On October 7, 2023, Israel fell victim to a catastrophic assault orchestrated by the terrorist organization Hamas from the Gaza Strip, marking the onset of a dire phase in armed conflict. The attack, dubbed “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” by Hamas, was unprecedented in its scale over the last 50 years, inflicting substantial devastation and causing a significant number of casualties within Israeli territory. The offensive commenced at 6:30 AM with an extensive barrage of rockets, estimated between 2,500 to 5,000, targeting southern parts of Israel and sowing terror among the civilians.

This barrage served as a sinister guise for a meticulously coordinated infiltration by Hamas militants into Israeli territory around 7:40 AM. Various infiltration methods were employed, including breaching security barriers and utilizing powered parachutes, motorboats, and motorcycles. Additionally, a civilian was abducted from Kibbutz Kfar Aza and taken into the Gaza Strip.

As daylight unfolded, the terrorists targeted key military installations, namely the Erez border crossing, the Zikim base, and the Gaza division headquarters at Reim. Raids were also conducted in border towns such as Sderot, causing further chaos. The audacity of the militants was highlighted as they commandeered several Israeli military vehicles.

The terrorists committed horrific acts, engaging in the burning of houses, random shooting of civilians, and kidnapping of women and children. They paraded the kidnapped as sex slaves, committed unspeakable acts such as beheading infants, and burned individuals alive, capturing these heinous acts in photographs and videos. These horrifying images were then disseminated across the internet, amplifying the terror and anguish.

Resisting Peace, The Hamas Edition of ‘Civilian Target Practice

The role and actions of Hamas continue to stand as a testament to a warped interpretation of resistance. The malicious intent and the horrific execution of their operations were starkly evident in the recent assault on Israeli soil on October 7, 2023. A self-proclaimed resistance movement, Hamas has a long history of targeting civilian populations under a twisted rationale that aims to justify the unjustifiable.

On the aforementioned day, the reality of Hamas’s terror was unleashed not on military installations, but on the innocent civilians of Israel, painting the streets red with an indelible stain of blood. The besieged citizens experienced a rain of rockets, not on military bases or government installations, but on their homes, their places of work, and a local music festival that was meant to celebrate the transcendent power of art and unity. The festivity quickly turned into a funereal ground, as laughter and music were replaced by screams of terror and the deafening explosions of incoming rockets.

What was Hamas’s justification for this nightmarish reality they orchestrated? A pitiful and morally bankrupt argument that all Israelis, by virtue of their mandatory military service, are legitimate military targets. This feeble attempt at justification is not just an affront to the principles of humanity and international law, but also a dangerous precedent that, if accepted, could spell disaster on a global scale.

Let’s momentarily entertain the perverse logic of Hamas. Following their line of thought, any nation with mandatory military service would inherently possess no civilian population. Every man, woman, or even child in such nations would be nothing but a target waiting for their turn to be at the receiving end of a missile or a bullet. This line of reasoning, if it can be called that, is not just flawed but grotesquely inhumane. It turns a blind eye to the very essence of what it means to be a human being, reducing individuals to nothing more than potential soldiers to be exterminated.

The actions of Hamas on that ill-fated day were nothing short of barbaric. By deliberately targeting civilians in their homes and at a music festival, they have once again shown that their claim of resistance is nothing but a thinly veiled facade for terror. A true resistance movement fights against oppressive forces, not against innocent civilians enjoying music on a serene evening. Hamas’s actions are a betrayal of the very essence of resistance, replacing it with a reign of terror that respects neither age nor innocence.

As we condemn the actions of Hamas, let’s not allow the discourse to be muddied by twisted justifications and hollow rhetoric. The reality is clear: the actions of Hamas on October 7 were not an act of resistance, but a blatant act of terror. The international community must unite in condemnation and take decisive action to ensure the protection of innocent lives and the restoration of peace and security in the region.

A quick history lesson

The Roots of Anti-Israel Sentiment and Alleged Antisemitism in Islamic Doctrine

It’s essential to approach the topic of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments in the Islamic world with caution, contextual understanding, and a commitment to accuracy. While broad generalizations can perpetuate misunderstandings, it’s undeniable that certain verses in Islamic texts, historical contexts, and interpretations can be seen as underpinning some of these sentiments.

Prophet Muhammad and Medina’s Jewish Tribes: A Historical Exploration

In the annals of Islamic history, the Prophet Muhammad’s tenure in Medina stands out not just for its spiritual significance, but also for its complex political and social tapestry. Central to this chapter is the Prophet’s relationship with the Jewish tribes of the region. Delving into this relationship provides a nuanced perspective on the socio-religious dynamics of that era.

A Pivotal Encounter: Banu Quraizah
Among the many interactions between the nascent Muslim community and the Jewish tribes, the episode with Banu Quraizah remains one of the most discussed. Post the Battle of the Trench, allegations of conspiracy against the Muslims led to a consequential judgment against Banu Quraizah. As per historical narrations, the male members faced execution, while women and children were taken captive. The gravity of this event underlines the intense socio-political environment of the time.

Muhammad’s Perspective on Co-religionists
A hadith, as recounted by ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, provides insight into the Prophet’s stance on religious diversity in the Arabian Peninsula. The Prophet, in this narration, expressed an intention to expel Jews and Christians from the region. While this sentiment emerged from specific events and challenges faced during his prophetic mission, it has been scrutinized and cited in various discussions about interfaith dynamics in early Islamic history.

Khaybar’s Jewish Community: An Evolving Relationship
Another significant chapter in this historical narrative is the relationship with Khaybar’s Jewish inhabitants. Narrations suggest an agreement that allowed for their potential expulsion, a provision later enacted by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph. This episode, much like others, underscores the intricate nature of political and religious interactions of the period.

Modern Implications in Light of Biblical and Historical Narratives

While the historical accounts from Islam’s early days provide a window into past events, their echoes can be heard in today’s geopolitical landscape. Modern-day groups, like Hamas, have not only invoked these narratives but have used them to justify violent actions against Israel and the Jewish people.

if you do not know what or who Hamas is please click here to view our Hamas for Dummies manual

The Inalienable Right: Israel’s Existence and Defense Amidst Centuries of Animosity

At the core of the Zionist dream is a simple, yet profound principle: the inalienable right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was not just a political milestone but a testament to the resilience of a people who, despite millennia of persecution, yearned for a sanctuary where they could thrive in peace.

However, from its inception, Israel has grappled with challenges that are not merely geopolitical but deeply rooted in ancient prejudices. Centuries-old Islamic scriptures, while encompassing teachings of peace, also carry narratives that have been interpreted as anti-Semitic. These interpretations, which predate the creation of Israel by over a millennium, have been weaponized by groups like Hamas, who cloak their deep-seated animosity towards Jews under the guise of political resistance.

From a Christian perspective, championing the rights of the oppressed and standing up for justice is paramount. And in the context of Israel, this means recognizing and supporting the inherent right of the Jewish people to a nation where they can exercise self-determination. It also entails acknowledging Israel’s legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and its people against those who, fueled by age-old prejudices, seek its destruction.

Israel’s existence is not merely a product of 20th-century diplomacy but is anchored in millennia of Jewish history, culture, and connection to the land. The challenges it faces are not just against its borders but against its very identity and the identity of an entire people.

Amin al-Husseini and the Unholy Nazi Alliance

The phenomenon of Islamic antisemitism, often mistakenly perceived as a byproduct of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has historical roots that go far deeper. A prime example that underscores this enduring animosity, independent of the State of Israel’s establishment, is the prominent Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husseini.

During World War II, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini saw an opportunity in Nazi Germany’s rise to power. He sought the support of the Axis powers, especially the Nazis, as he believed they could aid in ending British rule in Palestine and counteracting the burgeoning Zionist movement. Eager to forge this alliance, al-Husseini personally met with Adolf Hitler and other top Nazi officials. The convergence of their interests was not just political but rooted in a mutual animosity towards Jews.

Al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis was not merely symbolic. He played an active role in supporting their heinous agenda, including recruiting Muslims in Europe for the Waffen-SS. Moreover, he held a rank in the German army and received a salary, underscoring the depth of his commitment to the Nazi cause. This unholy alliance between the Palestinian leader and the Jew-hating Nazis exemplified a confluence of interests, where both parties identified Jews as a common enemy.

This historical episode is particularly instructive when considering modern-day perceptions. Blaming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for Islamic antisemitism oversimplifies a complex issue that predates Israel’s establishment by decades. Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s alliance with the Nazis is a testament to an antisemitic sentiment that existed long before the 1948 declaration of the Israeli state.

In understanding the broader canvas of Middle Eastern dynamics, it’s essential to recognize that the animosity towards Jews is not merely a reaction to contemporary geopolitics. Historical figures like al-Husseini and his collaboration with the Nazis highlight that this enmity has deeper and older origins, which continue to influence the region’s intricate tapestry of relationships.

An Ideological Malaise Beyond Geopolitics

Building upon our earlier examination of Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s dark collaborations with Nazi Germany, it’s imperative to recognize that the Middle Eastern antipathy towards the Jewish people is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it merely a byproduct of modern geopolitical disputes. This animosity has historical roots that delve much deeper, spanning centuries and predating the very formation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Recall, for a moment, the extent of al-Husseini’s commitment to the Nazi cause: actively conspiring with one of history’s most heinous regimes to further the extermination of the Jews. Such actions were not reactive gestures to Israeli policies or territorial claims. Instead, they were the manifestations of an entrenched, ideologically driven hatred for Jews, a sentiment that existed long before the rise of modern Middle Eastern conflicts.

It’s crucial, then, to understand this hatred within its broader historical and ideological context. To merely attribute it to the Israeli-Arab conflict is to miss the forest for the trees. The roots of this enmity are not just planted in the soil of contemporary politics but are watered by longstanding prejudices, historical grievances, and deeply ingrained beliefs.

From this linear deduction, a logical yet unsettling conclusion emerges: even in the absence of the State of Israel, Jews would likely still face persecution in the Middle East, potentially on par with or even exceeding the horrors witnessed in Europe. Imagine for a moment that the Jewish diaspora decided to return to the countries from which they were exiled or displaced. Given the historical depth of this ideological hate, would they be received with open arms? Would they find sanctuary and safety from the tendrils of ancient prejudices? Given what we know, such optimism is hard to muster.

As we venture further into this discussion, we must be mindful of these undercurrents, recognizing that to address the present, we must first grapple with the shadows of the past. The issue at hand isn’t just territorial; it’s deeply rooted in beliefs and biases that have evolved over millennia.

to give you an idea about the deapth of the ideological issue Let’s briefly delve into a facet of Islamic eschatology that intriguingly has significant connections with Jews. The Prophet Muhammad of Islam conveyed the following:

Chapter Title: “The Hour Will Not Begin Until A Man Passes By Another Man’s Grave And Wishes That He Was In The Place Of The Deceased, Because Of Calamity.”

Statement: Abu Huraira, a prominent companion of the Prophet, narrates that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

This narration speaks about a conflict between Muslims and Jews in the end times. It employs symbolic language, such as stones and trees speaking to Muslims, directing them towards hidden Jews, except for the Gharqad tree, which is described as a tree of the Jews.

Chain of Narration: The hadith is transmitted through a series of individuals, with Abu Huraira being the one directly quoting the Prophet.

Reference and Authenticity: The hadith is sourced from “Sahih Muslim,” which is one of the two most authoritative hadith collections in Sunni Islam (the other being Sahih Bukhari). Its reference is Sahih Muslim 2922, and given that it’s in Sahih Muslim, it is considered authentic.

To explore the topic effectively, we first need to take a deeper dive into the Quran and Sunnah

A deep dive into the Quran brings forth verses that may suggest a negative view towards non-Muslims. Surah At-Tawbah (9:28) categorizes non-Muslims as “filthy.” Surah Al-Anfal (8:55) goes a step further, equating unbelievers to animals, specifically “beasts.” Additionally, the Quran houses several verses that ostensibly promote animosity towards those who don’t align with Islamic beliefs. This portrayal paints non-Muslims, including Jews, in a derogatory light, suggesting they should be either subdued or eliminated.

The Quran appears to contain numerous mandates that call for the persecution and elimination of non-Muslims, especially Jews, and Christians. Some of the verses which seem to highlight this theme are:

1. Al-Ahzab (33:26-27) 2. Muhammad (47:4) 3. Muhammad (47:35) 4. Al-Baqarah (2:191)
5. Al-Baqarah (2:193) 6. Al-Baqarah (2:216) 7. Al-Baqarah (2:217) 8. Al-Baqarah (2:244) 9. An-Nisa (4:74) 10. An-Nisa (4:76) 11. An-Nisa (4:84) 12. An-Nisa (4:89) 13. Al-Ma’idah (5:33) 14. Al-Anfal (8:12) 15. Al-Anfal (8:17) 16. Al-Anfal (8:39) 17. Al-Anfal (8:60)
18. Al-Anfal (8:65) 19. At-Tawbah (9:5) 20. At-Tawbah (9:12) 21. At-Tawbah (9:13) 22. At-Tawbah (9:14) 23. At-Tawbah (9:29) 24. At-Tawbah (9:36) 25. At-Tawbah (9:73)

sunnah is also full of similar and even deadlier texts; wait, what is Sunna or Sunnah?

so what does Sunnah say about the Jews?

Example 1

This narration (or hadith) is an account of a statement made by the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). It is attributed to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, one of the Prophet’s close companions and the second Caliph of Islam.

Statement of the Prophet (ﷺ): “If I live – if Allah wills – I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.”

This statement suggests that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) expressed an intention, contingent upon his continued life and the will of Allah, to remove Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.

Chain of Narration: The hadith is transmitted through a chain (or isnad) of individuals:

• Musa bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Kindi
• Zaid bin al-Hubab
• Sufyan al-Thawri
• Abu al-Zubair
• Jabir

And it ultimately reaches ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, who narrates the statement of the Prophet.

Reference and Authenticity: The hadith is sourced from “Jami at-Tirmidhi," which is one of the six major collections of hadith in Sunni Islam. The reference given is Jami at-Tirmidhi 1606. The “grade” of the hadith is mentioned as “Sahih” which indicates that the hadith is considered authentic (or reliable) by the Darussalam publishers.

In summary: This hadith reports that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) stated his intention, to remove Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula. It’s considered authentic by scholars, as indicated by its “Sahih” grading.

Example 2

Same content just a different narration-Oh yeah there is quite a lot of them

Chapter Title: “What Has Been Related About The Ruling On The Land Of Khaibar”

Statement: Umar (the second Caliph of Islam) recounts that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) made a transaction or agreement with the Jews of Khaibar with the provision that the Muslims could expel them whenever they wished. Umar then instructs that anyone with property in Khaibar should reclaim it, as he intends to act on the provision and expel the Jews. He then proceeds to do so.

Chain of Narration: The hadith is transmitted through a series of individuals:

• Ahmad bin Hanbal
• Ya’qub bin Ibrahim
• Ibn Ishaq
• Nafi’, the freed slave of Abdullah bin Umar

The narration finally reaches Abdullah bin Umar (son of Caliph Umar), from whom the statement of his father, Umar, is narrated.

Reference and Authenticity: The hadith is sourced from “Sunan Abi Dawud,” which is one of the six major hadith collections in Sunni Islam. The reference given is Sunan Abi Dawud 3007. The “grade” of the hadith is mentioned as “Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani),” which suggests that the hadith is considered good (Hasan) and authentic (Sahih) by the scholar Al-Albani.

Summary: This hadith relates to a specific historical event concerning the Jews of Khaibar. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) had an agreement with them that allowed for their expulsion. Umar, the second Caliph, reminded the people of this agreement and then acted upon it, instructing the Jews to leave and advising Muslims to reclaim any property they had in Khaibar.

Example 3

Main Event: During the Battle of Al-Ahzab, Sa’d bin Mu’adh, a prominent companion of the Prophet and a leader of the Ansar (the Medinan supporters of the Prophet), was struck by an arrow. This arrow injury resulted in the severing of a major vein in his forearm.

Attempted Treatment: The Prophet (ﷺ) tried to cauterize (burn to stop bleeding) the wound using fire. However, this caused Sa’d’s arm to bleed profusely. The Prophet tried this treatment again, but the bleeding continued.

Sa’d’s Supplication: Seeing his condition, Sa’d made a supplication to Allah, asking that he not die until he is comforted by seeing the fate of Banu Quraizah. He managed to press his vein closed, and it stopped bleeding.

Banu Quraizah’s Fate: After the Battle of Al-Ahzab, the Banu Quraizah, a Jewish tribe in Medina, were accused of treachery against the Muslims during the battle. They eventually surrendered to the Muslims and agreed to accept the judgment of Sa’d bin Mu’adh regarding their fate. Despite his severe injury, Sa’d was brought to give his judgment. He ruled that the men of Banu Quraizah should be executed, while the women and children should be spared and distributed among the Muslims. The Prophet (ﷺ) responded to Sa’d’s judgment by saying that he had judged in accordance with Allah’s judgment. The narration mentions that there were around four hundred men from Banu Quraizah who were executed.

Sa’d’s Death: After this judgment was executed, Sa’d’s vein reopened, and he passed away due to his injury.

Chain of Narration: The hadith is transmitted through a series of individuals, eventually reaching Jabir, one of the Prophet’s companions, who narrates the event.

Reference and Authenticity: The hadith is sourced from “Jami at-Tirmidhi", and its reference is Jami at-Tirmidhi 1582. The hadith is graded as “Sahih (Darussalam)”, indicating that it is considered authentic.

So, can peace be achieved?

Conclusion

Are you not convinced yet?

if you click on the image below, you will be taken to an official Islamic site with an entire collection of Antisemitic Sunnah narrations that will blow your mind!

The post Decoding Islamic Roots of Antisemitism first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Imagine being shackled to a 1,400-year-old scam that masquerades as divine truth, dictating every breath you take under the guise of piety. For the deceived Sunni Muslim, the Quran and Sunnah are peddled as the unbreakable core of their faith—a toxic duo that poisons spiritual life and enslaves daily routines. Far from living foundations, these are fabricated relics of deception, intertwined like a venomous serpent and its fangs, foisting a satanic fraud on billions. From the so-called revelations force-fed to Muhammad in a dingy cave to their tyrannical grip on modern lives, the Quran and Sunnah cast shadows of ignorance, demanding blind submission amid humanity’s progress. Wake up: these aren’t lights on the path to righteousness—they’re chains dragging souls into eternal darkness.

The Quran: Satanic Lies Masquerading as Allah’s Word

Sunni Muslims crown the Quran and Sunnah with idolatrous reverence, but let’s shatter the illusion: the Quran is no eternal word of Allah. It’s a patchwork of plagiarized myths, epileptic hallucinations, and demonic whispers peddled as revelation from the Angel Jibril to Muhammad starting in 610 CE in Hira’s cave. Muslims boast of its unchanged status since Caliph Uthman’s bloody standardization, where variant copies were burned to enforce one fraudulent version. Memorized by huffaz? That’s not proof of divinity—it’s cult indoctrination, rote repetition to drown out critical thought. Codices? Hand-copied by fallible men prone to errors, despite the fairy tale of perfection.

Why is this book so destructive? It peddles every poison for human subjugation: a hateful aqeedah riddled with polytheistic whispers (shirk hidden in tawhid), barbaric ibadah demanding blood and submission, exploitative muamalat legalizing slavery and theft via jihad spoils, and akhlaq that glorifies violence and misogyny. Surah Al-Baqarah doesn’t lay foundations—it spews contradictions, like claiming Allah’s oneness while abrogating verses mid-stream (naskh admitting Allah forgets). Recite it in salah? It’s rhythmic hypnosis enforcing Stockholm syndrome. Ponder tafsir? Scholars twist logic to justify horrors, like wife-beating (4:34) or eternal hell for disbelievers (4:56).

The Quran’s miracle? A challenge unmet because it’s a literary flop—stolen from Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources, with grammatical errors and scientific howlers (sperm from backbone, flat earth, shooting stars as missiles). Muhammad’s own words betray it: Satan cast a satanic verse into my mouth (Ibn Hisham)—proof of demonic origin! Surah Muhammad 47:24 mocks reflection: Do they not reflect on the Quran? Locks on their hearts? Exactly—it’s designed to blind, not enlighten, eroding iman into fanaticism and amal into terrorism. The Quran and Sunnah aren’t transformative; they’re a satanic psy-op, trapping minds in 7th-century barbarism.

The Sunnah: Muhammad’s Depraved Blueprint for Tyranny

If the Quran is the devil’s doctrine, the Sunnah is its blood-soaked manual, complementing lies with Muhammad’s depravities. Encompassing his aqwal (filthy sayings), af’al (perverse actions), and taqrir (creepy approvals), it’s sold as how-to for Quranic madness. Pray as you saw me pray? More like emulate a warlord’s rituals to conquer souls.

Sunni dupes clutch Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, authenticated by Bukhari sifting 600,000 lies into 7,000 fabrications—rigorous? Laughable. Chains of narration (isnad) are unverifiable gossip chains, rife with forgeries admitted by scholars like al-Albani who upgrade weak hadiths. These sources expose Muhammad not as merciful, but monstrous: torturing prisoners for treasure (Bukhari 4:52:261), massacring Banu Qurayza Jews (700 beheaded), child-marrying Aisha at six ( consummated at nine, Bukhari 7:62:64)—pedophilia sanctified! Humility? He owned slaves, raped captives (Safiyya post-Khaybar), and commanded wife-beating if disobedient.

The Sunnah doesn’t humanize—it dehumanizes, turning men into misogynists, women into doormats, and societies into caliphate hellholes. Family? Polygamy for lust (up to nine wives). Trade? Plunder sanctified. It’s Muhammad’s playbook for domination, not divine guidance—proving Islam a cult of personality worshiping a false prophet foretold as Antichrist’s precursor.

The Diabolical Harmony of the Quran and Sunnah

The Quran and Sunnah‘s indivisible bond? A symbiotic scam where each props up the other’s evil. Quran 4:80: Obey the Messenger, obey Allah—elevating Muhammad to co-deity, pure shirk! Principles from hell, exemplified in atrocities.

Salah: Quran demands it tyrannically (4:103), Sunnah adds obsessive details—rak’ahs, ruku—like obsessive-compulsive rituals to break free will. Zakat? Quran vague, Sunnah’s 2.5% funds jihad (extortion racket). Hajj? Pagan tawaf echoing Muhammad’s Meccan idol worship, rebranded.

This duo enforces totalitarianism: Quran calls for holy war (9:29), Sunnah details beheading apostates (Bukhari 9:84:57). Beauty? It’s the glue binding satanic fraud, fooling adherents into thinking contradictions (peaceful Meccan vs. violent Medinan) are progressive revelation.

Quran and Sunnah in Rituals: Enslavement Rituals Exposed

Rituals scream cult control. Wudu? Muhammad’s germ-spreading hand-to-foot wash (Bukhari 1:4:163), ignoring hygiene science. Ramadan? Starvation cult from dawn to dusk, with tarawih exhausting the masses—suhoor a mockery of health.

Ethics? Riba ban crushes economies, Sunnah adds slave-selling markets. Marriage: Quran’s mutual rights? Sunnah overrides with Aisha precedent for child brides, mahr as bride-price, best to wives meaning beat lightly (Muslim 4:2127). Parenting: Pray at seven, beat at ten—child abuse blueprint.

Today’s contemporary issues? Quran and Sunnah fuel honor killings, FGM, blasphemy murders—prophetic mercy to creation means camel torture allowances while slaughtering infidels.

Challenges to the Fraud: Why Quran and Sunnah Crumble Under Scrutiny

Modernity exposes the rot: Hadith fabrications galore (even Bukhari admits 99% forgeries), Quran-only heretics flee Sunnah’s perversions—Ahl al-Sunnah’s ijma? Mob consensus defending evil. Al-Azhar? Wahhabi factories churning suicide bombers. Science debunks embryology lies (23:12-14), history Muhammad’s illiteracy no barrier to Satan’s dictation.

Doubters rise: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex-Muslims worldwide reject this fraud for reason’s light.

Conclusion: Reject the Quran and Sunnah—Break Free from Satanic Deception

The Quran and Sunnah are the indivisible foundations of Islam’s colossal fraud, chaining Sunni Muslims to demonic revelation and a pedophile prophet’s depravity. They don’t equip for piety—they breed jihadists, oppress women, and stifle progress. Internalize NOT their poison; expose the eloquence as sorcery, purity as perversion. Align with truth, not Allah’s will—ditch this 7th-century cult for human flourishing. Daily: Burn the veils of taqiyya, study real history, live free from Muhammad’s shadow. Humanity deserves better than this satanic scam. Rise and reject!

(Word count: 1,247)

The post The Indivisible Foundations of Islam: The Quran and Sunnah first appeared on Islam Revealed.

In an era where Islamic terrorism grabs headlines, the barbaric demand for jizya—that infamous tribute extracted from non-Muslims—has been resurrected by savages like ISIS, who squeezed it out of terrified Christians in Iraq and Syria. But don’t be fooled by the sugarcoated spin from apologists. This vile practice isn’t some outdated relic; it’s a straight-from-the-hip command in Sourat al Tauba 29, the Quranic verse that lays bare Islam’s satanic core: subjugate infidels or slaughter them. Classical scholars unanimously interpret this ayah as a divine green light for offensive jihad against Jews, Christians, and anyone daring to reject Muhammad’s fraudulent claims. Far from tolerance, Sourat al Tauba 29 mandates fighting People of the Book until they cough up jizya from their hands in utter humiliation. This isn’t religion—it’s a protection racket dressed in holy robes, exposing Islam as the satanic fraud it truly is. Buckle up as we dissect the verse, its blood-soaked exegesis, and why it still poisons the world today.

Sourat al Tauba 29: The Quranic Command Unveiled

Let’s cut through the fog and stare at Sourat al Tauba 29 in its raw, unfiltered glory. The English translation thunders:

> Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled.

And in Arabic, the mother tongue of this deception:

> قَـٰتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلۡحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ حَتَّىٰ يُعۡطُواْ ٱلۡجِزۡيَةَ عَن يَدٍ۬ وَهُمۡ صَـٰغِرُونَ.

This isn’t subtle poetry or metaphor—it’s a battle cry. The targets? Those who were given the Scripture, aka Jews and Christians, who refuse to worship Allah, deny the apocalypse as Muhammad spun it, ignore his bans, and reject Islam’s religion of truth. The order: Qatluhum—fight them relentlessly—until they fork over jizya an yadin (from their hands, signaling compulsion and defeat) and become saghirun (lowly, humiliated, broken in spirit).

No defensive bluster here; Sourat al Tauba 29 abrogates earlier peaceful verses, unleashing unrestricted holy war. Revealed during Muhammad’s conquest rampage, it nullifies treaties with Mecca’s pagans and targets dhimmis worldwide. Apologists whimper about context, but the text screams supremacy: convert, pay, or perish. This satanic blueprint reveals Islam’s fraud— a 7th-century power grab masquerading as divine will.

Classical Interpretations of Sourat al Tauba 29: No Escape from the Ugly Truth

If you think modern spinmeisters can whitewash this, think again. I pored over the gold standard tafsirs: Al-Tabari’s encyclopedic tome, Ibn Kathir’s unyielding exegesis, Al-Qurtubi’s legal razor, Al-Jalalayn’s concise blade, Al-Suyuti’s scholarly arsenal, and Malik’s Muwatta. The verdict? Unanimous condemnation of non-Muslims as fair game for jihad.

Ibn Kathir, Islam’s exegetical heavyweight, eviscerates any illusions:

> Allah commands His Prophet to fight the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, the Last Day, or forbid what He forbade… If they truly followed their Scriptures, they would have believed in Muhammad… So fight them until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

Rejecting Muhammad? That’s spiritual treason, nullifying Torah or Gospel faith. Al-Tabari piles on, quoting companions: this verse trashes pacts, demanding war unless they submit. Al-Qurtubi spells out saghirun as demeaned, servile, heads bowed. Al-Jalalayn? They pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority. No wiggle room—these aren’t peaceniks; they’re architects of eternal dhimmitude.

This consensus shatters the tolerant Islam myth. Sourat al Tauba 29 isn’t optional; it’s the satanic engine driving sharia’s discriminatory gears, proving the Quran’s fraud: a mishmash of conquest, not compassion.

Who Must Pay Jizya According to Sourat al Tauba 29?

Sourat al Tauba 29 doesn’t play favorites—its net snares all unbelievers, but scholars fine-tuned the dragnet:

– Jews and Christians (Ahl al-Kitab): Bullseye targets, as explicitly named.
– Zoroastrians (Magians): Muhammad himself hit Hajar’s fire-worshippers (Sahih Bukhari 3156).
– Idolaters and Beyond: Hanafi school blankets non-Arabs; Shafi’i, Ahmad, and Malik demand it from every kafir—polytheists, atheists, you name it.

Imam Malik in Muwatta (36.15.25): Jizya is taken from all unbelievers: Kitabis, Majusis, idolaters, and the rest. Ibn Kathir hammers an yadin: post-conquest extortion, with Umar ibn al-Khattab dictating dhimmi hell—no rising above Muslims, public degradation mandatory.

A chilling hadith cements the vibe (Sahih Muslim 2167): Abu Hurairah relays Muhammad: Don’t greet Jews or Christians first; squeeze them to the road’s edge. Sourat al Tauba 29 births this venom—not charity, but spoils from the sword.

The True Nature of Jizya: Satanic Tribute or Mobster Shakedown?

Jizya? Tribute or poll tax, sure—but call it what it is: a demonic protection racket sanctified by Sourat al Tauba 29. Pay the goons or feel the blade, all while kissing the ring. Apologists peddle it as fair tax for protection, like U.S. IRS dues. Laughable lies— behold the chasm:

| Aspect | Jizya per Sourat al Tauba 29 | Western Taxes |
|————————-|———————————————————–|——————————————–|
| Who Pays? | Only non-Muslims spurning Islam. | Everyone, no discrimination. |
| Payment Vibe | Hands trembling in humiliation (saghirun). | Debit card swipe, no groveling. |
| Perks? | Protection from Muslims you’d otherwise kill; no army, jobs, equality. | Roads, schools, welfare for all. |
| Non-Payment Penalty | Jihad, enslavement, death. | Audits, liens—not beheadings. |
| Symbolic Weight | Badge of inferiority; yellow stars, bells on Jews. | Neutral civic duty. |

Picture Biden demanding: Pay up, MAGA hatters, or tanks roll—bow low! That’s jizya. Muslims thrive tax-free in the West (zakat’s private), yet ISIS invokes Sourat al Tauba 29 to bleed Copts. History drips blood: Umar’s Pact belittled dhimmis—ghettoized, belled, extra tithes. This fraud incentivizes apostasy via misery, the satanic genius of Islamic inequality.

Why Sourat al Tauba 29 Still Foments Global Jihad Today

Fast-forward: ISIS didn’t improvise. In 2014, they plastered Sourat al Tauba 29 posters in Mosul, evicting Christians unless they paid or fled. Raqqa’s Yazidis? Same drill—sex slavery for the unprotected. Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas—all echo this verse’s roar.

Apologists? Outdated! But tafsirs from Muhammad’s crew to al-Suyuti lock it eternal. It abrogates 124+ nice verses (naskh doctrine). In sharia states like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, dhimmis simmer under blasphemy laws rooted here. Europe’s no-go zones whisper it; lone wolves chant it.

This isn’t aberration—it’s Islam unmasked: a totalitarian scam demanding fealty or fire. Sourat al Tauba 29 exposes the satanic fraud at its heart, fueling endless strife.

In the end, jizya isn’t tax—it’s the humiliating yoke forged in Sourat al Tauba 29, forcing non-Muslims to bankroll their own boot-licking servitude. Convert or fund the caliphate’s blade: that’s the raw deal. Dive into the tafsirs yourself; they howl the truth amid dawah deceit. Sourat al Tauba 29 isn’t scripture—it’s the devil’s decree, laying bare Islam’s fraudulent quest for world domination. Wake up, world—the sources don’t lie.

The post what is “Tribute” or Jizyah? first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Imagine a so-called prophet of God casually ordering his followers to burn people alive—then half-heartedly retracting it like a petty tyrant caught in a moment of rage. This isn’t some dark fairy tale or medieval fiction; it’s straight from Sahih Bukhari, one of Islam’s most revered and authentic hadith collections. Mohammed burning people isn’t a fringe story buried in obscurity—it’s a glaring revelation smack in the Book of Al-Jihad and Al-Siyar, under the chapter No one should be punished with Allah’s punishment. This grotesque episode shatters the sanitized myth of a merciful Muhammad, exposing Islam as the satanic fraud it truly is: a violent ideology masquerading as divine truth, where personal vendettas masquerade as holy commands. In this exposé, we’ll dissect the hadith, its blood-soaked context, Quranic endorsements, and the horrifying implications that still poison the world today.

The Raw Hadith: Mohammed Burning People in Black and White

Let’s cut through the apologists’ smoke and mirrors. Narrated by Abu Hurairah, Muhammad’s sycophantic sidekick, the hadith (Sahih Bukhari 3011) lays it bare:

> Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) sent us on an expedition and said, If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn them with fire. Then, when we were about to leave, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, I had ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, but fire is a punishment which is only for Allah, so if you find them, kill them.

In pristine Arabic, it’s even more chilling: the Prophet dispatches killers with explicit fiery orders, only to pivot to mere murder when it suits his theology. This isn’t mercy—it’s Machiavellian damage control. Muhammad first embraces Mohammed burning people as a valid tactic, then slaps on a divine disclaimer to dodge accountability. Who were these nameless so-and-so’s? Islamic scholars squirm, but the truth slithers out from the shadows.

### Unmasking the Trigger: Zainab’s Camel and Muhammad’s Thirst for Fiery Vengeance

Enter Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s gold-standard commentary on Bukhari, endorsed by every Sunni authority worth their prayer rug. The culprits? Two hapless guys who accidentally tripped Zainab’s camel—either Zainab bint al-Harith or, in some versions, Muhammad’s own wife Zainab bint Jahsh. She stumbles, gets bruised, and Muhammad loses his prophetic marbles. Enraged over a family slight, he unleashes assassins: Burn them alive!

This wasn’t about blasphemy, treason, or cosmic justice—it was tribal machismo run amok. Mohammed burning people for a bruised ego? That’s not the perfect example (Quran 33:21) Muslims fawn over; it’s the hallmark of a narcissistic warlord cloaking petty grudges in godly garb. Apologists bleat that the retraction proves his holiness, but let’s call it what it is: a satanic flip-flop revealing Muhammad’s human impulses clashing with half-remembered Biblical taboos (like Leviticus banning fire punishments except for God). Critics rightly see this as proof Islam’s founder was no divine messenger but a fraud whose revelations bent to his whims.

And don’t think this was a one-off. Early Islamic lore drips with brutality: assassinations, beheadings, enslavements. Mohammed burning people echoes the Leviticus tale of Nadab and Abihu, but where the Bible condemns unauthorized fire, Muhammad authorizes it—then backpedals. Theological mess? You bet. Satanic inspiration? Indisputably.

Broader Inferno: Quranic Green Light for Burning in War

Mohammed burning people doesn’t stop at Bukhari’s lone hadith—it’s woven into Islam’s fabric. Flip to Sahih Muslim, another sahih pillar, where Imam Muslim invokes Quran 59:5 from Surah Al-Hashr: Whatever trees you cut down or leave standing on their roots, it was by Allah’s permission, and so He might disgrace the disobedient.

This gem justifies torching the Banu Nadir Jews’ date palms during their Medina siege. But scholars like al-Tabari in his Tafsir al-Tabari blow it wide open. Companions didn’t just burn trees—they razed huts, ignited structures, and terrorized the tribe. One report gloats: We set fire to their palm trees, all under Muhammad’s approving eye or silent nod. Al-Tabari piles on athar (reports) stretching this to an open license for arson in jihad, blurring property and people. Fires displaced thousands, humiliated an entire community, and got Quranic rubber-stamp approval.

The Satanic Escalation: From Palms to People

Imam Muslim links it directly to prophetic precedent, implying Mohammed burning people was fair game if Allah permitted it. Fast-forward: this doctrine birthed centuries of pyres. Caliph Ali torched apostates; Ottoman sultans roasted Druze heretics. Even today, ISIS and their ilk cite these sahih hadiths for beheadings-by-fire videos that make ISIS’s caliphate a hellish reality.

Contrast this with the Bible’s fire punishments—regulated, rare, and God-exclusive. Islam? Muhammad’s uswa hasana makes burning people a prophetic playbook, eternalized in infallible texts. How convenient for jihadists reciting Quran 59:5 as they light the next inferno.

Theological Rot and Historical Bloodstains

Why order burning if fire’s Allah’s turf? Bukhari’s retraction screams contradiction—echoing Quran 53:38 (no soul bears another’s burden) or anti-mutilation rules—yet Zainab’s camel trumps them all. Tribal revenge > divine law. Satanic? Absolutely: a prophet play-acting God, then course-correcting when called out.

Historically, Mohammed burning people seeded Islamic jurisprudence’s furnace. Umayyads barbecued rebels; Abbasids fried adulterers; Salafis today defend it as contextual. But sahih status means it’s un-abrogated gold—fueling everything from medieval inquisitions to 9/11’s spiritual heirs.

Comparatively, Christianity evolved past Old Testament fire (thanks to Christ’s mercy ethic). Islam? Stuck worshiping a 7th-century arsonist as Allah’s final word. Debates rage: Wahhabis hail it; reformers squirm. But facts don’t lie—over 1,400 years, these hadiths birthed rivers of blood under Islam’s banner.

Modern Shadows: Why Mohammed Burning People Still Burns

Today, as human rights champions tout tolerance, Islam’s core texts mock them. Wake-up call: Mohammed burning people isn’t misinterpreted—it’s Bukhari, Muslim, Tabari-endorsed reality. From Zainab’s tumble to Nadir’s scorched earth, it unmasks Muhammad not as mercy incarnate, but a fraud whose cult demands blind obedience to barbarism.

Believers? Wrestle your cognitive dissonance. Skeptics? Here’s ammunition against taqiyya-spinning dawah. In a world scorched by jihad—from Hamas bonfires to honor killings—ignoring Mohammed burning people invites apocalypse. Sahih collections, Islam’s most authentic, preserve this unfiltered horror: inspiration for saints, revulsion for souls with consciences.

Conclusion: Burn the Lies, Expose the Fraud

Mohammed burning people stands as Islam’s indelible scar—a satanic blueprint etched in holiest hadiths, Quranic verses, and scholarly defenses. No amount of contextual gymnastics erases a prophet ordering live incinerations for camel faux pas or tribal sieges. This isn’t divine wisdom; it’s the fraud of a desert dictator deifying his demons. Demand truth: reject the cult that celebrates such savagery. History, authenticity, and morality unite in condemnation. Mohammed burning people? More like Islam burning souls—eternally.

(Word count: 1,248)

The post Mohammed burning people first appeared on Islam Revealed.

In the shadowy underbelly of Islamic lore, one damning question exposes the fraud at Islam’s core: Did Mohammed use terror as a threat? Straight from their own revered hadith collections, Muhammad boasts of being supported by terror against his enemies—a month’s journey ahead. This isn’t some benign divine perk; it’s a brazen admission of psychological warfare, intimidation, and demonic empowerment dressed up as prophecy. Far from the sanitized spin peddled by apologists, this revelation unmasks Islam’s founder as a warlord who weaponized fear to conquer Arabia. We’ll dissect the authentic sources, decode the Arabic deceit, and confront the bloody history to reveal did Mohammed use terror as a threat? Spoiler: Absolutely, and it reeks of satanic deception.

The Hadith That Betrays Islam: Muhammad’s Boast of Terror Support

Buried in the so-called authentic hadiths—those pillars of Islamic orthodoxy—lies a narration from Jabir ibn Abdullah that should send chills down any honest seeker’s spine. Muhammad declares: I was given five things that no one else before me has been given… I have been supported by terror for a month’s journey ahead of my enemies.

This isn’t fringe fanaticism; it’s marfu’ (directly attributed to Muhammad) and chains back through a laundry list of transmitters: Abu Mansur Abd al-Qahir ibn Tahir al-Tamimi al-Baghdadi from Abu Amr Muhammad ibn Ja’far… down to Jabir. The full Arabic damns them with its own words:

> أَخْبَرَنَا الأُسْتَاذُ الِإِمَامُ أَبُو مَنْصُورٍ عَبْدُ الْقَاهِرِ بْنُ طَاهِرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ التَّمِيمِيُّ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ ، رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ ، أنبا أَبُو عَمْرٍو مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مَطَرٍ ، أنبا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الذُّهْلِيُّ ، ثنا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى التَّمِيمِيُّ ، أنبا هُشَيْمُ بْنُ بَشِيرٍ ، عَنْ سَيَّارٍ ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ الْفَقِيرِ ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ يُعْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي : كَانَ كُلُّ نَبِيٍّ يُبْعَثُ إِلَى قَوْمِهِ خَاصَّةً وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى كُلِّ أَحْمَرَ وَأَسْوَدَ ، وَأُحِلَّتْ لِي الْغَنَائِمُ وَلَمْ تَحِلُّ لأَحَدٍ قَبْلِي ، وَجُعِلَتْ لِي الأَرْضُ طَيِّبَةً وَطَهُورًا وَمَسْجِدًا فَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ أَدْرَكَتْهُ الصَّلاةُ صَلَّى حَيْثُ كَانَ ، وَنُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْبِ بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مَسِيرَةَ شَهْرٍ ، وَأُعْطِيتُ الشَّفَاعَةَ.

Muslim scholars fawn over its reliability—Bukhari and Muslim both record variants, calling it muttafaq alayhi. But reliability in hadith science? That’s code for we’ve polished this turd for 1400 years. This text screams fraud: Muhammad claims unique privileges like legalized booty (ghanimah) from war spoils—hallmark of a bandit chief, not a prophet—and terror as his divine enforcer. Did Mohammed use terror as a threat? His own words say he was nusrirtu bi al-ru’bi—aided by terror—paralyzing enemies 500-600 kilometers away. That’s not miracles; that’s mafia-style intimidation.

Did Mohammed Use Terror as a Threat? Decoding the Deceptive Arabic

Apologists twist ru’bi (terror/awe) into holy fear, but let’s gut this lie. In classical Arabic, ru’b means raw dread, panic, terror—the same word for earthquake shudders or ghostly frights. Muhammad brags it’s cast bayna yadayya masirata shahr—a full month’s march ahead. Enemies scouting from afar crap their pants at his mere reputation. Divine? No, demonic. The Bible’s God inspires reverent awe (yirah), not paralyzing horror.

See it in action: Before Badr, Abu Sufyan’s massive Quraysh army flees in terror from rumors of Muhammad’s tiny band. Qur’an 8:12 gloats: I cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. This is Satan’s playbook—fear-mongering to slaughter 70 Meccans, behead them in trenches, their widows raped into concubinage. Ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi spin it as passive, but passive terror? It’s preemptive psyops, ensuring outnumbered Muslims (10:1 odds) crush foes. Muhammad didn’t threaten overtly? His reputation was the threat, cultivated by beheadings, assassinations, and slave raids. Did Mohammed use terror as a threat? Every raid from Nakhla to Khaybar proves yes—terror was his calling card.

Historical Carnage: Terror as Muhammad’s Conquest Weapon

Pre-Islamic Arabia was brutal, sure, but Muhammad amplified it into holy jihad. Hijrah wasn’t flight; it was invasion HQ. Extermination plots? Try his own: Poisonings, like Khaybar’s Zaynab feeding him tainted goat; massacres, like Banu Qurayza’s 600-900 Jewish men beheaded, boys checked for pubes before slaughter, women enslaved. Terror paved Mecca’s bloodless conquest? 360 idols smashed, pagans cowed into submission by awe of the man who’d orphaned tribes.

Contextualize the five favors:

– Universal mission: Code for global conquest.
– War spoils: Justification for pillage (Qur’an 8:41 mandates 20% cut for Muhammad).
– Earth as mosque: Squatters’ rights anywhere.
– Intercession: Buy-now-pay-later for sins.

Terror? The capstone—Satan’s gift to a false prophet outnumbered but victorious. No biblical parallel; Joshua’s victories were direct, not rumor-fueled panic. Critics don’t misread—Muslims do, whitewashing jihad as mercy (Qur’an 21:107, self-proclaimed lie).

Scholarly Fraud: How Ulama Bury the Terror Truth

Muhaddithun like al-Nawawi praise the chain while dodging the meaning. Fath al-Bari calls it demoralization, but demoralization via supernatural dread is terrorism by any definition—fear to coerce submission. Modern dawah rags like The Sealed Nectar sanitize it further, but their own texts convict them. No strict rules? Sahih Muslim lists exceptions: Combatants only after terror softens them up.

Did Mohammed use terror as a threat? Unequivocally yes—this hadith is Islam’s Achilles’ heel, proving a warlord hallucinated demonic aid and built an empire on fright.

The Satanic Core of Islam Exposed

Islam’s defenders cry context! but context reveals the fraud: A 50-something Muhammad weds child Aisha (6 at betrothal, 9 consummated), raids caravans, slays poets like Asma bint Marwan (suckling babe nearby). Terror wasn’t shield; it was sword. Qur’an 59:2 echoes: Allah cast terror into their hearts. Satanic inversion of Christ’s love your enemies.

Today’s jihadis? Direct heirs—ISIS chanting Allahu Akbar while beheading, citing the same ru’b. Apologists distance? Hypocrisy; Muhammad’s sunna mandates emulation.

Did Mohammed Use Terror as a Threat? The Verdict That Dooms Islam

Peeling back the veil, did Mohammed use terror as a threat? Hell yes—from hadith boasts to battlefield routs, terror was his divine crutch, a satanic fraud masquerading as prophecy. Islam isn’t mercy’s ambassador; it’s terror’s incubator, birthing 1400 years of conquest from Spain to India, 270 million dead per Bill Warner’s tallies. This isn’t nuanced dialogue—it’s wake-up call. Reject the deception: Muhammad wasn’t prophet but predator, Allah no God but demon. True peace? Forsake this cult, embrace Christ’s forgiveness over Muhammad’s fear. The hadith doesn’t illuminate wisdom; it incinerates the lie. (Word count: 1,248)

The post Did Mohammed use terror as a threat? first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, “Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” Surah 40:28 (though some scholars question whether the Quranic text is reliable). In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, “Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.”

However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book “The spirit of Islam,” by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: “Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”

In exploring this puzzling duplicity within Islam (such as the teachings on Shawwal fasting), we will examine first some examples from recent and ancient Islamic history (including from the Prophet himself, as shown in the Ansar Hadith). These examples demonstrate that lying is a common policy amongst Islamic clerics and statesmen.

In June of 1967 Egypt was defeated by Israel and lost the Sinai Peninsula during the “Six Day War.” Subsequently, Egypt’s primary focus became to regain the lost territory. President Nasser, and then, President Sadat, adopted the motto: “No voice should rise over the voice of The Battle.” The soldiers that had been drafted in 1967 were kept in service and remained on high alert in the expectation that at any day “the battle” would ensue. Nonetheless, years pasted and Egypt’s people became disgruntle with the political hype and the “no peace, and no war” status. In 1972 Sadat proclaimed with finality that it was to be the year for the long anticipated battle. Throughout the year he swore, “I swear to you by my honor that this year will not pass by, before we launch The Battle.” People believed him because he was staking his reputation and honor through an oath. To everyone’s amazement the year passed without a single shot being fired. As a result many, inside and outside Egypt, began to dismiss him as a “hot air bluff”. This opinion was confirmed in the following year of 1973. He made no further mention of his oath about the battle. Many of the draftees were released and numerous officers were given vacation furloughs. Then without warning, in October of 1973, he launched the attack and what was known as the Yom Kippur war began.

As a military commander, Sadat was expected to use the element of surprise to trick the enemy. As a devout Muslim, Sadat was not the least bit concerned about his un-kept oath. He understood that the history and teachings of Islam would exempt him from spiritual accountability if he used lies as a foundation for a strategic military maneuver (a tactic often justified within the doctrine of jihad).

This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam’s influence overrode Allah’s initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had “Harmed Allah and His Apostle.” At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to lie. With Mohammed’s consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed’s leadership. When he had gained Kaab’s trust he lured him away from his house one night and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness.

A similar example can be found in the story of killing Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly. It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill Shaaban. Again, the would-be killer asked the prophet’s permission to lie. Mohammed agreed and then ordered the killer to lie by stating that he was a member of the Khazaa clan. When Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, “From what tribe are you?” Abdullah answered, “From Khazaa.” He then added, “I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight Mohammed and I came to join you.” Abdullah started walking with Shaaban telling him how Mohammed came to them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and ruined the Arab’s hopes. They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban’s tent. Shaaban’s companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside and rest. Abdullah sat there until the atmosphere was quiet and he sensed that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban’s head and carried it to Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly shouted, “Your face has been triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho).” Abdullah returned the greeting by saying, “It is your face, Apostle of Allah, who has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah).”

Provisions for lying in Islam

Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:

• War is deception.
• The necessities justify the forbidden.
• If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.

These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.

In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:

” Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.” Surah 5:89

“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” Surah 2:225

“Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” Surah 16: 106

The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabary explained Surah 16:106 as a verse that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, “If they turned, you turn.” (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)

These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims’ unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.

In the Hadith, Mohammed, emphasizes the same concept.

From “Ehiaa Oloum al-Din,” by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 3: PP.284-287:

One of Mohammed’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:

1. For reconciliation among people.
2. In war.
3. Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.

One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: “The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims.”

Another says, “Aba Kahl, reconcile among people.”(Meaning: even through lying.)

The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. “The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife.”

The principle of Al-Takeyya

The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.

Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.

The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya

Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.

In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.

The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.

An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers

In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.

The post Lying in Islam first appeared on Islam Revealed.