South Park + Free Speech = a Bad Day for Religion Part 3 - Islam
Sep 25th, 2008 | By Tyler Handley | Category: FeatureWhile attacking faiths like Scientology and Christianity might stir up some controversy, poking fun at Islam is like pissing on a bee hive. Maybe this is why Parker and Stone have stayed away from attacking it a lot. They consistently portray Jesus, but only once portray Mohamed. Portraying Mohamed, of course, is not allowed in the Muslim faith, but what many people don’t realize is that any prophet of Islam is not allowed to be depicted, and Jesus is a Muslim prophet. In a sneaky way, SP has always mocked Islam, even if they didn’t know it.
The one time they actually did portray Mohamed was in the episode “Super Best Friends”. He was part of the super best friends, had the superpower of fire, and had to help destroy a giant Abraham Lincoln. To everyone’s surprise, no one seemed to care and this episode went unnoticed to the waiting bee hives of “fundamentalist” Muslims.
What really stirred the nest was the epic two-parter in season 11 entitled “Cartoon Wars.” This episode was a reaction to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. In this episode, Family Guy is planning on airing an image of Mohamed which throws American’s into a state of fear that the Muslim world will retaliate. Their solution? They bury their heads in the sand to show the Muslims that they didn’t want to watch it.
But Kyle stands up for free speech and in a touching speech where he says “If you don’t show Mohammed, then you’ve made a distinction of what is okay to poke fun at, and what isn’t. Either it’s all okay, or none of it is,” convinces the President of Fox to air the episode. Coincidentally, Comedy Central censored SP’s image of Mohamed in fear of a Muslim retaliation. Parker and Stone used this censoring as meta-humour by showing a black screen saying “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network.” Kyle’s plea to the network executive was the exact wording of Parker and Stone’s plea to the president of Comedy Central.
The censoring they were making fun of in their episode actually happened to the show itself, only concreting their point that the only reason we don’t depict Mohamed is because we’re scared of violent reactions. At the very end of the episode SP shows Jesus defecating on President Bush; therefore mocking the general American public by showing how backwards it is that they can show the prophet in the hearts of most Americans defecating on the American President but not a simple image of Mohamed.
This two-parter ideally sums up SP’s view on religion and free speech. The theme was primarily critiquing the West’s response to Muslim rioting, but it was much more than that. It was a controversial episode thats message played itself out in the controversy it caused. A speech by the character Stephen gets their message across perfectly,
“Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed, and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want! And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have, then we just believe in free speech, but we don’t defend it.”
If you bury your head in the sand, like the Americans in SP, then you’re not defending free speech. Parker and Stone risked their lives by depicting Mohamed in the name of free speech.
In conclusion, one things is for sure when it comes to SP, nothing that’s held sacred is safe from being challenged. If you want to bury your head in the sand like the Americans in SP then you’re just someone who believes in free speech, but doesn’t defend it. Kudos South Park, you are true champions of one of our most cherished civil rights, free speech.
Afterword,
SP has also critiqued Judaism, Mormonism, and even Atheism. However, I felt their depictions didn’t warrant their own sections in this post. In a future post I will tackle these three together.
Part 1 - Scientology
Part 2 - Christianity
Citations for all three posts
Arp, Robert. “South Park and Philosophy: You Know I Learned Something Today.” Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
David, Koepsell. “Blasphemy and South Park.” Lecture, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007.
Hanley, Richard. “South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating.” Chicago: Open Court Press, 2007.
Southparkstuff.com. 1 November, 2007. <http://www.southparkstuff.com/south_park_downloads/episode-related_downloads/south_park_scripts >
Last 5 posts by Tyler Handley
- Once an Etiology: a short rant on the Tree of Life - December 8th, 2008
- Beautiful - November 12th, 2008
- Two Ways of Looking at the World - November 9th, 2008
- The Old Africa is a Country Mistake…by an “Almost” Vice President - November 6th, 2008
- Oh how so very true - November 3rd, 2008
Loading ...
I notice that your depiction of Mohammed on your website seems to be missing.
[Reply]
Tyler Handley Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Oh, it will be : )
[Reply]
God Exists? Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I agree with the sentiments against the absurdness of it, but there’s a lot of crap you can’t say about Christianity. For example if I created a cartoon where Jesus is getting sodomized you can damn well expect that Christians are going to get upset about that, I mean there was this artist who took a jar filled it with urine and put a cross in it. I don’t know why he did it, but he called it art - there was this huge Christian backlash and the artist received death threats, his apartment was vandalized, and all sorts of other crap he had to deal with.
So it’s not just Islam that’s gone crazy, it’s just about every religion - but I find that Islam and Christianity are the most fanatical. I’m personally disgusted by both and the one thing I find funny is that Christians come out in droves to bash Islam, it’s hilarious because they make no attempt to hide their bias.
Just remember in your bashing to separate the minority of people who are fundamentals from the majority who are just decent everyday people. The only thing I notice about South Park (which I’m a fan of) is that they don’t make of Judaism, asides from the occasional Cartman joke about how greedy they are - they never make fun of the religion itself like Moses and stuff, they only make fun of the stereotypes of Jews - not the religion itself.
[Reply]
Touche’ Brian…also I was a little disappointed that the new movie Matt and Trey are coming out with makes fun of Christianity seemingly again. I want to see someone have the balls to make fun of Islam, maybe Bill Maher will do that in his new movie
[Reply]
That is just so ironic - and I was told Americans didn’t do irony - nice one, LOL
[Reply]
I poop on Mohammed and fuck his mama in the ass.
[Reply]
I’m so shocked that the “Religion of Peace” would act violently. It’s funny how many leftists in the U.S. compare right wing Christians to terrorists as if they are an equal problem to Isamists.
[Reply]
God Exists? Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
lol you know there’s Christian terrorism, it doesn’t get reported on the news. Go read any African newspaper and you’ll see it. Christian terrorism mostly happens in areas where they’ve sent missionaries, converted Christians are the most likely to become fundamentalists. There’s lots of Christian terrorist attacks in Africa and Asia, like in Ethiopia for example where it’s become common.
[Reply]
God Exists. Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Examples, please?
When I do a search for Ethiopia Christian attack, all I get is Mulim attacks on Christians!
[Reply]
Morken Reply:
October 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Uganda, Lord’s Resistance Army
[Reply]
South Park + Free Speech = a Bad Day for Religion | Deliggit.com…
\r\nWhile attacking faiths like Scientology and Christianity might stir up some controve…
I couldn’t live in a society which places more importance on religious law (or even propriety) than personal freedoms.
[Reply]
Good points. I totally agree with you on the whole idea of free speech is an all-or-nothing deal.
However, isn’t the whole big deal about this the fact that it is against Muslim beliefs to show an image of Mohamed? Christianity certainly doesn’t have anything similar for images of Jesus, in fact, quite the opposite. (Although their depiction of the “Muslim’s” cartoon of Jesus is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians.)
Now with that said, this raises what I think is the real point here: if this is all about Muslims protesting other people violating their religious views, do we have to cater to them? I.E., because Muslims cannot portray images of Mohamed, does that mean that the rest of the (non-Islamic) world is not allowed to as well?
That is another very slippery slope and again is a double standard (just like the “It’s OK to insult religions as long as they’re not Islam). Where could this possibly lead us? Catholics don’t eat meat on Fridays. Does that mean non-Catholics should skip the steakhouse on Friday because it might offend? Jews don’t eat pork. Should pigs stop having to worry about a trip to the slaughterhouse so we don’t upset anyone?
I have to agree with South Park’s creators on this one. I think it’s fantastic to have your own set of religious beliefs and views if that’s what makes you happy. I’m a religious person myself. But if I have to change my daily life because of some (normally non-offensive/non-violent/societally acceptable) action that is somehow offending you, then that’s a problem and something I’ll stand up and take action against.
Personally, I think that if a group of Muslim’s feels so offended by a CARTOON that they feel they need to kill the people who wrote/created/watched/heard about it, then we’re all screwed anyway. If cartoons can lead to mass murder or rioting, even if the offending cartoon isn’t aired, I’m sure those who are willing to kill over them will find another reason.
[Reply]
God Exists? Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
good point, personally I believe in protected free speech as in everyone has the right to say what they want but within limits. Like you can’t start making death threats on tv, or giving out someones personal information or making racist commentary with the intent to slander or hurt others. Of course this can’t be enforced, so it’s better to just give everyone carte-blance freedom of speech.
The only thing is that Muslims today are not treated the same as Christians in America. For the most part slandering Christians is more protected, then it is to slander any other faith. South Park has gotten away with a lot, I mean most channels won’t let you come close to saying anything about Christianity, but you can say whatever you want about Islam. Take a look at people like Fox News for example, I mean do you think that they would allow you to say something like “Christianity is a terrorist religion” and actually expect it to air, hell no. But they’ll allow it if you replace Christianity with Islam.
[Reply]
Tv Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Agreed. Let’s not pretend that Christianity and Islam are treated the same.
We don’t all fall for that crap.
I only get annoyed when the haters come out. They don’t give a shit about free speech. They just want an excuse. This applies to all.
Some people will kill for thier “team” to win.
[Reply]
Guess you edited your post and deleted my comment.
You’re welcome?
[Reply]
Tyler Handley Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hey Shaun. Sorry, we’re having server errors as you can probably tell. Your welcome to post your comment again. And yes, thank you for the help.
[Reply]
O|-< <—- This is my portrait of Mohamed
[Reply]
People want free speech with no repercussions. Get real. When you speak your mind you bound to piss someone off, so you better be willing to not only speak your mind but back up what ever shit your spewing from you’re faces asshole.
You cant depict the prophet of the worlds biggest religion in an untasteful manner and yell ‘FREE SPEECH’, and expects it followers to shrug it off especially if you did it just did it to prod them.
The world doesn’t function on the American mentality, just America does…thank god.
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
And there should be no repercussions to free speech. That is being real. Everyone is welcome to make fun of anything they want to. What does it mean to “back up whatever shit your spewing” ? You mean people who make fun of Islam need to get their asses to the Middle East to face all the people they offended? No they don’t.
Oh, and as already pointed out, MUSLIMS are not allowed to depict Muhammed in any form or make fun of Islam. That rule doesn’t apply to anyone else. And just because religious FANATICS get pissed off about something (even if it’s intentionally put there just to bash them), that never means it’s the offenders’ responsibility to pacify these people or satisfy them in any way. It’s just too bad for them. If they want to retaliate, then they can figure out a way to insult them back. But blowing people up for it is just evil.
It’s not that anyone expects them to “shrug it off”, it’s just that the offenders don’t care how they feel about it. But they don’t deserve to die for making fun of their religion.
[Reply]
They have been poking jokes and accusing him of so many things and that hasn’t changed anything. From Pat Robinson of christian rights to Bill Meher of liberal left, Muhammad has been a fair game since 2001 so don’t make it like he’s been spared. I just wonder what’s this obsession you guys have with Muhammad and his religion? you have beaten Jesus’ name and Christianity to death by making stupid jokes until you have run out of jokes. And for the so called freedom of speech, when white man makes a joke on blacks that is called racism, when you make one on Jews that is antisemitism so, why cant it work for the Muslims too?
For the poster who said ” I’m sure those who are willing to kill over them will find another reason.” Christians kill more Muslims for any reason than Muslim kill Christian.
[Reply]
yeah, what that guy said.
[Reply]
In the episode Super Best Friends, with the Blaintologists, Mohamed was one of the super best friends and shown in at least 2 scenes. He could fly and could breathe fire. No one gave a shit back then.
[Reply]
I personally belong to a branch of Islam called Sufism, and I personally am not offended by it, and none of my friends who practice it weren’t offended by this or the Danish cartoon fiasco.
Honestly, I feel like the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was alot of hype, for the most part. So, okay, cartoons were put out depicting the prophet Muhammad. This wasn’t the first time in history, and it certainly won’t be the last time it’ll happen. It’s inevitable and honestly, most Muslims, besides the occasional crazy fanatic, doesn’t really care about it, despite what you might believe from watching Fox News.
The problem most people had was that it depicted Muhammad as having a bomb for a turban. There’s certainly no justification for rioting or murdering people over it, but, this meme that bounced around in the media that people were going nuts over the depiction itself, at least on that basis, was inaccurate.
Another issue is the protests themselves. They occurred in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Jordan and Pakistan, which, to say the least, is quite suspicious. Let me be perfectly clear about something: there is no such thing as a mass public gathering in any of these countries without the consent and encouragement of the government. These regimes (which besides Iran and Syria are stalwart allies of the US) are dictatorial police states, and most people are too scared to take to the streets and protest anything unless the government gives them the okay to do so. All the above mentioned states use religion as a way to silence dissent and to distract people from serious issues like democracy, freedom of press and civil liberties.
In other words, the protests themselves were put together by the governments as a sort of scape goat, and as a way to distract people from domestic problems and focus solely on bogeymen from the West who “hate Islam”. At most , it was just a few thousand people, and not the “THE MIDDLE EAST IS IN FLAMES” type stuff that the Western media was going on about. Like I said, most Muslims honestly don’t care about these things.
[Reply]
South Park frickin sucks, and if you’re afraid of some Muslims, you are a coward.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Clearly sir, your faculties for distinguishing that which is good, sucks, sir.
[Reply]
Humans kill more people than any other species on the planet - so the “who killed more point” is well, pointless. People will continue to have religious belief for their own personal reasons from now until the end of time. Anyone that believes in a religion that grants a “pleasant afterlife” is not going to place as much importance on their life and their mortality as they should. There are individuals that take this to an extreme and feel martyrdom is the best they can accomplish while alive - not concerned with their loss of life, as they are going to get some reward in the afterlife.
In this capacity, “Faith & Martyrdom” are the most devastating weapon of mass destruction every used. For centuries religions and their messages have been continuously twisted to get people to do unspeakable things on behalf of a false interpretation of an otherwise peaceful religion.
The same is happening in regards to Freedom of Speech. I’m not an expert on the Islamic Faith, but I know my way around the New Testament. There is nothing in words of Jesus of Nazareth that states anyone should every be killed on his behalf, in his name, in the name of his God, or for any of his beliefs. In fact, quite the contrary is stated time and again. When questioned about the role of Religion in Government, again, Jesus is clear, stating the two should be kept separate. Why? In Christianity the relationship between man and God is a personal relationship, it is not one to be governed or included in the governing of people. Also, Jesus was against the idea of going around and hounding people to get them to change faiths. A good Christian was to live by the moral values stated by Jesus, and when people saw what a good life that was, they might be interested and question the person about their values. That is when the good Christian was to speak of their faith and the personal relationship with their God.
In a modern America, where every Christian has access to the various reprints of the Christian Bible, it is ridiculous that these sort of debates are an issue.
That being said, the founders of this nation put the highest ideals of Humanity, not Christianity, not Islam, not Judaism, as the focus of their government. In this country, a person may say what they wish, when they wish, so long as doing so causes no direct harm to another individual. What another person says or doesn’t say about a divinity, prophet, or messiah, does not HARM another person’s relationship with their personal God - as such, they should be free to voice their opinions on the matter.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas Jefferson
[Reply]
doesn’t anyone remember the superbest friends episode form SP? they already showed Mohamed.
[Reply]
Tyler Handley Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I know, I mentioned it. But those were pre-Danish cartoon times.
[Reply]
Great article Tyler,
All Hail TREY PARKER, (cause we all know, he does all the work :P)
Just kidding Matt, I Love you both!
[Reply]
Yes, we have free speech to say what we want. However, the ‘choice’ to picture Muhammed was not solely up to Matt and Trey. Comedy Central has the choice not to portray Muhammed and quiet honestly shouldn’t in respect for the Muslim religion*. Government is what gives us free speech. Now if the FCC said “No” you can’t do that. Then we should be yelling. *This respect for the Muslim religion should not be extended to all religions, specifically Scientology which has none of my respect and isn’t a legit religion anyway.
[Reply]
What, $cientology is a “faith” now?
[Reply]
What’s the point of this article? “Oh, look at me, I’m going to state the obvious”
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
September 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
What’s the point of your comment?
[Reply]
Old news is old…
[Reply]
[...] | By Tauriq Moosa | Category: News This might be seen as my commentary on Tyler’s piece South Park + Free Speech = a Bad Day for Religion Part 3 - Islam on the silliness of religious bigotry on the freedom of [...]
[...] link Share and Enjoy: [...]
[...] The Edger: South Park + free speech = a bad day for religion. [...]
Hello Every one.
I just have one point to say, you are all so caught up in the mix that no one of you (the west) has taken the time to know who this prophet Muhammed was and why more than 1.5 billion human from all different races from all over the globe respect this person . You owe it to yourself.
[Reply]
Tauriq Moosa Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Dear IT Critic
I was Muslim for most of my life, I studied the entire Quran, wrote several papers and gave talks on the Prophet defending him against the so-called ‘western view’. I am no longer suffering from this delusion and happily call myself a non-prophet
However, I am critical of Islam and its prophet, but now I just understand a lot about the religion. It still doesnt change the fact that Islam, along with most other religions in my opinion, must go.
[Reply]
Islam is inherently against freedom of speech. When you have the truth, discussion is no longer necessary. The main argument of 61% of the Koran is that Allah hates the kafirs and whoever disagrees with Mohammed will be treated violently. This leaves no room for kafirs to express their point of view. To say the Koran is intolerant of kafirs is an understatement. Kafirs should be attacked, plundered, slaughtered and enslaved. The goal of Islam is a utopian world where Islam is the official state religion of a global state ruled by an Adolf Hitler style dictator called the “caliph”. The caliph rules the earth without consulting humanity, because Sharia is the program and it is perfect.
The Islamic states joined together in 2008 to impose censorship on the UN. Any criticism of Islamic doctrines, such as female circumcision or killing one’s children in the name of honor or child marriage or cruel punishments (decapitation, stoning, amputation) will henceforth be censored. Or they will try. We will see if the courts throw out this attempt to gag all criticism of 7th century desert barbarism.
Jihad is incumbent upon all fit Moslems until Islam rules the world. Jihad may be verbal. Verbal jihad is the use of lawyers to make Islam predominant.
[Reply]
Responding to IT Critic: Why don’t you look at the Hadiths (without commentaries) and read through the eyes of someone who is on the wet end of Mohammed’s threats and orders for assassination, torture and robbery. How do feel? Every time you read the word “kafir” in the Koran, change it to “pious Muslim” just to see how you would feel. I doubt you have thought of how most of the world “feels” when they see Moslems rampaging and calling for the death and mutilitation of its critics.
No one is calling for the deaths of Moslems because they are Moslems. Islam calls for the death of all who disagree with Mohammed. This is the Sunna of Allah’s messenger. He had his critics murdered. They were the journalists and artists of his day.
And by the way, did you cheer when heard about 9/11. I bet you did.
[Reply]
Zayclo Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“Islam is inherently against freedom of speech”
It isn’t. You don’t have any sources to back that ludicrous statement, only accusations and blatant mischaracterizations.
“The main argument of 61% of the Koran is that Allah hates the kafirs and whoever disagrees with Mohammed will be treated violently”
Besides that being an incredibly simplistic assertion, it’s fundamentally incorrect. The Qu’ran on several occasions talks of the fellowship of Abrahamic faiths, and the inherent and mutual values of respect, peace and cooperation between all faiths.
The Qu’ran says:
We believe in God, and in that which has been revealed to us, which is that which was revealed to Abraham and Ismail and Jacob and the tribes of Israel, as well as that which the Lord revealed to Moses and to Jesus and to all the other Prophets. We make no distinction between any of them; we submit ourselves to God (3: 48)
“Kafirs should be attacked, plundered, slaughtered and enslaved”
As shown in the text above, that isn’t true in any way, shape or form. Those passages you likely allude to (yet do not quote at all, within their respective contexts or otherwise) refer specifically to the Quarish, the group which the early Muslims had an early and bloody struggle with for nearly a decade, and were not in any way meant to be used as a broad interpretation of “non Muslims”
“Any criticism of Islamic doctrines, such as female circumcision or killing one’s children in the name of honor or child marriage or cruel punishments (decapitation, stoning, amputation) will henceforth be censored.”
Erm, that isn’t an “Islamic doctrine”. No where in the Qu’ran or the Hadiths is that in any way encouraged or even tolerated. Casting the entire Islamic faith as practicing that barbaric ritual because of a few backwards tribes in Africa or nomads in the Afghanistan is ridiculous, and makes as much sense as lumping all Christians with practices in places like Western Africa and South America, which isn’t accurate or intellectually honest.
“Why don’t you look at the Hadiths (without commentaries) and read through the eyes of someone who is on the wet end of Mohammed’s threats and orders for assassination, torture and robbery.”
The question is, have you read the Hadiths or the Qu’Ran. If so, you’d see that all the characterizations you’ve made are supremely ignorant and laughably inaccurate.
“Islam calls for the death of all who disagree with Mohammed”
The Qu’Ran says:
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve (109: 6)
And:
O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. (2: 62)
You’re wrong. You should actually read the Qu’Ran before you make brash and projecting statements of intolerance.
“And by the way, did you cheer when heard about 9/11. I bet you did.”
And so, your true childish and bigoted views are shed to light. Honestly, blanket, prejuidiced and infantile statements like those really do nothing to promote your cause, and projecting your own intolerance and bigotry will get you no where
If you dislike Islam, as do many people around the world for legitimate reasons, thats well and fine, but you only resort to mischaracterization and lies to spread bigotry and hypocrisy.
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Oi, Zayclo,
Why’d you put your e-mail as fddsfsadfas@< redacted by Editors>.com?
I’m pretty sure that is a fake address, which means you won’t get a notification that someone will have responded to your comment, which means, I think, you don’t care about responses?
Please tell me this ain’t so.
[Reply]
Zayclo Reply:
October 6th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
It isnt that - im just paranoid about random bits of spam. Ill use my real email from now on, but, i assure you: i dont need penis enlargement medication and im not interested in helping a Nigerian prince recover his fathers gold =)
[Reply]
Roy Natian Reply:
October 8th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Phew, that’s good to hear.
You should use gmail, its spam filter is amazing.
[Reply]
itcritic Reply:
October 13th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Hello everyone
I am not a scholar of islam although I wish I could be. In the Quran it is stated that (chapter 9 verses 5 and 6)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
You just take out the clauses which you please and leave the rest . This chapter was revealed when the muslims were going to fight with the kuffar in Mecca after the disrespected the peace agreement between them and the muslims .
and in chapter 5 verse 32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
it did not say that if you killed a pious muslim it is as if you killed the whole of humanity, it says if you slew a person regardless of his faith .
[Reply]
Standingforfreespeech Reply:
October 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I appreciate your participation by proposing this very fine Koranic passage. Koran 9:5 alone is held to have have abrogated as many as 100 pacific (or seemingly pacific verses). It perfectly illustrates Islam’s twin core doctrines of dual ethics and submission.
In the opinion of the respected tafsir writer, Ibn Kathir, the protection in the passage you quoted only applies to a “believing soul” of Islam or one protected by Allah…kufaar are ipso facto not protected.
The tafsir of Ibn Kathir (on this Koranic passage) makes it perfectly clear that only those who believe correctly (Moslems) are protected and those who are guilty of incorrect belief may be killed:
“(And if anyone saved a life…) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah’s statement,
“(It would be as if he killed all mankind. . .) means, “Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.” Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
“(It would be as if he killed all mankind,) “He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.” Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,
“(and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, “He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.”
Further to the above tafsir, many passages clarify that 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.
The passage you proposed perfectly illustrates Islam’s idea of who is the enemy in jihad and how they should be treated. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam — unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.
Key parts of 5:32, when included, change the meaning dramatically, actually recommending the killing of non-Muslims in a wide variety of circumstances. The passage actually counsels execution for the crime of disagreeing with Mohammed.
Therefore, this passage perfectly illustrates Islam’s core doctrines: dual sets of ethics and the submission of the kafir to the Moslem in the master/slave relationship. The imposition of the master/slave relationship on the kufaar through coercion is a complete rejection of the Golden Rule.
The key word in your argument is “guilty”. Those who are “guilty” are under a death sentence. The Koran never tires of explaining who is guilty and deserves the death penalty: the kufaar are “guilty of disbelief”(45:31, 83:29) and deserve the death penalty. The crime of incorrect belief (fitna) is worse than the crime of murder and thus all kufaar have automatically incurred a death sentence. Moslems who no longer believe in Islam should also be executed for this same crime of dissent. This thought-control aspect (through capital punishment) reveals that Islam supports its doctrine by force, rather than by rational argument. Depriving people of their freedom of thought through death in no way expresses the Golden Rule.
The Koranic doctrine of jihad begins with the justification of disallowing anyone from disagreeing with Mohammed. Kafirs are “the vilest of animals” because they do not agree with Mohammed, they are “guilty” of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) - the worst crime, 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. This is a thorough demonization of disbelievers, together with the conception of disbelief as the worst possible crime. Pious Muslims easily grasp that the kufaar are guilty of wrong belief and corruption on earth and war against Allah and that jihad is required to correct the situation. The first duty of the pious Moslem is to remove the kafir’s freedom of expression and the second is to use all means to eradicate kafir culture. To reject jihad, is to reject Islam.
The dualistic doctrines of the “kafir” and of “jihad” entirely bar the application of the unitary Golden Rule by Moslems. To apply the Golden Rule, Moslems will need to remove 61% of the ayas in the Koran. Both the letter and spirit of Islam entirely exclude the Golden Rule.
[Reply]
Taqiyya, you naughty boy! You know that your idol murdered his enemies to silence them. He started with the poets and artists, the journalists of his time. Islams first move is to behead its enemies thus ending debate. Moslems think they can walk in and tell everyone to shut up. Your homicidal rage could not be more palpable. Are you expressing the Golden Rule right now? You are expressing the fact that the Golden Rule is not in Islam. Look for it in your holy book, naughty boy.
You know very well that the “gentle” verses from Mecca were all abrogated by the verse from Medina. You are talking to scholar, naughty boy.
The Koran mischaracterizes everyone who disagrees with Mohammed, the world’s most successful cult leader. Your seething rage is the evidence that you are in a mind-control and thought-control death cult.
[Reply]
Zayclo Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
“Taqiyya, you naughty boy!”
Firstly, taqiyya is a Shia concept; I am a Sufi. You should really learn the proper definitions of Arabic/Islamic expressions before you use them carelessly and without any relevance to the subject at hand.
“You know that your idol murdered his enemies to silence them. He started with the poets and artists, the journalists of his time”
Is that so? Exactly what were their names? In what section of the hadith does it recount the story of the persecution of the artists and poets?
If you knew anything of Islamic, you’d know that poetry is held to the highest esteem, boasting masters such as Mahmoud Darwish, Rumi, Ibn al-Khatib and Al-Khansa (who was a contemporary of Muhammad - yet, was never murdered as you so ridiculously assert), just to name a few.
“Moslems think they can walk in and tell everyone to shut up”
That isn’t true. I certainly don’t tell anyone to shut up, no matter how much I disagree with them. In my daily life, i interact with Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Communists, Capitalists and Anarchists, and consider many of them my friends. I understand atheism, and although I don’t agree with it, I respect it.
No one is telling you to shut up - if you do decide to, it will undoubtedly be from the embarrassment of having lost every single debate.
“Your homicidal rage could not be more palpable”
You should look up the psychological term “projection”
“You know very well that the “gentle” verses from Mecca were all abrogated by the verse from Medina. You are talking to scholar, naughty boy.”
For a supposed “scholar”, you really seem to have a bad habit of not citing your sources or references.
And, you’re wrong again - every single one of the quotes from the Qu’Ran I posted previously WERE from Medina, haha.
You should ask for a refund from the Bible College that made you a “scholar”, unless of course it was on how to peel bananas or gardening or something.
“Your seething rage is the evidence that you are in a mind-control and thought-control death cult.”
Again, projecting. I certainly am not in a “seething rage”. You think too highly of yourself. If anything, I am greatly amused that the best Islamophobes like yourself have to muster are blanket statements and broad accusations, without citing a single source or reference.
I have never hid my religious affiliation - in fact, I noted it in comment number 15.
“The Koran mischaracterizes everyone who disagrees with Mohammed”
Hm? Who and where, exactly? Seeing how you are a scholar and all, you should have no problem pointing it out to me, should you?
[Reply]
The inability of Islam to allow freedom of speech is based on its predominant themes of dualism and submission. Islam is inherently based on the model of slavery: there is a slave; there is a slave-owner. The slave has no rights. The chief right that guarantees the other rights is freedom of speech. Euripides wrote: “A Slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts.” This is perceptive, and it is the first right Mohammed took away from his opposition: the right to criticize him. He particularly wanted his followers to avoid contact with outsiders, so they might not hear any criticism of his cult. This is a mind-bending, thought-control technique and one practiced in all narcissistic religious cults. There are 14 verses in the Koran that tell Moslems not to befriend the kafirs.
In a liberal society, censoring all criticism of Islam means giving Islam special rights that other faiths do not have: Islamists want the right to criticize others, and the right of Islam to be above criticism. Islam’s primary need is to remove freedom of expression from the kufaar.
Statistical analysis of Islam’s sources reveals the focus on enforcement of conformist beliefs and behavior. Only 17% of the Islamic trilogy (the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadiths), deals with the words of Allah, revealing the predominant emphasis in primitive Islam is not religious. The remaining 83% refers to the words and deeds of Mohammed. Of all of the references to “hell” in the trilogy, 6% are for moral failings, while 94% are for the political transgression of disagreeing with Mohammed. This relates to freedom of thought, which Islam’s source text strongly deny and oppose. Statistical analysis of the trilogy revealed that 97% of references to “jihad” relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of “inner struggle.” In philosophy, the use of the violence or the threat of violence to enforce agreement is called the fallacy of the appeal to force in place of a logical argument. Islam cannot be defended rationally, and so from its beginning depended on threats of violence and actual violence that is carried out, such as suicide bombing. There have been 12,000 deaths because of terrorist attacks of pious Moslems since 9/11.
As an experiment, simply try raising one non-orthodox idea in your group and see how the atmosphere changes. You know that freedom of thought is not allowed even in your group. Some may want to hurt you for being a “hypocrite” or “innovator”, “worse than a kafir.” A kafir is someone who disagrees with Mohammed. “Hypocrite”, “innovators” and kafirs should be killed, but hypocrites first.
About 67% of the Koran of Mecca deals with punishing unbelievers for merely disagreeing with Mohammed. They deserve punishment. Over 50% of the Koran of Medina deals with hypocrites and jihad against unbelievers. Nearly 75% of the Sira deals with jihad. About 20% of the Hadith by Bukhari is about jihad. The majority of the doctrine is political and it is all violent. If the Golden Rule were introduced into Islam, most of these texts would no longer be part of Islam.
These angry, venomous texts are all about the political suppression of anyone who disagrees with Islam. They are troop-motivators for the imposition of the cult by threats of force.
The Golden Rule is all about preserving the rights of one’s neighbour, but the Golden Rule is not in Islam and totally incompatible with Islam’s predominant master/slave subtext. The slave is one who may not speak his thoughts.
9:123 Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.
9: 5 Slay the idolaters wherever you find them
9: 29 Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day… and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior
3: 85 Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.
5: 11 And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell”
9: 28 O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbelievers) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year …
2: 193 Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah”
22: 19″As for the unbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowls and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods. “
9: 23 O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.
25: 52 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor.
66: 9O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.
47: 4 When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
3: 28 Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. Except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to fear) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
I have two questions that will reveal your true beliefs:
1) Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?
2) Where is the Golden Rule in the Koran?
[Reply]
Islamic texts teaching that good, pious Moslems kill:
(from the Trilogy)
Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”
Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah
that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!’”
Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and
children taken captive.”
Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We
are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”
Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out
from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief,
wrong thought) is worse than slaughter.”
Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in
the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you
over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any
length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found,
they shall be seized and slain without mercy-a fierce slaughter-murdered, a
horrible murdering.”
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He
has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up
saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’
Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’
Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”
Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his
fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down.
By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother.
We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by
night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with
our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad
during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we
had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before
his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and
complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack
upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in
Medina who did not fear for his life.’”
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,
‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants
with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The
Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much
fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad
ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’
Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed
wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Assassinations Ordered By Mohammed
Mohammed ordered many assassinations. Here is a list taken from the collections of authoritative Sunni hadiths and the early Muslim historian al-Tabari. After mentioning each assassination and quoting from sources, where known this will give the background and rationale for the assassination.
Assassination of Ka’b bin Ashraf
Reason given: Sahih Muslim vol.3:4436 p.990-991 says that Ka’b b. Ashraf “has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger.” Bukhari says that Ka’b bin Ashraf in an unspecified way harmed Allah [he harmed God?] and his apostle. However, since Allah was “harmed” this was probably not a violent or military thing Ka’b did, but more likely saying Mohammed was not really from Allah.
Here is the quote and the context from Bukhari vol.3:687 p.415.
(687) Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who would kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf as has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, ‘I will kill him.’ So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of food grains.’” After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time.” Bukhari vol.3:687 p.415 (That is all this passage says.)
“Narrated Jabir : The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).’ Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’ [i.e. to lie]. The Prophet replied ‘I do (i.e. allow you).’” Bukhari vol.4:271 p.168
Bukhari vol.5:360 p.248 is the longest hadith on the assassination of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. “(369) Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.’ On that, Ka’b said, ‘By Allah, you will get tired of him!’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.’ (Some differences between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka’b said, ‘Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.’ Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion said, ‘What do you want?’ Ka’b replied, ‘Mortgage your women to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?’ Ka’b said, ‘Then mortgage your sons to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the peoples’ saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms [weapons] to you.’ Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka’b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka’b at night along with Ka’b’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Ka’b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, ‘Where are you going at this time?’ Ka’b replied, ‘None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.’ His wife said, ‘I hear a voice as if dropping blood.’ Ka’b said, ‘They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some sub-narrators mention the men as Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr, Al-Harith bin Aus and ‘Abbad bin Bishr.) So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, ‘When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head.’ Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them, wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘I have never smelt a better scent than this.’ K’ab replied, ‘I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.’ Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b ‘Wall you allow me to smell our head?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, ‘Will you let me (smell your head)?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), ‘Get at him!’ So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him.” Bukhari vol.5:369 p.248-250
While the previous only mentions multiple companions, Sahih Muslim vol.3:4436 p.990-991 says:
(4436) It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka’b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). … The rest is very similar to Bukhari.
Footnote 2269 p.990 says “Ka’b b. Ashraf was a Jew belonging to the tribe of Nadir and thus he was pledged to honour the treaty made between the Muslims and Banu Nadir, but he never honoured that pledge. He conspired against the life of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), helped the Meccans against the Muslims, sang obscene songs and amatory sonnets with a view to defaming the Muslim women. The victory of Badr mortified him and he shifted to Mecca and stirred up the Quraish to avenge their heroes of Badr. All these acts of his were directly contravening the covenant in which he had entered along with the members of his tribe. Who can tolerate such an immoral conspirator who breaks the treaty, conspires against the Head of the Islamic State, and the State itself, and drags the honour of the women into the mire and pollutes the pious atmosphere of the Islamic society with immoral songs? All these crimes were enough to take his life.”
There is nothing in early Muslim literature I am aware of that says Ka’b did any of these things mentioned in the footnote. Obviously Mohammed (truly or falsely) believed he said or did something, but the footnote might be inventing charges to justify the assassination.
Sahih Muslim vol.3 footnote 2272 p.991 says, “Maulana Maududi, after discussing the reasons for which Ka’b b. Ashraf was killed observes: ‘This man conspired against the Muslims secretly and he never dared come to the forefront, but his activities were highly objectionable and fell under the category of high treason. Thus there was no other way out but to take his life secretly. It is, however, wrong to infer from this that taking of the lives of the chiefs of the enemy secretly is a permanent clause in the ethics of Islamic warfare. [not true] Had it been so, Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) would have planned to take the life of the sworn enemies like Abu Jahl and Abu Sufyan. [Abu Jahl is not a good example. Sahih Muslim vol.3:4434 p.990 says Abu Jahl was already killed in battle prior to this at Badr. Either the footnote writer is ignorant or lying here. Muslims did attempt to assassinate Abu Sufyan in al-Tabari vol.7 p.147-150.] And there was no dearth of his devoted followers who could make secret attempts on their lives. But we find in the whole history of Islam only two persons who were killed in this way: one Ka’b b. Ashraf and the other Abu Rafi’. [not true. There was also at least al-Aswad, Khalid b. Sufyan, Yusayr b. Rizam.] These were not his only enemies; he had numerous foes around him. This goes to prove that killing of an enemy secretly is not the war policy of Islam, but an exceptional case, which is permitted under exceptional circumstances, when the enemy does not come to the forefront, but constantly conspires against the Muslims secretly (al-Jihad fi’i Islam pp.259-260).” (Note that they first said that Ka’b openly sang obscene songs, and then said he conspired secretly.)
Ka’b bin Ashraf was a Meccan. He actually had a Jewish mother and a pagan Arab father but the hadiths just call him a Jew (See al-Tabari vol.7 p.xxix)
After the battle of Badr, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was assassinated al-Tabari vol.7 p.xxix; p.95
According to al-Waqidi in al-Tabari vol.7 p.101 al-Ashraf was assassinated before the battle of Uhud.
“Between the battles of Badr and Uhud, the Messenger of God sent Muhammad b. Maslamah with his companions to Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, and they killed him. The Messenger of God sent ‘Abdallah b. Unays to Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali while he was in Nakhlah or ‘Uranah preparing to attack the Messenger of God and killed him.” al-Tabari vol.9 p.121
Assassination of Abu Rafi’
Reason given: Bukhari vol.5:371 p.251 says, “Abu Rafi’ used to hurt Allah’s Apostle and help his enemies against him. He lived in his castle in the land of Hijaz.” So this was probably for military reasons. Tabari says, “The reason for his being killed was, it is said, that he used to take the part of Ka’b b. al-Ashraf against the Messenger of God.”
Bukhari vol.5 book 59 chapter 15 p.250-251 says “The killing of Abu Rafi’, ‘Abdullah bin Abi Al-Huqaiq and he was also called Salam bin Abi Al-Huqaiq who used to live in Khaibar, and some said the he used to live in his castle at the land of Hijaz. Az-Zhuri said, ‘He (Abu Rafi’) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.”
Abdullah bin ‘Atik and some other Muslims were sent to assassinate Abu Rafi Sallam bin abi Al-Huqayq, the Jew. They attacked him in the dark while he was sleeping. He broke his leg escaping, but Mohammed miraculously healed it. (Bukhari vol.5:370-372 p.250-255)
You can also read about this in detail in al-Tabari vol.7 p.99-105. The spared his wife according to al-Tabari vol.7 p.99,101,103.
Attempted Assassination of Abu Sufyan
Reason: None is explicitly given, but Abu Sufyan was the commander of the forces of Mecca.
“The story of ‘Amr b. Umayyah al-Damri, when he was sent by the Messenger of God to kill Abu Sufyan b. Harb.
When the men whom the Prophet had sent to ‘Adal and al-Qarah were killed at al-Raji’ and the news reached the Messenger of God, he sent ‘Amr b. Umayyah al-Damri and one of the Ansar to Mecca, ordering them to kill Abu Sufyan b. Harb….” They circumnambulated the Ka’aba, using that ritual as a pretence that they came to Mecca to worship. The Meccans suspected them, and they were unsuccessful.
al-Tabari vol.7 p.147-150
Assassination of al-Aswad (= Dhu al-Khimar ‘Abhalah b. Ka’b)
Reason given: Claimed he was a prophet.
Mohammed ordered the assassination of al-Aswad al-Tabari vol.9 p.167 Al-Aswad was assassinated because he claimed that he was a prophet, after coming out of the Khubban cave. He was killed a day or two before Mohammed’s death.
Assassination of Khalid b. Sufyan
Reason given: al-Tabari vol.9 p.121 says that Mohammed said word had reached him that Khalid b. Sufyan was gathering a force to attack Mohammed.
“The Messenger of God called me and said, ‘It has reached me that Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali is gathering a force to attack me. He is either in Nakhlah or ‘Uranah, so go to him and kill him.’” al-Tabari vol.9 p.121
“He (the prophet) said, :Go and kill him. I saw him when the time of the afternoon prayer had come. I said : I am afraid if a fight takes place between me and him (Khalid b. Sufyan), that might delay the prayer. I proceeded walking towards him while I was praying by making a sign. When I reached near him, he said to me : Who are you? I replied : A man from the Arabs ; it came to me that you were gathering (any[sp] army) for this man (i.e. the Prophet). Hence I came to you in connection with this matter. … I then walked along with him for a while; when it became convenient for me, I dominated him with my sword until he became cold (dead).” Abu Dawud vol.1:1244 p.328
Killing Yusayr b. Rizam
Reason given: Mohammed did not order this one. The Muslims with Yusayr “sensed” that he had second thoughts about making peace with Mohammed, so they killed him. Mohammed in al-Tabari vol.9 p.120
“It is reported about Yusayr b. Rizam, the Jew, that he was gathering Ghatafan in Khaybar to attack the Messenger of God, so the latter sent ‘Abdallah b. Rawahah with a number of his companions, among whom were ‘Abdallah b. Unays, an ally of the Banu Salamah.” The urged him to come to Mohammed with them, which he started to do. On the way he regretted it, and they sensed it, so they attacked him and his Jewish companions and killed them. al-Tabari vol.9 p.120
Killing of the Chieftain of Dumah
In Mohammed’s lifetime the Muslims made a surprise attack on an unsuspecting Christian king [chieftain] of Dumah and he was killed. al-Tabari vol.9 p.58-59
Mohammed Ordered Torture to Find Where a Man Buried His Treasure
This was not an assassination, but was still very heinous.
According to Ibn Ishaq: Kinanah b. al-Rabi’ b. Abi al-Huqayq who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him, but he denied knowing where it [the treasure] was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, “I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning.” The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: “What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you. “All right he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it, so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-’Awwam, saying, “Torture him until you root out what he has.” Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired [died]; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who behead him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah.” al-Tabari vol.8 p.122
SUBSEQUENT MUSLIM HISTORY
‘Uthman was murdered by Muslims while reading the Qur’an. Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #67 p.130.
Some Muslims masquerading as pilgrims went to Medina and killed ‘Uthman. al-Tabari vol.15 p.159
Riders from Egypt came to present their grievances to ‘Uthman. He made promised to them which he did not intend to keep. The Egyptians found a letter on a slave riding after them, on ‘Uthman’s camel and sealed with ‘Uthman’s ring, telling the governor of Egypt to imprison and kill these people. They returned to Medina, besieged ‘Uthmans’ house, and then killed him. al-Tabari vol.15 p.165-185
‘Ali was murdered in a mosque by ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljam in 40 A.H. Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #19 p.109.
The Abbasids in 747-750 A.D. under Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah overthrew the Umayyads. (al-Saffah means the blood spiller.) Every Umayyad heir was beheaded except Abd al-Rahman, who escaped to Spain.
Nu’man bin Bashir took allegiance to ‘Abdullah bin Zubair, and because of this was murdered by men of Marwan bin Kakun in 94 A.H. Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #49 p.124
Assassination of the non-Muslim general al-Aswad by Muslims while Mohammed was alive. al-Tabari vol.10 p.27-33
NOTE: in Islam, “fitna”, a politically incorrect thought, is punishable by death.
[Reply]
Zayclo Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Copypaste =P
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Half of the crap you copied from some Islamic hate site aren’t even relevant to anything I said!!!
Yeah friend, you should learn to make a cohesive, structured argument. Copying and pasting… is just silly =D
[Reply]
I won’t even bother with all this, because frankly, its too long and boring, and you didn’t even bother to address me, but rather searched for any random bs you could find online. I have better things, frankly.
Regarding your question:
“1) Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?”
No. I think it was a horrible crime, and that the bastards who did it should be held accountable for it. They’ve made the world a worst place, and we’d all be better off if they spend the rest of their lives in jail. There are 1.5 Billion Muslims on Earth, and they were only a handful who lived in caves in Afghanistan. Most Muslims find these fanatics to be repulsive, and hate them more then the West does
Now, a question for you: did you cheer when you heard about the gassing of a mosque in Dayton, Ohio?
http://blogs.ink19.com/truthtopower/archives/6029
“2) Where is the Golden Rule in the Koran?”
-sigh- What on Earth are you talking about? Are you in Kindergarten? Honestly, you need to find a different phrase to repeat ad naseum. Its all tiring, and boring, frankly.
[Reply]
ASSASSINATION OF POETS - The Authentic Sunnah of Suppressing Freedom of Speech in Islam
POETS WERE MOHAMMED’S FIRST TARGETS
Poets were the journalists and intellectuals of their day. Mohammed’s actions showed he believed in “state-controlled media”
Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized him. The poets who were left, fled in all directions.”
UQBA BIN ABU MUAYT (This poet and journalist of his time lost his freedom of expression through decapitation. Removing the seat of the intellect is the sign of a mind-control cult.)
Uqba harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him (cf. Sura 83:13). He was captured during the Battle of Badr in AD 624, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
A DEFENSELESS WOMAN MURDERED WHILE ASLEEP
This woman wrote a poem asking Moslems to develop a conscience.
Ishaq: 676 A poetess wrote a poem: “(To Muhammed’s companions),’you obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
Her poem was well-directed. Mohammed had no conscience and didn’t want anyone to see that he was running a mafia-like organization.
MOHAMMED’S IDEA WAS FREEDOM FOR HIM TO INSULT HIS OPPONENTS.
Muhammad ordered poets of his own to attack with words his opponents and said that the archangel Gabriel would be with them (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, vol. 5, nos. 4123-4124; 4196). Muhammad allowed friendly poets to insult his enemies, but they were unable to kill him or his poets in revenge. The insults go only one way–Muhammad’s way. How is this freedom of expression? It is gangsterism at its worst. The Sunna of Allah’s messenger is to murder critics. How does this address “freedom of expression” or the Golden Rule? Modern Moslems are obliged to follow Mohammed’s callous example, but if their conscience does not permit this, they should leave Islam.
MODERN MOSLEMS APPROVE OF TERROR TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH:
On Saturday July 2, 2005, five days before four suicide bombers killed 52 people on London Transport, Abu Izzadeen said to a group of followers that Muslims must “instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar (non-Muslims).” He also said: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.”
The article states: “At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonored and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself.”
“Shortly after these incidents the people began to realize that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten.”
“The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the Sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able to execute. The response of the Muslims all over the world shows us the inability to deal with such people, the kuffar are attacking our Messenger and are allowed to get away with it whilst the Muslims have no power to do anything about it. The leaders of the Muslim world have no care for the deen of Islam as they are busy cementing their seats content with their power and wealth. Where are the Muhammad ibn Maslamah’s of our ummah who will?” - Abu Izzadeen, British terrorist
THE CONVENIENT CONSCIENCE OF MOHAMMED
“It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad’s most cruel acts to divine order (commandment), namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and the attack upon Qurayzah. Allah’s conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures.”…..Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ashraf), “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on.”-quoted from “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina” [2], page 113: Wensinck, an Islamic scholar.
MURDERING CIVILIANS IN CITIES WHERE THERE ARE CRITICS OF ISLAM IS OK: HEAD OF ISLAMIC HISTORY IN LONDON
Responding to questions about the terrorist attack on London, a Muslim scholar in the British capital asserted Islam makes no distinction between civilians and military targets.
“The term ‘civilians’ does not exist in Islamic religious law,” said Hani Al-Siba’i, head of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London.
Al-Siba’i, in an interview with the Arab news channel al-Jazeera, elaborated, “There is no such term as ‘civilians’ in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.”
Dar Al-Harb refers to the Muslim concept of the world being divided into two “houses,” the House of Islam and the remaining territories, the House of War, or Dar Al-Harb.
“If al-Qaida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it,” he said. “It rubbed the noses of the world’s eight most powerful countries in the mud.”
ONE OF THE MOST OBVIOUS SIGNS THAT YOU ARE IN A CULT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE IT
Bukhari:V9B84N59 “When the Prophet died, Arabs reverted to disbelief. Umar said, ‘Should we fight these people?”‘ Bakr said, ‘By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat, as Zakat is the right to be taken from property according to Allah’s Orders.
Tens of thousands of dissenting Arabs were murdered by Abu Bakr’s orders. Their only crime was disagreeing with Mohammed and wishing freedom of thought.
THE DUAL ETHICS OF ISLAM PRECLUDE THE GOLDEN RULE
Islam has one set of rules for itself and another for the kufaar, who are inferior to Moslems according to Islam’s source texts. Islam’s subtext of duality and submission are not compatible with equality and the Golden Rule.
From the representative sample quotations above, any reasonable person will be able to make up their own mind whether or not Islam is based on the Golden Rule and whether or not it is compatible with freedom of expression. The above quotes are not conjectures, but quotes from Islam’s most authoratative texts.
[Reply]
1) You asked for evidence. There it is chapter and verse.
2) Now you ignore the evidence. That is the Fallacy of Exclusion. Evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is merely excluded from consideration.
3) When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.
4) I am delighted you are not without a conscience like Mohammed or Abu Izzadeen, but I am sure you realize your idol wants other Moslems to murder you for being half-hearted and watered-down in your beliefs. You will not join the caravan and attack the ritually impure kufaar. You have been affected with the anti-Islamic doctrine of the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
5) Where is the Golden Rule in the Koran?
[Reply]
Tauriq Moosa Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.”
Thats known as ad hominem, Standing
[Reply]
Zayclo Reply:
October 7th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“1) You asked for evidence. There it is chapter and verse.”
Which were not relevant to the subject at hand. You copy pasted some horribly long diatribe, without even editing it to fit the need for the discussion.
You should learn to redact and summarize.
“2) Now you ignore the evidence. That is the Fallacy of Exclusion”
Right - you wish for me to argue point by point something you didn’t even bother to write yourself. You know what, I should copy and paste some random 10 page text I found online and insert it as an “argument”. Yeah, that makes total sense.
Being long winded is not a virtue.
“3) When the evidence is overwhelming against you, commit the Fallacy of Changing the Subject, by attacking the person (me) instead of the proof.”
Again, you think too highly of yourself. No ones attacked you - I was mocking your supposed “credentials”, so you did the insane thing of copying a 4,000 word document, which didn’t even address the points I made, and expect me to waste time challenging every single point. Right - thats very “scholarly” of you.
My response to your “rebuttal”: tl; dr.
[Reply]
Amazing! You are the first new-age, post-modernist Moslem I have encountered! As you know, post-modernism takes a position above the debate by retreating into subjectivity, or as they prefer to call it, “intuitionism”. This is an admission that they have no rational explanation for what they are doing. In this way, a post-modern Moslem can pick-and-choose elements from Islam (the Fallacy of Exclusion) that are to his taste and incorporate them with esoteric elements from New Age books. This cafeteria Islam makes it possible to simply ignore (read: “exclude”) the 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadiths that advocate hatred, murder and repression of the kufaar. Ignoring Islam’s core dual ethics “makes it go away” and the mind is no longer troubled by the onerous, unpleasant and “wet” aspects of the duty of jihad, subjugation of kufaar, the need to avoid social friendships with kufaar, etc. This is totally, intellectually dishonest, but intellectual dishonesty is not troublesome to the post-modern mind. The brilliant post-modern response to a cogent argument is “whatever”. In other words, the Fallacy of Exclusion + Slothful Induction + the post-modern ironic sneer. You are playing card tricks with yourself and believing it is magic.
It is now my turn to be amused. Anticipating your lazy approach to knowledge, I initially gave no references, so you would not have to work (four-letter word). When you asked for evidence from the Hadiths, I provided only some of the texts available (some of the most evil ones) referring to the authentic Islamic method of thought control: murder. Assassination and murder of those who disagree is the Sunna of Allah’s Messenger. The Hadiths and Sira describe a figure with the ethics of a mafia godfather. Your response was exactly what I expected: laziness. Too much work, too many references, blah, blah, “whatever”. Touch the channel changer. You didn’t bother to read these texts and you certainly didn’t think about them. Why bother learning or thinking, when emptiness and laziness are instantaneous? This is the typical Islamic “spoon-fed” approach of taqlid where the teacher has all the answers and the pupil behaves as “a dead body”, the mind entirely in neutral. In your case, you have incorporated the post-modern sneer with this lethargic self-distraction.
Your debating technique boils down to “yes-it-is-no-it-isn’t”, plus a sneer. The lazy man’s approach. Maybe it works with your friends; maybe they are just being polite.
You seem to want me to make it easy for you to win the debate by boiling down a presentation of irrefutable and very complex forensic analysis. Your response is: Ah, c’mon, just let me win, because I’m cute. You cannot win through sloth or through the search for “entertainment”. Logical argument is hard work and obviously it is too exhausting for you. Go watch some cartoons on television, but not ones about your terrorist idol. Pretend you didn’t see the proof of Islam’s core terrorism and dream on.
Mohammed said, “I have been made victorious through terror”, not “I have won through loving my neighbour as myself.”
Whatever you are doing in your private life, it is not “real”, dualistic Islam. It is “cafeteria” post-modern spirituality. You are a living example that Islam’s dual ethics and call for the world to submit to Moslems and be their slaves do not work in the Global Village. Islam is a total failure as a political philosophy and all Islamic states have quietly recognized this, except for the Talibans in Afghanistan. The world reacted with horror to their real-Islam atrocities. Ordinary Moslems recognize that the Golden Rule is the only answer for getting along in a nuclear age. But the Golden Rule was left out of Allah’s perfect book. How could this be? Ordinary Moslems know in their heart that the Golden Rule is the right way to treat the kufaar. They break the Islamic rule against “innovation” and bring the Golden Rule into a subjective, personalized Islam of their own invention. This is what you have done. It is very, very dishonest.
[Reply]
this crazy show on youtube called JFC (Jesus Fucking Christ) did an animated version of Mummahad with a bomb on his head at some crazy religious council.
pretty balsy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jfenc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z532vg0fo&feature=PlayList&p=0AD867FC76BC0555&index=3
[Reply]