Is Terrorism taught by Islam?

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 81, Number 764:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet beat a drunk with palm-leaf stalks and shoes. And Abu Bakr gave (such a sinner) forty lashes.

Narrated 'Uqba bin Al-Harith:

An-Nu'man or the son of An-Nu'man was brought to the Prophet on a charge of drunkenness. SO THE PROPHET ORDERED ALL MEN PRESENT in the house, to beat him. So all of them beat him, and I was also one of them who beat him with shoes.

Muhammad claimed to be the final prophet sent by Allah, God of Islam, and many Muslims claim that he was a man of peace whose sole purpose was to spread God's word. Muhammad's actions is what all Muslims must base their actions on along with following Allah. He is considered the perfect example due to him being the seal of prophets. What is amazing about this fact is that if you look at the peaceful prophet of Allah, he ordered men to beat people who were drunks!! Is this peaceful or helpful to the man? Wouldn't it be more wiser to help the man sober up and then relay God's message to him saying that it is wrong to drink wine or Alcohol?

Previous prophets never condone such an attack despite the fact that this man was drunken. They condemened the drunkness not the drunk. Here we see at the beginning that Muhammad nor Islam is very peaceful.

Narrated Abu Salama:

Abu Huraira said, "A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. THE PROPHET SAID, 'BEAT HIM!" Abu Huraira added, "So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (BY TWISTING IT) LIKE A LASH , and then when we finished, someone said to him, 'May Allah disgrace you!' On that the Prophet said, 'Do not say so, FOR YOU ARE HELPING SATAN OVERPOWER HIM.' "

Muhammad here says that if you call this person a disagrace, you help Satan overpower him but does beating make it any better? Wouldn't physically harming a person be more encouraged by Satan? Yes! So according to Islam, don't disgrace them but beat them!! This hadith furnishes us more information on this event:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

A drunk was brought to the Prophet and he ordered him to be beaten (lashed). Some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (twisted in the form of a lash). When that drunk had left, a man said, "What is wrong with him? May Allah disgrace him!" Allah's Apostle said, "Do not help Satan against your (Muslim) brother."

There was absolutely no excuse to beat this drunk man for any reason. In Chicago, a homeless man was beaten by a few guys and then thrown into Lake Michigan. He was later found dead by the police department the next day. This murder and beating caused outrage because of the violent and senseless nature of this attack. The man was outnumbered and wasn't physically able to defend himself against multiple attackers much like this drunken man in his situation.

According to orthodox Islam, by Muhammad's inspired example, it is okay to beat alcoholics. If a Muslim would hold such actions as being criminal, why would you spread the message of a prophet who committed such actions as being godly? If this is peaceful then it is perfectly fine to beat alcoholics!!!

The person who was being beaten was one of the Muslim's own brother in faith!!! This really helps explain the phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?". The answer here clearly seems to be no!! For a religion promoted by Muhammad "the Seal of Prophets", we must ask this question, "Where does beating a drunk help him follow God and stop sinning?". Maybe Muhammad seems to favor the coercive point of view. Do by force!! Then again force can't be peace, especially to the one being beaten!!!

To really learn about Islam a person must also learn the psyche of Muhammad, as well as study the Quran. Muhammad as we mentioned before, is deemed the perfect example to follow since he experienced the nature of Allah first hand. All of Islamic Sharia laws and Islamic life is based upon Muhammad, Allah and the Quran. Lets give you more example of the peaceful prophet:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Usama approached the Prophet on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). THE PROPHET SAID, "The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet ) did that (i.e. stole), I WOULD CUT OFF HER HAND."

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 81, Number 779:

Narrated 'Aisha:

By Allah, if Fatima, THE DAUGHTER OF MUHAMMAD committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand.!"

If we follow the example of Muhammad through Islam, we are supposed to cut off our own daughters hand!!! In the Bible if a person stole he was required to replace this item and then add a penalty charge for stealing along with coming under the direct embarrassment of YAHWEH God. You can replace an item but you can't replace a hand!! Isn't this peaceful? Hardly!! So one thing you must be thinking is "Can I repent of theft and be forgiven by Allah?" Yes, but there is a catch, read the next hadith quote:

Narrated Ubada bin As-Samit:

I gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet with a group of people, and he said, "I take your pledge that you will not worship anything besides Allah, will not steal, will not commit infanticide, will not slander others by forging false statements and spreading it, and will not disobey me in anything good. And whoever among you fulfill all these (obligations of the pledge), his reward is with Allah. And whoever commits any of the above crimes and receives his legal punishment in this world, that will be his expiation and purification. But if Allah screens his sin, it will be up to Allah, Who will either punish or forgive him according to His wish." Abu Abdullah said: "If a thief repents AFTER HIS HAND HAS BEEN CUT OFF, the his witness well be accepted. Similarly, if any person upon whom any legal punishment has been inflicted, repents, his witness will be accepted."

Is this the best of a peacful religion such as Islam? Notice that Allah's prophet allowed you to repent. However you couldn't do this to save your hand!! Your hand still would have to be amputated and then God would accept you according to Muhammad!! This shameful practice still exist today in Islamic countries!! We can't accuse them of misintepreting Islam due to the fact that this is a required action according to both the Hadith's and the Quran!!! Here Muhammad just shows you how it is supposed to be carried out! Did Muhammad himself carry out such peaceful actions? Yes:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

ALLAH'S APOSTLE CUT OFF THE HAND of a thief for stealing a shield that was worth three Dirhams.

A prophet of God shouldn't never partake in a practice that wasn't even condoned by Abraham, in whom he claimed to follow!! If Islam is God's final revelation to mankind, then we pray that one of your little kids doesn't make a mistake (notice kids do stuff when they are younger and mature from folly when they get older) by taking something valuable. According to the peaceful religion of Islam, he or she must have their hand cut off!! No age limit, so all can partake in such a great display of peace!! Amazing!!

As we continue on in our analysis of Islam, which Muslims claim is peaceful, lets dig deeper into the everyday life of Muhammad, Allah's greatest Apostle:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "A faithful believer remains at liberty regarding his religion unless he kills somebody unlawfully."

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

One of the evil deeds with bad consequence from which there is no escape for the one who is involved in it is to kill someone unlawfully.

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "NO HUMAN BEING IS KILLED UNJUSTLY, but a part of responsibility for the crime is laid on the first son of Adam who invented the tradition of killing (murdering) on the earth. (It is said that he was Qabil).

Laying the blame on Cain doesn't justify Muhammad's words for a person to commit the same crime!! What is strange about this information is the fact that while Muhammad does say that it is wrong to kill anyone unlawfully, instead of addressing the person who does the killing, he lays part of the blame upon Cain!! Therefore you can kill people lawfully in Islam and hadith number 6 adds even more support to this because according to Muhammad ' No human is killed unjustly'. Shouldn't he be saying that no human is killed justly? Isn't killing unjust? As one continue to study Islam more you will see examples where killing is just. We'll present more down in this paper.

Above was more evidence from both the Quran and the authentic traditions about the justified killings in Islam. For those Christians and Jews who are foolish enough to dabble into interfaith prayers and services with Muslims, I'm sure you love these examples presented later on in this paper.

Narrated Al-Miqdad bin 'Amr Al-Kindi:

An ally of Bani Zuhra who took part in the battle of Badr with the Prophet, that he said, "O Allah's Apostle! If I meet an unbeliever and we have a fight, and he strikes my hand with the sword and cuts it off, and then takes refuge from me under a tree, and says, 'I have surrendered to Allah (i.e. embraced Islam),' may I kill him after he has said so?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do not kill him." Al-Miqdad said, "But O Allah's Apostle! He had chopped off one of my hands and he said that after he had cut it off. May I kill him?" The Prophet said. "Do not kill him for if you kill him, he would be in the position in which you had been before you kill him, and you would be in the position in which he was before he said the sentence." The Prophet also said to Al-Miqdad, "If a faithful believer conceals his faith (Islam) from the disbelievers, and then when he declares his Islam, you kill him, (you will be sinful). Remember that you were also concealing your faith (Islam) at Mecca before."

Al-Miqdad was very concerned about the prospect of having his hand amputated and not being able to avenge this action. What is strange about the above Hadith is that if you're a Muslim fighter and your opponent dismembers a limb and then claims to accept Islam, he has literally gotten away with his actions!! The problem here is not whether a person should be hurt or killed but the fact that the other non-Muslim can decided to cut off a hand and then escape judgment with a verbal commitment to Islam!

What if the person was lying? You would have no way of knowing. Hence, a Muslim fighter could lose a hand or a limb in vain!! A faithful believer, according to Muhammad is allowed to hid their faith from non-believers and then proclaim it once the Muslim populace becomes greater in strength. This is hypocracy because it utilizes outright deceit by the Muslims. It is very easy to hide when you're in the minority and the odds are stacked against you. This practice is still applicable in Muslim followers in the west today. They'll remain quiet and peaceful because they are a very small majority but the moment they feel that their power begans to grown, soon their voice and demands will too!!

Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:

I went to help that man (i.e., 'Ali), and on the way I met Abu Bakra who asked me, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I am going to help that man." He said, "Go back, for I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'If two Muslims meet each other with their swords then (both) the killer and the killed one are in the (Hell) Fire.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! It is alright for the killer, but what about the killed one?' He said, 'The killed one was eager to kill his opponent."

According to the sayings of Muhammad you can't even go and help a fellow Muslim!! Notice that if a Muslim is killed, he would go to Hell along with his killer!!! This gives a new meaning to the term "every man for himself". Muhammad's way of killing the killer was being killed, hence suicide!! By being killed the killer goes to hell unless the purpose for helping Ali here was to kill him and send him to heaven! If helping the man was leaving him on the battlefield then this wouldn't be very godly would it? No. Either way this hadith furnishes a consistent amount of problems. This is strange indeed.

Narrated Salama:

We went out with the Prophet to Khaibar. A man (from the companions) said, "O 'Amir! Let us hear some of your Huda (camel-driving songs.)" So he sang some of them (i.e. a lyric in harmony with the camels walk). The Prophet said, "Who is the driver (of these camels)?" They said, "Amir." The Prophet said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him !" The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! Would that you let us enjoy his company longer!" Then 'Amir was killed the following morning. The people said, "The good deeds of 'Amir are lost AS HE HAS KILLED HIMSELF." I returned at the time while they were talking about that. I went to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Prophet! Let my father be sacrificed for you! The people claim that 'Amir's good deeds are lost." The Prophet said, "WHOEVER SAYS SO IS A LIAR, FOR 'AMIR WILL HAVE A DOUBLE REWARD AS HE EXERTED HIMSELF TO OBEY ALLAH AND FOUGHT IN ALLAH'S CAUSE. No other way of killing would have granted him greater reward."

The only way to reconcile this hadith is to read it carefully. Here Amir killed himself, i.e., committed suicide, and he did this by fighting in Allah's cause. Therefore he is given a double reward for his suicide mission and Muhammad says that there is no reward greater than the actions of Amir!! Sounds frighteningly similar doesn't it? Yes. These Muslim apologist who claim that suicide missions aren't condone by Muhammad have done little study on Islam. The terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center in New York felt like they were doing the same thing "fighting in Allah's cause". Muslims may say that this wasn't a battle however that isn't the point since Islamic traditions shouldn't condone any type of suicide mission anyway. Wouldn't Muhammad and Allah be wise enough to know that in the future people may misinteprete this? Despite the claims of Muslims, Muhammad did condone suicide missions.

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

A MAN BIT ANOTHER MAN'S HAND and the latter pulled his hand out of his mouth by force, causing two of his incisors (teeth) to fall out. They submitted their case to the Prophet, who said, "One of you bit his brother as a male camel bites. (Go away), there is no Diya (Blood-money) for you."

Narrated Ya'la:

I went out in one of the Ghazwa and A MAN BIT ANOTHER MAN and as a result, an incisor tooth of the former was pulled out. THE PROPHET CANCELLED THE CASE.

Here in Islam, if a person bites you and you pull your hand away to keep them from biting you, you are entitled to nothing!! The only logical thing to do is to let the person keep biting you no matter how it hurts which would utimately be illogical!! Despite the man pulling out the incisor of the one bitting him, Muhammad should have punished him for such a brutal attack. This is one example in Islam in which a person attacked is entitled to nothing. Do you want this kind of thinking coming to a mosque near you? Muhammad, who claims to be a prophet of God doesn't even have the compassion to settle such a barbaric assault. Would modern-day American society punish a person who pulled their hand away from being bitten by not rendering justice, despite the attackers incisor being broken? No! But Muhammad would. Let that be a note to all of us who believes everything Muslim apolgists say about Islam. We must ask them, is this a peaceful way to render justice?

Narrated Anas:

The daughter of An-Nadr slapped a girl and broke her incisor tooth. They (the relatives of that girl), came to the Prophet AND HE GAVE THE ORDER OF QISAS (EQUALITY IN PUNISHMENT).

We understand that Muhammad gave equal punishment for slapping a girl but why not render this same justice to the bitten man? This isn't justice if a person removes his hand in self-defense. Hence, we see that an Almighty God, who inspires a prophet such as Muhammad thinks that it is wrong to slap a girl while it is okay for a man to be bitten in a grizzly attack!!!

History has shown us that Muhammad was a popular figure in his day especially after his message of Islam began to spread aroung the Saudi Arabian Penisular. Many people came to sought out his guidance so now lets look at one situation in which this occurs in this next hadith:

Narrated Anas:

A man peeped into one of the dwelling places of the Prophet. THE PROPHET GOT UP AND AIMED A SHARP-EDGED ARROW HEAD (or wooden stick) at him to poke him stealthily.

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd As-Sa'idi:

A man peeped through a hole in the door of Allah's Apostle's house, and at that time, Allah's Apostle had a Midri (an iron comb or bar) with which he was rubbing his head. So when Allah's Apostle saw him, he said (to him), "If I had been sure that you were looking at me (through the door), I WOULD HAVE POKED YOUR EYE WITH THIS (SHARP IRON BAR)." Allah's Apostle added, "The asking for permission to enter has been enjoined so that one may not look unlawfully (at what there is in the house without the permission of its people)."

For a person which is argued to be peaceful and a man of God we find that this is totally barbaric. How would a person be able to find you unless they would look into your home. Granted, the man should have knocked or something but even if he didn't wouldn't we expect Muhammad to behave in a more godly fashion and just tell him "Please knock or call before looking in". This gives a whole new meaning to the idea of "proper welcoming etiquette or hospitality" Warning!! Keep all young girl and boy scout cookie sellers out of the Islamic neighborhoods. They just might come back one-eyed. When you visit your Muslim neighbor, don't forget to knock. If you make a mistake and do, you just may have your eye poked out in accordance to the peaceful prophet Muhammad. Even if this happened to a person, nobody can say truly that this isn't a teaching of Islam or Muhammad.

Here in the west, Muslims in their promotion of Islam encourage all to come into the knowlege of Allah through his final prophet Muhammad. They usually present their case as Islam being peaceful and respecting life and the greatness of this religion. What seems to go lacking is the fact that a potential convert to Islam is never told about what happens when converting and then deciding later on if you want to remain as a Muslim.

What should be noted to all is that Islamic states practice Islam in accordance to the Quran and Muhammad's sole traditions. What becomes shocking to the western reader is the fact that if you practice Islam, the way it should be practice (in accordance to what Allah revealed to Muhammad) you will totally have a very different view of Islam. Lets begin.

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have KILLED THEM ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE, 'WHOEVER CHANGED HIS ISLAMIC RELIGION, THEN KILL HIM.'"

Obviously any sane person would be very hard press to see this as being peaceful or godly. According to Islam, the correct way to deal with a person who decides to leave it is to murder them!! A person who leaves Islam is called an apostate. Based on Islamic practice a Muslim isn't wrong if they kill you if you first accept Islam and then decide to leave it. Not only does this handicap a person's free choice of will but it reminds us very much of how street gangs, terrorist organizations and organized criminals operate.

A religion of God that houses this type of response to a person leaving it would immediately put itself under intense scrutiny. Western Muslims know this and this is why they never bring up anything about this matter unless a person brings it up first. Shouldn't they warn you first that if you accept Islam you must remain as a Muslim or you have just written your death sentence!! Modern Muslims may say that this isn't necessary and that a person has a right to choose. What they fail to remember is that Islam isn't based upon the comments of modern day apologists but the Quran, the Sahih Hadiths, and the commentary of the early Muslims of Muhammad's time. Hence by following true Islam, you must kill an apostate. This practice isn't found nowhere in Judaism or Christianty, nor was it practice by Abraham. Lets give you an example as to how Muhammad dealt with Jews who first converted to Islam and then decided that Judaism (the religion of Abraham) was more compatible for them.

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "HE WAS A JEW AND BECAME A MUSLIM AND THEN REVERTED BACK TO JUDAISM." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down TILL HE HAS BEEN KILLED. THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

This totally destroys the Muslim myth about the people of the book being allowed to follow their religion after converted back from Islam. Muhammad obviously used the idea that "the Jews and Christians follow God" as propoganda, since if he really believed this he wouldn't care if they followed Islam or Christianty. We must ask this question, "why kill him if he is a person of the book"? Because according to Islam, if you convert you must always be a Muslim. Hence, we get a clear example as to how Muhammad's God given orders were carried out by his companions. Mu'adh was so upset a an innocent human life not accepting Islam until he demanded that Allah and Muhammad's death sentence be carried out!

This shows that Islam doesn't really respect human life despite western propoganda. True Islam demands that you die after accepting and rejecting it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for God to deal with this person by giving him or her a chance to see that rejecting Islam is detrimental and therefore reembrace it? No. Allah in his wisdom, through his prophet says that it is better to just kill them without given them a second chance and get it over with!! This is such a peaceful religion wouldn't you say?

To add insult to injury, both Mu'adh and Abu Musa just shrugged this killing off and then proceeded to discuss evening prayers!!! Maybe they should've prayed to God before killing this man!! This sounds very similar to many hard cold killers who murdered innocent people and then proceed to go about their daily lives like nothing ever happened. The only difference between them and Muhammad is that he allowed it under the disguise of religion which in turn generates a great following along with countless Muslim followers who justify such horrific actions. For anyone to say that this is right and justifiable because the Jewish man reverted back to Judaism is no better than the people committing this act.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although ALLAH'S APOSTLE SAID, 'I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO FIGHT THE PEOPLE TILL THEY SAY: 'NONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED BUT ALLAH, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me EVEN A KID they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right."

From this hadith we see that that the Arabs reverted back to disbelief because originally they only accepted Islam from the fear of being killed by Muhammad. Hence, the prophet of Allah's mission failed since his greatest tool of evangilism was terrorism! If they truly believed in his Islamic concept of God, they never would have reverted away from Islam. Instead of allowing God to give them a chance to reembrace Islam, Abu Bakr, Muhamamd's successor, was commanded to fight them until they accept Allah as their God. This clearly shows us that they would be required to accept Islam by force not peace!

The Zakat situation is intruiging to note also since people who didn't accept Muhammad and his god Allah was liable to have their property confiscated from them! This sounds very much like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan! Even a kid, who would refuse to pay the Muslims was liable to be fought against. This hadith clearly substantiates this action despite what Muslims say about kids, wars, peace and the Taliban. Those who sympathize with Muslims who claim that such actions by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are unislamic have a whole lot of explaining to do. Based on true orthodox Islam, fighting kids, and people who exercise their own free will to leave Islam, is a justifiable.

Narrated 'Ali:

Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I WOULD RATHER FALL DOWN FROM THE SKY THAN ASCRIBE A FALSE STATEMENT TO HIM, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for WHO-EVER KILLS THEM SHALL HAVE REWARD ON THE DAY OF RESURRECTION."

Ali, would rather die falling from the sky instead of lying to us as to what Muhammad sanctioned for the followers of Allah. Here we are given more indepth information about what would happen to a person who accepts Islam and then leaves it. A Muslim who kills this type of person isn't condemened nor chastized but is given a big rewared on the day of resurrection. I would love to see Muslim apologist show us where Jews and Christians are given a reward by God for killing people who leave their perspective religions. Would we dare say that eliminating a person's freedom of choice is peaceful? According to orthodox Islam this is what we would have to conclude. Not only is this destable practice popular in the Muslim world, but this is how Islam intended it to be as clear guide from Allah! Murder was so embraced by the early Muslims and Muhammad until Umar, one of Muhammad's companions was so sad to the point of tears for not being allowed to kill someone. This informationation is shown in this next Hadith:

Narrated:

Abu 'Abdur-Rahman and Hibban bin 'Atiyya had a dispute. Abu 'Abdur-Rahman said to Hibban, "You know what made your companions (i.e. Ali) dare to shed blood." Hibban said, "Come on! What is that?" 'Abdur-Rahman said, "Something I heard him saying." The other said, "What was it?" 'AbdurRahman said, "'Ali said, Allah's Apostle sent for me, Az-Zubair and Abu Marthad, and all of us were cavalry men, and said, 'Proceed to Raudat-Hajj (Abu Salama said that Abu 'Awana called it like this, i.e., Hajj where there is a woman carrying a letter from Hatib bin Abi Balta'a to the pagans (of Mecca). So bring that letter to me.' So we proceeded riding on our horses till we overtook her at the same place of which Allah's Apostle had told us. She was traveling on her camel. In that letter Hatib had written to the Meccans about the proposed attached of Allah's Apostle against them. We asked her, "Where is the letter which is with you?' She replied, 'I haven't got any letter.' So we made her camel kneel down and searched her luggage, but we did not find anything. My two companions said, 'We do not think that she has got a letter.' I said, 'We know that Allah's Apostle has not told a lie.'"

Then 'Ali took an oath saying, "By Him by Whom one should swear! You shall either bring out the letter or we shall strip off your clothes." She then stretched out her hand for her girdle (round her waist) and brought out the paper (letter). They took the letter to Allah's Apostle. 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Hatib) has betrayed Allah, His Apostle and the believers; LET ME CHOP OFF HIS NECK!" Allah's Apostle said, "O Hatib! What obliged you to do what you have done?" Hatib replied, "O Allah's Apostle! Why (for what reason) should I not believe in Allah and His Apostle? But I intended to do the (Mecca) people a favor by virtue of which my family and property may be protected as there is none of your companions but has some of his people (relatives) whom Allah urges to protect his family and property." The Prophet said, "He has said the truth; therefore, do not say anything to him except good." 'Umar again said, "O Allah's Apostle! He has betrayed Allah, His Apostle and the believers; LET ME CHOP HIS NECK OFF!" The Prophet said, "Isn't he from those who fought the battle of Badr? And what do you know, Allah might have looked at them (Badr warriors) and said (to them), 'Do what you like, for I have granted you Paradise?' " On that, 'Umar's eyes became flooded with tears and he said, "Allah and His Apostle know best."

The way Muhammad and his followers went about things was chopping people's head off for betraying them. We wonder how come Jesus never thought of this bright idea? The only reason Muhammad didn't have the man killed was because he fought with him. This may seem like fair justice however since this would never be allowed for a non-Muslim we clearly see that this is nothing more than Islamic partiality. We must stress again, a religion which claims to be peaceful should outlaw murder in any instance, we find this lacking in a extensive investigation of Islam.

The book of Jihad is the name given to the hadith called "Sahih Muslim, Book 19". Sahih Muslim is the second most authentic and credible source of Muhammad's saying after the Quran and the hadith of "Bukhari". This is the most authentic source for learning about Jihad in Islam and all commentaries stem from both it and the Quran. Here we began with some excerpts dealing with the introduction to Islamic Jihad:

When one examines what Jihad is we understand from the Muslim point of view that it means to exert itself. However contrary to the forced explanation given by the author of this introduction, Jihad is not peaceful at all. It is an act of violence and it is a violence which the Muslim must launch against evil in whatever form it appears. Right there is the dangerous thing because if a Muslim deems a certain thing evil and the Hadiths and the Quran gives no guidance on a particular situation, they can launch an attack on it. Now we will began to examine the book of Jihad to show you if Islam and Muhammad were peaceful or not.

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before m". ing them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (may peace be upon him) MADE A RAID UPON BANU MUSTALIQ WHILE THEY WERE UNAWARE and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

First of all, Muhammad's actions was totally different as to what Muslims try to portray Jihad as being. Why exactly was Muhammad raiding these people? Because they didn't accept Islam after his own invitation. This is why chapter one of this book, which has this hadith says that it is about "Regarding permission to make a raid, without an ultimatum, upon disbelievers who have already been invited to accept Islam". Hence the evil form present here is the tribes own free will!!! If any other person forced people to accept his religious beliefs like this he would immediately be deemed as insane. However we notice the extreme double standard in accordance to Muhammad, in Muslim propogation in Islam.

The terrorist who attacked the United States were doing so for the very same reasons. If you look at the Middle East compared to the west, the big thing other than the Israel-Palestianian conflict is the fact that America is considered disbelievers and to secular. Since we are not apart of a orthodox Islamic republic, Muslims such as these radical fundamentalists use this as an excuse to attack America or any other western non-Muslim nation. Muslim apologist may say that this isn't true Islam, this is false since Muhammad clearly raided the Banu Mustaliq for not accepting Islam. Hence, this belief is clearly found in orthodox Islam.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. FIGHT AGAINST THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE IN ALLAH. MAKE HOLY WAR, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). IF THEY REFUSE TO ACCEPT ISLAM, DEMAND FROM THEM THE JIZYA. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, DO NOT LET THEM OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS COMMAND, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

For a religion which claims to be peaceful, we find the exact opposite from Muhammad. If people didn't accept Islam, he required his companions to fight against them, not evangilize to them and leave it to their discretion. Also if they refuse to accept Islam, the conquered people would be forced to pay a Jizya tax. What type of peaceful religion forces you to pay anyone because you refuse to believe what they believe? None! Notice that Muhammad to his followers during a seige that if people wanted to come out, he said don't let them out!! Hence, by using their own command, the Muslim f ighters could decide that they wouldn't want to let any out so they could just kill them all!!!

Even the Muslim apologists who defend Islamic usage of Jihad and say that it is only in usage of self defense, or against evil, etc. We must ask them, how is it evil not to accept Islam if we believe that it isn't the truth? Also is a raid or seige defending yourself from an attack? Isn't it evil to attack innocent people based on the sole reason of "They don't accept Islam"? This sounds very similar to the many Islamic terrorist attacks launched at western powers!! If Islam never taught this type of action, then we would believe what Muslim apologists say. However Islam does teach this type of action and all pious Muslims are commanded to follow Allah and Muhammad's example in relation to Islam. By doing this we would have to conclude that raids on innocent people are fine if they are by the will of God. Last I checked this was terrorism and murder.

It is narrated by Abu Nadr that he learnt from a letter sent by a man from the Aslam tribe, who was a Companion of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and whose name was 'Abdullah b. Abu Aufa, to 'Umar b. 'Ubaidullah when the latter marched upon Haruriyya (Khawarij) informing him that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in one of those days when lie was confronting the enemy waited until the sun had declined. Then he stood up (to address the people) and said: O ye men, do not wish for an encounter with the enemy. Pray to Allah to grant you security; (but) when you (have to) encounter them exercise patience, AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT PARADISE IS UNDER THE SHADOWS OF SWORDS. Then the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up (again) and said: O Allah. Revealer of the Book, Disperser of the clouds, Defeater of the hordes, put our enemy to rout and help us against them.

Need we say more? Paradise isn't under the shades of blessings, truth, etc but swords!! Meaning that in order to reach paradise you must fight your way there!!! Notice also that Muhammad never prayed that his enemies come into the light of Islam but said that he wants Allah to help him and his followers against them and put them to rout. Wouldn't it be more godly to answer unbelief with godlyness instead of war? In fact isn't it godly to allow the unbeliever to choose Islam for himself instead of using the actions "belief or the sword". It is utter nonsense to believe that Islam never utilized the sword in converting people or killing those who decided to utilize their free will!!! Not only did Muhammad limit fighting to the adults, but being the fair prophet that he is, he even allowed children to go and kill people! Don't believe me read this next hadith below:

It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abd al-Rahman b. Auf who said: While I was standing in the battle array on the Day of Badr, I looked towards my right and my left, and found myself between two boys from the Ansar quite young in age. I wished I were between stronger persons. One of them made a sign to me and. said: Uncle, do you recognise Abu Jahl? I said: Yes. What do you want to do with him, O my nephew? He said: I have been told that he abuses the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). By Allah, in Whose Hand is my life, if I see him (I will grapple with him) and will not leave him UNTIL ONE OF US WHO IS DESTINED TO DIE EARLIER IS KILLED. The narrator said: I wondered at this. Then the other made a sign to me and said similar words. Soon after I saw Abu Jahl. He was moving about among men. I SAID TO THE TWO BOYS: Don't you see? He is the man you were inquiring about. (As soon as they heard this), THEY DASHED TOWARDS HIM, STRUCK HIM WITH THEIR SWORDS UNTIL HE WAS KILLED. Then they returned to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and informed him (to this effect). He asked: Which of you has killed him? Each one of them said: I have killed him. He said: Have you wiped your swords? They said: No. He examined their swords and said: Both of you have killed him. He then decided that the belongings of Abu Jahl he handed over to Mu'adh b. Amr b. al-Jamuh. And the two boys were Mu'adh b. Amr b. Jawth and Mu'adh b. Afra.

The disturbing thing about this is that children are being taught by Muhammad and his companions to commit murder. Even though this may have been a battle, what is frightning about this situation is that Muhammad usually fought against people solely based on their disbelief in Islam!! So basically this is saying "because you don't believe me I will kill you". This is very similar to the Palestianian youths who embark on suicide bombings in Israel. Little kids and teenagers being taught how to kill!! Shouldn't a peaceful prophet of a peaceful religion instruct them how not to be violent and that your purpose is to tell God's word and then leave it to the person to decice for himself? Apparently this isn't the case due to the fact that Islam itself would take away your right to choose.

How exactly could Abu Jahl hurt Muhammad? He couldn't physically abuse him since the prophet always had bodyguards around him. This fact is known from Islamic history. The only way he was abusing him was verbally which in turn shows us that you could be killed just for saying the wrong thing to Muhammad!! So much for freedom of speech!!

It has been reported by Salama b. al-Akwa': We fought the Battle of Hawazin along with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). (One day) when we were having our breakfast with the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him), a man came riding a red camel. He made it kneel down, extracted a strip of leather from its girth and tethered the camel with it. Then he began to take food with the people and look (curiously around). We were in a poor condition as some of us were on foot (being without any riding animals). All of a sudden, he left us hurriedy, came to his camel, untethered it, made it kneel down, mounted it and urged the beast which ran off with him. A man on a brown rhe-camel chased him (taking him for a spy). Salama (the narrator) said: I followed on foot. I ran on until I was near the thigh of the she-camel. I advanced further until I was near the haunches of the camel. I advanced still further until I caught hold of the nosestring of the camel. I made it kneel down. As soon as it placed its knee on the ground, I drew my sword and STRUCK AT THE HEAD, of the rider who fell down. I brought the camel driving it along with the man's baggage and weapons. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) came forward to meet me and the people were with him. He asked: Who has killed the man? The people said: Ibn Akwa'. He said: Everything of the man is for him (Ibn Akwa').

First of all Salama nor any other of Muhammad's companions could prove that the man was a spy. This was an assumption!! Because he decided to leave quickly after eating with the people, the Muslims felt it necessary to kill him!!! Muhammad didn't feel bad for this dead man because he awarded Salama all of the guys belongings!! Hence you can even be killed based on assumptions in certain situations. Is this the type of peace that Muslims want us to follow? Whatever happen to the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty"? In Islam in certain situations it doesn't exist!!! Is this peaceful? No!

It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by Banu Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no expedition was undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were particularly meant for the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad.

First and foremost we see that the Banu Nadir abandoned their property for the fear of the sword. Second we find that Muhammad took this property and used it for his own family and the rest went for purchasing materials and weapons for Jihad. Now we must ask, what is he actually struggaling against by purchasing more weapons? This is proof that Jihad does mean war. If it didn't we wouldn't see no need for Muhammad to buy weapons. Also how come the prophet of Allah didn't deem it necessary to use this money to help spread his message peacefully by being cheritable and peacefully inviting the people to Islam instead of purchasing more weapons? Isn't this a carbon copy as to what rogue Islamic states do with their money? Yes! They use it not for the spread of Islam but for the spread of war. Hence, accept Islam or die!!

Lets look at more information as to how Muhammad dealt with the people he conquered:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said: The people of Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa'd b. Mu'adh about them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent for Sa'd who came to him riding a donkey. When he approached the mosque, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: Stand up to receive your chieftain. Then he said (to Sa'd): These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa'd) said: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace he upon him) said: YOU HAVE ADJUDGED BY THE COMMAND OF GOD. The narrator is reported to have said: Perhaps he said: You have adjuged by the decision of a king.

Ibn Muthanna (in his version of the tradition) has not mentioned the alternative words.

According to Muhammad's words, God's command here was to kill these fighters and take their children and women captive. In Islam a Muslim man is allowed to have many concubines to fulfill his sexual libido. We wonder how the children would feel about this. Then again it appears that both Allah and Muhammad care nothing about them!! Many of these men fought because they wanted to have the right to worship as they please. Muhammad wouldn't grant them this right, so he killed father and husbands and left wives without mates and kids without fathers, much like the World Trade Center terrorists!!

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Amr who said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) BESIEGED THE PEOPLE OF TA'IF, but did get victory over them. He said: God willing, we shall return. His Companions said: Shall we depart without having conquered it? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: (All right) make a raid in the morning. They did so. and were wounded (with the arrows showered upon them). So the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: We shall depart tomorrow. (The narrator says): (Now) this (announcement) pleased them, and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) laughed at (their waywardness).

Notice here that this was a seige, hence Muhammad was the aggressor not the defender. What exactly was Muhammad defending in his attack on Ta'if? Is this peaceful, to become an aggressor and lay seige to a tribe because they don't want to accept Islam and utilize their God given free will? Such actions in modern times would be considered evil and barbaric. However we shouldn't make any acceptions for Muhammad because Muslim apologists want us to believe that he was so peaceful along with Islam.

It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that when (the news of) the advance of Abu Sufyan (at the head of a force) reached him. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) held consultations with his Companions. The narrator said: Abu Bakr spoke (expressing his own views), but he (the Holy Prophet) did not pay heed to him. Then spoke 'Umar (expressing his views), but he (the Holy Prophet) did not pay heed to him (too). Then Sa'd b. 'Ubada stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, you want us (to speak). By God in Whose control is my life, if you order us to plunge our horses into the sea, we would do so. If you order us to goad our horses to the most distant place like Bark al-Ghimad, we would do so. The narrator said: Now the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) called upon the people (for the encounter). So they set out and encamped at Badr. (Soon) the water-carriers of the Quraish arrived. Among them was a BLACK SLAVE belonging to Banu al-Hajjaj. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) caught him and interrogated him about Abu Sufyan and his companions. He said: I know nothing about Abu Sufyan, but Abu Jahl, Utba, Shaiba and Umayya b. Khalaf are there. WHEN HE SAID THIS, THEY BEAT HIM. Then he said: All right, I will tell you about Abu Sufyan. THEY WOULD STOP BEATING HIM and then ask him (again) about Abu Sufyan. He would again say', I know nothing about Abu Sufyan, but Abu Jahl. 'Utba, Shaiba and Umayya b. Khalaf are there. WHEN HE SAID THIS, THEY BEAT HIM LIKEWISE. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was standing in prayer. When he saw this he finished his prayer and said: By Allah in Whose control is my life, YOU BEAT HIM WHEN HE IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH, AND YOU LET HIM GO WHEN HE TELLS YOU A LIE. The narrator said: Then the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: This is the place where so and so would be killed. He placed his hand on the earth (saying) here and here; (and) none of them fell away from the place which the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had indicated by placing his hand on the earth.

For those whose claim equality in Islam, we must really shake our heads. Many black people would be offended to know that Muhammad allowed his companions to beat a black slave to interrogate him about someone. This also destroys the idea that Islam came to liberate slavery since we see nowhere in which Muhammad said to the boy that he was free. Also this barbaric form of interrogation serves to undermine the peacefulness of Muhammad and his followers. While they were beating this black slave, Muhammad was busy praying. Wouldn't it make sense to pray first to avoid physical harm to this slave? Yes! However Muhammad allowed them to beat him before finally saying that he is telling the truth!! Would you want this type of prophet deciding for you if you were in the immediate fear of being beaten by his friends? No. We also notice that Muhammad never chastized his companions for doing this, hence he approves of any means necessary to get information!

It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Muti' who heard from his father and said: I heard the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) say on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: No Quraishite will be killed hound hand and foot FROM THIS DAY UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.

This hadith speaks for itself. Muhammad killed the Quaishite tribes continuosly so after he finally conquered Mecca, now he decides that it isn't necessary to continue these actions. So much for peaceful resolutions. Need we say more?

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Wa'il who said: Sahal b. Hunaif stood up on the Day of Siffin and said: O ye people, blame yourselves (for want of discretion) ; we were with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Hudaibiya. If we had thought it fit to fight, we could fight. This was in the truce between the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and the polytheists. Umar b. Khattab came, approached the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, aren't we fighting for truth and they for falsehood? He replied: By all means. He asked: Are not those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed. from their side in the Fire? He replied: Yes. He said: Then why should we put a blot upon our religion and return, while Allah has not decided the issue between them and ourselves? He said: Son of Khattab, I am the Messenger of Allah. Allah will never ruin me. (The narrator said): Umar went away, but he could not contain himself with rage. So he approached Abu Bakr and said: 'Abu Bakr, aren't we fighting for truth and they for falsehood? He replied: Yes. He asked: Aren't those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed from their side in the Fire? He replied: Why not? He (then) said: Why should we then disgrace our religion and return while God has not yet decided the issue between them and ourselves? Abu Bakr said: Son of Khattab, verily, he is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah will never ruin him. (The narrator continued): At this (a Sura of) the Qur'an (giving glad tidings of the victory) was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He sent for Umar and made him read it. He asked: Is (this truce) a victory? He (the Messenger of Allah) replied: Yes. At this Umar was pleased, and returned.

The reason why the Muslims and Muhammad went to war was the belief that they were doing the works of God. So if they died they would go to paradise. Here again the sole reason is because the polytheists didn't want to accept Islam. So basically Muhammad sent people to war all because they had different religious views. Exactly how is this tolerant of other religions we must ask? Here is more information about Muhammad and his followers fighting for paradise in this next hadith:

It has been reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that (when the enemy got the upper hand) on the day of the Battle of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was left with only seven men from the ansar and two men from the Quraish. When the enemy advanced towards him and overwhelmed him, he said: WHOSO TURNS THEM AWAY FROM US WILL ATTAIN PARADISE OR WILL BE MY COMPANION IN PARADISE. A man from the Ansar came forward and fought (the enemy) UNTIL HE WAS KILLED. The enemy advanced and overwhelmed him again and he repeated the words: Whoso turns them away, from us will attain Paradise or will be my Companion in Paradise. A man from the Arsar came forward AND FOUGHT UNTIL HE WAS KILLED. This state continued until the seven Ansar were killed (one after the other). Now, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to his two Companions: We have not done justice to our Companions.

In this battle Muhammad seems to be guaranting paradise to those who go and ge themselves killed for him. Why couldn't he take the initative and fight until he was dead? This form of manipulation sent many men to their death fighting for Muhammad who allowed them to go before him to fight the Quraish. If he believed in his cause so much he could've have set the greatest example by sacrificing himself for Islam to achieve paradise. Christ did this but Muhammad thought it other wise to let his people die for him. This isn't bravery but a coward!! After realizing this he then said that he didn't render justice for his companions. This is a fine time to say this after they all died for him. This reminds us as how the leaders of Islamic jihad groups send their minions to do their dirty work for them while they move out of harms way.

It has been narrated by Hammam b. Munabbih who said: This is what has been related to us by Abu Huraira from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). (With this introduction) he narrated a number of traditions. One of these was that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Great is the wrath of Allah upon a people who have done this to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and he was at that time pointing to his front teeth. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) also said: Great is the wrath of Allah upon a person WHO HAS BEEN KILLED BY THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (may peace be upon him) in the way of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.

This totally destroys the nonsense that Muhammad was peaceful in any means. To take pleasure and claim that Allah's wrath upon someone killed by you is not only incredulous but it serves to show that there were numerous times in which Muhammad enjoyed Jihad and murder. There has never been any previous prophets which claim that God's wrath is greater than normal on someone killed by them. This is Islam's perfect model, a prophet who takes pleasure in murder.

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: WHO WILL KILL KA'B B. ASHRAF? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like THE VOICE OF MURDER. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

We must ask, how can hurting Muhammad (verbally not physically) is the same as hurting Allah? Also notice that Muhammad, a man of peace, as propogated by modern-day Muslim apologists clearly says, "Who is going to kill Kab'b". Also to show you just how sinister Muhammad and his companions were, he allowed them to use any means necessary to accomplish this task. He told them to say what they like to him or lie to him and after doing this, proceed with their original plan to kill Kab'b. Kab'b's wife sensed that something bad was going to happened and she said that she heard the voice of murder in their home. Muhammad's companions used trickery and deceit to surprise attack Kab'b before killing him!!

Sahih Muslim is the second most authentic Hadith in Islam and Bukhari Hadith, the first authentic also has this story with more information:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” The Prophet said, “You may say it.” (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369)

Hence by following Muhammad's example as a true Muslim, you must use deceit and murder to eliminate your opponents. This is the same thing shown in the countless terrorist attacks around the world by Muslim radicals. They have given a new meaning to the term "Lead by example". Here we have clear evidence showing that Muhammad authorized lying and murder in his prophetic expeditions.

It has been narrated (through another chain of transmitters) on the authority of the same narrator (i. e. Anas) who said: I was riding behind Abu Talha on the day of the Battle of Khaibar (and we were riding so close to the Holy Prophet that) my foot would touch his. We encountered the people at sunrise when they had come out with their axes, spades and strings driving their cattle along. They shouted (in surprise): Muhammad has come along WITH HIS FORCE! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: KHABIR SHALL FACE DESTRUCTION. Behold! when we descend in the city-square of a people, it is a bad day for those who have been warned (but have not taken heed). Allah, the Glorious and Majestic, inflicted defeat upon them.

Another surprise attack by Muhammad, which exposes his deceit and murderous nature. The people of Khabir were destroyed all because they wouldn't accept him as a prophet of Allah and his religion! Such actions are never mentioned in Islamic propogation of Islam to the west. Why kill someone because they don't follow what you believe? This is bigotry, not peace!! Now we will show you something very disturbing dealing with Muslim raids and conquest. Read the Hadith below:

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE.

Amazing!!! In Islam you are allowed to kill children if you believe that they will grow up and be a non-believer!!!! This has left the entire descretion to the person who is deciding to kill the kid in question!!! A non-believer is one who doesn't want to follow Islam, which would be utilizing his own freedom of choice!!! What if the Muslim made a mistake killing a kid who may look like a disbeliever but may grow up to be a believer according to Muhammad? It would be to late then to bring the child back!!

If this type of information was given about Islam, it would cause an uproar among the Christian population of the west!! Hence, in orthodox Islam, not fantical Islam, a Muslim can kill a innocent kid in which they deem necessary for the betterment of Allah's society!! Now we know why the terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had no ill feelings about the acts they committed, which in turn, took the lives of innocent children. They were just being obedient to the laws and regulations of Islam!! Here is an example from a loving Muslim family and their child:

What is even more disturbing about this is the fact that this family murdered this girl not in a war but in regular civil life. Hence killing kids as prospective disbelievers, according to Islam, can be used anywhere!! Isn't this great?!! Not if you are the kid who suffered cruely at the hands of her parents.

In Muslim apologetics about Islam, many commentators present Quranic verses dealing how Islam accepts Christian thinking and how it respects their beliefs. What is strange about this matter is the fact that Muhammad and Allah used such verses as propoganda to try and allure Christians to Islam. When they failed to do this, they showed their true colors for all to see. Here we will use the Quran, the ultimate source of Islam to document what Allah and Muhammad says about the Jews and Christians, we will also supplement various hadiths and other Islamic historical information to aid in this study. First and foremost let's begin with interactions between the Muslims who fled to Abyssinia to find refuge from their persecutions in Arabia.

According to authentic Islamic history, when these Muslims reached Abyssinia they were required to go before their king THE NEGUS. He cried after he heard Muslims recite certain scriptures from Surah ul-Maryam or Surah 19 in the Quran. These verse portions talked about how Jesus was God's Word, Spirit and Servant. This sounds very good to the Christian and we would understand why he cried after hearing these verses since he would obviously be led to believe that these Muslims were being persecuted because they had beliefs exactly like the Christian population. However these Muslims intentionally lied and used deceit by omitting those verses that denied the crucifixion and divinity of Jesus. The reason they did this is because the Negus and his bishops were firm believers in Jesus' divinity and would force the Muslims to leave his country for blaspheming the divinity of Christ. Muslim clerics and apologist are very familiar with these tactics and it is no shock to us that they use these same methods about Jihad and violent teachings of Islam. Here is the story recorded by Ibn Ishaq in Sirat Rasulullah, the most authentic and earliest prophetic biography on Muhammad's life and Islam:

The dealings with the Negus should have been celebrated in Islam however both Muhammad and Allah felt that it wasn't necessary to greatly expound on such great actions by the Christian king and his people. Why? You may ask? Because first of all, Negus was a Christian and not a Muslim or even an Arab. The kind Christian king didn't force the Muslims to convert to Christ nor did he force them to provide money for their protection. Does Islam promote this same equality for Jews and Christians? The answer, as shown earlier in this paper is absolutely no!! Now lets begin to show you just how Islam deals with Christians and Jews. First we will begin with the comments of the popular cleric Al-Hajj Ghazi Khankan. He was seen many times on ABC with Peter Jennings and his arguments are the same one repeated by Muslims here in the west:

The authoritive Muslim sources are the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), The Quran and the biographies and commentaries on Muhammad.

In Islamic interfaith dialogues Muslims usually apply the same tactics as those in dealing with the Negus. Hence, they use all types of Quranic verses which seems to agree with the Bible. The Historical information about the Muslim's dealing with the Negus is undoubtively parallel to Islam in America and the West today.

This reference begins with the Quraysh noticing that the Muslims were taking refuge in the Christian country of Abyssinia. Here they were living in peace and was allowed to freely practice their religion without any interferance. The Christian West has allowed precisely the same thing. However, as shown from Islamic teaching, Non-Muslims aren't allowed the same privilage in Islamic countries. How many churches do you see in Saudi Arabia compared to mosques in America? Not to many if any at all. If you went to Arabia and preached Christianity to convert Muslims, both you and them must be killed according to peaceful Islamic law.

The reason the Muslim companions of Muhammad were allowed to remain in Abyssinia is because they conveyed to the Negus that their religion was the same message of Judeo-Christianity. This same tactic is still praticed today by Muslims in their dialogues to the public.

The question that naturally comes to mind also, is why didn't the Muslims simply come out and say what they really believed about Jesus' deity and crucifixion since nothing they claimed in the above citation contradicts the Orthodox Christian view of Jesus? Christianity historically has always taught that Jesus is the slave of God (Acts 3:13; Philippians 2:7), his apostle (Hebrews 3:1), his Word (John 1:1; Revelation 19:13) and an eternal Spirit, or more precisely a life-giving Spirit since the Holy Bible makes a clear distinction between Jesus and the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45).

This seems to suggest that the Muslims used deception in order to prevent the Negus from realizing the true teaching of Islam on the person of Christ. Had the Negus known their denials of Jesus' deity and crucifixion the king would have obviously been less favorably to their cause and he would've sent them back to Arabia. Hence, like Muslims in the past, modern day apologists use deceit to promote Islam to the unsuspecting public.

Since the Negus allowed the Muslims to remain in his country for some time we would hope that Islam would always paint a rosy picture of Christianity and Judaism. This isn't the case at all. Lets show you what Islam says about Christians and Jews:

Depending on what translation of the Quran, the term "people of the scripture" or "people of the book" refers to only Jews or/and Christians. In this Quranic verses, Christians and Jews -people of the book/scriptures are described as disbelievers not people of God. The believers clearly refer to the Muslims and the Quran explictedly says that Allah helped the Muslims repulse them in their wrath. Allah is described as casting panic into the hearts of the people of the scripture which reveals a fact not discussed in detail- that Islam does habor animosity against previous religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

Muslims may say that these Jews and Christians attacked the Muslims first. Think about it for a minute, why would they attack Muhammad in the first place, if such actions did occur? Because he threatened their "freedom of choice" to worship as they pleased. Muslims are to afraid to mention this valuable information to their audience. They would have you to believe that everyone attacked Muhammad without telling you why Muhammad brought these attacks upon himself.

Allah called these people (People of the book, included) unbelievers for such attacks. However, Jihad is defending yourself from oppression which is considered right in Islam. These people were doing the same thing, protecting their right to worship as they please. Since they were non-Muslims it is wrong for them to do this while okay for the Muslims. This is another great example of the double standard of Islamic Jihad.

In today's modern world much like in the times of Muhammad, their was Christian and Jewish evangilism. Many Christians want you to come into the knowledge of Christ which would help you for the remissions of sins. What does Allah and the Quran say about this:

According to the Quran, Christians and Jews are idolators. Note that the Surahs we're using in our analysis (2, 5, 9, etc.) are the very late ones before Muhammad's death. Many of the early ones were favorable to Christianity however the later ones cancelled out many of these verses through the process in Islam known as abrogation. Many Muslim apologists love to cite the early verses without informing their audience that these are no longer applicable under orthodox Islam. These next two verses prove this matter due to the fact that it mentions nothing about what Jews and Christians believe but instead tells them to believe what Muslims believe!! Hence, to be a Christian and be counted as being a believer in Islam is deceitful propoganda! Read:

A first glance at this pasage would have a non-Muslim to believe that Islam believes everything taught by previous prophets. Contrary to this claim, the Quran nor Islam believes in the Bible. If they did they would believe in the crucifixion and deity of Christ. Notice that this passage clearly tells the reader to believe 'What the Muslims believe'

Not only does this Quranic verse destroy the idea that it is okay to believe in the doctrine of Christianity and still be right according to Islam, it clearly tells us that Allah says that those who don't believe what Muslims believe are in opposition to Islam and are disbelievers who will be aided by Allah against such disbelievers. What this shows us is the fact why many Muslims in the Middle East hate the Christianized west. It is because of Quranic verses such as these. What Modern Westernized Muslims say mean's nothing. It is the Quran an the Hadith which a Muslim must follow to glean the true knowledge of Islam.

The Quran says that Muslims are Allah's worshippers, not Christians. Any other verse which says otherwise is either a contradiction or it is an earlier verse that was abrogated by these. It would be very hard to reconcile this passage to include Christians be worshippers of Allah when the Quran says that this refers to Muslims explictedly. How does the Quran see orthodox Christians? Here is our answer:

Jews and Christians are clearly differentiated from Muslims in this passage. They are not one people like many interfaith Muslim clerics would have you to believe. This verse is very offensive to those who practice the Jewish and Christian faith. According to the Quran, any Muslm who befriends a Jew or Christian is like them and therefore an unbeliever! It is impossible for this passage to promote unity when a person is deemed as being disbelieving by having Jewish and Christian as friends.

Christians and Jews are wrongdoers and disbelievers and those who believe in Allah must not take them as friends. How can a Muslim believe his god and then disobey this verse? This passage clearly says that Allah doesn't even guide Jews and Christians!! This attitude is shown in many Muslim countries toward the people of the book. Muslims who study the Quran know this information, however just like their counterparts did with the Negus, they would never share this with you because it would destroy Islam's claim as being a tolerant religion. How could it be tolerant and then say this? This would be a contradiction!! However Surah 5 is one of the last surahs before the death of Muhammad and it abrogates the older surah's promoting the tolerance of Christians.

This animosity over Christians and Jews are the spearhead which facilitate terrorist attacks against both groups in the Middle East today! Muslims want western soldiers out of Arabia and Israel out of the Middle East. Osama bein Laden uses this theme as his main reason for attacking western countries which are predominately Judeo-Christian. Bin Laden and other radicals can't be charged with interpolating false teachings into Islam since the Quran itself teaches you not to befriend the "people of the book".

According to the Quran, Muslims can only take Allah and his messenger as their guardian. The Quran also differentiates between true believers (Muslims) and the people of the scripture/book. Hence, a believer- a true one, cant be a Jew or Christian according to the Quran. The Quran finishes by saying that most Jews and Christians are evil-livers! I bet you wouldn't expect that one to be discussed by our friendly Muslim clerics and scholars would you?

This form of religious discrimination is a major factor in promoting fantical attacks agains non Muslims around the world. Any unbiased and open minded person can see that these verses easily inspire hostility instead of peace. For a religion to proclaim intentional verbal attacks on another in its scripture has no intention of being tolerant. This should be an added insult to all Jews and Christians especially when Islam claims to affirm your religion and faith. Here is more information from the Quran dealing with those Christians who side with Muslims in saying that they believe in the same God and theology, etc:

This should be a very important note for all of those Christians and comparative religious students who claim that Islam, Christianity and Judaism belive the exact same thing of theology. The Quran answers this allegation by saying that the people of the book don't believe what Muslims believe. It also mentions that Jews and Christians perform evil and that their handiwork consist of evil. The Quran also elaborates on why the rabbis and priest don't forbid our supposed evil, which they blatantly do. The problem with Islam is that it doesn't allow a person complete free will while Judaism and Christianity does. Hence, the priest nor rabbi can't force God's will upon a human being since they know that only God can legitamtely change a person's heart. If Islam would have learned this, we wouldn't have Islamic terrorist today!

The evil of Jews and Christians is their choice to either follow God or not. Many Muslims harbor these feelings without even knowing any westerner or Jew or Christian, in the Near East. If you read the testimony of the terrorist caught heading for Seattle before the millinuem celebration, he echoes these same feelings without even knowing why? The phrase that comes immediately to mind is "How can you love God whom you've never seen but hate your brother whom you have seen"? Because of the anti-Jewish/Christian verses such as these, in the Quran.

The Quran says that we don't believe what Muslims believe. This should be a note for all of those who make this accusaion. Also it says that evil is the handiwork of Christians and Jews. The Quran also wonders why the rabbis and preist don't forbid our so-called evil, which they do. The problem with this assertion is the fact that Islam is seen as a religion that doesn't allow you to have the total free will enjoyed under the previous religions of Judaism and Christianity. Hence, the priest or rabbis can't force a person to do anything due to the fact that they know that only God can legitametly change a person's heart. So by using force Islam believes that it does a service for God. Force only lasts so long as we saw above in the Arabs reverting back from Islam.

First of all this is a very strong accusation against the Jewish people. Think about it for a minute, why would a god fearing Jew say that God's hands were tied up? They wouldn't this is an accusation made by Allah and the Quran to legitimize the purpose for being against the Jewish people. The verse clearly says that Allah will increase disbelief , enmity and hatred among them and that he doesn't even love them because they are so-called land corrupters!!! This verse is the epitome of Muslim hate for Jews and Judaism!! Why would a loving God hate his own people? Why cause hatred and evil instead of promoting understanding and peace? Now you know what the Islamic world despises Israel.

According to their holy scripture, a Jew is a land corrupter and accursed by Allah. The Palestinians are notorious for such propoganda and verses such as S. 5:64 are very prevalent in their desire to expell the Jews from Israel. Contrary to Western propoganda, it is supremely difficult for a Middle Eastern Muslim (especially Arab Muslims) to accept a Jewish worshipper in his country in light of these passages. There can be no excuse claiming that this isn't Islamic due to the fact that the Quran itself teaches these destestable practices.

Jews do observe the Torah and Christians observe both!! This is a lie that is propogated to make Muslims think that Christians and Jews are unbelievers!! It says that Allah doesn't guide disbelieving people which means that Christians and Jews would be guided by satan, according to Islam!! This idiology is the basic foundation for Islamic hate of the Christian world and the west. This sounds more like intentional propoganda other than a religion that promotes harmony and peace. The claim that fanatical Islam is a perversion must be reexamined in light of these above verses!! What does orthodox Islam think about orthodox Christian beliefs? Here is our answer:

This is the clearest verse in the Quran linking Christians as disbelievers. Every Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God can't be a believer at all in God, according to the Quran. The Quran evey goes as far to explain to us that these people (Christians) are evil doers based on these beliefs and that they will go straight to hell!! For those people who adhere to some type of Judeo-Christian belief in God, how in the world can you defend a religion like this?

I was emailed by one gentleman who said that showing the violent passages and teachings of Islam was promoting hate. He claimed that Islam promotes peace!! If this is promoting hate, why does Islam teach this? You can't ignore the violent and anti-Jewish/Christian verses in the Quran for the sake of being politically correct. This is total foolishness on the part of anyone who undertakes such an endeavor. Read these Quranic verses:

According to the Quran and orthodox Islam, all of orthodox Christian belief is a total lie! One thing which needs to be address is how can Islam be religiously tolerant and call everything a Christian believes, a lie? For those who don't know anything about the Islamic world, this statement may seem contradictory to what you have been hearing or seeing on the news. Just remember that the reason why the Islamic world was so slow to condemn Bin Laden is because they would be siding with disbelievers and outright liars (Westerners) because of what their holy book says:

According to the Quran, who are the closest people to Muslims? Surah 5:82-83 provides us with the answer:

The Jews are already discribed as being the most vehement of mankind which is no suprise. Who are the closest people to the Muslims? It is the Christians! Who are the Christians according to the Quran? Unbelievers!! Is fighting them godly or tolerant? According to the Quran and Islam it is!! Should Western Christians go out of their way to have interfaith dialogues with followers of a religion, which explictedly tells them to fight against against you as an unbeliever? Has the word "fight" change to mean peace now? I know that words evolve to mean new things over time but man this would be extreme!! S. 9:123 shows that Christians or Jews aren't even god fearing!!!

This same hatred is personified in Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist networks. According to Moderate Muslims, this teaching is a perversion of true Islam. According to true Islam, this is how a Muslim should deal with disbelievers (Jews-Christians). Bin Laden and others believe that they are doing Allah's work in killing westerners. According to the Quran and Hadith, they are in exact compliance with Muhammad. In their thoughts, they believe that they're sending these Quranic disbelievers to Hell!!

Now read this Hadith from Bukhari 6 Book 60, 105, dealing with the Jews and Christians on the day of Resurrection, from Muhammad. We must mention again that Bukhari is the most authentic Hadith in Islam and is only outranked by the Quran itself:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." THEN NONE OF THOSE WHO USED TO WORSHIP ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALLAH like idols AND OTHER DEITIES but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. THEN THE JEWS will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'YOU ARE LIARS, FOR ALLAH HAS NEVER TAKEN ANYONE AS A WIFE OR A SON. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon THEY WILL BE GATHERED UNTO HELL (FIRE) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. AFTERWARDS THE CHRISTIANS WILL BE CALLED upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' THEY WILL SAY, 'WE USED TO WORSHIP JESUS, THE SON OF ALLAH.' It will be said to them, 'YOU ARE LIARS, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be SAID TO THEM, 'What do you want?' They will say what the FORMER PEOPLE have said. Then, when there remain (in the gathering) NONE BUT THOSE WHO USED TO WORSHIP ALLAH (ALONE, the real Lord of the Worlds) WHETHER THEY WERE OBEDIENT OR DISOBEDIENT. Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, 'What are you waiting for?' Every nation have followed what they used to worship.' They will reply, 'We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.' Allah will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say twice or thrice, 'We do not worship any besides Allah.' "

This Hadith gives us a very explicit picture of what Muhammad said would happen on the day of resurrection. What is important to note is that both the Jews and Christians are mentioned in wholes not parts or somes. If this previous sentence violates major grammer, forgive me, this is the only way I can convey this point to you perfectly. The accusation made to the "people of the book" from Allah is that they both worshipped either Ezra or Jesus as the son of God. Hence, they are all thrown into hell-fire while only the Muslims who worshipped Allah alone will see their lord in Paradise.

What seems to be very disturbing about this Hadith is that those who solely worship Allah will get to see him in heaven whether they were disobedient or obedient!! Hence, since Islamic terrorist follow Allah alone, they still get to go to heaven even though they are supposed to be disobeying Islam!! Isn't this great?!!! Not if you're a Christian, Jew or another relgion's follower. This is one reason why moderate Muslims may argue their point about Islam being peaceful while the fanatics argue the same about their actions being justified. Whomever is disobedient still goes to see Allah!!

Extensive study on Islam favors the terrorist and not the moderate. If Muhammad was moderate, there would be no need to take people's free will and kill unbelievers would there? No. This form of religious tolerance doesn't allow for Jews or Christians to promote their faith in the orthodox Islamic world. If we want to look at Islam, we must study it inlight of its orthodox Islamic republics, such as Saudi Arabia. This is the birthplace of Islam and Christian evangilism isn't allowed here at all! These moderate Muslims in the West fail to realize that Islam doesn't become westernized just because they live there. This western form of thinking doesn't convey the true meaning of Islam, read S. 2:120

Notice that the Quran says that Jews and Christians form of creed is different from Allah's creed. Let that be a note for all those false interfaith dialogue teachers. It's a shame that the Quran is honest enough to differentiate between the "people of the book's religion" and Islam, while modern day Muslim moderates claim otherwise. The Quran even tells the Christians and Jews not to even stress their religion:

Clearly a Christian or Jew can't even promote their religion with any serious effort because the Quran says that they followed many who led people astray. Why? Is it because Islam promotes religious tolerance? Highly unlikely!! Other than to terrorize people, another one of the terrorist goals is for the greater promotion of Islam. Their animosity against the West stems from the fact that it isn't totally Islamic. Why should we help them by making acclamations about Islam- "claiming that it is all peaceful and tolerant"- that helps conform to their ultimate goal- "Make the West an Islamic state". Therefore you would be just like the, hence a terrorist by promoting their cause!!

Here is more information from the Quran to appease those naive sympathizers of Islam:

The Quran makes another false accusation against David and Jesus in claiming that they cursed Israel. This is intentional propoganda to justify hatred against the Jewish people. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that verifies this allegation. The sole purpose for adding this verse as revelation is to convince the Muslim believer that God is through with Israel since they are cursed and later gave his revelation through Muhammad and the Arab race. This is the ultimate bigotry taught by Muhammad and Allah.

For those western sympathizers to Islam, we must mention that Bibles are outlawed in Islamic states. Not only does this destroy their "religious tolerance" theory but it also reveals to us why the ruling Islamic clergy outlaws bibles in their country. If a Muslim isn't able to disprove this Quranic claim, then he would blindly accept what it says. Notice that the Quran doesn't mention what type of wickedness they did. Hence, we find a great accusation with no confirmation. If Allah and Muhammad ever cared about being honest, surely they could have informed us what type of wickedness occured.

ANALYSIZING THE QURANIC VERSE THAT PROMOTES RELGIOUS TOLERANCE:

Again, the Quran, affirms that Jews and Christians are disbelievers and Muslims who believe Allah and not these phony moderates, are commanded not to choose them as friends. There is no freedom of religion in Islam. One such surah verse which Muslim clerics use to fool the west is S. 2:256:

This verse is supposed to promote freedom of religion. This is false as shown from this response:

Muslim tolerance in the east is the true picture and face of Islam, not these western idiologies propogated by Muslims pampered by Western lifestyle. Many people in the West are fooled by deception. The reason Bin Laden, other fundamentalists, Sadam Huessein, Ghadafi and even some of our Arab allies hate us is because according to Muhammad, Allah and the Quran, there can be no religious tolerance at all!

HOW ISLAM DEALS WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK IN GREATER DETAIL

An idolater is anyone who worships any other person other than Allah alone. This passage specifically refers to the people of the book, "CHRISTIANS ESPECIALLY". This fact is verified throughout Islam. Notice that Muhammad was commanded to fight against them and force them to pay the JIZYA tax. We showed Hadith examples above now we will relay more information. Muslims embarassed by the implications have used excuses such as this to deny the obvious:

So far, all very positive, but Haneef is Muslim residing in the West, thus interacting with Christians, and addressing a Western audience. Thus, his approach will be conditioned by that reality. This isn't the true reality of Islam, since the Quranic verses clearly say that Christians and Jews would "BE BROUGHT LOW" by paying this tax. The true attitude of Islam is exhibited by a Muslim writer based in Saudi Arabia, the holy land of Islam, and the perfect Islamic society. It is a state governed largely by Islamic law, and which forbids all expressions of religious liberty:

The American Revolution was fought on the principle 'no taxation without representation', the idea being that constitutional equality was a precondition for the sovereign exercise of levying taxes. The only basis for different levels of taxation is socio-economic distinction, but even here the tax is identical in character, is levied without regard for one's communal origins. The principle of distinction in progressive taxation is ability to pay. The tax imposed does not punish a businessman for his success. Refusal to pay will result in fines or imprisonment, but never execution. Furthermore, the tax he pays grants him entitlement to the full protection of the state, and thus full and equal citizenship. The goal of the tax is the same with everyone - the enabling of the state to provide for the security and well being of all its citizens.

This isn't the case in Islam, you are being taxed because you don't believed what Muslims believe. You are paying them to believe your own religion!! If Muslims came and took over America, a person must either accept Islam or be pay the Muslims for not killing them!! Isn't this great?!! Abul 'Ala Mawdudi, Qur'anic exegete and founder of the Islamist Pakistani group Jama'at-i-Islami was quite unapologetic about Jizyah:

The Qur'anic imperative to Jihad is shown as having the aim of subjugating non-Muslims, to force them to pay the Jizyah as the defining symbol of their subjection:

The consequence of this is that in an Islamic State – specifically the Khilafah – non-Muslims should be denied Government posts, since the state exists for the Muslims, who alone are true citizens, whilst the non-Muslims are merely conquered residents, and the Jizyah signifies this:

Differences of taxation demonstrate distinctions in citizenship. As a symbol of subjection, it signifies that the state is not really the common property of all its permanent residents, but only the Muslims. The non-Muslims are conquered outsiders. It demonstrates their inferior condition. It also punishes them for their disbelief in Islam. Islamic law makes it very clear that the Jizyah is punitive in character.

A Zhimmi is a Jew or Christian living in a Muslim country. Islam forces you to pay for your freedom of religion for the fear of death. Christianity never does this to anyone. Muslims even defend this silly action by saying that it is humane!!! They are no better than evil slaveowners. Only followers of Satan force people to pay them for the fear of death. Doesn't this sound like the 19th century pirates that roamed the seven seas? Yes! Somebody call Captain Hook!! The people of the book are forced to pay Jizya for the fear of their life. Further, it is to levied with humiliation. (IBID).

Hence, it is in no way comparable to Western tax systems. Even progressive taxation is not a 'punishment' for economic success, nor is any tax specifically humiliating in character.

This illustrates that essentially, in an Islamic State, the non-Muslims are in a worse situation than prisoners out on parole, since they are still being punished – they are not considered 'good, law-abiding citizens' however exemplary their conduct, but rather criminals given day-leave. Their crime is their faith.

It is a total joke to see any Muslim in the west ask for civil rights!!! Christians and Jews can be attacked first and Muslims are right for doing this. Pay no attention to this over exagerrated stories about Muslims being attacked and fearing to go to their mosque. This is mere propoganda and nothing more to get you to be sympathetic to them, even though they wouldn't return the favor for you if you visited one of their Islamic republics.

Moreover, for the people of the book, their crime is capital in nature – they deserve death.

This demonstrates the unique character of the Jizyah tax – unlike Western taxes, payment does not grant equality and liberty to the payee, but rather merely permission for another tax period to live; failure to pay it results in death. Again, it is rather analogous to a convict on parole regularly visiting the police station or parole officer to register. This is different from the case of someone in the West who refuses to pay his tax for whatever reason; he is punished, though it must be stated not by execution, for breaking the law. The reverse is true with the Jizyah – the tax itself is punishment, and the payee lives in the permanent condition of being punished for his faith until he converts. Essentially, non-Muslims live under a permanent death-threat.

Islam is a total hoax that is propogated to keep non-Muslims under religious slavery. As these excerpts from Islamic law show, there can be no way to review this as tolerance. Muslims are hypocrites claiming that they live in fear here in America when they exhibit this same action in the Middle East. Read these Quranic passages:

Allah himself curses the Christians and Jews and he claims that they use money not in his cause. This is true since Jews and Christians don't worship Allah but YAHWEH, the God of the Bible. In the Bible God says that his name is YAHWEH not Allah. Muhammad also echoes the same feelings of Allah by saying this:

Narrated 'Aisha and 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

When the last moment of the life of Allah's Apostle came he started putting his 'Khamisa' on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, "MAY ALLAH CURSE THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets." The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.

Both Allah and Muhammad curses the Jews and Christians. That speaks for itself. Muhammad utter a bitter curse against the people of the book since they rejected him as a prophet based on what God said to do in the Old Testament. Since he was a false prophet, we aren't suprise to see him go down in a sea of anger. We add this Quranic verse for more clarity

The Quran speaks for itself. Muhammad, Allah and Islam isn't peaceful or tolerant to anyone else period. There is no need to mention otherwise. When Muhammad discovered that neither the Jews nor the Christians were going to respond to his claims he became very angry with them and the Qur'an declares Qaatalahumullaah meaning "Allah curse them!" (Surah 9.30). Jesus was also confronted often with people who would not receive him yet, when his disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume a group of Samaritans who had refused to receive him, he replied:

Jesus taught that love for one's fellow-man was to be so impartial that it was to extend even to one's foes: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6.27-28). Indeed when Jesus chose to show just what true love is in a parable just after this, he chose a Samaritan as the hero of the story (Luke 10.33). Most importantly Jesus himself put his own teaching into practice and, when he was finally unjustly crucified by his staunchest foes, instead of seeking to condemn them, he prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23.34).

We've already seen extensively that Islam isn't peaceful and here we will document more on Muhammad and the various terrorist acts he committed from authentic Islamic history. Many of these quotes come from Ibn Ishaq, life of Muhammad by Guilliame, which is the most authentic biography of Muhammad in all of Islam. Other information is also supplemented. We will quote from the article "Muhammad, Islam and Terrorism"

Many of these destestable practices would seem very barbaric and cruel. In essence they are, since Adolf Hitler gave these very same commandments to his Nazi followers. This hatred of "the people of the book" particularly Jews, stems from Muhammad as its original source. We shouldn't make excuses to appease the Muslim minority on this delicate issue. Doing the same with Neo-Nazis who hold these same views would get you labled as a bigot criminal and racist. Historical investigation of Muhammad verifies him as a pre-Neo Nazi prophet.

Muslims may feel offended by this but this is nothing more than one of their psychological tactics and tricks. By being offended they hope to keep your mouth shut about Muhammad. If he's like they say he is and Islam is peaceful, what do they have to hide from the Western Public? How about those Jews such as Shabaylah who was killed by the decree of Muhammad? They are more than offended, they're dead!! Remember Kab or Kabb? He was the Jew that Muhammad had assasinated by a Muslim ambush! Everyone knows that terrorists and evil assasins only operate this way. For those who wonder why the hijackers committed these atrocities against America, they only need to look at Muhammad to find why. Here is more information dealing with Muhammad's second terrorist attack:

Muhammad was so godly and peaceful until he would even kill anyone who had the ordasity to ask a question. For those who insist on being politically correct about Muhammad and Islam bein peaceful, remember Abu Afak, the 120 year old man killed by Muhammad's minions! Notice the reason why Abu Afak was murdered; because of Muhammad murdering "al-Hanith". Hence, he was doing the right thing in standing up to a murderer who claimed that God inspired him-- Muhammad.

If a Muslim Arab was murdered by some Jew or Christian claiming to be a prophet, the Islamic population all over would take to the streets in mad protests. This also shows their bigotry and hypocracy. Just look at the supposed hate crimes against Arab Muslims/Muslims since the September 11 attacks. The politically correct Media wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Everything that seems to happen in a Muslim community seems to fill entire pages in newspapers and waste our time on news stations.

Muslims are quick to condemn crimes against themselves but they don't speak out against injustices against others? Why? Rember Abu Afak. Muhammad gives a whole new meaning to "respecting the elderly". This 120 year old man was brave enough to speak against Muhammad for murdering innocent people and the peaceful prophet had him killed. Muhammad's confidence was shaken like a little child, by this noble response to his terrorism. So, like the coward he was, he did the very thing a coward would do, don't take up for himself but send someone else to accomplish his dirty work.

Does a true prophet of God need to have people killed or would he allow God to work this situation out for him? How can you believe a Muslim propogandist and ignore this? If Islam and Muhammad was tolerant then killing 120 year old men who stand against murder is also peaceful. This idiology is still practice by friendly orthodox Muslims in friendly tolerant Muslim countries. If you even question Islam or Muhammad, you must be killed. Where did this come from? Muhammad!

I would love to see a Muslim sympathizer go to any Islamic country and think that they can be free and question anything, like they can in the west. These peaceful Muslim followers will ship you back home in a million peaces.

The next person on Muhammad's terrorist hit list was Asma d. Marwan. Here we recieve a glimpse of Islam's great equality among men and women. All men and women are created equal when they are to be killed! I'm sure all of the lovely ladies would love this. Here was a woman who stood up against Muhammad and his murder of Abu Afak, the 120 year old man. Muhammad was so petty until he also had her killed after she was bold enough to speak out against him for killing innocent senior citizens!!

After Muhammad's terrorists killed her, he had them taunt her children. Notice that they accepted Islam because of the power of the sword. How would you feel if your mother was murdered in cold blood and then the killer taunted you and your only choice to remain alive was to accept his religious beliefs? I just can't believe how loving and peaceful this is!!! Muhammad was a murderer, the facts speak for themselves. Hiding it or ignoring it doesn't change this nor does it prevent future radicals for following in his footsteps.

Ibn Sa'd in his "kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" - Book of Major classics, recognizes this fact all to well. Notice the words he used- "She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him". He attempts to turn the issue around in favor of Muhammad. What he fails to answer is "why did she so-call instigate people and what purpose was this for?" By siding for Muhammad, he implies that Muhammad's message of Islam includes intentional murders of innocent people. Muslims who accept this view wind up wrapping more chains around their necks.

This is very alarming and only criminals would perpetrate such a grizzly attack. Just an added note, she was killed while nursing her baby. Thanks to the peaceful prophet, a baby grew up without a mom!

This should totally destroy the false claim that Islam sanctions peace and tolerance. Amr Amayya was a pure murderer. He was also a coward by attacking an innocent man in his sleep! The grusome way of murdering this poor shepard was blessed, not condemened by Muhammad! How can any godly man bless such a horrible act like this? This shepard was murdered all because he said that he didn't want to be Muslim. Muhammad never cared about human rights, or life unless it was for his followers.

If Jesus or his disciples performed this action, Muslims would cry to the rooftops about this. Notice their extreme silence on Muhammad. You can't even disagree with Muhammad without offending Muslims and they even name their children after this murderer!! If people of the west named their kids Adolf Hitler, Muslim websites would be beaming with information talking about how the Christianized west is racist and inhumane. If you are a Muslim whose been practicing Islam, you can't tell us that you didn't know this about your prophet. If you didn't know this, than you are naive for not investigating what you believe. If you did, then you are just as guilty as Muhammad for hiding this information and intentionally lying by saying "Islam isn't violent but peaceful".

Muhammad, prophet of Islam, and his closest companions seem to be more evil than Osama bin Laden!! First Muhammad attacked Fazara, hence he was the agressor and after they beat him he became angry. What kind of peaceful person and religion attacks innocent people? Terrorist!! Now you know why the Arab world is so slow not to condemn terrorism. By doing so they will expose their own sacred religion. Virtually all countries in the Middle East have harbored terrorist without much regulations to control them. How? Because of Islamic teaching.

HOW TO DEAL WITH CHRISTIANS AND JEWS FROM MUHAMMAD'S EXAMPLE

Now that we have shown you Muhammad's terrorist attacks we will specifically show how he dealt with Jews and Christians in even more greater detail. Lets show you the lovely and peaceful way of dealing with Jews first:

Muhammad's torture of this innocent man was to soley obtain treasure. Don't pirates do the same thing? Yes!! What is a prophet of God doing committing such henious actions? Muslims claim that Muhammad wasn't greedy but humble. If so, why does he have to torture this man to find this treasure if he had no need for it? To make matters worse, Muhammad delievered him to one of his followers to have his head cut off!! Simple torture wasn't enough for the peaceful loving prophet of Allah. Muhammad is no better than a modern day pirate who kills innocent people to extract their belongings. There is no way to sugarcoat this action or give it justification. He was a murderer, a thief and a cruel man whose job was to force people to prescribe to his way of life and religion. Doesn't this sound strikingly similar to our Al-Qaida buddies? Yes.

Khaibar was a large Jewish settlement about 95 miles north of Medina. The Jews there were primarily farmers. Khaibar was known to have some of the best date palms in the region. The Jews there were well to do because they had worked hard and earned it. However this didn't sit to well with Mr. Muhammad so he had to go take what they had! Amazing!

Many people are quick to equate Nazism with racism and a pure example of human devaluement of life. Most people will strongly condemn Nazism but yet these same people will admit that Islam is peaceful and loving. This is a contradiction of their stance since you will see here that a very important action used in Nazism comes from our friendly buddy Muhammad and his companions:

Ladies and Gentlemen, this evil practice didn't start with Hitler. Muhammad and his friends were the first to endow us with such a great way of singling out the Jewish people. If you think this is peaceful and loving you must either be demon-possessed or down right insane. I know that President Bush said that Islam was peaceful and that Osama Bin Laden perverted it. However, Bush isn't knowledgeable in Islamic history nor many Americans for this matter. Muslims prey upon this lack of knowledge and they exploit it for their gains. Imagine, hating Nazism but confirming it by agreeing and sympathizing with Islam.

The yellow bagdge and Nazi discrimination comes from Islam not Hitler or Germany. I have seen many Muslims point out that Hitler was a Christian. Nonsense why would a Christian follow precedents set out by Muhammad and company? We can argue that Hitler was a Muslim or just as twisted as those Muslims who invented this terrorific practice!! With that being said lets now began to show you the Nazi law compared to its Islamic foundation:

Now Muslims can't complain and say that Hitler was wrong when their own religion sanctions such inhumane practices. Even if Hitler did copy these practices and pervert them, why is Islam racially pointing out Jews in the first place? Christians too aren't spared from such peaceful practices. Let that be a note for all of you Christians who sympathize with Islam. You can't where what you want and you have to live in marked houses all because you are Christian, according to Islam. How would Muslims feel if this table was turned on them? In fact they complain about being singled out due to their religion which shows us their hypocracy and the lack of knowledge of their own religion. Let us not pay more attention to "I am being discriminated because I am Muslim" since Islam invented this type of discrimination against Jews and Christians.

If Hitler was wrong why is it right to sympathize with Islam from whence these actions came? A Jew couldn't even fight to protect himself in the army based on Nazism and Islam. Isn't this fabulous? Not if you are Jewish.

What exactly is the reason for doing this to Jews (both Christians and Jews in Islam) other than bigotry and racial hatred? Is there some type of scientific evidence that Hitler and Muhammad followers know about that we don't know? Or is this inhumane propoganda? Nazism obviously copied practices from Islam and Hitler was spoken of as being demon possessed. We find it strange that God would condone such actions against the Jewish people which he claimed to establish his covenant with. Most Muslims don't know this about their own religion. They should check their beliefs out before blindly excepting them. Unlike the crusades who were not following Christs precepts, here in Islam we find that core practices stem from terror and bigotry against a certain group of people.

Both Islam and Nazism have specific tax based on a person's ethinicity or religion. Need we say more? No.

The linkage between Nazism and Islam is clear for anyone to see. Islam invented the Jew yellow ID and Hitler copied it. Islam invented the anti-Jewish army ordeal and the same was copied in Nazism. It doesn't take a genius to see that Islam isn't tolerant of Jews or Christians and that it should be classified along with the racial terror tactics of Nazism. This same thinking that drove Hitler to terrorize the Jews drives Islamic fundamentalist radicals to do the same agains the Jewish and Christian population of the West. "Monkey see Monkey do", "Birds of a feather flock together". We can safely say with the ordeal of Nazism and the terrorist origin from Islam that "Misery loves company" or in this case "JEWS AND CHRISTIANS".

On September 20, 2001, George W. Bush addressed the entire world from the Capital in Washington D.C. He vowed to go after the terrorist and he mentioned many comments about Islam and Osama Bin Laden. Here we will investigate key pointers in his words and compare them with what Islam actually teaches. Some counter references to his speech will come from all authentic Islamic sources (Quran, Hadith, Biographies) along with other related information to supplement need be possible:

PRESIDENT BUSH

The Arabic accounts for the Muslim prayers in the United States. According to them it was wrong to commit such acts in the name of Islam. According to Islam itself no such apology or wrong is required for this action. We are force to accept Islam over people's opinion.

(APPLAUSE)

PRESIDENT BUSH

According to President Bush and world opinion, imposing your beliefs is terrorism and wrong. However Muhammad did the same thing:

And,

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although ALLAH'S APOSTLE SAID, 'I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO FIGHT THE PEOPLE TILL THEY SAY: 'NONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED BUT ALLAH, '...

Osama and Al Qaida are just imitating the peaceful prophet of Islam and who are we to disagree with them right? If Bush really studied Islam he would find out that it isn't peaceful and that Muslims are covering up for the inhumane actions done by their prophet.

PRESIDENT BUSH

This fringe form isn't rejected by Islam so lets furnish you the teachings of Muhammad and his actions for you to see for yourself:

And,

Does this sound peaceful to you? Highly unlikely. Bush and Islamic sympathizers are saying one thing while Muhammad, Allah and Islam are saying another.

PRESIDENT BUSH

According to Bush, Islam teachings are peaceful and those who pervert them are wrong. Well this sounds good for a political horror show but is this really the case? No. Lets show you some more peaceful teachings of Islam:

Is this peaceful and good? If Bush agrees than he shouldn't be going after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. Mr. Bush needs to read that Quran given to him by Muslim clerics, more carefully and do some study into Islamic history. These Quranic verses above show nothing more than terrorism and outright killing against people no matter what religion they are. According to Islam, and unbeliever is a non-Muslim. It shouldn't take a genius to see the implications of this matter.

PRESIDENT BUSH

First of all, Muhammad didn't like freedom of religion or speech:

As anyone seen from reading on Islam there is no freedom of religion nor freedom of speech. This is a farce and it it should be rejected as being totally false and untrue. One key note in Mr. Bush's speech is that these types of people wanted to drive out Jews and Christians and Israel. Is this wrong to destroy these people's way of life? Not according to Islam and Muhammad as seen here in the Sahih Authentic Hadiths:

The Jews and Christians are considered pagans because of their beliefs according to Islam. The Hadith doesn't differentiate between them or the pagans, here is more information:

Christians and Jews aren't even allowed in Saudi Arabia to this day due to the fact that Muhammad ordered them expelled from Arabia. They were no more than pagans to him and Allah. Even though there may be a tiny fraction of Christians in Arabia, many of them can be killed for not being a Muslim. Even Western Christian visitors to the Arabian Peninsula can be given a hard time. Would Mr. Bush agree now that this is peaceful and good teaching? Bin Laden derived his actions from Muhammad and no one else.

PRESIDENT BUSH

As seen above in the Nazism section, Islam invented these inhumane actions. I wonder what Mr. Bush would think of this? We will sum it up from Walid in greater detail:

Islam isn't peaceful and clear study of this religion proves just the opposite of what President Bush has said. You can't justify hatred against the Jews and Christians and then say that those who practice this pervert their religion. Islam clearly sponsors such treatment and any thought to the contrary is based on nothing more than conjecture. As time goes by, there will be much more added to this page. God Bless All. Special note, president Bush speech to capital hill can be read from this link below:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Bush_transcript010920.html

Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section.