Lies, Damned lies, and the 'experts' that tell them

Most of us, when making a broad statement
and knowing that there are contrary facts,
would qualify the statement or acknowledge
that there are circumstances which may be
interpreted otherwise. Not Muslims. Even
when they know something is untrue, they
promote it as truth, because truth is less
important than promoting Islam. Thus, we
have lie after lie, without shame.
     It never ceases to amaze me that Muslims can say things that they know to be untrue without choking or any sign of embarrassment. On this page you will find a few examples of falsehoods by Muslim writers, clerics and experts that cannot be attributed to ignorance or misunderstanding. In simple terms, these are not just lies, but shameful lies. These people should know better. My guess is that they do know better but would like you to believe what they are saying. The truth is so much uglier.
     Here are a few of these lies, and links to Islamic texts that tell a different story. I am also putting here a few postings I made to different websites about this issue and others. Most people would be embarrassed to publicly say things that we know are outright lies, or for which there are known contradictions. At the least we would add a footnote acknowledging different circumstances or explaining that there are texts that seem to contradict these assertions. At the very least we would add a phrase qualifying the statement and refer to contrary evidence or opinion. But no, Muslims can lie, then lie again, and not even blink - even when they know that the facts tell a different story. The existence of evidence that may contradict their statements -- in their own so-called authentic sources, no less -- is never acknowledged.
     Below is a list of the most common falsehoods that we hear from Muslims. I will give an example or two of what we find on Muslim Internet sites and then I will give references and links to Islamic texts that tell a different story.

In a way, the lies are worse then the deeds.
By this I mean the fact that Muslims today
lie, distort and omit the facts from their
own writings is worse than the hate and
violence in those writings. It makes me think
they cannot be trusted. It makes me believe
that Muslims approve of the hate and violence.
Update: I have added a few more sections about "Misconceptions" to counter misconceptions about common misconceptions, or what Muslim tell us are misconceptions about Islam. Here are the titles in this section and shortcuts to each of them:
a. Muhammad loved animals b. Islam cares about the environment c. Female Genital Mutilation is not Islamic 1. Muslims are violent and terrorists 2. What about the "be nice/hate" contradictory verses? 3. Islam was spread by the sword 4. Islam oppresses women 5. Muslims worship a different God 6. All Muslims are Arabs 7. Nation of Islam is a Muslim group 8. Muslims are barbaric and backward 9. Muslims worship Muhammad 10. Muslims don't believe in Jesus 11. Muslim men marry four wives 12. Muhammad had 12 wives and was a womanizer Special exceptions in the Quran only for Mohammud 13. Muhammad was a pedophile X. Why do Muslims lie? The 4 types of Muslims Y. Talking to Muslims, Telling them the truth Z. Typical Muslim responses to anti-Islamic facts
     On Islamic websites you will find many sections entitled "Misconceptions" that try to explain these things. Without exception, they are filled with misquotes, omissions, distortions and, when all else fails, lies. I ask the reader to verify this for themself. Go to Muslim sites about Islam -- look for the "non-Muslims" or "misconceptions" pages and see for yourself. Nobody should be afraid of the truth. As Somebody said: "the truth will set you free."
Why do they lie? The answer is simple - because they have to.
If a person acknowledges the "bad things" in Islam, the spiritual
and intellectual consequences are devastating. There can be no escape
from the inevitable conclusion that this ideology is inherently
flawed. The moral and ethical transgressions are of such magnitude
that one cannot reconcile phrases like "Islam teaches only love" and
"Praise be unto him" with the words and events from Islam's writings.
So, a person must ignore the facts, deny the truth, lie about what
what is written in the Quran and ahadith, or silence the accusers.
     In a way the lies are worse then the deeds. By this I mean the fact that Muslims today lie, distort and omit the facts from their own writings is worse than the hate and violence in those writings. It makes me believe they cannot be trusted. It means Muslims are not honest. It makes them an accomplice to the evil that was done. Certainly Muslims have heard that some people say "bad things" about their dear prophet. They get upset and offended. They get angry. They call for censorship and even violence. The problem is that those who say those "bad things" are just being honest about what the early Islamic traditions -- written by friends and followers of Mohammad -- say about the theory and practice of Islam.
     If these "bad things" were only found in one or two accounts or in stories by only one writer, then a case could be made that the narrative was wrong or the facts were distorted. The truth is that each of the common lies below is contradicted by many accounts and many different events by many different authors, including the earliest sources and most reliable traditions. The stories about that tell of the "bad things" so numerous that it is impossible that anybody that has read the Quran and hadith should not be aware of them. These stories are found in all of the hadiths and biographies -- in the same books by the same writers in which we find the many "good" stories that Muslims love to tell in the mosques, and which can be found in all Muslims websites.
     Silence is complicity. If Muslims refuse to consider what their own writings say, or if they choose to ignore the hate and violence in the Quran and hadiths, then it can be understood that they do not consider those deeds and words to be evil or even improper. If Muslims do not object to the hate and violence in the Quran and the hadith, it means they approve of those things. Silence is consent.

     Why do they lie? The answer is simple - because they have to. The problem is that the transgressions in the Quran and traditions are such that they cannot be explained away. A Muslim cannot admit that Allah's message and his greatest and last prophet is anything but perfect. Not only are they perfect, but they are considered the ultimate guide for a virtuous life on earth and a promise for a great reward in the hereafter. To admit that the message has flaws and/or the messenger is blemished is to negate the faith and religion. To acknowledge that the Quran contains moral deficiencies or that Islam's great prophet murdered, enslaved, tortured, etc... must, if considered in absolute moral terms, result in a renunciation of faith. You cannot say "he was perfect" and "he just killed a few critics" or "He only tortured two men". It doesn't work. Likewise, the classic arguments that "others did the same or worse" or that it was "common at that time in history" do not work for great moral leaders, particularly founders of a religion professing divine revelation and promising eternal life. Thus, one cannot say that Islam's prophet led a lustful life, or that he killed men and women for trivial or personal reasons, or even that he attacked and sacked villages on numerous occasions, taking possessions and enslaving populations. You cannot acknowledge these things and then say "Praise be unto him" -- so you must ignore the facts, be untruthful about what Islam's writings actually say, or silence the accusers.

     Below are a few of the common misconceptions found in Islamic writings (usually directed at Non-Muslims), with an example of what Muslims say about these topics (and wish were true), and references and links to texts that tell a slightly different story.

Islam doesn't permit wife beating

Click for image This is an example of how dishonest Muslims are about what Islam teaches. It is from an essay Leave The Qur'an Out Of This, Please, by Hesham Hassaballa (March 23, 2007) at Altmuslim.com click for site, an important "moderate" Islamic website. I used to like this site until I was banned, again. Here are parts of that article in which Muslims are less than honest about Islam and its sacred writings.
     I truly could not believe my eyes. In a New York Times article published on March 23, a German judge refused to grant a Muslim woman a speedy divorce on the grounds that her husband beat her. The reason for this refusal, according to the article, is that the couple came from a "Moroccan cultural milieu, in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives."
     ... Yet, even more disturbing was the other rationale, according to the article, for denying a speedy divorce: "The Koran...sanctions such physical abuse." Condemnations abound, by different people for different reasons.
     Muslims were equally horrified by her ruling: "Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example," said Ayyub Axel Kohler, the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany in an interview.
     Not only was it not her task to interpret the Qur'an, it was completely inappropriate for her to even cite the Qur'an as sanctioning the physical abuse of women. Muslim scholars have gone to great lengths in explaining that verse 4:34, which literally says that husbands may "beat" their wives, does not sanction the type of abuse that this Moroccan man allegedly meted out to his wife. Muhammad Asad eloquently summarized the views of Muslim scholars in his explanation of the Qur'an:
     It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Daud, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of Abd Allah ibn Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum).
     When the above Quran-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud, Nasi and Ibn Majah.
     On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.
     Moreover, there are some who do not even believe that the word wadribuhunna means "beat them" at all. In her forthcoming translation of the Qur'an, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar interprets wadribuhunna as "then go away."
Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago physician and writer. He is the co-author of "The Beliefnet Guide to Islam," published by Doubleday in 2006. His blog is at drhassaballa.com.
I am not the smartest person or
greatest expert on Islam, but
even a simple article like this,
is full of errors and distortions -
and this is easily demonstrated.
Click for image Click for image      The text above reflects a typical article by Muslims. It shows how little attention Muslims pay to their own writings and how they distort and deceive to make them say what they wish Islam's scriptures said, not that they actually say.
     I posted a few words about this subject (on Islamic wife beating) on an Internet forum click for site. Here they are:
     As I mentioned, I took 3 months to read the Quran, ahadith and biographies. They are full of hate and violence. That is bad, but the lack of honesty about these by Muslims is worse.
     An example: An article "Leave The Quran Out Of This" (http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1889_0_25_0_C) about using the Quran to justify violence (Irfan writes at AltMuslim. I am banned!)
     I am not the smartest person or greatest expert on Islam, but even a simple article like this, by a seemingly knowledgable moderate, is full of errors and distortions.
     Mohammad beat his wife
     http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127 click for site
     "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave"
Consider the statement... One can have slaves, one can beat them. Morals?
     Consider the "Never beat God's handmaidens" statement. That is a wonderful verse, but continue...
     http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2141 click for site
     (It was this verse that I learned to check everything a Muslim says!)
     The article states: "Prophet said: 'I wanted one thing, but God has willed another'" yet continues to say Allah didnt mean what he said. Logic?
     The article discusses translations of Quran 4:34, but fails to note that many of the most common ones use the word "scourge". There may be a slight difference between "scourge" and "beat lightly." The translators often add adverbs (then, after, if) to Allahs words to make them nicer.
     I could go on, but it is always the same. The experts lie, writers twist things, Muslims omit details. I wrote to Hassabella 2 years ago about this, so he cannot claim ignorance.
     These writers are more honest about these things:
     http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=482&ln=eng click for site
     and
     http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.comp.malaysia/great_virtues_of_apostle_of_god_79060025t.html click for site
     Click "see full article" and read the whole thing "Apostle was a very compassionate man and prohibited muslims to have sex with wives on the day of flogging" (because it was painful!). Notice the references to Islamic texts to support this vile but honest essay.
     To understand Islam, one must read Muslim texts and visit Islamic sites. People in the West have no idea of the evil and twisted logic we are dealing with. This is why Muslims cannot end terror. To renounce terror is to denounce Islam. Kactuz
     As you can easily see, these "experts" don't know the Quran or ahadith -- or they do and prefer to lie about it. Notice the 'beating' screenshot of multiple translations of verse 4:34 (thumbnail above) from the MSA (Muslim Student Association) site sponsored by USC (University of Southern California). Three use the word "beat" and one uses "scourge". In case you don't know, scourge is basically the act of removing human skin with a whip and very often the person does not survive the experience. Notice also the name of the translator that uses that word: Marmaduke Pickthall, the most famous and probably the most common English language translation of the Quran. Notice also that Muslim translators often add words that are not in the original to make it look less evil. Notice that women don't even have to be wrong to be beaten. She can be right and still get clobbered -- it is the Muslim husband's prerogative.
     Pay special attention to the "Never beat God's handmaidens" statement. Follow the link click for site and read about 20 more verses while you are at it. As I said in my comments, it was with this verse that I learned to check everything a Muslim says. I know this is hard to believe, but sometimes they are not honest when quoting their scriptures.
     On the other hand, every time a non-Muslim makes a negative remark about Islam, Muslims will say they are not experts, or call them so-called experts, and so on. I have therefore come up with a proper definition of "expert" as it relates to the teachings of Islam. According to Muslims: 'Expert' is a person who says only good things about Islam, in spite of all and any facts to the contrary. Islamic experts have license to twist, distort and lie, if it makes Islam look good.

     More beatings. I mentioned Aisha saying that the prophet had beaten her and caused her pain above. Well, it wasn't just Islam's prophet that beat her. Quote: "Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful" (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 828). Link: click for site It appears that Aisha was a regular punching bag.

Here us another story from the hadith:

Sahih Muslim #3506: ... he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money
Nothing like a good story about hitting a woman to cheer up Allah's Apostle and make him laugh.

Click for image The unsolvable 'beating' dilemma. There is an article by Asra Q. Nomani called Clothes Aren't the Issue click for site on a site called Muslim Wakeup that attempts, once again, to explain away and change the understanding of the "beat your wives" verse. After the usual (and false) statement that "Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman," she writes
For critics of Islam, 4:34 is the smoking gun that proves that Islam is misogynistic and intrinsically violent. Read literally, it is as troubling as Koranic verses such as At-Tauba ("The Repentance") 9:5, which states that Muslims should "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" or Al-Mâ'idah ("The Table Spread with Food") 5:51, which reads, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends."
     She tells of her many experiences in the mosques with the "the 4:34 dance" -- in which Muslim leaders say they reject outright violence against women, but accept limited violence and imposing a level of aggression that has the same objective, even if it does not meet the legal standards for domestic violence. The problem is, as even she admits, the literal meaning of the verse is clear. The writer does not attempt to solve this contradiction -- to think about it would be painful and might damage her faith. It would mean that Allah is either incompetent as a writer or sadistic as a deity. So like all Muslims, she pretends that the verse doesn't actually say what it says. The fact is that there is no escape from the consequences of what is said in 4:34. As one Muslim said, the problem is that "If its okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world." The problem is that the verse says its OK to be a savage in the home, so Muslims can also be savages in the world. One cannot build truth upon a lie.

And there is this hadith from Bukhari[8], vol. 7, # 715, that details the extent of Islamic wife beating:
...Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women."
     So did Mohammad rebuke the husband? Did he punish the man for beating his wife? Did he condemn the violence? The answer is obvious. Notice what Aisha, Mohammad's 9 year old wife (when married), says about Muslim wives. Yet, the article above says that "the prophet intensely detested the idea of beating women" without informing us where this new and undiscovered text is found. The statement sounds good, and they wish Mohammad had said something like that, so it must be true.
     Jannah.org, a Muslim site, has a page about abuse of wives. (http://www.jannah.org/sisters/wifeabuse.html) click for site
     Although Islam promises women protection from such problems, the reality in many Muslim homes is different.
     The most common form of abuse is emotional and mental abuse. In Muslim homes, this includes verbal threats to divorce the wife, to remarry, or to take the kids away if she does not do exactly as she is told; intimidation and threats of harm; degradation, humiliation, insults, ridicule, name-calling, and criticism; false accusations and blaming her for everything; ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing her needs; neglect and the silent treatment; spying on her; telling her she is a failure and will go to hell; twisting Islamic teachings to make her feel worthless because she is a woman; restricting her access to transportation, health care, food, clothing, money, friends, or social services; physical and social isolation; extreme jealousy and possessiveness; lying, breaking promises, destroying trust; etc. Emotional abuse can take place in public or at home.
     Although it's completely contrary to the example of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, [Note: actually, beating a woman is NOT contrary to Mohammad's example, as found here: click for site] the Muslim community nonetheless tends to dismiss the seriousness of mental abuse, rationalizing it as a petty argument between husband and wife, and saying it's not serious unless he hits her. In reality, mental abuse does severe psychological harm to many Muslim women. It destroys their self-esteem and makes them question their self-worth; some have mental breakdowns and go insane. Furthermore, psychological abuse can lead to physical abuse.
     I have a page about Islam and women, found here: click for site


Back to top.

Mohammad never attacked anybody

     The usual story on Islamic sites is if there was a battle, it was never Mohammad's fault. If there was a fight, he was only defending himself. Here are a few samples of common statements about the 'wars of the prophet,' as found on thousands of Islamic websites.
No, Muhammad (pbuh) was NOT a murderer. He was Almighty Allah's Messenger who Spread Islam to Mankind by peace, except when wars were imposed upon him and his followers.

Many wars were imposed upon the Muslims, and thus, it is only normal and natural to find Noble Verses that deal with these specific hostile situations

Above all, Islam is a faith of peace and justice with respect for all faiths, peoples, and human rights. Only defensive wars are allowed in Islam

History records that all the wars fought by prophet Muhammad (saws) were defensive in nature and all attacks were initiated by the enemies of Islam. The true nature of Islam was displayed when a contingent lead by the prophet (saws) took over a weakened Makka without any blood shed. All the people of that town were spared (http://www.introducingislam.org/info/moralsquran/page3.php) click for site
"The military expeditions (Ghazawat,
literally raid) in which the Messenger
personally participated were twenty-six.
Some say there were twenty-seven."
     The truth is that, according to the ahadith, Islam's great prophet attacked villages and caravans time after time. Tabari says Mohammad personally participated in 26 raids and sent out another two dozen in which he did not go. Quote: "The military expeditions (Ghazawat, literally raid) in which the Messenger personally participated were twenty-six. Some say there were twenty-seven." Tabari IX:118 "The armies and raiding parties sent by the Messenger of Allah between the time he came to Medina and his death (ten years) was forty-eight." Tabari IX:115. The accounts tell of the plunder and taking slaves, of giving captured women to the Prophet’s men. The writer was especially proud of the raids where the caravans and villages were taken by surprise. Oh yes, about the 'bloodless' capture of Mecca (Makka), perhaps the writer above thinks the people that were killed by order of Mohammad, including the famous 'singing girls', were strangled rather than cut to pieces with a sword. This, I guess, would make it technically 'bloodless'.
     I quote: Ibn 'Aun reported: ...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. Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 - also in Bukhari click for site.
     Consider also another story from those respected, authentic accounts of the life of Islam's prophet click for site, by a different author. Here is what is found in this narrative: A night attack, from all sides, some killed, some taken prisoner, Muslims sees women and children, was afraid they would get away, shot arrow to stop them, drove them along, saw a woman and her beautiful daughter, herded them along some more, warrior gets girl as prize, he did not strip her naked - yet, Mohammad meets warrior and asks for girl, next day he asks again, Mohammad gets girl and trades her for some of his men held captive in Mecca. It doesn't sound defensive to me! Once again we see that women are but objects, or animals to be herded along and used - either for sex or as currency. So, after an attack from all sides, and capturing even women and children, Mohammad took an innocent girl from her mother and traded her for his men. This is selling human flesh!

click for image click for image click for image A few pages from the hadith. Unlike most Muslims, I took the time to read the early traditions and biographies of Islam - the same ones that Muslims hold to be the "true and authentic records of the life and words of their prophet." It is not a nice story. Yes, there are good and even funny stories. Yes, Mohammad did some good things and said some eloquent and inspiring statements. The problem is there is also a lot of attacking and killing infidels, a lot of hate towards non-Muslims and repeated calls to violence against them. The problem is that Muslims are not honest about these things.
     I took the time to scan a few of the hundreds of pages from these "authentic" traditions. The thumbnail images are of a few pages from these writings. Here is another account from those writings: (Muslim, Book 037, Number 6670) click for site
Ibn Shihab reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) made an expedition to Tabuk and he (the Holy Prophet) had in his mind (the idea of threatening the) Christians of Arabia in Syria and those of Rome. Ibn Shihab (further) reported that 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Abdullah b. Ka'b informed him that Abdullah b. Ka'b who served as the guide of Ka'b b. 'Malik as he became blind that he heard Ka'b b. Malik narrate the story of his remaining behind Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) from the Battle of Tabuk. Ka'b b. Malik said: I never remained behind Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) from any expedition which he undertook except the Battle of Tabuk and that of the Battle of Badr. So far as the Battle of Badr is concerned, nobody was blamed for remaining behind as Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and the Muslims (did not set out for attack but for waylaying) the caravan of the Quraish, but it was Allah Who made them confront their enemies without their intention (to do so).
Yes, there are good and even funny stories
in the traditions. Yes, Mohammad did some
good things and made some very inspiring
statements. The problem is that there are
also a lot of hate towards non-Muslims and
a lot of attacking and killing infidels,
and a lot of calls to do violence against
them. The problem is that Muslims are not
honest about these things. They don't want
to talk about it. They lie about it.
Follow the link and keep reading about the expeditions, fighting and attacks. Does the paragraph above sound like defensive wars? Does it sound like "all the attacks were initiated by the enemies of Islam"?
     There are literally hundreds of accounts of these raids and battles in Islamic writings, all of them. Sometimes there are long descriptions of the event and people involved and sometimes there is just a line with a simple text like this: Narrated Usamah: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) enjoined upon him to attack Ubna in the morning and burn the place. click for site
     Here is another attack (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4437)click for site
It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) raided Khaibar. One morning we offered prayers in the darkness of early dawn (near Khaibar). Then the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) mounted (his horse). Abu Talha mounted his and I mounted behind Abu Talha on the same horse. The Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him) rode through the streets of Khaibar and (I rode so close to him) that my knee touched the thigh of the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him). The wrapper got aside from his thigh, and I could see its whiteness. When he entered the town, he said: God is Great. Khaibar shall face destruction. When we descend in the city-square of a people, it is a bad day for them who have been warned (and have not taken heed). He said these words thrice. The people of the town had just come out from (their houses) to go about their jobs. They said (in surprise): Muhammad has come. We captured Khaibar by force.
Notice what it says. It was a surprise raid, the men rode silently into a village so close together their knees touched. Suddenly Mohammad yells "allah akbar" (just like Muslims do today when attacking and killing infidels) and "Kaibar will be destroyed" as the people were just getting up to go to work. Here is another account of the same attack: click for site

     The historical records indicate that it was almost always Mohammad and his men who did the attacking. I think there were only two battles that may be considered "defensive" for Muslims, even if both of these attacks were in response to the endless raids conducted by Mohammad . There was nothing "defensive" about any of his wars. Time after time after time we find stories of these battles in Islamic traditions. A few times Mohammad uses an excuse to attack (as in the case of the Banu Mustaliq, because he said they were planning to attack or kill him) but most of the time he doesn't even bother with an excuse. If you read these accounts or consider the concept of "Struggle in the Way of Allah" (better known as jihad) and the Spoils of War chapter in the Quran, it is evident that they are all about loot and plunder, taking slaves, capturing women and spreading Islam (which also meant tribute to Mohammad in the form of taxes).
     The truth is such that, if a Muslim were honest, he/she would say that Mohammad was almost never attacked by others and that almost all his wars were all offensive (in both senses). Muslims get just about everything wrong when they tell stories from their own writings. For example, Mohammad was not expelled from Mecca, he left of his own accord. When there were battles, it is because the other tribes got tired of the raids and expeditions that Mohammad did against them, taking their possessions and killing and enslaving their people. Mohammad was a better general, but he also was responsible for the suffering and death of thousands of innocent people. There is no other way to understand the ahadith.
     I have a page on this site about the attack on the village of Banu al-Mustaliq and rape of the women, found here: click for site

Here is a link to the chapter 59 in Bukhari's hadith called Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (Al-Maghaazi). Read the whole thing then keep on reading. click for site from 285 to 749, and then tell me if this man was a man of peace.

Here is a photo of a headline from The London Times click for site. This is how Islam respects non-muslims. This is how peaceful this religion really is. Here are a few lines from the article...
     Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.
     Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.
     The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.
     The Times has gained access to numerous talks and sermons delivered in recent years by Mr ul Haq and other graduates of Britain’s most influential Deobandi seminary near Bury, Greater Manchester. Intended for a Muslim-only audience, they reveal a deep-rooted hatred of Western society, admiration for the Taleban and a passionate zeal for martyrdom “in the way of Allah”.
     Well, well, well. All is not well. Note that the article says that this guy runs an Islamic academy and "he draws on his extensive knowledge of the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed to justify his hostility to the kuffar, or non-Muslims." He also says that "The J word has become taboo . .. The J word is jihad in the way of Allah.”

Back to top.

Mohammad never hurt his critics

     Say what you want, but even I must admit that Muslims love their prophet. Here are a few words from a Muslim site about him and his attitude toward his critics... click for site
His was a high moral character, so that even if badly treated by others, he went on returning good for evil. People harmed him, yet he would pray for them. He would remain patient in the face of oppression and, regardless of the provocation, he would refrain from becoming incensed. In setting this example, his aim was to fashion souls that were God-oriented, that found Allah so great that everything else paled into insignificance. He wanted everyone to have such boundless peace of mind that nothing could disturb him. Such balanced individuals would never then become prey to worldliness. Totally free from negative reaction, they would then be able to turn everything in this world, whether material or spiritual, into food for more profound thought, rather than into pretexts for rash and ...
     There are a couple of stories in the ahadith that Muslims will often use to "prove" how kind and forgiving their prophet was: the story of the lady that would throw trash on Mohammad every morning and that of the Jewess who gave him poisoned food to eat and whom Mohammad forgave. Each of these is a nice, uplifting story but they are not the whole story. There are many accounts in Islamic traditions that show a different a very different reaction to criticism.
Click for image      Actually, there are two schools of thought in Islam regarding critics and those who accuse Mohammad of improper conduct:
     The first school is the "he was patient and forgiving always" group represented by the so-called moderates, usually living in the West. This is the most common approach found on the Islamic Internet sites. Here is a typical example from About the Prophet Muhammad And Evidences Of His Prophethood click for site
He was also very forgiving to those who wronged him. He never became angry or hateful on a personal level. No matter how greatly someone wronged him when he was weak, he would show that person clemency when he was in a position of power. He would accept excuses even when he knew that the one making the excuse was lying. He would even make excuses for those who wronged him and did not offer excuses of their own.
     You will notice that this page above is a inexhaustible source of misinformation and wishful thinking. Notice the "He never once hit one of his wives" statement (again) and "He gave everything that came into his possession to the poor and the needy" falsehood and even the "He commanded his followers to be kind to the animals in their care and prohibited abusing them" information -- which must have been news to lizards and geckos (see below about how Islam's prophet loved some animals).
     I could go on and on. There are thousands of Islamic sites that tell us how meek and forgiving Muhammad was. They tell us again and again that "he never hurt anybody." The only problem is that time after time, he not only hurt them, but made sure his critics were dead.
     The second school of thought takes the "criticize Mohammad and die" position. This group bases its beliefs on events narrated in Islamic traditions. Here is a sample quote from an Islamic web site:
Know that all who curse Muhammad... or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgment regarding such a person is the same as the judgment against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear.click for site

click for image      Would these nice, kind, sweet people be capable of killing? How absurd!
     Here are some people Mohammad never hurt (according to the first school) or those who had to die because they criticized Mohammad (according to the second school of thought). This list is from a conservative (radical?) Muslim site www.masud.co.uk: click for site
  • Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slave girls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.
  • In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.
  • Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt cried out, "O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?" The Prophet said, "For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah."
  • 'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.
  • It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
  • It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.
  • Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.
  • Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."
  • Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9 - Usma bint Marwan] satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."[10]
  • Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]
  • In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, "One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men." Qadi Isma'il and other Imams said that the man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i related it as, "I came to Abu Bakr and a man had been rude and answered him back. I said, 'Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!' He said, 'Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.'
  • Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, "No one disagreed with him." So the Imams take this, as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or curse the Prophet in any way should be killed.
  • There is also the letter of 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-'Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed 'Umar. 'Umar wrote back to him, "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful." and so on...
     Not only did Mohammad kill enemy warriors, but according to Islamic writings he also murdered old men, women, poets, dancing girls and even let a pregnant mother be split open because she offended him. There are dozens of stories in the hadith that portray the anger, hate and ruthlessness of Islam's prophet. Of course, some of these critics weren't killed, they only had their arm cut off and their teeth pulled out.
     The fanatics in this second group accept the fact that Mohammad killed people but they do not consider it bad because everything Mohammad did was good and if you even dare to suggest that killing a nursing mother (Asma bint Marwan) is bad then you deserve to die because you have offended Islam's great prophet and everything he did was good because he was a "mercy to all mankind" and everything he did was good even if he had old men, mothers and poets killed for telling the truth but they offended him so they had to die and stop talking about this because Mohammad was the most peaceful, forgiving and just person ever and everything he did was good and so if he had somebody killed it is because they deserved to die and because everything he did was good and peace be upon him.
     I hope that last paragraph above was clear. It is very hard to understand the mentality of these people. I could say they are blind, violent, irrational, bigoted fanatics, but that wouldn't even begin to describe them properly. In simple terms, these people believe that killing, torture and other bad things are not bad if Mohammad did them because everything Mohammad did was good, and he didn't do any of those, even if that is what Islam's own writings say he did, and people who dare criticize Mohammad deserve both torture and death.
     So, between the two alternatives, none is good. One group ("Mohammad was always forgiving") is a bunch of liars and the other ("Kill the critics") is a group of sadistic murderers that call for the death of anybody that is honest about what is written in Islam's own writings. Have a nice day.
click for image      Finally, please consider this incident: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.
     Note that it is from a Muslim site at the University of California. I really don't need to comment on the content of the link. Read it! This event, and so many others like it, leaves little doubt about the character of Islam's great prophet. If anything, I find this incident as repugnant as the murder of Asma. It is not as well known because the lady's name is not given. If the man responsible for these things had been named 'Joe', everyone, even Muslims, would agree that Joe was a vile monster. However, since his name is Mohammed, Muslims write SAW /PBUH - Praise be unto him - after his name. That, I think, tells you everything you need to know about Islam and the character of Muslims, all Muslims.
     Back to the lady and the poisoned food. Here is an article about "the prophets forgiveness of his enemies" (A virtue to win hearts) click for site that is often used to describe how kind and meek Mohammad was, even toward those who wished him ill. It has been cited extensively in the last few years because of the 'cartoon' issue. While radical Muslims take to the streets demanding blood and death for insulting their prophet, moderate Muslims use this example to show how forgiving he was.
     The only problem with this story of the woman that gave poisoned food to Mohammed is that the lady, who incidentally was called Zainab bint Al-Harith, was later punished anyway. Indeed, Al-Bukhari includes this story in his compilations (entitled Al-Adab Al-Mufrad) under the chapter heading "Forgiveness of other People" but notes that the Prophet subsequently ordered that the woman be executed. Muslims explain that there is no contradiction between his earlier forgiveness of her and subsequent punishment because, although Mohammad forgave the woman, Allah did not. Here is how Aisha, Mohammad's young wife, explains it: click for site
Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle never took revenge for his own self in any matter presented to him till Allah's limits were exceeded, in which case he would take revenge for Allah's sake (Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 836).
     So, he didn't seek kill and torture for his own sake, Allah made him do it! Oh yes, why did the lady try to kill Mohammad? It might have something to do with the fact that he killed members of her family and tribe after conquering her city.

     I have a page about what happened to a poetess called Asma bint Marwan when she criticized Mohammad, and the many creative and stupid excuses that Muslims make to justify her murder or to deny that it happened. That page is found here: click for site.

Back to top.

No compulsion in religion

     This is one that Muslims love to say. When a person points out the intolerance and oppression found everywhere that Islam dominates, Muslims will invariably quote this verse -- as if that takes care of the problem.
     Before we go any further, I would like provide a definition of the concept of freedom of religion, or religious tolerance. It is the right of people to pursue their own religious beliefs and practices freely, without discrimination or oppression from government authorities or society. This includes the freedom to change one's own religion, to assemble with other believers, to speak out and defend one's faith without intimidation and to proselytize others. Period.
     By this simple definition it is clear that Islam is not a tolerant religion. The facts are so simple that I don't even need to write a page about it. Here is the simple truth about Islamic tolerance, or the lack thereof:
  1. Yes, the Quran says "there is no Compulsion in religion." Although there are some arguments against this statement and there are other passages that can be understood to compromise this statement (the Meccan vs Medina verses argument), for the most part we must accept this as what the Quran teaches. It seems pretty clear to me. Too bad that Muslims don't understand - or do they?
  2. The hadiths, on the other hand, tell us the exact opposite. They say that apostates must be killed. They say that people what leave Islam must die. This is not just one verse, but many. So we have a problem. Which is the real Islam? The answer can only be what Muslims do...
  3. In all Islamic dominated societies, people that leave Islam are subject to harsh punishment, both legally by the state and by other Muslims on a personal level. This differs from state to state, but it includes ostratization, imprisonment and even execution. Not only does Islam restrict religious freedoms, but all other freedoms as well. I have a page on Liberty click for siteabout the importance of freedom and many of the examples relate to the lack of religious tolerance by Muslims.
  4. The only people really qualified to say if Islam is tolerant or not of apostates are ex-Muslims. The news is not good. Every former Muslim I have ever heard of has been subject to death threats and vile insults. People that leave Islam will tell you that they have been continually threatened by Muslims for renouncing Islam. Many ex-muslims have to go into hiding or must be protected by police and bodyguards.
  5. Last and most important is a simple fact overlooked by Muslims. If the Quran says that there should be "no compulsion in Religion" then Mohammad is guilty of murder. Not only did he mandate the killing of apostates but he personally ordered the murder of people for the crime of changing their religion (leaving Islam after accepting it).
Either the penalty for apostasy is death,
and Mohammad was just doing Allah's will
- and so Islam is violent and intolerant,
or there should be no penalty for leaving
Islam, but Mohammad killed people anyway,
so he is a vile murderer. Which is it?
     Muslims can't have it both ways. Either the penalty for apostasy is death, and Mohammad was just doing Allah's will - and so Islam is violent and intolerant, or there should be no penalty for leaving Islam, but Mohammad killed people anyway, so he is a vile murderer. Which is it? Actually, both are correct, kind of. There is compulsion in Islam and yes, Mohammad killed people.
     All main four schools of Islamic thought (usually referred to as "Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence") consider apostasy to be a grave sin, and that apostates should be punished. The only variation is on how or how much they should be punished -- and this may vary depending on age, gender and mental state.
     In the West we often hear otherwise. Many Islamic scholars, particularly in non-Muslim societies, will say that apostasy is serious, but does not require death. Of course this is what is expected of Muslims. They pretend that the hate, violence and intolerance in Muslim societies has nothing to do with the real Islam. They make excuses, distort things and lie.
     The fact is that killing people that leave Islam is an essential part of Islam - everywhere. Here are a few lines from the Muslims-Canada.org website click for site arguing that Muslims should have the right to kill apostates in that country: It says that letting Muslims kill apostates will "enable Canadians at large to develop a heightened sensitivity to the needs of the Muslim community" and this is needed because of the "devastating dimensions of the emotional injuries which are inflicted upon the victims of blasphemy" (Muslims). So, Canada "by simply taking that extra step discussed earlier - this will not diminish the rest of us. Mutual respect, compassion and diversity will only help us grow together rather than apart. Surely it will be worthwhile to rise above the pettiness and the 'terminal meanness' of linguistic, regional, racial and narrowly defined cultural considerations". Oh yes, if non-Muslims don't understand this, it is because of the "Lack of information ('the knowledge vacuum') about the religious needs of Muslims (which) results in the intolerance which prevails in the non-Muslim sectors of the Canadian population."
     Word for word, vile thought for vile thought, that page is perhaps the greatest example of pure evil ever written - but it reflects mainstream Muslim though around the world. It is about Muslims in Canada, not Pakistan or Arabia. Notice that it says that letting Muslims kill people (because those people hurt their feelings) is a 'religious need' for Muslims and it will prove how tolerant we are if we let them murder apostates. I wonder if the person being killed would agree with the part about "not diminishing any of us".
I have no doubt that Muslims in the West
would kill apostates if they could. They
will deny this, but why should we think
that Muslims in the US or Europe are any
different from those in Turkey, Pakistan
Iran or Malaysia? The only difference is
they don't have the numbers to impose
their vile ideology.
     Be aware that apostasy is not just leaving Islam. It is much broader concept and our Muslim friends forgot to mention that it includes denying existence of God, rejecting prophethood of Muhammad, cursing or questioning Muhammad's character, or even rejecting Muslim scholarship (ulema). There is a very good article on this subject at Wikipedia (here: click for site). Please read it and check all the links and references. What this means is, that under the broad apostasy rules in Islamic sharia jurisprudence, Non-Muslims can also be killed for minor offenses against Islam, even for having an opinion and/or sayings things that Muslims don't like, even if entirely true and factual.
     Here are a few references and links from the ahadith that demand that apostates be killed ("If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him"): click for site and click for site.
     The issue of using force to punish people leaving Islam cannot be separated from that of using force to convert them. It is two sides of the same coin and one doesn't make sense without the other. If you read Islamic sites you will find that the question of "whether one must invite the infidel to Islam before attacking them" has been debated for over a thousand years. Anyway, here are a few lines I wrote in response to a Muslim who said that Mohammad never used force to convert people to Islam.
     If Muslims want to end all these terrible insults maybe they should just stop preaching and doing hate and violence throughout the world. Or is that too much to ask? Muslims do these things and then blame others for talking about it.
     "Our Prophet never used force to convert others to Islam". Are you sure? What about "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"
     http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294
     Convert, pay tribute or die. No force there! Nope! None at all.
     I can hardly read any statement about Islam from Muslims without finding errors, distortions and lies. Either they don't know their own writings or they are dishonest. Muslims have this tendency to say things about Islam that reflect what they would like to hear, not what their own writings actually say.
     I have a few more comments of this subject, posted to an Internet forum here: click for site

Mohammad never tortured anybody

Click for image      IslamOnline is one of the biggest and most 'authentic' Islamic websites on the Internet. Like all good Muslim sites, it has a section for Non-Muslims, and, of course, this section has a few pages that address "misconceptions". One of these misconceptions that the site tackles is "Did Mohammad ever torture his enemies?" click for site.
     The question about torture was, according to the Islamonline page mentioned above, answered by the "IOL Islamic researchers" team (here is the link, again: click for site) -- and they say... they say... Well, they don't really answer the question. They tell how wonderful Mohammad was and talk about the great, kind things he did. What they don't do is answer their own question. The page doesn't say he didn't torture, neither does it say he did. The experts at the IOL team obviously need to learn more about the history of Islam and it's prophet.
     Before we continue, let's look at one of the passages in the hadiths that is often quoted when the issue is 'torture'. It is found in Bukhari's accounts, chapter 52, verse 261:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.") click for site
Yes, they were murderers and/or thieves, but…
     Wait! There is a "useful" link at the bottom of the "Did Mohammad torture" page to another page about "Did the prophet kill enemies slowly?" click for site. We are getting close, I just feel it.
     So the question now is "Did the prophet just kill his enemies slowly, instead of torturing them?" Well, to make it short, the answer is: Yes, he did, but you will be glad to know that when the "fountain of mercy for mankind" tortured people, it was "not for personal vengeance." Well, that makes it OK. The page continues with the statement that "Islam cares much about individuals rights' and the rights of society" (this must be news to a lot of people in Islamic societies). The page also says that what the prophet did was apply the punishment for Hirabah on them, which is for killing people, robbing or "raping women by an armed group of people" as specified in the Quran (Al-Ma'idah, 33): that is, to be killed or crucified, hands and feet amputated, and then expelled out of the land. The nails in the eyes was Mohammad's innovation and I am sure that if, asked, Allah would have confirmed it was OK for his prophet to add a few extras. One wonders then why Mohammad didn't do the hirahab thing to himself and his men after the murders, plunder and rape at Banu Mustaliq (see above or check this page click for site). Oh yes, the prophet is the prophet and everything he did was good.

One thing I have noticed is that Muslims
don't have much faith in Allah punishing
wrongdoers. They seem to feel that male-
factors must be punished on earth, just
in case Allah can't be trusted to do the
job correctly. This is why all apostates
must be killed and this is why sinners
like these must be brutally tortured.
     Here is an exchange about this incident from a Muslim blog, relating to a debate about Islam between Mustafa Akyol and Robert Spencer.click for site
"When he was master of Medina, some livestock herders came to the city and accepted Islam. But they disliked Medina’s climate, so Muhammad gave them some camels and a shepherd; once away from Medina, the herders killed the shepherd, released the camels and renounced Islam. Muhammad had them pursued. When they were caught, he ordered that their hands and feet be amputated (in accord with Qur’an 5:33, which directs that those who cause “corruption in the land” be punished by the amputation of their hands and feet on opposite sides) and their eyes put out with heated iron bars, and that they be left in the desert to die. Their pleas for water, he ordered, must be refused (Bukhari 8.82.794-797; 9.83.37)."
This was even funnier. They were not "tortured" because they renounced Islam, Spencer ignores the whole story and jumps to the end where it says they renounced Islam.
First, they lied to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Two, they betrayed Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Three, they killed the Shepard. Four, they released the livestock.
It is obvious that their intention before converting to Islam was to betray Islam and the Prophet(pbuh) anyways. Notice the hadith says: "But they disliked Medina’s climate"
It seems like they were spies, as spies were sent to kill Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) before and couldn’t because he was well protected. So instead they killed the Shepard.
     Relating to this debate above about torture, rather than comment on the issue of why this happened, I would like to point out that the Muslim blogger (Mustafa) not only accepts that Mohammad inflicted terrible torture on the murderers, but does not protest that treatment. Mohammad tortured, that is ok with this westernized, moderate, nice young blogger. Notice also that the Muslim debater tries to find an excuse. He rejects Spencer 'apostasy' theory (I would too), but invents a spy assassination theory. Akyol also has some psychic ability to see into the herders' hearts because he knows that they lied and he knows they were out to kill Mohammad, even if these are not in the text.

Click for image Click for image This is off topic but I couldn't resist. While reading Mustafa's blog I clicked on the links looking for some new interesting Islamic site. What it gave me was a soft-porn site on a link, so I left this note:
This is kactuz. As usual I was reading your very interesting blog and then I decided to see if there was anything interesting on your linked pages. I always make a point to surf from one link site to others - always looking for that perfect wave -- or a new, good, interesting Muslim website.
Anyway, you might want to check out the "Intercultural Dialogue platform" link on your page. It must be some new school of Islamic thought, one that I have missed. http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2007/10/the_islamic_case_for_a_secular_state_iii.php#comments click for site
I think the "Intercultural Dialogue Platform" site, or www.cul-dialogue.org has a new owner.

Click for image Another day, another raid, another torture. Here are just two pages from Hisham's accounts of early Islam and the doings of Mohammad. I will not quote the text, but you can read the page from the image. It is an account of how Islam's prophet and his men stole (sheep), attacked (Khaybar and al-Qamus), killed (Jews, villagers, husbands), beat a woman ("blow in the face that blackened her eye"), took women for himself (Safiya), tortured (Kinana, "Torture him until you extract what he has," building a fire on his chest) and then took half the produce of the survivors - subject to the condition that they could be expelled whenever Mohammad wanted to get rid of them. This is from just two pages of Hisham's biography of Islam's great prophet. So who was this Ibn Hisham? Well, Hisham, or Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham (d. 834 AD), is the man that edited the earliest biography of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq. Without these two men, Ishaq and Hisham, very little would be known about Mohammad.
     How can anybody read these accounts from Islam's greatest and most respected writers and then say "Praise be unto him" when this man is mentioned? How do Muslims justify the torture of Kinana? Maybe building a fire on a man's chest is not torture! Why did Mohammad do this? Because be wanted to know where the tribe's treasure was hidden. How noble. Oh, by the way, after killing Kinana Mohammad took his widow and married her (next day, of course, not waiting the 4 months required for widows specified in the Quran - but the prophet is the prophet and everything he did was good and bla bla bla). If you care to read the accounts of this marriage you will find that the bride was so happy that a guard stayed outside the tent because he feared that she would kill Islam prophet. In the morning, Mohammad asked the guard why he was there. The guard mentioned the killing of Safiya's husband, father and brother the day before - and so what did Mohammad do? He laughed.

Islam respects women

     In almost all Muslim sites that deal with the subject of Islam and Women we find these phrases like these: "Islam teaches respect for women," "Islam has given women all her rights," and "Islam has elevated the position of women" - and so on. These statements are then usually followed by a disclaimer saying that although Islam has done all of these, Muslim societies subjugate, abuse and oppress women because they do not follow the 'real' Islam and its teachings.
     So which is it? Is it Islam or is it Muslims that do not follow Islam? Who or what is responsible for the inferior status, sorry condition and limited roles of women in Islamic societies? To answer this question let us look at a few words spoken by Mohammad himself:
     The list goes on and on. There are also passages that say that women are "deficient in intelligence" and that "women are not worthy to lick the pus from their husband's body". All of this sounds real respectful, doesn't it.
     Here is a quote I found and saved, but I didn't keep the source.
Sharia is on men’s side and make no mistake about it! Islam has shocked the world with the its best kept secret, that is, Sharia laws, especially its provision on matters of sex, marriage, gender rights, polygamy…etc. Islamists are dying to enact these barbaric laws wherever they see their potential of success. A few of the once secular countries (such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, and certain parts of Malaysia and Nigeria) have come under these medieval, uncivilized, barbaric rules of Islamic Sharia. Words fail to describe the inhumane, tormenting, and mind boggling cruelty and despicable provisions contained in the Sharia laws. More importantly, this Sharia has totally robbed the Muslim women of whatever little rights they could exercise during the ‘decadent’ secular rules. The worst and the largest victim of Sharia had been the women, unquestionably
     Of course, even those Islamic writings are clear about the status and role of women, we continually find articles like this, that can't seem to figure out why Muslim women are treated the way they are. Here is a quote from a page at Islam for Today click for site.
     In North America and Britain, hard as it is to believe, too many Muslims have brought over this ignorant attitude and many mosques here don't allow women in. It's hard to understand why anybody would perpetuate such un-Islamic injustice.
     And among those mosques that do let women in, I'm sorry to say that most of the ones I have seen relegate the women to an inferior status. They banish them to basement rooms or other segregated spaces. Too often the second-class spaces allotted to the women are poorly maintained, uncomfortable, cramped, filthy, or otherwise substandard, while the men reserve the best areas for their exclusive use...
     Could it be, just maybe, who knows, that this so-called "un-Islamic practice" is actually very Islamic?
     Here are a few lines from an Iranian site about how women are viewed by the founder of the current Islamic government in that country: click for site
In his most famous book, Tahrir-ol Vasileh (Instrument of Writing), a collection of his views and fatwas, Khomeini carefully degrades women to a level less than that of slaves, and bordering on that of animals. In the chapter on cleanliness, he declares women najes (filthy), meaning that if men need to wash only once to cleanse themselves, women must do so twice. In his view, the multitudes of women who gather for prayers cannot hold collective prayers unless a man leads them. Although Islam emphasizes praying collectively in the mosque, Khomeini recommends that women pray at home, and even there, it is better that they pray in the closet. Women do not have the right to leave home without the permission of their husbands. Men have to provide for their living expenses, but husbands are not required to pay for their wives' serious illnesses. Denied independent means, the wife must tolerate her condition, and await death.
From this perspective, everything finds meaning in the context of the wife's attractiveness. If a woman refrains from creating an environment which provides pleasure to her husband, he has the right to beat her, and to add to the beating every day to force the wife into submission. In such a situation, the husband need not even provide for his wife's expenses. All these affairs are unilateral, and are the husband's prerogative. The wife has but one responsibility: total submission. The husband can divorce his wife in absentia: "In divorce, it is not necessary for the wife to know, let alone agree." Khomeini has also sanctioned "temporary marriage," legitimizing prostitution, specifying that a sum be paid to the woman for use of her body.
If we add to this collection Khomeini's fatwa sanctioning the rape of virgin girls before their execution, and the fatwa permitting executions of pregnant women, we arrive at a general understanding of the views of the mullahs' mentor.
His disciple, Rafsanjani also calls for gender apartheid: "Equality does not take precedence over justice... Justice does not mean that all laws must be the same for men and women. One of the mistakes that Westerners make is to forget this..
     And so on. The picture of Women under Islam is not a pretty one. But many women insist that Islam teaches respect for women and elevates the female, and then they enter the mosque through the back door where they even have their own drinking fountains. Maybe Mohammad was right, after all.
     It is not just some Muslim women (Muslimahs) that propagate this stupid idea, but many liberal, so-called 'enlightened' Western women want us to believe it as well: Here is what BBC television producer Mary Walker said about what she learned during her two years making the Living Islam documentary series click for site
By choosing to wear the veil, these women were making a conscious decision to define their role in society and their relationship with men. That relationship appeared to be based more on exchange and mutual respect (a respect that was often lacking in the personal relationships I saw in the West),
Of course, Ms Walker did not report on news from the same site about the situation of Women in Algeria that are murdered because they 'don't know their place' in society.
     Other women are targeted because they are intellectuals, because they work and because they are resolutely and unabashedly modern.
     Why this persecution of women? Why, of all the Islamists in all the countries of the Arab-Muslim world, do the Islamists of Algeria alone kill women as a matter of strategy?
     Old women have had their throats slit in their own homes, like 94-year-old Boudjar Kethoum of Sidi Bel-Abbes. click for site
     Ms Walker probably believes that the wall posters in Algeria that threaten women with death if they go to the hammam (public baths for women), frequent beauty salons, work, play sports or study music and art are just another manner of showing respect, a different kind of respect. Also it is obvious that the concept of the hijab as the supreme obligation for women is also fine with her. She doesn't have to wear it. Oh yes, nothing slows respect like cutting the throat of an old woman.
     I have several pages that relate to this topic: Islam and Women click for site, Marriage to Muslims click for site and Stupid things my Imam said click for site. Note that the mentality relating to the issue of 'respect for women' is entirely consistent with the 'beating' issue discussed above. The denials are the same and the source material is clear as to what Islam really teaches on both issues.

Islam means peace

     Very often you will find the idea "Islam means peace" on Islamic websites, followed by an explanation that the word is derived from the Arabic word "Salam," meaning peace.

     No, not true. I quote: The Arabic word Islam (or al-silm )means 'surrender' or 'submission'. It is derived from the word Aslama (to surrender to resign) which is from the same root as Salam, the word for Peace. According to the religious context, Islam means complete surrender to the will of God (Allah). In the broader meanings it is a complete religion which requires submission to the Will of Allah and obedience to the laws of Allah as set down in the final of His Books, the Holy Qur'an. click for site

     Just because words have a common root does not mean they have the same meaning. Take the English words sanguine (positive, cheerful) and sanguinary (bloodthirsty) as an example. Both obviously are from the same root word in Latin, but the meaning is quite different. It is nice to have a sanguine neighbor, a sanguinary person next door is not a pleasant thought. Another example: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "nice" comes from the Latin "nescius," meaning "ignorant." The fact is, the etymology or semantic development of a word often deviates from not only the original meaning, but from other words derived from a common ancient source. Words mean what they mean, not what other words of similar original mean.

     In classical Arabic, as in other Semitic languages (ie, Hebrew) there were no vowels. In all languages, historically speaking, words are for the most part derived from infinitive root forms, but may evolve to have similar, related meanings or may assume different meanings. In Semitic languages this variation of meanings are best understood by the way vowels are employed in verbal form (speech). In this case "iSLaM" and "SaLaM" are two derivations of the root SLM, having different vowels between the three consonants of the SLM root. All Semitic languages exhibit a unique pattern of stems consisting of "triliteral" or consonantal roots (normally consisting of three consonants), from which nouns, adjectives, and verbs are formed by inserting vowels with, potentially, prefixes, suffixes, or infixes (I had to look this up... an infix is an affix inserted inside an existing word. basically we don't have them in English). The SLM root word is much older than Arabic (or Hebrew) and can be traced back to many different Semitic languages that originated in Mesopotamia even before 2000 BC. It has a general meaning of wholeness, fullness or completeness.

     Note that a common greeting is Arabic is “as-Salam-u’Alaikum,” which means “Peace be upon you.” It is easy to see that salam means peace, not islam. Note also that Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to accept Islam, recognize him as the messenger of Allah and surrender to his authority. He always ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslem, Taslam!". These two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. Also, continuing this discussion of Arabic vocabulary, the verb "aSLaMa" means "he submitted" or "he surrendered" (implicit in the context there is often the idea that the act of submission or surrender is to God); the verbal noun "iSLaM" means "the act of submission or surrender"; the word "muSLiM" is the active participle and refers to the one who submits or surrenders; and the noun "SaLaM" means "peace". That is enough grammar, semantics, syntax and morphology for now.

     So, the word islam is not derived from the word salam. Islam does not mean peace. Both words share an ancient common root, but both of these are derived from different words that had already evolved from the common root and each of which had already assumed different meanings.

Islam ended Slavery

     I had a discussion about this topic a few years ago. It seems that Muslims, some Muslims at least, are under the impression that Islam and/or Mohammad ended slavery. In your dreams. Much to the contrary.

     Here is what Wikipedia says about this subject: click for site
The major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.[1] Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves. Slaves benefited from Islamic dispensations which improved their situation relative to that in pre-Islamic society.[1][2] At the end of 19th century a shift in Muslim thought and interpretation of the Qur'an occurred, and slavery became seen as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[3] This interpretation has not been accepted by Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.[4]
     Even today, in the 21st Century, we find Imams and Muslim scholars that defend the Islamic practice of slavery. Why? Because it is in the Quran and hadith and because Mohammad did it and everything he did was good, as we all know. So, Mohammad was a slaver. He raided villages and took men, women and children into slavery. It is hard to imagine the horror and pain and suffering that is intrinsic to the fact that "Mohammad was a slaver." As far as I know, there is no other religious figure that has that distinction. I wonder if Muslims of African descent ever think about this and what it means. Oh yes, It was "good" slavery because Mohammud did it, and everything he did was good.
click for screen image Slavery is an act of Mercy! Yes, you read that right. It says that the concept of slavery is an act of mercy. The idea here is that if infidels to not willingly submit to the ultimate master (Allah), he condemns them to the unwilling slavery of his sincere slaves (ie, Muslims). Oh yes, the slaves should consider themselves lucky because the heinous crime of rejecting Islam should be punished by immediate death!
click for screen image At last, an honest man! Sick, but honest. I quote: "Slavery is part of Islam" "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long as there is Islam." And this guy (Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan) is in charge of school curriculum in Saudi Arabia! This may explain why there is so much hate, anger and violence in Islamic societies. In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”[121] He attacked Muslim scholars who said otherwise maintaining, “They are ignorant, not scholars... One Imam says "In fact, the concept of slavery should be regarded as a concept of mercy, as the heinous crime of rejecting Allah as our Master demands immediate terminating of life." click for site

     Here are a few lines about this sad topic from a discussion called Slavery - now and then on the Winds of Change blog. I made a copy of the entire discussion thread and saved it here: click for site
"It is estimated that possibly as many as 11 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic (95% of which went to South and Central America, mainly to Portuguese, Spanish and French possessions. Only 5% of the slaves went to the United States).

However, at least 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. As at least 80% of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave markets, it is believed that the death toll from the 14 centuries of Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been over 112 million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the Trans Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 million people."
     I really don't like the numbers game. It is impossible to really know how many millions of men, women and children were taken into slavery in the West or by Islamic societies. The concept of counting broken bodies to prove that one is worst than the other (Islam vs West) is meaningless and turns the victims into statistics that serve only as fodder in an ideological debate. This does not do justice to those whose lives were destroyed by the evils of slavery. All I will say is that Islam is the only religion that cannot condemn the West for the evils practiced for over 400 years (roughly 1460-1890). The numbers of broken bodies taken from Africa north to Islamic societies over 1200 years is certainly not less, and probably far greater than those taken across the Atlantic Ocean.

     The difference is that the West understands and condemns what was done. We do not try to pretend it did not happen and we do not try to justify it. Starting in the 17th Century and increasing in numbers and influence, Christian anti-slavery groups were the main factors in ending this vile practice in the West and around the world. Because of their voice and influence, in 1823 (I believe) the British Navy was ordered to patrol the waters of the African continent and stop the trade in human bodies. The ships of the Royal Navy were ordered to intercept any ship carrying slaves, no matter under what flag the ships were sailing or their destination. Of course, more than any other nations, the Arab states protested this action.

     Rather than ending slavery, Islam and Muslims continued the practice long after all civilized nations have ended and condemned it. I was a teenager, in the 1960s, when Saudi Arabia finally abolished slavery - formally, because of pressure from Western nations. Even today, in the 21st Century, slavery exists in Muslim nations in Africa - and Muslims are making the same excuses as to why the practice was permitted in Islam, about why Mohammad himself did it and why it exists today. Muslims usually say that it was an ancient practice (It was!) and that ending it would have been socially disruptive. That may be true but raiding a village and enslaving its population is even more "socially disruptive". Muslims also say that while Islam didn't end the practice, it took steps to make it less abusive and cruel. That may be true in some instances, but the fact is that just like Western slavery there were only two types of masters: cruel and less cruel. The literature on Muslim slavery is numbered in the tens of thousands of volumes. From the description left in accounts by travelers to Africa, the Southern Mediterranean, the Ottoman Empire and Arab states, during the late Middle ages and up to the 20th Century, the so-called "kinder, less cruel" type of slavery that Muslims want you to believe existed, was rarely found. The only "good" slavery is no slavery.

     Be aware that slavery under Islam was not limited to Africans. Slaves were taken in raids all across Southern Europe and as far as up into Russia. Slaves were taken from the Indian subcontinent and from any non-Muslim ships sailing the seas. In fact, in the US fought a war in the early 1800s against Muslim pirates enslaving American sailors. One of the most castigated regions was the Balkans, where Muslim Turks took slaves for generations. And let us not forget the janissaries, an Ottoman elite fighting corps composed of Christian children yanked from the arms of their mothers and raised as Muslims to fight for the Sultan. At the same time, Muslims harems were populated with young women abducted from European and Asian homes, many of the Christians but also Hindus.

     Another question of academic interest is the fate of the millions of African slaves taken to Muslim societies. The slaves taken North to Islamic societies, unlike those taken to the Americas (the ones that survived the brutal trip and the harsh conditions of the plantations, that is), did not increase in numbers proportionally and the descendants of slaves represent a very small part of the population in Muslim countries.

     Here is part of the explanation (adapted) about the fate of the slaves taken to Islamic societies, from the Wikipedia article on Slavery and Islam click for site
According to Bernard Lewis, the growth of internal slave populations through natural increase was insufficient to maintain numbers right through to modern times, which contrasts markedly with rapidly rising slave populations in the New World.
Lewis finds several reasons for the low natural increase in the internal slave population in Islamic countries, as follows:
1. The liberation of slaves as an act of piety, but the primary drain was the liberation by freemen of their own offspring born by slave mothers.
2. Castration: A fair proportion of male slaves were imported as eunuchs. Levy states that according to the Qur'an and Islamic traditions, such emasculation was objectionable. Jurists such as al-Baydawi considered castration to be mutilation, stipulating law enforcement to prevent it. However, in practice, emasculation was frequent.[73] In nineteenth century Mecca, the majority of eunuchs were in the service of the mosques.[74] Black slaves serving harems were desirably castrated 'level with the abdomen'.[72]
3. Liberation of military slaves: Military slaves that rose through the ranks were usually liberated at some stage in their careers.
4. Restrictions on procreation: Among the menial, domestic, and manual worker slaves, casual mating was not permitted and marriage was not encouraged.
5. High death toll: There was a high death toll among all classes of slaves. Slaves usually came from remote places and, lacking immunities, died in large numbers. As late as the nineteenth century, Western travellers in North Africa and Egypt noted the high death rate among imported black slaves.[75]
He notes that the Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside
The fact is that most slaves in Muslim societies did not survive the tender mercies of life under Islam.

Jihad is not 'Holy War'

     One of the most frequently heard saying from Muslims is that jihad is not about war, or it is only about fighting in self defense, and this only as a secondary understanding of the concept (the lesser jihad). Muslims will tell you that jihad is mostly the inner struggle to be a good person (ie, the greater jihad).

     Here are a few examples of this type of propaganda:
14. What is Jihad? click for site
The word "Jihad" means struggle, or to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered Jihad. One of the highest levels of Jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrong doings is also a great Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of Jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Quran and Sunnah.
     Here is how a Muslim site explains jihad (www.quranicstudies.com/article96.html) click for site
     The Arabic word "jihad" is a noun. Its singular past tense verb is "jahada" (masculine) or "jahadat" (feminine). The singular active participle of "jihad" is "mujahid" (masculine) or "mujahida"(feminine). The root of the word "jihad" is "juhd" which means "effort." Another related word is "ijtihad" which means "working hard or diligently."
     Jihad is simply the process of "exerting the best efforts," involving some form of "struggle" and "resistance," to achieve a particular goal. In other words, jihad is the struggle against, or resistance to, something for the sake of a goal. The meaning of the word is independent of the nature of the invested efforts or the sought goal.
     Contrary to common belief, the word "jihad" does not necessarily imply any violent effort, let alone "war" and such instances of extreme violence. It is a general term that can mean violent as well as peaceful actions, depending on the context in which it is used, as we shall indeed see later. Similarly, "jihad" as a generic word can be used even when the sought goals are not Islamic, i.e. in non-religious contexts
     Aside from its use of the term "jihad" in its generic meaning in the two verses above, the Qur'an uses "jihad" in another twenty eight verses in a specific meaning. In this case, the phrase "fi sabili Allah", which means "in the way of Allah" or "for the sake of Allah", either follows "jihad," or one of its derivatives, explicitly, or is implied by the context.
     Yes, Jihad means struggle, striving or effort. Period. The word itself does not imply what type of struggle. The word itself is not implicitly linked to violence or war. The second definition gets it right when it says that the "meaning of the word is independent of the nature of the invested efforts" but then it goes on to contradict itself when it jihad is a "struggle against, or resistance to" to achieve a certain goal. The problem is not the word jihad, the problem is the concept jihad. The word jihad itself does not involve any concept of self-defense, neither does it implicitly relate to a person's effort for self-control, nor does it imply any idea of resistance. These meanings go beyond the basic dimension of the meaning of the word. Jihad means striving, struggle or effort.
     The question is then What type of struggle is jihad? Well, the best answer is to look at how it is used in the Quran, the ahadith and among Muslim leaders.
     Depending upon the source, you may find that the word jihad is used between zero and thirty times in the Koran. Some Islamic sites like to say that the work "jihad" never appears in the Koran, which is true because many English translations use the words "struggle" and "strive" or other synonyms instead. However, most Arabic experts tell us that the word jihad and its variations is used about 30 times in the Koran. Here is a list of these verses from an Islamic website: click for site
     Notice how vague and ambiguous this word is. What is all this "striving in the way of Allah" about? It doesn't sound like a self-control problem. It doesn't appear to be a matter of self defense. The only resistance would be that which is to be overcome by the "striving". Darn it, what is this striving all about!! I just can't figure it out.

Notice a few important things about this "struggle":
1. This struggle is against unbelievers because they are unbelievers - not because they are attacking Muslims or doing evil. Here are some verses...
2. Notice how many of these verses require that the Muslim leave home to do his/her "struggle" or require they give their property and themselves to the "struggle"
3. Notice that this "struggle" in the way of Allah may get a person killed, violently.
     Another common word in the Quran is "qital." This term (and its variations) mean "fighting", as here:
     Same idea, different word. Jihad carries a more spiritual dimension (ie, fighting in the way of Allah), as compared to the more physical aspect of qital, which also is done 'in the way of Allah.' In any event, be it through jihad or qital, the desired result is dead or conquered infidels.

     Here are a few more verses using the "fight" (qital) word
     Note there is nothing about self-defense in these words. Note that there is also nothing about resistance to oppression - unless, of course, not believing in Allah is oppression. The fact is that not accepting Allah is considered a form of oppression by Muslims, as is being honest about the doctrines and history of Mohammad's religion.

4. Last but not least, there is the matter of the whole chapter in the Quran called "The Spoils of War." Now isn't that nice. How many religions have a chapter in their holy book dedicated to spoils, loot and plunder? Only one, I believe. And where do these "Spoils of war" come from? Do they fall from the sky? Or could it be, maybe, who knows, perhaps, the result of "Jihad"? Take a wild guess!
     Here are a few verses from Surah 8 in the Quran, The Spoils or War, (called "Al-Anfal" in Arabic):
If you want to further study that last verse (Quran 8:67), here is a page with about 15 different translations: click for site. Here is the literal translation of the Arabic text: "(It) was not to a prophet that (there) be for him captives/prisoners so that he hardens/exceeds in killing (tyrannizes) in the earth/Planet Earth, you want the present world's enjoyable accessories/vanities, and God wants the end (other life), and God (is) glorious/mighty, wise/judicious." So here is what it says: Allah wants you to do tyrany/killing in the land so you can have captives. Allah also wants you to end your life (see killing and being killed above) instead of having a nice plesant life. Allah is really smart. If you care to read the Quran here is a link to a Quran browser with about 8 different English language translations click for site and to the one with the 15 translations click for site. Warning: Edward Gibbon complained about its “endless incoherent rhapsody of fable and precept”. Thomas Carlyle said that it was “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook; a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite”.
     There is also the fact is that jihad resulted in power and wealth, from the conquered people and the spoils of conquest. Mohammad became rich because of the loot (he got 20% of all plunder). Of course he was supposed to share it with Allah, but I don't remember any record in any Islamic writings of Allah showing up at Mohammad's door and asking for his share. Thus we find in the early biographies that Islam's prophet owned large tracts of land (which he let the conquered peoples farm the land - ie, do the work - but took 50% of their produce). Mohammad also took captives and owned slaves (the total number is not given but it must have been in the hundreds. Please note that some of these he set free, but this does not absolve him from the fact that he enslaved them in the first place). Jihad was obviously a very profitable business. Bukhari says "Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests" click for site. Of course there always expenses, so Mohammad had to pay off the debts of his followers is they died during jihad.

     These riches were all the result of jihad. The twenty-six raids Mohammad personally took part in, plus the battles, plus the dozens of other raids he sent out were all jihad. There is no other way to interpret the Quran, hadith and early biographies. If you read the ahadith, the division of the loot was always a big problem, with many quarrels over the plunder. Even Mohammad was accused of taking more than his share. To say that jihad is self-defense or a resistance to oppression is to ignore all these writings. It is not just wishful thinking, it is deceit and deception.

     You will notice that Muslims may quote from the ambiguous verses in the Quran to support their idea of jihad, but they never quote from the hadiths. Why? These are, after all, the traditions that are considered by 99.9% of Muslims to be the authentic narrative of the life and words of Mohammad.

So, how do the ahadith use the word 'jihad'? Here are a few quotes from the MSA (Muslim Student Association) site at USC (University of Southern California):
     Bad news! In every instance the word jihad is used in the ahadith it only means "Holy war against infidels". You cannot read the Traditions without stumbling over jihad on about every other page. Here is a link to a search of hadith at the University of Southern California: click for site. Search for yourself. Put in the word "jihad" and check all the references. See if you can find any verses among the hundreds found that do NOT signify "Holy war against infidels".

Click for image Click for image      So how do modern Muslims use the word 'jihad'? Well, the highest Islamic authorities in Arabia and Egypt apparently don't know that jihad means "Inner Struggle" and instead use it to mean "Holy war against infidels". Bummer. The fact is that this word is found on tens of thousands of Muslim websites and 99.9% of the time it is used to mean "Holy War."

     In summary, Islam is the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers. This warfare is called jihad. Hundreds of verses in the Quran deal with fighting unbelievers "in the way of Allah". All able-bodied Muslims are required to join this fight (2:216) to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12). If a Muslims cannot leave home, he/she is required to aid those who do (8:74). Fighting infidels is a "test" of loyalty to Allah (not good acts or faith in general) and martyrdom resulting from fighting unbelievers (47:4) is the only real assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111). In fact, all the sins of any Muslim who dies in this fighting are forgiven (4:96). Muslim martyrs (in the Islamic sense) are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22). The final command revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, was to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29). Yet Muslims tell us that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and jihad is not really about war.
     So, from all the evidence above, Jihad is clearly about fighting and killing infidels to spread Islam. That is how it was used 1300 years ago, that is how it is usually used today (if you care to check Islamic forums, websites, books and news articles). In the majority of cases in the Quran, and in all cases in the hadith, this "striving" (jihad) is a Muslim's duty and it occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against, the unbeliever. This striving requires him to leave home. The striving of jihad is primarily the striving to spread Islam and Islamic rule by fighting, killing and conquering infidels.

     In fact, jihad is usually only defined as an "inner struggle" when it is being explained to stupid infidels. All other times it is about killing and subduing those same infidels for the glory of Allah - and for plunder and pleasure, of course.

     Note to myself: Next time you go to the USC or UCLA library, please check Islamic reference books from 30, 50, 80 years ago and see how they define jihad. I don't know but it may be that this "inner struggle" or "greater and lesser" type of jihad is a modern embellishment (or emphasis) to fool stupid infidels. I came across this statement b