Sie sind auf Seite 1von 86



• Introduction on Sharia (P. 3)
• Child marriage (P. 4-6)
• Polygamy (P. 7-9)
• Gender discrimination of legal testimony (P. 10-11)
• Nikah Mut'ah (Temporary marriage) (P. 12-13)
• Incestuous marriage (P. 14-16)
• Marital rape (P. 17)
• Honour killing within the family (P. 18-22)
• F.G.M (Female genital mutilation) (P. 23-24)
• Conclusion on Sharia (P. 25-26)
• Introduction on Jihad (P. 27)
• Aren't Muslims victims? (P. 28-30)
• What is Jihad? (P. 31-34)
• Why so violent? (P. 35-39)
• Jihad through Jizya & Dhimmitude (P. 40-43)
• Jihad of deceit (P. 44-47)
• Conclusion on Jihad (P. 48-49)
• Rape (P. 50-53)
• Forced Marriage (P. 54-56)
• Apostates (P. 57-63)
• Abrogation (P. 64-70)
• Domestic Abuse (P. 71-73)
• Homosexuality (P. 74-77)
• Apologists (P. 78-84)
• Criticism (P. 85)
• Conclusion

The Quran (which was narrated by Muhammad) refers to Muhammad’s life as “as
beautiful pattern of conduct for anyone whose hope is in Allah” (33:21) and “an
exalted standard of character” (68:4).



The Sharia means “path” or “the way”, Muslims deem Sharia as a body of moral
and religious law. Every aspect of Sharia derives from the Quran, Hadith
(teachings and deeds of Muhammad) and Sira (biography of Muhammad). The
Sharia is not just a legal system, as some presume, but an entire culture and way of
life. It would be foolish and evidently dishonest to suggest all of UK's self
proclaimed “Muslims” follow the Sharia. Although, it would be equally foolish to
ignore the fact that the UK is host to over 85 Sharia councils/courts. The
government is currently living in denial about how these courts operate. The only
public claim we have had is that “Sharia is a benefit to the British people” -
Theresa May (PM) and that the “Sharia does not operate above UK law”, which is
a very asinine statement to make due to their existence in the first place. To a non
Muslim, these courts may not operate above UK law. But I am sure that is not the
general thinking of the thousands of Muslims that use them. Over time the public
has continuously pushed for reviews of UK Sharia courts, these courts and the
clerics are constantly being exposed of immoral teachings and practices (strangely
enough, the same practices embedded in Islamic scripture). Yet not much has been
done. There has been reviews, but how bias are the reviews? Paper work hidden?
Rescheduled cases? Reviews are easily manipulated. The only way to get an
honest review of the Sharia practices is to examine the Sharia itself.

This book is to highlight the Sharia rulings that are considered immoral, damaging
to Western principles and also break UK law and legislation. There are strict
Islamic rulings commonly known that, I pray, will never become a part of Western
society. Such as execution of homosexuals, adulterers, apostates and blasphemers
and the removal of thieves hands. These are known as Hudud (or Hadd)
punishments, which are mandated and fixed by Allah, yet Muslims are not so
naive as to try and practice these rulings in the UK. This book will be focusing on
the rulings attributed to the Sharia that are being practiced within the UK Sharia



Child marriage is allowed under the Sharia and is of great embarrassment to many
Westernised Muslims to hear about. Yet unfortunately is practiced and deemed
good etiquette by many others.

Pre pubescent girls can be married and divorced:

Quran 65:4 Talks about the waiting period between divorce and remarriage. The
verse itself refers to those women who have not yet menstruated, which means
children or girls before puberty or attainment of menarche (first period). This has
been confirmed by all renowned scholars in their commentaries (Tafsir) and also
repeated in many hadiths.

An online Q&A fatwa from entitled “Child marriage and Islam”
(88089) posted on the 24th June 2004, goes into great detail about paedophilia
under the Sharia. There are many parts to this fatwa that are encouraging child
marriage, “it is absolutely not permissible to consider the customs and traditions in
a given country as the standard by which people abide, and fail to obey the
absolute evidences of Sharia”. It furthers this by claiming that it is the
Westernisation and application of man made laws that has decreased child
marriage in the Muslim community. The most disturbing part is entwined in the
last paragraph, where it reads “By delaying marriage, there is also a reduction in
the number of Muslims in the Ummah, and this is contradictory to Muhammad's
command”. Meaning they seek child brides to populate with. Very peculiar, as
anyone with a slight education in human biology would know, pre pubescent
children can not have children themselves.

In 2013, ITV's Exposure team investigated child marriage in UK mosques and

exposed 18 Sharia councils that openly stated they would perform an under age
marriage. These councils are still in operation and the clerics still serve them. Even
after this exposure of neglect for our laws, nothing has been done.

Even Muhammad demonstrated paedophilia marriage himself by marrying the

daughter of his best friend and head evangelist Abu Bakr. Muhammad selected the

six-year-old in preference to her teenaged sister, and she remained his favourite
wife. She contributed a major body of information to Islamic law and history. The
paedophilic aspect of this relationship has institutionalised such marriages within
Islam. Muhammad's marriage to his best friend and companions daughter, Aisha
Bint Abi Bakr. (Abu Bakr's 6 year old daughter) is considered controversial
indeed. There has even been many attempts to create myths that Aisha was much
older than she actually was. Muslims tend to deny Aisha’s age of marriage and
consummation. Which is extremely odd, as the only written account of Aisha is
found in the Sahih Hadiths. So, for a Muslim to deny Aisha’s age, is for them to
deny the Hadith, therefore, how do they even know Aisha existed in the first

Bukhari (5:58:236) – “He married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age,
and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.”

This is repeated in:

Bukhari 7:62:64
Bukhari 7:62:65
Bukhari 7:62:88
Muslim 8:3309
Abu Dawud 2:2116
Abu Dawud 41:4915
Abu Dawud 41:4917
Ibn Majah 3:9:1877
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, pp. 6-7
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 129-130

Muhammad married her when she was 6 years old and consummated the marriage
when she was 9 lunar years old. He was 51 and 54 at time of consummation.
Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, didn’t seem to want Muhammad to marry his 6year old

Bukhari (7:62:18) – “The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage.


Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in
Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

Coincidentally, Muhammad was disgusted when asked to marry the daughter of

Hamza, He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter). ” (Bukhari 7:62:37)

Bukhari 5:58:235, and also Bukhari 9:87:140, both state that Allah wanted
Muhammad to marry the six year old little baby girl.

She even played with dolls as Bukhari 8:73:151 recounts. And her playmates left
when Muhammad came because he made them feel “shy” as stated in Muslim

Aisha is also reported to have to wash seamen off Muhammad’s clothes in Muslim
2:572, this was so important for Muslims to know that it is repeated in Muslim
2:566, Muslim 2:567, Muslim 2:568, Muslim 2:569, Muslim 2:570, Muslim
2:571….. oh, and Bukhari 1:4:233.

Muhammad advised his followers to also become paedophiles:

Bukhari (7:62:16) – He said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you may
play with her and she with you?”

And Muhammad’s followers followed. Umar the 2rd Caliph married Umm
Kulthum at a time when she was 10-12 years old. Some sources say she was five
years old.



Polygamy laws are extremely simple in the UK. Simply put, any form of
polygamous marriage is completely illegal. Bigamy is a statutory offence in
England and Wales. It is committed by a person who, being married to another
person, goes through a ceremony capable of producing a valid marriage with a
third person. The offence is created by section 57 of the Offences against the
Person Act 1861. A person guilty of bigamy is liable, on conviction on indictment,
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or on summary conviction
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding
the prescribed sum, or to both (The Magistrate's Court Act 1980 Section 32). Yet
Muslims seem to be able to ignore these laws, with an unofficially believed 20,000
plus polygamous marriages in the Muslim community of the UK (Channel 4 –
'Man With Many Wives') There are also many social media platforms for
polygamous match-making such as

Quran (4:3) - “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four;
and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the
captives) that your right hands possess."

This verse plainly allows a man to have up to four wives (conveniently

Muhammad was granted an exception, on the authority of himself, of course.
Bukhari 5:268 records 11 wives at one time). According to Bukhari 62:2, which
provides the context for verse 4:3 of Quran. "Dealing justly" is defined within a
financial context. It refers to providing a fair dowry to secure marriage - not to the
equal or fair treatment of wives (which is impossible according to verse 4:129).

Much like the Islam apologist reasoning for “Child Marriage”, the excuse offered
for allowing polygamy is exactly the same. Q&A fatwa from Islamqa number
14022 states this about polygamous marriage:

“Plural marriage helps to increase the numbers of the ummah (nation, Muslim


community). It is known that the numbers can only be increased through marriage,
and the number of offspring gained through plural marriage will be greater than
that achieved through marriage to one wife.
Wise people know that increasing the number of offspring will strengthen the
ummah and increase the number of workers in it, which will raise its economic
standard – if the leaders run the affairs of state well and make use of its resources
in a proper manner. Ignore the claims of those who say that increasing the numbers
of human beings poses a danger to the earth’s resources which are insufficient, for
Allah the Most Wise Who has prescribed plural marriage has guaranteed to
provide provision for His slaves and has created on earth what is more than
sufficient for them. Whatever shortfall exists is due to the injustice of
administrations, governments and individuals, and due to bad management. Look
at China, for example, the greatest nation on earth as far as number of inhabitants
is concerned, and it is regarded as one of the strongest nations in the world, and
other nations would think twice before upsetting China; it is also one of the great
industrialized nations. Who would dare think of attacking China, I wonder? And

Polygamy is encouraged to promote an increased birthrate, thus making more

Muslims and eventually out breeding any surrounding unIslamic culture and
making Islam prominent. It is also noteworthy to mention that Islam teaches
polygamy gives the man more options as Quran 66:5 dictates, a disobedient wife
can be replaced and he can rotate as many women as he pleases as long as he
doesn't exceed 4 at one time.

Quran (66:5) - "Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place
wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters,
widows and virgins"


Muhammad had many wives (9 of whom outlived him) and the restlessness and
resentment of the unhappy arrangement is well documented. At one point, his
wives were so upset by Muhammad taking yet another slave girl that Allah had to
reveal revelations from parts of Quran 33 and 66 to him, including the threat to
divorce them all if they didn't allow him complete sexual freedom.

Within hadiths Bukhari (4829) and Sahih Muslim (4482) Muhammad forbade Ali
(his son in law and cousin) to have another wife alongside Fatimah (Muhammad's
daughter) Muhammad refused and said that he prevents Ali from marrying over
Fatimah because “it will hurt her. Whatever hurts her, hurts me”. So, Muhammad
knew polygamy was bad for women, yet he allowed it and participated in the act



Under the Sharia, and also practiced in the UK Sharia councils, the legal testimony
of a woman's is worth half of a man's.

Quran (2:282) - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if
two men be not found then a man and two women."

Apologists offer creative explanations as to why Allah felt that a man's testimony
in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman's. Even by making the claim
that men are less likely to lie. Which has been disproved many times as studies
consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men,
meaning that they make more reliable witnesses. The true nature for this ruling is
found in the hadiths:

Bukhari (6:301) - "Muhammad said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to
the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the
deficiency in her intelligence.'"

There are many opportunities denied to women under Islamic law, from equal
testimony in court to the simple right to exclude other wives from their marital
bed, it is very clear proof that women are of lesser value then men in Islam. Homa
Darabi was a talented physician who took her own life by setting herself on fire in
a public protest against the oppression of women in Islamic Iran. She did this after
a 16-year-old girl was shot to death for wearing lipstick. In the book, Why We Left
Islam, her sister includes a direct quote from one of the country's leading clerics:

"The specific task of women in this society is to marry and bear children. They
will be discouraged from entering legislative, judicial, or whatever careers which
may require decision-making, as women lack the intellectual ability and discerning
judgment required for these careers."

Gender inequality in inheritance and other financial issues.


Quran (4:11) - "The male shall have equal of the portion of two females" (repeated
in 4:176).

This is in context of inheritance. It is extremely immoral to base financial

decisions on gender. What is far more frightful is that Islamic law also specifies
that when a woman is murdered by a man, her family is owed only half as much
"blood money" (diya) as they would if she had been a man. (The life of a non-
Muslim is generally assessed at one-third).

Muslim women lack any sort of financial freedom within a strict Muslim
household and Sharia dictates the woman has no say in marital disputes.



Nikah Mut'ah, literally means “temporary marriage”. It is a fixed-time

arrangement between a man and a woman that dissolves once the duration of
intercourse expires. This Sharia ruling is based on the Quranic reference:

Quran (4:24) - "….And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give
unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by
mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)"

Quran 5:87 says "O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things
which Allah has made lawful for you". Surprisingly the context for this verse is
temporary marriage, as seen in Bukhari 7:62:13o.

Bukhari (7:62:13o) -“We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's
Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get
ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with
a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe. Make not
unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no
transgression.' (5.87)”

Mahr is a mandatory payment, in the form of money or possessions paid or

promised to pay by the groom to the bride at the time of marriage. This is true for
any Islamic marriage, including Nikah Mut'ah. As a basic summary, the practice is
a marriage that lasts for the duration of sexual intercourse, where money or
possessions are exchanged. In Western terms, this is prostitution. As with many
Muslim relationships, sometimes this type of Mut'ah (marriage) is forced on the
female party. This is a direct violation of The Policing and Crime Act 2009, that
made it an offence to pay for the services of a prostitute "subjected to force”.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) wrote an article on Nikah Mut'ah in

May 2013, They somewhat praised the practice by stating “She is one of a
significant number of young British Muslims using a temporary marriage as a way
of balancing their religious beliefs with their modern Western lifestyle. Because of
the informal nature of the union there are no official statistics to show how many

temporary marriages there are in the UK. But a number of senior Shia Muslim
scholars and Muslim student organisations told BBC Asian Network there is
something of a revival.”

There has been a few Sunni Muslim scholars in the UK that have condemned the
practice, one of which gave it a very honest comparison to prostitution. "There is
no difference between mut'ah marriage and prostitution. There is a time limit on
the marriage, and the mahr given as a gift [from the man to the woman] is the
equivalent as a payment to a prostitute". Despite some Sunni rejection of the
practice, it is still continued to be allowed, and the immoral application is a
growing practice within the UK.



Under Sharia the legal terminology, mahram, is an unmarriageable kin with whom
sexual intercourse is considered incestuous. Details of who are mahram is written
in Quran 24:31 as it specifies whom may see the female without a veil. Due to the
actions of Muhammad and the Caliphs, marriage between cousins is explicitly
allowed and even encouraged in Islam. The Quran itself does not discourage or
forbid this practice in any way. In fact it implicitly allows it, as seen in Quran

Quran (4:23) - “Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters,
sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters;
foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your
step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone
in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your
sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same
time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”

So everyone besides these relatives named can be married. Such marriages in

Muslim majority countries are often preferred and even encouraged in some
regions. This is in contrast with other nations where cousin marriage is against the
law and regarded as incest. Even though there is some debate on this issue,
scientists tend to agree it is genetically unhealthy. There are other problems with
cousin marriages. According to the Hanafi, a man may give his daughter in
marriage to his brother's son without her consent. This goes against free will which
results in unhappy marriages.

Muhammad himself married cousins, as he did with Zaynab bint Jahsh, who was
not only the daughter of Umaimah bint Abd al-Muttalib, one of his father's sisters,
but was also divorced from a marriage with Muhammad's adopted son's (Zaid).
Muhammad saw the newly-married wife, Zaynab, naked and become so aroused
that he had to rush home to quickly sleep with one of his many wives.
Nonetheless, the Prophet fell in love with her beauty. But marrying daughters-in-


law were considered incestuous, which was not accepted well in the Arab society.
Muhammad needed a divine sanction to defend himself from public scandal if he
married her. So, without wasting time, Quran 33:37 was revealed. Which reads:

"....You sought to hide in your heart what Allah was to reveal. You were afraid of
man, although it would have been more proper to fear Allah. And when Zaid
divorced his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that it should become
legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons if they
divorced them. Allah's will must needs to be done".

Realising that this verse was inadequate to protect the Prophet as public scandal
broke out, Allah revealed another verse, namely 33:38 to defend him:

"No blame shall be attached to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by
Allah. ....."

Muhammad also allowed the marriage of his daughter, Fatimah, to his cousin, Ali
ibn Abi Talib, who would later go on to become the fourth Rightly-guided Caliph
of Islam. The second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, also married his cousin, Atikah
bint Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl.

BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the UK, 55% of whom married a first cousin.
Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat
generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13
times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic
disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either
dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. (Justin Rowlatt – The risk of first
cousin marriages – BBC News, November 15, 2005)

The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births
in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic


illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani
community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous
population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for
41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths. (Phoenix New Times, December
29, 2005)

Worldwide, it has been estimated that almost half of all Muslims are inbred:

“Up to 34% of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46% in
Bahrain, 33% in Egypt, 80% in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60% in Iraq, 64%
in Jordan, 64% in Kuwait, 42% in Lebanon, 48% in Libya, 47% in Mauritania,
54% in Qatar, 67% in Saudi Arabia, 63% in Sudan, 40% in Syria, 39% in Tunisia,
54% in the United Arabic Emirates and 45% in Yemen” (EuropeNews, August 9,

A renowned British geneticist professor stated at The John Maddox Lecture in

2011 in relation to Muslim inbreeding, "It is common in the Islamic world to
marry your brother’s daughter, which is actually [genetically] closer than marrying
your cousin”



Under the Sharia, there is no such thing as marital rape. A Muslim woman must
become sexually subservient to her husband.

Quran (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or
how ye will." Apologists make the claim that this is about allowing anal
intercourse. If this is what Muhammad meant, then it would appear to contradict
what he said in Sahih Muslim hadith (8:3365): "If he likes he may (have
intercourse) being on the back or in front of her, but it should be through one
opening (vagina)."

Bukhari hadith (7:62:81) says this about the subject: "The stipulations most
entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the
(women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract)."

Sahih Muslim furthers this by dedicating a chapter to making sure the wife should
always be there to fulfil their husbands sexual desires. Chapter 20, entitled “it is
not permissible for a woman to abandon the bed of her husband”. To which hadith
(8:3367) states: “By Him in Whose Hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to
his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with
her until he (her husband) is pleased with her”.

There is also the issue that any form of rape is almost impossible to prove due to
the Sharia 4 witness ruling found in Quran 24:4 -"And those who accuse free
women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them”. And 24:13 -
"Why did they not bring four witnesses of it? But as they have not brought
witnesses they are liars before Allah.". These verses are addressing adultery
(revealed when Aisha was accused of adultery on the basis of only 3 witnesses
coincidentally enough). Yet it has become part of the theological underpinning of
the Sharia rule on rape, since if there are not 4 male witnesses, the rape didn't
happen. This has led many of Muslim women to not even report rape for the fear
of being accused, condemned and sentenced for adultery.



I should open this chapter by declaring that UK Sharia courts do not deal with
murders. Yet, under Islamic rule they are to turn a blind eye to it. If an honour
killing occurs within the Muslim community, they will not report it to the proper

Islam encourages punishment for activities that Allah and Muhammad deem
punishable. Honour killing is usually of females, who are perceived to have
brought shame onto the family. The family members may feel their families
dignity is restored in this way. Common triggers for honour killing occur when
young couples have unmarried relations with each other, or when a woman
marries someone against the wishes of her parents.

There is no Sharia punishment for those causing shame upon the family, nor to
restore family honour by killing them. There are, however, punishments for a
variety of types of Zina (unlawful sexual relations) in Islam. Zina includes
fornication (when they are unmarried), for which the punishment is flogging, and
adultery (when they are married, but not to each other), for which the punishment
is death.

Quran 18:60-82 narrates a story about a boy whom was killed to prevent his
parents from the boys disbelief. As verse 80 says: “And as for the boy, his parents
were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and

Problems and disobedience of forced/arranged marriage is one of the main reasons

for honour killing. Sahih hadith, Ibn Majah (3:9:1882) says this: “No woman
should arrange the marriage of another woman, and no woman should arrange her
own marriage. The adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage”. Sharia
law is very strict on the punishment for adultery.


Bukhari, Book 3, Volume 49 (ironically entitled “peacemaking”), Hadith 860,

recounts this following story:

“A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to
Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us
according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a labourer working for
this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people
told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom
of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned
scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be
exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you
according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and
your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed
somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So,
Unais went and stoned her to death”.

Devout Muslims will always deem Allah's law as superior to the laws of any given
non Muslim country. Taking legal punishments into their hands is also encouraged.
The following is a text from Bukhari hadith volume 9 book 84 hadith 64:

"During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say
the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have
no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the
game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have
reward on the Day of Resurrection."

Blasphemy is another major reason for honour killing. There are many hadith
narrations that tell of stories where Muslims have assassinated people because they
have dishonoured Islam or defamed Muhammad. Abu Dawud (38:4349) says: “A
Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she
died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her


Fatwa website, Islamqa, released a fatwa entitled “It is essential to respond to

those who defame the prophet” (Fatwa 14305) which states the following:

“It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the
punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadd punishment of
Allah and stand up for the Messenger then the Muslim has to do whatever he can,
so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people.”

Another cause of honour killing we have witnessed, has been for homosexuality. If
a son, or daughter, has homosexual tendencies, and engage in a same sex
relationship. That is deemed as bringing disgrace to the family. Quran 4:16, 7:80,
26:165, 27:54 and 29:28 all condemn homosexuality. All Muslim nations that
abide by total Sharia law have the death penalty for homosexuality. Muhammad
cursed effeminate men (Bukhari hadith 8:82:820), and also cursed mannish
women (Abu Dawud 32:4088).

Islamqa fatwa number 1577 in part says this: “Undoubtedly the sin of
homosexuality is one of the worst sins; indeed, it is one of the major sins
(kabaa’ir) that Allah has forbidden.... The same applies to the sin of lesbianism.
There is no doubt among the fuqahaa’ that lesbianism is haraam and is a major
sin..... The Sharia punishment for the crime of homosexuality is execution – by
the sword, according to the most correct view, as was narrated in the discussion
above about the differences among the scholars as to how this execution should be
carried out.”

'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the traveller, tools of the

worshipper) is a manual of Islamic (fiqh) jurisprudence and the Sharia. The book
is based on earlier writings from Shirazi's, “The Rarefaction” and the conclusions
of Nawawi's, “The Seeker's Road”. This work consists of the soundest positions of
the Shafi'i school. Reference o1.2, entitled “Retaliation”, it states who is NOT


subject to legal retaliation:

“o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:

a child or insane person, under any circumstances

a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim

a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam
(O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate
from Islam is without consequences)

A father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or
offspring's offspring”

Honour killing has become more popular in the West because of the contradiction
with Sharia and Western laws and liberalism. Muslims feel they have to live and
abide by Allah's laws, the Sharia. By allowing 85 Sharia governed courts to
operate in the UK, The UK is showing a lenient and tolerant approach to Sharia,
thus inevitably leading Muslims to believe the UK is Sharia controlled.

The Independent newspaper reported in 2009: “The number of murders, rapes and
assaults on people who dare to break strict religious or cultural rules is doubling
every year, police figures show, with up to 2 violent “honour crimes” being
committed every day. But charities which help victims of honour crimes say the
true extent of the problem is far worse than the statistics show, as every year
hundreds of victims - normally women - are too frightened to report attacks or to
give evidence in court. Figures released by the Metropolitan Police show that in
London alone there have been “129 honour-based crimes between April and
October this year, compared with 132 in the whole of 2008/09”, which in turn was
double the number of the previous year. The Home Office has estimated that there
are an average of 12 honour killings each year in England and Wales”.


Mail online reported in 2011: “Nearly 3,000 honour attacks were recorded by
police in Britain last year, new research has revealed. According to figures
obtained by the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (Ikwro), at least
2,823 incidents of 'honour-based' violence took place, with the highest number
recorded in London. The charity said the statistics fail to provide the full picture of
the levels of 'honour' violence in the UK , but are the best national estimate so far.

The data, taken from from 39 out of 52 UK police forces, was released following a
freedom of information request by Ikwro”.

Ibn Majah 3:20:2540 – Muhammad said: “Carry out the legal punishments on
relatives and strangers, and do not let the fear of blame stop you from carrying out
the command of Allah.”



Circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran but it is highlighted in the Sunnah

(Muhammad's recorded words and actions). In the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that
circumcision was a "law for men and a preservation of honour for women." (Abu
Dawud). It is also a part of the Sharia. The Reliance Of The Traveller reference
e4.3 says: “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off
the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the
female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)”.

“Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is

prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed.
Not a single Muslim scholar, as far as we know, has said that circumcision is not
prescribed”. This extract was taken from an fatwa number 60314.
it continues: “Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision
is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of
the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it
is makrooh or haraam.”

The fatwa is entitled “Circumcision of girls and doctors criticism thereof”. The
fatwa speaks of the “medical benefits of circumcision for women”, quoting from
some doctors. Not surprisingly, all the quoted doctors happen to be Muslim
doctors. I have personally never encountered a non Muslim biologist or doctor that
can state removing a woman's clitoris is good for them. Fact, the NHS website
runs off a list of the harmful effects of it, while stating “There are no health
benefits to FGM and it can cause serious harm”.


There were 137,000 women and girls with F.G.M in England and Wales according
to Macfarlane, A. and Dorkenoo, E. (2015) Prevalence of female genital mutilation
in England and Wales: national and local estimates.

F.G.M is illegal in the UK. It is an offence to perform F.G.M (including taking a

child abroad for F.G.M). Help a girl perform F.G.M on herself in or outside the
UK. Help anyone perform F.G.M in the UK or to help anyone perform FGM
outside the UK on a UK national or resident. It is also illegal to fail to protect a
girl for whom you are responsible from F.G.M.

Anyone who performs F.G.M can face up to 14 years in prison. Anyone found
guilty of failing to protect a girl from F.G.M can face up to 7 years in prison.
Although there being 137,000 F.G.M cases in the UK by 2015. There has not been
a single arrest, fine nor imprisonment. This is yet another example of how the UK
government has turned a blind eye towards its own laws to allow Sharia to



Representatives of 10 leading Islamic centres met in Birmingham's Jami'a mosque

and decided to establish the first Islamic Sharia council in 1982, in the UK. This
was the first Sharia council in the whole of Europe. According to BBC News
thousands of Muslims have turned out to use these Sharia courts. The Islamic
Sharia Council (ISC) states that it has dealt with between 200-300 cases a month
since January 2012. There has also been established a rival Sharia council called
Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, set up in 2007 that claims it is “less strict than the

In March of 2014 the Telegraph produced an article exposing how Sharia is slowly
being integrated into UK law. It states that Islamic law is to be effectively
enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for
solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills. Under ground breaking
guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to
write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude
non believers altogether. The documents, which would be recognised by Britain's
courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have
been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. Anyone married in a
church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia
principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said “the guidance would promote
good practice in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system”.

Muslims have also been allowed to bank differently. In 2014 The UK Treasury
sold £200 million worth of Islamic government bonds, known as “sukuk”, in a bid
to make Britain a global hub for Islamic finance, with it now being the first
country outside the Islamic world to issue bonds. Islamic banks ban the taking and
receiving of interest. Islamic bonds are structured so investors get a fixed return.
So while the non Muslims in the UK have to pay a predetermined rate of interest
on a loan, the Muslim community has access to interest free loans. Sound fair to



London has the largest legal services market in Europe, and over 25 firms in the
capital are supplying legal services for Islamic finance in the global and domestic

Over the years UK Sharia councils/courts have been given more legal rights, and
have been allowed to openly practice misogyny without any opposition. The start
of Sharia councils was not placed in front of the government to decide, nor voted
on by the people. They were merely set up by a group of Muslims, and their
interpretation of the Sharia (be it less strict than the purist Islamic countries in the
Middle East) that has been allowed to flourish and run as a dual legal system. The
Sharia being practiced in the UK is in direct violation of Western morals and
etiquette. As we have seen through this book, some even break the laws governing

I would like to use this last paragraph to thank everyone who has donated towards
this free book. I appreciate all the support. There will be another 2 books available
before the years end. Please support. I am issuing these factual books for free as to
not price anyone out of gaining knowledge and reading a message that needs to be



Since the tragic attack of the twin towers in September 2001. Lots of questions
have been raised about Islamic violence. The main question is: “what inspires
Muslims to kill”. A very basic question that can be answered by reading Islamic
scripture itself. This booklet will delve into the inspiration for Jihadi terrorism. As
with all my literature about Islam, I must emphasise that not all Muslims are
violent people. Individuals must be taken as such. What Islam teaches is not be an
overview of how every single Muslim behaves, just every Muslim that follows
Islam and the example set by the Islamic prophet, Muhammad.

When Muhammad lived in Mecca, he preached Islam for 13 years, he generated

only a hundred or so Muslims, most of which were friends and family. From the
emigration of Mecca to Medina (Hajj) in 622AD, to the time of Muhammad's
death in 632AD, Islam spread like a wild fire. Was this because of the truth Islam
taught? Was it because Muhammad was a very likeable person? Neither.
Muhammad commanded over 60 battles and raids and also fought in 28 himself
over the 10 years of his self proclaimed “prophethood”. He was later known as
“the conquer of Arabia”.

As we delve into the life of Muhammad, we shall be looking at the most revered
historian whom wrote Muhammad's hagiography. Ibn Ishaq. This is because his
Sira is the most read and considered authentic by the Muslim community.


AREN'T MUSLIMS VICTIMS? (Eviction from Mecca)

Before we continue to read, I must note that the information provided is in

response to the Muslim claim that early followers of Muhammad were persecuted
(even tortured, as some claim. Coincidently without any evidence at all).

The main apologist claim is that Islam taught to fight in self defence only, and that
the battles against the Meccan people were waged in retaliation. To examine this
claim we have to look at the life and history of Muhammad as documented in
Islamic hadith and the hagiography of Muhammad.

According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad
practising and preaching his religion, nor felt threatened. This changed only after
Muhammad began attacking the pagan religion, including the customs and
ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq 167). This was enough to cause resentment of
the influential leaders of Mecca.

Tabari (volume 6 p93) - “When Muhammad openly displayed Islam as Allah

ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him until he spoke
disparagingly of their gods and denounced them.”


(p101) - [The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they
had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted
their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their
gods (also Ibn Ishaq 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we
have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values,
abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and
insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him."

At this point it is noteworthy to mention that under Islamic law, the punishment for
blasphemy towards Allah is death. This ruling has been continuous till even today
and practiced in almost all Islamic countries.


At this stage, the Meccans, were so eager to live at peace, that they offered
Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble. They decided to send for
Muhammad and to negotiate with him. Ishaq 188 states: “If it was money he
wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honour, he should
be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king”.

Muslims were the first to use physical violence, Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas was said to
have picked up a camel’s jawbone and struck a local Pagan in a fit of anger, for
interrupting his prayer, as Ishaq 166 states: "This was the first blood to be shed in

The new converts were quite aggressive also. An example of this is when one
Muslim known as, Hamza, struck a Meccan leader by the name of Abu Jahl
violently with his bow for defaming and speaking in an insulting way to

Ishaq (185) - “When he got to the mosque [Hamza] saw [Abu Jahl] sitting among
the people, and went up to him until he stood over him, when he lifted up his bow
and struck him a violent blow with it, saying, 'Will you insult him when I follow
his religion, and say what he says? Hit me back if you can”.

After Muhammad's rich and powerful uncle, Abu Talib, whom looked after
Muhammad, died. The Meccan leaders evicted Muhammad from Mecca. Before
this, the Meccan's pleaded with Abu Talib to silence Muhammad from cursing
their god's and insulting their religion, to which Abu Talib refused, his relations
with the Quraish [Meccans] then deteriorated and men withdrew from him in
enmity. (Ibn Ishaq 168).

The hadith does document “the worse thing” to happen to Muhammad in Mecca:

Bukhari (60:339) - “I asked 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As to inform me of the
worst thing the pagans had done to Allah's Apostle. He said: "While Allah's
Apostle was praying in the courtyard of the kabba, 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait came and
seized Allah's Apostle by the shoulder and twisted his garment round his neck and
throttled him severely. Abu Bakr came and seized 'Uqba's shoulder and threw him
away from Allah's Apostle and said, "Would you kill a man because he says: 'My

Lord is Allah,' and has come to you with clear Signs from your Lord?”

Muhammad would have an opportunity to forgive the man following the Battle of
Badr. According to the biographers, Muhammad chose to have him executed even
as he begged for mercy.

As an extremely basic summery, Muslims claim persecution after being evicted

because of the very same thing that Muhammad later enforced the death penalty
for. As a retaliation, Muhammad's army started to raid Meccan trade caravans, and
eventually went to war with them. He later signed a 10 year peace treaty (Treaty of
Hudaibiya) and continued to slaughter every Meccan pagan 2 years later.

The reason why it is important to understand Islam's early development, is because

(based on Islamic scripture) it is clear that Muslims were the attackers, and not the
victims, as almost all Muslims claim. This false sense of “persecution” has
ricocheted throughout history. For example. Very little is mentioned about the
Muslims slaughter through Europe and Spain. Yet the Christian crusades, as a
retaliation, is always brought into debate. Muslims even manage to play the victim
as soon as any terrorist attack in the name of Allah is committed. This is all very
much a double standard. How would Muslims react if they were forced into a
dhimmi type status in non Muslim nations? In Muslim nations, the open practice
of other religions is met with imprisonment or death. Non Muslims have an
extortionate tax placed on them (Jizya), Non Muslims even have a height
restriction on buildings, to not supersede any Muslim building. This is of course
considered a sign of superiority. Just imagine if those restrictions and inequalities
where forced onto Muslims. Would they be the victims then?



Quran (2:216-217) - Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you
(Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is
good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you
do not know. They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th,
11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great
(transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from
following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-
al-Haram (at Mecca), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than
killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your
religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from
his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in
the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein

Jihad's literal translation is “strive” or “struggle”. In the context of Islam it means

“strive for the cause of Allah”. Many Muslims, in a desperate attempt to portray
Islam as peaceful, often claim that Jihad is an inner or spiritual struggle. In true
Islamic fashion, there is no reference to this in any way. Bukhari hadith volume 4
book 52 is entitled “Jihad”. It contains 288 hadith, each carries a clear connotation
to holy war, with only a handful of possible exceptions (dealing with a woman's
supporting role during a time of holy war). Islamweb fatwa number 83989
entitled: “Explanation of verses of Jihad” says that waging holy war against people
of other faiths is a way of helping them understand the "mercy and blessing of
Islam". A massive contradiction I know, and yet another extremely tedious attempt
to justify violence against non Muslims.

Muslim apologists like to claim that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,”
whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based only on one
hadith that Islamic scholars agree was Maudu` (fabricated, forged). Strangely this
fabricated hadith is usually passed around by the very same people that disregard
Sahih (authentic) hadith. Naturally though, only the violent ones.


The closest any hadith gets to distinguishing two different types of Jihad, is found
in Bukhari 4:52:43 - “(That she said) "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the
best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad for
women is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition
and is accepted by Allah).

If jihad was to strive spiritually, then why would it cost money and even life?

Quran (9:87) – ” But the messenger and those who believe with him strive with
their wealth and their lives. Such are they for whom are the good things. Such are
they who are the successful.”

Jihad is mentioned in Quran 4:95 also. It reads as follows:

“Not equal are those believers remaining at home. Other than the disabled and the
mujahideen, who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their
lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over
those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best
[reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind]
with a great reward”.

The context of this verse is found within Bukhari, and verified in the second most
trustworthy hadith collection (Sahih Muslim book 20 number 4676).

Sahih Bukhari (6:61:512) - “There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers
who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)
The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the ink pot and
the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not
equal are those Believers who sit...", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the
blind man was sitting behind the Prophet. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is
your order for me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead
of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:
'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by
injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of
Allah.' (4.95)”


Not only does this beg the question. How can a blind man correct the all wise and
all knowing, Allah's message? It also seriously questions the claim that Jihad is
spiritual. Why would a blind person be exempt from anything spiritual?

The progression of Jihad becoming violent, is more apparent when the Quran is
studied in chronological order. There are more placid earlier commands, such as:
Allah has sent Muhammad only to warn non Muslims (22:49). Leave non Muslims
to their ignorance (23:54). It is best if you do not retaliate against your
persecutors, but rather seek refuge in Allah (23:96). Do not argue with innocent
Christians and Jews, but rather emphasise your common beliefs in monotheism

Over time, Islams moderation decreased. A much more sinister message came after
the eviction from Mecca, with such commands as: Defensive fighting against
attacking Arab Meccans is obligatory, but during Zul-Hajj it's an offence (2:216-
218). You should fight in defence and rouse other believers to fight as well. If the
group of Muslims is divided (betrayal) then do not join the hypocrites, instead
seize them and slay them wherever ye find them (4:84-89)

The final “revelations” of Islam, are documented in Quran 9. This chapter, entitled
“The Repentance” (at-Tawbah), contains the most aggressive commands, such as:
Muslims are to subdue or kill those who do not accept Islam (9:1-5 universally
known as the “verse of the sword”). Fight non Muslims, even Christians and Jews,
until they are subdued. Also, fight the Christians and Jews until they submit
because they have corrupted Allah's teachings and they are corrupt (9:29-35).

Although every time Jihad is mentioned within Islamic scripture, it is in context of

physical battle, the ultimate goal of Jihad is to make Islam dominate over all
religions and cultures, thus making “religion only for Allah” (Quran 2:193, 8:39
and also 61:9).

There are many ways for the Muslim community (Ummah) to accomplish Jihad,
even many ways that can be deemed as non aggressive. The most common form of
Jihad that has been adapted for use within non Muslim nations (Dar al-Garb) is
that of over breeding Jihad.


Abu Dawud (11:2045) - The Prophet said: “Marry women who are loving and
very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you.”

Also repeated in Ibn Majah Volume 3 book 9. But also reflected in a more recent
fatwa entitled “Azl (Coitus interruptus) and use of birth control pills” by Sheikh
Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 11885 which states:

“Firstly, what the Muslims should do is to try to have as many children as they
can, because this is the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him), who said: “Marry the one who is loving and fertile, for I will be proud
of your great numbers before the nations.” (Narrated by Abu Dawud, 2050;
classed as sahih by al-Albaani in Sahih Abu Dawud, 1805).
Having more children increases the numbers of the ummah, and increasing the
numbers of the ummah is a source of its glory, as Allah says, reminding the
Children of Israel of His blessings. No one can deny that having a large number is
a source of pride and strength for the ummah, contrary to what those pessimists
think who say that large numbers causes poverty and starvation in a nation. If the
ummah increases in number, puts its trust in Allah and believes His promises as
mentioned in the aayah,
“And no moving (living) creature is there on earth but its provision is due from
[Hood 11:6 – interpretation of the meaning], then Allah will make things easy for
them and will grant them independence of means from His bounty.”

Although not all forms of Jihad are aggressive and have potential to cause physical
harm. Jihad is still about Islamic dominance. It is also note worthy that Islam
states Jihad will be perpetual until the “end of days” and judgement (Abu Dawud

It is also noteworthy to mention that Islamic nations are known as “Dar al-Islam”.
Whereas non Muslim nations were known as “Dar al-Harb”, meaning “house of
war”. Later this terminology changed and became known as “Dar al-Garb”,
meaning “house of the West” in Ottoman sources. Basically meaning, that any
nation that is not subservient to Islam, is at war with Islam.



All Muslims are to spend time in hell for their sins. After paying for their sins, for
a time determined by the crime, Muslims will then be allowed into paradise
(Jannah). Muhammad made an exception for prophets (ie. himself) and for anyone
dying in battle for the cause of Allah’s religion. Taken together, Sura 69 and verse
84:7-12 present a picture of the reckoning of Muslims on judgement Day, in which
believers are given sentences based on their sins versus good deeds.

Quran (19:70-72) -“And surely we are best aware of those most worthy to be
burned therein. There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed
ordinance of thy Lord. Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave
the evil-doers crouching there.”

No person will avoid going to hell, but Muslims will eventually be pulled out.
Allah distinguishes Muslims from one another based on their willingness to fight
and die in Holy War. Non-violent Muslims will not receive the same reward as the

Quran (8:15-16) - ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array,
never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day –
unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on
himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!”

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world
for the other. Whoso fight in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on
him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

Bukhari (4:53:353) – “He will admit him into Paradise (if martyred) or bring him
back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward
and booty.”

Abu Dawud (14:2516) – “The intercession of a martyr will be accepted for seventy
members of his family.”

They are also promised “great fortune” in Al-Tabari, (Vol. 9, p. 76).


The Sins of a martyr are Forgiven and They are Guaranteed Paradise,
consequently according to Islam, Suicide bombers are guaranteed their place in
heaven.(Quran 3:157 also Bukhari 4:52:46).

The Seven Gifts:

“Ubada bin Samit narrates, that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhe wassallam) said,
“The shaheed (martyr) is granted seven gifts from Allah:
He is forgiven at the first drop of his blood.
He sees his status in Jannah (paradise)
He is dressed in the clothes of Iman.
He is safe from the punishment of the grave.
He will be safe from the Great fear of the Day of judgement.
A crown of honour will be placed on his head.
He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family.”
(Musnad Ahmed, Tabrani, at-Targheeb wa at-Tarheeb p.443 volume 2)

Islam also criticises peaceful Muslims:

Muhammad made it perfectly clear in his Quran that Muslims who refuse to fight
for the cause of Allah, are hypocrites, and will be fuel for hells fire. The Quran
points out the difference between a true believer and a hypocrite.

Quran (3:165-168) – “That which befell you, on the day when the two armies met,
was by permission of Allah; that He might know the true believers; And that He
might know the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come, fight in the way of
Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we
would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter
with their mouths a thing which is not in their hearts. Allah is Best Aware of what
they hide. Those who, while they sat at home, said of their brethren (who were
fighting for the cause of Allah): If they had been guided by us they would not have
been slain. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Then avert death from yourselves if
ye are truthful.”

The Quran furthers this by stating the Muslims who do not fight are afraid of
Mankind more than they are of God.

Quran (4:77-78) – “Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold
your hands, establish worship and pay the poor due, but when fighting was
prescribed for them behold! a party of them fear mankind even as their fear of
Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordained fighting for
us? If only Thou wouldst give us respite yet a while! Say (unto them, O
Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for
him who wardeth off (evil); and ye will not be wronged the down upon a date-
stone. Where soever ye may be, death will overtake you, even though ye were in
lofty towers. Yet if a happy thing befalleth them they say: This is from Allah; and
if an evil thing befalleth them they say: This is of thy doing (O Muhammad). Say
(unto them): All is from Allah. What is amiss with these people that they come not
nigh to understand a happening?”

Quran (9:81) – “Those who were left behind rejoiced at sitting still behind the
messenger of Allah, and were averse to striving with their wealth and their lives in
Allah’s way. And they said: Go not forth in the heat! Say: The fire of hell is more
intense of heat, if they but understood.”

Throughout the last chapters in the chronological Quran, the term “fight those who
believe not in Allah” is continuously used. This is a rather strange translation error.
The main translator, Yusuf Ali, as an example, translates the same word (Qatal) as
“fight” in Quran 9:29, and “kill” in Quran 4:157, when talking about Jesus, “They
killed him not, nor did they crucify him”. The Western translators do this very
often to soften the text. After all, “fight those who disbelieve”, is far more benign
than “kill those who disbelieve”. Even though the commands to fight, behead and
kill non believers are very axiomatic indeed. The verb for “fight” is not as benign
as the English version. In Arabic, the verb is “Qatal”. Basically, the Arabic word
translated as “fight” in an English language Quran, more accurately translates as
“kill”, “massacre”, or “slaughter”.

Here is the meaning of the word “Qatal”:

Qaf-Ta-Lam = to kill, put to death, be accused, slay/murder/kill/slaughter, attempt

to kill, render person like to one killed, to wage war/combat/battle, to master,
contend/fight, deadly, knew a thing thoroughly/well, become acquainted with it.

Throughout the Quran, it is apparent that Muhammad classed his followers who
didn’t engage in violence as hypocrites. This teaching carried on through the
hadith. This is an extract from Sahih Muslim hadith Chapter 47, entitled
“Denunciation of one who died but never fought in the way of Allah nor did he
ever express a desire or determination for Jihad”.

Sahih Muslim (20:4696) – “It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira
that the Messenger of Allah said: One who died but did not fight in the way of
Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a

Also confirmed in the tafsir (commentary) by Ibn Kathir, entitled “JIHAD IS MADE
OBLIGATORY”. Which states as follows:

“In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the
evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required
from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind.
Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to
provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he
is not needed, then he remains behind.''

From the Sira, we see this teaching continues:

Ishaq (372) – “When he went out, Abd Allah bin Ubayy [the man who had advised
against leaving town] came back with 300 men, saying, ‘We do not know why we
should get ourselves killed here.’ So he went back to Medina with the Hypocrites
and doubters who followed him. Abd Allah bin Amr said, ‘Allah curse you,
enemies of Allah. Allah will let us manage without you.'”

Ishaq: (391) – “The day of Uhud was a day of trial, calamity, and heart-searching
on which Allah tested the believers. He put the hypocrites on trial, those who
professed faith with their tongue and hid unbelief in their hearts. And it was a day


in which Allah honoured with martyrdom those whom He willed.”

Tabari (Vol. 9 p49) – “One of the hypocrites, feeling an aversion to battle, being
sceptical of the truth, and spreading false rumours about Muhammad, said that
they should not go out in the heat. With regard to him, Allah revealed: ‘They said,
“Do not march out in the heat.” Say, “The heat of hell is far more intense”.

Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret the commands for
violence according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.
Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over
historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note
that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are no verses of peace and tolerance to abrogate or overrule

the many that call for believers to fight and non believers to be fought and subdued
until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s
own martial legacy, and that of his companions, along with the remarkable stress
on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across the
world's history.



The Jizya tax on non believers, was an extremely effective form of Jihad. Many
non Muslims either fled, or converted, just to save them from living in poverty and
becoming submissive to others. Dhimmitude almost eliminated all other religions
within the Middle East. The pact of Umar, to which, according to many Muslim
historians, is an agreement between a subdued Christian population and the
Muslim invaders led by Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph. This pact
became so popular, and based on Islamic scripture, that it became a part of Fiqh
jurisprudence (Islamic law) and is still enforced today.

What is the Jizya?

Muhammad very clearly established that people of other religions have to pay a
poll tax to Muslims called the Jizya as a reminder of their inferior status. This
destroys any pretense that Islam is merely a religion and not a political system.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold
that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book,
until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to
demand the Jizya from non believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be
extorted by force:

Muslim (19:4294) – “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya.
If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to
pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them”

According to the historian, Ibn Kathir, Muhammad established the Jizya as a

means of compensating the “converted” Meccans for their loss of revenue
following the total ban of other religions from the Kaaba This ended the centuries


old tradition of pilgrimages by people of all faiths during the holy months, on
which the local economy depended:

“Allah, most high, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering
or coming near the sacred mosque. On that, [Muhammad’s home tribe of] Quraysh
thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, most
high, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until the
embrace Islam or pay the Jizya.” (Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet p.183-

This practice enabled Muhammad and his successors to fund Islamic military
expansion and the lifestyle of the religious class through extortion from non
believers. In 630AD, Muhammad marched an army into Christian lands in what
came to be known as the “Battle of Tabuk.” The Muslim army was met by the
residents that were taken by surprise. Some were killed, and the survivors were
forced to pay protection money to Muhammad. (Clearly abrogating the previous
rule of “no compulsion in religion” that contemporary apologists are so fond of

The command for Muslims to spread Islamic rule by force, subjugating others
until they either convert to Islam or pay money, is eternal:

Bukhari (4:53:386) – Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to
fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet
has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e.
martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen,
and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad’s companion and
the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non Muslim Persian and
Christian lands (after Muhammad’s death).

The words of Muhammad: “He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and
His apostle.” (Ishaq 956 & 962)


Only 11 years after Muhammad’s death, his companions swept through North
Africa, putting to the sword those who would not submit to Islamic rule. In
643AD, Tripoli was conquered and the native Christian Berbers were forced to
give their wives and children to the Muslims as slaves to satisfy the Jizya.

This lucrative extortion racket was even a part of the brutal Ottoman rule over
Christians, Jews and others. The Serbs of Europe were particularly hard hit and
often had to hand over their children to pay the extortionate Jizya tax. The children
were then converted to Islam and trained as Jihad warriors for use in foreign

In India, well into the 17th century, Muslim tax collectors would also take the
wives and children of Hindus and sell them into slavery for the Jizya requirement.
The only way for many to avoid losing their families was to convert to Islam. This
tremendous discrimination is how Islam made inroads into populations that
wanted nothing to do with it.

Technically, there is no such thing in Islam as an innocent non Muslim, which

makes those condemnations of “terror against innocent people” even more useless.
There is a basis for protecting the “People of the Book” (originally Jews and
Christians, but later extended to Hindus when Muslim leaders realised that killing
them was not as profitable as taxing them). These would be those who place
themselves completely under the rule of Muslims, relinquishing all rights and
agreeing to finance the Muslim expansion. Unfortunately, even this has not been
enough to spare religious minorities from extreme persecution and massacre.

Traditionally the collection of the Jizya occurs at a ceremony that is designed to

emphasise the subordinate status of the non Muslim, the subject is often struck in a
humiliating fashion. Even some Islamic clerics encouraged tax collectors to spit
into the mouths of Hindu dhimmis during the process. Quoted is the popular Sufi
teacher, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

“The honour of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs).
One who respects kafirs dishonours Muslims. The real purpose of levying the


Jizya on them is to humiliate them,[and] they remain terrified and trembling.”

(Islamic Jihad)

British preacher, Anjem Choudary, points out that “the normal situation is for
Muslims to take money from the kafir” (at the time, he was encouraging believers
in the UK to quit working and live on public benefits. He openly referred to the
UK's jobseeker allowance, as “Jihadseekers allowance”.).

The Quran also affirms that the collection of Jizya is is the ideal relationship
between Muslims and non Muslims. The verse mandating this (9:5) occurs much
later than the verse stating that there is “no compulsion in religion” (2:256),
meaning that it takes precedence and abrogates the earlier verse. This is why
Islamic purists such as Hamas and the Taliban wish to reinstate the Jizya. One of
the first orders of the self declared caliphate formed by the ISIS in 2014 was to
imposed the Jizya by force on Christians who refused to embrace Islam.

Egyptian cleric on al-Hafaz TV said in 2013 that American foreign aid to that
country was a form of Jizya “owed” to them. He believed that Muslims should
demand more money from the Americans so that, in his words, “we can leave
them alone.” Only when the Jizya is paid will America “be allowed to to recognise
its own interests, the ones we agree to.”

Contemporary Muslim apologists frequently tout the earlier “no compulsion in

religion” verse when attempting to portray Islam as peaceful, and are somewhat
reluctant to admit that the Jizya is a penalty for not being Muslim. They usually
fall back on claiming that the Jizya is merely a tax paid to the government glossing
over the fact that this “tax” was imposed on the basis of religious status and was
nearly always a much greater burden than that required of Muslim citizens. The
interesting thing about this rhetorical strategy is that it directly contradicts any
pretence that Islam is merely a religion and not a political system.

Tolerance in Islam isn’t free. The Jizya is money paid by non Muslims so that they
can keep practising their religion. Under Islamic law, if the money is not paid, the
people are to be imprisoned, killed or enslaved.



A common form of Jihad since Islam's clash with modern day liberalism, is to lie
and deceive about Islam and what it teaches. Taqiyya is a concept were the term is
very much misused, especially by critics of Islam. Taqiyya does not mean “lying”
in Islam. It only refers to a specific doctrine, a predominantly Shi’ite one, used by
them in order to save their own lives or avoid some other form of severe

We often tend to conflate this doctrine with that of lying in general, It is leading to
the mislabeling of all forms of Islamic lying as an example of “taqiyya”. However,
al-taqiyya forms only a single aspect of lying within Islam, not the entirety of the
subject itself. Lying to non Muslims, for reasons other than the fear of persecution,
is also supported by Islamic texts.

Taqiyya is saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. To
protect oneself from persecution, or death.

Kitman is lying by omission. Most common example of this would be when

Muslim apologists quote a section of Quran 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as
if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse
(and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya is intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna is 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order
to advance others.

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a

praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is
unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is
possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is
permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. when the purpose of lying
is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something


permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. It is religiously

precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression.”
(Reliance of the Traveller. p.745 r8.2)

Scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the
purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences”. The circumstances for lying are
typically those that advance the cause Islam, in most cases in the West, by gaining
the trust of non believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Quran 16:106 clearly establishes that there are circumstances that can pressure a
Muslim to tell a lie. Quran 3:28 even tells Muslims not to take those outside the
faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves”. Other notable verses promoting
lying are as follows:

Quran (9:3) – “Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolater.”

Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your
oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of
your oaths” (not surprisingly, the context of this passage is marriage)

Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) deceived, and Allah deceived (against
them): and Allah is the best of deceivers.”

The Arabic word used here for deceived (or plot) is makara, which literally means
‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little
basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and


Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are
circumstances when a Muslim may be forced to deceive others for a greater

Bukhari (3:49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good
information or saying good things, is not a liar.”

Muslim (32:6303) – “He did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what
the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation
amongst persons and of the husband to his wife, and of a wife to her husband”. (in
a strange form in order to bring reconciliation between them).

Muhammad’s men volunteered to assassinate Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, and Muhammad

allowed them to use dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had
turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of safety, so they could
brutally slaughter him, despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life. As the
story is narrated in Bukhari 5:59:369.

Muhammad used deception when he signed a 10 year treaty with the Meccans that
allowed him access to their city for pilgrimage, while he secretly prepared his own
forces for attack. The unsuspecting Meccan's were conquered in easy fashion after
he broke the treaty 2 years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted
him at his word were executed.

The absence of Quranic verses and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is
somewhat surprising and shocking, considering many Muslims are compelled to
be dishonest about Islam's teachings on dishonesty, or that many Muslims are
convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained
misconception of belief that many Muslims are honest. When lying is addressed in
the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah”, referring to
the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim of being a prophet.


With the recent development of internet and social media, Islamic scripture has
been easily accessible for everyone. This is of great embarrassment for the genuine
peace loving Muslim. Great lengths have gone to conceal the true nature of Islam
and the Sharia. The Jihad of deceit, has become a valuable commodity for the
advancement of Islam. This is only deflected by sharing the knowledge and
understanding of the true nature of Islam.



Jihad is to spread Islam, and to make Islam and the Sharia dominate over every
culture. In every reference within Islamic scripture, Jihad is accomplished through
violence. Muslims have been forced to adapt this Jihad due to Islam's inhabitance
within Western liberal societies, where force and violence would be met with
quick resistance from police and military. Any hostile take over at this stage,
would be suicidal for the Western Muslim community. Knowing this, a more
political, biological, and deceptive approach has been adapted. Unfortunately, as a
result of the ignorance, and unwillingness to accept the inconvenient truth, from
people whom we have in authority and power, Jihad has overcome the UK.

Muslims will never eat pork, the women will usually wear a Hijab. To paint some
perspective, the Quran alone has 1 verse forbidding the consumption of pork and 4
verses commanding Hijab. In perspective, there are over 100 verses commanding
Muslims to fight for Islamic rule. Islamic teachings are far more repetitive on
forcing Islamic rule and subduing or killing non believers, than it is on any other
subject. The Quran does not even tell a Muslim how to pray, yet it commands to
specifically behead non believers, twice. (Quran 8:12 and 47:4).

Is it bigotry to question a Muslims loyalty? The Quran is very axiomatic about

“judging by what Allah has revealed”, and stating that “anything else is disbelief
(Kafir)” (Quran 5:44 and 33:36). So, to query a Muslims loyalty to Western morals
and liberalism is logical and justified. Muslims claim to follow a God that clearly
commands to not befriend non believers, to force non believers into a subservient
state, or to outright slaughter them. Either Muslims are of the same view, or they
disagree with their God. It really is that simple.

Shrouded by the command to “cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers”, is
also the fear of “Hell fire”. As fighting for the cause of Allah, killing the infidels
and martyring oneself, is a sure way to avoid the fiery torment that awaits. You
can certainly see the appeal to any well read Muslim that wholeheartedly believes
the teachings, to take arms for Islam. This is also the reason as to why we see
Jihadi Muslims committing sins prior to attacks. For example: Many people have


claimed that the USA, 9/11 attackers couldn't have been Muslim, as they were
seen drinking alcohol before the flight. As the sins of a martyr are forgiven “at the
first drop of their blood”, and they will reach paradise. Then any Muslim fighting
for Allah's cause with intent to martyr themselves, is not going to worry about the
sins they commit.



Contrary to what we may assume. Rape is actually illegal under Sharia law, but in
a true Islamic way, this comes with massive restrictions. For one, rape within
wedlock is allowed. Rape of slaves and captives of war is also no only allowed but
actively encouraged.

Quran 4:24 is a much quoted reference when discussing the topic of rape in Islam,
it reads:

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right
hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for
these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from
your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them,
give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed,
agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing,

The context of this verse was active encouragement to rape married captives of
war, even if they are already married and their husbands still alive.

Sahih Muslim (8:3433) - “Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that Allah's Apostle sent a
small army. They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their
husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse
was revealed: “And women already married except those whom you right hands
posses" (4:24)”

As the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the
men to rape the women in front of their husbands, which is all the more reason to
think of Islam differently from other religions.

It is also important to note here that the husbands were alive after battle. This


contradicts the apologists claim that the women Muhammad enslaved were
widowed and vulnerable. Yet even if this apologetic claim was true, how morally
absent is it to force a widow to choose between being raped or starved?

Also confirmed within the tafsir (commentaries) of Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn and also
Ibn Abbas entitled “The prohibition of taking two sisters as rival wives (Quran

A woman is also not permitted to refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands as
stated in Quran (2:223).

Throughout Islamic scripture rape of wives, slaves and captives is encouraged. But
what is to happen if rape is committed outside of these guidelines? As first stated,
rape is illegal under Sharia law and carries very strict punishments. Yet, the Sharia
ruling states that a victim must provide 4 male and reliable witnesses to the rape.
This has led to many Muslim rape victims not reporting it. Victims that have been
known to report rape, have admitted to non marital sex, which carries the death
penalty (Adultery). This ruling was founded on a story about Muhammad's child
bride, Aisha. When on an expedition she lost a necklace, when going back alone to
find her property, she encountered a young Muslim man. Aisha was accused of
cheating [on her polygamous husband]. Three witnesses corroborated the event,
but Muhammad apparently did not want to believe it, and so established the
arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required. This full story is found in al-
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462. This led to Allahs revelation found in
Quran 24:4 - “And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses
(to adultery), flog them.” Strictly speaking, this verse addresses adultery.
However it is a part of the Sharia rule on rape, since if there are not 4 male,
Muslim, trustworthy, witnesses, the rape "did not occur".

Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the woman.


A recent fatwa from a mainstream Islamic site echoes this rule and even chides a
victim of incest for complaining when she has no "evidence":

“However, it is not permissible to accuse the father of rape without evidence.

Indeed, the Sharia put some special conditions for proving Zina (fornication or
adultery) that are not required in case of other crimes. The crime of Zina is not
confirmed except if the fornicator admits it, or with the testimony of four
trustworthy men, while the testimony of women is not accepted.

Hence, the statement of this girl or the statement of her mother in itself does
not Islamically prove anything against the father, especially that the latter
denies it.

Therefore, if this daughter has no evidence to prove that her accusations are
true, she should not have claimed that she was raped by her father and she
should not have taken him to the court.” (Islamweb fatwa 156817)
Australian Sheik Feiz recently said this about a rape victim "has no one to blame
but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world to tease man and appeal to
his carnal nature." Even his successor, who was brought in to mitigate the
backlash, compared unveiled women to "sweet pastries" tempting hungry men.

“[It is] un-Islamic to stop husbands from having sex with their wives even if they
were doing so without their consent.” (Dr Aamir Liaqat Hussain, Pakistan's
minister of state for religious affairs)

“A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If
the wife refuses, then the rule of 'nusyuz' (disobedient) applies and the husband is
not required to provide financial assistance to her”. (Malaysia's Perak state mufti
Harussani Zakaria)

Dr. Abd al-Aziz Fawazan al-Fawzan, a professor of Islamic law said that "If a
woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself is at fault. She is only
seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed at home like a Muslim



This was echoed by the imam of a Salafist mosque in Cologne, Germany in the
wake of the shocking sex abuse rampage by recently arrived Muslims on New
Year's Eve in 2015. He explained that "the events" (which included rape) "were the
girls' own fault because they were half-naked and wearing perfume."

Muhammad practiced rape of captives himself Safiya bint Huyai was a Khaibar
Jewish woman that Muhammad took as a wife and consummated the marriage on
the same day he murdered her husband and brother. Mariyah bint Shamoon al-
Quptiya was one of several slaves whom the Governor of Egypt sent as a present
to Muhammad. He kept her as a concubine despite the objections of his official
wives, who feared her beauty. Mariyah bore Muhammad a son, Ibrahim. Rayhana
bint Zayd ibn Amr, Her first husband was one of the 600-900 Qurayza men whom
Muhammad beheaded in April 627AD. He enslaved all the women and selected
Rayhana for himself because she was the most beautiful. When she refused to
marry him, he kept her as a concubine instead. She died shortly before Muhammad
in 632AD.



Apologists would have people believe that forced marriage is cultural and not
sanctioned in Islam. Under the Sharia, forced marriage is allowed and Islamic
scripture actively encourages it. Even stating:

Ibn Majah (3:9:1882) - Muhammad said: “No woman should arrange the marriage
of another woman, and no woman should arrange her own marriage. The
adulteress is the one who arranges her own marriage.” (Sahih)

Sharia fails to protect vulnerable children. The fathers consent is all that is
required for a man to marry the child. The full burden is then placed on the child
to seek a divorce, once she has reached puberty, as the Sharia dictates. Of course
even then, the man has to agree to the divorce, or the Sharia cleric would have to
rule it. However, the woman has very little, if any, say in her future. It is due to
Muhammad's marriage to 6 year old Aisha, that a child can be betrothed by her
father without her explicit consent (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:18). In fact, a virgin's
silence is taken as her consent (Sahih Bukhari 7:62:68).

We must not forget the others whose lives are at the mercy of those known as
owners. Although Islam promotes the freeing of slaves by promising divine
rewards in the afterlife, it also institutionalizes the practice by sanctioning the
capture and enslavement of enemy non combatants as well as promoting an
indulgence style requirement of manumitting a slave for the compensation of sins
committed (Quran 4:92). The buying and selling of human beings like livestock is
permitted in Islam, and there is no limit to the number of slaves a Muslim can own
so long as he (or she) can afford to feed, clothe, and shelter them. Slaves have no
right over their own persons. A slave may not get married without his or her
master's permission, and a slave can redeem his or herself only if the master
allows it.

A female slave may be used for sex by her master. He does not need her
permission, and after having sex with her he may sell her to another man or
ransom her back to her family (if she had been captured during a battle or raid). If
he desires her as a wife, he may marry her and does not have to pay her a bride


price. Her freedom is considered her mahr. A captured woman costs nothing, and if
the man does not have to pay any money to marry, this may seem enticing for
poverty stricken men. A man may have sex with his captives and slaves without
the permission of his wife (or wives).
The woman, of course, has no say in the matter. However, it would probably be in
her best interest to get married seeing as though she might never experience
freedom otherwise. Mandatory freeing of a female slave only occurs upon her
master's death IF she has given him a child. Whatever the scenario, a female slave
has absolutely no control over her life. Her master can have sex with her if he
wants (rape), sell her to another man, or give her in marriage to another man. Her
wishes are meaningless and her compliance unnecessary. The only thing her
master cannot do is earn money by prostituting her to other men.

In 2013, many mainstream media, including the Huffington Post, reported that a 2
year old was the youngest child at risk of being forced into marriage, 1 of 250
children aided by the UK's Forced Marriage Unit, according to statistics. Around
80 of those helped were under the age of 15 when authorities had intervened, and
statistics identify those between the ages of 16-25 as being the age most at risk.
The forced marriage unit (FMU), is a joint initiative of the Foreign Office and the
Home Office, they have intervened in 1,485 cases in 2012, with 82% were female
and 18% male. Many forced marriages go unreported.

In 2015, the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) gave advice or support relating to a
possible forced marriage in 1,220 cases. The FMU also received approximately
350 calls per month in total. These figures include contact that has been made to
the FMU through the public helpline or by email in relation to a new case. Of the
cases that FMU provided support to:

329 (27%) involved victims below 18 years of age; and

427 (35%) involved victims aged 18-25.

In 2015, the majority of cases 980 (80%) involved female victims, and 240 cases


(20%) involved male victims. Forced marriage is not a problem specific to one
country or culture: since it was established in 2005, the FMU has handled cases
relating to over 90 countries across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and
North America. In 2015, the FMU handled cases involving 67 ‘focus’ countries
which a victim was at risk of, or had already, been taken to in connection with a
forced marriage. The five highest volume countries in 2015 were:
Pakistan - 539 cases (44%).
Bangladesh - 89 cases (7%).
India - 75 cases (6%).
Somalia - 34 cases (3%).
Afghanistan - 21 cases (2%).

In 2015, 175 (14%) of the cases handled by the FMU had no overseas element,
with the forced marriage activity taking place entirely within the UK. In 2015
alone, the FMU dealt with 8 cases that were considered mentally unwell, or
learning disabled, whom were aged bellow 17, in the UK.

In 2014, the Government made forced marriage a criminal offence. A forced

marriage is a marriage in which one or both spouses do not (or, in the case of some
adults with learning or physical disabilities or mental incapacity, cannot) consent
to the marriage and violence, threats or any other form of coercion is involved.
Coercion may include emotional force, physical force or the threat of physical
force and financial pressure. In an arranged marriage, both parties have consented
to the union and can refuse to marry if they choose to.



Muslims like to spread the misconception of “there is no compulsion in religion”,

quoting this fragment of a verse (2:256). In true Islamic style, they have taken this
passage out of context. I will not dwell on this as I will make a post about Qur'an
2:256 another day. But as a summary, it is a very famous misinterpreted verse,
actually referring to people in other religions converting to Islam. (Abu Dawud

Those who turn their back on Islam are to be executed. This is confirmed by the
words and deeds of Muhammad. The only freedom of belief in Islam is the
freedom to become Muslim.

In Islam, the rejection in part (i.e. apostasy via blasphemy in belief) of any of the
individual pillars or principles of Islam, or discarding the faith as a whole,
amounts to apostasy. Under Islamic law, it is a crime punishable by death. This
punishment was prescribed by Muhammad himself who had said “Whoever
changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9:84:57)

Apostasy was one of only three reasons given by him where killing a Muslim is
permitted. (Bukhari 9:83:17) His wishes were followed by Caliph Abu Bakr, who
had many apostates killed during the lengthy “Riddah (apostasy) wars” for their
refusal to pay tithe. These people were not rejecting Islam as a whole but only
refusing to abide by one of its five pillars (Zakat). This also attests to the fact
apostasy was a serious crime within early Islam and was not some later
innovation. In fact, it was one Quranic verse (the verse of the sword, Quran 9:5)
which prompted Abu Bakr to fight. Various hadith record Muhammad’s command
being followed by his companions, with atheists, (Bukhari 9:84:57) Christians,
and Jews (Bukhari 9:84:58) being put to death for leaving Islam.

All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii, as
well as classical Shiite jurists) are in agreement with the death sentence for males


(who are of sound mind) guilty of Apostasy, with only slight variations on whether
to allow the three days grace period. The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence
believe female apostates are not to be killed, but beaten and put under confinement
until death or repentance, while the remaining Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools
all agree the verdict for the female apostate is the same as for the male.

Quran (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then
you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they
emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them
wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or

Quran (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due,
then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who
have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made
with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have
no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”

Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates
are Quran verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

The reason why executing apostates has always been well ensconced in Islamic
law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions
doing exactly that according to the reliable Hadith. According to verse 4:80 of the
Quran: “Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah.”

Bukhari (4:52:260) – “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his
religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came
to be a Muslim.

Bukhari (9:83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the
following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed
(in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a
man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an



Bukhari (9:84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his
Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Bukhari (9:89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be

killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (9:84:58) – “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked,
‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and
then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but
Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgement of
Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa
ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we
discussed the night prayers'”

Bukhari (9:84:64-65) – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear
some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go
beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their
religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them,
for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'”

You may notice a lot of references from Bukhari volume 9 book 84, this is because
Imam Muhammad Bukhari wrote a whole chapter called “Dealing with apostates”,
found in volume 9 book 84.

Abu Dawud (4346) – “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up
to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance,
and kill him?”

Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent”

under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe who left
him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” upon finding out that he
could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after


having been captured in Medina).

And for all you buffs out there that crave more evidence than that of the Quran and
Hadith, here is quote from The Reliance Of The Traveler (book of Islamic sacred

Reliance of the Traveler (Islamic Law) o8.1 – “When a person who has reached
puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
(o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).

The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the

disbeliever is called a murtad.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences,
who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal
opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by
agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those
who change their din [religion]’…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a
condition…prior to his execution.”

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy

endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: “Leaving
Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who
has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasies from Islam, he deserves to
be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam.
If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”

The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo

Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience
in Article 10, which proclaims:

“Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of

compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him
to another religion, or to atheism.”


Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the

document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from

“[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the

Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such
manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone
shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and
warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.;
[22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused
in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine
moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its

(From Andrew Bostom’s CAIR’s Silence on Pastor’s Apostasy Death Sentence is


While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over
their religious beliefs then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so
seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many major internal wars.

Immediately after Muhammad’s death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and
return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy)
Wars, they were slaughtered in such places remembered as “Garden of Death” and
“Gulley of Blood” during the first caliph Abu Bakr’s aggressive and violent
campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to
Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including
Muslims who had memorized the Qur’an by heart.

As Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s closest companion, explained in a letter at the time,

his prophet “struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam,
willingly or grudgingly.” Thus did Abu Bakr promise to “burn them with fire,
slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive” any who left
Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)


Ali, the fourth “Rightly Guided Caliph” was Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of
the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow
their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving
Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari
v.17 p.191).

In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe
the death penalty for any Muslim choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern,
ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of
religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the
occasional murder of apostates.

A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers.

Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their
religion – and theirs alone – endorses killing over a change in opinion (as critic
Geert Wilders puts it, “Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out
is no longer a religion”). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain
away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.

Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states
“Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error.” They may
also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, “Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel
men until they are believers?” What they don’t say is that Muslim scholars agree
that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his
teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated
by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly commands Muslims to fight
unbelievers until they relent and either accept Islam or a state of humiliation under
Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).

These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his
companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could
those closest to him have felt that there should be “no compulsion in religion” if
they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam? How could the
mandated killing of apostates have become a part of Islamic law?


The “Religion of Peace” expanded across the globe by conquering people of other
religions and then making life miserable for those who didn’t “embrace Islam.”
Once spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness – such
as raising their children in another faith – was punished with death. Thus did Islam
gradually supplant other religions.

One of the world’s most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in
2012 that if Muslims had “gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t
exist today”. (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading,
torture, burning and murder of millions but rather trying to justify it).

And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of
its most draconian rules, one of the world’s most popular recently affirmed that the
death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with
others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel
called Peace TV).

At the end of the day, even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates
from Islam isn’t a part of the “true” religion, never appear all that bothered when it
does happen, nor do they champion the right of other religions to evangelize in
Muslim countries; In fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that
Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at
some level to retain believers.



The Quran is not in chronological order. Except for the first surah, Al-Fatiha
(which is a short prayer), the Quran is organized by descending length of the surah.
That is the longest surah is Surah 2 and the shortest is Surah 114. This organization
prevents recovery of any chronology by a simple examination of the text.

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed in two phases: before and after the
hijrah from Mecca to Medina. Thus, the terms Meccan Surahs and Medinan Surahs

Meccan Surahs:

Muslims believe that the Meccan suras were revealed while the Ummah was in
Mecca, before the Hijrah, when the Ummah was weak. Non-Muslim scholars, such
as Christoph Luxenberg believe these to be originally Christian, used by Aramaic-
speaking Christian missionaries. Luxenberg, in particular, believes that many of
these surahs are, in fact, Aramaic. Other surahs show Aramaic influence. The
Meccan verses are generally peaceful, though some threats against unbelievers are
made here and there. It wasn’t until Muhammad’s sixth year of preaching that the
violent commands come into play.

List of Meccan Surahs:

from the first to the fifth year of Muhammad’s mission:

96, 74, 111, 106, 108, 104, 107, 102, 105, 92,
90, 94, 93, 97, 86, 91, 80, 68, 87, 95,
103, 85, 73, 101, 99, 82, 81, 53, 84, 100,
79, 77, 78, 88, 89, 75, 83, 69, 51, 52,
56, 70, 55, 112, 109, 113, 114, 1

the fifth and sixth year of his mission:


54, 37, 71, 76, 44, 50, 20, 26, 15, 19,
38, 36, 43, 72, 67, 23, 21, 25, 17, 27, 18

from the seventh year to Hijra:

32, 41, 45, 16, 30, 11, 14, 12, 40, 28,
39, 29, 31, 42, 10, 34, 35, 7, 46, 6, 13

Medinan Surahs:

After the Hijrah, Muslim history puts the Muslims in Medina. The Medinan
Muslims were strong and willing to use force against any opponents. The Medinan
Surahs reflect this in the harshness of their tone, with repeated threats of violence
against unbelievers.

2, 3, 4, 76, 8, 98, 13, 22, 24, 33, 47, 48, 49, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 5, 9, 110

Characteristics of Medinan surahs

Following are some of the stylistic and subject characteristics of Medinan suras:

Mention of ‘Jihad’ and detailing on its rulings.

Details of Islamic jurisprudence and legal system as well as laws governing family,
money transaction, international law and acts of worship.
Mention of ‘hypocrisy’ and dealing with hypocrites.
Any verse that starts with ‫ يا أيها للذين آمنوا‬O you who believe.
Long verses.
Easy vocabulary.
Arguments with the ‘people of the Book’ i.e., Jews and Christians.

The list of Quranic surahs in chronological order is relevant because of a concept

called abrogation.



Understanding the necessity for Naskh (abrogation) is crucial in understanding

Islam and its theology. The Quran is said to have been revealed by the angel
Jibreel (Gabriel) to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years. During those
years, a lot had changed in his personal and private life.

Muhammad began as a preacher, and ended his life as the founder and Head of the
first Islamic state, so it is not surprising that the style and message of later
Medinan Quranic revelations changed and often conflicted with earlier Meccan

Today’s Quran, when read at face value with its non-chronological organization,
can support any number of views on several subjects, and when read as a whole,
many surahs clearly contradict one another. This is why Muhammad himself
(through Quranic revelations) introduced this concept into Islam.

At the time of the caliphate, some scholars (particularly a preacher from Kufa,
Iraq) were banned from explaining and preaching the Qur’an by early ‘ilmic
authority figure (usually ‘Alī but sometimes also Ibn ‘Abbās) because of their
ignorance of the principles of naskh.

Some may claim this doctrine does not exist or is not a part of mainstream Islam.
Of course this is only through ignorance of Islamic scripture. Abrogation does not
only have a basis in the hadith, it is also a command in the Quran. Note that the
most direct command for abrogation comes from the 2nd surah (Al-Baqarah), that
was revealed as Muhammad arrived in Medina. This was the start of the
commands becoming more aggressive.

Quran (2:106) – “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,

We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over
all things?”

The other verses from the Quran that support this are 13:39, 16:101, 17:85-86, and



The following sahih hadith narration indicates their are many verses in the Quran
that have been abrogated, but all of them had to be included.

Bukhari (6:60:53) – I said to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan (while he was collecting the
Quran) regarding the Verse:– “Those of you who die and leave wives …” (2.240)
“This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or
leave it in the Quran)?” ‘Uthman said. “O son of my brother! I will not shift
anything of it from its place.”

Bukhari (6:60:69) – A man from the companions of Allah’s Apostle who I think,
was Ibn ‘Umar said, “The Verse:– ‘Whether you show what is in your minds or
conceal it.’ was abrogated by the Verse following it.”

The sahih Muslim hadith even states that the Sunnah and Sira are to put under the
commands of abrogation also.

Sahih Muslim (3:675) – “The Messenger of Allah abrogated some of his

commands by others, just as the Quran abrogates some part with the other.”

According to Ali, the fourth Caliph, knowing the difference between abrogating
and abrogated verses will save you from being damned.

‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Abdul Rahman “can you differentiate between abrogating
and abrogated verses” Abdul Rahman said, “no.” Thereupon Ali said “Thou art
damned and causeth others to be damned.”

(Nawasikh Al-Qur’an (i.e. The Abrogating of the Qur’an), by Ibn Al-Jauzy, Beirut
2002, p. 24, and Al-Itqan Fi Ulum Al Qur’an by Al-Suyuti, II, p. 700.)

Apologist claim:

When you understand abrogation, you understand what drives Islamic terrorism


and extremism. This has led some apologists to flatly deny they are even aware of
such a concept existing within Islam. Some have even attempted to create their
own methods in choosing which verses apply to today’s world.

One such example of this is the reversal of the truth; it is the obscure and baseless
claim that the Medinan verses are read only in an historical and non legal context,
while the less violent Meccan verses are universal commands.

This in itself is not a negative thing, but when they try to pass this off to non
Muslims as authentic Islam and claim this is widely accepted by Islamic scholars.
This is nothing more than deceptive propaganda, easily disproved by a quick
search through the scholars tafsir commentaries or fatwas produced, past and

Furthermore, Quran 5:90-91 prohibits the consumption of Alcohol and gambling,

yet they are Medinan verses.

Prior to the revelation of these verses, there were no prohibitions against

intoxicants and gambling. When was the last time you have heard Muslims
claiming drinking alcohol and gambling is permitted in Islam today?

Many modern apologists assert that abrogation does not exist within the Quran
itself, but that the abrogation mentioned in Quran 2:106 and Quran 16:101 refers to
the Quran replacing directives given in the Taurat and Injil.

Although this understanding has already been shown to be in error by Ibn Kathir’s
tafsir (commentary), let us take a look at Quran 2:106 in context.

Quran (2:105-108) – “Those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book
do not like, nor do the polytheists, that the good should be sent down to you from
your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and
Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one


better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

Do you not know that Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that
besides Allah you have no guardian or helper?
Rather you wish to put questions to your Messenger, as Musa was questioned
before; and whoever adopts unbelief instead of faith, he indeed has lost the right
direction of the way.”

Verse 2:106 in context is clearly talking about those who questioned Muhammad
about his contradictions, hence the revelation regarding “abrogation”. This has
nothing to do with the “previous scriptures” either. So far its abrogation within the
Quran itself.

Looking at verse 2:136, Allah says there is no distinction between the previous


Read this peaceful verse:

Quran (8:60) – “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline
towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all

In two separate tafsir (Islamic scholar commentaries), Scholars Ibn Abbas and al-
Jalalayn, didn’t even bother commenting on this verse. All there tafsir state is this:

“This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” (Q. 9:5)”

(Surat Al-‘Anfāl (The Spoils of War) 8:61)

[Ibn Abbas in Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Suyuti)]

Here is another commentary on this verse:


“It is the consensus of the scholars of this Ummah that if part of the religion is
Allah’s and other part is not, fighting must go on until the entire religion is
[Ibn Taymiyyah, ‘Governance According to Allah’s Law in Reforming the Ruler
and his Flock’]

At-Tawbah (Surah 9 “Repentance”) is considered to be the closing remarks of

Allah. It is also the most aggressive chapter of the entire Quran.

This commentary is from the most renowned writer of the tafsir, Ibn Kathir:

“Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity
worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,
establish the prayer and pay the Zakah. This honourable Ayah (9:5) was called the
Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated
every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and
every term.” Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more
treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.

(“This is the Ayah of the Sword” – Tafsir ibn Kathir)



The Quran prescribes wife beating for unruly wives. Obviously the judgement of
what is “unruly” is placed solely on the husband.

Quran (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some
of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good
women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as
to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone
in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way
against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Lots of translators use the word “beat” in their translations, yet in Quran 8:12 the
same word is used in the context of “strike” the non believers heads off. The
scripture should read “strike” as opposed to “beat”. Also noteworthy is that
translators have placed the word “lightly” in brackets after the word “beat”. These
are scholars additions. As we are constantly being told that you have to read Quran
in Arabic to understand it, these additions aren't considered relevant. We can find
the context of this passage in Abu Dawud hadith. Although not all of Abu Dawud
is categorised as Sahih (authentic), a few are Hasan (good) and Da'if (weak). The
relevant quoted hadiths are classed as Sahih:

Abu Dawud (11:2141) - Muhammad said: “Do not beat Allah's handmaidens”, but
when Umar came to him and said: “Women have become emboldened towards
their husbands”, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many
women came round the family of Muhammad complaining against their husbands.
So the Apostle of Allah said: “Many women have gone round Muhammad's family
complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you”.

This continues into the next hadith (2142) by commanding: “A man will not be
asked as to why he beat his wife”.


Another hadith from the same book states as follows: (2126) - A man from the
Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered
upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). Muhammad said:
“She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be
your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her”.

Muhammad was never shy from causing harm to women. Muhammad did have
women killed in the most brutal ways. One was Asma bint Marwan, a mother of 5
children, who wrote a poem criticising the people of Medina for accepting
Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man. In this case,
Muhammad's assassins pulled her sleeping child from her chest and stabbed her to
death. (Abu Dawud 38:4348)

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Egyptian cleric,
Abd al-Rahman Mansour, said in a 2012 televised broadcast that, to discourage a
wife from seeking divorce, beatings may inspire the wife to "treat him with
kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her."

During Ramadan of 2010, another cleric named Sa'd Arafat actually said the
woman is "honoured" by the beating. Even a report put together by Sveriges
Television (SVT) investigative news programme "Uppdrag granskning", from
progressive Sweden in 2012 found that 60% of mosques there actually advised
beaten women not to report the abuse to the police. These women were also told
that they must submit to non consensual 'sex' with their husbands.

The UK has strict laws about domestic abuse within Part 4 of the Family Law Act
1996. But the law relies on the abuse being reported to the appropriate authorities.

A British Muslim women's group launched a "jihad against violence", in a bid to

reclaim the term jihad from extremists back in 2011. This ended in the group being
shunned for being unIslamic, kafir and apostasy. The word “Jihad” means to strive
for the cause of Allah. Allah allows domestic abuse. Every time “Jihad” is used, it
is in the context of violence. From the blind and lame being excused from jihad


(Quran 4:95), to the whole book of jihad in Bukhari hadith volume 4 book 52,
which contains 288 hadiths, all of which talk of holy warfare, not a single one
talks of spiritual, or internal struggle as many claim is the meaning of jihad.
Evidently you can see the contradiction in a “jihad against violence”.

Under sharia, a husband may strike his wife for any one of 4 reasons: 1. She does
not attempt to make herself beautiful for him. 2. She refuses to meet his sexual
demands. 3. She leaves the house without his permission. 4. She neglects her
religious duties. Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce. Of course the
relevance for this is very ambiguous due to the fact that no man is to be asked as to
why he beats his wife.

In Muslim 4:2127, there is a detailed account of how Muhammad beat Aisha for
leaving the house without his permission. In her words: “He struck me on the
chest which caused me pain”.

A woman may indeed be subjected to harm if the circumstances warrant, with one
such allowance being in the case of disobedience. I will also mention that Muslims
are individual people and this certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat
their wives, only that Islam permits them to do so.



Muslim homosexual groups have appeared within Western cultures. They seem to
deceive by spreading the word that Islam excepts all sexualities. Of course, this
isn’t true. Under Sharia law Homosexuals are stoned, beheaded, hung or
imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

Quran (7:80-84) – “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye

are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds”.. continues, “And we rained
down on them a shower (of brimstone)”

Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the meaning to be that
homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s
destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

Quran (7:81) – “Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before

This verse establishes that homosexuality is much worse than adultery or other
sexual sin. According to the Arabic, homosexuality is called the worst sin, while
references elsewhere describe other forms of non marital sex as being “among
great sins”. As the Sharia prescribes the death penalty for adultery, there is very
little argument against not executing people for a sexual sin deemed “greater”.

Quran (4:16) – “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.
If they repent and amend, Leave them alone”

This is the Yusuf Ali translation. The original Arabic does not use the word “men”
and simply says “two from among you.” Yusuf Ali may have added the word
“men” because the prior verse explicitly addresses “your women”. In other words,
since 4:15 refers to “your women”, 4:16 is presumably referring to men.

There are several lesser hadith stating, “if a man comes upon a man, then they are
both adulterers,” “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,”


“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one
that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”

When Mehmed conquered Constantinople in 1453, the Muslim general demanded

the 14-year-old son of one of the city’s Christian leaders as his sexual concubine
(the father and son chose death instead). Subsequent Ottoman administrators also
engaged in homosexuality, often with the boys of conquered populations who
could not afford to satisfy the Jizya tax in any other way than to relinquish their
own children to the Religion of Peace.

And yet, homosexuals have been beheaded, hung and stoned in modern Saudi
Arabia and Iran, where Muhammad’s laws are applied most strictly. Five other
Muslim countries also have the death penalty on their books for homosexual
behavior. In the past, gays were burned as well. As one cleric recently put it, “the
only point of theological debate is over how the offender should be killed.”

Strangely enough, the strict punishment for homosexuality dissolves after death. In
paradise, where martyrs for the cause of Allah will enjoy an endless orgy of virgins
with “perpetual youth” (Quran 56:17) and little “boys” (Quran 52:24). Quran
76:19 bluntly states, “And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see
them you will count them as scattered pearls.”

Technically, the mere presence of boys doesn’t necessarily mean sex, however it is
strongly implied from the particular emphasis on the effeminacy, handsomeness
and “freshness” of the boys. The female virgins of paradise are also compared to
pearls (Quran 56:23).

Muhammad even cursed effeminate men, and masculine women.

Abu Dawud (32:4087) – “The Apostle of Allah cursed the man who dressed like a
woman and the woman who dressed like a man.”

Which was very hypocritical as he was reported as wearing Aisha’s clothes.


Bukhari (hadith 2393) – “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not
come upon me when I was in a women’s garment [fee thawb imra’ah] except that
of Aisha.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393 Volume Title, “Grace and its
Virtues.”Chapter Title, “What was Granted to the Companions and the Wives.”)

Thus illustrates the moral confusion that Islam has with homosexuality. Small
wonder that the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs gays but allows men to get a sex
change (sometimes at public expense).

There are several places in the Quran where the story of Sodom is repeated, with
emphasis placed on the destruction of the town for homosexual lewdness. Also,
Muhammad’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the
stake. The fourth caliph, Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown
from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest
and most authoritative commentators on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended
both approaches into a two step execution in which “the homosexual should be
thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned”. Presuming they
survived the fall. Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said, in April of 2012,
that homosexuals are inferior to dogs and pigs, since these animals do not engage
in such acts.

A 2014 fatwa from the mainstream Onlineweb proclaimed that homosexuality is

“abnormal” and abhorrent” and confirmed that gays should be killed: “The
punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and
therefore are rejecting the guidance of Allah Most High is in fact death according
to Islam.”

In November 2012, a cleric on British television stated, “What should be done to

those who practice homosexuality? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give
them mental torture.”

Although some Muslim political leaders in the West join with social liberals in


alliances that occasionally include peripheral support for gay rights and civil
unions, this appears to be more a matter of expediency than genuine concern.
There has never been any noticeable effort on the part of Muslim leaders in the
West to relieve the plight of homosexuals in Islamic countries overseas – where
their influence would surely carry more weight than that of their secular allies.

(As a side note, in 2012, a cleric issues a fatwa endorsing sodomy as a means of
widening the anus in order to pack it with enough explosives to kill bystanders in a
suicide bombing. As Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab put it, “Jihad comes first, for it
is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through
sodomy, then there is no wrong in it.”

Since the start of the new purist Muslim caliphate in 2014 (ISIS) many
homosexuals have been thrown from rooftops, in this barbaric execution method.
Others have been stoned to death. Yet, Muslim identity groups, such as CAIR, did
not bother to issue a single denunciation of these serial murders before the 2016
massacre at a gay night club in Orlando.



Islams unfortunate clash with the modern information age we live in today. Has
made critique of Islam extremely popular. This is mainly due to the ease and
accessibility of Islams scripture, as well as the rise of Islam itself globally. With
any form of critique, you'll encounter apologists. Apologists of Islam are a strange
breed. We aren't dealing with opinions or anything easily forged. We are dealing
with a well documented and believed religion. We are debating scripture and law
which is in black and white for the world to see. Apologists of Islam have an
increasingly difficult task.

Quran 3:7 is an interesting verse to take note of while debating Islam with

Quran (3:7) - “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book
(this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the
Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id
(obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves,
adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there
is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof,
seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden
meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are
firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and
unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of
understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari)”

Also to noteworthy is Quran 54. Where it states numerous times that the “Quran is
a clear message to understand and remember”. These are important to remember,
because most apologetic claims start with “Quran is hard to understand” (unless
you are Muslim, strangely). Or denial of the text, or giving a false interpretation of
the text. Most famously misquoted text is Quran 5:32.

Commonly quoted is, “let there be no compulsion in religion”. As an extremely

loose interpretation of Quran 2:256. The word "let" is not in the Arabic at all, so


the verse is not an imperative. What it actually says is "there is no compulsion in

religion". It is a statement that true belief can't be forced. However, this is not to
say that others can't be forced into a manifestation of faith, such as the pillars of
Islam and the Sharia:

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) said, "I have been ordered to fight
the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshiped but Allah'. And if they
say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then
their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them
except legally."

The apologists are forced to play games, such as inventing historical context,
pulling "textual context" from an entirely different part of the Quran, or pretending
that the true meaning can't be translated to non Arabic speakers (or to non
Muslims, when native Arabic speakers agree with the translation, as they usually

The historical context will usually come into debate. It is true that references to the
external Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life determine when a
Quranic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the
time. This allows the apologists to opportunistically dismiss the passages they
don't like by insisting that they are really just a part of history and not intended for
present day. This is a tedious argument, considering what is relevant and what isn't
is only decided on by the single apologist you are speaking to. Why would 1
command to not eat pork, be for all of time. Yet over 100 verses commanding war
against non believers be restricted to Muhammad's time?

Those who use historical context in debates always choose which verses they
apply historical context to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of

Then comes the apologists excuse that “the religion of peace” sanctions violence
in self defence only. This has been disputed numerous times within this booklet.
The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and
certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to


eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time. Muslims try to
justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered
persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which
Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina.
But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were
Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina.
They were free to get on with their lives. Even Muhammad’s own men evidently
questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a
threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To
convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating
that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non Muslims” (Quran
2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of
higher value even than the very lives of non believers.

After trolling through the apologists, you will inevitably come across the claim
that “Quran can only be understood in Arabic”. Of all the efforts to artificially
insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent.
Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to be a
“universal religion”. What is also amazing, is the fact that this claim has only been
made since the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered
acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. This is
evident due to the fact that it is only violent verses, verses persecuting women or
condoning paedophilia that (miraculously) are untranslatable. Any verse
promoting peace, or talking about the various works of claimed “prophets”, is not
met with the same skepticism. Also a massive failure by the apologist, is the
neglect to realise that all strict Islamic regimes and terrorist organisations are
native Arabic speakers. Osama Bin Laden (al-Qaeda), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
(ISIS) and Hibatullah Akhundzada (Taliban) are all native Arabic speakers and
incredibly well versed in Islamic scripture. (Far more knowledgeable about
Islamic scripture than I). It also forces the question as to how Arabic speakers such
as, Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, Dr Ghali, Muhsin Khan, Shakir and all the
translators who compiled Sahih International, could translate the Quran into
English if it is not translatable. Further more, they translated the Quran at
relatively the same time, thus had no way of plagiarising from each other at all.

While on the back foot, the apologist will generally claim that terrorists can't be

Muslim because they kill other Muslims. While it may be safe to say that a true
Muslim would not intentionally kill another true Muslim (4:92-93), the Quran
places no such value on the life of a Muslim who is not a “true Muslim”. Consider
verse 9:73:

“Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them,
their abode is Hell”.

The word “strive” carries the same root as Jihad. The context in this verse is holy
war (see Quran 9:86 and Quran 9:91). So, there are two distinct classes of people
that a true Muslim is to target: Disbelievers and hypocrites. A disbeliever
obviously refers to a non Muslim, so a "hypocrite" must be a Muslim of some sort.
In fact, hypocrites are those who say they believe, but do not act as they should. In
other words, they are "Muslims", but not true Muslims. They will go to hell just as
unbelievers do, and so, according to the verse, their lives are also meaningless.
The same chapter says that a hypocrite can be recognised not just by lack of piety
(reluctance to follow Sharia), but by fear of death (Quran 9:56), reluctance to fight
(Quran 9:44-45) and even friendliness toward non believers (Quran 9:67). A true
Muslim would be a pious person who relishes martyrdom, is eager to fight, and
shuns non believers. They accept every word of Quran and enforce Jihad and
Hadd punishments of Allah (Quran 3:7). Verse 17:33 says: "Do not kill anyone
which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause". The greatest cause of all is
that Islam be superior (Quran 9:33), which is exactly what Islamic terrorists say is
their goal even though Muslims are often killed during their attacks. This covers
believing Muslims who become collateral damage in the war on non believers.
Muslim antagonists faced each other quite frequently in the early days of Islam
(and later), with each declaring the other to be takfir or apostate. The apostasy
wars were fought by Muhammad's Companions against Muslim tribes who wanted
to leave Islamic control. This is how the Sunni and Shia schism began. It exists to
this day and accounts for the bulk of all violence in the Islamic world, either
directly or indirectly. In fact, Muhammad told his believers that they would
receive a heavenly reward for killing Muslims who say they believe but do not put
their religion into practice (Sahih Bukhari 66:82).


You may also encounter the statement that “other religions are just as violent”.
When asked for evidence of this, they usually present articles about how many
bombs the USA have dropped on Muslim lands. Obviously, since USA are
targeting terrorist organisations, the apologist is shocked and dismayed at the
attempt to tackle terrorism, and the apologist would like nothing more than the
poor terror organisations to be left alone, non opposed and allowed to carry on
killing innocent people. But I digress. Many Muslims claim they are Muslim based
solely on logistics and nothing to do with accepting Islamic scripture. This has led
them to believe that EVERYBODY is the West is Christian. Thus, they have no
problem blaming any aggressive non Muslim action on Christianity. For example,
Muslims affiliate Timothy McVeigh, the 1995 Oklahoma bomber, whom killed
168 people and injured more than 500, as being Christian. Some even made the
claim he recited Bible passages. Fact, he stated explicitly that he was “agnostic”
and that “science was his religion”. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion,
quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well
documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned. Same
happened with Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage in
2011. He was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the
police. The killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left
behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious,
does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to
say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he
shout "praise the Lord" as he massacred people.

Islam is the only religion that commands violence against people who do not
believe. There are historical narratives within the Bibles Old Testament, but these
are, as stated, narratives, not commands. To which all are directed specifically at
certain corrupted tribes at the time. Never any unequivocal commands to kill non
believers “till religion is only for Allah” (Quran 2:193, 8:39 and 61:9). Muslim
apologists love to quote Jesus as saying “I have not come to bring peace, but the
sword”, this borders on the humourously insane. Mainly due to the same apologist
that hails this claim, is usually the same that states critics of Islam “cherry pick”
verses. While neglecting all of Jesus's teachings of unconditional love, peace and
tolerance. They also forget that Jesus forbade Peter from violence when defending
him, which provoked the commonly known teaching of “He who lives by the


sword, shall die by it”. The verse stating about “not bringing peace, but the
sword”, is an extremely clear reference to his message bringing persecution. To
which it did. 11 out of the 12 disciples were executed, and early Christians were
killed for entertainment. In the last 10 years, there have been a few dozen attacks
in which death occurred by people motivated by a religion other than Islam. Such
a small handful of loners acting in isolation can legitimately be chalked up to
mental illness or, at best, genuine misunderstanding. By contrast, Islamic terror is
organised and methodical. Islamist groups are global with tens of thousands of
dedicated members, and supporters numbering in the tens of millions. They are
open about their religious goals and they kill in the name of Allah, often shouting
“Allahu Akbar” (God is the greatest). Verses in their holy texts support them.
There are no proclaimed “moderate Muslims” who will even debate them about
Islamic scriputre. No other religion is doing this. So while some Muslims may
pretend that other religions are just as prone to "misinterpretation" as is their
“perfect” one, reality says otherwise. As my previous chapter on abrogation
dictates. The chronological Quran becomes increasingly violent, abrogating any
earlier commands. The same concept is used for all writings and scripture,
including the Bible. The Old Testament was compiled around 1,500BC. The New
Testament was around 1,500 years later. Hence the title “New testament” or “New
covenant”. Islamic apologists feel justified in trying to condemn other religion's to
bring them down to Islams moral level. This is only a ploy to further ignore what
Islamic teachings invoke and inspire.

Another apologetic claim would be that Muslims (and therefore, by association

somehow, Islam too) have done lots for the economies while immigrating into the
West. The Sharia forbids paying and receiving interest on finances. In true
appeasing fashion, the UK has allowed Muslims to bank differently. Muslims are
also allowed to purchase property, tax free (in the sense of fair play, I will state
that many UK citizens have genuinely posed as Muslims to gain from this luxury
also). Muslims have also managed to avoid taxation on inheritance. 28% of UK
Muslims are in social housing. 14% of the UK prison population are Muslim. Near
half (46%) of the Muslim population resides in the bottom 10% of the most
deprived districts in England. Of course, apologists claim it is because every
English citizen is against Muslims and won't give them jobs. Much easier to say
than face the reality that most would rather claim “jihad seekers allowance”.



Anyone whom publicly opposes Islam, and what it teaches is quickly ridiculed,
slandered and have their very own personality tarnished. It is rather evident that
the majority of people whom oppose Islam, do so for very liberal and justified
reasons. Yet, this said, there has been a lot of people who have brought negative
stereotypes upon all of us. From football hooligans arranging anti Islam protests,
while shouting “send the black c**ts home”. To convicted criminals trying to
confront immoral behaviour of Muslims. None of this helped any genuine
concerns people have. It doesn't matter how much you protest the Sharia based on
Muslim female persecution, the critics will still claim “you hate all Muslims”.
You'll always be “a hater”, even though all you are guilty of is spreading the truth
about an ideology that actively teaches and encourages hatred. You'll always be a
xenophobe, even though you may have friends and even family from all parts of
the globe. Finally, you'll always be distinguished as a racist. This is the most
commonly used term. To be honest, it has originated from blatantly racist groups
that have started to oppose Muslims. This has hindered our attempts to expose
Islamic doctrine in a massive way. But, that aside, of course to call someone a
racist, you need evidence for the claim. To provide evidence, you need to prove
Islam is representative of a race of people. This is such a hilarious accusation as no
ideology, religion nor political structure has ever been represented as a race. Fact,
it is actually rather bigoted to say a religion will only accept those of a certain
race. Of course race is not interchangeable. For example, a Muslim can not be one
race, then change race if they embrace apostasy. The whole racist argument is
totally absurd. it is nearly impossible to defend Islam on its own merits in the West
in free and open debate. According to its own texts, the religion was founded in
terror. Its political and social code is deeply incompatible with liberal values.
Muslims societies usually rely on threat of violence to suppress both intellectual
critique of Islam and the freedom of other religion to fairly compete, which would
be a slow death. Advocates in the West cling to the race card. If they can paint any
criticism of their religion as "racism" then the massive evidence against Islam can
be dismissed out of hand without having to contend with it.



If there are 1 billion Muslims, globally, that claim to follow Islamic teachings and
doctrines. If only 1% of them are actually inspired, encouraged, and motivated by
the commands to kill and dominate, then that makes 10 million Muslims. Now,
that is only an example from the smallest figures possible. Islam eradicates other
cultures, and is extremely damaging to societies. Especially for females. We have
seen this happen recently in Iran, the Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation
completely changed. Women were forced into hijabs, and arrested if they didn't
comply. Gender segregation within work place and education became mandatory.
A stricter enforcement of the Sharia came into power.

In the West, there has been a deliberate cover up in regards to what Islam teaches.
Children are even taught, not only that “Islam is peaceful”, they are also being
taught the word “Islam” means peace. To which it doesn't. It derives from the
Triconsonantal roots SLM, meaning al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same
thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can
be brought about by forcing others into submission. As the modern Islamic scholar,
Ibrahim Sulaiman, said: "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and
bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule
of law."

Although Islam teaches the most inhumane crimes and teaches such a corrupted
moral compass. We can not judge every Muslim on what Islam teaches. A lot of
Muslims are unfamiliar with what Islam teaches. They call themselves “Muslim”
through ancestry, or birth place, without knowing what being a Muslim involves,
nor what their God commands of them. Please show no disrespect for individual
people. Yet, always question bad teachings and ideologies that invoke criminal
activities and immoralities.