Islam: Is Muhammad a child molester, a womanizer and homosexual?

Preample

This post is not a re-writing other posts bearing the same title. I have just noticed that the other posts have been so frequently visited that I thought of just pulling them together into one lengthy post, thinking that thus it will be easier for the reader to concentrate on having an answer to such a million dollar question that has been raised by orientalists again and over again, and been refuted every time it was raised. But they never rest!

I'm not a preacher, but I've studied comparative religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and as necessary complementary part of my study; paganism and atheism.

As far as Islam is concerned, I did study: Islamic law (Fikh/Shari'ah), also known as "Islamic jurisprudence", Interpretation of the Holy Qur'an, Islamic history, Biography of Prophet Muhammad Life (Sirah Nabawiyyah), Arabic language; both grammar and literature along with my core subjects which was mainly Comparative Linguistics and Simultaneous Interpretation.

However, after obtaining my Bachelor from one of the most ancient and still functioning university on earth; Al-Azhar University, I did my further studies on the above. I embarking on a journey for finding the truth. Therefore, with an open mind, and unbiased attitude, I had to hang my believes on a peg on the wall, so that whenever I'm faced with an idea, theory, and information contradicting  my believes, I would approach it with a clear and open mind.

Thus, I also studied Astrology, Theosophy, Extraterrestrial and  the so-called Jewish mystic wisdom; the Kabbalah including the Zohar (Splendor or Radiance) and Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for the Perplexed ), both of Moses Maimonides, The Incoherence of the Philosophers or collapse of the philosophers  (Arabic: Tahāfut al-Falāsifa) by Al-Ghazali, and the answer thereto "Collapse of the Collapse or The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Arabic: Tahāfut al-Tahāfut" by Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

In order: Ibn Rush (Averos), Ibn Sina (Avisenna), Ibn Maimoun (the Maimounedes)

 

As far as Islam is concerned, I've read hundreds of books on the above subjects. Some were supporting Islam, and some were against it. Many of such books of both parties were written by "orientalists", Some of whom were obviously biased and meant to spread hatred, and some fairly used solid reasoning, crediting and discrediting Islam.

In a nutshell, I found throughout my reading that there was a common denominator: Judging religions according to behaviorism of the followers of the concerned religions. My viewpoint is if one judge a religion by conclusions he/she attained regarding its followers, even a philosophy or any of what ends with the famous "ism", he/she will be distracted from his/her main course, because followers of religions  have all the time committed atrocities throughout history.

Many cases were raised against Islam by orientalist (scholars interested in Middle Eastern religion, mainly Islam, and culture), though those cases have been refuted throughout history multiple times. Currently, those cases are raised again due to political and propaganda reasons, mainly by the Zionist propaganda machine and the Evangelist Church which is blindly following the Zionist steps. Others do the same thing due to their hate, fear and ignorance.

Some of the myths that have been refuted as I mentioned before are: 1. Muhammad is a pedophile as he married a prepubescent girl named "Ayesha", the daughter of his close friend "Abu-Bakr", 2. Muhammad is a womanizer as he had so many wives, and 3. Islam is a religion of violence.

Though the above has been refuted many times, I'm going to explain why the above is not true. My comments on Ms. Kidd's are in ITALIC

SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN

By: Devvy Kidd

December 25, 2006

"...I spent a considerable amount of time researching Islam and Muslims. According to Ten Misconceptions about Islam published by the University of Southern California, USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts: Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of "religion and state. This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.....Islam is the way of life; Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. Muslims claim their religion (way of life) is peaceful, but the facts tell us otherwise. I believe it's well documented that terrorists who are responsible for mass slaughter around this world are Muslims and now they are right here in America in your back yard building their terrorist cells; see here and here."

 I've read many books and newspapers' columns written by journalists, and I have found the following: one of the definitions of "juournalism" is "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media". Another one is "writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest".

A Journalist is someone who practices in accordance with the aforementioned. Hence, I've found journalists to be of three types: 1. Journalists with horizontal knowledge (shallow, and of bits and pieces). This type is concerned with collecting as much information as possible on many subjects. Being absorbed by covering many subjects, they do not really spend more time for authenticating their individual issues, but tend to only scratch the surface, 2. journalists with vertical knowledge (profound, deep). This type is composed of professionals specialized on a specific subject and journalism has become for them a way of publishing what they know. Example: a theist who has a column on religion on a newspaper, or a scientist, a doctor, and so on,  and 3. journalists with horizontal-vertical knowledge rather deep bits and pieces. Those are who have to cover many subjects, but spent a bit more time studying them.

I'm not going to categorize Ms. Devvy Kidd. I have visited her site and found many article worthy of reading. She is intelligent, but as far as Islam is concerned, I believe she only scratched the surface for the following reasons: 1. When Islam and the Qur'an are concerned, you have to be able to understand, and speak Arabic, you have to study the history of the revelation of the Qur'an, when and why verses have been revealed and for what purpose, and how to read the Qur'an; (ah'kaam al-kira'ah/rules of reading): a) when to continue reading, b) when to pause, c) when to stop, and d) when to connect. You have to be a person who is well-versed in the Arabic language; grammar, etymology and philology. A translation of the Qur'an is not the right way to understand the Qur'an. My golden rule is: translation is always a betrayal of the origion text. This is exactly what happened to the Christian bible; a great deal of corruption of translation from whatever the source is.


Someone may wounder saying, WOW...do all Muslims know that? My answer is, of course not, and that is why they have to consult with "Ulama/scholars" whenever they are faced with difficulties in understanding their book. Some are ignorant and think they understand the book very well, or perhaps they do understand it very well, but twist its interpretation to serve their personal agenda. And those eventually become terrorists, not because Islam is preaching violence.


Yes, it is true that Muslims claim that their religion (way of life) is peaceful as Ms. Kidd mentioned above, but do all Muslims carry out the dictates of Islam? No, and that is why I believe Ms. Kidd is very shallow in her thinking. She fell in the trap I mentioned above; Judging religions by their judgment of its followers. Islam is a peaceful religion and doesn't preach violence. If some Muslims do so, then one should limit his/her criticism to those Muslims, without even giving himself the right to say that "all Muslims are the same"


Ms. Kidd has the right to be worried about that kind of Muslims who maybe around in the USA, concuting plans to hurt American people. But this Muslim segment does in no way represent Islam. I wonder why is Ms. Kidd is so critical of Muslims and Islam while the Zionists are in fact destroying her country! Does she know that, or she opts not to talk about it to avoind troubles? I don't know. She might have written unbiased article about Zionism. But as far as this article about Muslims and Islam, is concerned she is way off line.


"Ask the people in the little town of Lodi, California, 45 miles south of Sacramento: June 17, 2005, the New California Media reported, "Pakistani community in the farming city of Lodi, Calif., was stunned when FBI last week arrested two Pakistani Americans and three Pakistani nationals for allegedly operating an Al Qaeda cell in the city. One of the men arrested, 22-year Hamid Hayat, is accused in a FBI criminal complaint of training in an Al Qaeda camp in Pakistan to learn 'how to kill Americans' and then lying to FBI agents about it. His father, 47-year Umer Hayat, is charged in the complaint with lying about his son's involvement and his own financing of the Al Qaeda camp. Meanwhile, two Pakistani nationals, Shabbir Ahmed, imam of the Lodi Mosque, and Mohammad Adil Khan, a former Imam of the mosque, were arrested on June 6 on the charge of immigration violations. The next day Mohammad Hassan Adil, 19, son of Mohammad Khan, was also arrested on immigration violations."

 According to the sworn affidavit, Hamid Hayat admitted to agents he attended known terrorist camps for six months in 2003 and 2004, where he was trained in how to kill Americans, return to the United States and hide behind his "peaceful" religion. Living only an hour away from Lodi back then, I am very familiar with that round up of Muslims who were in violation of federal immigration laws and had proven involvement with terrorist camps and organizations. This is not an isolated situation. Hayat was convicted on terrorism charges; see here. Just your friendly, peaceful Muslim next door, right?"


I don't know about the above, but I've my doubts about many such arrests' legality. But giving her the benefit of doubt, I reiterate that those people do not represent Islam and the majority of Muslims. You just cannot judge the greater sum by your judgment of the lesser sum. Here is a simple lesson in LOGIC:

Premise: Students in class 6 are smart

              Alex is a student in class 6

 ________________________________

Conclusion:   Alex is smart 

Wrong conclusion for the simple reason that we have to use "quantifiers" and/ or "Qualifiers" - "students" could be "some" students or "all" students in class 6. So a qualifier should be used to make the distinction.

"all" students. Therefor:

Premise: ALL students in class 6 are smart

             Alex is a student in class 6

_____________________________________

Conclusion:  Alex is smart 

This is a correct logical deduction because the premise is correctly formed. Therefore not ALL Muslims are terrorists.

If Ms. Kidd is not kidding, then what about Christian people: 1. world war I, 2. world war II (Christian killing Christians), 3. war in Iraq (Christians killing Muslims and Christian for no reason), and 4. war in Afghanistan (Christians killing Muslims for no reason). 

No matter how you put it and reason about it, it is still Christians killing innocent civilians in those countries, and ten of millions of innocent civilians have beel killed durting the two great wars. Therefore, my advice to any journalist is "be a good shepherd and count your sheep before taking them home, as the big bad wolf might have sneaked in and snatched a little lam away"

Ms. Kid is not a good shepherd as 

her biase, anger and fear are  blinding her; 

three qualities which are very dangerous 

because they mislead the reader.

Ms. Kid, have you heard about water-boarding? Have you heard of American Jews who hold dual citizenship despite it is constitutionally illegal, and nobody is doing anything about it? So please, don't talk about federal immigration laws when your house is made of glass.


"Of course not all Muslims are terrorists, but many of us legitimately wondered why after 911, talk show pundits had to keep begging Muslim spokesmen in leadership positions with the Muslim faithful to denounce violence committed by Muslims? To me, it was a very vivid picture of how to hide your true feelings while spinning pat responses"

"Of course not all Muslims are terrorists". 

WOW, this is a good tip...thank you!...now after being smeared, I've enough change in my hand to go to McDoald and place an order for a big Mac.

"Enough credible research clearly shows that Muslims, despite their denials, hate Americans because in their eyes, we are "non believers" of their Allah. We are infidels. If you think that's an unfair statement, just consider the massive violence and destruction by Muslims over silly cartoons or anyone who disagrees with their Muhammad or "way of life" outlined in the Quran. In my research I found a web site dedicated to stopping the abuse of women and children in the name of the Prophet Mohammad. Dr. Homa Darabi was born to her mother, a child bride at age 13. Dr. Darabi brings to light abuses under Islam against women and the practice of pedophilia."


Yes, a great number of Muslims hate America, not Americans, and I'm one of them. Do not mix your oranges with you lemons. The reason they hate America is because of  its lousy foreign policy which is hurting them deeply. Have you heard of the continuous American blind support to Israel despite what Israel did to the Gazan people, and is doing to Palestinians throughout the Satanic state of Israel? And WOW, so your information is based on some web sites on the internet. Ms. Kidd if you are preparing a theases for your Phd, references to web sites are not credible. I myself can say what the hell I want on this blog of mine. Do you know that there are thousands of Zionist web sites promoting lies on the Internet?


As regards "Dr. Darabi brings to light abuses under Islam against women and the practice of pedophila.", rest assured I'm going to comment on it, and you will be surprised when I show you how shallow you're.

 Jews and their rabbisy kill children and innocent civilians, and harvest organs and launder money

 

SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN

By: Devvy Kidd

December 25, 2006

"According to the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts referenced above, "Allah orders us in this verse to conduct our matters by taking counsel among ourselves, or by consulting each other.


This is the methodology of the Islamic state, to consult one another, but to always keep the Qur'an and Sunnah paramount. "Any law which contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah is unlawful." Ellison cannot take an oath with his hand on the Quran and swear his allegiance to what it demands and swear to uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights because they are incompatible. (Definition of Sunnah: The way of life prescribed as normative in Islam, based on the teachings and practices of Muhammad and on exegesis of the Koran. Also called hadith. Muhammad's way of life viewed as a model for Muslims." Muhammad married a child of six and had sex with her at age nine. Some role model.)"

Now, the above demonstrate, not only how ignorant Ms. Kidd is, 

but also how stupid, too.

Yes, this is the way that should be for any Islamic state. It is called "Shurah", which means "consultation", and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. "Shurah" is a noun derived from the three-letter verb "sha-wa -ra/SWR) which, accroding to the Hans wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, means: 1. to ask someone's advice, 2. to consult, or take council, and 3. reflect, bethink, point out, etc. so what is wrong with that?! No wonder, the American foriegn policies are not sound because they are not subjected to the above "consultation, advice-taking, council-taking, etc), but they are the enforcement and intimidation of elite "do waht I say, or either you'll be ousted or scandalized"

This is the law in an Islamic country and is nothing of Ms. Kidd's concern.

But when the matter involves a Muslim living in a country of a different religion, then the case is different. This Muslim has to abide by that country's law. In the meantime, the country should not impose on a Muslim anything that is fundamentally forbidden in Islam.


EXAMPLES involving non-muslim minorities living in a Muslim state: It is stated in Islamic jerisprudence (religious law) that Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol. Therefor, if a Muslim break the jar in which another Muslim is brewing alcohol or drinking from it, he is not to be punished or pay a compensation to the Muslim who owned the Jar. But if a Muslim do the same thing to a non-Muslim (Jew, Christian, etc), he is to be punished and to pay compensation.

Accordingly, Jews eat kosher meat, then they should be allowed to do so. If Christians eat ham, then they should be able to create their own product and look after it themselves without any religious interference of the Islamic state.

The point is as long as the above doesn't - and it doesn't - have an impact on the Muslim society where the non-Muslim minorities live - it is all right. Commonsense is also taken in consideration where some habits or practices are prohibited no matter what, like: cannibalism, public nudity, etc. In a nutshell, there is a grey area where it should be gently discussed with the minorities' religious authorities, and both parties have to compromise and reach a reasonable solution.


If Muslims eat halal meat, then they should create their own halal meat. If Jews eat kosher meat, then they should do the same. Both should not impose their eating habits on each other or on Christians, atheists or whomever; a case which is not true as regards Jews in the US because they have already imposed their kosher stuff on none-Jewish factories, forcing none-Jews unnecessary tax which at the end of the day is coveted by them.


I'm sure that Ms. Kidd knows about the abovementioned kosher case, but maybe she wouln't dare write and article about  it. She is conveniently comfortable attacking Islam. But when the Jews are involved, her precausion kiks in.


"Americans need to take very seriously what has happened to France and England as a result of their "tolerance" of Muslims flooding into their countries and then demanding those countries cave into their demands or feel their wrath. How quickly people forget how these "peaceful" people lit a match to cities in France while they rioted day after day; see here. If you think this isn't what's coming to America, think again because the agenda is to force Islam on Americans and destroy our Christian nation. How long before Muslims like Keith Ellison who get elected to Congress began to simply ignore our laws or demand Sharia law replace our laws."

Now, Ms. Kidd is starting to sound like Evangelical and Zionist propaganda by disregarding the ethics of journalism.

 If in any case if someone, at the court of law, askes me to swear on the Bible, I won't do it, simply because I'm not Christian, not that I don't respect the Christian Bible. I would swear on the Qur'an because that is the book I believe in, hence I am bound to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Another solution to satisfy all Jews, Christians and Muslims is raise up the hand and swear. In my openions, this  resolves the conflict, and doesn't mean any disrespect to the Tanach, the Bible or the Qur'an.


"Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain. However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London."

I have already discussed how minorities' believes according to Islam, 

not to what some Muslims believe, should be  accommodated be it a Muslim 

or non-Muslim society.

I don't know what the details are as regards Muslims in Britain, France, or Germany, etc., but I know that they're not trying to substitute the laws held by those countries. But their are parts of the Shariah that Muslim cannot forfeit because they are very important fundamentals of their belief and can be applied without causing any serious impact on the British society. Example: marriage and divorce, burial in Islam, if let to be handled according to a minority's belief, how on earth would it be a negative impact on the Brits?


Did Muslims riot in Britain saying, stop alcohol production, pork meat should not be on display in market places, usury - which by the way is a devastating invention - should not be allowed, and so on. NO! They didn't. The Qur'an says (my translation): "We have guided him [Man]  to both roads [ways]..."; the road leading to rightfulness, and the road leading to wrongfulness. This is freedom of choice. Aren't people any more capable of tolerance and "live and let live"? Obviously according to Ms. Kidd they shouldn't be.


Christians marry in the church, Muslims marry in the mosque. Does this breach the holy secular laws of a country, or even its laws which is based on the Bible? Who is intolerant her, Muslims or Christians?


"Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) will lead the way in demanding we flush our laws to accommodate theirs. As someone who follows very closely the activities of organizations like CAIR, I am not afraid to call it as I see it: CAIR's principle mouthpieces are little better than thugs in expensive suits using religion to promote their "way of life" and intimidate gutless politicians in Washington, DC and the state houses. If these sissy, prissy, politicians don't cave, out comes the old, reliable smear tactics of "racism" and "bigotry." These people have redefined the term "spin masters." While they mouth PC platitudes like, "We revere Jesus," Muslims believe Jesus was some run of the mill prophet and not the Son of God, which is blasphemous to Christians."

Shofar being blown, and only lies come out of it

Is Ms Kidd blowing a shofar here. Yes, Muslims revere and believe in Jesus Christ. It is a fundamental part of their "Iman" (Faith). The way they believe in him is none but the Muslims' concern. And they do not believe in Jesus as "run of the mill" prophet, but one of the so many most honorable prophets sent by God. It may be blasphemous to the Christians, but Christians can believe in Jesus any way they like. It shouldn't be any of Muslims' concern. Is Ms. Kidd blind? Jews don not only believe in Jesus at all,  but they are also far beyond that. Dare she comment on that.

Jewish Woman Admits To Sacrificing a Baby

 on Oprah!

Is Ms. Kidd trying to impose her belief on non-Christian, or she is pushing a hot button instigating Christians against Muslim? Why doesn't she instigate Christians against Jews who are said  to have crucified and killed him.

Racism and spin mastering aren't Muslim favorite cup of tea. 

Open you eyes and look around to see who is every other moment crying "Racism, anti-sematism, etc."

"I continue to see this statement come from the media and other sources: "There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world." How do they know that? Who went out and counted heads? No one seems to know where this number, taken as fact, came from or when. One thing I do know: Muslims intend that one day America be a Muslim nation. I refer you now to an unsolicited e-mail I received from the Islamic Center of Beverly Hills titled Current Issues: Republicans, Democrats and Islamic Solutions. I put this in a pdf file here. In this comparison table, the Islamic solution to foreign policy for America is: "Promote world government under United Nations. In Islam nationalism is similar to racism."

What a crockpot full of crap! 

Does it matter whether Muslims are counted in billions or millions or even thousands? 

This is a lousy start for this paragraph, but a good introduction - stupid, though, I think - to Ms. Kidd's nastiness "Muslims intend that one day America be a Muslim nation". 

WOW, Muslims!!! What do you think they have done so far to achieve such an enormous goal? They had been colonized, blood-sucked, cheated and betrayed by Christian Britain, Christian France, Christian Holland for hundreds of year, and  they just shook off the shackles of imperialism a few decades a go, and are still colonized, but implicitly. Have you Ms. Kidd heard of "masked imperialism" and "naked imperialism"?


" Keith Ellison, as a Muslim, pledges his allegiance to Islam which believes America should not exist as a sovereign nation. They close out their laundry list by stating: "We are 10 million American-Muslim now we must grow 5% per year so in 2070 we must have 100 million Muslims in America...We need more Islamic school in America to promote peaceful, loving and caring Islam to our future generations."

Islam has lived with Christian neighbors for thousands of years, untill the stinky crusaders attacked Muslims under false pretenses - history repeats itself - like the idiot US president, George Bush, when he unjustifiably invaded Iraq. 

Muslims and Christians fough together in Egypt against the British occupation in Sa'ad Zaghlouls' revolution of 1919.  Ask Palestinian Christians, and they will tell you that they have always lived peacefully with their Muslim brothers. Read history of the Arabian invasion of Roman-occupied Egypt.  Amro Ibn Al-Aas asked the Christian priests not to be afraid and come out of their hiding places; hidden places and ancient Egyptians' tombs because they suffered immensely at the hands of the Christian Romans. 

Do you know that Muhammad married a christian woman named "Mary". She was coptic (Egyptian Christian). 

 Do you know that the Vatican's hands are soaked in blood of millions of people in Europe, including the blood of Muslims?

Ms. Kidd, I think you should go back to school and re-study history. But a self-absorbed American like you would not do that, because Americans do not give a damn about other people's culture. This is my first-hand experience with Americans I worked with.

If the "boogie" Muslims in the USA increase in number by birth or reversion to Islam and ask for more schools, why would this bother you? 

Aren't they American citizens? 

Churches are tax-exempted in the USA. Did Muslims ever raise a hand and interject? Had the schools been Christian schools, would the case been any different?

"Keith Ellison thinks America is a democracy, which clearly demonstrates he has no understanding of our legal form of government and is not qualified to serve in the U.S. Congress. He is for rewarding criminals by allowing those who have smuggled themselves across our borders (illegal aliens) with a free pass for citizenship. Ellison uses lots of cleverly worded "fellowship" propaganda, but he is not opposed to sodomites and lesbians marrying, which is in direct opposition to the "way of life" required under Islam. Ellison is for murdering unborn babies, also in opposition to the "way of life" required in Islam. Ellison goes from being a Catholic (abortion is forbidden as well as homosexuality and "same sex" marriages) to the Nation of Islam, to being a good pro-sodomy, pro-abortion Democrat. It would appear Ellison is a quick change artist who uses what ever works for his agenda. Should he be allowed to serve in Congress?"

I am confused. 

I do not know whether I'll take the above as agains, or pro-Islam. 

Since Islam and Christianity both oppose the case mentioned above: homosexuality, abortion, etc, I am obliged to state that  Keith Ellison is not the right representative of Muslims in the congress. No doubt he is not the right representative of ISLAM, but he is serving his own personal agenda. But again, Ms. Kidd, which people are the majority in the USA Congress?...what! I cannot hear you...Did you say Talmudic Zionist Jews? Thank you..Go, please, and blame them. Do not pour all your anger  and malice on a lousy Muslim guy.


I believe as Judge Roy Moore so succinctly states in his recent column that he should not: "Islamic law is simply incompatible with our law. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, founder and chairman of American Open University, a radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state,"and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Qur'an is supreme. Idris was recently deported for his illegal activities. While we certainly disagree with Idris' radical extremism, he at least knows what Islam is all about!"

Jaafar Sheikh is right to some extent as regards "Islam cannot be separated from the state", 

but not all the way as long as this is happening in a Muslim country, 

not a Christian country. 

In a Christian country, it is right as long as it is applied within the Muslim minority, but the country's Christian or secularist laws should always prevail.

Let me sum this up: Ellison's a Democrat who advocates their communist agenda including pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and same sex marriage, which is completely diametric to the tenets of Islam. He claims he's a Muslim, but doesn't follow the teachings of Islam. If he isn't following the teachings of Islam, how can he say he's only following his religion when he demands that he be allowed to use the Qur'an to take his oath of office?Any law which contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah is unlawful." Legally, I'm not sure how this could be done, but Keith Ellison should not be sworn into office to serve in the U.S. Congress because he cannot uphold his oath. The oath of office taken by members of Congress is in complete conflict with his Islamic laws. Remember: "


Ms. Kidd, I have to admit that your absolutely right this time. It is contradicting plain logic. But have you considered him as a crypto-Zionist, because Zionists are extremely liberal when it comes to such issues, or a hypocrite nominal Muslim whom you should not consider to be a representation of Muslim people anywhere, or consider his previous Christian life as a Catholic? I am not demeaning Catholics, but it is well known that too many Catholic priest as well as Jewish rabbis  molested young boys. Did you consider that he might have been on those boy?


Ms. Kidd, when you feel like criticizing Islam or anything in general, please, get your information from the right sources, clear your mind in order not to be biased, and then sit down and write your newspaper's column. Your column targets both Idiots and non-Idiots. You would not be happy to know that your are being followed by those who are idiots.

Ms. Kidd charges ALL Muslims of being a whole bunch of murders and terrorists who dominate the USA and replace its constitution with "terrible" Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence), and definitely believes that the main source of Islam, which is the Qur'an, calls for violence. She also charged the Prophet of Islam with a few things, which have been repeatedly main issues for orientalists to smear Islam since it started to spread, thus creating a threat to Christian Catholicism whose history is saturated with crimes against humanity, and whose hands are soaked in blood of Jews, Muslims and atheists.
"

SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN

By: Devvy Kidd

December 25, 2006

"Well, in a hadith (Muhammad's sayings), Muhammad mentioned that he has been ordered [by God] to fight people until they say there is no God but only one God [Allah].

Reading the above very carefully, the prophet said "I've been ordered", which means that that was one of his duties to carry out at that time. Consequently, Muslims nowadays are not bound by that "hadith". Some Muslim extremists might have wrongfully expanded the meaning of the hadith to serve their own personal agenda. But those rotten apples in no way represent, now or ever, the Muslim "Ummah/ nation". As I repeatedly explained, one cannot judge the greater sum by his /her judgement of the the lesser sum. It is not logical. However, it seems that Ms. Kidd is blinded by her biase, hatred, anger, and fear, therefore logic just quickly seeped through her finger like mercury.


All verses in the Qur'an regarding warring and killing have been situationaly revealed, i.e. revealed to address certain cituations that occured then. In the meantime, the Qur'an says (my translation) "if they (your enemy) opt to peace (a truce or end the war), you (Muslim army) has to to opt to peace, too". So Ms. Kidd, don't blame Muslims for not being "meek" when the situation doesn't require "meekness". Jesus himself wasn't as meek as the Christian maltitude believes. He was zealot and revelutionary, and of course as meek as a lamb when it was required. Moses wasn't meek at all.


"SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN". why not "THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE HOLY QURAN". Give Muslims some curtsy! They believe that their book is holy, too. And while we are still on the topic of wars and violence, here are a few Biblical verses out of many so that you can peruse and contemplate: 

Deuteronomy 20:16

"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes", "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass".

Wow! Kill infants, sucklings!!! This is a God who lost his mind. No wonder the Talmudic Zionist Jews have carried out the above to the leeter during their operation "Cast Lead" in Gaza.

Psalm 137:8-9 

"O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, that thou hast done to us", "O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!".

WOW! dashed the sucklings on the rok, like women by the river beatin the hell out of their cloth on a rock. I'm very disgusted.

Numbers 31:17-18 (New International Version) 

17 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,", 18 "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"Jews and Christians never get tired of falsely charging  the Phrophet of Islam, Muhammad, with being a womanizer, a child molester, and  a homosexual.

Is the GOD of Israel (Yahweh) a pedophile? Numbers 31:35-40: 32,000 women, who had never slept with a man, out of them the tribute for the LORD was 32.

Could GOD Almighty's share of the 32 virgin girls be metaphoric, meaning that He didn't come down and have sex with them?  

If any wants to call Muhammad a pedophile or womanizer for marrying (not forcing into sex) a young girl and marrying multiple women throughout his life, then he should not only call his Biblical Prophets as such, but also the GOD of Israel Himself!

Well, Mohammad is not any of the above. Now let me explain the above three charges, one by one, and demonstrate that they absolutely have no ground whatsoever to stand on.


Is Muhammad a child-molester (How to explain his marriage to Aisha at nine)?


I want to start with a hypothitical conversation between Mr. X and Mr. Y

"What's your say on some one who married or had sexual intercourse with a 16 years old girl who had not yet reached maturity or puberty?”, Mr. X asked his friend Mr. Y “Well, the law says 16  years of age is the age of marriage, " Mr. Y answered, and then added, "But I have to admit that I don’t think that’s right” - “Exactly! Is the issue  age here?" Mr. X exclaimed, "It is maturity. If a nine year old girl has reached puberty and is mature then what is the problem?”

Aswering a question with a question is an excelent way of approaching a problem. It is thought-provoking. Often the question forces the questioner to answer his/her own question within the response.

What is important here is not some random age. It is well known that humans in hot countries mature much faster that humans in colder climates. I searched this very issue, and  I discovered that the earliest recorded of an early-age pregnancy was an eight year old girl in South America! Aisha was therefore mature enough for this marriage. These are some other issues that could be mentioned: 1. it was God who ordered the marriage of Aisha to the Prophet, 2.  marrying the Prophet at such a young age, Aisha was raised, nurtured and became an authority on Islam. It is a fact that she became one of this religion's greatest Scholars, 3. surely any objection to such a young marriage can only be made if it can be shown that some harm was caused because of such marriage. On the contrary, all evidences point to the opposite in  case of this marriage. It was a marriage full of love and happiness, 4. according to Ibn Sa’d (The Women of Madina ), Aisha was in fact already promised in marriage even before she was married to the Prophet. This shows that arranged marriages at young ages was then quite normal in the Arabian society, 5. Abu-Bakr, Aisha's father, was the one who asked the Prophet why he had not consummated the marriage with Aisha, which he did when she became 12 years old.

Added to the above: 1. many of the Bible's Prophets married girls of the same age. Also, Mary was 12 when she married old Joseph. 2. child brides as young as 8 were common, not exceptions, among the Byzantine emperors and nobility, 3. My own sister, according to the consent age in Egypt married at the age of 16. My sister's marriage is considereded child molestation in some other countries.

The age of sexual consent is still quite low in many places. In Japan, people can legally have sex at age of 13, and in Spain they can legally have sex at age 12, in the Vatican state it is 12. See age of consent in Europe here, Here, and  here.

A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a "pedophile" in the USA today, but not in China today where the age of consent is 14, nor in the USA last century.

Stop blowing this Shofar!

I always searched for the truth, and my mentioning of those Biblical verses was nothing but stating that the Christian Bible contained them. Therefore, I personally believe that followers of the three major religions should abstain from attacking each other, but reason, not argue, for finding a common truth that may thread the three religions on the same divine string.

Now, let me discuss Ms. Kidd allegation that Muhammad was a womanizer, due to the fact that he married many women.

SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN

By: Devvy Kidd

December 25, 2006

Before Muhammad declared himself to be the messenger of God, he was a young man living in Mecca, nicknamed "Al-Ameen/the trustworthy one", by the people of Mecca, and he never worshiped any of the images (statues, idols" that filled the Kabah (temple) at his time. He also never participated in any of his pool activities, like going to a tavern for drinking, or getting himself engaged in any of those sexual activities which are currently abundant in the American society. Therefore, due to his modesty, trutworthfulness and well- reputed mannerism, a rich Meccan woman named Khadijah, who was double his age, hired him to tend on her flocks. 

Later Khadijah allowed him to trade for her up-north of the Arabian peninsula. 

As a merchant, he was so honest in his transactions that Khadijah offered herself to him in marriage. Khadijah gave him a son, whom he named after the patriarch, Ibrahim (Abraham), and who died at a very young age. At the time, Muhammad contemplated at cave "Hira') in one of the mountains about Mecca. There he had his first encounter with the "Archangle Gabriel". The encounter having a deep impact on Muhammad, he went home shaking and sweating. Asked by his wife why he was shivering, he told her the story of his encounter. Khadijah consulted with one of her relatives, named "Waraqa Ibn Nawfal" who was Christian. Waraqah confirmed to Khadijah that her husband was visited by "Al-Namoos Al-Akbar/Archangle Gabriel), and also told her that Muhammad had been chosen for a message that will cause him lots of troubles. Khadijah supported Muhammad all the way in carrying out his mission and then died. After the death of Khadijah, Muhammad had a heavy load of trouble by the Meccan people, including some of his own tribe and some of his uncles.

Meccan people who nicknamed Muhammad "Al-Ameen" were against Muhammad message which critisized their worship to the idols.

Arabs from everywhere in the Arabian peninsula performed pilgrimage to Mecca once year to offer sacrifices to their idols that represented them in Ka'aba, and also to trade. Hence, Mecca was a thriving trading center at least once a year. Meccans, specially the wealthy families considered Muhammad a great danger to their interest. So one is right to deduct that their hatred was not directed towards "the trustful one" as they called him, but towards his message which was harmful to their own interest.

The relative main point of the story is to show the normal marriage life Muhammad had, and that he married a woman far more older than he was.

Later, Muhammad married again, and again. I am not going to give individual details of his marriages, but I am going to explain why did Muhammad marry many times: 1. he married a widows whose husbands died in the battlefield or were husbandless and without someone to support them, 2. He married "Hafsah", the daughter of his close friend "Omar Ibn Al-Khattab", whose little beauty was an obstacle for her for men to ask for her hand in marriage.  Omar offered his daughter in marriage to Muhammad, 3.  he married a woman to tighten the connection between him and her clan that reverted to Islam, 4. He married young "Aishah" at the request of his closest friend "Abu-Bakr", and 5. All of Muhammad's wives were not young at the time he married them, except for "Aishah"

The main point is that there was legitimate reasons for Muhammad's marriages. None theless, someone may say, Yes there were reasons all right, but not love. I would then say that:  

1.  Muhammed may have married those women for reasons other than love, but he did not harbor hatred towards them, but all respect. Love might have grown during marriage, 

2. Muhammad was so fair towards his wives that he equally divided  the nights (sleeping with his wives) amongst his wives. It is known that he loved Aishah more than his other wives, and it is also reported that he said, "God, I've equally divided what I own and control. But I couln't do the same as regards what I cannot control [meaning heart affairs]. And it is also reported that whenever Muhammad was asked who was the closest wife to his heart, he always mentioned Khadijah who died long time ago. Aishah her self was jelous of this fact.

Added to the above, Muhammad married between 9 or 12 times in his whole life, BUT he never had more than FOUR wives at the same time. He never broke the divine rule revealed to him that Muslims were allowed to marry upto four women, which is also critisized by orientalists because of their ignorance of what the Qir'an stated in this regard (Qur'an states that if a Muslim is afraid that he cannot be equally fair with his wife (which is a sin), he shold marry only one wife. Thus, the rule for marriage in Islam is to only one women. Therefore, marrying more than one woman is not the rule, but the exception and if certain circumstances arise. Those circumstance are discussed in details in the Islamic jurisprodence, and they are very serious circumstances. Some Muslims have abused the rule, however, Islam as a religion is not to blame.

Someone may say, all right, Muhammad may have had only four woman at the same time, but still he could have divorced a wife to replace her with another wife, so still he was a womanizer.

My answer is a big fat NO, for the following reasons:  

1. There were reasons behind Muhammad's divorce to his wives. Such reasons are stated in the Islamic history and Biography of the life of the prophet (Sirah Nabawiyyah). anybody can read and critisize their logic and authinticities if he/she wants,  

2.If Muhammad was a lusty man who had a big appetite for sex, he could have married as many as he wanted, and could have had, on top of that, hundreds of concubines and slave. King David and King Soloman, who are considered by Muslims to be prophets, had hundreds of concubines who were sexually accessable to them. Muhammad did not have this previllage, and  

3. As regards marriage to more than one woman, it was not a novice phenomenon during Muhammad's time. Men married more than one woman all the time. Ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and monarchies in Europe, and Jews and Christian in the old times married more than one wife.

..

Was Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, homosexual? This is a one-zillion dollar question, and there are many people who are striving to win even a fraction of the one Zillion. Well, before answering the question, let us read some shocking comments I found on this site, TOPIX:  

1. Anonymous said: I have reasons to believe muhammad was a homosexual , as in liking man and specially younger boys. My only statement for this is that in those times girls must have only dug the cool Christian/Jew guys and saw the Muslims as common scum. So like many other , mohammad started dating 0y old boys and older men orgy's from time to time ?,  

2. Anon1 said: Sounds legitimate what you are saying.,  

3. Anonymous said: That makes complete sense. I mean, look at the muslims; what did they have going for them? They invented Algebra...hooray? I don't know about you guys, but the women I've dated..well, they're just not into math. The christians of europe were all ripped and athletic and the jews had tons of gold, so how could they compete?,  

 4. Sham said: No-one is proving otherise so i must agree,  

 5. Anon1 said: I like where this is going. I heard the same thing from my Muslim comrades. I read it in the Quran too..., 

 6. Anonymous said: I  heard that Muhammad enjoys the occasional cleveland steamer...for those of you who dont no what that is: its when, during sex, your partner poops on you., 

7. Anon1 said: I read it in the bible 8-),  

 8. Anon1 said: you hear that muslims?!?! your "prophet" likes a big ole' mound of butt jam smeared all over his chest!!! Don't know about the rest of you, but i usually leave a party when that shit (no pun intended...ok, yes it was) starts happening, 

9. KingKong said: In our society Homosexuality is rampant. Go to mosque and you'll would find men holding hands, walking leaning on each other's shoulders caressing hands and innocently keeping hands on each other's butt. Why do we see this and ignore it not take it as homosexuality? Mohammad accepted homosexuality. It's nothing wrong with being homo. MUSLIM MEN HATE WOMEN. THE SEX WITH WOMEN IS ONLY FOR PRO-CREATION, OTHERWISE WE PREFER MEN BETTER.,  

10. Piece said: Mohammad was a Pervert., and  

11. Abu Bakr said: I do not believe he was a homosexual, proper. He just had sex with women, children and men and very likey with the donkey that he speaks with in the Qu'ran too though I do admit he wmost likey raped the donkey as even the donkey himself was disgusted by the lewdness of Muhammad, read the Qu'ran. If it had a pulse and a hole, Muhammad was up for it. He was just a vile sexual predator with an insatible lust for sex with whoever or whatever he cast his eye upon. There is a story in the Qu'ran that he comes across a 2 yr old baby girl and says that if he is still alive when she reaches marrying age, he will have her. Thank God (not the Moon god Allah) he died before this could happen. Now I cannot see the attraction of a 2 yr old baby girl, Muhammad obviously could, as I say he was a vile, disgusting and filthy sexual predator.

After reading the above comments, one will notice the following: 1. Comments started by Mr. Anonymous, and then went back and forth mostly between him and Mr. Adan1, 2.Their judgement is mainly based on hearsay (I heard), and lying by saying, I have read in the Qur'an. Others also threw their bucket in, 3. Commentators seem to be young, and not well-educated, which is an attempt to throw legitimacy on their lyingQur'an, on the contrary forbids homosexuality, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise), 4. Baseless hatred toward Islam, Muslims, and Muslims culture is so striking, 5. Ignorance about Islam, Muslims, and Muslims way of life is so striking, and 6. Influence of  the offensive Muhammad's cartoon is so obvious.

If the above is the general attitude amongst the young generation in the WEST (Europe and the USA), and in Israel, then no wonder that Muslims are being hated and discriminated in those countries.

ABC prime time, How Muslims are treated in America

NP: Notice that the shop keeper is a Jew, the people sympathizing with the Muslim woman are decent christian people, the Jewish shop keep is capitalizing on 9/11 and his statements are totally illogical, or What I personally "a saying that may sound truthfull, but said for the purpose of evil"

Multen Ilhan, world religions professor, discusses the media bias and discrimination suffered by Muslim in 21st century America in her presentation.

A lawsuit stops discrimination against Muslim women in Omaha

What is a rumor? 

A rumor is a little story that goes around from one mouth to another, get expananded in the process of communication by adding false information to it, self-projections, or open ions, then according to the universal law of expansion and contraction, gets contracted, compressed and simplified, and in the process loses some of its elements, then gets expanded again, and so on until it completely loses any element of truth, if there was any , and the false information prevails.

 

The big lie that Muhammad is homosexual went exactly through the above phases being based on the following strory: Muhammad and his followers suffered a great deal of undescribable toruture by the Meccan people due to reasons I have dicussed in the previous articles. People of "Medinah"; a city located a few hundred miles away from Mecca were interested in Muhammad's "Dawah/call". So Muhammad decided to migrate to Medinah. The night before his migration, the meccans plotted to raid his house and kill him while he was asleep. "Ali", Muhammad's cousin, a young man at the time who reverted to Islam, volunteered to sleep in Muhammad's bed. At dawn when the Meccan raided the house, they found the wrong man in Muhammad's bed. the Meccan chased Muhammad and his close friend Abu-Bakr but they failed to catch them.

Based on the above story and assuming that Muhammad spent the night in his bed with his cousin Ali, the anti-Islam orientalists spread the rumour that Muhammad slept with Ali and had sex with him. They even went far beyond that and fabricated other stories.

Now, let us see what Islam  and Muhammad said about homosexuality.

Islam and Homosexuality 

There are 5 references in the Qur'an which have been cited as referring to gay and lesbian behavior. Some obviously deal with effeminate men and "masculine women." The two main references to homosexual behavior are: 1. "We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81, and 2. "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165

Both references relate to gay sexual activities; lesbian practices are not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. But does this mean that lesbian practises are permitted because of the simple fact that they have not been mention in the Qur'an? Of course not, and I'll prove it.

Many Hadiths, which are collections of saying attributed to Mohammad, (pl.: ahadith) discuss "liwat/sexual intercourse between males"; a word derived from the name of prophet "Lut/Lot" . Two examples are: 1. "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.", the prophet said., 2. "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

Lesbian behavior was mentioned one time in the Hadith: "Sihaq/(lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them."

In the Qur'an there is a very eloquent verse that forbids anal sex in general for both man and women whether they be active or passive. And also forbids lesbianism: "Wa'Tu Harthakum Anna She'tum", which can be translated as (my translation): "Approach your TILL in any manner you like".

There is a story about why this verse was revealed: A man came to the prophet of Islam crying and shouting, O Allah' messenger, I have perished. The Prophet asked him why he thought so. The man said that he approached his wife from behind (rear-up position). The prophet asked him where he did insert his penis (her vagina or her anus) The man said, her vagina. The prophet then said that he did not sin.

Back to the verse mentioned above, there is a very important word contained in that verse, and that single word implies the following:  

1. copulatin between man and a woment must be penis-vagina one, 

2. anal sex is forbidden, and  

3. foreplay before copulation is recommended.

This important word is "Harth", which means in English "till, field".  "Harth" is a noun derived from the three-letter verb "Ha.Ra.Tha", which means to "plough/stir, toil, prepare for planting). Hence, it is recommended for husband and wife to have foreplay before the intercourse, the husband has to deposit hes seeds in a land that is capable of producing (vagina), not the (anus) which is uncapable of producing; man's seeds will be like being thrown on a stone, not a fertile land. Consequently and  comparatively lesbianism is forbidden based on the same concept of production and fertility.

Treatment of homosexuals within Islam

There is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ only in terms of penalty:  

1. The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted,  

2. The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted,  

3. The Sha'fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act., and  

4. The Maliki school says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.

You can get more information here

So Ms. Kidd, I saw your picture on your web site.

Well, 
from near your outside looks beautiful,

but 

your inside is far from beauty.

To me you're a beautiful Chinese vase, but invested with spider webs in the inside

Beware of the false media