Muslims’ Sheep Mentality

Muslims’ Sheep Mentality Print
Tuesday, 09 March 2010
Humans are living information machines, receiving input from both external sources as well as the body, processing it in some fashion, and producing output: our thoughts and behavior. From the moment of birth, parents, siblings, and others play pivotal parts in supplying the input and influencing how it is processed.

Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational, impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims’ mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.

The word Islam literally means “submission to the will of Allah.”  In that regard, a true Muslim has no choice but to do as the Quran dictates. They are told what to eat, what to drink and what to avoid eating or drinking. In other words, a true Muslim must live like a sheep his entire life.  Muslims are only permitted by Islam to eat the food offered them by their book; in other words, the food outside of the book is forbidden.

[5:1] O you who believe, you shall fulfill your covenants. Permitted for you to eat are the livestock, except those specifically prohibited herein. You shall not permit hunting throughout Hajj pilgrimage. Allah decrees whatever He wills.

[5:10] As for those who disbelieve and reject our revelations, they are the dwellers of Hell.

A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummahist—a citizen of international Islam. It does not matter in what country they live or have become a citizen. First and foremost, they are Muslims. In other words, the law of the land means nothing to them, only the words of their holy book. So, when a Muslim takes the Pledge of Allegiance to serve in the United State military, he is either ignorant of the implication of his pledge or is lying willfully. What Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan did when he killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, and hurt 30 others, did not feel any remorse; he only did what was asked of him by his holy book. Like many Muslims, He was programmed from the moment he was born. What seems to be very scary is that we have other Maj. Hasans in our military establishment and also within the civilian community that can snap at any time.  

Ignorance of the law is never a valid reason in a court of law, and lying in the process of applying for a federal job is grounds for denying the application and possibly even more severe consequences. Sadly enough, taqqeyh—lying, or dissimulation—is not only condoned, it is recommended to the Muslims in their scripture. Hence, a Muslim can and would lie without any compunctions, whenever it is expedient.  

[5:77] Say, “O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path.”

[5:78] Condemned are those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel, by the tongue of David and Jesus, the son of Mary. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.

The Muslim’s mind is imprinted with authoritarianism which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah—never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That’s a “family dispute” that they will resolve by their usual favorite method—brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers.

There are countless instances that substantiate Muslims’ “end justifies the means” guiding principle. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in an advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa—rulings—that become directives and laws to the faithful.

One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim’s mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional—conditional on the will of Allah. (Inshallah) “I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing,” (Inshallah) “You will make it home, Allah willing,” (Inshallah) “Things will work out, Allah willing,” (Inshallah) and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job—on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. “Allah’s hand is above all other hands,” adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands—a telling point about the Muslim’s fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah’s will. If it doesn’t, it is Allah’s will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the “take charge” and “can do” mentality characteristic of Americans and others.

People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm—whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic “diet,” whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients—some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature that Islamic lacks—it allows for liberty with all its attendants— good, bad, or indifferent. For those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up—particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

Show (2) – Add comments:

Comments

It has been my contention for a long time that Islam ’causes’ psychotic episodes in Muslims…Their over-all behavior world wide seems to confirm it…

Posted by duh_swami, on 03/11/2010 at 03:39

This is the truth, nothing but the truth. Any rational person, not blinded by any religious or multicultural relativism belief or conviction, will be able to see all these. Most of the democratically elected Western leaders do understand the truth put forward by this article but choose to look the other way because the current democratic structure and social set up does not allow them to admit this truth.That is the reason why our war against terrorism is failing miserably. We will not win this war against terrorism if our Western and free world leaders continue to look the other way and continue to deny this truth. This is a classic case of ostrich head in the sand. The don’t hear, don’t see, don’t speak policy is in play here from the east to the west. In fact, the non elected government like China and Russia is doing better than the west because of their obsolete authority. This is my message to the west, your leader will not be able to take the lead to admit this truth. They are coward, playing to the wind of popularity. It is the people, holding the key to rise up to this occasion. Until the wind of popularity has shifted to this truth, nothing will change. In order to drive the wind of change, we must continue to propagate this truth to both the non- Muslim and Muslim. The masses must rise up to this occasion to tell the leaders of the world that this is not blasphemy, fascism, racism or hurting people’s feeling. By accepting this truth, we are not just to save humanity from the jaw of Islam and reduce terrorism to be a non issue in this world but to save all the great people of Muslim world that have been confused and tormented by their god of Islam. Like Mosad Yousef said, all the Muslim people are great people and they are his brother and sister. He is not against them but their god. The world is giving too much respect to the belief in religion. For religion, the end has always justified the means. No religion are not guilty of this except that the degree of the harm it make to humanity varies, with Islam taking the biggest skew in proportion. With that, Muslim themselves suffers the most from it. I am calling to all peace loving people of the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, put a side your belief and your up bringing and your ego for your culture for a moment and think rationally. Give yourself a new opportunity to be rational for the sake of your present iives and your children future lives. Your parent lives, in the past is no longer relevant here. I believe, your ancestor at one point of the time were not affiliate to any of these religions. They will be very happy when you make the right decision to move the world towards a paradise. A movement must begin to tell the truth instead of ‘nice to hear’, to as many people as possible. This movement must slowly break into the mainstream until, all western leaders and major western media will not feel uncomfortable to talk about it and print them. Moderate Muslim and non Muslim will be able to discuss this openly without violent demonstration in the streets. Geert Wilder has taken the lead in doing this and finding many acceptance in Netherlands. He is our hero. We must support him forcefully and keep this momentum going and grow it into the goal that I just laid out. Many Muslims will rejoice once they shake out their ego and long hold confusion in their belief and surfer from it like Wafa Sultan, Mosad Yousf, MA Khan and Ali Sina and many more. This ex Muslim hold the key in convincing the Muslim to achieve this. The ex Muslim must shows the Muslim how to let go their long held belief, culture and ego and go on to built a totally new and beautiful world for themselves. This will be the second major renaissance the world will come to recognized.

Personality Profile of Muhammad: Abuser, Beater, Cheater, Deceiver & What not…

Personality Profile of Muhammad: Abuser, Beater, Cheater, Deceiver & What not…

Prophet Muhammad was the highest perfect of human life. He was the greatest, the kindest and the most merciful human being ever to walk on the earth. Here is an alphabetical profile of the personality and character of Allah’s choicest Prophet.
Abuser

Bukari 5:59:449.
Narated By Al-Bara: The Prophet said to Hassan, “Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e, supports you).” (Through another group of sub narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, “On the day of Quraiza’s (besiege), Allah’s Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).’

Beater

Abu Dawud 8:2709.
Narated By Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh), AbuBakr and Umar burned the belongings of anyone who had been dishonest about booty (mal-e-ganimat) and beat him.

Cheater

Ibn Sa’d writes [p119]: “Abu Bakr has narrated that the messenger of Allâh (PBUH) had sexual intercourse with Mariyah in the house of Hafsa. When the messenger came out of the house, Hafsa was sitting at the gate (behind the locked door). She told the prophet, O Messenger of Allâh, do you do this in my house and during my turn? The Prophet said, control yourself and let me go for I make her haram to me. Hafsa said, I do not accept, unless you swear for me. That Hazrat (his holiness) said, by Allâh I will not touch her again.”

Deceiver

Abu Dawud 8:2631
Narated By Ka’b ibn Malik: When the Prophet (pbuh) intended to go on an expedition (“muhim”), he always pretended to be going somewhere else, and he would say: War is deception (“dhoka”).

Epileptics

Bukhari 1:1:5
Narated By Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah’s Apostle was the most generous of all the people, and he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night of Ramadan to teach him the Qur’an. Allah’s Apostle was the most generous person, even more generous than the strong uncontrollable wind (in readiness and haste to do charitable deeds).

Fief distributor

Abu Dawud 13:3066
Narated By Abdullah ibn Umar: The Prophet (pbuh) gave az-Zubayr the land as a fief up to the reach of his horse when he runs. He, therefore, made his horse run until it stopped. He then threw his flog. Thereupon he said: Give him (the land) up to the point where his flog has reached.

Gangster

Bukhari 5:59:445.
Narated By Ibn Umar: On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. Clans) the Prophet said, “None of you Muslims) should offer the ‘Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza’s place.” The ‘Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said, “We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza,” while some others said, “No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us.” Later on It was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not berate any of the two groups.

Harasser

Bukhar 5:59: 512.
Narated By Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’.

Idolater

Quran 53:19-22
“Now tell me about Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat,
The third one, another goddess.
What! For you the males and for him the females!
That indeed is an unfair division”

Jaziya enforcer

Abu Dawud 13:3040
Narated By Ubaydullah: Harb ibn Ubaydullah told on the authority of his grandfather, his mother’s father, that he had it on the authority of his father that the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) said: Tithes are to be levied on Jews and Christians, but not on Muslims.

Killer

Bukhari 5:59:447.
Narated By Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu’adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sad).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgment.”

Looter

Muslim 4:1058
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari reported: The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: I have been conferred upon five (things) which were not granted to anyone before me (and these are): Every apostle was sent particularly to his own people, whereas I have been sent to all the red and the black the spoils of war have been made lawful for me, and these were never made lawful to anyone before me, and the earth has been made sacred and pure and mosque for me, so whenever the time of prayer comes for any one of you he should pray whenever he is, and I have been supported by awe (by which the enemy is overwhelmed) from the distance (which one takes) one month to cover and I have been granted intercession.

Misogynist

Bukhari 7:62:30
Narated By Abdullah bin ‘Umar : Allah’s Apostle said, “Evil omen(sign) is in the women, the house and the horse.”

Narcissist

Tabakat Vol 1. p27
Ibn Sa’d reports Muhammad saying:

“Among all the people of the world God chose the Arabs. From among the Arabs he chose the Kinana. From Kinana he chose the Quraish (the tribe of Muhammad). From the Quraish he chose Bani Hashim (his clan). And from Bani Hashim he chose me.

Oppressor

Bukhari 8:82:795.
Narated By Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of ‘Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.

Pedophile

Bukhari 7:62:64
Narated By ‘Aisha: That the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated(complete) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years.

Quack

Bukhari 2:24:577
Narated By Anas: Some people from ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine as medicine.

Rapist

Muslim 19:4292
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before making them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.

Snorer (like camel)

Muslim 7:2654
“Revelation came to the Apostle of Allâh and he was covered with a cloth, and Ya’la said: Would that I see revelation coming to the Apostle of Allâh. He (Omar) said: Would it please you to see the Apostle of Allâh receiving the revelations ‘Omar lifted a corner of the cloth and I looked at him and he was emitting a sound of snorting. He (the narrator) said: I thought it was the sound of a camel.”

Terrorist

Bukhari 4:52:220
Allah’s Apostle said …. I have been made victorious with terror………

Ultra violent

Muslim 19:4321
It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists (mushrik) being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

Virgin molester

Bukhari 7:62:17
Narated By Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron (divorced)’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins (untouched) and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

Womanizer

Bukhari 1:5:282
The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

XXX dealer

Bukhari 7:62:137
Narated By Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined (kismet may likha gaya) to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

Yokel (bumpkin)

Volumn 001, Book 001, Hadith Number 003.
Narated By ‘Aisha: The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.”

Zionist (Jew) slaughterer

Ibn Ishak, p464

prophet ordered to slaughter about 600-900 Jews of Banu Quraiza

 

Indeed, a thorough research of the ahadith and the Quran reveals that Prophet Muhammad—the perfect man for all times— had the following great characteristics in his personality in the present understanding:

Mohammed is a Abuser, Arsonist, Adulterer, Amputator, Assassin, Arrogant, Avenger, Bad, Bandit, Barbarian, Bloodthirsty, Belligerent, Brutal, Briber, Beastly, Bully, Cult leader, Cruel, Callous, Criminal, Carnal, Cheat, Charlatan, Cretin, Coward, Crackpot, Con-artist, Conqueror, Child-Molester, Dangerous, Demoniac,  Deranged, Enslaver, Evil, Ethnic cleanser, Filthy, Fool, Fraud, Greedy, Gory, Hatemonger, Highway robber, Heinous, Hypocrite, Homicidal, Immoral, Inhuman, Impotent, Ignorant, Illiterate, Intruder, Insane, Insidious, Jackass, Killer, Kidnapper, Lair, Libertine, Looter, Lecher, Lazy, Lewd, Misogynist, Molester, Monstrous, Megalomaniac, Manic, Mad man, Murderer, Materialistic, Meat-eater, Misanthropic, Mass Murderer, Mafia Don, Narcissist, Opportunistic, Pedophile, Prophet Pretender, Plagiarist, Polygamist, Plunderer, Pervert, Profiteer, Poop, Possessive, Paranoid, Pillager, Pimp, Psychopath, Proud, Quack, Raider, Rapist, Revengeful, Robber, Sadist, Slave-owner, Slave-master, Slave trader, Slave Maker, Spendthrift, Slave seller, Savage, Slave buyer, Smelly, Sexist, Sex maniac, Stupid, Superstitious, Schizophrenic, Swindler, Terrorist, Torturer, Tormenter, Tyrant, Thief, Thug, Unclean, Unfair, Vengeful, Violent, Vile, Voyeur, Warlord, Warmonger, Womanizer, Wicked, Whoremonger,  Xenophobic, Yucky, Zealot insidious, Gory, Whoremonger.

Did I unfairly attribute any of the above to Muhammad?

This is not a random collection of bad words, but a well-researched one.

LONG BUT VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE: An Anatomy of Surrender: Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

 

 

 

Muslim Mindset: ‘The hatred is in Muhammad himself’

Muslim Mindset: ‘The hatred is in Muhammad himself’

Jun. 19, 2008
Sam Ser , THE JERUSALEM POST

To Westerners and moderate Muslims shocked by the radical form of Islam now topping nightly newscasts, the efforts of liberal-minded Muslims like Tawfik Hamid, Italian Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi and a handful of others may seem like the perfect solution. Not so for Ali Sina, who has a different suggestion: destroy Islam.

Sina, who runs Faith Freedom International – an Internet forum dedicated to debunking Islam – calls himself “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive.” The publication of his latest book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet, will likely cement that position. In it, Sina suggests that Islam’s central figure suffered from a series of mental disorders, including narcissistic personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy and obsessive compulsive disorder.

“These disorders,” he says via telephone, “can explain the phenomenon known as Islam… which is nothing but one man’s insanity.”

Sina grew up a non-practicing Muslim. Raised in Iran, educated in Pakistan and Italy and now living in Canada, he began jousting with believers in the 1990s. What bothered him, he tells The Jerusalem Post, was not the penchant for jihad and intolerance that certain fanatical Muslims displayed, but the foundation for such ills in the Koran and core Islamic texts.

(Through the Faith Freedom Web site, Sina lists canonical references to Muhammad’s actions and offers $50,000 to anyone who can disprove Sina’s charge that Islam’s prophet was “a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a mad man and a looter.” Respondents relentlessly attack Sina’s motives, but none has won the prize.)

With violent conquest and contempt for non-believers central to the tenets of the faith, Sina argues, attempts to forge a moderate form of Islam are doomed.

“The idea that Islam can be reformed is a fallacy,” he scoffs. “It’s like saying we can reform Nazism and it will be a wonderful party.”

No, says Sina, “The only way to reform Islam is to throw away the Koran; 90 percent of it should be thrown away. You also have to throw away the history of Islam, and you have to completely disregard the Sira” – the Arabic term used for the various traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad, from which most historical information about his life and the early period of Islam is derived.

For this reason, Sina says, Western suggestions that extremism in Islam can be eradicated if certain imams are quieted, or if Muslims are encouraged to embrace the universalist elements of their faith – but without addressing the extremism inherent in the religion’s texts – are based on a mistaken comparison of Islam to Christianity.

“In the West, people ask whether Islam can undergo a reformation like the one that Christianity underwent. That’s a poor parallel,” he says. “In Christianity, it wasn’t the religion that needed to be reformed, but the church; what Jesus preached was good.”

On the other hand, Sina continues, “In Islam, it’s not the community that is bad, but the religion. Islam has nothing like ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ Islam is full of hatred, and the hatred is in Muhammad himself. I argue in my book that Muhammad was insane – and that Muslims, by emulating him and by emulating his ways, his insanity is bequeathed to them.”

BY NOW, CRITICS of Islam are fairly common in the West. And there are more than a few former Muslims who have rejected Islam in favor of Christianity, citing the difference between their former religion’s overwhelming focus on hatred and their newfound faith’s central teaching of love and forgiveness. But, like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the handful of other apostate Muslims demanding that Muslims reject the negative aspects of their religion, Sina’s critiques are especially problematic.

“People have to dismiss me some way, they have to put me down in one way or another. I’m a Jew, I’m a Christian, I’m a Hindu. I’m whatever people want to say in order to discredit me,” says Sina, who closely guards his true identity because of the death threats he receives. “But they can’t ignore my questions.”

Sina has little patience for those who believe they can temper Islam with reason and mutual respect, or for those who remain cowed by the masses of Muslim devotees around the world.

“Islam is the biggest hoax, the biggest lie,” he says. “Yes, a billion people believe it. But truth is truth. People will eventually see it. Believe me, there is no other answer. We will pay a great price until we realize that this is the solution – to undermine Islam itself, to show Muslims that this religion is not from God, that Muhammad was a charlatan and a liar.”

Sina knows that his blunt, outspoken approach can be “problematic.” But he is confident nonetheless that the force of his arguments will ultimately prevail.

“I am sure that, with time, I will convince millions and millions of Muslims, and the foundations of Islam will collapse,” he says.

Already, he continues, Faith Freedom has attracted an impressive amount of attention.

“In Iran, my site is banned. In many parts of Pakistan, it is banned. The list goes on,” he says. “Despite this, I have over 10 million readers in just over two and a half years. And I have received letters from Muslims from all over the world. Muslims everywhere are paying attention. I believe that Muslims everywhere are realizing that something is amiss.

“If I didn’t have so much success in convincing people, then I would not be so confident. But I see that truth works. So many people who are now writing for me and putting things up on Youtube; seven or eight years ago, we were having fierce debates. Now, they are my greatest allies. There are many people who have seen the light after reading FFI and many of them are now working on my side, trying to help others to see the truth.

“This is the way to fight evil. I do not want to kill the enemy. I want to win them as friends and allies. That is the real victory. In this way, we win because we eliminate our enemy, and our enemy wins by eliminating his ignorance and hate. That is why I believe in my cause. That is why I think I am an instrument of peace.”

Copyright 1995- 2008 The Jerusalem Post – http://www.jpost.com/

Muhammad or Jesus?

What Would Muhammad Do?

WWMD? 50 Things Muslims DON’T Want You To Know

Iranians Can’t Stop Mullahs’ Nuclear Plans

Muhammad’s Profession: Booty Ahoy!

Muhammad’s Profession: Booty Ahoy!

What exactly was the profession of Mohammed, the founder of Islam? Did he work at Wal-Mart? Did he flip burgers at McDonald’s? Did he at least work for a Jew jeweler, making ornaments for the beautiful women of Medina?
The correct answer is, ‘None of the above’. Sure enough, there was no Wal-Mart or McDonald’s 1400 years ago. Even if there was one, he would not have worked as a blue-collar laborer because he was involved in a lucrative business that did not require any investment. Although, in his childhood, Mohammed briefly worked as a shepherd and made a few business trips on behalf of his ‘soon to be wife’ Khadija, he spent the rest of his life looting, kidnapping and slave-trading when he ran out of Khadija’s wealth.

It is an Islamic fact that Mohammed’s early delusion of preaching peaceful Islam did not work very well; in fact, it was as bad as one of the flop movies of Hollywood. Like a spoiled brat, he lived on his wife’s money, and, with a handful of followers, roamed around the city of Mecca – aimlessly. When he moved to Medina, he became a professional mobster.

However, contemporary Islamic scholars, the gadflies who relentlessly promote peaceful Islam, do not admit that Mohammed’s sole intention was robbing; rather, they find Mohammed’s action as a means to promote Islam. They try to believe (and attempt to make others believe) that it was necessary for Mohammed to fight with disbelievers, precisely those unclean polytheists in order to establish Islam, and often as self-defense. Was the fight aimed to abolish polytheism and establish Islam, or did the raids committed by Mohammed have one simple purpose – robbing? Let’s read one of the Ahadith to find the truth.

“Aisha said (this is the version of narrator Yahya): A man from the polytheists accompanied the Prophet (may peace be upon him) to fight with him. He said (Go back. Both the narrators (Musaddad and Yahya) then agreed. (The Prophet said): We do not want any help from a polytheist.” (2276, Sunan Abu Dawud)

Strange! Do you see the problem? Mohammed supposedly fought with polytheists, yet one of those polytheists wanted to accompany the prophet. Though Mohammed refused to take the guy with him, why should a polytheist dare to ask? Obviously, Mohammed’s adventures had nothing to do with preaching Islam or subduing polytheists, but making money from the raid. That’s why the polytheist wanted to join Mohammed and make some easy money.

Most Muslims claim and believe a myth – ‘Mohammed only fought defensive wars; he never harmed anyone unless he was attacked.’ Surprisingly, the Ahadith, Quran and Sirat Rasul Allah repeatedly prove otherwise. Here are a few examples from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasullah, out of many incidents.

“THE RAID ON WADDAN WHICH WAS HIS FIRST RAID: ….until he reached Waddan, which is the raid of al-Abwa…” (p 281).

“THE RAID ON BUWAT: …Then the apostle went raiding in the month of Rabiul-Awwal making for Quraish…” (285).

“THE RAID ON SAFAWAN, WHICH IS THE FIRST RAID OF BADR: The apostle stayed only a few nights, less than ten, in Medina when he came back from raiding Al-‘Ushayra….(286)

“THE RAID ON B.SULAYMAN IN AL-KUDR: The apostle stayed only seven nights in Medina before he himself made a raid against B.Sulayman…” (360).

“THE RAID OF DHU AMARR: When the apostle returned from the raid of al-Sawiq he stayed in Medina for the rest of Dhu’l-Hijja, or nearly all of it. The he raided Najd…..” (362).

See how busy Mohammed’s schedule was? He had to work hard, much harder than any top rated CEO of a big corporation. He really did not have any choice; after all, he had to support a dozen wives, an unknown number of slaves and numerous jobless bohemians – his followers that is. Unlike the legendary Robin Hood or Zorro, Mohammed did not go out and fight with the rich people; rather, his companions did most of the ugly work. However, Mohammed had a responsibility to make sure that looted wealth was equally distributed. He merely charged one-fifth of the looted goods, known as Khumas, for his service, which of course was a sizable amount for his living.

Obviously, handy-dandy Allah was very helpful in legalizing the robbing business. Mohammed, in fact, made his Allah involved in it, and had him declare…

“And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger…” (Q 8:41).

“That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger…” (Q 59:7).

Is it not amazing how Allah asked for his share of booty? How the heck a god, supposedly an all merciful god, would do with the booty is the question. It’s not only the Quran, but several Ahadith also confirm how Mohammed took it upon himself to distribute the looted wealth.

“Abd Allah b. Amr said: When the Apostle of Allahs (May peace be upon him) gained a booty he ordered Billal to make a public announcement. He made a public announcement, and when the people brought their booty, he would take a fifth and divide it…..”(2706, Sunan Abu Dawud).

If you have seen, for instance, one of those action Hollywood movies, which also happen in real life, you may have noticed how the criminals fight with each other after robbing a bank. Often, the robbery is successful, but each of the criminals tries to gulp the whole treasure, depriving others and, in most cases, they kill each other in a tense moment. Mohammed indeed had a tough job of controlling those robbers and maintaining the discipline. He did not hesitate to implement tough punishment for those who stole from the booty. Here’s another Ahadith from Suan Abu Dawood:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), AbuBakr and Umar burned the belongings of anyone who had been dishonest about booty and beat him.

Ah booty! What a sweet word for Mohammed!

The word ‘booty’ refers to spoils of war; in other words, it is the treasure that was received after a raid or so-called expedition. The treasure often included money, jewelry, swords, and camels, and even women and children could be sold as slaves. Seemingly, according to Mohammed, consuming booty was a special privilege that was never permitted to any other prophet. At a later time, Khalifah Umar, as recorded in Bukhari, testified this fact proudly and did not see any problem in such heinous acts.

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Though all five claims deserve a careful examination and they speak volumes of an insane person, considering our main focus on booty, I will resist the temptation. Let’s discuss claim number three that proclaims a special privilege for Mohammed. Apparently, by saying ‘anyone else’ he meant other prophets who came before Mohammed. Despite having a low rate of success, prophecy always had been a lucrative business. There is no record of how many people failed in this ‘no money down’ business and left quietly. However, our prophet of Islam took the challenge personally when most of the people of the then Arabia refused him. Other successful prophets did not go for looting because they were either supported by their followers or considered looting as an immoral act. Mohammed not only glorified robbing, he also fused robbing into Islam in such a manner that it became a holy act.

One thing is for sure–Mohammed took care of his mercenaries very well. One of his members married a woman to whom he promised two hundred dirhams as dowry. When he asked Mohammed to help him out, Mohammed declined this request because he did not have that much money either. After a few days, Mohammed was informed that a tribe named Qays b Rifa was planning to attack him with a huge army, which Ibn Ishaq mentioned in Sirat Rasul Allah as ‘numerous’. Mohammed sent two other Muslims along with this guy to take care of the problem. Ibn Ishaq reports,

“I hid at one end and ordered my companions to hide at the other end….There we were waiting to take the enemy by surprise…and when he came in range I shot him in the heart with an arrow…I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting ‘Allah Akber’ and my two companions did likewise…they all fled….We drove off a large number of camels and sheep and brought them to the apostle and I took Rifaa’s head to the apostle, who gave me thirteen of the camels to help me with the woman’s dowry, and I consummated my marriage.”

First, one needs to understand the divine grace of the shouting ‘Allah Akber’ while holding a slit head in his hand. Secondly, how a mere three people could defeat an army of numerous soldiers is a miracle. Obviously, there was no huge army but a small tribe who was lurking around the desert. Mohammed did not mind sending three people to rob this poor tribe and help his companion to fulfill his desire of marriage.

In many countries, a person is honored for an honorable deed with a certain title such as Lord, Baron, Knight, Samurai, etc. In Islam, Ghazi is one of those titles that make a Muslim proud. Unsurprisingly, the term Ghazi came from another word Ghazwa, which means a raid (the politically correct phrase is holy battle) under the leadership of Mohammed. Those who died in the process of looting were called Shahid (Martyr) and those who survived were honored as Ghazi.

So, in Islam, stealing is a grave offense, subject to cutting of hands, but robbing is a holy mission. When a Muslim returns with looted wealth, he is honored as a Ghazi. On the other hand, if he dies, he becomes a martyr and takes an easy route to heaven, which is full of virgin belly dancers.

In the age of up periscope – down periscope and sonar technology, sailors of a ship know their exact position and how far the land is. However, long ago, when sailors had to spend months on the ocean, they hunkered on the deck to see the land. Usually, each ship had an Eagle’s nest, built on top of a mast, where an observer would sit and watch the ocean or look for possible land. If a strip of land was seen on the horizon, the sailor would scream, “Land Ahoy!”. It was the sweetest scream that all sailors wanted to hear. The land had many meanings for a sailor. It meant a possible seaport, barrels of wine in a salon and plenty of cheap hookers.

Did Mohammed scream, with glittering eyes, “Booty Ahoy!” before he went on a raid?

The following Ahadith from Sunan Abu Dawood proves the case:

Narrated Sahl ibn al-Hanzaliyyah: “….. A horseman came and said: Apostle of Allah, I went before you and climbed a certain mountain where I saw Hawazin all together with their women, cattle, and sheep, having gathered at Hunayn…The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) smiled and said: That will be the booty of the Muslims tomorrow if Allah wills. He then asked: Who will be on guard tonight…?”

Mohammed loved to have Fai. I see that some readers are wondering how Mohammed could have loved a Chinese food. Not really! Fai is not a Chinese food. It is the easiest money that came without fighting. One Ahadith narrates:

“Marwan bin Al-Hakim and Miswar bin Makhrama: ……and we will compensate him from the very first Fai’ (i.e., war booty received without fight which Allah will give us…….”

Consider what it would be like to walk through a dark alley on a quiet night. You are looking back every few minutes, hoping no one is following you. You are close to the next illuminated street, but, almost magically, two tall musclemen block your way and ask for your wallet. You hand them your wallet and give up your wrist watch and the expensive jacket that you bought recently. Yes, you just made your contribution to Fai.

Mohammed, as Muslims argue, fought defensive wars, meaning he only combated to save his precious life. Yet he earned booty without a fight. Apparently, enemies of Mohammed attacked him maliciously, but brought their wealth with them, and delivered it to Mohammed upon defeat. They even rewarded Mohammed with their own wives and children to become slaves, while Mohammed was busy saving his life. Such belief, though, seem absurd to any sane person. Muslims and the non-Muslims who are itching to sacrifice themselves as dhimnies desperately cling to this kind of fallacy. It’s true that some tribes had their families with them at the time of the conflict, but no civilized person would think of making children and women slaves.

Anyway, let’s continue with Mohammed’s business deals. At the end of Mohammed’s life, he invaded Khyber where the Jewish tribe B. al-Nadr lived, and Kinana b. al-Rabi was the custodian of all the treasures that the tribe had. When inquired by the prophet of Islam, being a responsible person, he refused to disclose the whereabouts of the treasure. Ibn Ishaq reports in Sirat Rasul Allah,

“When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead…” (515) . Tabari, another famous historian, describes the same event with more details:

“…the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out what he has.’ Al-Zubayr kept twirling his fire stick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired…” (123).

Oddly, the prophet of Islam knew when the world would fall apart, and he had the ability to split the moon, yet he did not know where the treasure was hidden. Besides his inability, he did not hesitate to order torturing an innocent person. So much for defensive war!

Think of a real life drama: a kidnapper has just kidnapped your loved ones, perhaps your daughter or your wife, and is asking for ransom. How would you feel? How would you judge the characteristics of the kidnapper? The very first thing you would think of the kidnapper is that he does not possess any humanistic quality. Well, you will be glad to hear that Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, proudly lacked such quality.

In Mohammed’s age, the relatives of captured people had a heart, a much better one than the prophet. Those who could afford to pay the ransom paid the amount and brought back their loved ones. Mohammed even set an amount for the ransom.

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) fixed the ransom of the people of pre-Islamic Arabia at four hundred dirhams per head on the day of the battle of Badr” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad).

The Quran, Mohammed’s best selling book, clearly encourages the acceptance of ransom. Read the following verse.

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Q 47:04).

Of course, so-called Islamic scholars, living under infidel rule, will disagree, and might break their necks from shaking them. They will deliberately argue that this verse talked about a war situation; hence, it is not kidnapping. However, Mohammed’s alleged wars were nothing but raids for financial gain. If he was sincere about spreading a peaceful religion, he should not have to fight with anyone. Even if he had to fight for self-defense, why have ransom? Though Mr. Allah gave a choice of showing generosity or accepting ransom, a peaceful god of a peaceful religion should have forbidden taking ransom, and strictly ordered to free the captives.

Allah, a haughty imaginary puppet played by the puppet master Mohammed, said exactly what Mohammed said. Mohammed needed money to survive and keep his gang members happy. So, accepting ransom from the relatives of captives, captured in a war or from a sudden raid, became a benchmark of Islam. When the pious Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan kidnap Americans, they are merely following the ideal of their prophet.

Slavery is an integral part of Islam because Mohammed himself practiced such deeds. Those who are familiar with Quranic liturgy may know the meaning of ‘Right hand possess’, which refers to slave women. The famous verse that allows a Muslim man to marry up to four wives also gives a blanket permission to enjoy his slave women, and, ironically, it prevents the Muslim from doing injustice. At least, the Quran deliberately claims this to be true.

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Q 4:03).

For a few skeptics, the verse may be questionable because some Muslims, without knowing other verses, bicker about this verse, and may claim that it asks Muslims to marry one of those slave girls. Don’t be disheartened! There are more verses to confirm the risqué business of Mohammed, which explicitly allowed him, and subsequently his followers, to enjoy the slave girls.

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;…” (Q 33:50).

Please note the use of an important conjunction “and”, which I highlighted in red. It is mind boggling how a god could allow a man to have sex with a helpless woman who has been snatched from her loved ones–her husband, her parents and children. Yet Muslims blatantly believe Allah is merciful. Many Muslims ague Mohammed had a master plan of freeing slaves gradually because he encouraged his followers to free their slaves. The notion is partially true. According to the Quran:

“Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed…” (Q 4:92).

Note the highlighted words “believing slave”, which explicitly denote Muslim slaves. In other words, those slaves who decide to sing the magic spell and embrace Islam should be freed. It surely does not mention non-believing slaves. It was, indeed, a nice strategy. A freed Muslim slave will go nowhere but join Mohammed’s army and participate in robbing.

Mohammed’s command varied from time to time and situation to situation. Though there are several Ahadith that encourage freeing slaves, Mohammed himself did just the opposite. The following two ahadith from Shahi Bukhari prove that he did not miss an opportunity to make a few extra bucks or help a relative with a (slave) gift.

“Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.”

“Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, ‘Do you know, O Allah’s Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?’ He said, ‘Have you really?’ She replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e., the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles.’”

Apparently, slaves were treated as commodities, and there was no harm in giving a slave to a relative as a gift. Mohammed, in fact, prescribed heavenly reward for such action instead of freeing the slave.

However, we must give credit where it is due. Mohammed established a good ethic of slave trading. In the modern world, ‘No return policy’ is not a very good way to do business, and most of the stores allow consumers to return or exchange within a certain period of time. The Human Rights Association may not like it and any human with an iota of humanity will oppose, but Mohammed had a very good policy of slave trading. Read the hadith from Sunan Abu Dawood:

“The contractual obligation of a slave is three days. If he finds defect in the slave within three days, he may return it without any evidence; if he finds a defect after three days, he will be required to produce evidence that the slave had the defect when he brought it.”

After massacring the Jewish tribe of B. Qurayza, Mohammed divided their property, wives, and children among the Muslims. Ibn Isaq reports in Sirat Rasul Allah,

“Then the apostle sent Sad b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.”

On one occasion, Mohammed exchanged seven slaves for a beautiful slave girl. His reason for such generosity remains questionable, and only a director of a porno movie will be able to explain vividly.

Over the centuries, Muslims have attributed many altruistic virtues to Mohammed’s character, much of which were either invented or twisted from Islamic scriptures. Some of the commands made by Mohammed were specifically constructed for Muslims, yet moderate Muslims and Muslim scholars who have vested interest in the Kafir world, misconstrued the verdicts, and declared that they are for all humans. Nevertheless, there are abundant records of barbarity caused by Mohammed that ought to be taken under consideration. Any sane human would reject such perilous characteristics of Mohammed, but preconditioned minds of Muslims refuse to face the reality and remain clueless of real Islam.

Granted, there are many educated Muslims, but it is a shame that instead of engaging in a dialectical discussion, they conveniently ignore the dark side of Mohammed and often defend such inhuman behavior. They are educated, but they have not educated their thinking. Often, traditional education does not open a person’s mind unless he educates his thinking.

Arab News: Muhammad ordered murder of slave girls who mocked him

Arab News: Muhammad ordered murder of slave girls who mocked him

In “The Prophet as a Man — 108: War Preparedness,” Adil Salahi discusses how Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, ordered the assassination of slave girls who mocked him. From Arab News, with thanks to Fjordman, who writes: “Notice how Muslims admit quite openly that Muhammad wanted slave girls killed for no other reason than for the ‘crime’ of mocking Islam verbally, which is of course also what happened with Asma bint Marwan. The exact same rationale was behind the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, which was thus in perfect accordance with Muhammad’s Sunna, his personal example, although Muslim and non-Muslim commentators alike tried to persuade us otherwise.”

You can read more about the killing of Asma bint Marwan, as ordered by Muhammad, and similar incidents in Muhammad’s life, in my book The Truth About Muhammad.

Says Salahi:

Abdullah ibn Khatal used to be a Muslim. The Prophet once sent him to collect zakah from people who lived far away. He traveled with another man and a servant of his who was a Muslim. At one stage on the way they stopped. He gave the servant orders to slaughter a big goat and prepare food for him while he himself went to sleep. When he woke up, he discovered that the servant had not done anything. He killed his servant and, fearing the Prophet’s punishment, reverted to idolatry. He also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted.