We invite you to watch the videos. How strange is Islam is so much evil, dark, cruel and barbaric, yet, they have the most followers and will be the most dominant religion by 2050?
Because this is how Christians in Europe and The US want it to be ! There’s no other plausible reason.
Is it possible to make an uncivilised person into human or civilised?
(1) The Evil Satanic Cult of Islam
(2) Islam is Evil: Atheists and Christians Find Common Ground
(3) Islam’s 10 Most Diabolical Evil Teachings in all Human History in Quran from Allah & Muhammad
(4) Muslim says that Islam is Evil
(5) From the Endless Love of Jesus Ministeries: Momad was a sick suicidal deviant Monster
Stupid Journalist which should have been kicked out should have been to ISIS and when his ass would have been blown out, he would have learn what Islam really is?
Six days into the attack on Hindu temples and houses in Nasirnagar upazila of Brahmanbaria, police recovered an idol of Goddess Laxmi from a mosque in the upazila.
Acting on a tip-off, a team of police recovered the idol from the mosque at Bitui village, Officer-in-Charge of Nasirnagar Police Station Abu Zafar told The Daily Star.
Police suspect that this could be one of the idols stolen on October 30 during the attack on five Hindu temples that left 100 people injured.
Imam of the mosque Mohammaed Shahabuddin saw the idol after he finished his call for Fajr prayers and informed the police, a correspondent reports from the spot.
On October 30, around 200 religious bigots attacked at least five temples and vandalised and looted about 100 Hindu houses in several localities in Nasirnagar over a Facebook post purportedly from the account of one Rasraj Das. The attackers also beat up more than 100 people.
The attack was made claiming that the post “hurt the religious sentiment” of the Muslims.
Before his arrest and the systematic mayhem, Rasraj claimed he had nothing to do with the post, but apologised for it anyway. Relatives say his account may have been hacked.
Five days into the attacks, five Hindu homes were torched in Nasirnagar yesterday, spreading panic among the already frightened minority community.
Source : Daily Star
” Dear Ali,
I didn’t have any courage to write publicly and I hope you will respond to my e-mail. I didn’t want to jeopardize the privacy of my man.
My name is Mira, 30 years old, a Christian from small catholic country and finishing my doctorate in big international country. I met my man here. He is working in the institute next to me. I collaborate with his boss. From the beginning I had a feeling that this man doesn’t see me because even when I was evidently sick (my eyes were red from the broken capillary), he didn’t observe this. Than he wanted to kiss me and I didn’t want to sleep with him, where he admits that he is not ready to be in a relationship with me because he has two more option in his country, one them is his ex which he still loves. Anyway, after one month he told me that I was the only one. I never was able to trust him, I’m afraid that he is having parallel relationships with other girls although he is swearing in the name of Allah and prophet that he never cheated on me. He wasn’t so fast of saying I love you, but once he did say, he never withdraws it.
He spoke with me about his brother he loves, who is without the paper and that he wants to fix him somehow. I saw it was his huge pain and I have offered myself to marry his brother just for the papers, he was so happy, but finally I withdrew myself from that idea and it was just because I was afraid I would be used. He presented me to his family, brother and cousins in person, and mother and father and uncle on the phone. From the beginning I have a feeling he is hiding or lying something to me. I can’t explain, but I saw him as not a clean man. But on the other side, he is intelligent, we have the best conversations ever, even about the God. He has started to introduce me to ISLAM.
From the beginning I was happy, because I didn’t feel love from him and ISLAM was like something ordered just for me. I was doing the Ichihara, if he is the right man from me, and I have dreamed the sentence: “Since you are with a Muslim, Allah”. I felt as if I was invited in ISLAM by God and I was happy. I’m performing Ramadan at the moment. But I can’t relax next to my man. His brother came to live with us for more than one month and since he didn’t have the job my man expected from me to cover my eyes and finance all. I financed but with open eyes. I have a feeling he is with me just because I’m useful to him, although he says he loves me more than I can imagine. But I don’t feel it. And I know what love looks like. Sometimes, when I feel love from him, I feel blessed and I forgot about all the times that I don’t feel the love from him. He speaks about marriage a lot, that we will do it next year when we collect the money. I love him a lot, but I don’t feel that he loves me. Second, I don’t trust him and when I express this (I do it often), he becomes aggressive and breaks phones and the things. Afterword, he says, look what you made me do. I feel bad but I’m still trying. I’m believing in one God, that everything has its reason. And on the top, he doesn’t let me go out alone too late, he says, he doesn’t trust other man. I feel all he says but I have a feeling that I’m in the conditional relationship, where most of the time I don’t deserve love. It’s very difficult for me. I love him and I would do everything for him, but I’m afraid he will use me and I will die because I have no on to rely on. I can’t understand, if there is a similar mind, why i can’t see the love from him?
Ali, it’s so strange for me, not to see the love in the eyes of my man. I was blaming me for this because I gave myself completely, but I’m afraid it has nothing to do with it. We are both grown up people, highly educated with some intelligence and look at us. Look at me first, I became stupid slave who is afraid of her own shadow. But I’m still here, waiting for the love. He said he is with me like this: “Imagine Mira if I had a few women who I love, which is not the case he said. But just hypothesize. Which one should I choose? The one who is the most successful because she will bring me the respect of other people. For me you are perfect: You look not bad, you are intelligent, highly educated, you respect me, take care of me and my family. I will never find somebody like you again. I can win a world with you. House, business, family, everything.”
And for me Ali? I know love is not supposed to be absolutely reciprocal, but I feel that I’m feeding his power and becoming weak. I’m not blaming him. It was my choice but it has become very difficult. He is doing some statistic work for me and I have a lot of good things from him, but it’s heartless. I don’t want to lose him, but what is the alternative? Ali, please open my eyes. Try to be rational. Don’t put me down because I need to be strong.
Thank you very much.”
Listen to your intuition. This man is not right for you. He is a psychopath like most Muslims. He becomes violent and blames you for making him behave that way. So it is all your fault. Gradually he destroys your self-esteem and self-confidence until he sucks all your vital energy and zest for life reducing you to an empty shell who merely exists but not living.
Yes, he uses you as you said it repeatedly because he needs you. You maintain him and could help his brother with his paperwork. The moment he does no longer need you he will dump you. Do you realize you were about to commit a crime to help this man and his brother?
I have nothing to tell you since you seem to have seen the deceptions and the lies of this charlatan on your own. You just want someone to tell you to trust yourself and that is exactly what I tell you. Never ignore your intuition because we are good in rationalizing and fooling ourselves. But listen to your heart.
Who said love does not have to be reciprocal? When you find your true love you know it. There will be no doubts and no misgivings. You feel secure.
I strongly advise you to leave Islam and denounce Allah. Allah is not the true God. He is the Devil. Do not observe the fast for this demonic god and do not pray to him. Many people are deceived by the Devil in thinking Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Allah means the god. It is a title like the president, the king, the boss. It is true that Arab Jews and Christians call god Allah. But to confuse the God of Christian and the god of Muslims as one is like confusing the president of US and the president of Mexico because they are both called president.
You need to turn to the true God and pray that He may save you. Your life is cursed because you have fallen for the spell of this demonic Allah. Immediately break your fast and pray to the God of Jesus for help and protection. Only He can save you.
Thank you very much for the reply. I’m so happy you sent me an e-mail. How do you find a motivation to answer to all of the broken hearts that write to you? Are you tired of it?
Please, let me tell you something. I had a vision when my man was next to me, that a devil (black animal in the dark) growls on me. I was so afraid that I called Jesus to come to my mind and sets me free. There is something demonic about this man and it can be from the religion. I have stopped Ramadan. My older sister, she is an extreme catholic, she told me from the beginning, run away from this man. He will kill you. Can you believe that the forces are so strong? What I have liked about ISLAM is the surrounding of the God in all the times. I never lost my faith in Jesus, but I wasn’t so closed to him because I didn’t do 5 prayers per day. Maybe I need to be pushed, but this several times per day interaction with God, gave me a certain peace in my mind. I didn’t know the downside of this. I took it as a child, naive. To be honest with you, I would like to pray in the same way to Jesus, but I don’t know if it’s ok? What do you think? Do you think I will attract a demon with it? I want to put my hand to the floor, to be on my knees and to pray. Don’t think I’m a crazy person, but I’m so thirsty of the God, I want to feel him close to me. Nothing is stabile but God. Happiness and sadness come and go, God stays and I want to reach him, but I don’t know how at this moment. I’m lost.
What I can tell you at the moment is that we broke with a Muslim man. My main objective was that I wasn’t happy with him and I couldn’t trust him. I know that I would work whole of my life for his family and relatives and this is not why God brought me to this earth. I would do it in the name of love, but there was no love for me there. I was so tired about taking care of his needs and he put me down in so many ways. I have never seen something like this in my whole life. I will never be with a Muslim again. It’s inverted and hypocrite mind. But to be honest with you, I still love him and I hope that will change. I don’t know what am I even loving and why?
Ali, I wish God be with you all the way.
Thank you from my heart.
Praise the Lord for giving you the strength and the wisdom to leave this man. You should love and pray for everyone but you should not get involved with a Muslim romantically. This man, like all his fellow cultists is a lost soul and under the control of Satan. Muslims can break their yoke if they choose so. There is nothing we can do for them other than pray and of course expose the truth about their mentally sick prophet and evil religion of hate, violence and blood.
There is only one God and that is the God of love of whom Jesus spoke. He is our heavenly father, not in figurative way of speech but in a real way. We are spirit being coming to this world to have a physical experience. Our body is begotten by our earthly parents. We are 50% the child of our father and 50% the child of our mother. Our spirit is 100% begotten from God. Our physical body is mortal. Our spirit is eternal. We come to this world many times and each time choose a new set of parents. But our heavenly father remains the same forever.
Jesus brought only two commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And Love your neighbor as yourself. To love God, you don’t need to perform rituals. You converse with Him the way you would converse to a loving parent. And you don’t need to do this five time a day but every moment. You can live in a state of prayer when you work, go for a walk, eat and live your life. When you see a beautiful sunset praise the Lord, when you think of someone pray to the Lord for him or her. Invoke blessings for all living beings and send your love to them. Love is an art. The more you practice it the better you become at it. The more you love the closer you get to God, because God is love.
The Islamic rituals of prayer are not commanded by our Lord and therefore should not be performed. At best they are meaningless and at worst they are demonic rituals to deceive the foolhardy into thinking they are worshiping God while reciting Satanic verses. These Islamic ritualistic prayers contain curse. The verse 7 of the sura fatiha that Muslims recite during each prayer curses the Jews and the Christians. How can you love a people when you curse them? Divest yourself from anything Islamic. All its practices, rituals, prayers, teachings, doctrines and philosophies are demonic. And whether you like it or not, this Pope Francis is a worker of Satan too. Anyone who says Allah is God has no understanding of God. Anyone who washes the feet of Muslims, who are devil worshipers is working for Satan. Anyone who enters a mosque reverentially, and kisses the Quran is working for Satan. Any priest who rents his church to be used for Islamic rituals is working for Satan. If you work for God you cannot work for Satan. As Christians we must denounce Islam and not tolerate it, because we can’t serve two masters.
When I was an atheist and did not believe in spiritual forces I thought Islam is just a lie and that Muhammad was only a psychopath. But spiritual forces are real. Some are divine and some are demonic. Islam is a demonic force. When you believe in Islam and perform its rituals you open the doors for demonic spirits to enter into your life.
There are many ways people let Satan to take control of their lives. Crimes, drugs, addictions, adultery, incest, black magic, divination, lust for money and powers are all ways we open the door for Satan to enter into our lives. But Satan is a crafty being. He knows most people will not fall for these patently demonic forces. He creates religions and uses religious leaders to seduce people. Islam is by far Satan’s biggest masterpiece. It is his most successful trick of all. With it he has managed to seduce a great portion of humanity to hate and to kill other children of God and do his bidding in the name of God. If Muslims used their commonsense they would see that none of the teachings of Muhammad are divine. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Muslims fail to use their commonsense and will pay a hefty price for it. Not all, but all those who follow the words and the examples of Muhammad are destined for hell.
Whether this man will kill you or not I can’t say. But I am certain that he will kill your spirit. Look at yourself. You are born to live in joy. That is what God wants for us. This man has robbed the joy out of your life. Your relationship with this man is not in sync with your relationship with God. Love a man who brings you closer to God. You are closer to God when your heart is filled with Joy. This Muslim has brought fear, doubts, insecurity and lack of confidence into your life. Isn’t it clear that he is taking you away from God?
You must love all the people even the sinners but you must not fall in love with sinners or follow their demonic ways and Satanic religions.
There is a spiritual warfare going on and Islam is the evil side of this warfare. Muslims are the soldiers of the Devil. These people are lost souls and to the extent that they follow their religion they are evil. Stay away from all Muslims except when they come to you to ask about the Lord. If they defend Islam or try to influence you with their lies leave them. There is no good in these people.
You ask where do I get my motivation. I love humanity. Every woman is my sister, my daughter and my niece. It pains me to see their lives destroyed and their spirit killed only because no one told them the truth. God saved me from this demonic faith and I am doing my part to save others. As children of God we are brothers and sisters to each other and must care for one another. I care because I love.
Who Taught Allah Math?
The Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. The most obvious are the mathematical mistakes. They are so elemental that could be expected of a very illetrate person. This article will show that the prphet of Islam was indeed an illeterate man.
The Islamic law of inheritance is explained out in several verses. One can find references to them in Al-Baqarah(2), Al-Maidah(5) and Al-Anfal(8). But the details of these laws are spelled out in the Surah Nisa (4).
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts…” Q. 4:11
“In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts…” Q. 4: 12
“If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.” Q. 4:176
Verse 4:11 says that if a man has only one daughter, she gets half of the inheritance, irrespective of other heirs. But since the same verse says that the share of the son is twice that of the daughter, her brother is supposed to get all the inheritance. Isn’t this a discrepancy? Certainly there is an error in this law.
The problem is aggravated when the share of other heirs – parents and wives are taken into consideration.
There are cases when the total of the shares assigned to the inheritors exceeds the patrimony. Take for example the following.
According to the above verses, if a man dies leaving behind a wife, three daughters and his two parents, his wife’s share of his inheritance is 1/8. (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth)
His daughters will receive 2/3 (if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance;)
And his parents will get 1/6 of his inheritance each. (For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;)
The sum of these shares is more than the total of inheritance.
|Wife with children 1/8||=||3/24|
There are not enough shares for everyone to receive their prescribed shares. The shortage is 1/8.
If the wife has no children and the daughters belong to an ex-wife of the diseased, this is what happens:
|Wife with no children 1/4||=||6/24|
In this case the shortage is ¼.
The injustice of this law is obvious. Let us say a woman has been married to a man for 25 years and has bore him his children. She gets 1/8 of the inheritance, but if the same man has married a new wife just a few days before his death, the new wife will receive twice as much. I believe even Muslims who are generally blind must realize this law is absurd. Humans are born with the sense of fairness. No matter how that sense is impaired through false doctrines and brainwashing, I am sure some residue of that must have been left and at least some Muslims will realize, not just the errors in calculation but the unfairness of these laws and will realize Islam cannot be from God.
Take another example. Say a man is survived by his childless wife, his mother and his sisters.
The wife receives 1/4 of the inheritance, (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child.)
The mother 1/3 ( if only one daughter, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs,the mother has a third.)
And the sisters are to get 2/3. (If there are two sisters, they shall have two-third of the inheritance (between them)
Again the total of the shares exceeds one, this time by 3/12 or 25%. This is negligible.
In the above examples, the shares apportioned to the heirs exceed the total of the patrimony. In both cases the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share.
What should be done if a man has two wives, one with children and the other without children?
What should be done if a man has four wives? Do all his wives get ¼ of the inheritance? They can’t because there will be nothing left his sisters and parents. Does it mean that all wives share the ¼ each getting 1/16?
This law is not only mathematically wrong it is also confusing and unjust.
Let u say a man dies leaving behind, his parents, two sisters and four wives. Let is ignore the mathematical error for now. The two sisters will receive 1/3 each, but the wives will get 1/16 of the inheritance each. Does that sound a fare division?
What if the deceased is a woman?
Husband receives half (In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child.)
Brother receives everything (If such a deceased was a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance.)
If the brother gets everything, how the husband can get half?
Again this division is mathematically wrong and it’s also unjust.
What about her parents and sisters? Don’t they inherit anything?
This verse does not specify that the brother gets everything only when there are no other heirs. It just says when there are no children he gets everything. In the same verse it says that if a man dies leaving behind a sister, she gets half. What will happen to the other half?
Here is another absurd case: A woman leaves behind a husband, a sister and a mother.
The funds are 1/3 short!
It’s clear that in matters of inheritance the Quran is very obtuse. These errors are elemental. It’s hard to believe God does not know how to add simple fractions. These errors are made by a very illiterate man.
The law of inheritance is so obtuse that the Shiites and the Sunnis practice it differently. For example:
If a man leaves a wife and the two parents, the Shiits will give the wife 1/4 of the entire inheritance first and then distribute the remainder among other heirs. The Shiites have devised a hierarchy in inheritance. The hires in the higher hierarchy receive their shares first and whatever is left is divided among the hired in the lower hierarchy. According to this provision, the shares received by the hires are not the same as dictated in the Quran. (see #2741).
The Sunnis give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father, is counted as the nearest male relative and gets the rest, i.e. 5/12.
In order to solve these problems the Islamic jurists have devised a complex science called “Al-Fara’id”. It contains rules of “Awl” and “Usbah,” and the laws of “Usool” of the Fara’id, the laws of “Hajb wa Hirman,” and many other laws relating to this matter.
The law of “Awl” (accommodation) deals with cases when the inheritor’s shares exceed or “overshoot” the sum of the total inheritance. In such cases the shares are adjusted to accommodate everyone. This is how it works:
|Wife1/8||=||3/24||is changed to||3/27|
|Daughters 2/3||=||16/24||is changed to||16/27|
|Father 1/6||=||4/24||is changed to||4/27|
|Mother1/6||=||4/24||is changed to||4/27|
For the second case,
|Wife1/4||=||3/12||is changed to||3/15|
|Mother 1/3||=||4/12||is changed to||4/15|
|Sisters 2/3||=||8/12||is changed to||8/15|
The problem is solved thanks to human ingenuity, but not without violating the Quran. Each party has to waive part of his or her share. This is a clear case in which the words of Allah needed human intervention in order to become applicable. Muslim jurists were forced to twist the law of the Quran in order to make it work.
There are also cases where the shares of the inheritors don’t sum to a whole 100%, which leaves a surplus.
Take for example a man who dies and leaves his wife and his parents.
Who will receive the balance 5/12 of the inheritance?
The following are other cases that leave a surplus of Inheritance::
|Only a wife:||=||1/4||¾|
|Only a mother:||=||1/3||2/3|
|Only a daughter||=||1/2||½|
|Only a Sister||=||1/2||1/2|
|A mother and a sister||=||1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6||1/6|
|A wife and a mother||=||1/4 + 1/3 = 5/12||7/12|
|A sister and a wife||=||1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4||1/4|
In all these cases and many other combinations there is a surplus. What will happen to this surplus? Who will inherit it?
To deal with this problem the law of “Usbah” has been devised. This law regulates the unclaimed shares, which have no corresponding people to receive them. Of course if the Quran was clear with no errors, there would be no need for all these “sciences” and amendments.
The law of Usbah is based on the following Hadith.
Sahih Bukhari 8. 80. 724
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”
According to this law, a man who dies and is survived by only his daughter with no other close male relative except a second cousin, his daughter will receive half of his inheritance and the other half will go to the man’s second cousin. This seems quite unfair to the daughter, but it would be especially unfair if the man had a needy aunt or a female first cousin who would receive nothing because they are of the wrong gender.
Now, suppose a man has no other heir except his wife and a distant male relative. The wife will receive 1/4 and the distant male relative gets the rest. He gets three times the inheritance than the wife. The wife who has sacrificed her need to save that money now will get ¼ of what should be all hers. Is this justice?
What if the deceased has no male relative? What will happen to the rest of his inheritance? What will happen if the deceased is the wife with no relatives? The husband will receive half of her inheritance; who will get the other half?
Note thatin the Quran there is no priority for the distribution of the inheritance. What the Shiites do is bid’a – an innovation, which makes them heretics. In nowhere the Quran says “first give to these and from what is left, give to those”. Even if we had to reinterpret these laws and prioritize them in the order that they are mentioned, it still does not work because in that case, each subsequent inheritor will have his or her share shrunk. Also in most cases the total inheritance will never be used up.
These errors are clear and cannot be denied. However believers are blind. In an attempt to refute this article Sami Zaatari says: “If A [ the deceased] left a widow or widower, the widow’s or widower’s share would first be calculated as in the first half of verse 4:1″
Mr. Zaatari must show us this instruction in the Quran. There is no provision in the Quran to pay certain inheritors first and divide the rest among other heirs. This is the heresy that Shiites are committing and Zaatari is not even a Shiite. The fact remains that the Quran, in matters of the division of the inheritance is wrong, mathematically.
The obtuseness of the law of inheritance is further emphasized in the following example. Consider the case of a man with only one daughter and 10 sons. According to the Quran, the daughter receives half while all the sons must share among themselves the other half. So each will receive 1/20 of the inheritance. But this contradicts the other ruling that says a male is to receive twice the share of the female. Something must give in because the two laws don’t mix.
Of course, for 1400 years Muslims have practiced Islam and somehow they managed to make these confusing laws work. How they did it? They reinterpreted, compromised and adjusted the laws to make them work. The Sunnis put all the inheritance in a pool and give to each male child twice the share of their female siblings. This solution, though satisfies one of the rulings, it contradicts the other.
Despite all these incongruencies and errors the real problem with these laws is not the fact that they do not add up. The problem is in the inherent injustice that they embody. A fair minded person cannot fail to question, why daughters should receive half of what the sons receive. Why sisters should receive less than brothers? And why a widower is entitled to double the share of a widow? Why “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”? (4:11). Think of a man with four wives. All the wives have to share the ¼ of his wealth, if they have no children and 1/8 if they have. In the first case each wife will receive 1/16 of the inheritance and in the second case 1/32. On the other hand a man who loses all his four wives will inherit half of every wife’s wealth. Isn’t this the formula to enrich the men and impoverish the women? It is easier to forget the mathematical errors of the Quran than forgive its injustice.
The verse (4:175) claims that “Thus doth Allahmake clearto you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.” As we saw, the above laws are anything but clear. They don’t add up, the portions are not clearly defined and the shares are distributed unfairly. It is up to Muslims to decide whether Allah cannot add simple fractions, is confused and unfair or that the Quran is dictated by an ignoramus. It is one or the other. You decide.
There is a hadith that reports Muhammad one night, rode on a winged horse that took him from Masjidu’l Haram (the temple of Ka’ba) to Msjidu’l Aqsa (in Jerusalem) and from there to the seventh heaven where he was shown the hell and the paradise and then taken to the presence of Allah. This story that is commonly accepted by All the Muslims and is known as Mi’raj is also confirmed in the Quran
Glory to (Allah)
Who did take His Servant for a journey by night,
From the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque.
— Quran 17:1
Here we are not going to talk about the absurdity of such trip. If God is omnipresent why one would have to go anywhere to meet him. If Muhammad could travel from Mecca to the palce of Allah, riding on a winged horsy, and come back in one night, then Allah’s throne must not be too far from Mecca. I wonder how come no one has found it yet?Is God inside the universe or outside of it? If inside it, then he is contained by it and therefore cannot be infinite. If outside it, then he must be billions of light years away from us and no winged horsy can reach his throne in one night and come back. And if He is omnipresent, like air in the atmospher, then one does not need to go anywhere to meet Him. God must be where you are right now. This story is simply fairytale. Its very existance belies Muhammad lack of understanding of the concept of omnipresense.
We are not also going to ask why Muhammad had to stop at Jerusalem before going to Heaven. Is there a gateway to Heaven in Jerusalem?The problem we want to discuss is that Masjid’ul Aqsa “the Farthest Mosque” did not exist at the time of Muhammad.First Temple on that site was built in 960 BC, allegedly by Solomon to house the Ark of the Covenant which his father, David, had brought to Jerusalem. The temple was burned to the ground by the Babylonians in 586 BC.The Second Temple was rebuilt by Herod in 20 BC
Here we are not going to talk about the absurdity of such trip. If God is omnipresent why one would have to go anywhere to meet him. If Muhammad could travel from Mecca to the palce of Allah, riding on a winged horsy, and come back in one night, then Allah’s throne must not be too far from Mecca. I wonder how come no one has found it yet?
Is God inside the universe or outside of it? If inside it, then he is contained by it and therefore cannot be infinite. If outside it, then he must be billions of light years away from us and no winged horsy can reach his throne in one night and come back. And if He is omnipresent, like air in the atmospher, then one does not need to go anywhere to meet Him. God must be where you are right now. This story is simply fairytale. Its very existance belies Muhammad lack of understanding of the concept of omnipresense.
We are not also going to ask why Muhammad had to stop at Jerusalem before going to Heaven. Is there a gateway to Heaven in Jerusalem?
The problem we want to discuss is that Masjid’ul Aqsa “the Farthest Mosque” did not exist at the time of Muhammad.
First Temple on that site was built in 960 BC, allegedly by Solomon to house the Ark of the Covenant which his father, David, had brought to Jerusalem. The temple was burned to the ground by the Babylonians in 586 BC.
When Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD, he performed a prayer in the site where Temple of Solomon used to stand. It was Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who built a mosque on that site around 691 A.D.
Muhammad’s alleged Mi’raj took place around the year 621. There is 70 years gap between Mi’raj and the construction of Masjid ul Aqsa. [This is reported in The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 46 and 102.]
How could Muhammad mention Masjid ul Aqsa when such a mosque did not exist? Either Muhammad did not know that that temple was destroyed in 70 AD or the Quran is manipulated and “enriched” years after the death of its author, permitting the fables that were constructed around Muhammad after his death to creep into his book.
In my opinion the former is the case. Muhammad was an unlettered man. His knowledge was limited to what he heard from others – story tellers and priests. His references to historic and Biblical stories are sketchy. He throws a name hear and mentions an event there and often makes mistakes. This is to be expected of a man who is not acquainted with books and whose only source of knowledge is hearsay.
Muslims may argue that “Masjid’ means any place of worship (sojda), that is why the prophet refers to the temple of Solomon as Masjid. In that case, all churches, synagogues and the Zoroastrian Ateshkadehs are Masjids. During the time of Muhammad there were many such “Masjids” built in cities much farther than Jerusalem. (i.e farthest from Mecca or Medina) and the Masjid’ul Aqsa actually was not the farthest mosque.
This, is an obvious blunder of Muhammad so much so that many Islamic scholars, including Yusuf Ali are of the opinion that by Masjid’u’ Aqsa, it is intended the SITE of the building and not the actual building.
This apologetic line could have been a way out of the dilemma if it were not for the following hadith, which unequivocally asserts that Masjid’ul Aqsa was an actual building which existed in the time of Muhammad.
Narrated Abu Dhaar:
I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Which mosque was built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.” I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem).” I asked, “What was the period in between them?” He replied, “Forty (years).” He then added, “Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you.”
This hadith presents yet another problem. According to Muslims, Masjid’ul Haram (Ka’ba) was built by Abraham who lived in 2000 BC and the Temple of Solomon (the site of the Msjid ul’Aqsa) was built about 958-951 BC. There is a gap of over 1040 years between the dates of the construction of the two buildings.
Does the Koran’s Verse 5:32 Forbid the Killing of Non-Muslims?
~by Archi Medes
After every well-publicized major terrorist attack, Islamic apologists appear in the mainstream media, typically claiming that Islam is a religion of peace. To support their assertion, Islamic apologists often quote a famous line from the Koran’s verse 5:32. This famous line is actually only a small part of the verse, and is not even a complete sentence. Here is the line, as it is usually quoted, clipped and cropped, by apologists:
“…whosoever killeth a human being… it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind…”
Well, so far, so good. It appears to be a universal proclamation that all human life is highly valuable, and that murdering one person would be a terrible crime – like murdering all of humankind. But as we will see, appearances and apologists can be deceiving! To get a better understanding of the origins of this verse and its intended meaning in the Koran, let’s go through the complete verses 5:32-37 (Pickthall’s translation), starting with 5:32:
5:32: “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.”
See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32 at http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13723.
I will present evidence that (1) the good part of 5:32 – the part that sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being – is taken from pre-Islamic sources, and will show (2) that the omitted parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually permitting killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances.
(1) The good part of verse 5:32 does derive from earlier sources.
In context, the decree doesn’t apply universally to all peoples. The verse refers to the Israelites in Biblical history. The verses just preceding 5:32 discuss the story of Cain and Abel. It is almost certain that the good part of the verse 5:32 is actually of Jewish origin, long predating Mohammad and the Koran. This excerpt, discussing the decree’s origin, speaks for itself:
“When we turn to another Jewish record – the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:
‘We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, “The voice of thy brother’s bloods crieth” (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.’
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5
“Here is a passage from the Mishnah! The Mishnah is a Jewish commentary on the Torah. How did a Rabbi’s commentary make its way into the Qur’an and be quoted as word from Allah? Simple, Muhammad had heard these teachings from the Jews, and repeated them later as he recited ‘revelation’.
“Because the word for blood is in the plural in Gen. 4:10, an ingenious Rabbi invented the supposition that all Abel’s offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had no knowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, in hearing it related, simply set out the Rabbi’s suppositions as the eternal decree of God! Just think, some Jewish Rabbi’s thoughts now are comprised in the
This evidence makes it extremely likely that Mohammad (or whoever produced the words for this part of the Koran) did plagiarize or appropriate this quoted commentary of a rabbi. Given that this is a rabbi’s commentary, not the words of God or Allah as conveyed by a prophet, the divine authenticity of this part of 5:32 is all but discredited.
(2) When the omitted parts of the verse are included, the meaning of the verse changes, and permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances.
Now, the argument a defender of Islam might make here, after reading the above excerpt, is “So what? Islam and Judaism have a common source, Allah. It was Allah that guided the rabbi in his commentary, and then guided the prophet Mohammad with a more ‘correct’ version.” (For this interpretation to be acceptable to Islam, one must not assume that the rabbi was a partner to Allah, but simply a believer guided by Allah.) However, this more “correct” version, intended for Muslims, has an addition not found in the earlier source. That main addition is the “corruption in the earth” exception. (We don’t need to deal with the exception for manslaughter here, for this discussion).
Killing someone for “corruption in the earth/land” is permitted (see 5:33). “Corruption in the land” refers to the words and/or actions that come into significant conflict with Islam. Some people have previously commented on this glaring problem with 5:32, e.g., see http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001351.html. Nevertheless, most people who cite the cropped quote seem to have little concern about what the verse actually says. This is not a trivial matter. Interpreted by Muslims, the verse deals with matters of life and death!
The Koran says that the presence of disbelievers causes confusion and corruption in the land, and therefore Muslims must join together to oppose them (8:73). Ibn Kathir interprets 8:73 to mean that if the Muslims do not join together to protect themselves and their religion from the disbelievers, then “(…there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great corruption), meaning, if you do not shun the idolators and offer your loyalty to the believers, Fitnah will overcome the people. Then confusion [polytheism and corruption] will be rampant, for the believers will be mixed with
disbelievers, resulting in tremendous, widespread trials [corruption and mischief] between people.”
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20667. (Parentheses and [brackets] in original). Note that fitnah is “‘Trial, testing.’ A term referring to antagonism
toward individual Muslims at Islam’s beginning. Now it is used to refer to threats to the health of the state.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/fitnah. It can refer to civil strife, the presence of disbelievers, disbelief, or the drawing of Muslims away from Islam and into disbelief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna. “Oppression” refers to any words, actions, or institutions that go against, or impede, the full unrestricted practice of Islam (Abul Kasem discusses oppression further: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51205.htm).
5:33 “The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom…”
See Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of 5:33 here: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751.
Those who wage war against Allah/Mohammad and/or cause corruption in the earth will be killed, or crucified, or significantly dismembered (to the point of being permanently disabled), or banished (or imprisoned). (The severity of the penalty would depend on the judged severity of the transgression against Islam). In addition, they will be punished in hell (5:33). Allah punishes those who “make mischief in the earth,” subjecting them to a “painful doom” (2:10; 2:11-14).
Corruption in the land, or corruption/mischief on earth, is a huge category of offenses, violent or non-violent, that significantly go against Islam. Google “corruption on earth” + “death penalty” to get an idea of the range of offenses considered to fit that category today in some strict Islamic countries. These crimes vary widely, including, for a few examples, criticizing or calling for changes in Islamic traditions; practicing “sorcery”; engaging in “charlatanism”; sex between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman; highway robbery; destruction of buildings; and terrorism against Muslims.
War against God, mentioned in 5:33 (below), is also the same kind of huge, flexible category that could include a wide variety of offenses significantly against Islamic doctrine or Islamic society. Aqa Mahdi Puya comments: “Waging war against Allah and His prophet means hostility against His chosen representatives; or deviation from His laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him; or letting loose a reign of terror to persecute and frighten innocent people in order to deprive them of their rights; or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims; or activities to enslave, exploit and destroy human beings.” Source: http://al-islam.org/quran/. There are a couple of potentially misleading statements in Puya’s commentary. First, the Koran does call, in jihad, for terrorizing the disbelievers (8:60, 9:5), but never calls for terrorizing believers. Puya’s comments about “innocent people” could refer to Muslims, but the Koran does not consider the non-Muslims to be innocent – far from it (see below). Second, the Koran permits Muslims to have slaves (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:50). Otherwise, Puya’s commentary is consistent with other accounts. According to Ibn Kathir, disbelief is included in the category of crimes labeled ‘war against God;’ see http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751. What ‘corruption on earth’ and ‘war against God’ have in common is that each is a huge category encompassing a variety of violent and non-violent words and actions considered offenses in Islam. The significant overlap between the two categories involves opposition to Islam, including non-violent opposition.
Scholar and apostate of Islam, Ibn Warraq, does not interpret 5:32 to be a peaceful verse, pointing out that, in light of 5:33, the verse contains a warning to the Jews (i.e., warning them not to commit mischief/corruption). This point is partly in reference to this part of 5:32: “…Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.” “Prodigals of the earth” is not a compliment. It means that many of the Jews were reckless, transgressing laws in the land, despite having been given clear instructions from the prophets of Allah. Ibn Warraq writes, “The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses [5:32-33] aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!” [brackets added]. (From Ibn Warraq, ed., (2003) Leaving Islam, p. 401. Amherst, New York: Prometheus). This interpretation is consistent with Ibn Kathir’s:
A more direct question is simply, what did Mohammad consider to be acceptable killing? We know from the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) that he had critics and satirical poets assassinated for their words against Islam
(Sources: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html, http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm, http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm.) The Koran is clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21). Therefore Muslims are obligated to kill (non-Muslim) critics of Islam. If this is acceptable killing according to Islam, why should anyone take 5:32 seriously as a peaceful verse? How can this be a verse of peace when it permits Muslims to kill anyone simply for doing or saying something judged to be against Islam?
5:34: “Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
See Ibn Kathir’s interpretation here: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13783
Those who surrender to Islam will not be killed nor face the other penalties. They must repent before they are overpowered. Keep in mind that Mohammad was, and encouraged his followers to be, ever wary of hypocrites – those who are merely pretending to repent or submit themselves to Allah. Note that whether or not the person must face the penalties listed in 5:33, including death, depends on whether or not the person surrenders to Islam.
These passages may also be taken as having a wider application than dealing with individual transgressions. However, in battles or raids, the Koran states that captives should not be taken until a slaughter has first been made (8:67). In that case, obviously, many disbelievers would be killed before even being given the chance to repent. That doesn’t sound like a very “merciful” policy! But one must also keep in mind the general Islamic policy of acting hard against the disbelievers but being merciful to other believers (48:29).
5:35: “O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of the approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed.”
5:36: “As for those who disbelieve, lo! If all that is in the earth were theirs, and as much again therewith, to ransom them from the doom on the Day of the Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs will be a painful doom.”
5:37: “They will wish to come forth from the Fire, but they will not come forth from it. Theirs will be a lasting doom.”
A disbeliever is anyone who doesn’t believe in the one Allah (with no partners or rivals), Mohammad’s validity as a prophet, the eventuality of the Last Day, or who significantly transgresses Islam. The disbelievers are non-Muslims, including non-religious people generally, anyone who strongly questions, criticizes, or mocks Islam, and generally people of all other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.). They are doomed to hellfire, and there is nothing that can be done about it – except, of course, to convert to Islam exclusively, before it’s too late. Verse 3:85 says that Islam (the “Surrender”) is the only acceptable religion. Those who deny Mohammad’s revelations are evil (7:177). Over 250 separate verses in the Koran condemn non-Muslims to hell-fire/eternal torture and doom.
The worst possible crime is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). It is considered an act or state of aggressive defiance against Allah. The Koran is quite explicit that disbelief is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191) that involves death of Muslims. (For a discussion, including tafsir, of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm, by Ali Sina). Murder of a Muslim is a crime that is penalized according to the law of life-for-life retaliation (5:45; i.e., death penalty), but disbelief is a worse crime! Remember the apologist’s quote, that killing one person is like killing all humankind? If we assume that’s true, then disbelief in Islam is a worse crime than killing all humankind! This sounds like a far-fetched interpretation, but it is a simple logical deduction from what the Koran says. The Koran does not say “disbelief is the second-worst crime, and murder is the worst.” Rather, the Koran clearly and repeatedly states that disbelief is the worst crime.
Think about this for a moment. Why do some Muslims in some parts of the world go on a rampage, killing people over rumors that a Koran has been damaged? Why do some Muslims kill people who merely criticise Islam or make fun of the prophet? How is it that so many thousands of Muslims demonstrated so violently, calling for the death of Salman Rushdie over some words of fictional characters in that author’s novel? Why do some Islamic countries still officially implement the death penalty for “blasphemy”? Why do some Muslims kill people if women are dressed in bikinis for a beauty contest? Unfortunately, this far-fetched interpretation that I just mentioned is accepted with deadly seriousness, and in accordance with Islamic law in many jurisdictions, by millions of Muslims today. This far-fetched interpretation has been widely accepted by Muslims for nearly 1400 years. Belief in Islam is more important to some Muslims than is human life. And that’s what the Koran says: Disbelief is worse than killing.
Non-Muslims, according to the Koran, are not considered innocent civilians. They are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) – the worst crime. The Koran says that non-Muslims are against Allah (25:55); on the side of the Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); “evil” (16:27, 2:91, 2:99); the “wrong-doers” (2:254, 5:45); the “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); hypocrites (4:61); “unclean” (9:28). As for whether non-Muslims are civilians, the Koran is not even clear that non-Muslims are fully human. Instead, the disbelievers are the “worst of created beings” (98:6); “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55); “the worst beasts in Allah’s sight” (8:55), “apes” and/or “pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166), and so on. Verse 60:4 says followers of Allah will hate the disbelievers forever, unless the disbelievers come to believe in Allah only. Think about this thorough demonization of disbelievers, together with the conception of disbelief as the worst possible crime. Now think about how easy it would be for a Koran-believing Muslim to find a non-Muslim guilty of corruption on earth or war against God. Keep in mind that much of the words, deeds, and customs of the non-Muslims happen to go against Islam.
Killing disbelievers is not, in itself, a crime. This is confirmed in Tabari, e.g., “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us…” Tabari IX:69. In fact, many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (33:61, 4:76, 4:89-91, 8:12, 9:41, 9:5, 9:29, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39). Although the Koran explicitly forbids the murder of Muslims (4:93), the Koran does not contain a similar statement that forbids the killing or murder of non-Muslims. Where there are benefits to Islam in letting the non-Muslims live, there could be some minimal protections for the non-Muslims. They could be spared as slaves to be bought or sold; they could become dhimmis (subjugated second-class citizens); they could be ransomed; women captives could be taken forcibly as wives or sex slaves; or captives could be set free depending on the personal discretion of the Muslim captor. Abul Kasem has cited and discussed Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32, indicating that non-Muslims are not protected by 5:32; only Muslims are protected. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem50808.htm.
Are non-Muslims’ lives protected under other circumstances? Some non-Muslim groups could be protected by temporary treaties with the Muslims, if this was deemed beneficial to Islam. However, even these treaties could be broken at any time (e.g., see 9:1-17) to serve the larger goals of Islam (see below). For a discussion of this broken treaty mentioned in Sura 9, see Ali Sina’s commentary at http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm. In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side. The treaty violation revealed in Sura 9 illustrates the Islamic jihad policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran refers to non-Muslims as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11), and thus implies that Muslims should not trust the word of non-Muslims. Thus, because the Koran says disbelievers are liars, Muslims at any time can claim they fear treachery from the other side (8:58) and can therefore make an excuse for breaking a treaty! Historically, treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad.
Intentional killing is a crime (i.e., murder) when one of Muslim humankind is the victim (4:93). More precisely, taking the rest of the Koran into account, 5:32 may only protect strict, Koran-adhering Muslims, or “single-minded slaves of Allah.” Many verses suggest that weak, casual, or mere nominal Muslims may not be protected. This is strongly suggested by Sura 9, which has harsh warnings to those Muslims not willing to kill or be killed in the jihad. Nevertheless, killing a believing Muslim in a terrorist attack could constitute corruption on earth and war against Allah. On that interpretation, because such terrorists (e.g., bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.) have also killed Muslims (not just inadvertently, but deliberately, e.g., attacks in Saudi Arabia), those terrorists could be penalized in accordance with 5:33. (Fighting between different sects, such as between the Sunni and Shia, has been justified by each side claiming that the other are not true Muslims; hence killing of the others is considered permissible).
Quoted fully, in light of the subsequent verses, and the overarching message of the Koran, verse 5:32 was never intended to forbid the killing of disbelievers. Verses in the Koran must always be understood within the context of the ultimate goal of Islam. Allah sent Mohammad (and his followers) to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). To achieve this ultimate goal of vanquishing disbelief, Muslims must convert, subjugate, or kill all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39; also see 9:5 and 9:29; also see ). This must always be kept in mind. This ultimate goal is the context which contains and overrides all contexts in Islam. If killing a non-Muslim is necessary for the advancement or the defence of Islam, then it must be done.
1. Verse 5:32 is almost certainly derived from earlier Jewish sources – actually a rabbi’s commentary, not the revelations of a prophet of God/Allah. Mohammad (or someone) added the “corruption on earth” exception, changing the original concept in order to permit the death penalty for significant violations against Islam.
2. In the Koran, verse 5:32 offers no protection for the lives of non-Muslims. Even if we assume the verse is authentic, corruption on earth is so broad a category that almost anything that disbelievers say or do that is judged to be significantly against Islam could be used as grounds for administering the harsh penalties – including death – described in 5:33. In other words, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider to be murder. Indeed, the verse grants Muslims licence to kill non-Muslims under a surprisingly broad range of circumstances. Those apologists who present 5:32 to non-Muslims as though it were a good verse are either naïve or are knowingly engaging in deception.
 The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) wrote that captive non-Muslim non-combatants, including women and children, could be executed if they merely engaged in verbal or written opposition to Islam:
“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.”
(Source: Ibn Taymiyya (1996). al-Siyasa al-Shariyya. (Translated by Rudolph Peters). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam. (pp. 44-54; see p. 49). Princeton NJ. Markus Wiener Publishers). First, the policy of killing any non-Muslim who wages verbal war against Islam (e.g., criticizing the prophet) is consistent with Mohammad’s conduct described in the Hadiths. Second, the prophet’s conduct in killing non-Muslim women and children in jihad was deemed acceptable in analogous military circumstances. For example, Averroes (d. 1198), the Maliki jurist and philosopher, wrote that
“Most scholars agree that fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet used mangonels against the population of al-Ta’if.”
Likewise, Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), a revered Sufi theologian, claimed that in jihad
“…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…”
(Source: Al-Ghazali (1979). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Translated into English by Dr. Michael Schub. (pp. 186, 190-91). Beirut. Cited in Bostom (2005), see below).
Finally, note that even in cases where the the Muslims’ non-Muslim slaves or dhimmis committed no word or overt act against Islam, if they were killed by Muslims, the penalties to the Muslims would be minor (e.g., several lashes with a whip). The penalty would not be for killing the non-Muslim person, but for destroying the Muslims’ property or source of revenue.
A recent edited volume by Andrew Bostom documents the history of the killing and mass slaughters of non-Muslims in the expansionist imperialistic Islamic jihads: (Bostom, Andrew G. (ed.), with foreword by Ibn Warraq, (2005). The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. New York: Prometheus Books).
 Generally speaking, the classic jihad policy involves giving non-Muslims a choice: (1) convert to Islam, or else (2) remain a non-Muslim but become a (subjugated) dhimmi and pay the jizya “protection” tax to the Muslim authorities, or else (3) be put to death. The chief basis for this policy is most clearly captured in verses 9:5 and 9:29:
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
9:29: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low.”
This policy is still accepted in the Shafi’i Sunni manual “Reliance of the Traveler,” which is officially endorsed by Sunni Islam’s most respected authority in the world, the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The manual states that jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non-Muslims.” It states that “…the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax…” Moreover, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” The jihad must be carried out even if there is no caliph. (Source: Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri (1999). Reliance of the Traveler (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. (Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller). Amana Publications: Beltsville, MD. See law numbers o9.0, o9.1 , o9.6, o9.8, and o9.9).
Click here: The Virus of Islam: Can it be cured?
Islam Creates Mindless Demonic Bloody Murderers
Islam is not peace as Muslim apologists want us to believe. Muslims especially in Asia should rise above their ego, their foolishness, their stupidity and especially decide to know the truth. Not, the lies (considered as truth) as taught by Clerics, Mawlana. It’s important to rise above and experience. Knowledge is truth. Knowledge is God for it helps removes the darkness of ignorance. It is important that a person searches from within.
Many ex-Muslims have done it. They discovered the Truth. It’s true, in the beginning, itis bitter. It hurts. But, if one is a true devotee, a true “searcher” of Divinity and a true believer, one will not be gullible to lies, deception and evil things. Had I been a Muslim, when I see, since centuries, how come, in the name of a god, a religion (Islam) so many evil things are being done, I would have enquired and with inquisitive mind search for the reason.