Almost Midnight in the West

Hebdo killings are very Islamic!

2015-01-08T00:00:00.000-05:00

Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society

The assassinations of satirical poets in early Islam

From the mainstream press, scholars, and Muslim spokespersons who have access to the media, we have heard that Islam is the religion of peace. They point out that the three-letter root s-l-m is found both in Islam, which means surrender or submission (to Allah), and salam, which means peace, soundness, and safety. This etymology may be accurate, but it also serves merely as a positive advanced press release that covers up some problems. For more information on the incongruity of the Arabic root s-l-m and Islam being the religion of peace, see this short article.
Upon reading the original source documents of Islam—the Quran, hadith, biographies, and histories—one is struck by the casual and matter-of-fact way that Muhammad and his Muslims traffic in violence and bloodshed.
Today, radical Muslims, reading these source documents, take up the call to violence that is found in the life and times of their prophet. For example, in 1989 they issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have renewed the fatwa.
An article by David Harsanyi in Frontpagemag.com reports on deadly fatwas against Salman Rushdie, other authors, and even against Muslim clerics. For example, Taslima Nasrin, a poet and novelist, whose works confront sharia and the role of women in society, particularly in Bangladesh, has had a fatwa on her head since 1993. She was met with violent protests for a scheduled speech in November 2002 at Concordia University in Canada, where Benjamin Netanyahu, former Prime Minister of Israel, also encountered violent protests.
Harsanyi cites another case. "A Dutch Muslim woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, had to flee the Netherlands because she said that Muslim men traditionally oppressed Muslim women. A death fatwa quickly followed."
In November 2004, Theo Van Gogh was assassinated by a Muslim because the descendant of the brother of the famous artist had made a film that depicted a Muslim woman who was forced into an arranged marriage, abused by her husband, and raped by her uncle.
Where do the violent radicals get the idea to put bounties on the heads of poets and authors? Out of thin air? One direction that the violence in earliest Islam took is the assassination of pagan men and women, many of whom were poets and storytellers, and at least one innocent bystander whose crime was being Jewish. The poets wrote satirical poems about Muhammad and his claim to prophethood and about his followers, so the prophet ordered their death. To borrow the title of a popular movie, Muhammad violently created a dead poets society of his own.
To explain how this kind of violence sits at the core of Islam at its founding, this article is divided into four parts. First, the evidence for these assassinations is presented from Islamic early sources. Second, after these facts are sketched out, we critique point by point the explanations and defense from Muslims for this violence. Third, we examine five passages in the Quran that portend death in this life and damnation in the next for mockers. Both the early Muslim sources and the Quran are used by violent fanatics to justify their assassinations. Finally, we reach some conclusions about how violent early Islam is.
Islam is not the religion of peace.
Before laying out the evidence, the larger historical context of these assassinations must be taken into account. First, in seventh-century Arabia, poetry was taken seriously; even poetry contests were held, with declared winners. It was a powerful way to communicate a message. Second, in March 624, in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad, living in Medina, won a surprising victory against a much-larger Meccan army of polytheists (c. 320 Muslims v. 1000 Meccans). Muhammad’s standing in Medina was insecure before the battle, but afterwards his position became strong, and he used his new strength to eliminate some enemies.

The Evidence

Though more assassinations are carried out than the ten analyzed in this article (omitted because they involve leaders raising armies against or attempting assassinations of Muhammad), here follow the stories of assassinations or near-assassinations of lesser victims.
1. March 624: Al-Nadr bin al-Harith
Before Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622), he used to sit in the assembly and invite the Meccans to Allah, citing the Quran and warning them of God’s punishment for mocking his prophets. Al-Nadr would then follow him and speak about heroes and kings of Persia, saying, "By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have." Al-Nadr is referring to legends and opaque histories about Arabs of long ago and possibly to Bible stories about such figures as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which Muhammad told, but according to his own inaccurate versions. On other days al-Nadr would interrupt Muhammad until the prophet silenced him. In reply to al-Nadir’s harassment, it is possible (scholars sometimes have difficulties matching up Quranic verses with historical events) that Allah sent down these verses to Muhammad concerning him or certainly other mockers in Mecca, according to the account of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, who is considered a reliable transmitter of traditions:
25:6 Say [Prophet], "It was sent down by Him who knows the secrets of the heavens and earth. He is all forgiving and merciful." (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
83:13 ... [W]hen Our revelations are recited to him, he says, "Ancient fables!" 14 No indeed! Their hearts are encrusted with what they have done. 15 No indeed! On that day they will be screened off from their Lord, 16 they will burn in Hell, 17 and they will be told, "This is what you call a lie." (Haleem)
Muhammad did not take revenge on him—not yet—even though the verses in Sura 83 promise a dismal eternal future for mockers. Muhammad’s revenge was not long coming. It was al-Nadir’s bad fortune to join Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624. The story-telling polytheist was captured, and on Muhammad’s return journey back to Medina, Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, at Muhammad’s order, beheaded him, instead of getting some possible ransom money. He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans—all because they wrote poems and told stories critiquing Muhammad.
Source: Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), pp. 136 (Arabic pages 191-92); 163 / 236; 181 / 262; 308 / 458. Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.
2. March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt
A similar story as that of al-Nadir can be told about Uqba. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
Source: Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424; Ibn Ishaq, p. 308 / 458. Bukhari and Muslim are reliable collectors and editors of the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). These three passages from the hadith depict Muhammad calling on Allah for revenge on this poet.
3. March 624: Asma bint Marwan
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.
Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.
4. April 624: Abu Afak
Abu Afak, an centenarian elder of Medina, belonging to a group of clans who were associated with the god Manat (though another account has him as a Jew), wrote a derogatory poem about Muhammad, extolling the ancestors of his tribe who were strong enough to overthrow mountains and to resist submitting to an outsider (Muhammad) who divides two large Medinan tribes with religious commands like "permitted" and "forbidden." That is, the poet is referring to Muhammad’s legal decrees about things that are forbidden (e.g. pork and alcohol) and permitted (e.g. other meats like beef and camel). Before the Battle of Badr, Muhammad let him live.
After the battle, the prophet queried, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" That night, Salim b. Umayr "went forth and killed him." One of the Muslims wrote a poem in reply: "A hanif [monotheist or Muslim] gave you a thrust in the night saying / ‘Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!’" Muhammad eliminated him, which shows religious violence. Islam is not the religion of peace.
Source: Ibn Ishaq p. 675 / 995.
5. September 624: Kab bin al-Ashraf
Kab b. al-Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab, but his mother was a Jewess from the powerful al-Nadr tribe in Medina. He lived as a member of his mother’s tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble-maker and divisive. Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, since it was near a major trade route to Mecca, witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostile lament, over the dead of Mecca. It is important to include most of the political lament to show whether the poem is a serious offence, meriting assassination, as Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam) argue.

... At events like Badr you should weep and cry.
The best of its people were slain round cisterns,
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refuge of the homeless were slain.
...…………………………………..
Some people whose anger pleases me say,
"Kab b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected."
They are right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.
……………………………………..
I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham [a Meccan]
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib [pre-Islamic name of Medina] with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest reputation.
(Translated by Guillaume, p. 365)To us today this poem does not seem excessive, and other Arab poetry was worse, such as the poem celebrating the assassination of Abu Afak, cited above (no. 4). It seems to be a genuine lament that invokes the Arab concept of revenge. Also, the last four lines is not an explicit plea for the Meccans to exact vengeance because that was a foregone conclusion. Arab custom demanded a riposte against the humiliation of defeat. Rather, the lines seem to reflect reality. A Meccan leader is said to be gathering an army; Kab is not ordering him to do so.
Pro-Muslim poets answered Kab’s poem with ones of their own, and that was enough for his hosts in Mecca to turn him out. He returned to Medina, writing some amatory verses about Muslim women, a mistake compounded on a mistake, given the tense climate in Medina and Muhammad’s victory at Badr. For example, right after the battle Muhammad assembled a Jewish tribe, the Qaynuqa, and warned them as follows: "O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh [large Meccan tribe at Badr], and become Muslims." ... In late spring (April-June) Muhammad then expelled the Jewish tribe.
Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after Badr and the exile, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, "Who would rid me of [Kab]?" Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." They set upon a clever plan.
Abu Naila and another conspirator visited Kab, and they cited poetry together, the three appreciating the art, and chatted leisurely, so the two would not raise suspicions of their conspiracy. Then, after a long time, Abu-Naila lied just as he said he would. He said he was tired of Muhammad because "he was a very great trial for us." Muhammad provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they were all in league against the Medinans. Abu Naila complained that the roads had become impassable and trade was hampered, so that their families were in want, privation, and great distress. Kab, in effect, said to his foster brother, "I told you so."
Then the foster-brother asked him for a loan of a camel load or two of food. Kab agreed, but only on the collateral of Abu-Naila’s sons. The foster-brother refused, and Kab asked for his women, but he again refused. Finally, Abu Naila offered his and his conspirators’ weapons. That arrangement provided the cover they needed to carry weapons right into Kab’s presence without alarm. Kab agreed, "Weapons are a good pledge."
The two visitors departed, stopped by the other three, and told them of the plan. Not long afterwards, gathering their weapons, they went to Muhammad, who sent them off with this wish: "Go in God’s name; O God, help them." They set out under a moonlit night until they made it to a fortress, one of several that the Jewish tribe had built in the rough environment of Arabia. In fact, the ruin of the fortress where Kab resided can be seen even today near Medina. They called out to him.
Kab had recently married, and his wife, hearing their yells, said, "You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour ... I hear evil [or blood] in his voice." But the custom of hospitality in the Arab world was strong. Her husband told her that they were only his foster-brother and his foster-brother’s partners, adding that "a generous man should respond to a call at night, even if invited to be killed." Kab came down and greeted them. Abu Naila suggested they go for a walk. The signal to kill was as follows: Abu Naila would run his hand through Kab’s hair, complimenting him on his perfume, three times. This he did, yelling, "Smite the enemy of God!" Kab mounted a strong defense, so their swords were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached Kab’s genitals, killing him.
They made it back to Muhammad, but only after difficulty, since in the dark they had wounded one of their own. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. He spat on their comrade’s wound, and they returned to their families. Their attack on Kab sent shock waves into the Jewish community, so that "there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life," reports Ibn Ishaq.
Muslim historian Tabari reports that the five Muslim thugs severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad. How can the terrorists who are also thrilled to sever heads not be inspired by early Islam?
Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436; Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. VII, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 94-98 / 1368-73. Reputable historians today consider Tabari to be a good source of data on early Islam, though they may not agree on his chronology or miraculous elements.
6. September (?) 624: Ibn Sunayna
It is on the heels of this assassination that Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant, was assassinated. With the success of the five conspirators, Muhammad said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Shortly afterwards, Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon and killed Ibn Sunayna, with whom Muhayyisa had some social and business relations. However, Muhayyisa’s elder brother, not a Muslim at the time, beat the assassin, the younger brother, saying, "You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?" Muhayyisa retorted that if Muhammad had ordered even the elder brother’s assassination, he would have carried it out. The elder was impressed: "By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!" And he became a Muslim. That is, the elder brother implies that Muhammad must be a great leader and worthy of devotion if he commands such lethal reverence and deadly obedience from his followers.
Then Muhayyisa wrote a poem that celebrates such obedience. "I would smite his [the elder brother’s] neck with a sharp sword, / A blade as white as salt from polishing. / My downward stroke never misses its mark." Advancing religious violence, these lines in the poem show how deadly poetry could be, and they match the Muslim’s poem against Abu Afak (no. 4, above): "a hanif gave you a thrust in the night." Kab’s poem, it should be recalled, was far milder. These poems that a Westerner reads in the early Islamic source are jarring. It seems the early Muslim authors of the documents relish inserting them into their books.
Source: Ibn Ishaq p. 369 / 534.
7. July-August 625: A One-eyed Bedouin
In revenge for an ambush on some Muslim missionaries, Muhammad sent Amr bin Umayya and a companion to assassinate Abu Sufyan, a leader of the Meccans. This shows that the prophet could get caught up in the cycle of violence that went on endlessly in seventh-century Arab culture. Umayyah failed in his attempt, and he had to flee under pursuit, hiding in a cave, murdering a man named Ibn Malik along the way. As the pursuit was dying down, a tall, one-eyed, unnamed Bedouin entered the cave, driving some sheep. Umayyah and the Bedouin introduced each other. After they settled down, the shepherd sang a simple two-line song in defiance of Muslims and Islam:

I will not be a Muslim as long as I live,
And will not believe in the faith of the Muslims. (Watt)Another translation reads:

I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live,
Nor heed to their religion give. (Guillaume)Unfortunately for this Bedouin, he was in the cave with a radical Muslim, who said: "You will soon see!" The Bedouin fell asleep, snoring. Umayyah recounts what he did: ... "I went to him and killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever been killed. I leaned over him, stuck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out of the back of his neck." He fled back to Muhammad, who said, "Well done!" The account ends: The prophet "prayed for me [Umayyah] to be blessed."
This poor shepherd’s only sin was to compose a little two-line ditty against Islam. Therefore, he was assassinated, with the blessing of Muhammad—the prophet did not arrest the assassin or even scold him for killing a man who had nothing to do with the ambush.
Source: Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 149-50 / 1440-41; A later editor incorporated some of Tabari’s account into Ibn Ishaq’s biography, pp. 674-75.
8. After January 630: close call for Abdullah bin Sad
Before 10,000 Muslim warriors entered Mecca in January 630, Muhammad ordered that they should kill only those who resisted, except a small number who should be hunted down even if they hid under the curtain of the Kabah stone. One of them was Abdullah, an original Emigrant with the prophet in 622. He had the high privilege of writing down some verses of the Quran, after Muhammad received them by revelation. Doubting, Abdullah on occasion would change the words around to see if Muhammad had noticed the changes, but he did not. W. Montgomery Watt provides an example: "When Muhammad dictated a phrase of the Quran such as sami‘ ‘alim, ‘Hearing, Knowing’ (with reference to God), he had written, for example, ‘alim hakim ‘Knowing, Wise,’ and Muhammad had not noticed the change" ... (Muhammad at Medina, Oxford UP, 1956, p. 68). Abdullah therefore disbelieved Muhammad’s inspiration and apostatized (left Islam) and returned to Mecca a polytheist.
However, his foster-brother was Uthman b. Affan, one of Muhammad’s Companions, who hid Abdullah until calm settled on conquered Mecca and who interceded for Abdullah, in the presence of Muhammad. The prophet waited a long time before he granted the repentant apostate immunity. After Uthman left, Muhammad said to those sitting around him: "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of them asked why Muhammad did not give them a signal. He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.
Though Abdullah escaped with his life, this story is included because it reveals Muhammad’s attitude toward apostates, because of the doubt of one of Muhammad’s followers—a literate scholar who was involved in writing down the revelations, and because Muhammad’s anger could be assuaged under the right conditions.
Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 550 / 818.
9. After January 630: One of Abdullah bin Katal’s two singing-girls
On the list of those excluded from amnesty after the conquest of Mecca was not only Abdullah b. Katal, collector of legal alms, who had killed his slave for incompetence, apostatized, and took the money back to Mecca, but also his two singing-girls who sang satirical verses about Muhammad, which Abdullah had composed. He was killed, even though he was clinging to the curtain of the Kabah shrine. And one of the girls was also killed, but the other ran away until she asked for pardon from Muhammad, who forgave her.
Source: Bukhari vol. 4, 3044; Ibn Ishaq, pp. 550-51 / 819.
10. After February 630: close call for Kab bin Zuhayr
Confident with the victory over Mecca, Muhammad returned to Medina a hero and firmly in charge of the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. In this context we come to another poet who satirized Muhammad and the Muslims, Kab bin Zuhayr (called Zuhayr to distinguish him from Kab bin al-Ashraf, above, no. 5). Zuhayr’s brother wrote him that Muhammad had killed a number of satirical poets during his conquest of Mecca, but that the prophet would forgive a poet who came to him in repentance, which really means becoming a Muslim. His brother told him that the poets who were left had fled in all directions. "If you have any use for your life, then come to the apostle [Muhammad] quickly, for he does not kill anyone who comes to him in repentance," wrote the brother, continuing: "if you do not do that, then get to a safe place."
However, Zuhayr responded with a poem that says their fathers and father had never held Islam dear, so why should he change? His brother replied with a poem of warning of his own; if he would not repent, then Zuhayr will be guilty on Judgment Day. Poetry penetrated deeply in Arab culture, and, receiving the letter, Zuhayr was distressed until finally he gave in. Finding no way out, he wrote a letter extolling Muhammad. Soon afterwards, he traveled up to Medina to ask for security as a Muslim. Muhammad was saying his morning prayers, and a friend took Zuhayr into Muhammad’s presence. "Would you accept him as such if he came to you?" his friend asked. The prophet said he would.
One of the Ansars (or helpers: native Medinans who offered help to Muhammad after his Hijrah) leaped upon Zuhayr and asked the prophet if he could behead the enemy of God, for some of Zuhayr’s verses mocked the Ansars, too. The apostle said to leave him alone, for Zuhayr was breaking free from his past. The implication is clear: if Muhammad had caught Zuhayr before his repentance, Muhammad would have allowed him to be beheaded. Either he converts or he dies—for writing derogatory poetry. What is remarkable about the anecdote is how the morning prayer provides the setting for a Muslim leaping on a poet and threatening to cut his head off, as if this is an ordinary day and act.
Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 597-602 / 887-93.

Defense and Challenges

From all of these stories it should be clear that the accounts about assassinations are jarring to the reader expecting to find the religion of peace. It is a matter of course that Muslims and some Western scholars or Islamophiles would be anxious to explain these circumstances in a favorable light. Their defense usually takes six lines of argument. Our analysis follows each defense.
First, reputable scholars remind us of the brutality of Arab culture. When a stranger or enemy in this culture was left unprotected outside of a tribe, he or she was vulnerable to attack and murder. Who could take revenge? Blood feud was never ignited. Thus, the only check on violence in this culture is revenge or more violence, when adequate law courts and law enforcement did not exist, as they did, say, in the Roman Empire. Muhammad was therefore only following Arab culture (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesmen, (Oxford UP, 1961), pp. 128-30).
On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable explanation. Muhammad was a man of his own times and region. However, at bottom, it is disappointing that a Gabriel-inspired prophet would not or could not rise above his culture, especially above the questionable custom of assassination. Most importantly, it seems that many Muslims today look to his example, and this lands Islam in interpretative difficulties as seen in the fatwas against various authors today. How are Muslims today, especially those with a radical bent, supposed to interpret Muhammad’s willingness to eliminate opponents and slanderers? Again, one would hope that a prophet would rise above the dubious customs like blood feuds, rife in his own culture. But he did not, and one of his dubious qualities was his deft handling of blood feuds and sizing up opponents based on their strength or weakness. That is why the assassinations did not take place before the Battle of Badr in 624 when his stance in Medina was less secure, but after the battle, when he was strong, and after the conquest of Mecca in 630, along with Battles at Hunayn and Ta’if, a little later. It is true that the victims listed in this article belonged to tribes that should have taken revenge, but evidently they were too weak to do so. Muhammad was wise in his calculations.
For information on Muhammad’s various other questionable actions, visit this online booklet from an older generation Christian. He has a section on assassinations as well.
Second, Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam) take seriously the assassination of Kab bin al-Ashraf (no. 5, above) because reliable hadith treat of him at length. Maulana Muhammad Ali, though a member of the Ahmadiyyah sect, which is considered a heresy, is mentioned here because he defends his prophet thoroughly, pointing out that Kab was a combatant and an enemy leader of the Jews (Muhammad the Prophet, 7^th ed., 1993, pp. 202-06). Also, another Muslim scholar says that since Kab was willing to take his foster-brother’s sons and women as collateral, he had a wicked heart and deserved his death (Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, trans. of Sahih Muslim, 3:990, note 2269). Neither was he willing to commit his crime openly, but secretly, so he had to be assassinated secretly. But secret assassination is an exception in Islam, says Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (referenced in Siddiqi, 3:991, note 2272). Still another commentator says that he led a large contingency of horsemen (forty? two to three hundred? The estimates vary) to Mecca (so much for the secrecy), presumably to provoke the Meccans to avenge their loss at Badr, as if they needed this one man and his posse to do that (Razi, referenced in Maulana Ali’s commentary on Sura 59:2).
In reply, however, the magnification of Kab’s crime is questionable. But even if it is admitted that Kab was an unsavory character who used bad judgment with his insulting poetry, and even though he was living in the hostile environment of Medina, he was not a formal combatant in a battle. His wife’s observation that the tribes were at war reflects the tension between the Jews and the growing Muslim community. Instead, he seems to have lived in a "gray" area between his mother’s Jewish tribe and his father’s distant nomadic tribe, and Muhammad correctly judged he was weak enough to be assassinated. As to Kab’s wicked heart and his secret crimes, Muhammad could have expelled him for wickedness (see Sura 5:33). And his poetry was circulated widely; it was not a secret. His living in a fortress near Medina was not so secret that the five assassins could not find him. Finally, did he openly, not secretly, lead a band of forty or hundreds of horsemen in an age when horses were costly, thereby indicating Kab’s power and leadership of a Jewish tribe? Answer: neither Bukhari nor Muslim reports this. Succinctly put, despite all of these unusual and conflicting explanations, it just seems more likely that Muhammad was simply following Arab culture and eliminated an opponent who was vulnerable after the Battle of Badr, simply for writing derogatory poetry. Ockham’s razor cuts out needless explanations.
Third, one scholar says that the Muslim community in Medina, even after Badr, was still weak, so Muhammad was forced to take a hard line against mockers and enemies (as he perceived them), just to survive. This scholar uses language like "oppression" and "persecution" and "conspiracy," which came from both the Jewish and pagan communities in Medina.
However, Muhammad did not see himself as so weak that he would not carry out the assassinations. It should be recalled that Asma bint Marwan (no. 3), Abu Afak (no. 4), and Kab (no. 5) belonged to tribes, but they could not carry out the required custom of blood feud: revenge. Therefore, Muhammad correctly discerned their weakness and his strength and followed the Arab custom of assassination. Most importantly, Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam) must step back and look at the big picture. It was Muhammad who attacked the Meccan caravans six times without provocation and without self-defense in the first year and a half or so after moving to Medina. (For more information, go to this article and scroll down to reason no. four). It is the Allah-inspired prophet who went west seventy to eighty miles (a two to three day journey) to the wells of Badr in order to attack the Meccan caravan coming from the north, wanting only the unarmed band, that is, the large caravan loaded with goods (Sura 8:7). To judge from the big picture, it was Muhammad who settled in Medina and stirred up trouble. If Muhammad had stayed within Medina and expanded his message by preaching alone, then no military or political trouble would have erupted. True, people would have resisted his message, but if it had something to offer people, it could have still grown. True, people may have attempted to assassinate him, but he had a bodyguard.
We see this growth by proclamation alone in the message of Jesus, who drew big crowds when he preached and healed and worked miracles—and eventually purposing to die on the cross for the sins of the world. He did not assassinate people, even though he met with resistance from religious leaders (see more on this below). The growth of the true kingdom of God by peaceful means implies that God was backing this message. In contrast, the growth of Muhammad’s message with an army always lurking in the background implies that God was not backing this message and that Islam was unattractive and unacceptable to many listeners, as seen, for example, in the revolt of the Arab tribes after Muhammad died of a fever in AD 632. Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s successor, took two years to suppress these revolts militarily and to force the tribes to re-join Islam.
Fourth, one Muslim scholar argues in regards to Kab (and the same could apply to the other poets) that Kab insulted the Head of an Islamic State (Muhammad) and the State itself. The Head could not allow immoral poetry, which drags the honor of Arab women "into the mire," and the Head could not allow political poetry that insults the Head and instigates the enemies of the State (Siddiqi 3:991, note 2269). In other words, Kab (and the others) deserved what he (and they) got. The tact of this scholar goes in the opposite direction from the third explanation. Early Islam was not fragile, but strong. It was not a community growing in power in a city with competing tribes and interests.
However, this analysis is questionable, for at this stage in early Islam Muhammad was still feeling his way. But even if this explanation were true, the question still remains: did the Head of State have to assassinate, regardless of how seriously Arab culture took poetry? He had banishment at his disposal (Sura 5:33), which he applied to the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe. After all, Muhammad employed poets to counter his enemies, but apparently his enemies did not have the power to assassinate or to banish Muhammad or his poets. Moreover, Muhammad’s policy, if coming from a strong State, only gives permission to the extremists in Islam today to attack weak dissidents and satirists. If Muhammad did it, why cannot the extremists follow his example? Those who issue deadly fatwas are doing just that.
Fifth, Muslim apologists generally recount the atrocities perpetrated in and by the Western world, sometimes committed in the name of Christianity, so who are Christians or Westerners (the two are not identical) to complain?
But this comparison is uneven and unfair. A better comparison is made between the earliest stage of Islam, during the life of Muhammad, and the earliest stage of Christianity, during the life of Christ. And then the similarities break down completely. At no time did Jesus behead or assassinate or even wish for the beheading or assassination of his opponents, many of whom mocked or challenged him face-to-face. Maybe this is why Christianity turned the world upside down for the first three centuries without warfare—Constantine comes around in the fourth century and does not set the genetic code for Christianity, nor do the Medieval Crusades, especially not.
The sixth and final line of defense questions the reliability of the early traditions that narrate these anecdotes. As noted, only the narrative about Kab in our article is discussed at length in the most reliable hadith, that of Bukhari and Muslim. Therefore, one Muslim scholar dismisses every tradition except Kab’s (Maulana Muhammad Ali, pp. 202-06), whereas one conservative biographer accepts other narratives, such as the assassinations of Asma (no. 3) and Abu Afak (no. 4) (Muhammad Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, 8^th ed., trans. Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, 1935, 2002, p. 243). In Maulana Ali’s case, along with this dismissal comes the presupposition that since Islam is the religion of peace, a prophet like Muhammad would never assassinate poets, singing-girls and an innocent Jewish bystander. Ali then quotes passages from the Quran or the hadith that says old men and women should not be killed. This kind of reasoning is shaky because it has a holy book determining historical events. This attitude can be expressed simply in an if-then argument:

(1): If A, then B. If early Islam were the religion of peace, then Muhammad would never order the assassination of poets, poetesses, singing-girls, and an innocent Jewish bystander.
(2): A obtains. Islam was the religion of peace (The Quran and hadith say so).
(3): So does B. Therefore, he would never order their assassinations (and never did).

This unspoken logic lurks behind the desire to find extraordinary crimes in Kab’s behavior (see the second defense, above). Surely this is how Muslims today must eliminate the violence that jars any reasonable Muslim. But does the evidence support this logic? This article demonstrates that the evidence does not support this dubious reasoning.
However, though it is difficult to believe that all of these stories coming from pro-Muslim sources are fabrications, let us assume only for the sake of argument that all of these stories, even Kab’s, are fictitious and should be dismissed. Even if they are all fictions and regardless of the motives behind the logic of the Muslim apologists, this question still needs to be asked about the earliest stage of Islam, during Muhammad’s life:
What is it about Islam at that time that would produce such stories of assassinations for the crime of composing insulting poetry and of being Jewish?
The authors of such "fictions" seem eager to write them up.
After all, fictions were invented about Jesus, but they do not involve assassinations that are situated in non-miraculous social contexts which therefore aim at giving the assassinations a ring of historical accuracy or plausibility—all of which are true in Muhammad’s case. Rather, the fictions are usually outlandish miracles, such as Jesus as a baby in a cradle, speaking like an adult, or Jesus as a young boy making birds out of clay, breathing into them, and causing them to fly away (two fictions that Muhammad incorporated into the inerrant Quran; see 19:29-34 and 3:49). It is true that the anti-Semitic Infancy Gospel of Thomas (where, incidentally, is found the clay birds episode) has the child Jesus cursing a Jewish teacher who then died. Yet, the social context of this myth is supernatural and concerns Jesus’ childhood, on which canonical and historical accounts are mostly silent. On the other hand, Muhammad’s assassinations are set in non-miraculous social contexts and not during his childhood, about which the early Islamic records are largely silent. Moreover, they are attested in Bukhari’s reliable hadith.
In contrast to these legends about Jesus, the culture of first-century Israel saw the assassinations of politicians and other harsh punishments like crucifixion. But the real Jesus handled an angry crowd who threatened to throw him off a cliff by simply walking out of trouble confidently and going on his way (Luke 4:28-29). Thus, Jesus did not promote or use violence to fulfill his own political agenda. Nor did he endorse, for example, the amputation of hands or feet or stoning for any sin whatsoever, and Paul suggests that a thief should work with his hands, not get his hands cut off (Ephesians 4:28); in fact Jesus stopped the imminent stoning of an adulteress (John 8:1-11). Thus, the known message and life of Jesus did not include assassinations and other punishments, so an inventor of such extreme legends would have been laughed out of court.
In Muhammad’s own life and times, beheadings and assassinations of weak opponents, as noted in the first defense, above, were part of the social environment. More important, reliable hadith show beyond all doubt that Muhammad practiced amputations for theft, enshrined in the Quran (Sura 5:38), stoning for adultery in the hadith, which also reliably reports Kab’s and a Jewish leader’s assassinations, not mentioned in this article. Thus, we see a coinciding of the facts of Muhammad’s harsh culture and his known harsh practices, unlike the situation with Jesus, who did not have harsh practices, though he lived in a harsh culture. The life and message of the two Founders differ widely, so the legends about them differ widely—though in Muhammad’s case these legends are not fictitious.
It is clear, then, that Jesus rose above his violent culture, whereas Muhammad did not. Jesus trusted in God, but Muhammad took matters into his own hand and killed his enemies and opponents stealthily.
Indeed, reputable historians accept the historicity of most of the assassinations cited in this article. That is, in all probability Muhammad did in fact assassinate enemies of Islam, even for the crime of composing insulting poetry. After all, the numerous stories come from pro-Muslim early sources that seem eager to portray Muhammad as ordering assassinations. More importantly, this debate is academic. Should we doubt whether the violent radicals today accept the early assassinations as historical? What does the prophet’s example communicate to these radicals who feel holy as they apply seventh-century Arabian customs to the twenty-first century world? It seems the terrorists and assassins are terrorized by this logic:

(4): If A, then B. If early Islam were the religion of peace, then Muhammad would never order the assassination of poets, poetesses, singing-girls, and an innocent Jewish bystander.
(5): Not-B. But Muhammad did order their assassinations. (Historical reality says so.)
(6): Therefore, not-A. Therefore, early Islam was not the religion of peace.

To counter this logic and the jarring aspect of early Islamic violence, terrorist-assassins must remain with (1)-(3), above, regardless of the evidence and the cost that truth must pay. Allah had to have guided Muhammad perfectly, so, to be obedient, they now have to follow or are permitted to follow in Muhammad’s footsteps and carry out assassinations of authors and filmmakers (see below) today for the sin of blasphemy. Early Islam inspires them. Allah wills it. It never occurs to them that Allah did not guide Muhammad perfectly and that Islam is not the religion of peace (4)-(6); that would be too jarring. The violent radicals, instead, appeal to a higher source than the hadith—the Quran itself.

Dark Inspiration from the Quran

Does the Quran assert that insulters and mockers should not be touched, killed, or condemned to hell? We analyze five passages in chronological order, not textual order.
After the Battle of Uhud in March 625, which the Muslims lost, Muhammad was stung. He and his Muslim community suffered a loss of prestige, though the community did not crumble, but quickly recovered and grew, so the loss was not material. In this verse about undergoing insults from the People of the Book (Jews, mostly, in Medina at this time), Muhammad has to take the path of humility.
3:186 You [Muhammad] are sure to be tested through your possessions and persons; you are sure to hear much that is hurtful [aa-dh-aa] from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with God [polytheists]. If you are steadfast and mindful of God, that is the best course. (Haleem)
The word "hurtful" is the same Arabic word (three-letter root is aa-dh-aa) that has been translated, below, as "annoy" and "insult." It has the semantic range of hurt, suffer, damage, injure, or harm. "The word ... signifies a slight evil ... or anything causing a slight harm" (Abdul Mannan Omar, ed., Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, Noor Foundation, 2003, p. 19). Fakhry translates the key word in this verse as "abuse" (An Interpretation of the Qur’an, NYUP, 2000, 2004). Allah tells his prophet that he has to take the insults, not retaliate. Historically, Muhammad was momentarily too weak to retaliate against insults after the Battle of Uhud. But Allah reveals that if he is patient, then he will find a great strength. Indeed, he exiled the Jewish tribe of an-Nadir in August of that year and the Jewish tribe Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench in AD 627.
After the Battle of the Trench in 627, Muhammad’s power, though always growing, increases exponentially in Medina, even more so than after the Battle of Badr in 624; therefore Allah sends down Sura 33 in the context of the Trench. In fact, we find in this sura that Muhammad is so powerful that he lays seize to the Jewish strongholds in Medina, captures them, decapitates 600 male Jews of the Qurayzah tribe, enslaves its women and children, though he keeps a beautiful Jewess for himself, and confiscates all of their property, which is considerable (33:26-27). After this great victory and confiscation, Muhammad is wealthier than ever. So Aisha and Hafsa and Muhammad’s other wives approach their husband to ask for more money. Miffed, Muhammad gives all of them the option to depart or to remain with him and be content with their allowance. He separates himself from them for twenty-nine days, and afterwards they decide to remain with him (33:33-28). Next, he issues an edict that gives him special permission to marry Zainab, the wife of his adopted son Zaid. Arab culture forbad men from marrying the wives of their sons, but Muhammad claimed that Zaid was merely his adopted son; besides, Allah told him his desire was legitimate (33:35-40). Thus, it is in the context of Muhammad’s rising power and wealth, atrocity against the Jews, and new laws about marriage and the behavior of women that these verses were received in Surah 33:
33:57 Those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them— 58 and those who undeservedly insult [aa-dh-aa] believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)
Muslim scholars agree that the Arabic word includes false reports. So Muhammad was advocating eternal damnation for merely annoying the prophet and his Muslims, the "believing men and women," and for lying insults.
Then the sura continues with commands to Muhammad’s wives to wear veils so that the insults will stop. But he also promises the insulting liars conquest and death (v. 61), which seems to echo the atrocity committed against the Jewish Qurayzah tribe.
33:59 Prophet, tell your wives your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted [aa-dh-aa]: God is most forgiving, most merciful.60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city {Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem)
This passage is stark. We find Muhammad laying down the law for all the Muslim women so that no false rumors can grow—they must wear veils. The phrase "sick of heart" is understood by Muslim commentators like Maulana Ali and Hilali and Khan as those who have excessive sexual desire, so the women must cover up. Regardless, the class of rumor-mongers, "those who spread lies," is subjected to the harshest warning. If they do not desist, they will not only be exiled, but also find no rest wherever they go. Then they will be "seized and killed," as the Qurayza tribe was. These verses, though received in 627, predict nicely what will happen to the satirical poets during the conquest of Mecca in 630, for they spread lies and insult the honor of Muslim women and Muhammad himself.
David Harsanyi, in the article for Frontpagemag.com referenced in the introduction to this article, reports on a Muslim riot provoked by an observation made by fashion journalist Isioma Daniel in the Nigerian newspaperThis Day, in November 2002, in defense of the Miss World pageant held in Nigeria. She observed that perhaps Muhammad would have chosen one of the beautiful contestants for one of his wives. "A direct result of what was at worst a thoughtless remark in a fashion column has directly led to the deaths of 200 people with another 500 injured in Nigeria during four days of rioting and mob violence," writes Harsanyi.
Harsanyi’s article continues. Do the violent radicals use the Quran to justify their actions? They did against Ms. Daniel:
What we are saying is that the Holy Koran has clearly stated that whoever insults the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, should be killed," said Zamfara State Commissioner for Information, Umar Dangaladima Magaji. The New Nigerian newspaper said the fatwa had been issued by Zamfara’s Deputy Governor Mamuda Aliyu Dallatun Shinkafi, who compared Daniel to Rushdie: "Like Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed."
Thus, the State Commissioner for Information, not an anonymous killer who can hide in the shadows, asserts that the Quran supports the actions of the Muslims, and the Deputy Governor published the fatwa in the newspaper and over the radio so that a Muslim mob could take matters into its own hand and kill anyone who looks like a Christian, as the BBC reported, according to Harsanyi.
Finally, in Sura 9, Muhammad’s power is complete, especially in the last two-thirds of the sura, which deals with the expedition to Tabuk (in the far north of Saudi Arabia today) in late 630. The hypocrites in Islam are the lukewarm Muslims who circle just outside of Islam, watching the fortunes of the community, whether they rise and stay prosperous. They do not follow the prophet when he cracks the whip; indeed, they backed away from following him to Tabuk because of the expense, the harvest season, and the heat (Sura 9:81-83). Muhammad could not tolerate such wishy-washy behavior, since he planned to expand northward even after Tabuk. Watt is reasonable when he observes: "... if the Islamic community was to engage in expeditions into Syria [the far north in the Byzantine Empire] which would involve the absence of most of the fighting men for long periods, it could not allow a body of dissidents to ensconce themselves in the suburbs of Medina" (Muhammad at Medina, p. 190). So it is in this context that Muhammad receives these verses about insults and mockery and jokes from hypocrites.
9:61 There are others who insult[aa-dh-aa] the Prophet by saying, "He will listen to anything." [Muhammad,] Say, "He listens for your own good" ... An agonizing torment awaits those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God’s Messenger ... 63 Do they not know that whoever opposes God and His Messenger will go to the Fire of Hell and stay there?" That is the supreme disgrace. (Haleem)
Thus, the hypocrites accuse Muhammad of listening to anything and everything, so he lacks wisdom and inspiration from Allah. But Allah gets the last laugh, for they will be thrown into the fires of hell. According to Sura 9:73 and 123, Muhammad wages a physical and violent war on them. So Watt’s explanation is misguided if he excuses Muhammad’s violence.
Muhammad continues his denunciation of the hypocrites with their jokes:
9:64 The hypocrites fear that a sura will be revealed exposing what is in their hearts—say, "Carry on with your jokes: God will bring about what you fear!"— 65 yet if you were to question them, they would be sure to say, "We were just chatting, just amusing ourselves." Say, "Were you making jokes about God, His Revelation [the Quran], and His Messenger? 66 Do not try to justify yourselves; you have gone from belief to disbelief." (Haleem)
Muhammad goes on to assert that the hypocrites are misleading a number of people, and in the eyes of the violent radicals today, this could easily be applied to Muslims who go from "belief to disbelief" as they criticize Islam and Muhammad. They have become hypocrites worthy of the fires of hell (v. 68); and taking verse 33:61 (see above) seriously, which promises besiegement and death, the radicals today help the hypocrites reach hell more quickly, by assassinating them rather than waiting for natural causes. The hypocrites of Muhammad’ time and of today cannot hide behind "chatting and amusing themselves" because God, the Quran, and the Messenger cannot be trifled with. Indeed, the Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1989) in 1980, shortly after he gained power in Iran and who issued the first fatwa against Rushdie, said: "There is no room for play in Islam .... It is deadly serious about everything."
The following hadiths from Sunan Abu Dawud, a reputable source, support the verses in the Quran and the deceased Supreme Leader. This passage is narrated by Ibn Abbas, who was Muhammad’s cousin and considered a highly reliable transmitter of early traditions.
The blind husband of a woman who used to verbally abuse Muhammad kept telling her to stop, but she would not. Eventually, he took a dagger and stabbed her to death. Muhammad heard about it and gathered his followers together to find out who did it. Trembling, the man leaped up and told Muhammad that he did it, whereupon, the prophet said: "Oh, be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood" (vol. 3, no. 4348). The translator of Sunan Abu Dawud, Ahmad Hasan, says that later jurists or legal scholars are unanimous that a Muslim who abuses or insults the prophet should be killed (note 3799). Muhammad did not arrest the murderous thug, but let him go free, and the jurists use this passage (and others) to apply this punishment to the world outside of Medina. It is breathtaking to watch Islam in action.
Finally, Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, narrated the following murder of a Jewish woman for insulting Muhammad: "A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah [Muhammad] declared that no recompense was payable for her blood" (vol. 3, no. 4349). The translator informs us that all Jews or any non-Muslims who insults the prophet should also be killed (note 3800). Again, the example of Muhammad serves to guide later Islam. Allah was guiding this religion, but the true God was not.
These hadith passages, though not dealing directly with insult poetry, demonstrate that early Islam is violent. All in all, the sources of early Islam—the Quran, the hadith, biographies, and histories—converge together and agree on this violence, painting a dark picture of this religion.
Islam is not the religion of peace.

Conclusion

So the deadly fatwas and assassinations continue. Radical Muslims are concerned not only for their prophet, but also for another "prophet," Jesus, who comes behind Muhammad in importance, though revered nonetheless. David Harsanyi reports that in 1999, a London-based group called Muhajiroun (named after Muhammad’s fellow-emigrants from Mecca to Medina in AD 622), describing itself as Defenders of the Messenger Jesus, put a bounty on the playwright Terrence McNally for his play Corpus Christi, when it reached London. The play, set in modern Texas, shows Jesus dying not as the King of Kings, but as the King of Queers, after his gay lover Judas betrays him. This play is especially offensive to Christians, and some may protest it, but no Christian can ever cite support from the New Testament or from the example of Christ to assassinate McNally. The Muhajiroun, however, have ample testimony from the example of Muhammad and the Quran to eliminate the playwright.
As noted in the introduction, Theo van Gogh, 47, descendant of the brother of the famous nineteenth-century painter Vincent, was assassinated for his film Submission, which depicts violence against women in Muslim society. One woman is forced into an arranged marriage and beaten by her husband. Van Gogh was assassinated while cycling by a man dressed in a traditional Moroccan jallaba. The Dutch artist, pleading for mercy, had his throat sliced after his killer fired six shots into him. It should be noted that van Gogh called Jesus "the rotten fish of Nazareth," apparently referring to the Christian symbol of a fish, but no Christian—not even the most zealous fundamentalist—attempted to or actually assassinated him. And if anyone did, then Christian leaders around the world would have roundly condemned him, as they have condemned a few killers of abortion doctors and bombers of abortion clinics over the last two or so decades. The silence of Muslim leaders about van Gogh’s death speaks loudly about the state of Islam. For more information, go to these articles [1], [2], [3], [4].
Radical Muslims do not hesitate to riot if the Quran is desecrated. In honor of their holy book, they kill innocent people. Though their deaths are not assassinations as such, they demonstrate how far radicals will go in responding to insults of their religion. This article analyzes why Islam is disrespected. It is one of the few major religions to erupt in violence when a desecration may occur (or not).
We began this article with the three-letter root of Islam (s-l-m), which means peace. However, Webster’s Dictionary says that the word "assassin" comes from another Arabic word: "hashshashin," (plural of hashshash). This comes from "one who smokes or chews hashish," which also names "a secret order of Muslims that at the time of the Crusades terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish." It has been shown that the terrorists in Iraq use drugs as they terrorize their fellow Iraqis and the infidels.
Worse still, the religious and Muhammad-sanctioned violence in the earliest source documents—the Quran, the hadith, the biographies, and the histories—acts as a kind of drug on the conscience of violent radicals. They read these sources and reasonably conclude that Allah endorses violence. So why would they feel guilty for violence if they have their conscience soothed by Muhammad’s example?
The anaesthetizing seeds of assassination have been planted in the earliest soil of Islam, and now they have grown up into the assassinations of artists and writers and filmmakers. Early Islam inspires such terrorist-assassins.
Jesus did not assassinate anyone, nor did he endorse assassinations to promote the true kingdom of God.
Jesus saves. Muhammad assassinated.

Supplementary material:
This article surveys the rise of violence in Bangladesh. The political parties listed in the box on the right, particularly Islami Chhatra Shibir, has been implicated in religiously motivated assassinations, not to mention the political ones. This article also deals with the rise of violence in Bangladesh.
This analysis discusses the similarities between assassinations in early Islam and the ones today. It is written in honor of Professor Humayon Azad who was assassinated for writing books lampooning or criticizing fundamentalist Islam in Bangladesh.
This analysis examines the many causes of assassinations of journalists and intellectuals in several Islamic countries, notably Algeria, but the analysis fails to go back to the ultimate source: Muhammad himself.
This ironical article gives five "reverse" pillars of Islam. The third one includes assassinations.
These two articles analyze the assassination of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in light of the assassinations in early Islam: [1], [2].
American journalist Daniel Pearl was assassinated apparently for the crime of being Jewish (so says the recruitment video title, noted in this analysis) and being American (read: an infidel). This article has a scathing rebuke of Islamic societies that either encourage gruesome murders or remain silent about them.

Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson. Originally published at americanthinker.com, this article was edited and expanded for Answering Islam.

Articles by James Arlandson
Answering Islam Home Page

Je suis Charlie Hebdo

2015-01-07T21:44:00.001-05:00

Mo' ham, Ed? claimed he was a terrorist.

A woman is worth less than a male.

Mo' ham. Ed? was a glutton.

My apology to pigs!

Mo' ham, Ed? was a pedophile

Raped a 9 year old!

Mo' ham, Ed? on his death bed prayed Allah would curse the Jews.

Beheading? In 2015?

Why no fatwa, Mister Mufti?

2014-09-25T00:00:00.000-04:00

Baptist with Mormon heads

Usually, Muftis are quick on the fatwa. Need doctrinal cover for raping little girls? A learned goatbeard pens a fatwa, Annoying novelist telling tales out of school? A fatwa to silence the writer appears faster than shiite through a goose. Got a question about having your buddies sodemize you to widen your anal canal so you can stuff more TNT up there? Well, a fatwa comes express post. And yes Allah condones sodomy for purposes of killing kafirs.

Given the alacrity of the publication of fatwas whenever a question pops up about what Islam is and what it ain't, I figgered, given that the Western consensus claims the Islamic State is not Islamic. a Canadian blizzard of fatwas would have inudated civilization, thus settling the question. But, I've seen nothing yet.

Wouldn't a "Hell no. the Islamic State ain't kosher!" fatwa stop devout Muslim youth from racing to Syria in search of virgins and young boys like pearls?

I jest of course. There is no doubt in the "mind" of any worshipper of Satan, aka Allah, that the Islamic State is as kosher as Mohamed boffing his pre-school wife, Aisha! (Yes, I can back up every claim I make about Islam.)

I challenge Muslims to prove the Islamic State is not Islamic by citing the Koran or hadiths. No weak hadiths or abrogated verses, please. And no Muslimas! I want the proof from a Muslim barrow so there's no argument later about authority.

And to all goatbeards across the civilized world and the 57 official Islamic hellholes; issue a fatwa calling Charlie Chinstrap the wannabe caliph, haram, allowing him to be neutralized by devout barbarians.

I'm not here to scare folk, just to help. but it is Almost Midnight in the West, no matter what our rulers and Muslim liars claim.

This is why we must defeat Mohameddans

2014-07-14T20:07:00.001-04:00

Bill Warner of Political Islam has produced a movie of the life of Mohamed. Although it is animation, it is NOT a kid's movie. It is full of violence and filth and all of it backed up by Islamic citations

Mohameddans will not be able to explain this away because it based on the Koran, hadiths, and fatwas of their holiest teachers!

Watch and share this with everyone you love and every mover and shaker in your neck of the woods.

Islam must be exposed.

It is Almost Midnight in thr West. You have your orders!

Sterling Scandal: Much Ado about Nothing at All

2014-04-29T08:42:00.003-04:00

Gold mine and Gold Digger

Don Sterling,owner of the L A Clippers, has broken no law and harmed no one but himself. But in the divisive race baiting atmosphere encouraged by the White House, all whitebread, honky, white devils who dare to have opinions contrary to the rulers, must pay,

The tape maliciously scripted and illegally recorded, shows that Sterling never assaulted his rented girlfriend, never threatened her, never demanded, never even asked her to stop hanging with Negroes. He merely wished she wouldn't do so.

Is that so bad?

Sterling never ordered anyone in the Clippers organization to do anything but hire the best players, coaches, and staff! You want to bet he doesn't have a cracker jack Jewish accountant? Sterling employs dozens of minorities and has written thousands of cheques to them, Not one cheque bounced!

In other words, he doesn't walk his talk.

I like basketball but I would not spend a minute on the bench sitting next to Don Sterling. I don't like divorce lawyers!

But I wouldn't bounce a cheque on one of them.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. We have a war against Islam to fight. Silly old men, white or black can be ignored if all they do is opine and not harm.

Here's a real racist. A man who walks his talk!

Happy End of Ramadan?

2013-08-05T08:21:00.004-04:00

Muslims, being commanded to deceive by Allah, like to make us filthy kafirs believe that the Koran is the sole holy book of Islam. In fact, were this the case Muslims would not know when to pray or how to pray or when the start and end of Ramadan might be. I challenge Muslims to prove me wrong.

In a nutshell, Islam is what Mohamed did, said, or permitted. We learn about Mohamed's life and character from the hadiths which are anecdotes of Muslim eyewitnesses to the words and deeds of Mohamed.

These anecdotes were compiled by devout Muslims and pronounced authentic by devout Muslims. None of these stories were made up by filthy kafirs.

Allah pronounced Mohamed as the model of perfect humanity. As Christians are to model their lives on the life of Jesus, Muslims are commanded to ape the words and deeds of Mohamed.

So here's what devout Muslims treasure about their prophet from the hadiths compiled by Bukhari, considered for 1200 years to be the most authentic (sahih) compiler . His hadiths are the most beloved by most Muslims, Sunni or Shiite.

Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 11 :: Hadith 626

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl." The Prophet added, "Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses."

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 177

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 256

The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 65

The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause.

Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 220

Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Check out Bulhari's and other hadiths.

It is Almost Midnight in the West, mostly because we are ignorant of our Great Enemy! Learn about Islam then join the New Crusade!

Salvage Education

2013-08-03T08:13:00.000-04:00

I'm chuffed with you, Charly, my Uncle Lou said the other day. Iffen ya hadta teach, it's a fine thing ya took a shine ta, Salvage Education.

He calls me Charly in tender moments. Neither he nor I know where or when he started calling me Charly but Aunt Fern said the first she recalled it was the day his Yella Cur, Charly, died of distemper.

You have the same dewy eyes, explained Aunt Fern, all misted up.

What's brought this up, Uncle Lou?

I jess heard that lad ya were atutorin' got hisself elected ta council.

There wasn't an election for that. Not lately.

Minor hockey council.

Oh, yeah. Hockey, minor or major, pro or shinny, is important in my fair village and anyone who gets invited to help the committee, not council as Uncle Lou would have it, can rightly believe he is regarded as a solid man.

Now the reason Uncle Lou calls Special Education, Salvage Education, is because he has always believed that there's money in salvage. Use what other folk throw out and ya'll do fine.

I collected bottles, cardboard, scrap iron, and junked cars, earning my way through high school and university. So by the time I entered teacher's college, it seemed natural to look for a salvage opportunity and sure enough, there was a pile of kids that no one wanted in their classrooms.

My mentors were less than helpful or encouraging. Are you nuts? Teaching is bad enough but Special Ed is ... burn out city! But Uncle Lou's wisdom won the day, with me at least.

What I quickly learned about the kids in Special Ed was that they didn't need fixing so much as the system of education needed it. Some folk don't fit the sit still work on this particular question until the bell rings and then work on another particular question which some one else had posed. That model of pedagogy is not based on the reality of human learning. It is a model of an assembly line.

When Mom sees her cute little tyke exploring the wonders of his toes, she encourages that exploration. She doesn't try to switch his attention to his fingers. You can observe this style of teaching in any society because it is natural teaching, and because it engages the learner's individual interest, it is efficient teaching.

Every athlete, artist, or mechanic I have known explored his (or her) own interests, be it a game, a medium, or tinkering with machines. Yes coaches and mentors can encourage folk to excel but the curiosity which motivates learners to want to excel is always self-generated.

All educational systems harm learners, even the A plus students. Some systems are less harmful to be sure but all systems through the collective of administration and implementers (teachers, in this case) exert a will of self-preservation. A system takes on a life of its own and it protects its existence.

A lot of kids lose out to the system and they get transferred to Special Ed. This admittedly is another system although much less organized and its populated by a lot of males who are anti-system. Oh dear, another politically incorrect observation.

I know a few top notch women Special Ed teachers, but most women in Special Ed classrooms are still trying to fix kids not let kids find a way to learn. This despite the fact that they let their own kids explore the world!

I know that's a subjective comment but I base it on the look of Special Ed classrooms. Most woman teacher's rooms are festooned with things a kid should learn, alphabets, number lines, time lines, and labels on every darn thing in the room.

The men's classes are usually less formally decorated and less hectic, because learning is an individual process best accomplished quietly and with focussed attention. If kids need alphabets, number lines, times line et al, most men will give the kid who needs it a copy for his desk.

If the male teacher is a self-seeker with dreams of sleeping at a desk in the board office, he falls in line with his pedagogical sisters. His room looks as if Martha Stewart teamed up with Maria Montesorri. The eye-catching room fools people into thinking learning is going on. Most of it is pure distraction. Try not to be fooled next time.

A Special Ed teacher should appreciate and value a student for who he is intellectually and not be trying to fix or change him. I know this runs counter to current thinking of test to find out what's wrong and develop a program to fix the problem. I've been teaching since 1972 and I have never seen an instance of that approach working. Kids grow out of ADD whatever that is. (There is NO medical or pedagogical test for ADD. NONE. NADA. PERIOD.)

If you allow a kid to explore his own interests, leaning will take place, because humans are learning animals. I am not saying that everyone can become Einstein, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, or Gretzky but in 40 plus years of teaching, I have met no one, excepting severely brain-injured folk, who could not play a role in society. Without getting fixed.

Please note that I am speaking of kids who have been taught right from wrong. I am not suggesting that kids be allowed to explore criminal pursuits. But, though all men are sinners, I believe most men are not criminals, nor inclined to be criminals.

If you are looking for a project to endow with your trust fund, consider starting a school which allows every student to develop his or her interests in a moral setting. You'll be salvaging lives. And there's profit in that. In a lot of different ways.

Yeah, that what I said, Charly, Uncle Lou says suddenly.

What?

I agree that if you are looking for a project to endow with your trust fund, consider starting a school which allows every student to develop his or her interests in a moral setting. You'll be salvaging lives. And there's profit in that. In a lot of different ways. Uncle Lou is looking chuffed. He loves being re-quoted or alluded to. I also agree that most men are not inclined to be criminals. Just those who choose to be politicians.

I've got to stop thinking aloud!

More lies by Obama exposed--by CNN!

2013-08-02T18:32:00.001-04:00

When I got word over my car radio that the toadies at CNN reported, in an accidental act of journalism, that the liar in the White House lied about Benghazi, I nearly planted my Windstar in the sumptuous rear end of blue S-type Jag. What next, Pelosi making sense?

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack
CNN has uncovered information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack…

Sources tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in an unprecedented attempt to keep its Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings…to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation.

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.
The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to US Rep Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and to find out what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the US agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two US agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."
The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.

Obama is a traitor. Arrest, try, convict, execute

Ramadan: still stupid and violent!

2013-08-01T21:19:00.001-04:00

Well, Day 25 of Ramadama-ding-dong and Bombathon 2013 Scorecard records 250 terrorist (Muslim) attacks creating a pile of 1264 dead bodies and 2426 wounded people. Who said Muslims can't accomplish anything?

All other religions have goose eggs across the board. Muslims are simply the best at killing in holy months! Or any other time.
It is ironic that most of the victims are fellow barbarians. Once you embrace barbarity, no one is safe. Not even your own family. Of course, Muslims do not and cannot understand this.

Muslims do not think killing for Allah is wrong. They can't think this because Allah commands killing. Find a Christian who thinks the Great Commission is wrong! You can't because the Great Commission is a command from Jesus, Himself.

Even if the rest of islam's problems were ignored, the command to kill kafir would disqualify it from the civilized world. It would if the West were led by rational and courageous people, in any case.

Within the area formerly known as Christendom I find no leader who either understands the utter danger that Muslims represent to our way of life, or has the spine to confront the danger.

The barbarians are at the gate and unlike the barbarians who sacked Rome, they will not be brought to civility by the wonders of our much superior civilization. Muslims have seen the West and their Allah, aka Satan, tells them to destroy it.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. You are with us or with the Muslims. Fence sitters will be dealt with by Muslims as they deal with other kafirs, death by decapitation.

Multi-kultural celebration goes poof!

2013-07-03T09:05:00.001-04:00

Once again multi-kulturalism fails in Oh Canada. Which is a good thing. Canadian born, white European converts to Islam planned to kill and maim thousands at a Canada Day celebration in British Columbia. Home grown Muslims! Just wonderful.

From the National Post:

Canadian authorities announced today they arrested two people who were allegedly planning to carry out a pressure cooker bombing near a government building during a major Canadian holiday.

John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Korody, of Surrey, British Columbia, were arrested Monday and charged with conducting "terrorism-related activities, including taking steps to build and subsequently place explosive devices at a pre-determined public location in the city of Victoria in British Columbia for the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injuries on Canada Day," according to Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner James Malizia.

"These individuals were inspired by al Qaeda ideology," Malizia said, but the pair was not directly linked to any overseas groups.

Photographs released by the RCMP show that among the evidence are three pressure cookers, similar to the pressure cooker devices used to house explosives in the Boston Marathon bombing in April, which killed three and injured more than 260 others. In that case, investigators said there was evidence the alleged perpetrators had been inspired by al Qaeda.

An RCMP official said, however, that the alleged plot was not inspired by the Boston Marathon attack.

RCMP Assistant Commissioner Wayne Rideout said that the devices in the alleged Canadian plot were "completely under our control, they were inert."

"I want to reassure our citizens that at all times during the investigation, our primary focus was the safety and protection of the public," Malizia said. "While the RCMP believes this threat was real, at no time was the security of the public at risk."

The continued brain-deadedness of Muslims, converted or naturally spawned, surprises no one who understands the brain washing techniques of Islam. Public daily, regimented prayer, allegiance to an allah of evil and bloodlust, the promise of a carnal, perverted after life --all contribute to a certain detachment from reality.

This also explains why Muslims win no Nobel Prizes (save the Peace Prize) and patent nearly no ideas, and, as Ron Banargee says, "Have contributed less to the good of mankind than a pack of wild donkeys."

So, this clown and clownette were easily led by the Mounties down the path to intended mayhem.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mounties wore their hats and dress uniforms while undercover!

The Canadian press has still refused to make the link with Islam, preferring to think that only perverse Muslims think killing kafirs is kosher, but alas, any reasonable, unbiased person must conclude that Islam does call for the killing of kafirs!

Please read the Koran and send on this link to your loved ones and to the movers and shakers in your neck of the woods!

Kebab, yes! Killing kafirs? Hell NO!

It is Almost Midnight in the West. We will not know peace until Islam is eradicated from the Western world.

Hurray! Freedom of Speech Wins in Canada

2013-07-02T15:10:00.001-04:00

Freedom of Speechniks in Oh Canada can now criticize all things Islamic without coming acropper with the Human Rights (Denial) Commission. The ruling Conservatives yanked the censorious Section 13 of the act which allow a vey broad definition of hate speech. It came to mean anything which upset Muslims. And Muslims, being bullies and barbarians, are upset by everything good and civilized.

From Ezra Levant’s blog:

To understand how Canada got an Internet censorship law, also known as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, you must go back in time to 1913.

That’s when John Ross Taylor was born in Toronto.

Something about Taylor just wasn’t right. In his 20s, as the world lurched towards the Second World War, Taylor openly sided with the Nazis. He was interned during the war. After the war, despite the absolute repudiation of Nazism, Taylor didn’t give up hope. He continued to call for Canadians to throw off our liberal democracy in favour of dictatorship. And, of course, he seasoned that with a dose of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism, too.

It was pitiful: He’d print up some pamphlets, climb to the top of an office tower, and dump them off the roof, like confetti, hoping that would foment a revolution. What a deluded loser. But Taylor was never violent. If you turn the sound off when watching reels of him on the news, you’d mistake him for a banker — always dressed in a three-piece suit, the kind of thing you’d expect from the grandson of a Toronto alderman. But he just wanted an all-white Reich here in Canada.

Obviously this bothered right-minded people after the war, especially Jews in Canada, many of whom were survivors of the Holocaust. Canada’s Official Jews — the bosses of the now-defunct Canadian Jewish Congress — pressed their friends in the Liberal Party for laws banning Taylor’s anti-Semitic rants. And in 1966, a committee appointed by the justice minister proposed new laws to ban hateful speech. The Cohen Commission specifically mentioned Taylor by name as a rationale.

Using this harmless buffoon as an excuse, they recommended infringing on freedom of speech for all Canadians. “There is an evident distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ public discussion, and the state has as great an obligation to discourage the latter as it has to maintain the former,” they wrote.
So in 1977, Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Section 13 made it illegal to publish anything “… likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt.”

In 1966, a committee appointed by the justice minister, proposed new laws to ban hateful speech. The Cohen Commission specifically mentioned Taylor by name as a rationale.

Using this harmless buffoon as an excuse, they recommended infringing on freedom of speech for all Canadians. “There is an evident distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ public discussion, and the state has as great an obligation to discourage the latter as it has to maintain the former,” they wrote.

So in 1977, Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Section 13 made it illegal to publish anything “… likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt.”

So now the hate speech portion has been tossed out. This is good news because the HRC had a conviction rate of 100%. The Star Chamber Court built during reign of King Edward II in1398, infamous for its reign of terror, did not achieve this rate of conviction, neither did Stalin’s pogrom courts in the 1930s.

I was cautioned under the law once by an un-named female lackey of the CBC for a comment made decrying the racism of a opinion piece which aired on CBC radio. The broadcast included references to smelly and dirty white Europeans who accompanied Columbus in his invasion of North America. I sent a complaint to my member of federal parliament and got an apology of sorts from CBC stooges. They claimed I was called in error but it was a lie.

Now, the CBC, or Muslims can pound sand if they get upset by the truth.

I am not the only one who thinks Muslims are not fit to live in my country. I have support from the mouth of a Muslim—watch the video!

All you need to know about Islam

2013-06-03T00:01:00.000-04:00

Sit back and learn all you need to know about the doctrine of evil.

It's Almost Midnight in the West. If we don't stop this cancer, our lives will be like those of the civilized people in the videos. Time to get off your duff!

Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished!!!

2013-06-02T12:01:00.000-04:00

By BYRON TAU

A US attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.

Bill Killian, US attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.

We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected, Killian told the newspaper.

Killian, along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, are set to speak next week to a special meeting with the local Muslim community, informing them about their rights under federal law.

This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion, Killian said about the meeting. This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.

Killian pointed to a recent controversy where a local Tennessee politician posted a photo of a man aiming a shotgun at the camera with the caption "How to wink at a Muslim."

If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened? Killian asked, according to the newspaper.

The Department of Justice did not respond Friday to a question about what guidelines it draws concerning offensive speech and Islam, or whether the department believes that civil rights statutes could be used to stifle criticism of Islam.

While threats directed at individuals or small groups can lead to punishment, First Amendment experts expressed doubt that the government has any power to stop offensive material about Islam from circulating.

He’s just wrong, said Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment attorneys. The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion.

And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is, Abrams said.

A conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of using federal law to specifically protect Muslims from criticism.

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the US the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights, the group wrote in a blog post.

In recent years, the federal government has faced difficult questions about how to respond to material posted about Islam and the [so-called] Prophet Mohamed — especially when the content causes riots or attacks abroad.

In 2010, a Florida pastor made international news when he threatened to burn 200 copies of the Koran on the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

The federal government admitted it was powerless to stop Jones, though President Barack Obama condemned the idea. Jones backed off from his September attempt, but later burned a Koran in 2012.

A similar controversy erupt when a Coptic Christian man posted the trailer for an anti-Mohamed film online — causing rioting and an attack on the US Embassy in Cairo.

The Obama administration condemned the attack, while blasting the filmmaker for religious intolerance.

The Muslim in the White House is doing what a good Muslim is commanded to do —spread the doctrine of evil. It is Almost Midnight in the West. Muslims are at war with Westerners! Wake up.

Islam Coexists?

2013-06-01T09:11:00.001-04:00

From Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam.

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers car jacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd -- you know -- all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all of the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Start with Mohammed. We know an enormous amount about Mohammed as a neighbor to Kafirs (non-Muslims), pagans, Jews and Christians.
When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah’s way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.

So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of their goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.

But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia to work as dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.
That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.

But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed’s coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.

After Mohammed has made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians the losers became dhimmis just like the Jews.

Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi could not testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.

Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A coexistence clue is that Arabic has one word, “abd”, that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.

How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.

There is a massive data base of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001. Here is a chart of the data of the top 4 nations as victims of jihad:

Put another way, this is how Islam coexists today with Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. It practices jihad against all non-Muslims, Kafirs.

The idea of coexist has a social ring to it, we’re all one big happy family. But how do we talk about all religions and not get into which one is right or best? Well, there is an easy way to do it. If you are not a member of a religion, the only thing you care about is how you are treated by those who belong to that religion. In short, you only care about the ethics and character of the adherent.

All of the world’s religions have an ethical code that is rooted in the Golden Rule. Islam does not have a Golden Rule. Mohammed’s life is the perfect example of how not to be a good neighbor. How do you coexist with a neighbor who has the ethical choice of jihad of murder and deceit?

What do religious leaders in American think about coexisting with Islam? They love it. Coexist is the mental mush that fills the heads of the useful idiots that go to the Family of Abraham religious dialogues. The ministers and rabbis who go to these dialogs know as much about Islam as what is found on the Coexist bumper sticker. Really, their ignorance is astounding. They are there to coexist and the imam is there to dominate. Dhimmi Christians and Jews want to tie, the Muslim wants to win.

But the mental mush of coexistence is not just in the heads of the dhimmi religious leaders, it also fills the heads of law enforcement and military. Under Bush and Obama, all of those who actually know something about Islam inside the military and law enforcement have been eliminated. FBI and military training files have been purged to satisfy the Muslim Brotherhood. So our protectors are forbidden to study the war doctrine of political Islam. They are prevented from naming the enemy and studying them.

There is only one way to coexist with Islam over time. Islam must submit to Kafir civilization and we must never submit to Islam, not even in the smallest detail. This means we must all know the smallest details of Islam and that begins with the knowledge of Mohammed and his wars against all Kafirs.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

It is Almost Midnight in the West. I invite Muslim barrows to dispute the facts.

We're not going to take this anymore!

2013-05-31T00:01:00.000-04:00

Access your inner righteous warrior. Start practicing now. Open the window, as Howard Beale in Network suggested, and shout "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore."

The this is the bullshiite we are being told about Islam.

Even when a decaptitating barbarian explains that Allah, aka Satan, commands Muslims to slice off the heads of kafirs, the enemedia and political rulers claim the crazed bastard got it wrong! Islam is a Religion of Peace ©!

This barbarian was called a nice guy by fellow barbarians. He had never even hinted he was this religious!

Watch the accompanying video to decide if think those barbarians were being truthful.

I expect Muslims to lie, except when they say they will kill you. But, I had held out the hope that a Brit PM might tell the truth especially when the Muslim barrow himself, still bloody from the slaughter, told everyone why he did it! It’s the Islam, stupid! However, PM Campbell said Islam had nothing to do with the beheading of a soldier.

I say, Mister Prime Minister you are a liar! And a traitor! All of you can shout that out the window, too. Just for practice.

Come D-Day 6 June 2013, every liberty loving, truth telling kafir should send the movers and shakers in your neck of the woods a copy of the Koran and a request for answers: which parts should we adopt? which parts should be banned? quote a peaceful unabrogated verse from the Koran.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. Time to become a Crusader!

Allah hates Jews!

2013-05-15T00:01:00.000-04:00

Islam is a cult of hate & death. Any rational person who reads the Koran and the real history of Islam will come to that conclusion.
I know you are thinking this is the jaded opinion of a loather of Islam, and it is, but it is also the opinion of a renowned Muslim cleric, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi.
I’ll let the sheikh tell you in his own words. Then you can decide if you want folks who believe what his says living your neighbourhood.

“We believe that the battle between us and the Jews is coming … Such a battle is not driven by nationalistic causes or patriotic belonging; it is rather driven by religious incentives. This battle is not going to happen between Arabs and Zionists, or between Jews and Palestinians, or between Jews or anybody else. It is between Muslims and Jews as is clearly stated in the hadith. This battle will occur between the collective body of Muslims and the collective body of Jews i.e. all Muslims and all Jews.”

Muslim is not a race, ethnicity, or nationality!

“Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

Curiously, Muslims do not believe the Holocaust of WWII happened, but they love Hitler for killing the Jews!

(A Muslim’s) whole ambition is to die on the path to Allah… I am sure we will conquer”.

Short and to the point.
Well, what’s your reaction? Do you want people who believe this in your neighbourhood? Do you think your children will thrive in the presence of this belief?
It is Almost Midnight in the West. Muslims hate Jews. Muslims hate non-Muslims. It isn’t personal, it’s a command of Allah, aka Satan! It can’t be ignored, changed or even tweaked!If Muslims defeat us, all non-Muslims must convert to Islam, agree to live as chattel of Muslims, or die. Three ugly choices.

Barbaric or just Islamic?

2013-05-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

No opinion from me today just a warning about these videos—

THEY ARE GRAPHIC AND SHOCKING!

I think it’s Almost Midnight in the West. I’ll know for sure from the response to these videos.

Muslims believe this abomination is holy!

2013-05-13T07:39:00.001-04:00

FROM “The Child Bride and the Old Man of Arabia by Dr A A Ahmed

When Iffat Khan was contracted in marriage to the seventy-year-old husband, she was seven years old, almost eight. She had no idea what marriage was. She was not even informed that she was to become the wife of Sheikh Ahmed.

The Eritrean Mazoon made up the marriage contract, issued the certificate, received his fees and left. As soon as the Mazoon and the two witnesses left, the EVIL old man decided to imitate the example of his prophet Muhammad.

He took his child-bride to his bedroom and asked his Pakistani pimp to translate his first words to his child-bride. Through his interpreter, he told Iffat that she had become his wife. Iffat did not understand what he meant by “wife.” Then, he told her that he was not going to harm her. He told her that he was going to give her beautiful gifts if she agreed to remove her clothes and show him her underwear.

Iffat refused. He added that he would give her beautiful Barbie dolls and golden ornaments. Then, he opened a cupboard and showed her some lovely dolls, golden necklace, and bangles. The child liked the beautiful dolls and ornaments. She took them from his hands.

While she was playing with the dolls and putting on her ornaments the evil old man began to touch her body and lustfully feel her up. Then, he began to remove her dress. Iffat did not resist. She was scared that if she did not allow him to remove her clothes, he would take away the beautiful dolls and ornaments that he had given her.

When he stripped her of her outer dress and left her in her underwear, the old man ordered his pimp to go out and lock the bedroom from the outside. The evil Saudi was prepared; he had various kinds of chocolates, candies, and cookies. He also purchased lovely dolls, ornaments, dresses and shoes. He bought some games too. He filled the cupboard with every kind of attractive gift tempting to a small child like Iffat. Then, he began to coerce her with more tempting gifts.

After she allowed him to remove her dress, he asked her to sit on his lap. When she refused to obey him, he showed her more dolls and chocolates. When she wanted to take them from his hands, he held them back. He used his arms to motion for her to come sit on his lap or he would not give them to her. Iffat obeyed him and sat on his lap. When he began to feel her body, kiss her and touch her privates, Iffat got scared and tried to run away from him. Of course, he restrained her and promised to give her more gifts.

Then, he opened his garment and showed her his privates. Iffat refused to look at his private parts, closed her eyes, and began to cry. He let go of her and he allowed her to get up from his lap. He stood up, went to the child-sized cupboard, and opened all the drawers and doors. Then, he showed her many more dolls, ornaments, candies, and cookies. He waved his hand and invited her to come and select whatever she would like. Tempted by the gifts, Iffat went to the cupboard and began to grab whatever she liked.

While she was bending over selecting all the fascinating and colorful gifts she had never seen before and would like to have, he came up from behind and began to “thigh” her. Iffat did not understand what he was doing to her, so she just continued to explore the cupboard.

That day the seven-year-old girl saw things she should not have seen at her age, and she was sexually abused the way no child should ever be. Only pedophiles would contemplate schemes that culminate in the ruination of a young girl’s childhood.

Little by little, the evil old man blackmailed Iffat until he had accomplished his first “thighing” of the innocent child and ejaculated all over her backside and down her thighs. Then, he allowed her to take her collection and go to the washroom and wash herself and then play with her dolls.

Sheikh Ahmed felt no guilt. His conscience was clear because he knew his prophet Muhammad used to do the same thing to his six-year-old child-bride, Aisha bint Abu Bakr.

How much longer are Westerners going to put up with this filth? It’s coming to your neighbourhood.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. Get off your keester--join the Crusade to eradicate Islam!

Obama: I am not a crook!

2013-05-12T19:09:00.001-04:00

Using the Nazis at the IRS to go after political opponents should be enough to get the usurpers skinny hinny booted back to a Kenyan mosque near his birthplace. Yet, this impeachment-worthy transgression against the spirit of the Constitution and democracy itself, far from being hidden is offered up to the lap dog enemedia.

Why?

To distract from the treasonous Benghazi-flux-up.

Four Americans died. They were denied protection and there’s proof of that, not mere evidence!

On Friday, the usurper’s hinny lickers at the Why Houz were drumming up all sorts of lies to explain away email excerpts that show a top State Department official pushing to water down the intelligence community's initial story-line on the Benghazi attack, as Republicans sharply challenged the administration's honesty. (Fox News)

Press Secretary Jay Carney accused Republicans of leaking the emails in an effort to politicize this. These documents bear out what we've said all along.

Either this man is clueless or totally clueless.

For once the Press Corps (pronounced corpse in deference to the usurper) didn’t want to swallow the obvious swill.

… ABC News reported Friday that the talking points were revised 12 times. Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to al khyda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings out of concern they could be used against her department.

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al khyda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

But Nuland wrote that the lines could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ...

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

Watergate was a dime store shoplifting compared to the treasonous, murderous affair Benghazi-gate.

Perhaps the smell of nervous sweat from the cool Muslim Marxist will get the old blood running in the press corps! Like in the old days of Bernstein and Woodward.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. What does a traitor have to do to get his hinny in a sling in DC in the year of our Lord 2013? Apparently 4 murders and proof of lies is not enough. But, believe me, there is more. Lots more.

The usurper must be removed from office, charged and punished as a traitor.

Muslims banned from Website!

2013-05-11T11:59:00.001-04:00

One of the many, many confutzulations in Islam is its view of original sin, the idea that because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden that all men and women are stained by that sin.

Mohamed believed the doctrine of original sin was abhorrent, so Muslims believe original sin is abhorrent. Mohamed came to believe this only after he was rejected by Jews as a prophet of the Jewish allah, Jehovah.

Mohamed was a very spiteful man who held onto grudges! When he got an army, Jews were run out of the Arabian peninsula and Jews have never been permitted to return! But there’s no compulsion in religion in Islam; Muslims tell this lie to kafirs!

In his effort to discredit Judaism, Mohamed said that Gabriel said that the allah of Islam, Allah, said that all men are born Muslim and those who fall away from Islam are sinners. But later Mohamed said that Gabriel said that the allah of Islam, Allah, said kafirs (non-Muslims) are the vilest creatures that she, Allah, had created. This is a conundrum for the Western mind but gives the Muslim mind no pause. I suppose the Muslim mind is so confutzulated that one more confutzulation goes un-noticed.

The problem with dualism, or holding contradictory ideas, that A is A and not A at the same instant, is that it causes the logical mind to shut down. This explains the absolute paucity of Muslim invention. And even if you believe the myth of an Islamic Golden Age, you would truthfully have to admit that looking at the last 500 years that Ron Banerjee is correct when he says, Muslims have contributed less to the good of mankind than a pack of wild donkeys.

Muslims are doomed to misery by the doctrine of evil, aka Islam.

The other problem with dualism is much more relevant to kafirs than Muslim poverty and misery. Dualism applied to morality amounts to a declaration of unrelenting war on those who are on the other side. To a Muslim that’s everyone who is not a Muslim.

Muslims are commanded to be honest, helpful, loving, and charitable to Muslims (if they belong to same sect). Muslims are commanded to be ruthless with kafirs meaning non-Muslims, meaning the other side.

Osama bin Laden was innocent in the eyes of Muslims. A kafir newborn is not. (Even though ALL humans are born sinless! Yeah, see Islam is soooo confused!) The highest use for a Muslim is to kill kafirs or die trying. This is a commandment of the allah of Islam, Allah, aka Satan. Brainwashed Muslimas teach this to their children who blow themselves up with explosives invented and manufactured by kafirs. The mothers of these up blown children sing happily that their children are enjoying sodomizing 72 virgins and hand out candies to all & sundry (providing the all & sundry are all worshippers of Satan, aka Allah).

Do you think that Muslims are in your neighbourhood to live peacefully? To fit in? To be productive? If they do not believe they are supposed to be a war with you, why do they call themselves Muslim?

It is Almost Midnight in the West. Muslim barrows cannot argue against what I’ve written. I have only written what Allah, aka Satan, told Gabriel to tell Mohamed, and the logical consequences of believing the doctrine of evil, that’s why I’m banning Muslims from this site. I’ve had enough of their nonsense and stupidity. Only barbarians defend evil.

More ‘splaining for Muslim barrows to do!

2013-05-10T09:10:00.001-04:00

Oh dear, more bad publicity for Allah’s doctrine of evil. It seems like followers of Islam are world-class when it comes to abusing other’s rights of religious freedom. Ten of the bottom 15 worst abusers of religious rights and freedoms are Islamic hellholes.

Quelle suprise!

(US Ambassador Chris Stevens was not sodomized before, during, and after his murder, to abuse his religious freedom. It was because he was a homosexual. I just want that to be perfectly clear.)

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2013 Annual Report cites countries that are the least tolerant of religious freedom. Any Westerner who has read the Koran could have spared the commission its time, money, and effort, but it’s nice to have a second opinion. Especially when it aligns with reality.

The problem the the report creates for the usurper in the Why Houz is the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) requires him to order the Secretary of State, John I served in Vietnam Kerry to designate as countries of particular concern, (CPCs), those governments that have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

No doubt the usurper will argue what particularly severe actually means. To be fair, what does particularly severe mean to people who strap bombs to little girls to kill kafirs?

IRFA defines particularly severe violations as ongoing, systematic and egregious acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances, or flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.

But, the usurper will just say that Bush did all these things at Club Gitmo and who are Americans to act so high and mighty, Salaamalekum. Allahu akbar!

The USCIRF report nominates as CPCs the hellholes of Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Close to receiving the CPC mark of disapproval are Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, and Russia.

Putting Saudi on the list was obviously an egregious mistake! We can’t diss our pals in the oil rich land now matter what they do to themselves. And really, who cares? The populus is 100% Muslim and there is no compulsion in religion, as Muslims tell us kafirs, so everyone voluntarily lives under the barbaric sharia. Right?

Egypt will continue get billions from the usurper in the Why Houz because it is a shining example of all things Islam! So says the usurper.

John I served in Vietnam Kerry, who has done remarkably well for himself, should be in custodial care and should not be expected to have a clue about any of this.

Here’s the report in a PDF.

Muslim barrow only are invited to argue for the doctrine of evil.

NO LETTERS FROM MUSLIMAS WILL BE POSTED OR EVEN READ! I WILL NOT BE PART OF ANYTHING WHICH MAY LEAD TO A WOMAN BEING BEATEN OR MURDERED.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. These Islamic countries understand Islam perfectly. So why would we want anything to do with Islam in our civilized countries? Ask the rulers of your neck of the woods that very question.

Muslims of any race or ethnicity are intolerant of non-Muslims. My loathing is of a doctrine, nothing else.

FIRE INSPECTOR RICKY VEERAPPAN!

2013-05-09T00:01:00.000-04:00

York Regional Police Inspector Ricky Veerappan, in charge of the diversity squad, bullied Rabbi Mendel Kaplan into uninviting Pamela Geller from addressing a local synagogue. Veerappan said the speech would not be endorsed by York Regional Police and that the rabbi’s role as a force chaplain would be thrown into question if he were to permit the event.

Please note: the speech would not be endorsed by York Police!

Need I say that Veerappan is a Muslim?

There is lots wrong with this entire situation. Putting a Muslim in charge of diversity is absurd. Muslims are the least tolerant of any people. Islam is supremacist, racist, and sexist!

Why did this Muslim cop think he had any authority to approach the rabbi in the first place? Why are immigrant cops not required to understand civilized law and traditions?

Why wasn’t this joker fired? Why isn’t there an outcry across Canada? That’s rhetorical. Most Canadians think it would be wrong to hold a barbarian to a civilized level of behaviour.

It is Almost midnight in the West. Please contact York Police. Let them know that civilized people will not stand for Nazi tactics nor sharia.

This Inspector Veerappan must be forced to resign.

York Regional Police
17250 Yonge Street
Newmarket, Ontario Canada
L3Y-4W5
1-866-876-5423
Email: info@yrp.ca

One of their website pages proudly proclaims that DEEDS SPEAK!
Rub their noses in that!

Vital news for Non-Muslims!

2013-05-08T07:32:00.001-04:00

My favourite kind of Muslim are ex-Muslims, because they tell the truth of the doctrine of evil. Today, I offer a video interview with ex-Muslim, Nassim Ben Iman an Arab who immigrated to Germany.

He wrote: “Der wahre Feind…warum ich kein Terrorist geworden bin” / “The true enemy…why I did not become a terrorist”.

He says what I have been saying about Islam here for the last five years; that Islam has nothing good to bring to civilization. I have been called a bigot and racist who is ignorant of Islam.

Surely, those criticisms cannot rightly be made of Nassim, who says, among many other things, that Every Muslim is a potential terrorist.

This may be the most important interview you will ever hear.

Shun Muslims! Nazis, too!

2013-05-07T14:18:00.001-04:00

When I heard that a cop in York, part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), had bullied a Rabbi to cancel a visit of Pamela Geller, staunch anti-jihadist, my Muslim radar blipped.

I told a friend it was a Muslim cop but I was told by my friend that the cop had a Dutch name.

I said, Islam is not a race. Any misguided fool can become Muslim.

The cop, Inspector Ricky Veerappan, is head of the diversity squad of the York Police Department. People get posted to the diversity squad by having diverse skin tone or by being Muslim or Sikh. Merit has nothing to do with it. Just don’t be white!

Putting a Muslim in charge of harassing kafirs is very much like putting a wolf in the sheepfold. A Muslim is commanded to fight kafirs until all kafirs have reverted to Islam, agreed to be ruled by Muslims, or are beheaded. End of story. You know I have the citations to prove this.

Non-Muslims should live by this simple rule: Shun Muslims. If non-Nazis had shunned Nazis in the 1930s, the world would have avoided WWII.

SHUN MUSLIMS.

Never trust a Muslim. Never do business with a Muslim. Boycott businesses that cater to Muslims. Fight every inroad Muslims attempt to establish. Never re-elect a politician who supports or aids Islam in any way, no matter how slight, and no matter what good thing that politician may have done. Counter every Muslim lie with quotes from the Koran or the hadiths. Never apologize for telling the truth about the doctrine of evil.

"Never, never, never, never quit." -- Winston Churchill

For those who are uncomfortable with this, ask yourself, would you shun Nazis? What is the significant distinction between Islam and Nazi doctrine? Nazis believe in the equality of women, Muslims don’t.

You know you are looking at evil when Nazi fascism looks better than another doctrine.

It is Almost Midnight in the West. Ron Bannerjee is a Canadian who is an activist for Hindus. His name and phone number are on the poster above. He said, Muslims have contributed less good to mankind than a pack of wild donkeys.

I wish I had written that, because I love when people call a spade a spade.

PLEASE TRY TO GET TO THE PROTEST.

I wonder how many thousands of moderate Muslims will be there asking for Veerappan’s resignation for misunderstanding Islam?

Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is an ex-Muslima who loathes Islam as much as I do, but who is much smarter and tons more beautiful!

Hatred is good!

2013-05-06T09:52:00.001-04:00

Hatred is good! Hatred of others keeps people pure!

Jesus Christ disagrees. Western custom disagrees. So from whence comes this odd idea that hate is a grand thing to nurture in your heart?

ISLAM! (And if you didn’t know that, you have not been paying attention!)

Non-Muslims of any religion or creed are najas. (impure) Ayatollah Khomeini

Among other najas things are pigs and dog shit.

Islam promotes general hatred toward non-Muslim to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt ( non-Islamic) thoughts. Ayatollah Montazeri

From the website of Front Page:

Professor Laurence Loeb’s seminal analysis of dhimmi Jews under Muslim suzerainty in Iran (Outcaste- Jewish Life in Southern Iran, 1977), documents the social impact of Shi’ite najas regulations, beginning with the implementation of a “badge of shame [as] an identifying symbol which marked someone as a najas Jew and thus to be avoided. From the reign of Abbas I [1587-1629] until the 1920s, all Jews were required to display the badge.”

You thought Hitler started this, didn’t you? Hitler admired Islam, particularly its treatment of Jews. Adolf, a talented student of anti-Semitism, learned from the master, Mohamed!

Loeb emphasizes, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behaviour by Muslims.” For example, they refused to walk near Jews in the rain, for fear of becoming polluted by touching something that once touched a Jew. Professor Loeb provides the example of water as medium of impurity, and includes a bizarre, striking account by a Jew from Shiraz:

“Water was considered the most common agent of pollution, therefore Jews were not permitted to use the public baths…The possibility that rain-water might splash off a Jew onto a Muslim led to the prohibition of Jews walking in public during the rain. One informant from Shiraz told the following anecdote:

‘When I was a boy, I went with my father to the house of a non-Jew on business. When we were on our way, it started to rain. We stopped near a man who had apparently fallen and was bleeding. As we started to help him, a Muslim akhond (theologian) stopped and asked me who I was and what I was doing. Upon discovering that I was a Jew, he reached for a stick to hit me for defiling him by being near him in the rain. My father ran to him and begged the akhond to hit him instead.’”

Let’s review the pertinent facts. The Good Samaritans were helping a wounded Muslim. A Muslim cleric beat the Good Samaritan boy because he was a Jew.

This is not a case of mistaken doctrine. Obviously a Muslim cleric knows the doctrine of evil like the backside of his goat. It is not a case of mistaken motives. If the situation was unclear to the cleric at first —it may have looked like a robbery— all confusion was cleared up by the Jewish boy’s answers.

This is merely one more example of the endless examples of why Islam is evil and why Muslims will never fit into a civilized world.

Muslim barrows are invited to argue the goodness of hatred.

NO MUSLIMAS! I don’t want to be the cause of a beating or worse for you from your owner!

It is Almost Midnight in the West. If you are not a Muslim, Muslims hate you as a religious duty. Are you sure you wish to aid the spread of that kind of societal cancer? Isn’t it time to join the New Crusade to eradicate Islam from the civilized world?

Video snippet for those who want their hate in quick doses!