Yes! they are, indeed worse -- they are the most shameless hypocrites and liars amongst Muslims, who contradict, oppose and break all of the central claims of their own and of Islam without any compunction.
Recently I received an email, inquiring about the following:
I want to know: Are Quranist Muslims moderate or just charlatans?
They support interfaith marriages and other reforms.
Can you explain: What is truth? Can we trust them?
It's hard to define what the Quranist or Quran-only Muslims are! Before I explain that, let me discuss briefly about how these Quran-only Muslims came about.
Rise of the Quran-only Muslims
To pious and devout Muslims, the Quran and the Sahih (authentic) Hadiths (Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and deeds) forms the foundation of Islam. Neither of them is questionable. But the Quran-only Muslims – a rather modern brand of Muslims – who constitute only a minuscule proportion of the global Muslim population, claim to accept only the Quran as the foundation of Islam. To them, Hadiths have no relevance to Islam and should not be consulted in defining Islamic theology.
These Quran-only Muslims started appearing in the 19th-century colonial age and more in the last couple of decades. After the Western powers – having suffered the scourge of Islamic Jihadi aggression and violence for a millennium – hit back and gradually spread their colonial rule over the Muslim world, they faced a couple of serious challenges from the Muslim populations of those lands.
- Jihad: The first serious problem the Western powers faced in their formerly Muslim-ruled colonies was strong violent resistance from Muslims, which they waged in the name of Jihad.
- Sharia law: European colonists also collided with Muslims in instituting laws in those formerly Muslim-ruled territories. When religion had been separated from governance in Europe, European colonists generally tried to institute Europe's secular law in those territories – which was rather more essential, because these lands had also a considerable proportion of non-Muslim people, often the majority, who had been ruled by the Islam’s brutal, discriminatory and oppressive Sharia law over the centuries. The colonists had no problem with the large segment of the non-Muslim subjects in those colonies or in the non-Muslim colonies of Americas as far as instituting secular laws are concerned. But Muslims offered serious resistance against instituting secular laws, to the extent that the colonial rulers had to give in to Sharia in certain aspects of the Muslim society, such as family, marriage, inheritance law etc.
Europeans, in the face of persistent Islam-inspired Jihadi aggression on Europe, had been studying Islam for many centuries, but the above-mentioned two issues they faced in their Islamic colonies prodded them into taking a close look at Islam again. And this time, they had unfettered access to all the sacred Islamic texts and other literature, and historical documents to make a more appropriate judgment on Islam.
As a result, for the first time, the weak points of Islam – its command for unrestrained Jihad aggression against the infidels and to oppress the dhimmi subjects, its oppression of women, its polygamy and slavery etc. – came in for criticism like never before. Previously, critical literature had been produced in Europe, often not so accurate and detailed because of limited access to sacred Islamic texts, and their circulation was limited amongst Christian readers in European territories only. In the colonial age, this new and more research-oriented and scholarly critical literature were also freely distributed in Islamic lands.
So, Muslims, for the first time, were faced with literature, critical of their religion, which showed Islam as a violent, oppressive, and even barbaric religion. And these aspects of Islam are most clearly evident in the Hadith, not so much in the Quran – because in Hadiths, Prophet Muhammad’s actions and deeds are vividly described, while the language of the Quranic verses is often vague, and also there are verses in the Quran that says opposite things on certain issues.
In other words, the Hadith (and Sira) description of the events of the Islamic prophet's life and actions are undeniably transparent, which present Islam as an irrefutably violent, oppressive, and barbaric religion. At least, its prophet is depicted as such. No Muslim can deny or refute that. But, since the Quranic verses are often vague and also say opposite things on certain issues, Muslims could interpret the vagueness of the Quranic verses or use only the favorable set of verses (ignoring the other set that says opposite things) to their advantage and try to show Islam differently from what the Hadiths present it as.
In sum: 1) Hadiths present Islam as irrefutably violent, oppressive, and barbaric; 2) the Quran is vague and contradictory, which allows Muslims to interpret its verses to a meaning that helps them to show Islam as not violent, oppressive, and barbaric.
 Rashad Khalifa: Leading 20th-century Quranist, who was assassinated by enraged Islamic zealots for distorting Islam |
And there arose the Quran-only Muslims for the first time after nearly 1,000 years of Islam. And in the age of globalization today, when Islam is under most intense scrutiny, their ranks are growing faster than ever. They take only the Quran as the sole foundation of Islam. Since Hadiths present Islam as violent, oppressive, and barbaric – they want to discount them or dissociate them from Islam.
Distortion of the Quran’s messages by Quranists
To be added that the Quran itself is not sufficient to show Islam as a civilized and peaceful religion. The Quran is cluttered with verses, inciting violence, oppression and discrimination, which portray Islam as a violent, oppressive, and barbaric religion. So, what these Quranist Muslims do about those verses. They take recourse of lies and deception to translate those verses or interpret them deceptively so as to make them appear to mean what they don't, often exactly the opposite.
The leading Quranist of the 20th-century was Egyptian Islamist Rashad Khalifa, based in the USA, who obtained a Master's Degree in Biochemistry from Arizona State University and a PhD from University of California. (see his website, submission.org). He translated the Quran into English and wrote many articles to justify every civilized things Islam disagree with. His messages distorted Islam so badly that it enraged devout Muslims to the extent that they shot him to death in 1990.
Quran-only or semi-Quran-only?
This brand of Muslims, who proudly claim to be Quranist, or Quran-only, are not Quran-only at all. For example, how Islamic rituals, such as how prayers, fasting, hajj etc., must be performed cannot be deduced from the Quran. The Quran even does not say that prayers should be five times a day. According to Quranic description, prayers should be, at best, 3 times a day. Muslims pay 2.5% of their excess income as zakaat, but the Quran does not specify zakaat as 2.5%. If Muslims have to depend on the Quran alone to practice Islam, they have to discard all these foundational rituals of Islam. And without these rituals, Islam would be nothing. The Quran-only Muslims perform these rituals by referring to extra-Quranic texts only, which, they claim, have no relevance to Islam. So, they are obviously not Quran-only Muslims. In their practice of Islam, they shamelessly use extra-Quranic texts, such as the Hadith, which they try hard to discredit.
Apart from these foundational rituals of Islam, they also use Hadiths, whenever a saying or action of the prophet described in them present him as a good, generous and noble person. For example, they will often say, "The Prophet Said: Go even to China for gaining knowledge" – which itself is a lie and forgery, as this so-called Hadith is not found in any Sahih Hadith collections.
They only disagree to those references in the Hadith that show Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a bad light.
Quran-only or Quran-opponent?
To the Quranists, i.e. Quran-only Muslims, only the words of Allah in divine verses of the Quran are inviolable and sacred to Muslims. Islam should be defined in reference to Allah words, i.e. in reference to verses of the Quran only. To them, Prophet Muhammad was only a human being, appointed to transmit Allah’s words to mankind for guiding their life. So, Prophet Muhammad’s personal actions and sayings have no relevance to Islam. In other words, Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and deeds have no place in defining Islam.
But if Muslims have to agree to Allah’s words, i.e. if they agree that what the Quran’s verses command forms the inviolable foundation of Islam, they cannot dissociate reference to Prophet Muhammad’s personal sayings and deeds from the foundation of Islam. For example, many verses of the Quran command Muslims to follow Allah (i.e. Allah’s words in the Quran) and His Messenger (i.e. Prophet Muhammad). I quote below a few such verses:
- Quran 3.32: "Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.”
- Quran 4.13: "Those are limits set by Allah: those who obey Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath…”
- Quran 4.59: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger…”
- Quran 8.20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger…”
There are many more verses (see 3:32; 4:14,59,69; 5:92; 8:1,46; 9:71; 24:47,51–52,54,56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12), in which Allah commands Muslims to obey Allah and His Messenger Muhammad. So, obeying what Prophet Muhammad said, recommended and commanded has the same importance in forming the foundation of Islam as obeying Allah’s commands in verses of the Quran. So, if Muslims think that what Allah’s words in the Quran say forms inviolable foundation of Islam, then they must obey Prophet Muhammad’s personal recommendations and commands too. And Prophet Muhammad's recommendations and commands are found in the Hadiths (and Prophet’s biographies) only. So, by rejecting the Hadiths, the Quran-only Muslims discard one-half of Islam.
In sum, the Quran repeatedly says: "Obey His (Allah’s) Messenger" – i.e. Prophet Muhammad. But the allegedly Quranist Muslims say: "Do not obey Allah's Messenger". In other words, Quran-only Muslims’ central idea goes against a central idea of the Quran. In other words, the so-called Quran-only Muslims are actually Quran-opponent in their most important claim about Islam that Prophet Muhammad’s personal sayings, commands and deeds have no relevance to Islam, but the Quran (aka Allah) says that Prophet Muhammad’s personal sayings, commands and deeds are integral to Islam.
Quran-only Muslims: Moderate or Charlatans?
The above description defines the so-called Quran-only Muslims in accurate terms. Are they moderate or charlatan Muslims? The best description would: they are "hypocrite" Muslims, because 1) they claim that they are Quran-only, but liberally use non-Quranic texts in their practice of Islam; 2) they claim to be Quran-only, but they reject the Quran’s repeated command to “Obey Allah’s Messenger”.
Are they moderate Muslims? It's a very hard to define. These Muslims are highly educated, are fully aware and inspired by the modern humanistic ideals, and are not at all strict in following Islamic rituals, such as praying five times a day. They will also audaciously disregard the Quran’s command of not taking infidels as friends; in blatant defiance of Allah verdict that "infidels are the worst beast" (8:55), they will believe that infidels could be excellent human beings, even better than Muslims.
One may call these brands of Muslims moderate. And they are likely to be involved in interfaith dialogue etc. But the accurate description of them is: they are the most shameless hypocrites and liars amongst Muslims, who contradict, oppose and break all of the central claims of their own and of Islam without any compunction.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by love and rockets , April 28, 2012
written by HARKAT UL JIHAD EI KAFIROON , April 28, 2012
as an ex-muslim i say never trust any muslims incl koran only muslims,bcoz koran only muslims know that verse 9.05,8.55 etc r there to be sued against us human beings at the right time when they r strong.they can kill us and hope for [ in vain ] 72 big breasted virgins and wine in imaginary jannat.
never trust any muslims.
written by Demsci , April 28, 2012
In terms of what Islam means the Orthodox and Criticals often agree with each other about the meaning & practice of Islam's messages, BOTH in direct opposition to the Quranists.
Only the Orthodox are for, the Criticals against and they are each other's enemies. Because the Criticals & readers are Democratic-pro human rights and golden rule, but the Orthodox Muslims are totalitarian and patriarchalistic (misogynistic).
And the Quranists are in between. But very disappointedly they seem to still side with the Orthodox against the Criticals. The Quranists seem intent on fighting, changing the Criticals, never the Orthodox. They seem to count on ignorance of both Muslims and citizens of Democratic Nations, with their attempts to represent themselves as explainers of all Islam, instead of only their interpretation/ version of it.
But the pressure of the Criticals on all of Islam will go on and increase and will not accept that Quranists keep on siding with Orthodox Muslims, while still asking for trust.
No, a choice of sides will be demanded from them in the future; they can be pro full Democracy and Quranist or they can be found in secret alliance with totalitarians-patriarchalists and thus totally untrustworthy.
written by Malem , April 28, 2012
As for Kafiroon above he is just another. Spreader of the false 72 verse, most likely a lost soul
written by pipo , April 28, 2012
The best muslims are of course -parts of the Quran-only muslims like our Malem....Who, with a complete disregard for (5:51), (5:18), (3:28), (3:118), hopped over to Saudi Arabia earlier this week to visit his Christian friends there... and checked if they had a Bible in their house.
What a nice guy...and very honest too.
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 28, 2012
In above verse and many more, the phrase "and His Messenger" is not Allah's word? They are inserted by corrupt men?
If it is Allah's true words, then how do you obey His Messenger by obeying the Quran alone?
Are you suggesting Allah and Prophet Muhammad are one and the same? So obeying the Quran also turns out following the Prophet!!
written by dead or alive , April 28, 2012
written by malem , April 28, 2012
Khan ill address your post when you start equally applying your rules to all, like using proper names , not referring to people using vulgarity. Once we are on an equal playing field, then it is a fair game.
written by 1proudkaffur4life , April 28, 2012
Pickthal
O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.
Quote:
written by Malem , April 28, 2012
Allah in his wisdom made it clear in the Quran, rthat there is no other word but The words of the Quran. Quote End]
So if the Quuraan contains directions for all people of all the ages, why is this crappy instruction in it? Clearly MohamMAD is no longer with us, neither are his wifes. Who can spot the biggest lie(s) in Verse 53? Which makes of course the demented stoned-gawd allah as the source yet AGAIN once more a liar.
While the profeet had no problems (against the direct order not to befriend Jews) marrying a Jewish widow (whose husband were killed by his thugs) his "stoned-gawd" allah declared any marriage after the death of MohamMAD to be an "enormity".
Sorry if some Qouran-only Muslims come across as liars and hypocrites, than it is them who need to change, not those people who call "a spade a spade". In fact trying to white-wash Islam and the traditions it has created is such a attempt to mislead the people. I have not encountered a Muslim who on his/her own initiative brought up the subject of how some critics were killed at the time of the profeet by his people, something which requires a lot of HONESTY. And these Muslims were not Quooraan-only folks.
written by bundypig , April 28, 2012
http://www.rediff.com/news/sli...120428.htm
written by bundypig , April 28, 2012
This is your method, deny deny but when facts are presented, you run like a wimp. There is compulsion in islam and everyone in this site knows it. The verses that were at one time fine were abrogated by mo and you know that too. But you are a liar, by way of kitman and taqiyya you think you fool someone, but as the internet flourishes and truths that were hidden for so long become common knowledge, looks like your on a downhill slide;)
written by abc , April 28, 2012
Its great malem is being written about because of your frustrations.
sad little khan
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 28, 2012
You may as well call the article "i hate malem"Malem is being written about? Nah!! When did Malem became such a big fish?
Its great malem is being written about because of your frustrations.
written by bundypig , April 28, 2012
written by Archpagan , April 28, 2012
1.Why do you deny the hadith? Is it because you are ashamed of your prophet?
2.Why do some of you accept the hadiths that make Muhammad look good and reject the ones that make him look bad? Do you enjoy being intellectually dishonest?
3.The historical evidence for Muhammad is found in the hadith and sirat. If you do not accept these sources, how do you know your prophet ever existed?
4.If you reject the hadith, you lose the whole context and order of the Qur'anic revelations. So is there no compulsion in religion or do you have to slay the idolaters wherever you find them?
5.Why do you believe the Qur'an is the uncorrupted word of God, when the narrators of corrupted hadith are the same people who passed down the Qur'an?
6.The Qur'an says there should be 3 daily prayers. Who told you to pray 5 times?
7.The Qur'an mentions Abu Lahab Without referencing "corrupted" hadith, please tell us who is he and why does Allah hate him?
8.Is it upsetting knowing that most Muslim thinks you follow an obscure cult and that you're a non-Muslim?
9.One can be a Muslim their entire life without ever meeting a "Qur'anist". So why are there so many of you on the net?
10.Why accuse the Sunnis and Shi'ites, who've been following hadith for 1000+ years, of innovation, when it's you who's the innovator?
11.What did Muhammad look like? How many wives did he have and what were their names? What were the names of his children? How old was he when he first received his prophethood? When and how did he die? Do you even know anything about your prophet?
12.Why do you accept the revelations given to someone who you know nothing about?
13.If you don't accept the history behind the compilation of the Qur'an, what makes it different from any other poorly written medieval text? How do you know that (like the true Furqan) it’s not an old parody?
written by Archpagan , April 29, 2012
written by Demsci , April 29, 2012
Are Quranists genuine or just playing a deception tactic? Anyway, they seem to rely on ignorance, for instance about abrogation of the friendly Meccan verses by the warlike Medina verses.
I suppose on sites of Critical Islam Experts they get exposed more and more but in the outside world they keep spreading their Islam-version, but counting on ignorance as they do, they present this version as THE ISLAM. So as to defend Islam better, because the ever-spreading knowledge of the Hadiths makes Islam so hard to defend. The Hadiths seem to be the achilles-heel of Islam.
But it seems highly likely that Quranists tell Orthodox Muslims when they speak privately: Don't worry, we only tell our version to the infidels, as THE ISLAM, to defend the faith better, but we don't believe it and we are with you, against the infidels.
It is a strategy that is designed to temporarily deceive the enemy, until he is subdued. But subjugation of the enemy probably will never happen until judgement day or the end of this century or beyond. And now the enemy gets more knowledgeable and this knowledge more widespread every day.
Sooner or later the Quranists have to come clean, either they give up on this artificial defense or they commit themselves to it so thorough that they must secede from the Orthodox and tell them that.
And then they can be neutral or on the side of the "Islamophobes". Because otherwise ever spreading knowledge of Islam undermines their trustworthyness ever more, until it is almost zero.
written by malem , April 29, 2012
The article itself is more conjecture of opinion in a poor attempt to try and "lump" those Islamic purists of the Quran with otherrs like Shia, Sunni, etc. BUT all one has to do is read the Quran and it clearly will show them that portion of the argument is a pile of cow dung. Also it is clear the desperation in the article, especially when it says Quranists are opposed to the QuranN so does that mean up is down? Are exmuslims really muslims? Please advise.
Then again it is funny to see all the people that call themselves ex-muslims, why not just yourself what you are, atheistN chrsitian etc, or is it that deep inside you still need to leave that door open? That's where the Quran could help you, if you read it. I would recommend reading it so you don't come to the same conclusions of the article above.
written by ... , April 29, 2012
written by malem , April 29, 2012
written by Editor, M A Khan , April 29, 2012
Don't think so highly of yourself that I will write an article directed at you. This article was a response to an email inquiry, which has been clearly stated.
My articles are oriented to issues of importance. They will certainly not be directed at an individual of your reputation. Nonetheless, you may bring up issues of importance, about which I may write an article to address that issue, not your personal self.
About addressing by wrong "nicks", I don't find time to take note of every such comment. But when complaints come to my notice, I do warn the offender without fail. But sometimes the complaint may not catch my attention, and I may miss out on giving the warning. If you have a serious complaint, you should write to us through our "contact us", so that I don't miss it.
written by bundypig , April 29, 2012
written by Brown Superman , April 29, 2012
written by Demsci , April 29, 2012
"Even Muhammed lived his life to unite Muslims and not to create sects". You are no longer in any position to tell the world how Muhammed did or did not live his life, since you only rely on the Quran and the Quran tells preciously little about Muhammed, let alone how he lived his whole life. I mean even if the Quran mentions that which you say, you can still not assert anything about his WHOLE life. Of which you are in the dark.
You made your choice, in rejecting the Hadits, now be consistend and do not speculate. use the Hadiths wholesale or not at all.
written by Demsci , April 29, 2012
An Afghan was recorded having sex with a donkey. It was a great distance away, but technology enlarged the recording. And of course this Afghan believed he had total privacy.
This recording really was shown on latenight TV in Holland!
written by Gnostic , April 29, 2012
written by bundypig , April 29, 2012
written by Yibel , April 30, 2012
But what about the Qur'an’s Verse of the Sword? Sura 9:5 says “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” That would appear to be an incitement to hatred, violence, murder, and warfare. Rather divisive.
Well, NO, not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jihad is an effort of inner struggle. When the "holy" Qur'an calls upon believers to “kill the unbelievers,” it is simply urging them to seek out and defeat that part of themselves which refuses to believe in Allah’s command to love. When it
says “wherever you find them,” it is making clear that such love must apply everywhere to everyone. So that, far from urging hatred, violence, murder and war: Sura 9:5 requires all Muslims to engage in universal and perpetual love.
SEE - Muhammad was really a uniter, not a divider.
BTW, whenever I read the word "Islamophobia", I just substitute the word "blasphemy," because that's really what's meant by people who use it.
written by Kiwi , May 01, 2012
You can foolsome of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time and you are fooling noone except yourself. You, and people like you, are the reason Islam is still so backward!
Dishonesty always loses out in the end and you cannot justify the hate in the Quran or the many calls to violence. Remember, the Prophet said "I have been made victorious by terror" reported in the ahadith by his co-jihadists. Islam is nothing but dishonest - was is deceipt - so is Islam.
written by Gabriel , May 01, 2012
written by bundypig , May 01, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ue1xs81Wts
written by 1proudkaffur4life , May 02, 2012
48:17 No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on one ill (if he joins not the war): But he that obeys Allah and his Messenger,- (Allah) will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; and he who turns back, (Allah) will punish him with a grievous Penalty.
So if one takes the stance "jihad is internal struggle" whom should one cut off the fingertips, or receive "ransom" for the captives one takes, or as seen in the above those who are f.e. blind do not need to fight against their "unbelief" (no need to join the war as stated...
Now how can I be a Blasphemer if I DO NOT believe in the "stoned-gawd" allah being a real deity. One can only blaspheme against something one believes exist.
And now off to the above link...
--
If allah was really all wise and mindful of his "slaves" he'd follow his own advice in Quoran 2:106 and send a IMPROVED Quoran V0.3.00. Uthmans compilation being V02.00 :-)
written by Yibel , May 02, 2012
Not long ago, I had a conversation with a Muslim who swore up and down that the the Quran was all about developing one's inner self to be a better person. When I brought up the verse 9:5, he said it meant "inner struggle" and "killing" didn't really mean "killing."
I wrote the above post in response to the following comment by Malem:
"Even Muhammed lived his life to unite Muslims and not to create sects"
Sure - Muhammad lived his live uniting the Arab clans - He did it by murder, deceit, assassination, warfare, and the use of greed for booty and sex-slave women.
Malem also said: "In the Quran itself, it states NO other words but it. So that means no Sharia etc, pretty clear but you have to read it and no just speculate."
In fact, however, the Quran is full of Shariah. Scattered throughout the text are the rules/laws that Muhammad created in order to run his Arab terrorist army - Everything from veiling of married Muslim women to divying up the spoils of raids (razzia) on unsuspecting peaceful farming towns and caravans.
Malem claims that the various sects of Islam today exist only because Muslims in the past "lost the true meaning of Islam and being a Muslim." He thinks non-Muslims cannot "grasp that concept." However, history is very clear on this point - Muslims were fighting each other over who would get the 20 percent of the take set aside for Allah, the non-existant god. Islam is all about GREED!
written by 1proudkaffur4life , May 03, 2012
And yes the Sharia was "collected" from the Quoraan.
I watched the "Debate of Spencer/Woods with the two Muslims. Well I'm not entirely convinced that MohamMAD never existed, as Spencer stipulates. If he was a "peaceful" messenger of allah,why was he turned into a war-lord, if he was a war-lord, it is of course easier to understand why the claim he was a peaceful person. If there were close to 300.000 Hadiths and only 3.000 were used.....
written by Salladin , May 04, 2012
I think that Spencer like many revisionists is right when states that Muhammad as the orthodox tells is didn't exist. Some say Muhammad is composed out of many characters etc. but as islam is telling, is simply not how it went.
written by Gnostic , May 04, 2012
Again and again the quran writes that Allah can do what he wants like leading the faithful, misleading the infidel, providing rain, food and anything, create this and that and causing any catastrophe he likes like earth quakes, floodings and everything.
However, modern science has revealed that there are scientific laws behind anything and not god himself, and that many of these phenomena are more or less predictable.
So why should god teach that he is behind everything why he is not? Why teaching this kind of fatalism that we stupid and helpless people can only pray while it is possible to care for ourselves?
The quran is so wrong. We must only take a look at so many muslim sovieties and watch how helpless they are. So many need help from the infidels because they cannot think by their own.
written by Salladin , May 04, 2012
written by Yibel , May 04, 2012
The fact is: The Arabs that swarmed out of Arabia like locusts in 638 CE thought that these behaviors (currently set out in the ahadith, the sunnah, and the Qur'an) were GOOD and would get them into a sensual brothel in the sky.
When the Muslim army conquered Caesaria, they beheaded tens of thousands of men and boys, slaughtered the Jews, and enslaved the remaining women and children. They continued this behavior all across Persia, Afganistan and down into India. When the Muslim army reached the Atlantic Ocean after slaughtering and conquering its way across northern Africa, the head of the army waded out into the water swinging his sword and cursing the fact that there were no more lands to conquer.
Islam hasn't changed in 1400 years. Muslim still believe this behavior is wonderful! They want a caliph to lead them on The Third Jihad, WW3 - killing, slaughtering, and enslaving all the "others."
And if the "others" dare to fight back? Well then, according to Islam, they are "making mischief in the land" and, therefore, deserve to be slaughtered!!!
