Mohammed's Marching Orders

Click directly on the image to enlarge it:

All these attacks by Muslims are following the prophet's orders.

World War M.

Worse days await us.

Play Censored In New York City: Mohammed's Boner Cut Off Before It Gets a Chance To Stand Out

Which is worse, you stupid fucking Muslims? If Mohammed HAD a boner, or if he did NOT have a boner?

Dumbasses.

Daily Caller:

NYC Censorship Event Gets Censored

Posted By Blake Neff On 10:19 AM 05/19/2015

4572347

A New York City arts center has canceled a planned event intended to protest censorship after one of the scheduled plays, “‘Mohammed’ Gets A Boner,” was deemed too offensive to Muslims.
“Playwrights for a Cause” was scheduled to be held at the Sheen Center for Thought and Culture on June 14, and was supposed to feature four short plays about censorship in art. In addition, revenue from the event was supposed to benefit the National Coalition Against Censorship.
Instead, the entire event has been canceled, thanks to one of the four entries. “‘Mohammed’ Gets A Boner” is a one-man performance by screenwriter Neil LaBute written specifically for the event. Its description makes it clear the play is intended to be somewhat shocking:

“The prophet “Mohammed” stands on a barren stage, recalling the first time he made love to a white woman. Is this reality or a theatrical convention? Where do the lines between ‘satire’ and ‘censorship’ intersect or is nothing sacred when it comes to the theater?”

Not only is the play being canceled, but some media entities have been afraid to even name the play. The New York Times, which first reported the story, calls it “a new play … with a title making reference to ‘Mohammed.'”

According to the Sheen Center’s director, William Spencer Reilly, the cancellation was made because the mockery of any other faith clashed with the Sheen Center’s mission (the center itself has a Catholic identity).
“When an artistic project maligns any faith group, that project clearly falls outside of our mission to highlight the good, the true, and the beautiful as they have been expressed throughout the ages,” Reilly told the Times. “[The Center] will not be a forum that mocks or satirizes another faith group.”
Reilly also blamed the sudden cancellation on the fact that, while the performance was commissioned in February, he only saw the play’s title recently.
LaBute has said that the Sheen Center was entirely within its rights to cancel the performance, but in a statement he also pointed out the irony of censoring an event intended to be about censorship.

“This event was meant to shine another light on censorship and it was unexpected to have the plug pulled, quite literally, by an organization that touts the phrase ‘for thought and culture’ on their very Web site,” LaBute said. “Both in life and in the arts, this is not a time to hide or be afraid; recent events have begged for artists and citizens to stand and be counted.”
Since the massacre perpetrated at the offices of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, controversy has repeatedly erupted between those hoping to defend free expression and those concerned about causing offense to Muslims. In Texas, two Muslims hoping to attack a Muhammad cartoon show were killed by security, and in Northern Ireland an academic conference about the Charlie Hebdo attack was canceled following concerns the event posed a security risk.

UKDailyMail: Police today made 'significant discovery' at Co-Pilot Lubitz' home outside Dusseldorf - Authorities Refuse To Divulge His Ethnicity or Religion

Nothing to Do With Islam

UKDailyMail: Police today made 'significant discovery' at his home outside Dusseldorf 

Raises serious questions about why he was allowed to fly commercial jet
Police investigating the Germanwings crash said tonight they had made a'significant discovery' at the home of pilot Andreas Lubitz, whodeliberately ploughed the Airbus A320 into the French Alps.
Officers refused to reveal details of the potential breakthrough but said it was not a suicide note.
Speaking outside the flat on the outskirts of Dusseldorf, police said they had 'found something' that would now be taken for tests, adding it may be a 'clue' as to what happened to the doomed jet.
German detectives were also pictured carrying evidence from a £400,000 home in Montabaur, a town 40 miles from Bonn, that Lubitz is believed to have shared with his parents.
The 28-year-old is understood to have split his time between the two addresses.

AUTHORITIES REFUSE TO DIVULGE LUBITZ' ETHNICITY OR RELIGION

The account Thursday of the final moments of Germanwings Flight 9525 prompted some airlines to immediately impose stricter cockpit rules — and raised haunting questions about the motive of the co-pilot, whose breathing never wavered as he destroyed the plane and the lives of those aboard. 

"We have no idea of the reason," Marseille Prosecutor Brice Robin said, revealing the chilling conclusions investigators reached after reconstructing the final minutes of the flight from the plane's black box voice recorder. 

Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz's intention was "to destroy this plane." 

Robin would not give details on the co-pilot's religion or his ethnic background. German authorities were taking charge of the investigation into Lubitz.

German Magazine Reacts to Charlie Hebdo Slayings - Mohammed Washing in a Bathtub Full of Blood

#CharlieHebdo: Millionen-Reichweite auf Facebook - Netz-Reaktionen auf die KURIER-Titelseite http://t.co/Dfs607MEAc pic.twitter.com/C7Eydl8nAn
— BERLINER KURIER (@BERLINER_KURIER) January 8, 2015

NO, YOU CAN'T MURDER OUR FREEDOMS! 

SMOKING GUN: Video - Anonymous releases Documents: Cooperation between the Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) and Al-Qaeda

Video - Anonymous releases Documents: Cooperation between the Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) and Al-Qaeda

From Will at THE OTHER NEWS:



Here is a photo of the documents:

New Charlie Hebdo Cover

La Une de Charlie Hebdo de mercredi: pic.twitter.com/NoG7Inqjc8
— Luc Peillon (@l_peillon) January 12, 2015

The cover says,

"All is Forgiven. I Am Charlie."

UPDATE -

 Charlie Hebdo’s new caricature ‘unjustifiably provocative': Egypt’s Dar Al-Ifta

German Paper Firebombed for Publishing Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Calling all citizens, a PERGIDA march makes a lot more sense than a "We Are The World March."

From AP:

Berlin (AFP) - A German tabloid that reprinted cartoons from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo lampooning the Prophet Mohammed was targeted in firebombing Sunday, police said. 

With security services on high alert after a killing spree in Paris by Islamic extremists, police in the northern German port city of Hamburg said no one was injured in the blaze at the headquarters of the regional daily Hamburger Morgenpost, which caused only slight damage. 

"Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window," a police spokesman told AFP. "Two rooms on lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly.

Huffington Post and Mohammed the Pig's Bitches

Radiant Pig

A while ago Pasto brought this article to my attention in which the idiot writing the article concluded that Mohammed was a champion for human rights. The article, of course, is poorly written with the state of research being utterly horrible. What's worse is that the idiot writing the article, Craig Considine, was (at the time of writing) a PhD candidate at Trinity College in Dublin and also called himself an "interfaith activist". I know for sure I would not be recommending Trinity College, Dublin to anyone seeing that the idiots studying for PhD there don't even know how to research.

Anyway, before I explain what is so horrible about the article in question I just want to clarify that far from being a cheerleader for human rights, Mohammed was a murderer, rapist, slave-trader and a warmonger who only cared about himself. He started out trying to unite some Arab tribes against the Byzantines and the Persians but once he moved to Medina his life and actions were all about himself. He was an asshole, a pig and a piece of turd who deserves ZERO respect from human beings.

The following is some of the laughable idiocy displayed by this Craig Considine that I found completely misleading:

Muhammad's beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.

Right...let's see what he's referring to:

Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians. 

The "many legal covenants" that this idiot is referring to are only the couple of them that are listed in the article. I haven't read the book that he refers to in the article because I have no interest in wasting my money and also the level of scholarship of that book is evident from the couple of cases that this lunatic discusses in his article.

So let's see, the so-called covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai. Hm interesting. There are a couple of things wrong with this so called covenant. One, Mohammed didn't rule shit in the Mount Sinai area, it was under the rule of the Byzantines. So the only thing this "covenant" would prove is that Mohammed was a piece of turd who was promising something he had no power to promise since Mohammed hated the Byzantines (called them Romans and wanted to wage war against them). Another thing, if this covenant exists, is that Mohammed thought that Christian monks were just waiting to convert to Islam and all they had to do was listen to the Quran and they'd be all Muzzie-like. For example, the pig semen covered Quran says:

Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say: "We are Christians:" because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.  And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses. (Sura 5:82-83)

Now of course Mohammed was an idiot and a narcissistic bastard so he thought such stupidity but just to drive home the point that he was only talking about monks and not all Christians there, check out the following verse from the Quran:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (Sura 5:51)

Mohammed hated all Jews, Christians and pagans except for the monks who he thought were going to bend over for him as soon as he told them what the Quran had to say.

Anyway, so that covenant, if it existed, was based on that understanding by Mo the pig. However, the biggest problem is that no Islamic text, not the Bukhari and Muslim hadiths, nor Ibn Ishaq's Life of Mohammed or anything else refers to this so called covenant. In other words, if you take the earliest texts of Islam its as if Mohammed made no such treaty! GASP!

Moving on:

Similarly, in the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet stated Jews "may be in peace... you are in security [under Muhammad's rule]... Towards you is no wrong and no enmity. After today you will not be subject to oppression or violence".

This is the height of hypocrisy and lack of knowledge by this clown named Craig Considine. Let's see what the treaty of Maqna really said:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, wrote to Banu Janbah, the Jews of Maqna, and. to (other) people of Maqna, near Aylah: After that, your messengers, while returning to your village, have come to me. On this letter of mine reaching you, you will be safe, with the guarantee of Allah and the guarantee of His Apostle. Verily, the Apostle of Allah is forgiving your shortcomings and sins. Under the guarantee of Allah and the guarantee of His Apostle there will be no cruelty or oppression on you. Verily, the Apostle of Allah, will defend you, against which he defends himself: Verily, for the Apostle of Allah will be the booty which you receive on making peace (with some party) and every slave you get, as well as animals and other objects, except that which the Apostle of Allah or his envoy remits. Verily, it is binding on you to pay one-fourth of the yield of your date palms, and one-fourth of your game from the rivers, and one-fourth of what your women spin, besides that you will be exempt from jizyah and forced labour. If you would listen and obey, it would be for the Apostle of Allah to honour your respected persons and to excuse your mistakes. After that, to the believers and those who submit (muslimin), he who does good to the people of Maqna will be treated well and he who ill-treats them will suffer the consequences. Verily, there will be no Amir on you except one from among you or from the people of the Apostle of Allah, peace be on you. (Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad)

Now, of course, all of this sounds good to you if you're an enabling piece of shit like Craig Considine but anyone with half a brain will realize that this treaty is no different than any imperialist power taking over your land and giving you protection on its terms, in return for shit they demand. Check out the highlighted parts. If this makes Mo the pig a champion of human rights then every emperor and conquering king and general that ever existed is a human rights champion. I mean, this really is no different than saying to a woman, I will protect you from others as long as you let me rape you whenever I want for as long as you exist. Apparently, Craig Considine thinks such rapists are human rights champions. What a low-life piece of turd this bastard Considine is.

In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, "shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs... The close friends of Jews are as themselves." In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends. 

 WTF? I don't think he understood what the so called Constitution of Medina says. This document starts with a clear statement that says that the Ummah are the Muslims, both those that followed Mohammed the pig from Mecca and those that welcomed him in Medina. He mentions that the Jews can have their own leaders and live in Medina but the problem is that the Jews were already living in peace in Medina and didn't take part in all the wars going on between the Meccan and Medinian Arabs. This constitution made it so that the Jews were now required to support the looting and murdering and raping carried out by Mohammed and his bandits. For example, point 19 states that: "No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah." This made it obligatory for Jews to fight for Muslims, otherwise they would be considered as aiding the enemy. Point 20 says "The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers".  This was a death sentence to the Jews who, thus far, had kept themselves separate from the Arab infighting and were a thriving community in Medina with no intent for warmongering at all.

Lastly, people love to quote that the constitution said: "The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families." But the problem is that Mohammed was clear that he and his imaginary gay friend called Allah were the supreme authority in Medina: "When you differ on anything the matter shall be referred to Allah and Mohammed."

At this point some might say that that is how a nation functions, with the leader deciding important matters but the effed up part is that Mohammed wasn't a leader of Medina, he wasn't even Medinian. Some idiots from Medina went and asked him to lead them against Mecca. The Jews had no part in this. All this BS was imposed on them such as you would do to an occupied people. Later Mohammed massacred the Jews because they didn't want to wage war on others on his behalf. And Craig, the piece of turd, Considine wants us to take this damn document of slavery and say "HALLELUJAH, human rights!"? What a dumb, brain-dead asshole!

Lastly:

"An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab... a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

Yes. So awesome that he refused to free Bilal, a black slave that he owned. Apart from that, the saying that everyone is equal in Islam is nothing new as everyone is equal in XYZ. Romans, long before Mohammed, respected people based on Roman citizenship and not race. What the fuck is so new about any of this? Mohammed wanted the help of all he could get to fight against the Persians and the Byzantines, and hence those who pledged their allegiance to Mohammed by giving up all their freedoms, became equal in his eyes.

You could say that all were equally enslaved by Mohammed. In the end, his narcissistic attitude didn't let him not enslave people of certain races. He wanted power over all.

It seems to me that this idiot Craig Considine wants to be one such slave. Its probably only a matter of time before he flies over to Syria to get the jihadis there to widen his anus so he can plant a bomb inside.

Anyway, this was my analysis. Hope Craig the idiot Considine reads this article and learns a thing or two about research. And if not, sends me a death threat designed after Mohammed's example.

Video: Muhammad The False Prophet

Eastwooding Mohammed

Ben Stein: "Islam is becoming the MSM's official religion of America."

The full essay is HERE. Brief excerpt:

...Have you noticed that in the past few years, and especially in the past few weeks since the murder of the Ambassador and his guards and colleague in Benghazi (a city that Erwin Rommel loved and whose inhabitants he praised), whenever the New York Times refers to Mohammed, they always call him, without quotation marks, The Prophet Mohammed, as if everyone with any sense understands that OF COURSE Mohammed is The One True Prophet and that it's just understood that Mohammed is The Prophet.

I see this in other news outlets and on TV, too. Sober-looking newsmen and newswomen mention Mohammed as The Prophet Mohammed. No ifs, ands or buts. I hear it on the BBC World Service, too....

Read the entire essay HERE.

Some identical is happening in classrooms all across America. Take a look at your child's textbooks and classroom materials. Sit in on a few of your child's classes, and observe for yourself what is going on.

Let's get one thing clear right now: in Judaism and Christianity, Mohammed is NOT a prophet.  Not at all!

And let's get another thing clear, too: We are witnessing a propaganda war in full swing!  Challenge it!

Video: Muhammad and Satan

Muhammad's mental condition was a matter of concern since his childhood:



[source]

Muslims

June 8, A.D. 632

From Jihad Watch:

"'A'isha and Abdullah reported: As the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was about to breathe his last, he drew his sheet upon his face and when he felt uneasy, he uncovered his face and said in that very state: Let there be curse upon the Jews and the Christians that they have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship. He in fact warned (his men) against what they (the Jews and the Christians) did." -- Sahih Muslim 1082

"Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle in his fatal illness said, 'Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians, for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.' And if that had not been the case, then the Prophet's grave would have been made prominent before the people. So (the Prophet ) was afraid, or the people were afraid that his grave might be taken as a place for worship." -- Sahih Bukhari 2.23.472

According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad died on June 8, 632, after once again cursing the Jews and Christians.

As for the historical reliability of these traditions, see here. But the Muslim contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians remains.

Black Muslims and Islam - Muhammad was a Black Slave Owner and Trader

From Jawa:



Abd - The word, "abd" means both "black person" and "slave" in Arabic.

Related:
35,000 Still in Slavery in Sudan

Taqiyya: The "Invisibility Cloak" of Islamic Aggression

Continuing to work my way through Trencherbone's excellent "Understanding Islam" series I discovered this gem on the history of Mohammed and the origins and purpose of taqiyya.

During the first 13 years that Mohammed preached Islam in Mecca, his approach was peaceful and conciliatory. He gained barely 100 followers. But after Mohammed established himself in Medina he met with 75 Medinans and formed a group known as ‘The Pledge of War’. This group began the tribal activity of ‘razzias’ or caravan raids, basically pirate raids for spoils such as goods, animals, slaves and ransom. They were very "successful" and as Mohammed's reputation as a ruthless warrior grew, converts flocked to Islam. Not surprisingly, he decided that this was a far more reliable and efficient way of expanding his new religion.

The question naturally arises: If Mohammed was the "perfect man" to be emulated in all ways, what Muslim can justify choosing to live a "moderate" life in peace with his kuffar neighbors, when the Prophet's example demonstrates that war, terror, savagery, rapaciousness, force, and humiliation is the "proper" stance of the true Muslim towards the Dar-al-Harb?

However, since this approach does not go down as well in the modern world as it did amongst the desert savages of the Dark Ages, modern Muslims increasingly rely on the "cultural tradition" known as "taqiyya".


The Islamic Principle of Taqiyya

In order to understand the Islamic mind we have to understand the Arab Bedouin Tribal culture. This is a culture based upon tribalism and the hard nomadic values of tribal warfare by raiding neighbouring villages and taking over their women and children as slaves and concubines, their possessions, their stock and their grazing lands and killing their men with the exception of those who would accept Islam. The people are mainly illiterate, but cunning, and resourceful in order to survive. They are also extremely proud and arrogant people, especially the men. The masculine Arab culture placed a very high value on ‘honour and shame’ associated with his place in the social order of his family, his tribal group, or his society. It is important that he does not suffer ‘a loss of face’...

“Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honour and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wit and cunning for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honour on their own account and vice versa for the opponents. If honour so demands it, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.”

Thus by skilful manipulations, by dissimulation, deceiving, lying, confounding, deflection of accusations, it is possible to foil or block or fend off an attack or accusation, and thus turn a humiliation into a positive outcome and the save one’s face or one’s life. This same skill is part of the tribal Bedouin life and it has been adopted into the Islamic way of life in the defence and protection of Islam. This skill is known as ‘Taqiyya’ and greatly enhances the capabilities of Muslims to defend and promote Islam. This skill, Taqiyya, comes so naturally to Muslims that they are not even aware that they are using it to communicate dissimulate Islamic information to the less informed. It is a part of their way of life since childhood. This trait can also be observed in many other cultures especially in the East.

To give a few examples of Taqiyya as an illustration, Muslims will deny that “terrorist suicide bombers killed innocent people” were Muslims who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York. And they are right because Muslims do not approve of Suicide (Haram, so they could not have been Muslims) and wanton murder of innocent people (but Muslims do not consider non-Muslims as innocent. They are the enemy and so are legitimate targets.). So Muslims may safely say that they condemn any terrorist acts, because terrorists are not identifiable as Muslims. But Muslims knew that these were acts of Islamic Jihad, and thus were truthful in denying it was “an act of terrorism” by Muslims, because they were actually “acts of martyrdom” or Jihad not “terrorism.”

Muslims do not do “terrorism.” (Taqiyya)(Semantics) Yet this is what the Koran commands her followers:

Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an:8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Those who prattle about "moderate Muslims" do not understand that, in Quranic terms, "moderate Muslims" are blasphemers and apostates. If they do know anything about their own "religion", they know that the sociopathic caravan raider who formulated it established the way of terror and war as the template for his followers. But to show that face of Islam to the kuffar is to risk a breach of the compact of "multiculturalism", arouse suspicions, and cause inconveniences. So, to protect themselves, they employ taqiyya to deflect suspicion -- because, in a sense, they too must "feed the crocodile" to persuade it to eat them last.

But in this case, we kuffar are the crococile and our job is to avoid being turned into luggage before we get to the end of the buffet.

Mohammed and Aisha

We Kept Shouting Louder And Louder And All We Heard Was Our Own Echo

An innocent girl appeared on TV some days ago. She looked scared and shaken. Many people accused her and still accuse her of lying. They say, "she wants attention". They accuse her of being brainwashed. Instead of feeling sympathy for her and trying to protect her like they would do in case a 17 year old was in danger, they throw baseless accusations at her. Why? What is it that she did that was so evil that it was proof enough for the mainstream media and everyday individuals to decisively conclude that she was lying? Her biggest sin and crime: She claimed that she was from a Muslim background, she had converted to Christianity and because of the teaching of Islam, her father threatened to kill her.

Her story surfaced on the blogs and ABC News. "Is she for real?" Was the question. Instead of trying to see whether she was in real danger or not, people tried to discredit what she was saying and they did that so many times that now she has disappeared from the news altogether. There are no further updates. We don't know what happened to her excpet that there's a court hearing on August 21.

It is true that she has been attacked. But she has been attacked not because of anything wrong that she said. No one took what she said and examined it against Islamic scriptures. She has been attacked because she said something about Islam that people don't want to hear. "Islam is a religion of peace", we hear, "what she claims is impossible". "A father can never actually kill his child...its an empty threat that she is blowing out of proportion"--is she really? When Cassius Clay converted to "Nation Of Islam", he didn't claim his parents were threatening to kill him. When Cat Stevens converted to Islam, he didn't claim that either. Take any example out there of people that convert into Islam and you won't find anyone being threatened like this. Why is it that only people that leave Islam are threatened? Is it a fabrication? Are all ex-Muslims lying? Does everyone really hate Islam so much as to create lies upon lies just like these Muslims claim? Or is Islam really getting a free pass here? Doesn't it sound like we have already accepted the Dhimmi status without actually raising the white flag?

Why do I care about this girl who is being treated in America exactly like she'd be treated in Saudi Arabia? Do I know her personally to vouch for what she is saying? Do I even know her full name? No. I care about her because 5 years ago, these were the fears I had to deal with. I had to think where to run and how to escape if my parents found out about who I was. Did I think back then that my parents were just evil people out to kill anything and everything in their way? No, I knew well enough that they loved me and I don't doubt that even today. Just like I don't doubt that their love for Islam is far greater than anything else in this world, including their children. And that is what Rifqa knows to be true about her parents. She knows her parents love her but she also knows that her parents love Islam more--they can't be Muslims if they didn't. However, I have to ask this question. Are my and Rifqa's fears based on anything real? Has it ever happened before that parents have killed their children for Islam or is it only a figment of my and Rifqa's imagination as the media seems to assume? I will write breifly about two such cases. Lets see:

1. A Saudi father cuts his daughter's tongue off and then burns her to death for converting to Christianity. Her crime? She converted to Christianity. Did this happen in 640 AD? Is this a story of a serial killer that kills for fun? Was the father mentally (and medically) deranged? The answer to all those questions is NO. The father loved his daughter but he loved Islam more. Read the whole story here.
   


2. A Jordanian man stabs his daughter 5 times and then smashes her skull with a large rock. Her crime? Her husband and her converted to Christianity. Again, it didn't happen in 640 AD nor is it a story of a serial killer nor was the father mentally (medically) deranged. Again, the father loved his daughter but he loved Islam more. Read the whole story here.

Before accusing Rifqa of lying through her teeth, people should have investigated a little. People that criticized should have realized that Islam, just like anything else in the world, is not above critcism.

If the readers read the two stories mentioned above with open minds then they might want to know the answer to the following questions: What is it that makes a parent take their own child's life? What makes the parents have the courage to lift up their hand and end the life they started in the first place? Mohammed once said, "None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 14). While its true that Jesus said something to that effect as well, he never said this, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). Neither would one be able to find the Christian version of, "Allah's Apostle said, 'The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17). It is no secret that Mohammed was able to gain support in Medina through words like these. It is no secret that even early on Mohammed was able to turn fathers against children, siblings against one another and tribe members against their tribal brethren.

There is a popular tradition about Abu Bakr, Mohammed's most loyal follower, best friend and the first caliph of Islam. He was the closest to Mohammed. He loved Mohammed with all his heart. Ayesha, Mohammed's child bride, was his daughter. If anyone other than Mohammed would know Islam, it would be Abu Bakr. A dialogue took palce between Abu Bakr and his then "infidel" son in a well known story: "'O Father, at Badr, you were twice under my sword, but my love for you held my hand back.' To this, Abu Bakr replied, 'Son, if I had you only once under my sword, you would have been no more.'" (Encyclopedia of Islam, Page 192). Abu Bakr was known as "Siddiq" which means "truthful". He was known as a moderate man who was even merciful to his enemies. The quote above is this moderate Muslim's words. When people call someone a moderate Muslim and then try to present that as proof that this guy is a peaceful person who just wants to live peacefully with the rest of humanity, to us "apostates" that doesn't make any difference. A Muslim is a Muslim. Call him moderate or fundamentalist, it doesn't matter. Now, I've presented examples from the hadiths that show Muslims would, should and can kill "infidels", but is there anything similar in the Quran?

"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them." This quotation is from the Quran's Sura 4, verses 88-89. Read it without the special notes in parentheses, for these are additions by interpreters. It is little wonder then that the whole of Sunni Islamic world, which is comprised of over 85% of the Muslim world, is unanimous on the punishment of apostates--that they should be killed. The scholars only differ on whether to kill the apostates when they make it public or even when only a couple of people know about it.

After reading all that, I would ask another question: Why are people so loyal to Mohammed? It wasn't just his friends that would raise their sword at one word from Mohammed, it is all his followers. This calls for another article altogether, or maybe a book. However, in short, there are many reasons for this loyalty, however, one of the biggest reasons is fear and love of Mohammed. This love (or fear) is not baseless. Allah adorns Mohammed with praise verse after verse. We read, "Say:(O Muhammad)! “If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” (Sura 3, verse 31). Again Allah informs us that, "Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much." Yes, the Quran tells you that if you want to go to paradise then do what Mohammed did and said. And what Mohammed did and said is recorded in his bioigraphy and the hadiths, some of which I have quoted above.

But would anyone love Mohammed so much as to be able to kill their own children? What is it that drives a human being to do that? What is it that gives him that power? When the Quran tells you to not have pity at all, no compassion whatsoever when you're punishing an adulterer or an adulteress with a 100 lashes (Sura 24, verse 2), how much more are you prone to not have any compassion when someone insults the god of Islam by leaving his religion and announcing it publicly? However, still its hard to believe that a parent would kill their child but is that how Islam views it? "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers." (Sura 9, verse 23). Mohammed made sure every step of the way that the people that followed him were loyal to him and only him. He made sure that none of the tribal connections or blood relations were going to come in the way. He was very successful in that as we see in the history of Islam. It was tribesmen attacking their own tribes, parents attacking children, brothers attacking brothers. For Mohammed to be successful, this had to be instilled in the minds of Muslims. Only Muslims are your friends and everyone else is your enemy. To a Muslim, you're either a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Family values are secondary, Mohammed comes first. All family bond are broken once you leave Islam.

I have tried here to show why it is easy for a Muslim parent to "pull the trigger" and kill their child. This post is way too brief for a topic like this. Islam is not just a religion that teaches you spirituality. Islam controls every aspect of your life. You don't just go to the mosque and pray 5 times a day, but you live and breathe Islam. Whatever you do, Allah and Mohammed come first. You are a Muslim before you become a child, sibling or a parent. You are a slave of Allah before you become a human. When Rifqa cries on camera and says, "you guys won't understand", I know what she means. I can try to write a 100 posts about why Rifqa is so scared but you would never know the actual depth of Islam until you actually experience it yourself. I hope you never do, but it is nearly impossible to comprehend how strong the clutches of Islam are. I said "nearly impossible", however, not "completely impossible". Finally, I just want to close this post with another terrifying reminder to ALL OF US from the Quran: "There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever,- unless you believe in Allah and Him alone." (Sura 60, verse 4).

Proof For Muhammad's Prophethood

BY THE (S)WORD

- Bosch Fawstin