Muslims were the worst looters at Muhammed's time as well as today - so why don't we hear more about it?!

Muslim "scholars"*, not only have admitted that islam approves of looting, they are also defending it

* How could you possibly call anyone a scholar who uses a circular method anchored in a fairy tale that has no historical foundation? There was no Muhammed before he was invented by Malik long after his alleged death. What people seems to have difficulties understanding is that EVERYTHING in the islamic credo is made up and changed via so called hadiths etc while babbling the mantra of 'original islam'. But the only original islam that has ever existed was the evil one. Possible echoes of some real persons and activities underpinned by dangerous monotheist ideologies (Judaism and Judaism spiced with Christ) are all reshaped to fit the later islamic ideology. Educate yourself about islam by reading Klevius Vagina and Penis analysis.

OIC, the evil* muslim world Umma

* i.e. against the most basic of Human Rights

Chinese, Americans etc, always belong to a minority when going abroad. However, a muslim is always in majority wherever he goes because the islamic Umma nation. whose citizen he really is, knows no borders or national laws other than when forced to. 

Islamic looting occurs in different forms on different levels: Sharia rapetivism, media abuse, street violence etc.

Klevius reformulation of a Faithfreedom piece:

Can we say that Hitler was innocent because the Geneva Convention did not exist? However, the law is new, but the morality of it is as old as mankind.

The question that we have to ask ourselves is whether what Muhammad did was ethically right? Did Muhammad like to be treated the way he treated others? When a group of Bedouins stole some of his “stolen camels” and killed the shepherd, Muhammad found them, cut their extremities and left them in the sun to die a painful slow death. If stealing was so bad that it deserved such a harsh and inhumane punishment, why would he engage in such an activity? Why would he raid unarmed people, kill them and loot their belongings?

When Nadr ibn Harith, Muhammad’s own cousin who in Mecca had derided him was captured in the battle of Badr, he besought Musab, the person who was carrying him handcuffed to Muhammad to intercede for him. Musab reminded him that he had denied faith and insulted the Prophet. “Ah” said Nadr, “had the Quraish made you a prisoner, they would never have put you to death!” “Even where it so”, Musab scornfully replied, “I am not as you are; Islam has rent all bonds asunder”. “Idrab anqihu” (strike his neck) shouted Muhammad

When a group of Bedouins stole some of Muhammed's already “stolen camels” and killed the shepherd, Muhammad found them, cut their extremities and left them in the sun to die a painful slow death.

These are not the traits of a narcissist psychopath but of a parasitic looting ideology that blames its own evil on the only and unreachable "righteous" Allah.

The all time ongoing but usually never told of muslim "street terrorism" and looting

Pamela Geller has collected some interesting facts about train crashes and looting muslsims (published July 14th, 2013):

Derailed train after a crash on Friday in Bretigny-sur-Orge, France is the second unexplained train crash in as many weeks. More bodies are still being recovered in a mysterious Quebec train disaster in Canada In this latest disaster in France, French Atlas readers tell me that Muslim “youths” were looting corpses at the train crash site. Most media neglected this monstrous bit of news; The Daily Telegraph makes a brief mention of the ghouls, referring to the Muslims as, ahem, “local people.” A police spokesman described groups of local people “picking through the wreckage” on Friday night and looting from the bodies of victims, who were electrocuted or crushed to death. “It appeared at first that they were trying to help, but it soon became clear that they were taking personal property away. When police approached they threw stones before running away,” said the spokesman.

This train crash has been extensively reported by the mainstream media. Less widely reported is the fact that “jeunes”, French journalist code for Muslims, attacked the rescue workers and looted the corpses of the victims. It’s an incredible scene that met police officers when they arrived in Brétigny-sur-Orge. While they were trying to bring help to the victims of the derailment of the Paris-Limoges train, in which at least six people died, they had to deal with stones being thrown at them by a small group of ‘jeunes’. At the origin of the attack: looters who had come to steal from the bodies of the dead and wounded whatever they could carry away. “They seemed to be helping the victims”. Nathalie Michel, from the Alliance police trade union, describes the scene on air on Europe 1: “At 5.30 pm, while our colleagues were deploying, they see a group of ‘jeunes’ who approach and seem to be helping the victims. Very quickly, they realise that these individuals are there to rob the victims and especially the first corpses,” says the trade union member indignantly. ‘Human Error’ Did Not Cause French Rail Crash The Irish Times: Transport minister praises train driver and says about 30 still injured after incident Frederic Cuvillier said that about 30 people were still being treated for injuries. In all, nearly 200 people sustained injuries in the initial incident, when four train cars slid toward the station, some falling over. The crash was France’s deadliest in years, but Mr Cuvillier said it could have been worse and praised the driver who sent out an alert quickly, preventing a pile up. Mr Cuvillier said it was unclear what did cause the crash, but authorities are looking into an error in the switching system as well as other possibilities. This is one of the busiest travel weekends in France, which is celebrating the national holiday of Bastille Day on Sunday. The Paris-Limoges train derailed as it sped through Brétigny-sur-Orge, 27.5km south of Paris, at 5.14pm yesterday. The train was not supposed to stop in Brétigny, a station on the suburban RER line. Railroad sources said it was strange that the lead cars were not affected, while cars three and four fell flat on their sides, crushing waiting passengers on the platform. The last four cars of the train were cut off and thrown hundreds of metres. Television footage showed twisted tracks and rescue workers attempting to cut their way through wreckage. Witnesses recounted a deafening sound at the moment of the derailment. Survivors said the train vibrated and swung from side to side as suitcases flew through the air. “I was reading,” a passenger told France 2 television. “The train started shaking as if it were rolling over pebbles; like a plane in turbulence.”

Looting is together with parasitism (incl. rapetivism) the pillar of original islam

The Pagans were not as bad as muslims. They were much more civilized and humane

FaithFreedom: Another prisoner in the battle of Badr was Oqba. When he was brought for execution, he ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives. "Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet," replied Muhammad. "And my little girl!" cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, "who will take care of her? " - "Hell-fire!" exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground and blood gushed from his slit gullet. Then Muhammad praised his Allah “I give thanks unto Allah that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby." [Waqidi, p108]

These are the traits of a narcissist psychopath. He could not forgive those who insulted him and had hurt his gigantic ego. He took immense pleasure, taking revenge of those who had humiliated him.

The reason the non-Muslims lost was because they were inhibited by their humanness and were unwilling to use brutal force against the Muslims to subdue them. They believed in freedom of belief and “multiculturalism”. They had no clue how evil and demonic Islam is and because of this underestimation, they lost. This is the very weakness of the non-Muslims today. If Muslims are not stopped with anything it takes, they will win and the non-Muslims will be slaughtered with the same brutality that Nadr and Oqba, or the more recent victims of Islam such as Daniel Pearls and Margaret Hasan  were slaughtered.

It is foolish to believe you can overcome evil will kindness. It is foolish to believe that the followers of a ruthless man such as Muhammad will deal with you justly when they come to power. This mistake was committed by many Iranians who stayed in Iran, such as the minorities and those who had prominent positions during the regime of the Shah, after the Islamic revolution because they thought they had done nothing wrong to fear. They paid this error of judgment with their lives. Evil must be crushed with force. How much force?... As much as it takes! There is no price high enough to preserve our freedom and our lives. Kindness must be shown to those who denounce evil. But those who support it must be dealt with our wrath.

For the sake of argument, let us say that people in those days were savages. At least this is the lie that Muslims want us to believe. Is this a good excuse for Muhammad to raid, rape, loot, and massacre people with savagery? Did Muhammad come to guide people to the right path or was he a victim of the bad traditions of his people? Didn’t he call the pagans ignorant? If so, why did he follow their ways? The man who taught his followers with how many stones they should wipe their rears after the call of nature did not know looting and stealing is evil and he should not set that kind of examples. Are we supposed to believe that he was a prophet?

Muslims have very circular reasoning. They claim that Muhammad came to guide the ignorant people to the right path. But when we point out the evils committed by this man, they say he was a man of his time and did what others were doing. We are not talking about the way he dressed. This is raiding, raping, looting and killing innocent people we are talking about?

Let us not words deceive us. The "right path" for Muslims has totally a different meaning. This term for them means following the mandates of Muhammad and acting like him. It is not the same right path and right deeds most of us are familiar with. In fact most Islamic "right paths" are very demonic - like killing the unbelievers and looting their properties. In Islam this is the right path because Muhammad did it and asked his followers to do it. 

Although the claim that pagans were worse than Muslims is a lie, it still does not justify Muhammad's crimes. This man claimed to be the prophet of God, "the best example to follow", an "honorable person" and "the best of creation". In a Hadith Qudsi he makes his Allah say to him: “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.” Imagine the level of insanity! How could such a person with such outlandish claims act like the worst criminal? If anyone else does what Muhammad did, wouldn’t you say that this person is a criminal? Then why a messenger of God, the person who thinks the universe is created for him, should act like a criminal?

Let us delve into the sick mind of this psychopath narcissist and see what else he said about himself:

    “The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul.”

    “First of all things, the Lord created my mind.”
    “I am from Allah, and the believers are from me.” source

Yet this man, with such megalomaniac reveries of grandiosity, in real life acted like a despicable criminal. Hey people! Where is your brain? How much you have to fool yourself and why?


Mr. Zawadi now starts quoting from other Islamic sites:
Taken from http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsEnemies.html

5. No looting and destruction in the enemy's country

Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle."

Any Muslim knows, if a hadith is contrary to the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority and that haidth is false.  Muhammad made his own wealth through loot.

And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger,  8:41

"Allah and his Messenger"? What Allah wanted to do with those loots?

What was the reason for raiding Khaibar? Were the people of Khaibar a threat to Muslims? In the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca but when he saw that waging a war with just 1500 men may make him lose, he signed a treaty that his followers felt was humiliating to them. To boost their sagging morale he directed them to Khaibar and they fell upon that town all of a sudden at dawn when people had gone out of their homes to the fields and after their works. He wrote:

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;
And much booty that they will capture. Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.  Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance. 48:18-20 

What the people of Khaibar had done to Muslims? Nothing! They were minding their own business. The reason Muhammad raided them, destroyed their town and looted them was because they were a prosperous people. Muhammad wanted to please his hungry marauding men with an easy victory and booty. They were hungry because Muhammad devastated their town by killing and expelling all the Jews who were artisans, farmers and tradesmen for whom the Arabs used to work. With Jews killed and expelled they entirely depended on raids for their sustenance.

There is a sura called Anfal (spoils of war, booty). It starts by saying "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger” Of course God has no needs for the belongings of his wretched creatures. It is clear that the beneficiary of those loots was Muhammad alone. And this shameless criminal would make even God an accomplice of his crimes. Only a fool can still believe that this charlatan was a messenger of God. Forget about all the proofs I gave so far. Only this verse is enough to see this man was a liar.  The maker of this universe has no needs for the possessions of humans and if he wanted to destroy or humiliate them, assuming he is a sadist like Muhammad, he would not need a bunch of henchmen and gangsters to do his dirty work.

What does “spoils of war” mean? Doesn’t it mean looting? 

Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated.

This Muslim apologist wants us to believe that what Muhammad captured in his raids was just military equipment. That is a shameful lie. Muhammad  captured herds of camels, livestock, household property, cultivated lands and the houses of his victims. He captured their every possession. He even captured many as hostages or used them as slaves.

In the year eight of Hijra, after the Meccans surrendered, Muhammad decided to raid the big tribe of Hawazin who lived in the territory of Hunain. He captured their women and children and all their belongings after their men fled to the wilderness for their safety. Ibn Ishaq wrote:

Then a deputation from Hawazin came to him in al-Ji’rana where he held 6,ooo women and children captive, and sheep and camels innumerable which had been captured from them.

To soften his heart, this deputation, which comprised Shima, his foster sister, reminded him that he grew amongst them during the first 5 years of his life and how they took care of him and now he should not pay them back in this way. One of them said:

Have pity on us, apostle of Allah, generously, For you are the man from whom we hope and expect pity. Have pity on a people whom fate has frustrated, Their well-being shattered by time’s misfortunes.

Muhammad told them to accept Islam and gave them two choices:

‘Which are dearest to you? Your sons and your wives or your cattle?’ They replied, ‘Do you give us the choice between our cattle and our honor? Nay, give us back our wives and our sons, for that it what we most desire.’

What a despicable beast!

Muhammad left the Hawazin completely dispossessed and distributed the large booty among the wealthiest of Mecca to “sweeten Islam in their mouths." 

This apologist writes like a person who knows Islam quite well. So when he claims the booty was just the military equipment he is engaging in taqiyyah or the Islamic art of holy deception. He is simply lying for the sake of Allah.  He will meet Allah and his messenger in Hell.


Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad
War

Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara.) Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca . In Medina , Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca . Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition; later Muslim apologists justified the raids by the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims

"Caravan raiding was an old Arabian tradition?” What a lame excuse! I already discussed this moral relativistic cop-out. Even if raiding was an Arab “tradition”, which is ludicrous, would this justify one who claims to be a prophet of God and the "best of the creation" to follow that evil tradition? The Muslims who wrote this in Wikipedia want to make looting sound like a folk festival. “Tradition!?”... What an innovative way to describe a crime! If stealing was a “tradition”, why Muhammad was so upset when others stole something from him? Why he prohibited his followers from stealing the booty? The booty (the stolen property of the non-Muslims) was okay, but stealing from that stolen loot warranted hellfire!? This was the  typical moral relativistic reasoning of Muhammad and consequently of his benighted followers.

Wikipedia is controlled by cyber jihadis who gang up together to kill the truth. It is virtually impossible to write anything truthful in that encyclopedia on Islam. Friends of FFI are now in the process of creating an exclusive Wiki on Islam, where everyone would be free to edit but we will not allow bullishness and cyber terrorism of a bunch of jihadis.
Secular scholars will add that this was a matter of survival for the Muslims as well. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find.

Who are those "secular scholars"? Is he by any chance talking about the useful idiots such as Noam Chomsky, Karen Armstrong and John Esposito?  Just see how ridiculous the Wikipedia has become when it comes to Islam.

What an excuse! Since Muslims did not own lands, they had to engage in ethnic cleansing of the Jews and confiscate theirs. Ah, what a logical and satisfactory response! How could I have missed this logic?

What about the other places? Muhammad and his thugs raided many cities and villages that were not even close to Medina and had nothing to do with Muslims. Their only sin was that they were wealthy and Muslims needed their money. 

Should all those who do not have land and money raid those who have, kill them and loot them to survive?  Or is this "divine" teaching only for Muslims? As shocking as it is, this is exactly how Muslims think and that is why they are in Europe and in the West. They think the West belongs to them. If they succeed in their dream, they will do with the non-Muslims what Muhammad and his gangsters did to the non-Muslims of their time. It would be foolish not to pay attention to what Muslims say. All you have to do is to listen to them. They want your countries and they are ready to kill you for that. If not you, your children will pay with their lives if you do not heed to what they say. Don’t worry about your grandchildren because if Muslims are not stopped now, you may not have any. 


Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/surah/english/viewSurah.asp?hSurahID=18

Topics and their Interconnection

This portion deals with the problems of the "Spoils of War". The Quran says that these are not the spoils of war but the "Bounties of Allah" and proves this by showing that the victory at Badr (and in all other battles, too,) was won by His succour and not by the efforts of the Muslims. It also declares (in v. 40) that the war aim of the Muslims should be to eliminate all unfavourable conditions for the establishment of Islam and not to gain spoils. Moreover, the spoils, being the bounties of God, belong to Allah and His Messenger and they alone are entitled to allocate them. Then after conditioning the Muslims to accept these things, the different shares have been allocated in v. 41. 1 - 41 

What did I tell you? All you have to do is to listen to Muslims. What Muslims steal from you is not spoils of war. It is the “Bounties of Allah”. It is rightfully theirs. Not only they do not feel remorse, they will actually thank their devil Allah for that bounty happily with no pangs of conscience.  

Why this Allah does not give his bounties to his servants through science, industry, technology and progress? Why this bounty should always come to them as stolen property from non-Muslims? This question does not even occur to Muslims. Why? It is because they have no conscience.  Those who have, do no longer call themselves by this shameful name.


Taken from http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/social_security_in_islam.htm

Department of Public Treasury

State revenue is the most important tool for providing social security to a nation. During the Caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased due to his wise and strict administrative policies. Zakah (religious obligation on a Muslim to pay 2½% from his/her wealth), ‘ushr (religious tax on agricultural land), Sadaqah (spending for the pleasure of Allah), jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war) were credited to the treasury for the use of the Muslims at large. For example, after the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink.

The aim of the Islamic social security system is to fulfil every possible human need. These needs can broadly be classified into two categories: (1) Primary needs i.e., food, clothing, housing and necessary medical care, and (2) Secondary needs i.e., education, matrimony, old age benefits and social services etc.

Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab used Social Security

· To provide Food during serious drought or famines to the people according to the family size.

·  For the poor and disabled

· To provide education to the children

· To finance marriages of the unmarried poor or needy persons.

·  To grant old age benefits and in old age investment

·  To give loans for economic activity

·  For granting Interest-free loans

·  To pay off the debts of persons under obligation

·  As Social Insurance to pay blood money of convicts in involuntary homicide

·  To pay stipends to widows, married and unmarried women, young men and the immigrants.

Yep! You are the social security for the Muslims! Got it? 

This site says “During the Caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the income of the treasury department had immensely increased."

How did it increase? Did Umar encourage agriculture, art, industry, commerce? Where did this wealth come from? It was through looting of course. The writer is honest enough to say: "the battles of Yarmouk and Qãdisiyyah, the Muslims won heavy spoils. The coffers at Madinah al-Munawwarah became full to the brink." and acknowledges that this wealth "came from jizyah (tax on the non-Muslims for providing security) and khums (the one-fifth of the spoils of war).

 As long as looting continued Muslims prospered but as soon as they were defeated and their conquest stopped, so ebbed their so called “Golden Age”. 

What security Muslims provide for non-Muslims? The same kind of security that the Mafia gangsters used to provide for the businesses in Chicago during the 1930s. Jizya is extortion fee. Non-Muslims must work and maintain the Muslims or face death. See this hadith:

According to the saying of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart. He fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying Jizya (poll-tax) on them, deducting no fifth from it, nor taking it as booty.[ Sunan Abu Dawud 19.2955]

The Westerners should know that for Muslims, the welfare that they collect, is the Jizya that you are supposed to pay. They are not grateful at all and they have no intention to find a work and stop collecting this Jizya which is rightfully theirs. However the amount is not enough. They must receive most of the money that you make. Their houses must be bigger and better than yours. As long as this is not so, they feel oppressed and will fight you to end this oppression.     


Taken from http://islamic-world.net/economics/public_borrowing_in_history.htm

The sixth case is that of borrowing a substantial sum of money from a Muslim individual for financing a major battle. "Isma'il son of Ibrahim son of Abdullah, son of Abu Rabi'ah al-Makhzumi has reported to us from his father who reported about his grandfather that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to attack Hunayn he borrowed thirty or forty thousand from him. He repaid it when he came back. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him: 'May Allah bless you with prosperity in your family and your property. The proper recompense for lending is repayment and gratitude'. In another version of this tradition recorded by Nasa'i, the amount of the loan is a definite forty thousand. The same is true of Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad. As regards the source of payment, both versions mention money that accrued to the Prophet (peace be upon him) subsequently. The battle of Hunayn took place in the eighth year after hijrah immediately after the conquest of Mekkah. These were comparatively better days for state finances. The accrual of money referred to in the tradition could have been from the spoils of war consequent to the victory at Hunayn. The above is clear case of borrowing for defense purposes. It is also evident that the sum paid back equaled the sum borrowed and no extra payment were involved.



This site explains how Muhammad borrowed money to furnish his army and paid it back after looting his victims. It is basically a confirmation that Muhammad gained his wealth through looting. Why Mr. Zawadi uses this passage that confirms my claim that Muhammad was a looter, is not clear to me. Wasn't he supposed to refute me? 



Taken from http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Economics/article03.shtml

When the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) came to Medina , he encouraged the wealthier supporters to financially aid the poor Emigrants. Then, when war booty fell to the lot of the Muslims, he would divide the wealth according to economic condition – the poor segments of the Muslims would receive larger portions. Through such measures, he sought to reduce the gap between rich and poor.



This is again another argument that confirms my claim. Muhammad looted innocent people and then distributed that loot among his followers. Isn’t this what any gangster godfather would do?



Now these are Mr. Zawadi's own words:

Conclusion

The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain. They used it to help the needy and the poor and to establish a system. They took it in the time of war. They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war. So they obviously they are going to take it. They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did. As a matter of fact, no army in the world will consume the spoils of war in such a generous and beautiful way as the Muslim armies have done.

You can also read  http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=679  



Despite all these evidences that Mr. Zawadi himself has given that Muslims looted the wealth of non-Muslims and Muhammad distributed that loot among his followers, he still has the cheek to say “The Muslims did not fight and take the spoils of war for their own personal gain.” 

This kind of absurdity blows the mind of any rational person. But it does not blow mine. I know how the Muslim mind works. Muslims genuinely cannot see that their thinking is demonic. For years I heard these very absurdities and never once I thought they are evil. My conscience was numbed. Muslims’ conscience is numbed. They are genuinely incapable of rational thought or human feelings when it comes to Islam. There is nothing we can say that can bring them to their senses. Nothing can make them reason. It happened to me and it has happened to many others but it is extremely hard. It is as if Muslims suffer from mental paralysis. You know what they will write after reading this? "My faith in Islam increased". This is how brainless these wretched souls have become.

Mr. Zawadi says: “They did not invade people intentionally to pillage their towns and villages and to take the booty. It was only during time of war.” 

No of course it was not intentional. The Muslims were blown to the towns of their victims by wind and accidentally their swords killed their men. Therefore the innocent Muslims had no choice but to clean the town and bring the wives and children of their victims as slaves. It was after all the "Bounties of Allah". How could they reject it?

“It was during the time of war”. This is the typical logical fallacy that Muslims love to engage in. Who started those wars?  First of all they weren’t wars but raids. Muhammad raided caravans, villages and towns with no warning.  He ambushed them. Of course you can only loot when you attack and kill people. How else could you loot? Would people give you their property if you don’t raid them, and don't "cast terror into their hearts"? This means that by virtue of the fact that Muhammad raided people and killed unarmed civilians, he was entitled to rape their wives and daughters and steal their property. This logic escapes human rationality. But Muslims' brain does not work in quite the same way. They are followers of Satan. Woe to you if you don’t take my warnings seriously. Woe to your children if you do not stop Muslims in their track in time. Every argument and counter argument that these Satan worshippers present depict the depravity of their mind and lays bare their demonic souls. 

Mr. Zawadi ends his argument saying: “They are not just going to leave it lying around. It is completely justifiable what they did.” 

Of course! Once you raided innocent people and killed them, why let their property go to waist? It is yours, take it. It is all “Bounties from Allah” in gratitude for being a good servant. Their wives and children?... They too are your slaves and sex slaves. They are all yours. You have "legal" rights on them and "divine" authorization.

    Enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good.  8:69 



What we learned from this debate? We learned that Islam, far from being a religion is a gangster organization that sustains itself by looting. Muslims are incapable of producing anything. They must loot to survive. Muhammad built his empire by looting and by casting terror in the hearts of his victims. Muslims did the same throughout the history. You are a fool if you think they have changed or they will change. As long as they call themselves Muslims and follow Muhammad they will do what he did. They are gangsters, they are looters, and they are terrorists. Don’t believe me? Just listen to what they say. 

And don’t think just because Muslims don’t engage in these activities now they will not do it once they come to power. If they don’t do it now it’s because they fear the bigger powers. Once that fear is no more there, they revert to their original barbarity and follow the Quran and the sunna to the letter. Until Muslims do not leave Islam and do not denounce Muhammad, it would be foolish to trust them. Treat them as enemy, just as they treat you as enemy. Direct them to this site where proof is given exhaustively. If they leave Islam and curse the evil Muhammad, receive them as one of your owns and show them love. If they insist to call that demon a prophet, cast them aside and kick them out of your country because that is what they intend to do with you.




Debate on Looting  Part II

This is the continuation of the previous discussion on looting. My argument accusing Muhammad of looting was contested by Mr. Bassam al Zawadi. This is my response to him.

Don't miss the conclusion of this debate in page 5 

Mr. al Zawadi wrote:
Islam promotes nothing but kindness to prisoners of war. Read this article for the evidence http://www.answering-christianity.com/prisoners_of_war.htm.

The link I just posted proves from the Quran and Hadith that prisoners of war should be treated well. If there is any incident of Muhammad which goes against the Quran, then it should be disregarded. Even Ali Sina agrees with me. He says later on in this article

I don’t know what constitutes kindness for Muslims. Raiding innocent civilians, killing unarmed people taken by surprise, or massacring their entire male population and enslaving their women and children and even raping them are not acts of kindness. The claim that Islam promotes kindness is an insult to human intelligence. This is like saying Nazism promotes kindness. Islam has advanced by terror and not by kindness. The order to cast terror in the heart of the enemy is mandated in the Quran 3.151, 8.12. The enemy is anyone who Muhammad chose to attack. These people did not have to be hostile to Muhammad or have done anything against him. He decided that those who do not submit to his cult are the enemy and must be subdued. Or those who are wealthy are the enemy.  Muhammad boasted "I have been made victorious with terror" Bukhari 4:52:220  

Yes, if a law in a hadith is contradicts the Quran, the latter is to be taken as authority. However here we are not talking about laws but about events and the actions of Muhammad. The Quran is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings attributed to Allah and the hadith is the collection of Muhammad’s sayings and his deeds as reported by his companions. Sometimes Muhammad’s words are good, but often his actions are not.  Any criminal will tell you doing evil is wrong. Such statement does not make him a good person. He is simply a man whose actions and words do not match. When I was a boy, back in my country of birth, there was a radio program called 'A City within Our City'. Every week the producer interviewed one prisoner, often on death roll. The prisoners explained what made them become attracted to crime. At the end of each interview he would ask the inmates if they had an advice for the youths. The advices of these criminals were all good. I thought sarcastically, if we only listened to the advices of these criminals, the world would become paradise.

Words are cheap. Actions are what matter. A man who does not walk his own talk is a despicable man. In matters of law, if there is discrepancy between the Quran and the Haidth, the former is the authority. But if  you find in the Quran Muhammad says it is meritorious to manumit the slaves and then you read in the Hadith that he raided people, looted them, massacred them and reduced thousand upon thousands of them into slaves, what shall we make of it? We can’t dismiss the Hadith and deny that they are not true just because in the Quran Muhammad says something else. We can conclude that he was a contemptible man whose words and deeds did not match. We can’t disregard all the gory stories of crimes committed by this degenerate fiend just because somewhere he said; “be kind to others”. The question is why he did not walk the talk? If he knew kindness is better than cruelty, why he acted so ruthlessly? Did he really mean it or he said it to feign holiness? 

¨

In response to me saying the battles of Muhammad were raids (qazwah) Mr. al Zawadi wrote:  “ Battle of Uhud was not a raid. Battle of the Trench was not a raid. Battle of Badr was not a raid.”

Muhammad waged over sixty wars according to Tabari.  With the exception of Uhud and Khandaq (Trench), all of them were incursions. The Battle of Badr was intended to be an inroad against the caravan of the Quraish. Abu Sufyan, the head of the caravan dodged the attack by detouring the caravan. The Meccans learned about Muhammad’s intention and they came to defend their caravan. The battle of Uhud and Khandaq were legitimate wars. After the Meccans had enough of Muhammad’s forays, they came to punish him for his constant taunting of their caravans and his lootings. Unlike Muhammad's raids that were unannounced, the Meccans informed their enemy of their intention,  giving him plenty of leeway to prepare. The war of Khandaq was not fought and the Meccans went back. So what if two out of 67 wars of Muhammad were not raids? Does this acquit him of being a highway robber and a marauding gangster? This is like a criminal accused of more than three scores of armed robberies, murders and assassinations plead innocence on the ground that in two occasions he had to fight back in self defense when his victims turned against him.

¨

Mr. al Zawadi wrote:

The only incident that I can recall unless Ali Sina refreshes my memory where Muhammad attacked his enemies by surprise was the Banu Mustaliq.”

In that case Mr. al Zawadi should read the Sira again. With the exception of Khandaq and Uhud, virtually all the wars of Muhammad were depredatory. The attack on Mecca was also technically a raid. In this case the population was taken by surprise. A deal was made between the traitor Abbas who was the fifth column in Mecca spying for Muhammad from the start, Abu Sufyan who felt that with 10,000 men at the gates of Mecca there is no chance to win the war, and Muhammad. This deal was agreed outside the town in Muhammad's tent. The people of Mecca did not know about it and when Abu Sufyan said the city must capitulate to avoid bloodshed, his wife cursed him and said he is not a man. The Meccans were taken by surprise. They had singed a treaty with Muhammad and did not expect a war. Muhammad suddenly appeared at their gates with his army demanding them to surrender or face death. 

The killing of the Jews of Medina technically were not raids. He did not raid them but he laid siege on their quarters and cut the supply of water to them until they surrendered and then he banished them or massacred them.

Muslim, in his collection of Sahih Hadith narrates the following:

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

Here the phrase "he killed those who fought" is misleading. This may give the idea that these people were armed and prepared to fight. Not so! People were caught by surprise and unarmed. This was an act of terrorism and not a war. 





Actually it was not necessary even in the early days of Islam to warn the victims. The forays of the caravans were not announced. In Nakhlah Muhammad left the instruction to raid the caravan with no warning and in the sacred month when war was sacrilege. This was one of the early raids. The story of the raid at the fortress of Khaibar is one more example that is recorded in detail. If you read Tabari, you become sick of account after account of killing and ransacks in gory details. I do not wish to overwhelm the readers but allow me to quote just one hadith.  

It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa') who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When we were only at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made a halt during the last part of the night to rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia . I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina . I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca , and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca ." Muslim 19, 4345

This was a raid at civilians, women and children. It is a mistake to call these incursions wars. Muhammad himself called them qazwah and terror.



¨

Blaming the Victim:

My opponent quotes Ibn Hisham who wrote:

News reached the Prophet [pbuh] on Sha‘ban 2nd. to the effect that the chief of Bani Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Dirar had mobilised his men, along with some Arabs, to attack Madinah. Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami was immediately despatched to verify the reports. He had some words with Abi Dirar, who confirmed his intention of war. He later sent a reconnoiterer to explore the positions of the Muslims but he was captured and killed. The Prophet [pbuh] summoned his men and ordered them to prepare for war. Before leaving, Zaid bin Haritha was mandated to see to the affairs of Madinah and dispose them. On hearing the advent of the Muslims, the disbelievers got frightened and the Arabs going with them defected and ran away to their lives. Abu Bakr was entrusted with the banner of the Emigrants, and that of the Helpers went to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada. The two armies were stationed at a well called Muraisi. Arrow shooting went on for an hour, and then the Muslims rushed and engaged with the enemy in a battle that ended in full victory for the Muslims. Some men were killed, women and children of the disbelievers taken as captives, and a lot of booty fell to the lot of the Muslims. Only one Muslim was killed by mistake by a Helper. Amongst the captives was Juwairiyah, daughter of Al-Harith, chief of the disbelievers. The Prophet [pbuh] married her and, in compensation, the Muslims had to manumit a hundred others of the enemy prisoners who embraced Islam, and were then called the Prophet’s in-laws. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295]

It is important to note that Muhammad fabricated excuses for his attacks. In all these excuses he shifted the blame on his victims. For example, when he attacked the Bani Qaynuqa the excuse was that a couple of them had disrespected a Muslim woman. When he attacked the Bani Nadir the excuse was that Angel Gabriel had whispered in his ears that the Bani Nadir were plotting to kill him. When he attacked the Bani Quraiza his excuse was that they had confabulated with the Meccans. This is typical mindset of the narcissist. Narcissists always have excuses for their evil deeds. The claim that Muhammad pre-empted an attack by the Bani Mustaliq is a fabrication of Muhammad himself. It is just an excuse based on a lie. The Bani Mustaliq had no reason to attack Medina. It was always Muhammad who initiated the wars and hostilities. The Bani Mustaliq were not interested in Islam and religious wars in Arabia did not exist prior to Islam. They were Jews. They were an educated and cultured people. They were artisans, herdsmen and farmers. They had made their wealth in commerce and in industry, not through marauding. What reason had they to attack Medina, a city impoverish by Muhammad whose citizens had all become thieves and highway robbers? These are lies concocted by Muhammad to convince his foolish followers that his forays were justified. Despite their savagery, the early believers were still humans and must have felt raiding, massacring and pillaging innocent people with no justification is not right. Muhammad had to give them an excuse. When you attack someone, you must have an excuse. Even Hitler had reasons for his attacks. His reason was "to bring civilization to the less evolved people of the world". The reasons Muhammad gave for his raids were just excuses. With these lies his foolhardy followers placated their conscience willingly and descended to new depths of barbarity.

Here is what my opponent wrote as the pretext for raiding the Khaibar: 
The Jews of Khaybar were responsible for the uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench (or ditch). They would go to Makkah and encourage them to wage war against the Muslims. Theses Jews would hide in their fortresses in Khaybar. So obviously they needed to be dealt with. So Muhammad invaded Khaybar. If the Prophet was able to individually punish these people he would have. But they would lock them selves up so the Prophet had no choice. He even tried burning down their trees to scare them so that he would not resort to going inside the fortress to get them. But they left him no choice. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad was a man of mercy, but he was also a man of justice. Does Ali Sina expect Muhammad to forgive all those who fight him? If he did that, then everyone would try attacking Muhammad and would not worry about getting punished if they lost. So Muhammad needed to make an example out of anyone who dared to fight or harm him. This is self defense. This is a universal principle.

The above give you a glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic narcissist. Narcissists always blame their victims and have justification for their evil deeds. The followers of Muhammad have entered into his narcissistic bubble universe and all of them, to the degree that they emulate him, evince his psychopathology. They deny the evil deeds of their prophet and justify his crimes and their own. See the parts that I highlighted with red and blue! He is saying that Muhammad had no choice but to attack, kill, torture, rape, and enslave his victims. The way he has worded it one might as well think that Muhammad was the victim. .

Don't just assume that Mr. al Zawadi is talking nonsense. On the contrary, this is how narcissists think. The psychopath narcissist always blames his victims. "he made me do it", is his alibi. The psychopath feels justified to punish you if you resist his demands.

These are all lies, excuses to assail and mug an entire population of innocent civilians, loot their wealth and take them as slaves and sex slaves.

For the sake of argument, let us say the leaders of Khaibar were responsible for the "uprising of armies against the Muslims in the Battle of the Trench" (This is of course a lie. Muhammad already massacred all the men of Bani Quraiza and enslaved all their wives and children with the same excuse. Khaibar had nothing to do with the battle of the Trench. The Jews never raised against the Muslims in Medina or anywhere in Arabia and they tried to stay neutral at all times. That was of course a grave error that cost them their lives.) Does this justify to invade a city and massacre its citizens? Does it justify taking their women as sex slaves and forcing the elderly and the unwanted women to till their own confiscated land and and give half of the produce to their conqueror?





Let us read the story of this raid as described in a hadith. Whatever you find in parenthesis are the interpolations of the translator. These are introduced to soften the tone and to justify Muhammad's crimes. For example whenever the hadith talks about 'raid' the words (enemy) and (hostile) are interpolated next to it. This gives an impression that these people were the enemies and Muslims had to fight these wars were in self defense. That is not so. Any person who did not submit to Muhammad was considered to be an enemy. The terrorists are not killing innocent people; they are killing “the enemy”. In Khaibar, people had no idea that Muhammad was about to attack them until he was in their lanes with his men on their horses slaying anyone at sight. Just like the gullible westerners of today, the non Muslims of Arabia 1400 years ago, did not know they are “the enemy” and the target.

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.'  He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected.

Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." 

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .  (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

What happened to Kinana the young husband of Safiyah? Let us see:

Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going to a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it (the treasure) I shall kill you?” He said, “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest (of the treasure?) he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.  [Sirat Rasulallah, page 515]

Any person who after reading these stories can still defend Muhammad and justify his heinous crimes should not be called human. Any person, who justifies what Muhammad did to his innocent victims has evil in his heart, is the offspring of Satan and is a stain on humanity. To say the defenders of Muhammad’s crimes are animals is an insult to animals. The defenders of Muhammad's crimes have Satan for father. There is no way a human can have a mind as demonic as this. Lies and deception is the way of the followers of this demon who seduced people disguised as a prophet. See how my opponent twists the truth and calls a raid, “self defense”. 

¨

In response to my accusation that Muhammad broke the standards set by the Golden Rule and did to others, things that he himself would not have tolerated if done to him, my opponent wrote:
Muslims believe in equality, which is a universal principle.

Surah 16:126

And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.

The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those Bedouins was because the Prophet found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd.

You can read the tafsir for that hadith here

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=10139



This is yet another lie. The Arabs prior to Islam were not as ruthless as Muhammad and his followers. At no time in the history of Arabia Arabs had shown this much savagery that they demonstrated stirred by the teachings of Muhammad. This claim that “the pagans would have done the same” is a lie. As I said above, it is the typical alibi of the narcissist for his own crimes. The narcissist thinks everyone is like him. He thinks others would also break the Golden Rule, are thieves and dishonest, are ruthless and inhumane just as he is. So he feels that since others would do the same he is completely justified to do it to them preemptively. We have no evidence that the non-Muslims of Arabia had been unfair or cruel to Muslims. It has been always the other way round. The claim of persecution is false, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. And this is from the history written by Muslims, whose hatred of non-Muslims and particularly the Jews is unabashedly jarring and conspicuous.

1400 years later, the mindset of Muslims has not changed. Today Muslims are the ones who are on the offensive. They murder, behead and blow up bombs and kill innocent people everywhere, but they always blame their victims.  To understand the mind of the Muslims one must understand the mind of Muhammad and to understand Muhammad one must study pathological narcissistic personality disorder.



When I said Muhammad brought savagery into Arabia , obliterated compassion and established vengeance as the norm, Mr. al Zawadi responded:
In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims captured 70 prisoners of war, of whom only 3 were put to death: Uqba ibn Abi Ma’it, An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith and Tu`aymah ibn `Udday.

If the Prophet was a psychopath he would have ordered the execution of all the 70 prisoners. But he only ordered it for those 3.

The Prophet did not only punish them because they insulted him. When the Prophet was in Mecca , the people insulted and abused him and when he conquered Mecca later on, he forgave them all. He had the power to kill them all but he didn't.  The reason for Nadr ibn Al Harith and Oqba is the same reason for the order of the killing of Kab bin Ashraf. Their insults and public dismay of the Prophet made people rise up and fight against the Prophet. So their words caused a lot of damage.



See how Mr. al Zawadi contradicts himself? First he says that Muhammad forgave those who insulted him and in the next sentence he says the reason he killed these men was because of "their insults and public dismay of the Prophet". This all makes perfect sense to him.

Muhammad was a psychopath. Being a psychopath does not mean acting erratically. Psychopaths are often smart and calculating. Hitler was a psychopath. But he was not a fool. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath, but as one can see, he is very smart. Most psychopaths do not kill for no reason or just for the fun of it as one can see in movies. Some do. Son of Sam or the Unibomber are examples of that. Some psychopaths kill because this gives them the godlike power of taking lives. But even they are smart. Most psychopaths look normal and they are often more successful than the average people because they are calculating and ruthless. They successfully deceive and  embezzle others and because they have thought of everything from the start, when no one had a slightest idea that they will be stabbed in the back, they get away with their embezzlements. Because they can play their cards extremely well, they often rise to power. In countries where they can fool the masses they become dictators, where dictatorship is not possible they become CEOs. They are smart and charming, but ruthless and conniving.

When psychopath narcissists kill, they always have "legitimate" reasons that to them make perfect sense. They kill those whom they think intervene in their grandiose plans. They think of themselves so important and their ideas so grand that those who stand in their way become dispensable and must be eliminated. They feel perfectly justified to do that and are convinced of their actions. Their cause is so important that the lives of millions of people become insignificant in comparison.

What would Muhammad gain by killing wantonly all the captives of Badr? Many of those captives were the relatives of his followers. One of them was Abul Aas, husband of Zeinab, his own elder daughter. Muhammad asked the families of the prisoners to pay ransom for their release or he would kill them. He saved them out of greed, not out of kindness of heart!

An interesting and perhaps tender story here is that Zeinab sent a gold necklace that she had received from her mother Khadijah at her wedding to ransom her husband. Muhammad upon seeing that necklace and recognizing it as once worn by Khadijah, was moved and agreed to release Abul Aas without ransom provided Zeinab abandon him and join him in Medina . He was incapable of giving anything up without demanding something in exchange. Even his largesse was designed to impress people and win them over.

Why then he killed those three and did not ransom them? It is because they had humiliated him. Once you humiliate a narcissist he will never forgive you. He will not rest until he takes his sweet revenge.

¨



I accused Muhammad for making Allah an accomplice to his crimes. For example he ordered his followers to raid and loot innocent people asking them to bring one fifth of everything to him saying "this is for Allah and his Messenger". I asked why would Allah need those loots?  My opponent’s response was:
When it says that the war booty is for Allah and his Messenger, it simply means that it is for the cause of Islam. It does not mean that Allah is going to consume the war booty.

Why the cause of Islam had to expand with the stolen property? This question is important. Islam has advanced with loot and with blood of innocent people. Why a religion of God should be built upon the death and misery of countless humans?

This loot was only for Muhammad. Allah was just an excuse. If Allah is God, he does not need to steal from people. This is blasphemy. Unless Allah is Satan, he would never order people to kill their kind. To justify his own evil deeds this shameless gangster made the maker of the universe his partner in crime.

¨



I said that in the sixth year of Hijra Muhammad had promised victory to his foolhardy followers over Mecca and my opponent wrote:
Not true, the Prophet promised his followers that they would make Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) not victory over Makkah.  Does that really show that their intention was to fight? I do not think so. Read any Islamic history book and it would tell you that their intention to go to Mecca was a peaceful one.

My opponent is right. This is my mistake. The declared intention was just to perform Umrah. As for Muhammad's real intention, it is anyone's guess. But why go to pilgrimage with 1500 armed men? 

¨



Mr. al Zawadi wrote:
When Ali Sina talks about looting, he is making it seem like the Muslims went around and invaded villages and people solely in order to gain their war booty. He is making it seem like the Muslims were pirates wandering around and pillaging innocent people and stealing their valuables. This is far from the truth. If the Muslims ever waged war or invaded anyone, it was due to self defense or if there was evidence that the other side would attack and the Muslims would attack first for military advantage.

The lack of conscience in Muslims is mind boggling. Do the stories of the raids of Muhammad that I quoted only in this article look like self defense? 65 out of 67 wars of Muhammad were raids and Muslims still have the cheek to say they were all in self defense. The very history that they wrote is filled with tales of horror that Muslims committed. At times reading those tales become nauseating. Muhammad himself boasted that he became victorious with terror and Muslims are so unabashed in lying that they still say Muhammad’s wars were in self defense. Were the raids on Persia , Egypt , Yemen , Syria , or Spain also in self defense? Hadn't Muhammad sign a treaty with the Meccans? Why he broke that and attacked them? He was not in any danger from them, or from any of his victims for that matter. He attacked them because he was hungry for power. He wanted to conquer the world just like Hitler, Genghis Khan, Napoleon or Attila the Hun. Religion and Allah were pretexts. Excuses to rouse people and make them commit murder, wage war without expecting any wages, be ready to kill and even die at his behest. All he had to do was to give them an empty promises - humongous checks to be cashed after they die - and in this, he was most generous indeed.

Now, technically it is not precise to say Muslims lie. Because when they say these patent lies, they actually believe them to be true. They are so convinced that the non-Muslims are the enemy that they feel it is completely legit to raid them, butcher them and loot them and all that to them seems self-defense.

If you see a poisonous snake, you will kill it even though the snake is not attacking you. You perfectly justify this killing as self defense. Why? It is because you are convinced that the snake is your enemy and if you don't kill it, it may kill you. This is how Muslims are brought up to think of non-Muslims. In their mosques, madrassas, textbooks and in their media, they are constantly told that the kafirs are the enemy. They see and distrust you, the way you see and distrust a poisonous snake. In the same way that you justify killing the snake, Muslims justify killing you. Please read this sermon and see what Muslims think of you.

I just quote a few of the passages. But please read the entire sermon later.

    His [the unbeliever's]  heart is so full of envy that it shows itself in his eyes. He is envious of the Muslims because of their blessings and wishes that they could be taken away from them.

    He is so shamelessly envious that he would strive to mislead you so that you will be assembled with him in the Hell-Fire.

    The Kaafir plots against the Muslims by night and betrays them in the day. Enmity towards you is vividly shown in his face and his utterances. He bites his fingertips in severe anger against the Muslims and his inner-self is full of evil plans against them. He pretends to be trustworthy and good mannered while he is actually pursuing his own interests. Allaah exposes them when he says:

There are many statements like these, each backed by a verse from the Quran. These hate teachings of the Quran, make those who are exposed to them distrust the non-Muslims as if they were venomous snakes. They feel perfectly justified to hate you and even rejoice when their jihadi brothers kill you and kill your children.

Don't blame them. They are victims of this poison. Blame yourself. You are guilty too for letting them vitiate their minds with this venom. They can't help it. But you can help them. Why don't you?  

Take a look at what is going on in our own time. Muslims are massacring innocent people all over the world with their terrorist acts and yet they claim they are under attack and what they do is "self defense". This is how the psychopathic minds of the Muslims work. You can’t understand that unless you have been a Muslim at least for a few years.  This is not a normal way of thinking and that is why our strategists and political analysts are failing to address the problem. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not political. It must be studied as psychopathology, not as a political problem. The mind of a psychopath does not work in quite the same way that healthy minds work.

Here what I am saying is that the followers of Muhammad are psychologically and emotionally mangled. This statement is very much politically incorrect. This sounds extreme and anyone saying that could be accused of racism. To hell with political correctness. Political correctness means lying when telling the truth is offensive. But a lie is lie. It is the lies of political correctness that is killing us. Unless we see Islam as a sick cult and Muslims as sick people, we can't address this problem and the Islamic terrorism will continue to claim more lives.

The problem of Islamic terrorism, is not just political but also religious and consequently emotional and psychological. We need experts in psychology, precisely those who have experience in cults to understand the Muslim mind and to pull us out of this muddle.



When I said Muhammad raided the tribe of Hawazin taking 6,ooo women and children as captives and seized innumerable sheep and camels, my opponent wrote:
Again, we have to see why the Prophet invaded the tribe of Hawazin. You also have to read that it was the Hawazin's fault for they were the ones that brought their women and children with them to the battlefield.

Do you see the pattern? It is always the fault of the victims.

The reason women and children were caught in the battle tells us that unlike what Muslim historians have stated, these poor people were not coming to war. No sane person would take all his family and all his belonging to war. They were nomads, moving from one pasture to another. Muslim historians have claimed that the leader of the Hawazin insisted to carry the women and children to make his men "determined in their fight". This is ludicrous. We are talking of a tribe with over ten thousand people. Would all these people obey a decision so insane?

Why would they want to attack an army of Muslims? What would they gain in this? The accusation makes no sense. You don't have to be a genius to see that Muslim historians lie when they shift the blame on their victims. 

These are all excuses to justify the crimes committed by Muhammad. See how my opponent, with straight face, blames the victims for bringing along their women and children? Does this justify to take them as prisoners and enslave them? Where is the conscience of these people? There is not a shred of humanity left in them. These are not the people that we could share the planet with, let alone our countries. What kind of value will they bring to our world? The world has come out of barbarity and obscurantism for centuries and these people want to take us back. They belong to another world, a world very demonic and evil.

¨

The choices are very limited. Either we become like them and embrace their cult, which of course means perpetual wars as Muslims have killed more of their own than they have killed others, do nothing until they kill us or reduce us into slavery and dhimmitude or kill them first.

Which one you like best? These are our options. Are these sane options? If you embrace Islam, as Salman Rushdie puts it, "this least huggable of faiths", you will lose everything you cherish. You will lose your freedom and should kiss goodbye your culture and your civilization for it will be demonized and vilified as taghooti (satanic) and jahilliah (ignorance). Religious police will walk in the streets telling you that your dress is not Islamicly right and will beat you for exposing a few strands of hair. You could even be shot on the spot and killed for eating during the month of Ramadan. Look at Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Afghanistan of the Taliban - this is Islam. A state run by sharia law is hell. You will be ruled by people like Mr. Bassam al Zawadi, Ahmadinejad and Mullah Omar and opposition to them means opposition to God and you will be jailed or killed. You will have to accept that Arabs are master race, just as today the Pakistanis, the Bangladeshis, the Malays and the Indonesians have accepted it wholeheartedly. Persians have not. They invented their own version of Islam to vilify Arabs and not to submit to them as slaves. At least a shred of dignity is left in Iranians. Frankly my friend, death is better than that life.

If you don't convert to Islam, you will be subdued, and forced to work and sustain the Islamic state with Jizyah (a penalty tax levied on non-Muslims). You will still be subject to Islamic laws but will have fewer rights than those who convert. If your faith is not recognized as valid you could face execution.

So what is left? Killing Muslims before they kill you? Is that all left to do? Today I received a copy of a chilling email that is being circulated among some Australians. The email is calling upon Australians to take back their country from the “Lebs” (Lebanese immigrants). How this should be done is blood curling.  Here are a few passages of that message:

    The coals were lit when lebs threatened to rape young children on Cronulla beach; lifeguards stepped in to defend them and were bashed. This has been going on for years.

    The comoncheros and Bra Boys have as of today given official support to gang rapists and thus must be destroyed if they interfere. They are a group of old has-been, race traitors, junkies and lebs. Aussie Patriots do not need their support.

    Failure to fight and win will mean living under the rule of criminals and gang rapists.

    This is a real war, make no mistake. cowards WILL BE TREATED LIKE LEBS!

    Bring yourself, your mates, anyone you know of fighting age and whatever devices you see fit to defend yourself and your country.

    After rallying in Cronulla and Maroubra we will push our way through to Lakemba and Bankstown, we will destroy the mosques in these areas and any leb that gets in our way. We will smash their houses, smash their shops, destroy their ghettos.

The message continues with more angry notes and calls to violence against the Lebanese and Muslims.

The person who forwarded this message to me, although said she does not support violence, unreservedly agreed with the spirit of this message.

The same is happening in Europe . Racism and blind nationalism is again on the rise. Some good people are dragged into it. We have a difficult time ahead of us. We must embrace ourselves for blood, may be our own, running in our streets. Woe to us children of apes, for our monkey thinking is bringing us to our doom.

Is this the way we want to go? What has happened to our species? Is this what is called intelligent life? What part of this is intelligent? Do we have to become beasts and murder our own kind just to survive? Which one of these options is better?

I am offering you another alternative – an alternative that requires neither blood nor slavery. Islam is a disease. It's the disease that we have to eradicate, not the patient. Why everybody is afraid to attack the disease itself?

Obviously we can't let the sick infect the world with his deadly disease or the mad man go loose shooting and killing everyone. But should we kill him? Is this the sane way to cure a sick person?

For the sake of sanity, why instead of killing the patient, don't we try to cure him from his sickness? Why don't we eradicate Islam? Islam is the disease of the soul and the mind. Islam is the disease that has crippled mankind. A billion people follow a psychopath. This is insanity. This is not comical; it's calamity. Muslims are infirm. But we do not kill infirm people.

The problem seems to be huge but the solution is ironically simple. All we have to do is to destroy Islam. That is not an impossible task. We can do that, if we just tell the truth. It's as simple as that. We are getting drowned in a glass of water. The solution to all this madness is to tell the truth. Our governments must start telling the truth. The politicians and the media must start telling the truth. In schools, we should teach the truth. Truth is not subjective. There is no 'your truth' and 'my truth'. When it comes to history, facts are the truth. History must be taught honestly and factually and not twisted just because it may offend someone. If someone is offended of the truth, let him be offended. 

The non-Muslims are not entirely sane either. They too have their own mental sickness. They are suffering from political correctness. This combination is lethal. Compare Islam to human immunodeficiency virus HIV and political correctness to immunodeficiency. Political correctness can kill us. It lowers our resistance against the enemy and will make us vulnerable to its advances. The foolish defenders of Muslims are just as dangerous as Muslims. Truth can cure both of them. Those who suffer from political correctness and those who suffer from Islam can both benefit from it and recover.

Those who find the truth too bitter to swallow must be force-fed. The truth is their medicine. This medicine must reach them willingly or unwillingly. Because their sickness is affecting all of us, they must not have a choice. They must hear it until they recover. The best place to start force feeding the truth is in prison compounds where the terrorists are detained. Don't torture them. Tell them the truth about Islam and once that truth sinks, they will cooperate. Tell them the truth about Islam and they will leave terrorism. It is Islam that converts good people into terrorists and makes them monsters. How to do that? Very simple! Produce radio programs in their own language and make them listen to it several hours per day, every day. We at FFI can produce the right programs. We know how to handle the Muslims and what to tell them. This is how they have been brainwashed. We can un-brainwash them in the same way.

We must get rid of Islam if we want to avoid a major bloodshed and our species survive. Muslims must be weaned from this satanic cult of madness and terror, for their own good and for our good.

Please read my debates with Muslims and pay close attention to what they write. We are indeed dealing with a demonic force. The way they think is not sane. It is psychopathological. I don’t want you to feel safe and comfortable. Be scared - very scared.

The problem is that our politicians do not understand the magnitude of this threat. Most people do not understand it. As long as we do not understand we are fighting our enemy blindfolded. You cannot win a war unless you know your enemy. Do you know your enemy? Does your government know the enemy? Neither of you do. That is why your fate is sealed.

Please read these debates and particularly pay attention to what Muslims say.  Promote this site. Everyone must see the unmasked face of Islam. People must realize that the world is in danger. The Second World War was picnic compared to what is awaiting mankind in a very near future. But the future is in our hands. We write the history. Don't be a bystander. Don't let others write the future. Why be a spectator of the history when you can be its protagonist?

Governments in democratic countries can’t do and won't do anything unless people tell them what to do. What are you waiting for? Let people know the truth.  Let them wake up. Invite them to come to this site, read these debates and have a close encounter with Devil itself. If this does not wake them up, nothing will. We need an outcry from bottom up that our governments can’t ignore. This won’t happen as long as people are kept in the dark and think Islam is just another garden variety of religions.      

source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/looting51122.htm












.