|3. Is it possible that
such acts were performed in an age or dispensation when they were
considered acceptable and the norm, but now they are viewed as vile?
The brutalities committed by Muhammad were despicable even in his own
time. We have reports about great men who lived much earlier than
Muhammad, who are still considered to be torches of guidance. Buddha,
Socrates, Confucius or Lao Zi, are just a few examples. As for statesmen
we can recall Cyrus the Great who wrote the first
charter of Human Rights that rivals the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1100 years before Muhammad.
Even the Arabs prior to Muhammad were far more enlightened and humane
that they are today or at anytime under Islam. They were a tolerant people
and among them there were many freethinkers. Many acts of brutality and
indecency of Muhammad shocked even his followers, but this master of
manipulation fooled them each and every time by "revealing" a
new verse and giving divine approval to his wretched deeds. Today Arab
freethinkers are either killed or they keep their silence out of fear.
Also if the standards of the people were low, wasn’t lifting them up
a duty of the prophet of God? Did he come to follow the bad customs of the
people or set new standards? Who was leading whom?
4. Is it possible
because such times were hard - women had very limited rights - there was a lack of law - the fear
of starvation was forever present - stealing from one's neighbour
was by no means
uncommon, that in the midst of all this, the prophets
were trying to grapple with the problems and establish some law and
order to bring stability to the societies that spawned them?
Women prior to Islam had more rights that after it. Khadijah managed to
build a successful and prosperous trading business all on her own and had
men working under her orders. These opportunities do not exist for
Muslim woman in Islamic countries, where Shaira is practiced. After
Muhammad’s death a woman declared to be a prophetess and many men
believed in her. She was subdued but this shows that Arabs did not think
woman are inferior. Today the thought of believing in a woman as a
prophetess does not even pass the minds of the Muslims. Women are regarded
as inferior and deficient tin intelligence.
Muhammad himself raided civilian populations without prior notice,
slaughtered unarmed men, looted them and enslaved their wives and children. He established an ethos of terror and crime that is followed by
Muslims in lesser intensity ever since. He did not try to set the example
of good conduct. He was a brutal tyrant worse than Genghis Khan. The
history of Islam leaves us no doubt as who Muhammad was – a sadistic
marauding gangster of the worst kind. It is a shame that so many good
people worship this monster. Muslims must be guided or rejected but not
tolerated. We have to do everything to save the leprous but if they do not
want to be helped then they must be quarantined and if necessary
forcefully removed from the society. Islam is a danger to human society,
Those infected with this disease must be helped but if they do not want,
they must be separated. Because they have rejected humanity and have
decided to destroy it, their human rights must be rejected. Islam must not be accepted as a legitimate belief system. Just
as civilized people must never vest fascistic ideologies such as Nazism or
KKK with legitimacy, Islam must not be accepted and tolerated at anytime.
5. When the Meccans won
one of the battles and disfigured and lacerated the faces of the fallen Muslims and Meccan
women danced on Muslim corpses that were torn and cut up why O' why
if Muhammad was so blood thirsty , did he not pay them back in kind
when he eventually conquered the Meccans in a later
? The Meccans expected him to reciprocate but instead
Muhammad pardoned all of them and showed mercy. Why?
The “modern” version of history is fabricated and apocryphal. The
Meccans did not disfigure the Muslims, it were the Muslims who disfigured
their enemies, “to”, as their prophet said, “delight the
hearts of the believers”. If
the Meccan women rejoiced over the death of some Muslims it was because
these had murdered their loved ones first. Muslims were the aggressors
from the day one. This is a long story. I have given the details of the
brutalities of Muhammad and Muslims in my upcoming book “From
Meccans were offered total amnesty to surrender without fight and
despite that Muhammad singled out about ten of them and ordered them to be
executed. The woman who cheered when Hamza
was killed was Hind the wife of Abu Sofyan. Her daughter was a wife of
Muhammad and her husband was the man who brokered the surrender of the
city. How could Muhammad kill her? There was no reason to retaliate
against the Meccans because the Meccans had only killed in self defense.
The aggressors were the Muslims. Furthermore it was politically unwise for
Muhammad to massacre the Meccans as he did in other cities because these
were the relatives of his benighted followers and he could not afford
antagonizing them all. On the contrary he knew that blood is thicker than
water and after he attacked the Hawazin a couple of weeks later and looted
that big tribe, he gave everything to the Meccans “to”, in his
own words “soften their hearts towards Islam”. These actions
are all consistent with his psychopathic narcissistic personality
Your citations of strong words in the Qu'ran regarding fighting and killing the pagans, infidels and unbelievers
are undoubtedly true and accurate. Question is, should not these
words be understood against the background of the difficult times
that gave rise to their birth?
Once you read these verses against the background and in their own
context, (sha’ne nozool) you come to appreciate the darkness of
the soul of Muhammad. I saw the evilness of Islam only after reading the
Quran, but when I learned the history and understood the context in which
these verses were written it became clear that Muhammad was truly a
demonic man. In my book I often refer to the verses that were written in
conjunction with the events.
7. Why do you think
Muhammad showed pity for those nomads who entered
sick and hungry and he fed them, gave them shelter and allowed them
to take milk from several camels but they lied as to who they were
and killed the attendants of the camels and stole the animals?
This is only the first part of the story. The rest of the story is that
Muhammad sent men after those nomads, found them, cut their hands and feet
and blinded them, then left them in the desert to die slowly. The narrator
gloatingly says that he saw the wretched Bedouins liking the dirt out of thirst.
Muhammad showed hospitality to these nomads because he hoped they
convert to Islam. This is the only reason under which Muslims are allowed
to be kind to the unbelievers. But these Bedouins did not convert.
They instead stole Muhammad’s (stolen) camels and killed the man who was
attending them. They were thieves. This is what thieve do for living. We
can’t blame them. The question is didn’t Muhammad raid civilians,
didn’t he kill many of them and didn’t he steal their herds and
property? Unlike those nomads Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God with
good character. Why he meted such brutal and inhumane punishment on
those thieves when he did much worse than that to others? Where do
you think those camels had come from? When Muhammad came to Medina
he had no money. He depended on the charities of his followers including
the Jews who used to send him food and dates with which he dined. All
those camels were stolen and their owners were killed by Muhammad and his
followers. If those nomads deserved to die such horrendous death, why is
Muhammad worshiped? His crimes were a thousand fold bigger than that of
those ignorant nomads. Why can’t Muslims see that?
Back < 1