole being became suffused with a radiance and brightness that was not of this world. (Mark 9:3) Something of that glorious brightness will radiate from our heavenly bodies, too. But Jesus still looked like Jesus.

The bodies that we will have after death will not be made of flesh and blood, but they will be stunningly more attractive than our earthly bodies in the same way that flowers are more beautiful than the seeds from which they came. (1 Corinthians 15:37) As opposed to being perishable—like gallons of milk with expiration dates—our spirit bodies will remain constantly fresh. Our heavenly bodies will never be “getting along in years” or getting old. They will be constantly renewed. Earthly bodies develop toward maturity, then begin to wear out. Aging on earth is synonymous with wrinkling, stooping, graying and growing increasingly feeble. No such process will exist in Heaven. Earthly bodies, which encase the essence of our person hood that God forms in our mothers’ womb, start very small (as babies) so that they can fit in wombs. Nobody gets born in Heaven, so no one will need to be that young! We will all have been made perfect (complete) in Heaven, and that implies mature.

Our heavenly bodies will bear testimony to the truth about God and His way. Our current bodies of flesh set themselves against the Spirit, and so often oppose God. (Romans 8:1-8 and Galatians 5:16-17) They carry the imprint of Adam and Eve’s sin. Instead of being born in the dishonor of Adam’s sin, our heavenly bodies will be living displays to commemorate Jesus’ obedience. Our heavenly bodies will not fight against God’s way for us, they will work for us to accomplish His plans.

And on an especially positive note, our heavenly bodies will not lose steam late at night, and they will not have trouble getting going in the morning. Here on earth the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Mark 14:38) Our earthly bodies are feeble, frail and susceptible to every manner of sickness and temptation. Headaches, a broken foot, or a bout with the stomach flu quickly convince us that our made-of-clay bodies are a force to reckon with. Our bodies resist, demand, expand and break down. Our heavenly bodies, on the other hand, will be a miraculous power supply aiding us in our spiritual lives. They will be like fuel tanks or extra battery packs that actually add vitality to our souls/spirits, rather than depleting them.

Mohammad Predator Grooms Aisha

To prevent this from being deleted when the truth is presented under another’s original post, I am posting my response to the issue of Aisha’s marriage: Sexual predators such as mohammad most often depend on grooming techniques with their victims. They may “groom” the child for a significant period of time. Mohammad waiting 3 years is not unusual.

During this time, the predator uses various techniques iincluding:

Desensitization- Desensitization is the tactic used to get someone “accustomed” to sexually coercive behavior. In mohammad’s case “thighing” prior to the actual rape/marriage.

Isolation- Isolation means removing someone from sources of safety and support which mohammad did when he removed her from her parent’s home.

Control- Once the perpetrator has been successful in attempts to coerce the victim into a sexual relationship, he will usually try to maintain control over her with additional manipulative techniques. These, and the social conditions, with the allah giving mohammad all his heart’s desires, allowed him to keep his “favorite wife”. These additional manipulative techniques may include:
• possessiveness • jealousy
• further isolation from friends • threats and intimidation
• threats of self-harm • expressions of love
• anger and violence • anger and violence
• playing on victim’s insecurity • constant presence

Mohammad was just another predator, whether 1400 years ago or today. There is no difference across societies. A child predator is a child predator. End of the story. And Muhamed Amine Hafis, there is NO defending this or deflecting that abuse and acceptance of these predators in any other time or place makes mohammad any less of a predator. Period. Game, set, Match.

1000 Mistakes in Quran

1000 Mistakes in Quran

Photo of Islam in Practice

At least they’re honest and don’t hide behind the”Islam means peace” fallacy.

 

Revelation 3:10

Revelation 3:10

(10) Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. New King James Version Change Bible versions

Because of what will be happening at the end time, “persevering” or “courageously enduring” without compromising will certainly be no small accomplishment. Yet Christ says that because some of His people have been keeping His command to persevere, He will keep them from the worst of it. They have already proved their faithfulness to Him; He knows where they stand, He sees their track record with Him, and He will not require them to experience everything that the rest of humanity will suffer.

In colleges and universities, some professors make the final exam at the end of a semester optional. This means that students take the final only if they need to bring their overall average up. But if a student already has an A from other tests and class work, the professor figures the student has already proved himself, and does not require him to take the final exam.

This approach is analogous to Revelation 3:10. If the Christian is already faithfully persevering and resisting the spiritual foes, God may not require that he endure the very hardest test to prove what is in his heart. He has already proved it consistently through the course of his life. However, if, like a stereotypical first-year college student, he has frittered away his time, becoming involved in matters having nothing to do with college, he will have to prove where he stands. The final exam in this case is the Great Tribulation and Day of the Lord, so it is in our best interest that we students demonstrate to the Teacher that we are serious before the end of the semester.

Islam’s doctrines of deception

The below article from the The Middle East Forum reveals in vivid details the truth regarding Islam’s official policy of deception and lying to achieve its end of spreading itself and achieving a world wide caliphate in which all non-muslims are forced to convert or killed.

When ever a website or any media exposes any truth that puts Islam in its true light, muslims immediate dismiss it as a “hate” site.  Obviously, they HATE the truth being revealed.  Even this blog has been called a hate site for exposing the truth.  That is really a compliment as it shows that the truth on this blog has touched the accusers in some small way with the truth. (For a further understanding of the Islamic “hate” card being played please see:   http://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/islamophobia-watch-website)

In any case, the The Middle East Forum is a respected and fair website and I recommend it for the article below and every other article I’ve read on it for its accuracy.

The Middle East Forum

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008

To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.

“Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, “they who know” – have articulated it.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.

Origins of taqiyya

As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammad’s death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis – so-called because they follow the example or ‘sunna’ of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.

Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.

Several of Saudi Arabia’s highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdom’s Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.

Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the ‘infidel’.

Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shias’ place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.

Articulation of taqiyya

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: “Taqiyya [deception] 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.”

The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)

Al-Tabari’s (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”

Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show.”

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions. Abu Darda said: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].”

Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslims’ “weak spots” to the infidel enemy – anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith).

During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as “the Confederates”, a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud’s conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. “For war is deceit,” Muhammad assured him.

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving 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 and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?”

A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.

Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried: “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).

The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer.” (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.

The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia’s worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses “revealed” later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.

Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.

According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): “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. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: “In the Muslim community, holy war [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 holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the “peace-treaty” (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).”

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a “temporary” peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that “we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying,” what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as “jihad-of-the-pen” (propaganda), and “money-jihad” (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.

Religious obligation?

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

Bin Laden castigated them, saying: “As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 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 [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a "second-class" citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. 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.”

This hostile world view is traceable to Islam’s schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Laden’s tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West – from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol – never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.”

This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, “for war is deceit”.

If Bin Laden’s words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia’s recent initiatives for “dialogue”. Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels”, “hated enemies” and “pigs and swine”. A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: “A man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels”. These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda’s advice: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”?

There is also a philosophical – more particularly, epistemological – problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammed’s confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. 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”, according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving one’s enemies.

Exposing a doctrine

All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.

So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39).

Related articles

• Multiple ARABIC Quran Versions (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• Prophet of Doom – Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words (livingjourney.wordpress.com)
• Belgian Jews in shock over beating of 13-year-old girl (israelsurvivalupdates.wordpress.com)
• Today’s Quran in the light of its early manuscripts (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)
• “All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie (counterjihadreport.com)

The Sin of Vanity and of Pride

The Sin of Vanity / Pride:

Thomas Aquinas said of Pride “inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin (1,77) … the root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule.” Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Ecc 2:26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.

Isa 5:18 Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope.

As the movie ended, the Devil, played by Al Pacino, stated, “Vanity is my favorite sin.” The wicked smile and stare rang true because most of us know that vanity and ego can corrupt us all. Human frailties can easily be seen in others.

Answering Muslims: Whitewashing Islam: 20 Errors on 20/20 (ABC News)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/11/whitewashing-islam-20-errors-on-2020.html?spref=fb

Temporary Page Cole Avenue

This photo shows some of the exterior work needing to be done.  The tree growing next to the foundation needs to be removed.  The bushes trimmed away from the house as well.  The city will require the house to be painted.  The good news is the roof is in good shape with no visual deterioration and the electric meter remains attached.

House painting:  $1500

Tree removal, bush trimming, vine removal from around house $200

   Front Prior to Replacing Board

Front Door and Frame replacement:  $250

Every light fixture needs to be replaced.

Attic Access in Closet – lighting ripped out

  

 All lighting fixtures need  replacing, 9 x $20 = $180, Bath Room Track Light over Sink $50 and Ceiling Exhaust Fan $50

Exterior Lights Front and Back Porch $80

 

Closet off Living Room

Basement – No Hot Water Tank, Furnace doesn’t look salvageable, gas pipes destroyed

Hot Water Tank: $325

Furnace ? (To be determined after testing)

Replace ALL water pipes, gas pipes, new waterline from exterior: $980

Where Piping in small bathroom had been

Bathroom is extremely small.  To free up space, should install shower only which takes 1/2 space of tub. With tub, there are only a few inches between tub edge and the sink to pass to get to the toilet. Normal size people would have difficulties passing through.

Shower:  $380, Shower Faucet $100,

  Pedestal Sink & Faucet:  $140

  Toilet should be salvageable. Sink gone.

  Small bedroom, only a twin size bed will fit

Remove ALL wallpaper and paint interior of whole house $600

   Micro Kitchen. Cabinets salvageable, no sink or stove. No place for fridge in kitchen

Kitchen Sink: $200  & Faucet:   $50

Wire for Electric Stove and Refrigerator (in dining room)  $175

    Living Room – Floor salvageable, Refinish Kitchen and Living Room Floors $200

  Front Door and Frame Need Replacement

Front Door and Frame replacement:  $250

Rear Door and Frame Replacement:   $250

   House across street – eye sore that distracts from neighborhood

   Tree Growing against foundation – needs to be removed

   Close view of front entrance – stairs and porch salvageable

  Rear Gate Area and Rear Porch – significant work needed

  Left Side of house – Every window needs replacing

17 windows x $180 = $3060

   Repair Porch and Stairs $280 

               Rear Porch and Back Entrance

Direct view of rear stairs leading to porch

   Rear Shed full of old paint cans, etc -removal needed

Debris directly behind fence on right

Dumpster Rental to discard construction materials, above debris, shed and hazardous materials such as old paint cans in shed $375

Related articles

• Preventing Frozen Pipes (jonjepsen.com)