Mohammad: The Greatest con man who Ever Lived | Logan’s Warning

See on Scoop.it – Truth Revealed

Unfortunately the Koran instructs Muslims to believe that Mohammad was the Messenger of Allah, and the final prophet. Koran verse 033.040 YUSUFALI: Muhamm…

See on loganswarning.com

Related articles

• The Myth of the “Reform Koran” (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

For the Record – Difference between Hate Sites and Factual websites

Not every site that posts the truth is a hate site just because it points out inconvenient or unpopular facts/truths or refutes well loved or liked propoganda. I know of several extremely accurate sites that are falsely accused of being “hate” sites for these very reasons. I never use non-factual websites.

 

.

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION REGARDING THE THREAT OF ISLAM AND RECENT ANTI-SEMITISM

THIS IS A WONDERFUL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION REGARDING THE THREAT OF ISLAM AND RECENT ANTI-SEMITISM TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

Related Articles:

Israel Under Fire

No Such Thing as a Palestinian (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

Palestine 2.0 a Gun Aimed at Every Jew (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

Western Wall – Al-Kotel Al-Ma’aravi (paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com)

• Survivors’ group lauds Germany for plan to fight anti-Semitism (jta.org)
• Anti-Zionism is to be Anti-Semitism (codybateman.org)

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)

Islam is at war with Christianity and the World

“The role of al-Qaeda in the global jihad, and the role of Osama bin Laden in al-Qaeda, have both been wildly overstated. Al-Qaeda is not the only Islamic jihad group or Islamic supremacist group operating today, and Osama bin Laden was not some charismatic leader whose movement will collapse without him. The exaggeration of his role, in fact, was a result of the general unwillingness to face the reality that the global jihad is a movement driven by an ideology, not an outsized personality, and that that ideology is rooted in Islam.

Barack Obama epitomized that unwillingness in his address announcing the death of bin Laden. “The US is not – and never will be – at war with Islam,” Obama declared. “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer of Muslims.” Osama bin Laden himself would have been surprised to be characterized… as “not a Muslim leader.” After all, in his 2002 letter to the American people explaining his motives and goals, he wrote: “The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam…”

This perspective on Islam wasn’t just bin Laden’s. Millions of Muslims worldwide share it, and that won’t end with the death of Osama. The US is not – and never will be – at war with Islam, as Obama says, but significant elements of Islam are – and always will be – at war with the U.S….

Until Barack Obama and other Western leaders face the fact that Osama bin Laden was operating within the broad mainstream of Islamic teaching, they will be constantly puzzled by the advent of new bin Ladens, and new al-Qaedas, all over the globe. How is it that all these disparate individuals and groups misunderstand Islam in all the same way? Until U.S. officials can answer that question correctly, we will have made no headway, no matter how many al-Qaeda masterminds we corner and kill in Pakistan.”

TheReligionofPeace.com – WWMD What Would Muhammad Do?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings?

Having read the article below, I am at a loss as to why Muslims are in such opposition to these hearings. My only thought is they are in opposition because the TRUTH regarding their religion’s tenets, the true nature of Islam’s founder, will be revealed. In that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of hate, violence, subjegation, oppression, and death is most likely what they are afraid to be revealed. They may lie to America, which Islam’s founder taught them to do to deceive the infidels (all non-Muslims), but the truth is out there and it is coming to the light.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

The one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, not the false god of Islam.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A number of activities taking place next week are setting the stage for a confrontation between the Muslim American community and those who have reservations about its presence in the U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has scheduled a congressional hearing on the “radicalization” of Muslim Americans on March 10. In response, Muslims and Arab Americans in New York and Washington D.C. will be demonstrating about what they see as an attack on their civil rights. Meanwhile, opponents of Park51 are rolling out a “documentary” nationwide about the proposed project to build an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.

From the outset, many Muslims and Arab Americans have opposed Rep. King’s plan to hold hearings on, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” Over 80 people of different faiths from his district on Long Island, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and interfaith leaders sent a letter to King urging him to cancel the hearings.

“These diverse faith leaders believe the singling out of the Muslim community undermines fundamental American values and is counterproductive to improving national security,” the letter said.

After Rep. King turned rebuffed their calls, Muslim and Arab American communities decided to raise their voices on the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and other cities across the country.

On Sunday March 6, a broad coalition of over 75 interfaith, nonprofit, governmental, and civil liberties groups are scheduled to rally “in support of equitable civil rights for all Americans” in New York’s Times Square.

The Muslim Peace Coalition has also announced a rally and march scheduled for April 9 at Union Square in New York. The slogan of this demonstration will be “Standing Up Against Islamophobia, War and Terrorism.”

According to the House Homeland Security Committee’s chairman the hearing is needed to explore terror threats posed by radical American Muslims.

“[Due to] The measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes,” Rep. King said in a letter responding to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Minority Member of the committee on Homeland Security.

In its email to members of the Muslim American community, the Muslim Peace Coalition wrote, “Democracy is not a spectator sport and Muslims are not a football to be thrown around. We are people with rights and responsibility to speak up.”

Regarding homegrown terrorism, the Muslim Peace Coalition asked Rep. King to hold a hearing on the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. They also suggested he ask the FBI for statistics on the profiles of the two million first time gun owners in the USA. “Who are these people and why are they buying guns. What is their faith?”

“The hearings will send the wrong message and alienate American Muslims instead of partnering with them, potentially putting their lives at risk by inciting fear and enmity against them,” the coalition stated in its statement about the Times Square rally. “Organizers of this rally believe one can be a loyal Muslim as well as a loyal American without conflict, and a great number of our fellow Americans support this view.”

Amidst the background of a growing controversy between the Muslim American community and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, a new documentary produced by the leading opponents of the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center, often dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” is being shown around the country. At a recent screening in a church near the proposed site in downtown Manhattan, Pamela Geller, one of the producers of the documentary, vowed to continue her efforts to stop the project.

This is the REAL face of Islam – a video testimony

The horrifying true story of a Muslim woman. She tells her story here:

Breaking the manacles of Islam

A specter is haunting the Mullahs. The specter of Islamic truth. Pardon me for paraphrasing those two famous lines of Karl Marx from his ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party.’ I could find no better sentences than those two lines about the frantic efforts by the Mullahs to cover up the true colors of Islam in the world of Internet. Many recent essays in NFB (News From Bangladesh), secularIslam, Rational Thinking, etc., have exposed the other side of many religions including the Islam. The writers of these essays have taken great risks in terms of their personal safety to expose the intolerance, cruelty, injustices and irrationalities of many facets of Islam, the religion of “Peace.” Their forceful arguments, painstaking researched and extraordinary dedication are really going to shake the very foundation of the religion. I think the Mullahs could never believe that there is so much of disgust and disdain for the irrationalities and the backwardness in Islam in the present-day context. They thought that the fear of death sentence and the declaration of Jihad (Holy War) would silence the voices of rationality, logic and progress. No wonder, the Mullahs are desperate to counter attack with theirs every possible means. Amongst them are the illogical blind quotations of fear, the mindless hate, personal attacks, intimidation, charges of apostasy and blasphemy and what not. If only they could identify and catch those Kafirs and the infidels, I am sure they cannot wait to hang them in public. Unfortunately, the cyber world is too huge for them to start the killing spree. Therefore, they have little choice but to resort to intellectual assassinations.

After reading through a number of those venomous essays by these Islamists, I could categorize them into two broad groups; namely:

1 . The hard-core bigots. These Mullahs preach nothing but hatred towards anyone suspected of uttering a single word against Islam. They are completely devoid of any logical or rational thinking. Their languages are filthy (mostly four letter words), full of personal threats, distasteful and incomprehensible writings, etc. They usually judge a Muslim through his/her name. They challenge the writers to declare their apostasy in public so that they can take care of them (that is, kill them). They usually send their threats through the personal e-mails of the authors. So, many readers may not be aware of these threats. They do not realize that a person’s name has very little to do with his/her religion although it (the name) may be useful in many cases. I know many Lebanese whose names sound like Muslims but I see them wearing crosses on their necks that tells me what is his/her real religious affiliation is (that is they are actually Christians). Bertrand Russell seems to be a Christians name, but he wrote the book ‘Why I am not a Christian.’ The name given to a person during his birth is beyond his/her control. Similarly, the birth religion of a person has nothing to do with his/her personal belief when he grows up and starts to think and act on his/her own. This is a fundamental human right. Thus, a person being born in a Muslim family and given a Muslim (or rather Arabic) name does not necessarily must follow Islam when he grows up. But these fanatic bigots will not accept this basic right of a human being. When the bigot finds that a person has a Muslim name and he argues certain points in Islam, he is immediately declared as an apostate and, therefore, that person automatically becomes a target for annihilation. I just do not understand this mindless thinking. Never have I seen a secularist/humanist declare any person who does not agree with him or who talks and writes against the secularists/humanists/atheists should be killed. These people will not accept the truth that a person has every right to examine critically his/her birth religion. What kind of religion these bigots are preaching to the civilized world?

Readers, have you seen that these hard-core bigots are greatly alarmed even though they know that it is not that simple to kill people in the cyber world? Their frustration is then manifested in the personal attacks to the writers. There are many examples that can be found in many criticisms of the essays written by the secularists/humanists authors. A recent example is the criticism of Kamran Mirza’s two essays; one was on the ancient Arabian practices of worship of the Moon God Allah and the other was the serious questions about fasting in Islam. The Islamic critics resorted to severe personal innuendoes, abusive languages and false accusations. I cannot quote all those remarks. Please refer to NFB back issues if you want details. Another example is the personal and shameless attack on Taslima Nasrin in an article titled ‘True color of Taslima Nasrin.’ The bigoted writer of this article has tried to depict Taslima as a sex maniac and has delved into her private married life with her deceased husband. They wanted to finish her off physically by slaughtering her but that did not happen. They grossly underestimated her courage and conviction. So, now they are trying to kill her through character assassination. Nothing could be more unjust than this type of intrusion in some ones personal and private life. But then, again, we cannot expect anything more decent from these hard-core bigots.

These types of bigots have very little understanding even the religion that they love so much and not to talk of their knowledge of other religions or other philosophical/belief matters. Their main language is violence, Jihad, and terrorizing people to the extent that the author is compelled to stop disseminating his/her views. This tactic is nothing new in religion. Terror and violence had always been used in Islam (and some other religion too) to silence it’s critics. You will find many references to these types of activities if you read the relevant passages in Koran and the Hadiths.

2 . .The intellectual bigots: These bigots have very good knowledge of Islam, Koran Hadiths……etc. They are fully aware that what is being written by the Kafirs and the infidels are very difficult if not impossible to refute. These intellectual bigots are frustrated by the logic, rationality, coherence and the realistic arguments extended by the authors. They too wished that these writers were eliminated but then they also feel a little guilty about the open call for their annihilation. So, they resort to psychological killing. This involves the quotations from Koran and Hadiths about the dreadful punishments that will be meted out to those who dare to criticize Islam. They openly declare that whoever questions Islam is no more a Muslim. Of course, the infidel writers are very little concerned whether they are considered Muslims or not. But then, the declaration by this group of bigots has some significance. What are those? The significance is that the author becomes an enemy of Islam and therefore, subject to all the punishments that are applicable to non-believers and the apostates.

These bigots are very shrewd and intelligent. They will extend subtle threats to the authors, like becoming an outcast in society, to rot in hell, not to have the advantages of the petrodollars, not to be favored by the Arabs, etc. etc. This type of threat is designed to instill the fear and greed in the minds of the authors. A preferred fear is the fear of death. The greed is the greed of going to heaven/petro-dollars, etc. They will quote from their scriptures about the terrible death that awaits those who question and doubt the religion (Islam). Most of the time these bigots will avoid going into logical or rational reasoning because they know rather well that that won’t be fruitful. Their main armor is the quotations and the regurgitation of only what they know about their religion. For example, when the question of haram/halal food is raised, they will give no reason as to why the halal food should be eaten except that religious scriptures have decreed so. And, therefore, it should not be questioned. The nutritional values of haram/halal foods are irrelevant in this case. All that matters is that the religion has approved certain foods and to the contrary has banned certain foods. Many haram foods are as nutritional as many halal foods are if not better. If halal foods are good, then the Muslims must be the healthiest people in the world. How come then that those who eat haram foods have better physique? This is a commonsense question. However, the religious bigots will never answer this question in an honest and straightforward fashion. They will simply hide behind the cloak of their scriptures and confuse people more. Similar examples can be cited on many other archaic practices in Islam. Like fasting, performing haj, praying five times every day, etc. These bigots will never give any good reasons as to their practices except to say that they are the pillars of Islam. Is there anything wrong in knowing the reasons behind them? Many of these rituals were actually practiced by the pagan Arabs long before the advent of Islam. However, if this question is put to the bigots, all you get is personal vilification and branding you as an enemy of Islam. This reminds me my childhood. As a child, I was asked to memorize the verses of Koran. I used to ask the Hujur (Mullah) what meanings were conveyed by those verses? The reply I used to get from the Hujur was a few strokes of the cane and rebukes. He used to say that one should never ask any question on the matter of Islam especially on Koran. The penalty for asking questions is whipping. So, I stopped questioning and memorized the verses without understanding anything. The Hujur was a symbol of terror to me. I had no choice but to follow whatever he asked of me. That was how fear was and still is being introduced in the minds of the people and these bigots are repeating the same things over and over again. This is what is called a mass hypnotization induced through intimidation and fear. The fact is that if the real truths about the religion leak out these Hujurs will be out of work. Pure and simple.

Another ploy employed by these people is to blame the translators of the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. Even the eminent translator like A. Yusuf Ali is not considered as authentic translator. These bigots will never say which one is the authentic English version of the Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah, etc. They will simply say that one must be very good in Arabic to interpret Koran. This is akin to saying that one must be very good in Aramaic and Hebrew languages to understand the Bible and the Talmud. Or that you must be very good in Greek, Latin and Dutch languages to understand Aristotle, Roman laws, Copernicus’ ‘laws of heavenly bodies,’ etc. These are absolutely illogical ideas. Strangely though, you will notice that these bigots will use the English translation of the Koran when it suits their purposes. But when the inconsistencies, irrationalities and illogical things are pointed out, these bigots will simply say that the English translation is perverted. What kind of hypocrisy is that? In many cases, they warn people that the interpretations will vary depending on who is interpreting as well as the context of interpretation. This means that only those interpretations offered by them are valid and the rest are simply invalid. At the same time, these Mullahs also insist by quoting from Koran that the mishandling (wrong interpretations) is a great sin and the interpreter/s will have to face severe penalty No wonder, it is next to impossible to gauge any logic from these talks of the Mullahs.

Has it occurred to the readers of NFB that these bigots give them the impression that the Koran is an extremely difficult piece to understand and to interpret. Why should Allah make his words so difficult that ordinary people have great difficulties in understanding them? It simply doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever. One does not need a Ph.D in the ancient Arabic language and culture to understand the Koran. Then, why do these Mullahs insist so much on the mastery of the Arabic language? They know that most followers of Islam do not know Arabic and even if they know their skill in the language is not enough to interpret the ancient language of Koran. Furthermore, it takes many years to master a language. Most people have no time, patience and the motivation for that. So, they simply take the advantage of people’s ignorance and pretend that they are the sole agents of the Koran and it’s interpretations. Many people are not conversant in the English language as well. So, they do not know the exact meanings in many verses of the Koran. How about the Bangla and other translations of Koran? The Mullahs simply ignore them while accepting only those that suit them. Ironically, think about what will happen to the Mullahs if every Muslim masters the Arabic language! People will start interpreting the Koran in the way they understand and not be dependent upon the Mullahs. This may open the eyes of the masses and dehypnotize them. These Mullah’s will then simply be defeated in their own game, will they not?

This is what the Mullhas fear most. The Mullahs desperately need the uneducated, ignorant and fearful mass to perpetuate their stranglehold on the salesmanship of Islam.

However, the development in new technology and the introduction of the Internet has really alarmed the Mullahs. Many people are now able to exchange ideas almost instantly on any matter including religions. Many Mullahs could never believe that there are so many born Muslims who dare to question Islam and challenge its archaic practices. This was unthinkable even a few years ago. The reason is very simple. Many of these thinkers always had doubts about what they were supposed to believe but thought that they were alone and hence they were fearful about speaking their minds in public or to their peers. They kept that question to themselves. The Internet and the modern electronic mass media had opened an opportunity for them to be united if not physically at least electronically. This is a very bad news for the Mullahs. They simply cannot digest the truth that one day Islam will not go unchallenged. This is now happening as it had already happened with Christianity and with other religions as well many years ago. The innate nature of humanity to seek the truth, to explore the unexplored, to question and to innovate can never be suppressed. One day Islam will surely realize that.

By the way, it is interesting to note that innovation in Islam is haram. The dictionary definition of innovation is to introduce changes or to introduce new things. This is the foundation of civilization. Imagine what would have happened if mankind was not innovative. The people of other religion prospered only when they freed themselves from their religious irrationalities and started innovating. That is why Islam is so paranoid about innovative ideas and free-thinking. These two things hit at the heart of Islam.

Curiously, you will notice that many of the innovative ideas and inventions are used by the Mullahs to propagate their doctrines. You can see many examples of these. Like TV, Radio, modern appliances and the latest is Internet. They have realized the immense power of modern science and technology. When you ask them why should the Islamic people accept these innovative things that are mainly due to the innovative ideas of the Kafirs and the infidels, the Islamists have ready answers. The answer is that these inventions are the gifts of Allah. Some will even say that science and technology are Allah’s blessings to mankind. I have no problem in accepting the compliment. How about the Islamic bomb? This maut be the greatest gift of Allah to His followers. How about the Hindu bomb? Since Allah is the only god could it be that Allah is also responsible for this great gift to the Hindus as well? And how about the Christian and the Buddhist bombs? If these questions are asked to the Islamists I do not know what will be the answer? The other question is that why is it that the followers of Islam have next to nothing contribution to the modern science and technology? Isn’t that because Islam had kept its followers blind for centuries? Now, many of these blind people are getting their sights back. What were impossible to think for centuries for many innocent followers of Islam, are now having a second look at their ancestor given faith. It is simply a matter of time before the arrogance and the irrationality of Islam becomes a distant history. And with that, is the demise of the Mullahs like, Ayatollahs, Talibans, Golam Azam, Maulana Nizami, etc.

Finally, I must pay homage to the few braves who took the risk to demystify Islam. You are the pioneers. You have taught me how to think the unthinkable. You have taught me how to be courageous. You have taught me how to rekindle the human spirit. You have taught me how to fight for the justice. You have taught me how to accept merciless criticisms with grace. You have taught me how to conquer the unconquerable. A hundred years from now humanity will remember you as the greatest innovators in finding a cure for the religious blinds. That is because you dared to think differently. Truly, you are the alarm bells of the Mullahs. History won’t forget you for being the Agradoot (harbinger) who are bent on breaking the manacles of Islam.

————————

By Abul Kasem.

abul88@hotmail.com

ORIGINAL POSTING:

Islamic Countries Dominate Open Doors 2011 World Watch List

Islamic Countries Dominate Open Doors 2011 World Watch List

SANTA ANA, Calif., Jan. 5, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — Despite Communist North Korea topping the annual Open Doors World Watch List (WWL) for the ninth consecutive year, the most dangerous countries in which to practice Christianity are overwhelmingly Islamic ones.

That paragraph should be printed on a little business card, convenient for us to hand out to Christian appeasers who fantasize that our friends in the henna beards are either

1. Victims of racism, poverty, and social exclusion (liberal Christian dhimmis)
2. Enraged by American policies and Zionist oppression (ultra-leftist and ultra-rightists) or
3. Our future allies in the war against the hedonist Culture of Death (frustrated theocrats sunk in impotent rage).

Perhaps on the other side of the card we can print the following sura from the Qur’an:

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The texts would fit very nicely, and the bottom of each side could read: “To learn more, visit Jihadwatch.org. Or visit Saudi Arabia and try to find a church or synagogue.”

In case people have further questions, it might be handy to have, in leaflet form–or loaded on your Blackberry or iPhone–the text of the Pact of Umar, the model for the “toleration” sharia–an intrinsic part of Islam that every major Muslim group, including CAIR and ISNA endorses–grants Christians once it’s in force. Again, it’s a short, informative text.

The Pact of Umar

(promises conquered Christians make in return for Muslim protection):
* We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

* We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

* We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

* We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

* We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

* We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

* We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

* We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

* We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

* We shall not sell fermented drinks.

* We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

* We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

* We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

* We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

* We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

* (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

* We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

* If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. [That penalty is death--ed.]

Given the primary sources they’re working from, the text of the divine “Revelation” they follow, and the normative historical exemplars they imitate, modern Muslims across the world are doing a much better job of living up to their religion than most Christians are–as the Open Doors report demonstrates:

Of the top 10 countries on the 2011 WWL, eight have Islamic majorities. Persecution has increased in seven of them. They are Iran, which clamps down on a growing house church movement; Afghanistan, where thousands of believers cluster deep underground; and Saudi Arabia, which still refuses to allow any Saudi person to convert to Christianity.

Others are lawless Somalia, ruled by bloodthirsty terrorists threatening to kill Christian aid workers who feed Somalia’s starving, impoverished people; tiny Maldives, which mistakenly boasts it is 100 percent Islamic; Yemen with its determination to expel all Christian workers; and Iraq, which saw extremists massacre 58 Christians in a Baghdad cathedral on Oct. 31. Of the top 30 countries, only seven have a source other than Islamic extremists as the main persecutors of Christians.

The top 10 in order are North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Maldives, Yemen, Iraq, Uzbekistan and Laos, which has a Communist government. Iraq is new to the top 10 list while Mauritania dropped out, going from No. 8 to No. 13.

The country that saw the greatest deterioration of Christian religious freedom in the reporting period from Nov. 1, 2009, through Oct. 31, 2010, was Iraq, jumping from No. 17 to No. 8. The country has seen a Christian exodus in recent years, with an estimated 334,000 Christians remaining in this ancient cradle of Christianity, a drop of more than 50 percent since the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The main reason why Christians are fleeing is organized violence by an extremist militia, especially in the northern city of Mosul and in the capital Baghdad, in an attempt to cleanse these areas of its Christian presence. At least 90 Christians were martyred last year in Iraq while hundreds more were injured in bomb and gun attacks. More killings have taken place in the past two weeks. [Mission accomplished, GWB!]

The country with the largest Christian community on the WWL’s top 15 is Pakistan with more than 5 million believers. Pakistani Christians also faced a sharp erosion of their religious liberty with the country leaping from No. 14 to No. 11 on the current list. Twenty-nine Christians were martyred in the reporting period with at least one killing occurring every month. Four Christians were sentenced to long terms in jail for blasphemy against Islam, at least 58 Christians were kidnapped, more than 100 Christians were assaulted and 14 churches and properties were damaged.

Other countries that rose markedly on the new WWL were Afghanistan, up from No. 6 to No. 3, especially in the wake of ugly demonstrations when footage of Muslims being baptized was shown on network television. Dozens of Christians from the tiny Afghan church have had to move due to subsequent death threats, and in August a 10-person medical aid team from a Christian organization was slaughtered. [Nice work, President Obama. The "surge" is working!]

The year’s grisliest headlines were found in No. 26 Nigeria, however, where a staggering 2,000 Christians lost their lives in riots caused by Muslim extremists in some of the northern states in the country. Tension has been growing for more than a generation in northern Nigeria, and escalated after 1999 when 12 northern states adopted Sharia (strict Islamic law). On Christmas Eve Compass Direct News reported the killing of a Baptist pastor and five other Christians in northern Nigeria. More killings of Christians were also reported in the last two weeks. [Christianity is the white man's religion; Islam brings equality and justice. But which religion is it that's killing the most black people every year?]

Egypt is ranked No. 19 on the WWL and could be a focus of persecution this year as 21 Christians were killed in a bomb blast on New Year’s Day outside the Church of Two Saints in Alexandria. [Pope Benedict, stop interfering. We've got the situation under control.]

At this point in the discussion, it’s worth stepping back and remembering what “dhimmitude” denotes. It means “protection,” and now we know in what sense that word is meant: in the sense of protection racket. When the Westies used to barge into bars in my mother’s old neighborhood, Hell’s Kitchen, and offer “protection” to the owners, it was clear to everyone involved from whom the hapless businessmen were being protected: from the Westies. Given the many ways in which Muhammad, once he arrived in Medina and came to power, acted like a gangster, it’s no surprise that his followers continue to carry on like a gang of thugs. When Islamic apologists insist that any discussion of Islam’s crimes against “unbelievers” of every creed or none is hateful Islamophobia, it’s best to remember how Mafia lawyers used to rant about ethnic stereotypes–typically as they addressed a jury, defending some “mook” who’d shot his cousin in the back of the head. Then they’d go home, open a jug of Gallo red, and watch The Sopranos. I wonder if Reza Aslan and Ibrahim Hooper, after a long, hard day of lying, stoke up the shisha and kick back to enjoy the video footage from Alexandria and Baghdad….

middle east info dot org