Dunia ijadili chanzo cha ugaidi sio matokeo yake

[CHAMVIGA]

Chanzo ni uislamu. sio mafundisho potofu wala nini. uislamu halisi ndio chanzo halisi cha yote haya. Kimsingi uislamu unalazimisha watu wote wawe watiifu kwa 'allah'.
Lengo la Al-shabab ni kufanya somalia kuwa makao makuu ya kueneza jihad dunia nzima. Hivyo ni busara kabisa kwa mataifa yote kuingia somalia na kuwaondoa.

Ukibabuliwa pia usilalamike.

 

[life is Short]

Mkuu mie niCool, ndomaana nimekuja kwa wema, Ukifuatilia ujangili wa mipakani kaskazini wakenya ndiyo wavamizi na waporaji na wengi wamo katika milima ya usambaani na maeneo yake:- soma/ rejea magazeti yetu wenyewe. Pili Shabab ni militia tu, Hawana Uharamia wa bahari wale ni wengine kabisa..(old warriors/ex soldiers) Shabab (vijana) ni mkusanyiko wa mataifa na umri wao kisiasa ni zero% na watoto kwa rika. hawana uongozi ila ndani ya miji tu.Lakini leo wameanza kuexport baada ya kuwaUMIZA na kuwatoa katika maeneo yaliyokuwa chini yao. La zaidi hatulijui nalo ni "hulka ya wasomali waina hiyo ni kulipa visasi hata kwa jambo lisiloPAYau lenye kufikiri twice!! wao ni tofauti na watu wengine "huoni ukatili wanaowafanyia binamu zao? makabila yao? Sasa hawaelezeki ni bora kuwa mbali nao kuliko ! Good luck ntaendelea kuheshimu rai yako na wengine.

Mkuu nikuengezee ubeti katika shairi...Watu wa Horn of Africa ni waVisasi visasi walienda Uganda wakalipua kwa sababu ya AU pcs forces only, mbona hawarudi? Awali walitoa ONYO kwa jirani zao zikapuuzwa !!

 

[life is Short]

Ukibabuliwa pia usilalamike.

Wandugu , Wacha walete kebehi zao na kejeri zao !! Hizo ndiyo zao hawana comments hawana hekima "wakati kama huu people huwaga PATRIOTICs"Mungu awasamehe.

 

[kibogo]

chanzo cha ugaidi ni kile kitabu kilichoshushwa kinachowaita wengine "makafir"

Kwa mlolongo wa majina haya inaonyesha wazi Marekani kuna chuo cha Ugaidi kwa nini magaidi wengi ndani ya dunia hii utakuta wanaishi au wamepata elimu kupitia huko Marekani.

 

[MAMAYAKE B]

Kweli tuangalie tulipojikwaa sio tulipoangukia

 

[Nguruvi3]

Mkuu mie niCool, ndomaana nimekuja kwa wema, Ukifuatilia ujangili wa mipakani kaskazini wakenya ndiyo wavamizi na waporaji na wengi wamo katika milima ya usambaani na maeneo yake:- soma/ rejea magazeti yetu wenyewe. Pili Shabab ni militia tu, Hawana Uharamia wa bahari wale ni wengine kabisa..(old warriors/ex soldiers) Shabab (vijana) ni mkusanyiko wa mataifa na umri wao kisiasa ni zero% na watoto kwa rika. hawana uongozi ila ndani ya miji tu.Lakini leo wameanza kuexport baada ya kuwaUMIZA na kuwatoa katika maeneo yaliyokuwa chini yao. La zaidi hatulijui nalo ni "hulka ya wasomali waina hiyo ni kulipa visasi hata kwa jambo lisiloPAYau lenye kufikiri twice!! wao ni tofauti na watu wengine "huoni ukatili wanaowafanyia binamu zao? makabila yao? Sasa hawaelezeki ni bora kuwa mbali nao kuliko ! Good luck ntaendelea kuheshimu rai yako na wengine.

Nami naheshimu sana rai za wengine.
Tumeshahu matukio ya kuteka watalii yalivoathiri sekta ya utalii Kenya? Kenya ingakaa mbali kwa mtazamo upi? Kwamba iwaache tu waendelee na shughuli zao hata kama ina athiri uchumi wao. Haki ya kujilinda inakuwa wapi?

Na sisi tuliwafundisha Polisi wa Somalia kwa nia njema tu. Tukiruhusu Alshabaab watishe basi hakuna aliye salama.
Nakumbusha kuwa majangili nao walikuwa wanatishia kama Alshabaab.
Kwa jinsi Somalia ilivyo haya majina ya Alshabaab kuwa vijana ni ulaghai tu. Viongozi wao ni wazee wengine miaka 50 na 60. Kuna kijana wa umri huo.

Hoja yangu ni kuwa watu wasishabikie matukio ya maafa kama haya. Hili ni tatizo lipo ukumbini kwetu.
Watu wasitafute sababu za kuwapa Alshabaa sababu kwa kusema tujadili uhalifu.
Ugaidi ni uovu tu bila kujali kafanya nani.

Kuna vitu vya kujadili lakini hawa Alshabaab wanaopita mitaani na 'plaizi' na kung'oa meno watu wenye meno ya dhahabu kwa kisingizio cha dini, kugawana mitaa ili kuchukua kodi na hata kuteka meli maana watekaji ni vijana (Alshabaab) leo tujiulize kwanini wanfanya hayo! serious! Tujadili chanzo cha watu walioshindwa kuelewana wakiwa na kila sababu za kuwaunganisha kijamii.
Real! Tujadili hadi upumbavu ili tupate jibu la matokeo! real!

Leo tukimbie na kukubaliana na vitisho vyao badala ya kufikiria kupambana nao.
Kukimbia ni kuwapa ushindi na hawataachi hapo watadai zaidi kwasababu wanajua tunawaogopa.

 

[Paul S.S]

Mpendwa PSS, ivo kweli?!! Basi waliyowafundisha wapo Vatican na waalimu wao ni C I A na intenlenjsia wao ni nchi za magharibi......! itafika wakati watasitisha na kuachilia mbali kuwa mafighters. Time will tell. Kila la heri , Unanisikitisha kutosoma....

life is Short nimetoa sababu ns sijahalalisha uonevu huo wa waislam kama upo, Ugaidi ulikuwepo toka enzi lakini ugaidi wa leo asilimia kubwa ni madai ya uislam kuonewa, na rudia tena zaidi ya asilimia 90 ya vitendo vya kigaidi dunia vinafanywa na waislam,

hakuna vita ya jihad ya kupigana na mkristo/ kafiri. kuna vita inayopiganwa dhidi ya wenye kudhulumu haki za waislamu hiyo ndiyo inyoitwa jihad. kule Uganda kuna Kony anayepigana vita dhidi ya serikali ya Uganda ili iendeshwe kwa amri kumi za Mungu,wanaua,wanabaka,wanateka watoto kuwaingiza jeshini je hawa ni waislamu. mkumbuke tu "bila haki hakuna amani" nawauliza nyie makanjanja Mbowe na Mbatia juzi wamesema "DAMU ITAMWAGIKA KIKWETE AKITIA SAINI JE HAWA NI WAISLAMU?" mnaimbishwa tuuu

Ngoshanyi sijazungumzia jihad hapa nimezungumzia sababu kuu ya ugaidi dunia ni uislam kudai unaonewa, akina cony na wengine wasio waislam pia wapo lakini asilimia kubwa ya vitendo vya ugaidi vinafanywa kwa kivuli cha uislam

 

[MBWA WA MANZESE]

NAONA WATU WANAZUNGUKA MBUYU KIINI CHA UGAIDI NI TRINITY YA ALLAH, MUHAMAD NA QURAN, MENGINE NI UNAFIKI WA KUOGOPA KUSEMA UKWELI:

The Quran contains dozens of violence verses:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. Unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning war. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.


From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

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

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.


Additional Notes:
Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. This is why Muslim apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret the Quran without their "assistance" - even while claiming that it is a perfect book.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").

One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

GAMES THAT MUSLIMS PLAY


“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

The Muslim Game:

Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion? If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?

The Truth:

The same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year? Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane full of passengers into an office building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs?

Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let's just say that the reason why most Muslims don't kill is that regardless of what Islam may or may not teach it's wrong to kill over religious beliefs.

Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, it is clearly mandated in both the Qur'an (5:38) and the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792). As individuals, Muslims make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice.

However, even though believers may think whatever they want about what Islam says or doesn't say, it doesn't change what Islam says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.

The Qur'an plainly teaches that it is not only proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement. Muslims who don't believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Muhammad’s religion. Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise.

In fact, few Muslims have ever read the Qur'an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Muhammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint. The harsh rules that Muslim countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood. In the West, many Muslims, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Islam is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary.

It is no coincidence, however, that the purists who take Islam too heart are far more likely to become terrorists than humanitarians. Those most prone to abandoning themselves to Muhammad's message without moral preconception are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.



“Other religions kill, too.”

The Muslim Game:

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? How about Anders Breivik, the Norwegian killer? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:

Because they don’t.

Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man (in fact, he stated explicitly that he was agnostic and that "science" was his religion). At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for Jesus. His motives are very well documented through interviews and research. God is never mentioned.

The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 innocents in a lone rampage on July 22nd, 2011, was originally misidentified as a "Christian fundamentalist" by the police. In fact, the killings were later determined to be politically motivated. He also left behind a detailed 1500 page manifesto in which he stated that he is not religious, does not know if God exists, and prefers a secular state to a theocracy. Needless to say, he does not quote any Bible verses in support of his killing spree, nor did he shout "praise the Lord" as he picked people off.

In the last ten years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.



Muhammad preached “No compulsion in religion.”
(Qur’an, Verse 2:256)

The Muslim Game:

Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…”

The Truth:

The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.

But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur'an 2:106, 16:101).

Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a warning to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah." This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies a very different value and standard of treatment to both groups.

Though most Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..." (See Bukhari 2:24)

Muhammad put his words into practice. When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by the Arabs for centuries. By eliminating these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own. Later, he ordered that Jews and Christians who would not convert to Islam be expelled from Arabia. Does forcing others to choose between their homes or their faith sound like "no compulsion in religion?"

According to Muslim historians, Muhammad eventually ordered people to attend prayers at the mosque to the point of burning alive those who didn't comply. He also ordered that children who reached a certain age be beaten if they refused to pray.

Interestingly, even the same contemporary Muslims who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death (or imprisonment, for females), and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.”

Islamic law explicitly prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?



The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions.”

The Truth:

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad."

Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.



"Muhammad never killed anyone.”

The Muslim Game:

In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).

The Truth:

By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.

Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.

There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad’s order, a Qurayza woman made delirious by the execution of her family, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then “marry” his freshly-widowed wife.

Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.



“The Qur’an Teaches that all Life is Sacred”
(Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:

In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Muslim apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah - especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists:

"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"
(As quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless “Fatwa against Terrorism”)
The Truth:

This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means - with varying standards. Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Muhammad and the Quran counts as "mischief".

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a divine command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was given to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against the Jews for violating the law given to them. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

Any application to Muslims would have to apply only to Muslims - as in Muslim on Muslim murder within the brotherhood of believers. In fact, the context of the verse is the murder of Abel by Cain. Historically, this verse has never been interpreted by Islamic scholars to mean that Allah places equal value on the lives of non-Muslims. The Quran says that restitution for murder is bound by the law of equality (2:178) and that non-believers are not equal to Muslims (39:09). Muhammad affirmed that while a Muslim may be punished with death for killing a fellow Muslim, they should never be slain for killing a non-believer.

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as ‘wicked’ people with ‘diseased hearts’ and as hateful ‘blasphemers’ respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who “fight” in his service - and it’s fairly obvious who the enemy is.

Muslim apologists conveniently leave out the fact that the gruesome verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned “mischief”. It even suggests crucifixion and “the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”

Although verse 5:32 recounts the law given to Jews, the verse that follows is clearly intended for Muslims. Verse 5:33 provides the basis for blasphemy laws, in which people are executed for insulting or questioning Islam. Ironically then, the very part of the Quran that apologists use to portray Islam as a non-violent religion has long been used as justification for making verbal offense into a capital crime.

So, the Quran's best example of moral instruction is a passage which actually mandates the torture and execution of those deemed a threat to Islamic hegemony...

With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it’s not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks to the world each and every year.



“Muslims only kill in self-defense.”

The Muslim Game:

Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defense (ie. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:

In fact, self-defense is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defense is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad’s own life as recorded in Islam’s sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad’s career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans traveling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defense involved here at all (on the part of the Muslims, at least). This was old-fashioned armed robbery and murder – sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot for himself).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defense after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives – something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The early Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify Muhammad's violence by claiming that he and his followers “suffered persecution” at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. Nor were Muhammad and his Muslims in any danger at all in their new home of Medina. They were free to get on with their lives.

Even Muhammad’s own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that “the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]” (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. All that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defense. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.

Following his death, Muhammad’s companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Persia, Central Asia, and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretense of self-defense. They were about Jihad.



"The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.”

The Muslim Game:

In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur’an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.

So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).

The Truth:

In fact, not only is the word “Jihad” mentioned in several places within the Qur'an, such as the infamous Sura 9 (which includes the “Verse of the Sword”), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text.

So what’s the catch?

Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”

And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). "Jihad" is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).

If “Jihad” is holy without war, then “Qital” must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: “Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah.” Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn’t qualify according to the niceties of his offer.

So, although the Qur’an tells believers to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them,” and “smite their necks and fingertips,” showing “ruthlessness to unbelievers,” and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words “holy” and “war” don’t literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, “concentration” and “camp,” appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).

My, what a hollow victory this is! One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.

At the very least, people should know that “Jihad” is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur’an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam’s most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism.



“Verses of violence are taken out of context.”

The Muslim Game:

All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur’anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur’an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with violent Old Testament passages).

The Truth:

Unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite. This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the "counseling" of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them" interpret what they read.

It isn't the verses of violence that are rare; it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Muhammad's life and superseded by later ones). Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in most cases. There is nothing overall that limits the targeting of unbelievers to a specific place and time.

One would think that a perfect book from a perfect god would be easy to understand, but in the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. Few Quran's are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original "revelation."

This is a problem when it comes to many of the verse that dictate violence. Although they can often be mitigated with non-intuitive references to entirely separate passages, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework. It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave the brutally sensitive topic of killing open to human interpretation.

With external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as present-day orders.

But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Muslims are likely to engage. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there - such as in the case of the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur'an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.



"Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion"

The Muslim Game:

How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?

The Truth:

In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief. Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet. Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. Does this mean that the earth wasn’t doing these things up until people believed that it was?

Secondly, Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of genuine accomplishment. There are also a few women who "marry into Islam" each year, but this is usually just a nominal change in official designation.

Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who had no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and other parts of the non-Muslim world in which all religions are allowed to compete equally such people experiencing a spiritual awakening are far more likely to turn to Christianity than Islam.

This leads to our most important point, which is that decent Muslims should feel a sense of embarrassment rather than pride over the rules that they have to enforce in order to maintain Islam's status as the "fastest growing religion." In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Muslims have in their own religion - and the banal immaturity of Islam compared with other faiths.

Let’s say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren’t allowed to make any moves on his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves on yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken.

Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can truly take pride?

The rules that Muslims impose on the “conversion game” are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam’s own territory (ie. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death.

In the Muslim world, Christians who evangelize are imprisoned, assaulted, beaten, set on fire, shot, bludgeoned, and tortured by Islamists. Missionaries are raped and killed. Former Muslims who embrace Christianity as their religion of choice are thrown in jail along with their children, sexually assaulted, crippled, hanged, stoned, stabbed, dismembered, carved up, scalded, beheaded, brutalized, doused with acid, burned alive and publicly executed...

...and Muslims brag that their religion is growing faster!

Muslims who gloat over their “fast growing" religion are no different than the child from our example who deludes himself into thinking that he is smarter and better for “beating” a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial “victory” entirely meaningless.

So the more pertinent question isn't which religion is growing faster, but which is growing faster where people are free to choose. In this environment, Christianity wins easily. Converts are even won in Muslim countries under draconian conditions that Muslim evangelists never have to face anywhere on the planet. When was the last time a person was killed or tortured merely for embracing Islam?

Islam has been playing by its own rules since its inception. It is unlikely that Muslims will soon develop enough maturity or confidence in their own religion to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success, and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field.

As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has (by that standard, Christianity would be true). But when a religion has to be supported by double standards, death threats and violence there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.


(Note: Our article does not take issue with the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because we necessarily believe it, but because others have done a better job of refuting it. See Islam is not the Fastest Growing Religion in the World for an example.)



"The Qur'an Can Only be Understood in Arabic"

The Muslim Game:

The Qur’an can only be fully understood in Arabic. One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic.

The Truth:

Although Muslims often tell critics of Islam to "read the Qur'an," they are usually unprepared for what happens when their advice is heeded. An honest translation of Islam's holiest book generally reinforces negative opinion. The fallback is to then claim that the Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic.

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Qur’an and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that one "must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Qur’an are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all people in the only language that cannot be understood by all people? Even the vast majority of Muslims and their imams do not speak Arabic.

Even more suspicious is that this amazing linguistic “discovery” was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Qur’anic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) perfectly corresponds with the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Qur’an!

No other world religion claims that it can only be fully understood in one language. Neither is the same level of effort required to massage primary messages into palatability. While the Bible is distributed pretty much as is by various Christian groups, for example, it is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the "perfect book" can't be translated and that Allah's perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same "necessary" chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Qur’an-toting Osama bin Laden was a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well - a fact that is often ignored by the apologists, who only find Arabic linguistic skills relevant when they are lacking (not that the same pundits have ever been known to care about whether a critic of the Bible speaks Hebrew or Greek).

At this point there is only one avenue of escape for the beleaguered apologist - the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are - ironically enough - accused of taking the Qur'an 'too literally').

It is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are of such significance that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, but even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn - and susceptible to such horrible "misinterpretation" on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn't hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Neither do they qualify the claim that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" with the caveat that new converts (or the vast majority of existing Muslims) don't understand Islam since they can't read the Quran in Arabic.

Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others.

ALAMSIKI.

 

[Paul S.S]

Mmoja wa walionusurika anasema ilifikia mahali wakikukamata ndani ya ile mall unaulizwa kama wewe ni muslm or not ukisema not unakula shaba ya ubongo immediately, na ukisema yes unaulizwa mama yake Mohamed anaitwa nani? ukishindwa kujibu unakula shaba ya ubongo

 

[Chivundu]

Naona jamaa kaweka quran nzima,kaamua kutupeleka madrasa kinguvu na viboko juu.Sisomi mimi hizo mambo.

 

[Kijitonyama]

umenena vyema, naongezea sio imani tu, ugaidi ni zao la dhulma na uonevu.
Hebu jiulize, mtu akiwauwa wazazi wako, kakufanya mkimbizi ndani ya nchi yako, kabomo nyumba, shule ulokuwa unasoma, kawajeruhi nduguzo kawaacha vilema.
Maisha yako yote kayavuruga, je utaona manufaa ya kuendelea kuwa hapa duniani?
Utasita kumfanya lolote upatapo nafasi?

Nyie watu utumia kila aina ya ujinga kufanya dunia iwaelewe hasa mnapoua watu. Ebu tutazame vitu unavyoongea hapa...najua utarukia kingine ila ngoja nikukumbushe. Kwani Kenya kabla hawajaenda Somalia kuwapiga hawa wahuni, si mabomu yalikuwa yakiua watu kila siku Kenya? na ndo chanzo cha kwenda kuwapiga huko Somalia. Sasa wewe unajiongezea uchungu na kulia mwenyewe kama mtu anayejipulizia pilipili machoni hili alie.
Haya, twambie hata maharamia wa kisomali nao walinyanganywa kila kitu ndo maana wanafanya wayafanyayo? Syria, mbona rais anaua watu wake kwa kemikali? naye amenyanganywa kila kitu? Ghadaffi, kabla hajafa, alikodisha maelfu ya wahuni kuja kuua wananchi wake akihofu watamtoa madarakani, huyo naye unasemaje? Saddam Hussein na watoto wake wawili Quday na Qusay, waliua watu wengi sana akiwepo mke wa Saddam aliyeuwawa na Quday, hawa unasemaje?
Kinachoendelea Somalia na kwingineko ni matokeo ya ujinga na utawala wa kipumbavu. Mwishowe, watu wanakosa la kufanya hasa vijana wadogo na kuangukia mikononi mwa wahuni kwa kudanganywa na sababu unazosema humu. Nakuhakikishia wakiwauliza hao watekaji, hakuna hata aliyemaliza darasa la saba. Ni wajinga kupindukia hivyo mawazo yao ni rahisi kuyateka. Hawa wasomali wanasifika kwa utekaji magali, meli, kuuana na kulipiza visasi. Kwani hujui?
Labda tuwe wajinga kama wewe na tujifanye Kenya iliwachokoza. Lakini waliokufa na kuumizwa, walikuwemo watanzania, wachina, watu wa Canada, na sehemu mbali mbali za dunia. Sasa hao wamekosa nini? Ebu tueleze vizuri kwa nini walikuwa wanauliza dini za mtu kabla ya kuua? kwani jeshi la Kenya linalopigana Somalia lina dhehebu moja tu?
Nadhani wewe, wao na group lenu lote, mpo confused. Hamjui mnapigania nini. Kama kweli ni wapiganaji si wavae uniform waje wapigane vizuri kama wanaume?
Mpo confused na dunia inabidi ikae sawa, iwapinge na kutafuta wahusika na walimu wenu wanaowafundisha ujinga huo. Tumechoka sasa. Hatutakaa kuwalea na kuwa wazazi wenu. Hii kazi ilitakiwa ifanywe na wazazi wenu.
Mimi niliposomea Secondary, kulikuwa na darasa la D ambapo watu wenu walikuwa wanakaa wengi sana. Huko hawasomi kabisa. Yaani kuiba madaftari, kugombana na matusi ndo shughuli yao. Wakitoka hapo mkafanya mtihani, wanapata zero. Wengi wao sasa hivi wana maduka na ni watekaji wazuri tu wa magari. Yaani kunyanganya watu mali zao. Nina hakika kila mtu kasoma nao hawa watu. Mtakuwa mmegundua tabia zao zilivyo za ajabu. Wakishapata zero, wanaanza...oh, tulinyimwa elimu, tulinyanganywa kila kitu....pooor excuse. Nyie watu mmetuchosha sana. Ona taifa letu linapoelekea likiwa mikononi mwenu. Upande mwingine wa shilling. Maovu yameshamiri sana na si group Fulani la watu. Kwani Albino walikuwa wanauwawa na al-shabaab? Wapo waumini wa madhehebu mengine walikuwa wakishiriki mauaji hayo. Ufisadi wa Tanzania umeanza tukiwa na viongozi wa madhehebu mbalimbali hivyo, tusimame na tukemee uovu. Tunyooshe vidole kwa kila mhusika. Awe al-shaabab, fisadi na kila mtu.

 

[Sybog]

Wale mapadri waliopigwa risasi pale Zenj na kumwagiwa tindikali ni copycat ya itikadi hii

na zile risasi sheikh Aboud Rogo na wale waislam 7 waliokuwa wakitoka msikitini walivyo uawa labda ndio muendelezowake .

 

[Sybog]

life is Short nimetoa sababu ns sijahalalisha uonevu huo wa waislam kama upo, Ugaidi ulikuwepo toka enzi lakini ugaidi wa leo asilimia kubwa ni madai ya uislam kuonewa, na rudia tena zaidi ya asilimia 90 ya vitendo vya kigaidi dunia vinafanywa na waislam,

 

[jMali]

hujaona padri anaozesha -------? dini yenu si inawakubali mashoga kuwa mapadri na kuruhusu ushoga

Lakini mashoga wakioana kwa mapadri wao ni imani yao wewe imani yako inaingiliwa vipi?

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

mtoa mada unafikiri chanzo cha ugaidi ni nini?

 

[jMali]

na zile risasi sheikh Aboud Rogo na wale waislam 7 waliokuwa wakitoka msikitini walivyo uawa labda ndio muendelezowake .

Yani sheikh auwawe kenya, muendelezo uwe Zanzibar?

 

[jMali]

View attachment 113362

Kwa mlolongo wa majina haya inaonyesha wazi Marekani kuna chuo cha Ugaidi kwa nini magaidi wengi ndani ya dunia hii utakuta wanaishi au wamepata elimu kupitia huko Marekani.

Hawa watu wanakuwa recruited marekani, wanasafirishwa kuja mafunzoni Somalia. chuo kipo somalia!

 

[artorius]

Natamani George W.Bush arudi madarakani tena,naona kama the world is not fighting terrorism tena

 

[Nguruvi3]

mtoa mada unafikiri chanzo cha ugaidi ni nini?

Watu wetu wengi wasio na hatia wanapoteza maisha na viungo vyao kutokana na ugaidi, hii inauma, lakini inauma zaidi kuona dunia iko kimya kujadili chanzo halisi cha ugaidi duniani, badala yake tunalia na matokeo ya ugaidi tu.

Hii ni ngoma ya 'do me do you', kama Marekani yenye nguvu ilishindwa vibaya huko Somalia enzi zile, je, Kenya? al-shababu na 'magaidi' watasambaratisha maisha yetu na chumi zetu tusipokuwa waangalifu na ugaidi.

Tunacheza ngoma tusizozijua vema. kenya ondoka Kenya, vinginevyo uchumi wako utasambaratika kabisa kama Uchumi wa marekani unavyoyumba sasa kwa kuwasaka magaidi duniani.

Kwanini chanzo cha ugaidi hakisemwi huko the Huge?

MMM, labda nifunguke kuwa kinachofanyika hapa ni spinning za kutaka kuhalalisha tukio la Nairobi na kukwepa ukweli kuhusu tukio.
Inatafutwa njia ya kuingiza mataifa ya magharibi ili ujengeke uhalali wa uovu.

Watu wanashindwa kujiuliza ni vipi Wasomali ambao kijamii ni jamii iliyo na ufungamano washindwe kuishi kwa amani miaka 20? asilimia 99.9 ni waislam na lugha moja, hawana kabila wana koo na tamaduni zao ni sawa.
Hili ni nyongeza ya swali mleta mada atusaidie ili kutoa mwelekeo wa majadiliano.

Watu wanasahau kuwa Kenya ilishambuliwa katika sekta za utalii na Alshabaab licha ya manshambulizi mengine yaliyotangulia kule Mombasa. Leo equation imegeuzwa wanaambiwa Kenya wanaonekana wabaya

Watetezi wa Alshabaab wana hoja moja inayowasumbua.
Wao wanadhani Alshabaab inapigana vita ya dini dhidi ya watu wa imani nyingine.
Kwasababu au kutoelewa facts na kuzikwepa zingine kwa spinning mara nyingi hujikuta wakiwa mahali pabaya zaidi.

Hakuna dini katika hizi tuzijuazo inayohubiri mauaji na ukatili. Hakuna! kama ipo nitajiwe moja.
Alshabaab wanatafuta sympathy ya kidini na bahati mbaya wasiojua dini wamewaunga mkono na kujikuta wanapaka dini matope. Huu ndio ukweli hata kama utauma. Huwezi kutetea Alshabaab kwa dini na dini ikabaki katika hadhi na heshima yake(Nina maana kufungamanisha dini na Alshabab ni kuichafua dini ambayo haisemi lolote kuhusu Alshabab)

Alshabaab wanasema jino la dhahabu ni haram kidini. Wanapita waking'oa kwa plaizi halafu wanauza meno hayo!!
Alshabaab wanasema ni harama kuangalia soka, wakati huo huo wanaangalia TV kusikia Marekani wanasema nini.
Wanasema ni haramu kutumia vifaa vya magharibi, wanatoa Tanganzo hilo wapo juu ya gari lililotengenezwa magharibi.
Alshabaab wanasema ni haram kutumia msaada wa FAO, wanakusanya magunia ya misaada wanakwenda kuuza nchi nyingine.
Wamefikia mahali wanazuia watu wasitumie mbolea, watumie kilimo cha zamani, njaa ikiuma wanawakimbia watu kwasababu wao wana pesa haram na uwezo wa kujikomboa.

Sasa anapotokea mtu na kudhani tunapaswa kujadili hawa wapuuzi ili tujue chanzo cha hasira zao inasikitisha.
Katika hayo hapo juu kipi unaweza kukiweka mezani ukasema kina mashiko.

Alshabaab si watetezi wa dini. Ni wahuni na wapuuzi wachache, kuwaunga mkono ni upuuzi kuliko upuuzi wao.
Hawana sababu ya kuulizwa wana chuki gani kwasababu hawana hata moja bali wamejaa ujinga na upumbavu.

 

[mjasiria]

Chanzo kikuu cha ugaidi ni dini ya Uislam kudai inaonewa na kuhujumiwa duniani kote.........period
Asilimia zaidi ya 90 ya vitendo vya kigaidi duniani vinafanywa na waislam

Takwimu tafadhali.