More Divorce Eisegesis Refuted

"[Jesus] then ruled in favor of the view that only the sexual violation of the marriage can justify a man divorcing his wife (Matt. 19:9). Such a divorce gives the innocent party the right to remarry. For a man to divorce his wife while the marriage is sexually pure makes any subsequent marriage an act of adultery, for which he is responsible. Even Jesus' own disciples were shocked by this statement (v. 10).

It is significant that under biblical law, the innocent party in the event of adultery, whether husband or wife, was free to remarry."

—The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 448.

Do these people not know how to read? Do they not know how to exegete and compare Scripture with Scripture? That is not what Jesus ruled! "What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern! Our personal feelings and opinions have no weight in the matter. Context and exegesis do not support the false interpretation of allowance for divorce that most Christians argue for. It perplexes me how so many Christians, past and present, could err on these passages. They need to check their emotions and opinions at the door and pay attention to the context and exegesis of the passages, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Since people seem to have a difficult time grasping the words that were spoken by Jesus, and understanding them correctly, let us look at what the Apostle Paul had to say. Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 7:10 where God stands regarding divorce and remarriage. For Paul to go against God would be disobedience and rebellion. "But to the married I give instructions, yet not I, but the Lord..." Who are these instructions coming from? Oh, that is right... God! What was it that God said? "The wife should not divorce her husband (but if she does divorce, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (vv. 10-11). Why? Jesus answered this already. Because "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Christians need to stop performing eisegesis by trying to force their modern understanding upon the text. Christians need to study the cultural context of the biblical times. In those days, it was common for arranged marriages. Prior to actually getting married, there was a period of betrothal, much like our modern engagement period. According to the context and exegesis of every passage in Scripture (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and Matthew 1:18-25 [Joseph and Mary]), Jesus' "exception clause" only applied during the period of betrothal—not once the vows were taken and the marriage was consummated! This should be fairly obviously by Jesus' use of the word "fornication," which means "premarital sex." In accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 22:13-21, Jesus was saying that had Joseph divorced His mother, Mary, even though they were not yet married (Matt. 1:18), he would have been justified in so doing (because he thought she had had premarital sex). But once those vows are exchanged, there is only one way out of the marriage union: death (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39)!

Does any Christian remember Jephthah? "Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31). What was the result of Jephthah's vow? "When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only child; besides her he had no son or daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot take it back." So she said to him, "My father, you have given your word to the LORD; do to me as you have said, since the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the sons of Ammon." She said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions." Then he said, "Go." So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year" (Judges 11:34-40).

Vows are sacred! What is it that most Christians fail to grasp about that concept? "I, _____, take you, _____, to be my lawfully wedded (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death us do part." That means, until death separates us. Even if you think you are clever (which you are not) and remove that clause from your wedding vows, you are fooling no one except yourselves. "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked" (Gal. 6:7a). God instituted marriage and He intended it to be for life, so whether you include that clause in your vows or not, it is still a binding constitution.

Christians! Stop perverting the Word of God by forcing your feelings and opinions and eisegetical understanding upon the text. Our day and age is not the biblical day and age. Pay attention to the words that are used, the various contexts, and compare Scripture with Scripture. Understand their culture. Do not attempt to force modern culture and understanding upon the text. We know nothing about arranged marriages. We know nothing about the period of betrothal. These were normal during their times. Once you understand these things, and stop trying to impose your living conditions upon the text, the passages become clear. Do not read or interpret the Bible with your experiences in mind! Get to know the biblical eras.

Concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4, R. L. Dabney writes:

Christ does not concede that [the Pharisees] interpreted Moses rightly; but indignantly clears the legislation of that holy man from their licentious perversions, and then, because of their abuse of it, repeals it by His plenary authority. He refers to that constitution of the marriage tie which was original, which preceded Moses, and was therefore binding when Moses wrote, to show that it  was impossible he could have enacted what they claimed. What, then, did Moses enact? Let us explain it. In the ancient society of the East, females being reared in comparative seclusion, and marriage negotiated by intermediaries, the bridegroom had little opportunity for a familiar acquaintance even with the person of the bride. When she was brought to him at the nuptials, if he found her disfigured with some personal deformity or disease (the undoubted meaning of the phrase "some uncleanness"), which effectually changed desire into disgust, he was likely to regard himself as swindled in the treaty, and to send the rejected bride back with indignity to her father's house. There she was reluctantly received, and in the anomalous position of one in name a wife, yet without a husband, she dragged out a wretched existence, incapable of marriage, and regarded by her parents and brothers as a disgraceful [e]ncumbrance. It was to relieve the wretched fate of such a woman that Moses' law was framed. She was empowered to exact of her proposed husband a formal annulment of the unconsummated contract, and to resume the status of a single woman, eligible for another marriage. It is plain that Moses' law contemplates the case, only, in which no consummation of marriage takes place. She finds no favour in the eyes "of the bridegroom." He is so indignant and disgusted that desire is put to flight by repugnance. The same fact appears from the condition of the law, that she shall in no case return to this man, "after she is defiled," i.e., after actual cohabitation with another man had made her unapproachable (without moral defilement) by the first). Such was the narrow extent of this law. The act for which it provided was divorce only in name, where that consensus, qui matrimonium facit, in the words of the law maxim, had never been perfected.

Compare that with what is said in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Regarding arranged marriages and the betrothal period, Mr. Dabney shows us that if a wife was maimed or disfigured or whatever, that the husband could break that agreement or pact by issuing her a statement of divorce. The act itself was "divorce" in name only as the act of marriage had not yet taken place. Once consummation takes place, you are one flesh for life.

Now, this should go without saying, but apparently it requires being repeated over and over again because some people appear to be too thick to grasp it. Many Christians like to claim that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, is giving permission for Christians to re-marry in certain circumstances. Let us put our thinking caps on and apply some electrical current to our brain cells, shall we? In verses 10-11, Paul just finished telling us what God's instructions are. Do we honestly think that, after that, Paul is going to give us instructions that contradict what God has just said? That would make Paul disobedient and rebellious. God "hate[s] divorce" (Malachi 2:16). Do we honestly think that Jesus, who is God, who hates divorce, would contradict Himself and provide a means for divorce once vows have been sworn and the marriage bed has been consummated? Think again!

Stop being a stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient people!

All This Space To Glorify God

"If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space."

This statement was repeated thrice in the movie Contact (1997). I have heard many skeptics and doubters use the same sentiments. You can repeat this statement as many times as you want and it will never make the words true. The fact is, there is only just us in the universe. If there was not, that creates a massive problem. Scripture says that we are made in God's image. In whose image would other races be made in? Scripture says Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross for the sins of His people, rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father. That means that any other races that might exist are condemned directly to Hell. Unless of course every one of these others races are somehow sinless.

With just us in the universe, the size of the universe is not a waste of space. Everything exists for one reason and for one reason only; to glorify God. Our oceans are largely unexplored. Are you going to say that since our oceans are largely unexplored and we do not know what is in their depths that whatever might exist down there is just a waste? Even if we never see everything the oceans contain, it is still not a waste. Maybe in our ignorance we might presume it to be, but not to God's wisdom. Everything exists for His glory. Every galaxy and the beauty of their solar systems, suns, stars, planets, moons, etc., whether we ever see them or not, were created for the glory of God.

Two truths exist simultaneously. The first truth is that while our egos think we are the best thing to come along since sliced bread, in the grand scheme of things and considered in the big picture of the entire universe, our existence is insignificant. We are but a speck of dust in the ocean that is the universe. The second truth is that while compared to the expanse of the universe and all it contains, we are insignificant, nevertheless we are the pinnacle of God's creation. We are unique. We were created in His image. We have a soul. We have consciousness. We can consider ourselves and our existence. Animals do not contemplate the meaning of their existence. They do not consider what they might do, how they might do it, or what the ramifications might be. Animals only possess instinct. The way animals function is like technology. There will never be such a thing as autonomous artificial intelligence. A.I. is only capable of doing what we program it to do. It will never be able to have an individual thought of its own. Animals function in the way they were created.

Humans are not animals. Some of us act like animals because we have been told we are animals for a long time, but humans are above every animal God created. Animals are not created in the image of God. They cannot reason. They cannot think. They cannot marvel at things in creation. Everything we take for granted about ourselves is an element that imitates an attribute of God's character. For further examination of this, see Created In the Image of God and Triune Being. Everything in this universe was created to point toward God.

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible

and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things

have  been created through Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16

Can A Good Muslim Be A Good American?

Can a good Muslim be a good American? or a good Canadian? or a good Australian? or a good Briton? or a good citizen of any other non-Muslim country?

Theologically	No!... Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously	No!... Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran 2:256).
Scripturally	No!... Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Qur'an.
Geographically	No!... Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially	No!.. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically	No!... Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically	No!... Because he is instructed to marry four (4) women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Qur'an 4:34).
Intellectually	No!... Because he cannot accept the American Constitution (or equivalent) since it is based on biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically	No!... Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually	No!... Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is never referred to as a Heavenly Father, nor is he ever called "love" in the Qur'an's 99 excellent names.

As long as any self-identifying Muslim holds to any of the teachings from the Qur'an and the Hadiths, or any of the teachings of Islam, he cannot be a good citizen of the country to which he has migrated. Every such Muslim is not to be trusted because you can guarantee that their allegiance will always be to Islam. That is a fact you can bank on. Unless they are ex-Muslims who have denounced the actions of Islamic terrorist groups and rejected the teachings of Allah, Muhammad, Islam, and the Qur'an, and embraced the laws and culture of the country they migrated to, they will never be good Americans, or Canadians, or Australians, or Brits, or anything else. If you want to see the future of America, Canada, and Australia, take a good look at what is happening in Great Britain. Unless changes are made, these are the horrors that our nations will face very shortly.

Muslims cannot and do not get along with anyone else!

Religious groups that can co-exist and act kindly toward one another:
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem

Where does the proverbial crap always seem to hit the fan?:
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with other Muslims = Problem

50+ Reasons Muhammad Was Not A Prophet

by David Wood

Why should the entire world reject Muhammad as a prophet? Here are 50+ reasons, arranged by category (some reasons could have been listed under more than one category).

MUHAMMAD'S SPIRITUAL PROBLEMS

• When Muhammad began receiving revelations, his first impression of these revelations was that they were demonic.
• Muhammad was so traumatized by his encounter with "Gabriel" that he repeatedly tried to commit suicide by hurling himself off a cliff.
• According to Muslim sources, Muhammad once delivered a revelation from the devil (the "Satanic Verses").
• Muhammad claimed that he was a victim of a magic spell that gave him delusional thoughts and false beliefs.

MUHAMMAD'S PROBLEMS WITH PAGANISM AND IDOLATRY

• Islam promotes idolatry (e.g., bowing down to the Kaaba and kissing the black stone).
• Islam promotes pagan rituals (e.g., the pilgrimage to Mecca).
• Islam deifies Muhammad by requiring unconditional obedience to him and by requiring Muslims to talk to him during their daily prayers. This is the same pagan idolatry committed by Roman Catholics by deifying Mary and praying to her.

MUHAMMAD'S PROBLEMS WITH VIOLENCE

• After leaving Mecca, Muhammad supported his religion by robbing people.
• Muhammad ordered his followers to torture a man named Kinana to find out where some money was hidden. Muhammad then had Kinana killed, and took his wife for himself.
• Muhammad commanded his followers to kill critics of Islam.
• Muhammad ordered his followers to kill apostates, even if they had good reasons for leaving Islam.
• The Qur'an commands Muslims to violently subjugate Jews and Christians.

Continue reading...

Islam Creep Statistics

by Unknown on December 3, 2014

I am sharing an email received from a friend. It is a statistical review of how Islam spreads. It is not a good story and one that all should know and be concerned about.

The email:

I read this guy’s book.  It’s not a great book but he presents some damning facts about Islam. This book came out in paperback Dec. 15, 2010.  Adapted from  Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life .Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

Like Ivy it begins small.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam,  with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

When the Ivy fully develops it can cover your house.

‘Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today‘s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn’t this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant…?  Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US’ homeland much safer, huh!! Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically – no . .. . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally – no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.. 
Politically – no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically – no… Because he is instructed to marry four (4) Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually – no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically – no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually – no… Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names. 

Therefore, after much study and deliberation….Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. – – – They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. 
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

The concern for me is on freedom. Islam is an Ideology of Hatred. Muslims may already be in Hell, condemned by their own conception of how to live. Muslims cannot truly believe as they do, especially those referred to as moderates, except as a cultural family tradition. They are Semitic people, in origin, and hold on to traditions, but not necessarily those as preached by the fundamentalist ulema, the scholars of Islam. If not an Islamist, then a Muslim must find another path or soon discover they too are as much hated as other infidels, the Jews and Christians.

Grace and Peace.

Mohammad: A Cross-dressing Homosexual

You know, it is rather ironic how Muslims treat homosexuals. Over in the UK, where they attempt to enforce their Sharia Law, because they have no regard for the Laws of the UK, when they see a homosexual walking down the street, they will follow him and hurl insults at him. This shows that the vast majority of Muslims are in utter ignorance of their own sources. Muhammad used to wear the clothes of his child bride because, according to his neurotic lunacy, they enabled him to channel the "revelations" from Allah the moon God. Observe:

Sahih Muslim 4415—Abu Bakr requested permission from the prophet to enter when the prophet was lying down on Aisha’s bed wearing her garment [mirt]. So the prophet gave permission to Abu Bakr to enter while he (Muhammad) was in that state and Abu Bakr finished what he needed and left. Later, Umar came and requested permission to enter and the prophet gave him permission to enter while he (Muhammad) was in that state. So Umar finished what he needed and left. Later, Uthman requested permission to enter to the prophet, so Muhammad sat up and told Aisha, "Take all the clothing that belongs to you."

Sahih Muslim 4472—The wives of the prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the prophet, to him and she requested permission to enter while he was lying down on my bed in my robe [mirt]. He gave her permission to enter and she told him that his wives had sent her to him seeking justice concerning the daughter of Abu Kahafa (Aisha). The prophet said to her, ‘O daughter, do you not love what I love?’ She replied, ‘Yes! I do.’ He then said to her, ‘Then love her also.’ So Fatimah got up when she heard that from the prophet and returned to the wives of the prophet. Then the wives sent to the prophet Zaynab Bint Jahsh…who requested permission from the prophet to enter while he was with Aisha in her robe [mirt] and in the same state that Fatimah found him in.”

Mishkat Al Masabih, Volume II, p. 1361—She told that the people used to choose: ‘A’isha’s day to bring their gifts, seeking thereby to please God’s messenger. She said that God’s messenger’s wives were in two parties, one including ‘A’isha, Hafsa, Safiya, and Sauda, and the other including Umm Salama and the rest of God’s messenger’s wives. Umm Salama’s party spoke to her telling her to ask God’s messenger to say to the people, “If anyone wishes to make a present to God’s messenger, let him present it to him wherever he happens to be.” She did so and he replied, “Do not annoy me regarding ‘A’isha, for inspiration has not come to me when I was in any woman's garment but ‘A’isha’s.” They then called Fatima, sent her to God’s messenger, and she spoke to him, but he replied, “Do you not like what I like, girlie?” She said, “Certainly,” so he said, “Then love this woman.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2442—It is related from 'A'isha that the wives of the messenger of Allah fell into two parties. One party contained 'A'isha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sawda, and the other party contained Umm Salama and the rest of the wives of the messenger of Allah. The Muslims knew of the love of the messenger of Allah for 'A'isha, so when any of them had a gift which he wanted to give to the messenger of Allah he would delay it until the messenger of Allah was in 'A'isha's house. Then the person with the gift would send it to the messenger of Allah while he was in 'A'isha's house. The party of Umm Salama spoke about it and said to her, "Tell the messenger of Allah to speak to the people and say, 'Whoever wants to give a gift to the messenger of Allah should give it to him in the house of whichever wife he is.'" Umm Salama spoke to him about what they had said, but he did not say anything. They asked her and she said, "He did not say anything to me." They said to her, "Speak to him." She said she spoke to him when he went around to her as well, but he did not say anything to her. They asked her and she said, “He did not say anything to me.” They said to her, “Speak to him until he speaks to you.” He went around to her and she spoke to him. He said to her, “Do not injure me regarding 'A'isha. The revelation does not come to me when I am in the garment of any woman except 'A'isha.” She said, "I repent to Allah from injuring you, Messenger of Allah.” Then they called Fatima, the daughter of the messenger of Allah, and sent her to the messenger of Allah to say, “Your wives ask you by Allah for fairness regarding the daughter of Abu Bakr.” She spoke to him and he said, “O my daughter, do you not love what I love?” She said, “Yes indeed.” She returned to them and informed them. They said, “Go back to him,” but she refused to go back. They sent Zaynab bint Jahsh and she went to him and spoke harshly, saying. “Your wives ask you by Allah for fairness regarding the daughter of ibn Abi Quhafa.” She raised her voice until she turned to 'A'isha, who was sitting down, and abused her until the messenger of Allah looked at 'A'isha to see if she would speak. ‘A'isha spoke to answer back Zaynab until she had silenced her. She said, “The prophet looked at 'A'isha and said, ‘She is indeed the daughter of Abu Bakr.’”

According to the dictionary Al-Mu'jam al-Waseet:

Mirt: "A dress from wool or cotton that is used as an Izar or a cover by a woman."

Remember, every time Muhammad desired to have something or be able to do something, all of a sudden Allah the moon god would magically provide him with a "revelation" that catered precisely to that desire. Observe:

• Muhammad wanted to have more than four wives—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:50).
• Muhammad wanted to have sex with Aishah—Allah gave him a revelation.
• Muhammad wanted to marry the divorced wife of his own adopted son—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:37).
• Muhammad wanted his followers to quit coming over early and staying late after a meal, asking him all sorts of questions—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:53).

The list goes on. It seems that Allah  the moon god had nothing better to do with his time than to sit around all day waiting to make Muhammad's most neurotic and perverse dreams come true. That is not even the worst part of it. According to the Muslim's own sources, Muhammad was also a homosexual.

Musnad Ahmad 16245— "Mua'wiya said: "I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of al-Hassan son of Ali . . . For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).""

A man who sucks on the tongue or the lips of another man is a homosexual. Ergo, Muhammad (Peace Never Knew Him) was a gay, cross-dressing, pedophile and false prophet.

Allah the Shirk

Qur'an 4:48— Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed.

Shirk, according to Islam, is the worst blasphemy, and it is an unforgivable sin. If you swear by something other than Allah, you are guilty of committing shirk.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6108— Allah's Messenger said, "Verily! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers. If one has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or otherwise keep quiet."

Sahih Muslim 4040— Allah's Messenger said: "He who has to take an oath, he must not take and oath but by Allah."

Sunan Abu Dawud 3242— The Apostle of Allah said: "Do not swear by your fathers, or by your mothers, or by rivals to Allah; and swear by Allah only, and swear by Allah only when you are speaking the truth."

Sunan an-Nasai 3795— The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever swears, let him not swear by anything other than Allah."

Sunan Ibn Majah 2095— The Messenger of Allah said: "Do not take oaths by idols nor by your forefathers."

Jami at-Tirmidhi 1534— The Messenger of Allah came across Umar while he was on his mount, and he was swearing by his father. So the Messenger of Allah said: "Verily Allah prohibits you from swearing by your fathers. So let the one who swears, swear by Allah, or be silent."

Why is it wrong to swear by anything other than Allah?

Jami at-Tirmidhi 1535— Ibn Umar said: "Nothing is sworn by other than Allah, for I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Whoever swears by other than Allah, he has committed disbelief or Shirk.'"

Whoever swears by anything other than Allah is committing disbelief or shirk. According to Muhammad, anyone who swears by anything other than Allah has made it a partner with Allah. That person has committed shirk, the worst possible sin. Let us look at some of the heinous sins committed by Allah:

Qur'an 38:1— I swear by the Qur'an, full of admonition.
Qur'an 43:2— I swear by the Book that makes clear.
Qur'an 50:1— I swear by the glorious Qur'an.

Qur'an 15:72— Verily, by thy life (O Prophet), in their wild intoxication, they wander in distraction, to and fro. [Allah swears by Muhammad's life.]

Qur'an 77:5— I swear by the angels who bring down the revelation.
Qur'an 79:1— I swear by the angels who violently pull out the souls of the wicked.

Qur'an 81:15— I swear by the stars.
Qur'an 85:1— I swear by the mansions of the stars.
Qur'an 56:75— I swear by the falling of the stars.
Qur'an 91:1— I swear by the sun and its brilliance.
Qur'an 91:6— I swear by the earth and its expanse.
Qur'an 74:32— I swear by the moon.
Qur'an 89:1— I swear by the daybreak.
Qur'an 84:16— I swear by the sunset redness.
Qur'an 92:1— I swear by the night when it draws a veil.
Qur'an 86:11— I swear by the rain-giving heaven.
Qur'an 51:1— I swear by the wind that scatters far and wide.
Qur'an 52:1— I swear by the mountain.
Qur'an 90:1— I swear by this city. [Mecca]
Qur'an 68:1— I swear by the pen.
Qur'an 89:3— I swear by the even and the odd.
Qur'an 95:1-3— I swear by the fig, and the olive, and mount Sinai, and this city made secure.

Qur'an 69:38-39— I swear by that which you see, and that which you do not see. [i.e., everything]

When Allah swore on these things from all eternity in his eternal partner, the Qur'an, he associated all of them with himself, committing more shirk than the worst Meccan polytheist could ever dream of.

Qur'an 2:22— Do not set up rivals to Allah while you know.

Pagans who committed shirk could be forgiven because they did not know any better. The more knowledge you have, the more responsible you are. Allah's knowledge is supposed to be omniscient—all-knowing. In other words, Allah knew exactly what he was doing when he set up literally everything as his partners. Unlike pagans, Allah cannot appeal to ignorance. So, according to Muhammad and the Qur'an, Allah is the worst sinner and the most wicked idolator. And this is who Muslims want us to worship? No thank you! I would rather worship the true and living God of the Bible, Who swears by Himself.

Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Genesis 22:15-17

I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. Isaiah 45:23

The LORD has sworn by His right hand and by His strong arm, "I will never again give your grain as food for your enemies; Nor will foreigners drink your new wine for which you have labored." Isaiah 62:8

For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will enter the gates of this house, sitting in David's place on his throne, riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his servants and his people. But if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself," declares the LORD, "that this house will become a desolation." Jeremiah 22:4-5

Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying, "As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you! But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune. But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine. . . . thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, as follows: 'As for you and your wives, you have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled it with your hands, saying, "We will certainly perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." Go ahead and confirm your vows, and certainly perform your vows!' Nevertheless hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are living in the land of Egypt, 'Behold, I have sworn by My great name,' says the LORD, 'never shall My name be invoked again by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, "As the Lord GOD lives." 'Behold, I am watching over them for harm and not for good, and all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt will meet their end by the sword and by famine until they are completely gone.'" Jeremiah 44:15-18, 25-27

For thus says the LORD, "Behold, those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it, and are you the one who will be completely acquitted? You will not be acquitted, but you will certainly drink it. For I have sworn by Myself," declares the LORD, "that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become perpetual ruins." Jeremiah 49:12-13

Notice here the difference between the true God, the God of the Bible, and the false god of the Qur'an:

For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." Hebrews 6:13-14

Muhammad Belongs To Jesus

Muhammad told his followers that Jesus was just a prophet, simply a messenger, no more than an apostle.

Qur'an 5:75— Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.

According to Islam, Jesus was a prophet of God. That means we have to believe what He says. Right? Muhammad also said that Christians have to judge by what they read in the Gospel.

Qur'an 5:47— Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

In the Qur'an, Christians are commanded to judge by what they read in the Gospel. Here is where Islam runs into all sorts of problems. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus says:

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Jesus refers to God as His Father. Islam teaches that Allah is a Father to no one. Jesus refers to Himself as the Son. Islam teaches that Allah has no son. Putting those issues aside, let us look at Jesus' claim more closely. The Father has handed everything over to Jesus. Since the Father has handed everything over to Jesus, Jesus owns and possesses everything that belongs to the Father. Right? Let us compare this verse to another verse in John 16:15:

All things that the Father has are Mine.

Consider the theological depths of this: "All things that the Father has are Mine." Including His attributes. But let us put that issue aside as well. Notice that it does not say "some" things, or even "most" things, but all things. "All things that the Father has are Mine." Jesus says that everything that belongs to the Father belongs to Him. According to Islam, what belongs to God? Everything. Even Muhammad belongs to God. Right, Muslims?

If Muhammad belongs to God, and if everything that belongs to God belongs to Jesus, then Muhammad belongs to Jesus. In other words, Jesus owns Muhammad. (Pun intended, on so many levels.) Muhammad is the personal property of Jesus. Muslims try and tell us that we need to accept Muhammad, but why would we accept Muhammad when we can accept the One Who owns Muhammad? Muslims are following the property, while Christians are following the Owner.

Islam self-destructs by rejecting the clear teaching of the Qur'an. If Jesus owns everything, then Islam is false. Islam teaches that Jesus was just a prophet. A mere prophet could never claim to own everything that God owns. If Muslims try to tell us that Jesus was wrong or that He was lying when He said that everything that belongs to God belongs to Him, then Islam is false. According to Islam, Jesus was a messenger of God Who spoke the truth. He could not have lied about owning everything. If Muslims claim that the Gospel has been corrupted, then Islam is false. The Qur'an commands Christians to judge by the Gospel. The Qur'an upholds the purity, authenticity, and authority of both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

Qur'an 3:3— It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Torah (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus).

Qur'an 5:66— If only they had stood fast by the Torah and the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have eaten both from above them and from below their feet.

Qur'an 5:68— Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."

If the Bible is corrupt, when did it become corrupt? If before Muhammad, then Muhammad is in error. According to the Qur'an, no one can corrupt God's Word.

Qur'an 18:27— And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words.

Who can corrupt the Word of God, according to the Qur'an? Can Christians corrupt it? Can Jews corrupt it? "There is none who can alter His words." If the Gospel has been corrupted, then Islam is false because the Qur'an claims that no one can corrupt God's Word. Either the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God or it is not. It is one or the other.

Premise #1: If the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because Islam contradicts the Gospel.

Premise #2: If the Gospel is not the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because the Qur'an claims that the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God.

Conclusion: Islam is false.

If the Bible is the Word of God, Islam is false. If the Bible is not the Word of God, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. Therefore, Islam is false.

Is not logic a wonderful thing?

Who Is A True Muslim?

You hear many politicians, reporters, Leftists, and "moderate" Muslims claiming that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, etc., are not true Muslims and do not represent Islam. They will attempt to tell you that if a Muslim kills other Muslims, he/she is not a true Muslim. Oddly enough, these terrorist groups claim that "moderate" Muslims are not true Muslims and do not represent Islam. Who is telling the truth? Who is a real Muslim? Let us check our facts.

Muhammad gave Aishah the title "Mother of the Faithful." He gave Ali the title "Commander of the Faithful." The Mother of the Faithful lead an army against the Commander of the Faithful and about 10,000 Muslims died in bloody combat. They regarded each other as hypocrites and apostates. Maybe, according to these politicians, reporters, Leftists, and "moderate" Muslims, that entire first generation of Muslims were not true Muslims. This is what Muhammad had to say:

Sahih Muslim 6470— "The Messenger of Allah was asked: 'Which of the people are the best?' He said: 'My generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.'"

Sahih Muslim 6478— "A man asked the Prophet: 'Which people are best?' He said: 'The generation to whom I was sent, then the second, then the third.'"

According to Muhammad, as found in the Muslim's own sources, the best Muslims were the very first generation of Muslims. But the first generation of Muslims killed other Muslims; so according to modern Muslims, the first generation of Muslims were not true Muslims. If the best Muslims ever, according to Muhammad, were not true Muslims, then Islam is a dead religion.

According to the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic sources, what we see terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, etc., doing, is absolutely representative of Islam and is precisely how a true Muslim is required to act. Examination of the last 1400 years of Islamic history acknowledges this conclusion. All real Muslims are terrorists. Any self-identified Muslim who obeys any part of the Qur'an or the Hadith, or any part of Islamic teachings, cannot be trusted and should not be trusted. They are encouraged and commanded to lie (surahs 2:225; 16:106; 66:2; etc.) because Allah is the greatest of deceivers (surahs 3:54; 7:99; 8:30; 27:50; etc.). The only decent and respectable self-identified Muslims are those who denounce and condemn the acts of Islamic terrorist groups and the teachings of Islam through the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic sources. The only decent and respectable "Muslims" are ex-Muslims, those who have rejected and left the tyranny and oppression of Islam.

Allah Killed Muhammad

What does the Qur'an say about false prophets? How would Allah deal with a false prophet?

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us, We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might) and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta)."

—Hilai-Khan

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery."

—Pickthall

Qur'an 69:44-46— "Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart's vein."

—Dawood

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta."

—Shakir

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand and We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart."

—Abdulla Yusuf Ali

Here is one of the greatest Muslim commentaries on this passage:

Tafsir Jalalayn [commentary on Qur'an 69:44-46]— "And had he, namely, the Prophet, fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of his heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person's death.

Here are the Muslim's sources that tell us about Muhammad's death:

Sahih al-Bukhari 2617— "A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." Anas added: "I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Messenger."

Sahih Muslim 5430— "A Jewess came to Allah's Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it."

Ibn Sa'd, p. 252— "The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith and said to her: What induced you to do what you have done? She replied: You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle, and my husband, so I said to myself: If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said: If you are a king, we will get rid of you."

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428— "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498— "A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she has poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta."

Ibn Sa'd, pp. 252-253— "The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr Ibn al-Bara took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the Apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the Apostle said: Hold back your hands! Because this foreleg has informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said: By Him Who hath made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from spitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth, I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong. Bishr did not rise from his seat but his color changed to that of taylsan (a green cloth)."

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449— "Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your sickness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except for that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta."

At-Tabari, p. 124— "The Messenger of God said during the illness from which he died—the mother of Bishr b. al-Bara had come to visit him—"Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar."

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622— "Aishah said: "I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.""

Sahih al-Bukhari 2588— "Aisha said, "When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground."

According to surah 69:44-46 in the Qur'an, if Muhammad were a false prophet, Allah said he would sever his aorta; Allah's preferred method of executing false prophets. Interestingly enough, when Muhammad died, he said he could feel his aorta being severed.

There are thousands of ways to die. Do you really think it a coincidence that Muhammad died in exactly the way the Qur'an said he would die if he was a deceiver and a false prophet? Looks like Divine judgment to me. By Muhammad's own words, he confessed to the fact that he was a false prophet. We all know that poison cannot sever the aorta, but by Muhammad claiming he could feel it do such was his confession that Allah was killing him for being a liar.

Zaynab was open to the possibility of Muhammad being a prophet. She poisoned the lamb as a test. If he was a true prophet, the poison would not harm him; if he was a false prophet, it would kill him.

Muhammad had told Zaynab that "Allah [would] never give [her] the power to [kill him]." Since Muhammad was wrong then, seeing how Allah did allow it, why should we trust anything else he has to say?

The ironic poetic justice here is this: Muhammad did more than anyone else in history to promote hatred against the Jews. Muhammad did more than anyone else in history to oppress women. Muhammad told his followers that women were stupid. What happened? Muhammad died a miserable, disgraceful, humiliating death at the hands of a woman who was Jewish who had outwitted him.

According to the Qur'an, when the Jews tried to kill Jesus, Allah intervened and rescued him (surah 4:157-158). Allah would not give anyone victory over Jesus. But when a group of Jews wanted to kill Muhammad, Allah sits back and watches as a woman poisons His Prophet. He does nothing as His Prophet died a disgraceful, humiliating death.

Muhammad's greatest wish was to die in battle.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797— "The Prophet said,... "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred."

Every time Muhammad wanted something, Allah all of a sudden miraculously provided him with a "revelation." Muhammad wanted to have more than four wives—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:50). Muhammad wanted to have sex with Aishah—Allah gave him a revelation. Muhammad wanted to marry the divorced wife of his own adopted son—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:37). Muhammad wanted his followers to quit coming over early and staying late after a meal, asking him all sorts of questions—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:53). Seems that Allah had nothing better to do than sit around all day making Muhammad's dreams come true. Muhammad's greatest wish was to die in battle, but Allah allowed him to die a humiliating, disgraceful death in utter agony at the hands of a Jewish woman.

God is the ultimate critic of Muhammad. God severed his aorta, proof that he was a false prophet, and He did so by the hands of a Jewish woman. Is God a "racist Islamophobic bigot" because He insulted Muhammad beyond anything that anyone else could ever dream up?

The word "Islam" means "submission to God." If Muslims care more about Muhammad than about what God has said, then Muslims are living in Shirk Central.

By the way, Allah is the biggest Shirk of them all. You are not supposed to swear by anything other than Allah, yet Allah constantly swears by everything else except for Himself. Allah is the most guilty of committing Shirk and will end up in Hell for Shirk-ing His responsibilities.

One final irony:  Muhammad was slain by the Lamb of God.

Muhammad (Peace Never Knew Him) was a false prophet.

Is Female Genital Mutilation In Islam False?

Linda Sarsour, a half-baked feminist and pathetic Muslim apologist for Islam, claims that, "FGM is NOT an Islamic practice."

On the website https://islamqa.info/en, one user writes this:

Nowadays we hear that many doctors denounce the circumcision of girls, and say that it harms them physically and psychologically, and that circumcision is an inherited custom that has no basis is Islam.

This is the response that was given in return:

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:
Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:

1-
The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."

This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females.

2-
Muslim (349) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) mentioned the two circumcised parts, i.e., the circumcised part of the husband and the circumcised part of the wife, which indicates that a woman may be circumcised just like a man.

3-
Abu Dawood (5271) narrated from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcisions in Madeenah and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” But the scholars differed concerning this hadeeth. Some of them classed it as da’eef (weak) and others classed it as saheeh. It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. The fact that circumcision for women is prescribed in Islam is confirmed by the ahaadeeth quoted above, not by this disputed hadeeth. But the scholars differed concerning the ruling, and there are three opinions:

1 – That it is obligatory for both males and females. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view favoured by al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi among the Maalikis (may Allaah have mercy on them all).

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (1/367):

Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women in our view. This is the view of many of the salaf, as was narrated by al-Khattaabi. Among those who regarded it as obligatory is Ahmad… it is the correct view that is well known and was stated by al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him), and the majority stated definitively that it is obligatory for both men and women.

See Fath al-Baari, 10/340; Kishshaaf al-Qinaa’, 1/80

2 – That circumcision is Sunnah for both males and females. This is the view of the Hanafis and Maalikis, and was narrated in one report from Ahmad. Ibn ‘Aabideen al-Hanafi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Haashiyah (6/751): In Kitaab al-Tahaarah of al-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj it says:

Know that circumcision is Sunnah in our view – i.e., according to the Hanafis – for men and for women.

See: Mawaahib al-Jaleel, 3/259

3 – That circumcision is obligatory for men and is good and mustahabb for women. This is the third view of Imam Ahmad, and it is the view of some Maalikis such as Sahnoon. This view was also favoured by al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni.

See: al-Tamheed, 21/60; al-Mughni, 1/63

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/223):

Circumcision is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah, and it is for both males and females, except that is it obligatory for males and Sunnah and good in the case of women.

Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it is makrooh or haraam.

Secondly:
With regard to the criticism of circumcision by some doctors, and their claim that it is harmful both physically and psychologically,

This criticism of theirs is not valid. It is sufficient for us Muslims that something be proven to be from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then we will follow it, and we are certain that it is beneficial and not harmful. If it were harmful, Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have prescribed it for us.

In the answer to question no. 45528 we have mentioned some of the medical benefits of circumcision for women, quoting from some doctors.

Thirdly:
We would add here the fatwas of some modern scholars who have responded to this war that has been launched against female circumcision on the grounds that it is harmful to health.

Shaykh Jaad al-Haqq ‘Ali Jaad al-Haqq, the former Shaykh of al-Azhar, said:

Hence the fuqaha’ of all madhhabs are agreed that circumcision for both men and woman is part of the fitrah of Islam and one of the symbols of the faith, and it is something praiseworthy. There is no report from any of the Muslim fuqaha’, according to what we have studied in their books that are available to us, to say that circumcision is forbidden for men or women, or that it is not permissible, or that it is harmful for females, if it is done in the manner that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to Umm Habeebah in the report quoted above.

Then he said:

From the above it is clear that the circumcision of girls – which is the topic under discussion here – is part of the fitrah of Islam, and the way it is to be done is the method that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained. It is not right to abandon his teachings for the view of anyone else, even if that is a doctor, because medicine is knowledge and knowledge is always developing and changing.

In the fatwa of Shaykh ‘Atiyah Saqar – the former heard of the Fatwa Committee in al-Azhar – it says:

The calls which urge the banning of female circumcision are call that go against Islam, because there is no clear text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah and there is no opinion of the fuqaha’ that says that female circumcision is haraam. Female circumcision is either obligatory or recommended. Even though there is a fiqhi principle which says that the decree of a ruler may put an end to a dispute regarding controversial matters, the decree of the ruler in this case cannot be but either of two things: that it is either obligatory or recommended, and it is not correct to issue a decree banning it, so as not to go against sharee’ah which is the principal source of legislation in our land, whose constitution states that Islam is the official religion of the country. It is permissible to issue some legislation that provides guidelines for performing this procedure (female circumcision) in the proper manner in such a way that does not contradict the rulings of sharee’ah.

The words of the doctors and others are not definitive. Scientific discoveries are still opening doors every day which change our old perceptions.

In the fatwa of Dar al-Ifta’ al-Misriyyah (6/1986) it says:

Thus it is clear that female circumcision is prescribed in Islam, and that it is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah and it has a good effect of moderating the individual’s behaviour. As for the opinions of doctors who say that female circumcision is harmful, these are individual opinions which are not derived from any agreed scientific basis, and they do not form an established scientific opinion. They acknowledge that the rates of cancer among circumcised men are lower than among those who are not circumcised, and some of these doctors clearly recommend that circumcision should be done by doctors and not these ignorant women, so that the operation will be safe and there will be no negative consequences. However, medical theories about disease and the way to treat it are not fixed, rather they change with time and with ongoing research. So it is not correct to rely on them when criticizing circumcision which the Wise and All-Knowing Lawgiver has decreed in His wisdom for mankind. Experience has taught us that the wisdom behind some rulings and Sunnahs may be hidden from us. May Allaah help us all to follow the right path.

In the book Reliance of the Traveler, a manual on Sharia Law (over 1000 pages long!), it says:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris.

Another source:

596. Female circumcision
1245. An old woman from Kufa, the grandmother of 'Ali ibn Ghurab, reported that Umm al-Muhajir said, "I was captured with some girls from Byzantium. 'Uthman offered us Islam, but only myself and one other girl accepted Islam. 'Uthman said, 'Go and circumcise them and purify them.'"

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) IS an Islamic practice! No matter how much certain Muslims (like Linda Sarsour and Reza Aslan) want to LIE about it. It is not an "African" problem, it is an ISLAMIC problem!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is trying to do something about the female genital mutilation problem. Because of this, Linda Sarsour tweeted, "Brigette Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's asking 4 an [***] whippin'. I wish I could take their vaginas away - they don't deserve to be women." Why is this so disturbing? Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim and victim of female genital mutilation. Islam already took part of her vagina, Sarsour wants to take the rest. And feminists are rallying behind this woman?!? Female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that has no place anywhere in the world.

Premise #1: Female genital mutilation clearly has a place in Islam.

Premise #2: Female genital mutilation has no place in this world.

Conclusion: Islam has no place in this world.

Further example of ignorant, lying Muslim women trying to defend Islam: On a CNN special, when Irshad Manji was asked about the promise in the Qur'an that a "martyr" in the name of Islam is rewarded with 72 virgins, she smiled, shook her head, and replied, "The word for virgin has been mistranslated. Martyrs would get raisins in heaven, not virgins." Really? Raisins? If that is the only reason why Islamic Muslims are murdering their own kind as well as people from every other religion (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), so that they can earn "72 raisins" in heaven, I would be more than happy to send them truckloads of raisins. If they have more than 72 raisins now, would all their beheadings, bombings, and other murders suddenly stop? Seriously! How stupid can one person get?

Islam Is NOT A Religion!

When someone migrates to Canada or the United States or Australia or any other country that is built upon the foundation of religious freedom, if it can be proven through close examination that your "religion" does not intimidate, threaten or cause harm to others, then you should be administered into the country and allowed to practice what you believe. If someone's religion included child sacrifice, I would like to think Canada, the United States, Australia, etc., would be intelligent enough not to allow these people into our country or to practice their "religion." A close examination of Hindu scriptures does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Buddhist scriptures does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Christian Scripture does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Islamic scriptures does! (surahs 47:4; 9:29; 9:5; 5:51; 4:89; 3:85; etc.)

Three things I find ironic:

1. I find it ironic that Feminists would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, women are oppressed, women are forced into marriages they do not want, livestock is considered to have more value than women, women are treated as less intelligent than a man, and women's genitalia is frequently mutilated.
2. I find it ironic that homosexuals would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, homosexuals are thrown off the roof tops of the tallest buildings. That is made even more ironic considering the fact that in Afghanistan and North Africa an Imam passed a fatwa allowing Islamic men to get together on Thursday nights for gay orgies, known as the Thursday Night Club.
3. I find it ironic that Liberals would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, there exists no tolerance or inclusiveness for other religions. Everywhere that Islam exists, Islam is persistently at war with Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Secularism, and even other Muslims.

It is illogical and nonsensical how Liberal Feminists, Liberal homosexuals, and Liberals in general, including your idiotic Social Justice Warriors (SJW), whine and complain about false notions of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," and yet opt to pander to the whims of Islam, defending and supporting it, in spite of the evidence throughout history and around the world presently that Islam is intolerant and exclusive of other religions, as well as women's rights and homosexuality. This stance demonstrates the total and utter lack of intelligence within the Liberal and SJW community.

Three things I find absolutely interesting:

1. I find it interesting that when a Feminist stands up and speaks out against modern Feminism, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence her.
2. I find it interesting that when an ex-Muslim, like Sarah Haider, stands up and speaks out against Islam, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence him/her.
3. I find it interesting when a homosexual, like Milo Yiannopoulos, stands up and speaks out against homosexuality, transsexuality, gender "studies," etc., etc., the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence him/her.

When a minority stands up and speaks out against the rest of the minority, it is ironic how the rest of the minority and every ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot will attempt to intimidate, threaten, or otherwise silence that person. When these people stand up for true justice, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors (SJW) will attempt to call that person a misogynist, a "racist," an "Islamophobe," a "homophobe," or any other of their typical cop-out terms intended to intimidate individuals into silence in order to avoid discussion and debate. Education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your professors think and believe. If ignorance is bliss, your typical Liberal SJW is living in Paradise. They have been indoctrinated, brainwashed, and duped with false, misleading information. They have an overdeveloped White Knight syndrome. They are SJWs where no injustice is actually taking place. SJWs are becoming more violent and triggered than ever before, because they know that they have no leg to stand upon. If you want to see hate speech, hate crimes, and violence, look no further than your ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors. Their arguments, much like the insides of their skulls, are vacuous.

I addressed the point of child sacrifice as part of a religion or a religion's practice. This is not an exaggeration. In the past, there were many religions that practiced just such a thing. No doubt there are still some today that do the same thing. I brought it up as an example to test the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors. Why? Because there is something called "honour killing" that is very much a part of Islamic culture. If someone in your family turns their back on Islam, whether they join another religion or not, you are required to murder them in order to retain your honour. Turning your back on Islam is the greatest offense you could cause your family. Yet your Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors have nothing to say against Islamic fathers or sons murdering their daughters on Canadian and American soil for rejecting the cult that is Islam.

How is it that Islam is granted "religious" rights within public schools, colleges, universities, and the work force that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc., are not granted? Why are they granted their own curriculum while Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrianists, etc., are not? How is it that Islam is granted the "religious" right to skip out on work in order to pray five times a day (which they do not even do in Islamic countries!), while Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc., are not allowed to do similar things with their religions?

Why do our governments want to make it illegal to speak out against Islam? By passing such a law, our government is instituting Sharia Law. Sharia Law states that you don't question Islam, you don't speak against Islam, you don't offend Islam, you don't insult Islam. But it is fine to question, speak against, offend, and insult Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. If it should be illegal to speak out against Islam, then it should also be made illegal to speak out against Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. How is it that Islam is receiving favouritism despite its 1400-year perpetual history of war against every other religion and people group?

Every time something comes up about Islam, the Muslims claim "religious" persecution. Every time facts and statistics are brought to bear upon them concerning Islam, they resort to the cop-out of name calling with "Islamophobe." Any other religion that would claim "religious" persecution as often as the Muslims do about stuff that has nothing to do with religion, they would be called on it and have it cast back in their face. Oh, but not the Muslims. Any time a Muslim cries "victim," our nation and society pander to their incredulous lies. Muslims may very well be nice enough people, but Islam is a poison. Do not equate "Muslim" with "Islam." When people, even ex-Muslims, speak out against Islam, all the Liberal SJWs hear is "Muslim." Islam is evil! Not all those who consider themselves to be Muslim are. However, those Muslims who follow and obey every word of the Qur'an and the Hadith, every teaching of Islam, are not to be trusted.

There is nothing "religious" about Islam. Islam is entirely political. Everywhere it can, Islam always practices economic warfare. Muhammad was infamous for attacking caravans. On 9/11, the World Trade Center was attacked. Modern political Islam claims that it is a "religion of peace," yet the Qur'an states very emphatically that "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him!" (surah 3:85). If Islam is a "religion of peace," why is it that Islam is constantly, consistently, and continuously at war with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims? This is the religion that our ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing left-wing Liberal bigots want to defend and support?!?!? The religion that wants to eliminate their freedom of speech? Christianity supports a person's freedom of speech, even when that speech ridicules, mocks, and otherwise puts down Christianity. You do not see Christians threatening to cut off your head, blow you up, or threaten your life by some other means because you ridiculed, mocked, or insulted their Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus. No. You only ever see Muslims threatening to cut off your head, blow you up, or threaten your life by some other means because you ridiculed, mocked, or insulted their false prophet, Muhammad, who was a war monger, a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile, marrying his youngest wife when she was 7 and consummating the marriage (having intercourse with her) when she was 9!

Whether a hoax or not, these words are what our nations ought to be built upon:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT . . .
Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH; not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact; because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
If you aren’t happy here, then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.” 

Is it not fascinating how Islam is the only "religion" where the unique phenomenon of familial rape is taught and practiced? This has been happening in the UK, but police have been told not to intervene for fear of being labeled "racist" or some other bogus accusation. The same thing is starting to happen in Canada and the United States. How is upholding the law a form of "racism"? If the law will not do its duty and fulfill its responsibility, then the people need to take matters into their own hands and protect their own people and civil rights. Islam intends to remove our civil rights and enslave all of us. If you think that is an exaggerated stretch, go and educate yourself as to world history and Islamic invasion. You can start with this video.