Monday, 24 December 2012

-LICENSE TO KILL











-MARTYRDOM

His martyrdom, whether smart or dumb, ended that Mohammedan’s shenanigans.


STONIING OF ABU BAKR’S SISTER–IN–LAW



THE STONING
of
ABU BAKR’S  SISTER IN LAW

or, in full,

_The Background Story of
the Events Leading Up to
and Culminating in
the Solemn Proclamation by
the Bilateral Interfaith Dialogue Junta of
the Joint Declaration Enacted by
_the Inter-Hemispheric Commission on
the Occasion of
the 17th Centenary of
the Council of
Nicæa and
the 13th Centenary of
_the Stoning of
Abu Bakr’s
Sister-
in-
      Law. 


?
_by Igor Slamoff_

_This prose poem is respectfully dedicated to[*]  
The Right Reverend Rowan Williams,  
Archbishop of Canterbury



[*]    and in part inspired by  



After exerting much psychological pressure, I finally succeeded in getting the Mandingo of Kampala, the Revered Patriarch of Ecumenical Elucubrations & Chairman of the Chrislamobudaism Foundation (based in North Korea) to disclose to me the story of the circumstances under which  the Christian delegation was eventually willing to sign the Joint Declaration, although the draft submitted  by the Muslim side had not been discussed at all, and the Christians found themselves  reluctantly signing the unedited Muslim proposal.

But the circumstances were very stressful,  despite the Emir’s hospitality. Several members of the Christian delegation had not had time to compose their nerves after the crash landing in the crocodile-infested swamp and their subsequent laborious extraction by Marine helicopters equipped with winches.

The Grand Shmoofty of Yemen finished swiftly reading the draft joint statement on behalf of all the Muslim representatives at the symposium, and there was a hush in the plenary room.

After a brief pause, the Metropolitan Patriarch Mstislav IV of Irkutsk, who was chairing the meeting. said: “Very well, the next point on the agenda is, um … certain enquiries from our side  about what you mean exactly when you use certain remarkably elastic, not to say pathologically indefinable terms as are, for example …”.

At this point the Metropolitan Patriarch was brusquely interrupted by the Wali of Kanpoor, who raised a point of order and was immediately seconded by the fiendishly secretive and extraordinarily devout Abd-er-Rahmen Oziguchi, the Vice-Chairman’s spokesman. The Vice-Chairman himself was curiously absent from  this morning’s session for undisclosed reasons.

That afternoon the moon set at 3:40 at precisely the same instant as a flock of wild geese flew raucously overhead.

When the clerics foregathered for the afternoon session, the Metropolitan Patriarch Mstislav IV of Irkutsk nervously, and in a tremulous tone, announced that there had been a slight adjustment to the  agenda and we would immediately pass over  to the next point without further discussion of the Muslim side’s draft of the Joint Declaration that had been read to them at the morning session. After all, we couldn't  debate EVERY SINGLE POINT, can we now, and remember, we’ll need entire WEEKS to formulate the Joint Declaration on the Unity of the Godhead, which was a VERY important point, in view of the eschatological debate that had consumed for months the attention  of the  entire Kuwaiti submarine corps.

Besides, we were suddenly short of time, because the Transport Workers Union, despite the Emir’s rather torpid attempts at reconciliation, had announced a general strike for the following month, and trying to rearrange all those flights would be exhausting. .

The Methodist Archbishop of Katanga rose to protest: “Revered Fathers, Gentlemen, this is highly irregular. Clause 3 of our Covenant plainly states that sequencing parameters of terminological confabulation cannot be relinquished unless  a plenary vote has yielded a collective decision by a supermajority. However, I see that currently no voting quorum is present, so no decision is possible until the committee ….. “

The whole afternoon session was devoted to procedural wrangling and the issue was postponed to the next day.

However, during the night, unknown terrorists descended from the mountains and kidnapped the Christian delegation at the hotel where it was staying, and you know the rest.

The Muslim delegation had no trouble because we were housed at the luxurious guest house of the Emir’s secret police.”

After hearing the Mandingo of Kampala’s narrative I cleared my throat and said:  

So, then your draft of the  statement  goes on to assert the following: “We Muslims do not allow aggressive proselytising in our midst.”  -- Well, howzabout some MEEK proselytising in your midst?  Would you be willing to put up with a modicum of some seriously meek  proselytising in your midst? Would that be doable?

We Muslims do not allow that either. Your proselytising in our midst destroys our faith.

Well, YOUR proselytising in OUR midst destroys OUR faith TOO!

Calling Christianity a “faith” is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? Monkeypig!

Schweinehund!

How dare you imitate the Gestapo?  We bought the entire Gestapo legacy including literary rights back in the 1960s!  Ach du lieber!

[Here the transcript breaks off]





Friday, 21 December 2012

Violent demonstrations in Shegypt




Gangstapimp Brothelhood calls for calm

The violent demonstrations in Shegypt that began Tuesday entered their fourth day today, with angry protesters hurling stones at Queero police who were blocking the route to the Infidel embassy.
Reuters reports from the scene:

"'Frogbich is hot stuff!" and "There ain’t no Frogbich round these parts what we folks knows about, ‘ceptin’ for Frogbich hisself.", one group near the front of the clashes chanted, climaxing in a chorus of "and Frogbich his speakin’ tube be that yellow-bellied varmint Scrotum-Face, yessirree!” as police in riot gear fired tear gas and threw stones back in a street leading from Slugbutt Square to the embassy nearby. About 300 people had gathered to protest, some waving flags with religious slogans. ... The initial protest, in which the embassy walls were scaled, took place on Tuesday."
Things may yet grow worse Friday. The Gangstapimp Brothelhood has called for a nationwide protest against the anti-Scrotum-Face film believed to have sparked the unrest that has spread across the region this week. While the Gangstapimp Brothelhood is calling for peaceful demonstrations, this week has proved that tensions are running high and violence is never far away.
By Howl Hyena 's count: four people were killed and another 34 injured during yesterday's violent demonstrations near the Infidel embassy in Yeah-man!. In Shegypt, meanwhile, officials say that more than 200 people have been injured this week.

-Fuck your feelings Mustafa



by Infidel Kastrovič 

10,000 Muslims protested outside the offices of Google in London against  “Innocence of Muslims”, a biographical movie about Dog-shit Muhammad that they didn't like. One of the speakers, Sheikh Fat-Arse Al-Aqtab Siddiqi, told The Daily Telegraph: “Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well.”

THE  FACE OF MOHAMMEDAN BARBARISM
In September 2012 the Organisation of Islamic Cocksuckers, a group that represents 56 Gangstapimp states, called at the United Nations in New York for a global ban on insulting Scrotum-Face, claiming that offensive speech could “provoke people to violence.”



Thanks for the warning, chums. Next time I holler “Dog-shit Muhammad!” I shall be carrying a loaded XOXOXOX with plenty of spare XOXOXOX, plus a goodly number of XOXOXOX, in addition to a razor-sharp XOXOXOX for the hand-to-hand combat that may ensue once I have run out of XOXOXOX.

 You know, just in case any of that nasty violence happens.  


Wednesday, 12 December 2012

CAIR -- islamofascist tyrant’s lackey


by Adolf Hitlist

 The notorious CAIR claims to be a “civil-rights group”, but is actually the  bastard – and unacknowledged -- offspring of the Egyptian Monkey Boys a.k.a. Moslem Brotherhood, the creepy Islamofascist movement that has procreated several brutal Mohammedan terror gangs. Indeed, CAIR bears the dubious distinction of being a sibling of three bloodthirsty Islamofascist terror gangs: Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al Qaeda. To quote Bertolt Brecht: “The womb is fertile yet, from which it crept.”

The Monkey Boy presidential candidate Morsi recently became Egypt's  first democratically elected national leader in six thousand years of Egyptian history. He promptly assumed dictatorial powers, so in all, Egypt’s democratic period lasted for about six weeks.

Now CAIR, as the Monkey Boys’ unofficial propaganda sewer, has automatically begun justifying Morsi’s power grab and associated excesses, in addition to all the other tasks CAIR must accomplish in its mission to turn the US into a squalid Mohammedan dependency. 

“CAIR-San Francisco chief Zahra Billoo dismissed American concerns that the Islamist-backed draft constitution wouldn’t protect human rights. “Why do we care about what the Egyptian Constitution says about indefinite detention, when it is being practiced by the U.S. government?”[1]  

After years of indignantly protesting as affronts to human rights the Guantánamo military prison and the omnipresent US surveillance state – jump-started by Bush II and now being perfected by his successor Obama -- the opportunistic Gangstapimp myrmidons are now relying on these undoubtedly tyrannical measures as legal precedents to impose their own dictatorship on the Egyptian people. 

I recently met a proudly chauvinistic native of China who gloried in China’s bullying and exploitation of  SE Asian countries. When I pointed out that imperialism is bad, she replied that China was merely imitating the US.

The US has truly become a model for the world.



[1] CAIR Targets Morsi/Brotherhood Critics :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism, Posted on December 8, 2012 by Creeping Sharia

Crane on Abrogation


No. 3 in the series “Critics of Robert Spencer”

by Igor Slamoff

To round off my rebuttal of Robert Dickson Crane’s critique of Robert Spencer, I add a brief note to show that on a different and crucial issue, Crane ignores stacks of evidence when he denies the relevance of Qur’ânic abrogation:   

“The worst heresy among Muslims is evidenced by the official Saudi translations of the Qur’an, which assert that the above two verses and all like them have been abrogated by verses that say only Muslims can enter heaven.  …. This doctrine of abrogation has functioned like a computer virus and has multiplied into the abrogation of hundreds of verses.  Those who justify their new, hate-filled religion by asserting that God changed his mind through abrogation are playing God.  This process of selective interpretation and deletion eventually would gut the entire Qur’an of all meaning.”

Dr. Robert Dickson Crane: “Fascist-Islamophobia”: A Case Study in Totalitarian Demonization”, published online in 5 parts by The American Muslim in 2007. 

By calling into question the practice of abrogation in the Qur’ân, Crane shows profound ignorance both of the Qur’ân itself and of the evolution of Islamic thought.

Abrogation is a principle that is mentioned at several places in the Qur’ân itself, e.g. in verses 2:106 and 13:39.

Qur’ân 2:106:  “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

Qur’ân 13:39: “Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.”

Edward Gibbon, the author of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1766)? although not a scholar of Islam, seemed to be well aware of the concept that Crane refuses to accept, when he wrote: “…  all contradiction [within the Qur’ân] is removed by the saving maxim, that any text of Scripture is abrogated or modified by any subsequent passage”.

Another cite that shows that Crane is utterly mistaken:

“Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27]

I refer the reader and Dr. Crane to the WikiIslam web site (www.wikiislam.net), and specifically to its two extensive and detailed articles called
(1) Abrogation (Naskh), and
(2) List of Abrogations in the Qur’ân.

Did Mohammed Massacre the Banu Qurayza?


No. 2 in the series “Critics of Robert Spencer”

 By Igor Slamoff

This article is a partial rebuttal of the book review by Dr. Robert Dickson Crane: “Fascist-Islamophobia”: A Case Study in Totalitarian Demonization[1], which deals harshly with Robert Spencer’s book The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion[2]

Spencer’s book is largely based on Ibn Ishaq’s bio of Mohammed, written some 150 years after Mohammed’s death in 632 A.D.[3]

One crucial episode narrated by Ibn Ishaq and Robert Spencer was that in 624 A.D. Mohammed ordered the execution of several hundred male members of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in retaliation for the Banu Qurayza’s cooperation with Mohammed’s foes, the Quraysh. Ibn Ishaq relates how Mohammed actively participated in the mass execution and seized for his personal use the widow of a man he himself had just beheaded.

Crane rejects the massacre allegation outright:

“This mythical genocide is the all-time classical example of demonization. In his book, The Truth about Muhammad, Spencer relates this apocryphal story …to support his thesis that the Prophet Muhammad set an eternal example for all Muslims by following both domestic and foreign policies based on shock and awe”.[4]

In other words Spencer charges Mohammed with setting the model for contemporary Mohammedan terrorists, who are thus the authentic interpreters of islam. Spencer argues that there is no moderate Islam and that islam has always been a terrorist ideology, a claim that I myself find plausible.

1. Crane’s aspersions against Ibn Ishaq

Crane calls the whole of Ibn Ishaq’s bio of Mohammed into question, largely on the authority of one Malik ibn Anis. He writes:

“Spencer admits that the accuracy of Ibn Ishaq’s life of Muhammad is questionable, and he admits on page 27 that “Malik called Ibn Ishaq ‘an Antichrist, yet he says on page 30 that Ibn Ishaq’s biography of the Prophet Muhammad is his principal source for much of his book.”

At another point Crane writes:

 “Unfortunately, [Spencer] relies heavily on sources that are either bogus or biased and reflect the strain of extremism that is found in every religion."[5]

However Malik’s critique is limited to Jewish issues: “Mālik rejected [Ibn Ishaq’s] stories of Muhammad and the Jews of Medina [including the Banu Qurayza] on the ground that they were taken solely based on accounts by sons of Jewish converts.”[6] Likewise other traditional criticisms of Ibn Ishaq that Crane vaguely alludes to are actually restricted to very specific issues.[7] Nonetheless Crane tries to present them as grounds for considering Ibn Ishaq an all-around liar. From what I have been able to gather from general sources like Wikipedia, however, Ibn Ishaq has a reputation for reliability among specialists, despite Crane’s aspersions.[8]

2.      Islamic law arguments

2.1 “Only the guilty are punished”

Crane, in questioning the veracity of Ibn Ishaq’s account of the alleged Banu Qurayza massacre, writes:

“… the strict rule in Islamic law is to punish only those who are responsible for the sedition.”

As Spencer retorted, the Banu Qurayza episode occurred at the very beginning of Islam’s history, before any such “strict rules” existed.

Furthermore many historical examples can be cited in which Mohammedans inflicted collective punishment on non-Mohammedan communities to avenge the misdeeds of individuals.

The most glaring example of this can be seen in the Pact of Omar. “According to many Muslim historians  the Pact of Umar (العهدة العمرية, Al-'Uhda Al-'Umariyya) (637 AD) is an agreement between a subdued Christian population and the Muslim invaders led by Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second Rightly-guided Caliph.”[9]

According to  Islamic tradition, the caliph added several sentences to the text of the treaty, including the following:

“If we [i.e. the conquered Christians, technically known as dhimmis] break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'"

According to this provision, if dhimmis break ANY OF THE PROMISES, then they consent to be treated like rebels. That means that even a very slight misdeed can warrant brutal reprisals. Not only is no limit set to the severity of the punishment, but punishment may be meted out to any or all members of the protected group, regardless of who the culprit was, provided the culprit belonged to the same protected group.

“According to Islamic theology, Umar is one of four 'Rightly-guided Caliphs. Therefore, he is considered by them to be a model Muslim leader.[42] His actions and this pact perfectly reflect the teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith[43] (together forming Islamic sacred law, or Sharia).”[10] 

This utterly disproves Crane’s reckless claim that Islamic law scrupulously refrains from punishing the innocent.

2.2  “Prisoners of War are never killed”

“Equally important is the strict rule, never violated at the time of the Prophet, that prisoners of war must be either freed or allowed to be ransomed by their families.”

However, according to Ibn Ishaq, there is at least one other instance of Mohammed killing POWs, namely after the battle of Badr.

“At al Safra, on the return journey, the apostle ordered one of the prisoners, al Nadr, to be executed, and another, Uqba, later in the journey.”[11]

Unlike the Banu Qurayza, the captives in question were not Jews. Consequently the episode is not called into question by Malik ibn Anas. These two prisoners were executed because Mohammed bore each of them a personal grudge:

Nadr had supposedly remarked on the Mohammed’s revelations : ‘We have heard them. If we wanted, we could certainly compose the like of this. This is nothing but fables of the ancients.’“ (Koran 8:31)[12]

A Qur'an verse was revealed ordering the execution of Nadr bin Harith, He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans because he mocked and harassed Muhammad and wrote poems and stories criticizing him. [13]

Uqba bin Abu Muayt was captured in the Battle of Badr and was killed instead of being ransomed, because he threw dead animal entrails on Muhammad, and wrapped his garment around Muhammad's neck while he was praying.[14]

Mohammed was in the habit of ordering the death of anyone who mocked or disagreed with him.[15] This habit of his was not based on any law but on his alleged status as a prophet. Nonetheless previous prophets are not known to have been so bloodthirsty.

2.3 Mohammed the scofflaw

Furthermore there are other instances of Mohammed flouting the law.

“Then Abdullah, with his companions, the caravan, and the prisoners, returned to Medina … When they arrived at Medina , however, the apostle said, 'I did not command you to fight in the holy month, and he walked away from the caravan and the prisoners, and refused to take anything from them.”[16]

Until now Mohammed was playing by the rules of tribal law. But then he changed his tune:

 “… Allah revealed these words to His apostle: 'They will ask thee about the sacred month and the fighting. Say "To fight in the sacred month is a matter of grave import, but to obstruct the worship of Allah and not to believe in Him, to prevent men from entering the holy mosque or to drive them out of it, these are of even graver import. ” So the apostle of Allah took possession of the caravan and the prisoners. ”

So for Mohammed, two wrongs make a right. Mohammed acknowledged that his followers had breached customary law by fighting during a holy month. But since the injured party, i.e., the Quraysh, had likewise breached the law, Mohammed felt entitled to do likewise. This argument is unsustainable in any legal system, since the second wrong did nothing to redress the first wrong, but was on the contrary completely unrelated to it.

But Mohammed’s reasoning had the additional peculiarity that, whereas Mohammed had breached standing customary law, the “law” that he reproached the Quraysh with breaching, namely an implied duty to believe in Allah, had been made up by Mohammed himself. Mohammed was a partisan of Allah, but the Quraysh were not and had never claimed to be.

In so reasoning, Mohammed was presuming to trump standing customary law on the strength of his own inchoate religious movement. This presumptuousness foreshadows the current islamic doctrine of supremacy of sharia over so-called “man-made” law.

Crane’s arguments rely on the assumption that Mohammed scrupulously abided by the law. I have repeatedly shown this assumption to be false. I conclude that Crane’s criticism of Ibn Ishaq and Robert Spencer is very weak indeed.

Mohammed’s conduct on these and many other occasions showed that, far from being law-abiding, he was an opportunist whose agenda allowed him to override any law whenever he found it convenient to do so, or out of a thirst for revenge.

2.4  “The alleged Banu Qurazya massacre was never cited as a precedent”

Crane’s final argument against the Banu Qurayza story is:

“The classical Islamic scholars have another clinching argument. If such a slaughter had actually occurred, it would have been used as a precedent for legal rulings, whereas, in fact, there have never been any such rulings.”

I must contradict Dr. Crane. Although Crane prudently restricts his argument to judicial proceedings, the same principle applies to any action by a Mohammedan political authority. On at least one occasion, a prominent Mohammedan leader expressly referred to the Banu Qurayza massacre to justify his own policies: the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran once threatened his political opponents with the same treatment that Mohammed had afforded the Banu Qurayza.

Khomeini mentions the "Jews of Banu Qurayza", who were eliminated by Muhammad, as an example of the sort of "troublesome group" that Islam and the Islamic state must "eliminate."[132] and explains that "from the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews.[17]

Reza Aslan, a noted contemporary scholar of Islam, accepts as true the massacre of the Banu Qurayza.  He merely disputes that they were killed for being Jews.
“The Banu Qurayza were not executed for being Jews. Non-Jews were also executed following the Battle of the Trench. "As Michael Lecker has demonstrated, a significant number of the Banu Kilab -- Arab clients of the Qurayza who allied with them as an auxiliary force outside Medina -- were also executed for treason." [135]
Other Jews did not protest or side with the Banu Qurayza, and these Jews were left alone.[18]

This incident confirms Spencer’s argument that today’s Mohammedan extremists merely re-enact Mohammed’s brutality of yore. The argument remains valid even if the Banu Qurayza actually got off Scot-free and were never really massacred. It suffices that there are Mohammedans in positions of authority who believe the massacre story.

3.      Mohammed’s hypocrisy

At other times, however, Mohammed feigned strict respect for the law. For example he asked a rabbi at Medina why the Jews no longer followed the Mosaic command to stone adulterers. The rabbi replied that on one occasion an adulterer’s elevated social rank had prevented his stoning, and since then no more adulterers had been stoned. Thereupon Mohammed ostentatiously ordered the stoning of an adulterous couple before the mosque[19], as if to prove that he obeyed Jewish law more strictly than the Jews themselves. This was part and parcel of Mohammed’s standard argument that Jews and Christians constantly deviated from their own scriptures and rules, and that accordingly his new-fangled religion was the legitimate successor of both Judaism and Christianity.

As the great Scottish philosopher of the Enlightenment, David Hume, remarked two centuries ago, “[Mohammed] … bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.”

To sum up, Dr. Crane’s attempts to call Mohammed’s massacre of the Banu Qurayza into question are easily refuted. Dr. Crane resorts to specious arguments whose frailness becomes readily apparent even after very cursory examination. Thus the alleged massacre of the Banu Qurayza remains as plausible as ever.



[1] Dr. Crane’s review appeared online in 5 parts on The American Muslim web site in 2007.
[2] I already dealt briefly with the same subject matter in my recent article "Critique of Robert Spencer”.
[3] Sirat Rasoul Allah, www.faithfreedom.org/library
[4] It is interesting that Dr. Crane resorts to the term “shock and awe” the same euphemism for “terrorism” used by President Bush II to describe his own methods when ordering the bombing of Baghdad in 2003.
[5] Here Crane is deploying the well-worn exculpatory refrain according to which all religions are equally terroristic.
[6] Wikipedia EN, Ibn Ishaq
[7] Ibid.
[8] For example, the bibliography of Wikipedia’s life of Mohammed cites Ibn Ishaq in first place, with nary a derogatory remark.
[9] Wikiislam, A Brief Analysis of the Pact of Umar
[10]  Wikiislam, A Brief Analysis of the Pact of Umar
[11] Sirat Rasoul Allah, chapter 13 . See appendix “Execution of prisoners after battle of Badr”


[12] Ibn Kathīr provides a brief biography of Nadr and his alleged misdeeds, plus an account of the palavers that preceded his execution in Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-`Azīm, Beirut, Vol. II, p. 279, cited by Sayyid Qutb, In the Shadow of the Koran, volume 8 (sura 7) p 103
[13] List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad, in www.wikiislam.net
[14] Ibid.
[15] http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http:/ /www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm&date=2012-08-25
[16] Sirat Rasoul Allah, chapter 12
[17] Criticism of Islamism, Wikipedia
[18] Criticism of Islamism, Wikipedia
[19] Sirat Rasoul Allah, chapter 10