War of Ideas Chapter # 2 Man without a conscience

[BIL...@aol.com]

 

 

 

War of Ideas against Islam

    

Chapter  # 2

 

Man without a conscience

 

 

 

 

Religion of Peace publishes several historical studies of early Islam that

explain facts about Muhammad that the mainstream media and official

Washington, DC, refuse to acknowledge to the point of falsification

of history and deliberate distortion of the religious beliefs of Muslims.

That is, our cultural elite is not above lying about non-"mainstream" sources

if any of these sources contradict the preferred "official narrative" about Islam.

 

We can start a review of the facts with a Religion of Peace article entitled-

"The Life of Muhammad: An Inconvenient Truth."

 

What follows simply are highlights, not an historical narrative. But from these

items of information a picture emerges that most journalists and politicians

would prefer were never discussed in public  -even though no-one within

Dar Al-Islam makes any effort to conceal this information

 

For example there was Muhammad's treatment of the Banu Qurayza,

an Arab tribe of special important to the rise of  Islam. The story is told

in the Koran in Surah 33 and involves events associated with  the Battle

of the Trench during which a Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, sought

to remain neutral in a conflict between a confederation of tribes loyal

to the city of (then non-Muslim) Mecca against the Muslims of Medina.

 

The Jewish tribe had originally allied itself  with the Muslims but Muhammad

had broken the pact by confiscating all their property in Medina for Islam.

This, in other words, nullified the so-called "Constitution of Medina"

which (mostly liberal) scholars point to as a precursor to enlightened

government. This is disputed by other (mostly conservative) scholars

but the point is moot. The constitution was null and void and no longer

assured the Jews of anything at all.

 

Finally the Banu Qurayza switched sides and allied themselves against

the Muslims. What is questionable is whether the Banu Qurayza

fought the Muslims or simply lent support to the Meccans as

middle men or suppliers of goods; the evidence suggests that they

did not take part as combatants. In any case, when the battle ended

the Banu Quraysh surrendered without incident.

 

Here is what happened next, as told in the Koran but put into narrative

format by Religion of Peace:

 

"Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed,

along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty

(between the ages of 12 and 14).  He ordered a ditch dug outside of

the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. 

Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be

cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench."

 

This was the "Quraysh Massacre"  -which every Muslim knows pretty much

by heart since it is one of Islam's 'sacred stories.' The death toll is uncertain

but was somewhere in the 700 to 900 range.

 

"The surviving children became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows

became sex slaves.  This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became

one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband

was killed." Muhammad then "enjoyed her pleasures"  (i.e., he raped her)

while her people were being slaughtered.

This gets the overall story off to a rousing start.

 

There are a number of congruent episodes in the Koran

 

For example Surah 4 alludes to the story of the Battle of Hunain.

It seems as if "Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured

women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to

witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy

"revelation" that allowed the debauchery."

 

Essentially Muhammad assumed absolute power over his followers

and reigned like a despot  -everything justified by appeal to religious

authority. But there was method in what he did, little or nothing

was arbitrary, it all had a purpose. Hence treatment of women

was not simply a matter of hedonism but of population policy.

 

As explained in the article:  "One one of the methods by which Islam

owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive

capabilities of captured women.  In addition to four wives, a man was allowed

an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting

children would automatically be Muslim."

 

The essay continues:  "Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken

captive be reserved for him.  Many were absorbed into his personal stable

of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives. Others were

doled out like party favors..."

 

However, what Muhammad was best known for was extreme violence.

Surah 48 of the Koran provides another example. The passage in question

is verse 15. But it should be noted that Surah verses are not numbered

the same in all translations as is the case for verses in the Bible. Translators

from the Arabic customarily take liberties in numbering because the best

possible English language renderings may vary according to style and

because there sometimes is no 1 : 1 Arabic / English equivalent.

Verse 15 in one Koran may be verse 13 or 17 in other translations.

 

Information provided by the Discover the Truth website for May 15, 2016,

notes that Malik Ghulam Farid cites a Hadith about verse 15 which says this:

“… Shortly after his return from Hudaibiyah, [Muhammad]... marched

against the Jews of Khaibar to punish them for their repeated acts of treachery.

Those Bedouin tribes, who had contrived to remain behind..... went to Mecca

for the Lesser Pilgrimage, finding that his cause had prospered and that they

would have a good share of the booty if they joined the expedition to Khaibar,

requested him to allow them to accompany the Muslim army.

 

When this information is analyzed what it says is that the denizens of Khaybar

mostly were farmers essentially minding their own business. They had stayed out

of the religious wars in Arabia. Nonetheless they were prosperous and that made

them a target for Muhammad's depredations. As Religion of Peace explained,

this from another article entitled "The Origin of Islamic Imperialism:"

 

"Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them. 

He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town.  He enslaved

women and [the] children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs,

paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again." 

 

This was not all. Muhammad believed that the town treasurer had concealed

money or other valuables from the Muslims. To induce the man to confess,

Muhammad ordered that the man should be restrained and a fire kindled

on his chest until the location of the hidden treasure was disclosed.

 

This still wasn't the end of the episode. Finally the treasurer was beheaded

and Muhammad, who had taken a fancy to the man's wife, officially

married the woman that same day.

In case you were wondering where Muslim ethics comes from..... 

 

And it isn't exactly a mystery why nearby tribes, hearing of Muhammad's

modus operandi,  "began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation."

 

What Muhammad had unleashed was an Arabian version of a reign

of terror. This extended to every level of society; Muhammad took

special pleasure in murdering individuals   -of any age, either gender-

whom he believed had "insulted" him.

.

The list is long and includes an elderly woman who had the temerity to

fight back when Muslims attacked her village. For this affront the woman,

her name was Umm Qirfa, was literally split in half.   For her "offense"

two camels were roped to her and whipped to pull in opposite directions

until her body ripped apart. To complete the job the woman's daughter

was forced to become a  sex slave.

 

There is a complete list at WikiIslam which documents over 40 killings

that were ordered or approved by Muhammad. These include the

murder of a Jewish poet whose poems offended Muhammad.

 

Muhammad had a special animus against Jews inasmuch as he had

wanted Jews to recognize him as a messiah figure. This they would not do.

Hence a Hadith that claimed Muhammad said

"kill any Jew that falls into

your power." This was reported by a certain "Muhayissa."

 

Christians might be treated better   -unless they were treated worse.

 

Here is Surah 5: 33 from the Koran, said to be Allah's exact words...

 

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger

and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be

murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off

on opposite sides..."

 

However, any  kind of non-believer could be tortured in the cause of Islam

as we read in Surah 22: 19-22...

 

 "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents

who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve,

garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down

on their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too,

will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their

anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein

and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."

 

Sexual improprieties are punished severely, as Surah 24: 2 makes clear...

 

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,  - flog each

of them with a hundred stripes:  Let not compassion move you."

As Religion of Peace commented on this passage :  "Not only is physical

torture prescribed as punishment for "moral crime" between consenting adults,

but believers are told to suppress their natural urge for human compassion."

 

 

This kind of sadistic torture is affirmed in the Hadiths, for example

Sahih Bukhari 52: 261...

 

"[Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails

which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left

in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water,

and nobody provided them with water till they died."

 

Sahih Muslim 16: 4131 adds....

 

"They were caught and brought to him (Muhammad). He commanded

about them, and (thus) hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were

gouged and then they were thrown in the Sun, until they died."

 

 

Muslims themselves could be tortured for not being religious enough.

 

A Hadith known as Sahih Bukhari 11: 626 tells us that the prescribed

punishment for a Muslim who does not attend prayers at a mosque

is that the local leader [imam] should "take a fire flame to burn all those

who had not left their houses..for the prayers..."  That is,  Muhammad

told his men that any Muslim who does not attend mosque services

should be burned alive when their houses are set on fire

 

Other Hadiths concern such punishments as cutting out one's tongue,

digging a hole in the ground such that when an offender is placed in it

only his or her head is above the surface; then Muslims gather and

throw stones at the person until death puts and end to the activity.

Beatings are also recommended for various infractions, especially

use of whips.  And, of course, for some crimes beheading is made use of,

hence one of the places in Saudi Arabia that is dedicated to this form

of punishment is popularly called "chop-chop square."

 

Incidentally, when a Muslim talks with an American he (or she) may not realize

exactly what is being said because of  the way that language is used with

kafirs, viz., "unbelievers."  Muslims have a knack for telling Americans

as well as others what they want to hear.

 

I remember all-too-well a local Oregon Leftist who was and still is hopelessly

naive about Islam; all of his sources on the subject are Left wing and he

has zero knowledge of critical (useful) information on the subject. Mr. Dresser

has a show on CTV, community television, in which he interviews people whom

he is sure share his outlook, but not only other Leftists, also Muslims, like

the Saudi imam of a mosque in the city of Eugene.

 

I once heard the imam in person and recall thinking to myself that he was a

complete dissimulator who would not tell the truth about anything he said,

which no-one in the audience of  well-wishers was able to detect

because of their pro-Islam biases. But I was not prepared for the

TV interview comments the imam made to Dresser.

 

The subject was Muslim morality and the need for punishment for various

transgressions. The imam was responding to a fluff question about Muslim

"ethical" conduct. For certain types of offense, he said, referring to theft,

the guilty party has his hand "cut."  For more serious crimes his neck

will be "cut."  At which dresser smiled smugly since, to him, this proved

how humane Islam really is. Not that I can read Mr. Dresser's mind

but what else could possibly be concluded I did not know.

 

Apparently Dresser thought to himself how morally superior Islam is

to the barbarism of the United States penal system, or that of the Israelis

(both of whom, especially Israelis) he hates. After all, the worst that

happens to a guilty person in Saudi Arabia is that an offender is cut.

Which, so it seems, he equated with something like what happens

when a man is shaving and nicks himself. A little blood, perhaps,

some fleeting pain, and that's it.

 

Except that the imam was making use of euphemism as Muslims are

wont to do when talking with naifs on the political Left who are

ridiculously ignorant of everything that matters about Islam. What the

imam was actually saying was that a thief will have his hand severed

and a worse offender will have his head chopped off.  It is regarded

as "humane" when the sword or axe makes a clean cut and

there is no need to repeat the hand amputation or head removal.

 

And there was Dresser, grinning in self satisfaction. Or so I interpreted

his reactions to the imam's words. I thought to myself on that occasion,

"what an ignorant fool."  So it is with many other Leftists, hardly limited

to Mr. Dresser. So it is with respect to the pastor of a local church

who is an apologist for Islam, so it is with respect to a local congregation

of  Reform Jews, so it is with the O-so-enlightened city council, and so it is

with respect to the leadership of the Democratic P:arty and many Republicans

as well. And as it sometimes is in India.

 

Now you know the source of Muslim morality regardless

of what people in the political establishment want you to think:

Any political establishment, American, European, or the

elite establishment in India.

 

In Muhammad's unforgettable words, attributed to Allah, viz., God,

this from Surah 8: 12 of the 'holy' Koran :

 

"Remember that thy Lord inspired the angels with the message:

"I am with you. Give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror

into the hearts of the unbelievers: you should cut into them 

above their necks and cut off their fingertips."

 

What we have here are the words of a sadistic monster with

pretensions of religious authority. And this is hardly an isolated

verse taken out of context, vastly different than anything else

in the Koran. On the contrary, there is plenty more where

that came from.

 

And we are supposed to accept such ranting as "divine revelation"?

What it is, are the words of a psychotic criminal who had the skills

necessary to become successful as a warlord. But Muhammad

as bearer of a message from On High?  That would be like saying

Pol Pot had a revelation, or Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.

 

Why isn't this obvious?