Where did the Koran come from? Which humans made it? What are the historical antecedents for the writing of the Koran? Why is it littered with so many mistakes, nonsense, racism, surpemacism and violence? Why do Moslems believe that a moon deity Hub'Allah made it? Why don't they study it as a historical document? Why do Western ignoramuses accept the claim that the ilah [the one] created it?
Moslems worship the Koran with a devotion that borders on the irrational and mystical. As one author described it, the Koran "....is the holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster." For Moslems the Koran is simply the most important set of injunctions ever written down – some 1400 years ago.......
The Koran was created to form a cult of rabid devotion to Muhammad through the worship of an ilah or El-Lah, namely the one. In reading the Koran, both Allah and Muhammad seem interchangeable. This makes sense since Muhammad was the ilah's only spokesmen and whatever Muhammad wanted, the ilah also supported and vice-versa. It is certainly fair to state that Allah is another name for Muhammad.
When the 'great man' Muhammad died, four of his companions succeeded him as leaders of the Islamic cult. The last of these four was bizarrely both his cousin and his son in law. He was murdered by a rival named Muawiya in 661 A.D. and Muawiya became the first of the Ummayad caliphs an empire which lasted until 750 A.D. The Umayyads were deposed by the ‘Abbasids, who lasted in Iraq and Baghdad until the thirteenth century.
The Ummayads were termed 'godless' and had little inclination to Islamic totalitarianism. The Abbasids were 'purer' and regarded themselves as religious [or more accurately in the case of Islam cult] fanatics. It was the Abbasids who invented the Hadiths or the sayings of the great man Muhammad. The most 'legitimate' of the Abbasid writers of the Hadiths was of course Bukhari who lived during the 8th century – at the time of the Abbasid revolt. As one historian pithily reported:
“The ruling power [the Ummayads] itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced [the Abbasids]; it too had to know how to discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what they did."
In other words once the Abbasids got the story telling rolling, the Ummayads responded in a like-minded manner. Both sides had story-tellers who made a good living inventing 'what the Prophet said and did....' Like medieval chansons de gestes, the Moslem troubadours regaled their audiences with the most minute facts about everything Muhammad said, did, wanted and alluded to. The most intricate details of his toiletry and defecation are even recorded. Rituals, prayers, positions, prostrations and mumblings all to support the pious school [Abbasids] or the ruling temporal powers [Ummayads] issued forth. Seen in this light Bukhari's works are political pieces of propaganda and are merely one of some 200 such sets of 'traditions', all of whom were invented some 200 years after Muhammad had expired.
The perspicacious Islamicist, Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field of Islamic studies and are a must read, stated the following [my summary only]:
The 'isnads' [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to Muhammad only began to be developed during the Abbasid revolt —i.e., the mid-8th century;
That ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be, the more likely it was to be spurious.
“No existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the prophet, though some of them might ultimately be rooted in his teaching.” [quote from Schacht]
The great majority of traditions from the Muhammadan era are documents which date not from Muhammad's life time but from much later stages in the development of the totalitarian doctrines which made up Islamic 'law' in succeeding centuries.
The Koran and the Hadiths are very much man-created. The Hadiths purport to explain the Koran, but they were created some 200 years after Muhammad died. How accurate can they be, based as they are on testimony and investigation during a time of 8th century civil war? How accurate do you think the oral tradition lasting some 200 years was by 750 AD? What implications do the above facts have for Islam, Muhammadan law, and the concept of modern Sharia and Islamic liturgy?
A curious feature of the popular imagination is the ignorant belief that only whites traded and used Black slaves. Slaving and slavery is largely conceived as a white-only crime, a crime against nature-loving peaceniks and aboriginals, in the quest for gold and riches, or in the case of the USA the use of slaves to build an agro-economy. This sentiment that whites are responsible for slavery is of course a gigantic nonsense and a lie. The greatest slavers of all time have been the Blacks themselves, alongside the Arabs and Muslims. In both Black and Muslim states slave trading and ownership still goes on. Yet no one will discuss it. It does not fit in with the zeitgeist of hating Whitey.
You hear it all the time from the left, and from misinformed citizens. 'Well the average Muslim is a pretty peaceful fellow, and Christians can be as bad as Muslims.' The idea that somehow Islam can be equated with Christianity, or that Christian 'extremists' are as active and dangerous as Muslim 'extremists', is more than remarkably ignorant - it is insane.
One of the greatest mistakes in modern history is not learning from the Meccans and their 'tolerance' of mad Muhammad's gibberish, now pronounced a 'religion'. Today some 50-65 million Moslems squat in Western lands, with at least 50% of those immigrants believing in Sharia Barbarism [it is not a Law], and fully aware [unlike most Westerners] that Islam is incompatible with Western ideals. The number of Moslems in Western states will reach 100 million in the next generation. Jihad, Sharia Barbarism, sex-slaving of young girls, necks smitten in city streets and another 9-11 are assured.
Witness the failure of the Meccans to kill Muhammad and do the world a favor.
Mimicking our own collective stupidity, one of the great mistakes in all of history, was the rather incomprehensible charity shown by the Meccans to the ruling tribe's mad poet, Muhammad. Sowing dissension, garbling Judaic-Christian scripture, insulting the Meccan pantheon, disrupting society, fomenting social discord should have earned the mad poet a parting of his head from his sloped shoulders. Instead, the Meccans threw the small cult of Muhammadans out of their city, and on to Medina, and eventual mastery of Arabia they went.
As the historian Gilchrist notes, the Hijra, or flight from Mecca to Medina, was part a preparation for Jihad. This was well understood during the time of Muhammad, and in the early centuries following his murder by fellow-Moslems. The Meccans would eventually see their city conquered by the mad poet at the head of 10.000 men, who smashed their idols, enshrined Arab paganism as divine, and ordered the Meccans to only follow Baal, the family deity of Muhammad, and the Lord or ilah of Mecca.
“In the old Arab law, the Hijra did not merely signify rupture with his native town, but was equivalent to a sort of declaration of war against it. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 27)
We have already seen how closely related the Hijrah was to the active policy of jihad which immediately followed it and it comes as no surprise to find the inevitable conquest being pursued two years after the truce [between Muhammad and Mecca]. A small provocation by the Banu Bakr, a tribe allied to the Quraysh, on the Banu Khaza'ah, allied to Muhammad, was all he needed to declare the treaty broken. Abu Sufyan, aware that the balances were now tilted well in Muhammad's favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and he returned to Mecca empty-handed.”
Muhammad out of self-interest of course, spared the population and the city from Jihadic destruction. As Mehmed II would say of his annihilation of Constantinople, he needed a capital, not a corpse. Interestingly, mad Muhammad butchered the Koranic verse scribe writer, who was charged with recording the frequent and quite convenient revelations from Baal to Muhammad. Apparently the scribe knew a fraud when he saw one, and being so close to the mad poet, understood perfectly well the nonsense that was Muhammad's 'prophecy':
“[After Mecca was conquered] A dozen leading opponents were proscribed though only a few were eventually executed. Two were apostates from Islam, one was a poetess who had particularly irked Muhammad with her satires, and the last was one of two Meccans who had assaulted Muhammad's daughter Zaynab as she fled Mecca for Medina. The others escaped either by hiding themselves or by seeking pardon. One case is of particular interest.
One of these men was Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, and there spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 410).”
If Muhammad was truly a 'messenger' why would his scribe apostasy and declaim against him?
In any event the madness of Western multi-culturalism, imitates that of the Mecan charity towards the nascent Islamic cult. Apparently that policy did not work out too well for the Meccans.
Modern history’s judgment on the Crusades has been severe and myopic, set as it is on portraying this glorious episode of Christian history as morally evil. When I praise the Middle Ages, I sometimes have young Catholics defiantly respond, “All right, all right. But how do you justify the Crusades?” Indoctrinated by revisionist history books and inter-religious study courses, they have accepted the false verdict that the Crusades were nothing more than a condemnable act of intolerance in the name of God.
Further, many of these youth have been adversely influenced by innumerable apologies for the Crusades from so many high-placed Catholic Prelates, religious, and educators of the post-Vatican II progressivist Church. Let me give only a few examples:
* During a visit to Syria this year (2001), Pope John Paul II himself visited a mosque and asked forgiveness of the Muslims “for Christian offenses and violence of the past” (1)
* On July 15, 1999, the 900th anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders, a party of Christians, claiming to be acting in the name of Christ and as supposed descendents of Crusaders, paraded round the wall of the Old City to publicize a personal apology to Muslims for the Crusades (2).
This small incident says a lot: A new Catholic high school in San Juan Capistrano (CA) chose the team name Crusaders, only to have the name vetoed by the board because “it would be offensive to Muslims, who were targets of the bloody crusades of the Middle Ages “ (3).
To accept blame when one is at fault is, or course, good. But in the above cases, the apologizers and reconciliators only show that they have misinterpreted history.
First, they do not understand what motivated the West to a just war: The Crusades were waged to recover the Holy Sepulchre, which had become the target of constant profanation by the Muslims, for the defense of Christian pilgrims, and for the recovery of Christian territory. They constituted a defensive reaction against the Islamic threat.
Second, they do not understand the aggressive nature and fanaticism of Islam (founded by Mohammed, who lived from about 570 to 632 AD), which had been in conflict with Christianity since the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, and had as its goal the imposition of its religion and Mohammedan law on all Europe.
The anger, frustration and fear roused in all Americans at the September 11 attack on the East Coast provide an opportunity to make the Crusades more comprehensible. There are surprising parallels between the two events. Both then and now, there were:
1. the peril of losing valuable religious principles, such as freedom of worship;
2. a perceived physical threat to fellow countrymen;
3. the injury experienced at losing a landmark site;
4. the sense that what is at stake is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.
Those who rant and rave against the Crusades may soon find the ground shifting beneath them as they share in a new consensus, which, at base, is not so different from that which supported the medieval religious war they are condemning. Today’s call for a war on moral grounds is not so different from that of the Pope who called on Christians throughout Europe to come to the defense of Christendom “out of love of God and their neighbor” (4).
4. Jonathan Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades? (London, 1977), pp. 13-14.
A threat to fellow Christians
Since the third century, a favorite site of pilgrimage for Christians was the Holy Land. When Islam burst out of Arabia and took control of the Middle East in the seventh century, pilgrimages to the Holy Land became more difficult, but never ceased.
But the great age of pilgrimage began with the 10th century. In Palestine, the most beloved site of pilgrimage, the lot of the Christians was no longer so bad, and men and women of every class and age, sometimes travelling in parties numbering thousands, journeyed by sea or the land route to visit “the Sepulchre of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.” The Fatimid Arabs who were governing Palestine were lenient, trade was prospering, and pilgrims were welcomed for the wealth they brought to the province.
This period of relative peace came to an abrupt halt at the end of the 10th century. The Arabs were displaced as governors of the holy places by the Seljuk Turks, who reinvigorated the dwindling military spirit of Islam, and again made the call for jihad, or holy war. Their aim was the same as it has been since the inception of Islam, which does not mean “peace,” despite the strange and insistent claims of this seen in the newspapers today.
In fact, the word Islam means submission, and not just a passive submission to the book of Islam, the Koran. Submission for the followers of Mohammed means to carry out the will of Allah in history. The Muslim doctrine of the jihad, or holy war, stemmed from the ideas of the prophet himself—that is, that it was Allah’s will for a permanent war to reign until the rule of Islam extended over all the world. Hence Islam’s political domination could be, and was, spread by the sword. This is why Hillaire Belloc predicted almost a century ago that the West could again see a threat from Islam:
“It very nearly destroyed us. It kept up the battle against Christendom actively for a thousand years, and the story is by no means over; the power of Islam may at any moment re-arise” (5).
5. Hillaire Belloc, The Great Heresies, Chapter Four
Site link where this was published by Martin T. Horvat, Phd.
One has to be fearfully uneducated to believe propaganda without casting a rational doubting eye upon the claim and claimant. 'Enlightenment' philosophes pious in their Atheism or Protestant belief systems, looking upon 500 year old Cathedrals and pronouncing them 'Gothic', a pejorative for barbaric – are hardly the bien pensants that one should listen to or believe. Their ignorance is not 'science' or 'fact'. The great structures of worship which beguile and beckon tourists today can hardly be the outputs of a 'dark age', as mythical and as ridiculously inane as that term is. An age which invented everything imaginable from books to eye-glasses, and blast furnaces to massive grinding mills was not dark.
Witness bathing. The big brains say that the Medieval Christian, toothless, wearing sackcloth, with long shaggy hair, never knew a bath, and when they did, they ran from water as a cat runs from a dog. This is an oft-repeated Moslem lie, as if Islam has invented anything other than Jihad, sex slaving and death. Bathing was common in Roman Europe and that tradition was certainly embedded in the superior culture which followed the non-existent 'fall of Rome'. [Rome was dead long before 476 AD.] Bathing was known, common and at times, a community event in Medieval Europe [which brought its own problems of lack of privacy and even prostitution].
Marian Horvat, Phd. "The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be. Here are some facts about the 1500's:
Most people got married in June, because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
These are not facts, but
Many people married in May or June because they were Catholics and the Church wisely proscribed marriages from being celebrated during the Lenten season, a time of abstinence and penance. By the way, this pious law continued to be followed by good Catholics until Vatican II swept out so many of the good traditions that developed in the Age of Faith.
As for the yearly-bath myth, medievalists have long laid to rest the idea that people rarely bathed in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages was a period of hygiene and cleanliness. The first bit of evidence we have is the prevalence of soap, a common product used for washing clothes and washing people. Next, there are multiple references in literature and manuscripts to bathing, treated matter-of-factly, as something common place. Charlemagne, for example, used to bathe each morning in a large pool or river, where he would meet with his ministers, who were also invited to bathe.
Bathing was part of a ritual before certain ceremonies, such as knighthood, and in the romances of chivalry we see that the laws of hospitality required offering guests a bath before they dined.
etiquette manuals (13th century), as well as the various monastic
Rules, specified washing the hands before eating, and keeping the
hair, fingernails and clothing clean. Clearly, washing was frequent –
there is evidence all over the place for people washing their hands,
faces and feet on a daily basis.
Monastic rules usually had previsions that stipulated washing one’s hair and bathing once each week, usually on a certain day. We can also see how the medievals utilized running rivers or streams. The monks of Cluny were the first to take advantage of the nearby running stream to use as a type of indoor plumbing system. One can still find there numerous lavatories close to the refectories.
A saying in France from those days shows how cleanliness was considered one of the pleasures of existence:
Venari, ludere, lavari, bibere; Hoc est vivere!
(To hunt, to play, to wash, to drink, - This is to live!)
thing I might add, care should be taken not to attribute to the 13th
century the revolting uncleanliness of the 16th and subsequent
centuries which, in France at least, has continued up to our own
As for the bridal bouquet, it was one of numerous beautiful symbolic customs that developed around the Sacrament of Matrimony that we have inherited. For the medieval mind, which saw in all nature a reflection of the Creator, each flower had a symbolic value and displayed a message.
Orange blossom, popular for bridal bouquets, denoted chastity, purity and loveliness. A sprig of ivy was included in bouquets as a symbol of fidelity. Roses represented love, and the lily of the valley, happiness, and so on. The flowers of the bridal bouquet had real meaning; they were not meant to disguise foul odors from a supposedly unwashed bride and groom."
ISIS is just following the 1500+ verses of Kufar-hate in Mein Koran. Dominate, tax, control, slaughter, rape....all is justified for Baal the iLah of Mecca, or the moon god of Muhammad. In Mein Koran of course Muhammad is often-times conflated with, and confused with, the iLah or Lord. But, as with other communal fascisms such as National Socialism, or Communism, the annihilation of the individual, of rights, freedoms, free-speech, and religion all leads to the same penury, destruction and eradication of civilization. ISIS territory looks more like 1980 Moscow than a 'liberated' Moslem state.
[lines for food, consumer items...]
Doesn't anyone wonder why the Moslem world is such a mess ? 50% of marriages are 2nd or first cousins. Inbreeding does not lead to genetic improvement. Over half of females are illiterate. Little in the way of innovation or advancement can be traced back to Islam current or past. The modern Islamic world is a mess, why would the medieval Moslem world be any better ? Culture is King, and when your culture is shaped by the fascistic barbarity of Mein Koran under the leadership of Mein Muhammad, it stands to reason that you will create nothing but an impoverished, illiterate mess.
“According to the document, Islamic State is enforcing the gruesome rules as it wants the population to fear God, in order for them to “enter into His mercy”. Earlier this year the UN reported that children are not exempt from IS’s torturous regime, but have been crucified or buried alive alongside adults when found guilty of crimes including refusal to convert to Islam. Young people with mental disabilities have been used as suicide bombers or as human shields during battle.” Link
Only the brain dead don't see Islam for what it really is.
From Maxwell to Einstein. There is no corollary within Islam of course, though I am sure Phds are being minted confirming that Maxwell received all of his input and inspiration from some non-existent Moslem science during the Golden Age. Indeed electro-magnetic theory was no doubt discovered in the mythical Cordoba of the 9th century....
In the modern pagan cults which dominate society – Islam is civilization, warming, the earth mother, atheism, fish-to-men, relativity, exploding everything from nothing – a serious appreciation for life, grace, beauty and existence is given short shrift. The so-called 'Enlightenment' disparaged a thousand years of European progress, belittling the Catholic society that somehow survived the Moslem Jihad, the Vikings, Magyars and Avars, various plagues, famines and 'climate change', not to mention creating modern science, math, medicine, architecture and universities. Books so beloved by the smug 'intellectual', were a medieval creation.
In the modern age we take nuclear power – for good and bad – as a given. Yet it was only developed in the West. It is rather easy for anyone with enough initiative to trace out the direct line from medieval science, the 13th century to the 19th century, and the Christian scientist Maxwell, who provided the key insight which led to our usage of safe nuclear power. I don't see a Moslem lineage or equivalent technological development.
In 1864 Maxwell gave a presentation to the Royal Society of London titled: 'A Dynamic Theory of the Electro-Magnetic Field'. He stated:
have strong reason to conclude that light itself - including radiant
heat and other radiation, if any - is an electromagnetic disturbance
in the form of waves propagated through the electro-magnetic field
according to electro-magnetic laws.”
Historian of science one Professor R V Jones made the observation that: “This paper is the first pointer to the existence of radiation other than light and heat, and ranks as one of the greatest leaps ever achieved in human thought.”
Maxwell did not have a Phd. He was Christian. According to the cults of science today, this would mean that nothing he said or did would be 'scientific'. He would not be allowed an academic post in today's university system of cultish belief and group think.
By calculating the speed of electromagnetic waves, Maxwell postulated that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation exerting pressure and carrying momentum. This is a crucial insight and as Jones states, one of the most germane in the entire history of human thought. Maxwell's experiential data provided the basis for Einstein's work on relativity from which the relationship between energy, mass and velocity contributed to the theory underlying the development of atomic energy. Einstein was another scientist sans a Phd, a deist [though not a believer in the Christian ideal of God]; and today would not be qualified to teach in a university because he would not garner enough grant money. Such is the reduction of science in its purity and purpose.
And then he saw the light....Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) was a French physicist and historian of science. Before 1904 this famous scientists was quite certain that all of chemistry and physics, including mechanics, electricity, and magnetism, could be understood from thermodynamic first principles [law of matter and energy]. In this regard, saturated in the 'Enlightenment' and Atheist propaganda that no science was known before Voltaire, he regarded the Middle Ages as bereft of scientific advancement. Like many others who actually decided to study the subject he proved himself utterly wrong.
Duhem converted to the common-sense idea of what some call, 'continuity' and incremental change in scientific understanding. It was not dark for 1000 years, and then presto! the light shone and Galileo an earnest Catholic appeared. Copernicus and Newton both stated that they owed their achievements to the insights and labor of others. Some 500 medieval scientists in all manner of disciplines could be named.
It was Duhem who began to bring light and understanding to the subject of medieval science. In 1904, he found an unusual reference to a then-unknown medieval thinker, Jordanus de Nemore (d. 1260). From this small beginning Duhem invented the history of medieval science. Where Duhem's previous histories had been silent or negative about pre-1600 science in the Middle Ages, Les origines de la statique contained a number of chapters on the subject with one considering the impact of Jordanus de Nemore; another his followers; and a third argued about their influence on Leonardo de Vinci.
In his second volume of the same name, Duhem greatly extended his historical scope returning to the middle ages, spending four chapters on geostatics, including the work of Albert of Saxony in the fourteenth century. This investigation formed the basis of Duhem's best book on the subject of Middle Age science, Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci, and Le Système du monde, in which his thesis of the continuity of late medieval and early modern science is illustrated and quite proven.
From 1906 to 1913, Duhem studied the scientific notebooks of Leonardo de Vinci and published a series of essays uncovering de Vinci's medieval sources and their influences on the moderns. This was an important link in the continuity thesis. Da Vinci and his 'Renaissance' contemporaries were undoubtedly part of the Middle Ages and owed a great deal to what preceded them. Common sense would confirm this. In Etudes sur Léonard de Vinci Duhem's proposed the obvious and correct impression that Galileo's efforts were all preceded by a medieval heritage:
When we see the science of Galileo triumph over the stubborn Peripatetic philosophy of somebody like Cremonini, we believe, since we are ill-informed about the history of human thought, that we are witness to the victory of modern, young science over medieval philosophy, so obstinate in its mechanical repetition. In truth, we are contemplating the well-paved triumph of the science born at Paris during the fourteenth century over the doctrines of Aristotle and Averroes, restored into repute by the Italian Renaissance. (1917, 162; 1996, 193.)
Duhem presented Galilean dynamics as a continuous development out of medieval dynamics. We know of course, that this is entirely true, yet in the early 20th century it was a heresy. He recovered the late medieval theory of impetus, tracing it from John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle, to its maturity in the fourteenth century works of John Buridan and Nicole Oresme:
“The role that impetus played in Buridan's dynamics is exactly the one that Galileo attributed to impeto or momento, Descartes to ‘quantity of motion,’ and Leibniz finally to vis viva. So exact is this correspondence that, in order to exhibit Galileo's dynamics, Torricelli, in his Lezioni accademiche, often took up Buridan's reasons and almost his exact words” (1917, 163–62; 1996, 194).”
Duhem then sketched the extension of impetus theory from terrestrial dynamics to the motions of the heavens and earth. No one since the Christian era began had ever believed in a flat earth, and many Middle Age scientists were convinced that the earth was not the center of the universe. Gravity was known long before Galileo:
“Nicole Oresme attributed to the earth a natural impetus similar to the one Buridan attributed to the celestial orbs. In order to account for the vertical fall of weights, he allowed that one must compose this impetus by which the mobile rotates around the earth with the impetus engendered by weight. The principle he distinctly formulated was only obscurely indicated by Copernicus and merely repeated by Giordano Bruno. Galileo used geometry to derive the consequences of that principle, but without correcting the incorrect form of the law of inertia implied in it. (1917, 166; 1996, 196.)”
Duhem went further and linked Albert of Saxony [from the 14th century] whose works were printed and reprinted during the sixteenth century, to Galileo. Duhem's key to understanding the transmission of medieval science was Galileo's use of the phrase Doctores Parisienses, which indicated the Parisian scholars Buridan and Oresme, amongst others. Duhem had rightly conjectured that Galileo had used George Lokert's biography of Albert of Saxony, along with the works of the Dominican Domingo de Soto (1906–13, III.582–83). Duhem's thesis, then original, has been confirmed through the studies of A. C. Crombie, Adriano Carugo, and William Wallace.
Duhem, when confronted with the evidence, apostasied, changed his mind and provided important proof that the Middle Ages certainly built and informed the era of modern science.
David Wood and the top 10 Koranic verses of hate speech against (David Wood and the top 10 Koranic verses of hate speech against 'Unbelievers': Probably the best 8 minute video...
The importance of Christianity in the development of Western civilisation.
Jihad is an obligation to wage war against non-Moslems. This is why the Moslem cult is so violent. (Jihad is an obligation to wage war against non-Moslems.: Jihad is an Arabic word which sends the multi-cult into...
Bukhari (Bukhari's Hadiths: 2nd half of volume 1 - the incitement to violence and supremacism: A list of violent Hadiths... http://t.co/46K72iYUsh)
Bukhari (Bukhari's Hadiths: First half of volume 1 - the incitement to violence and supremacism: A list of violent Hadiths...
Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton delivers the keynote address at the IPA's 2014 Foundations of Western Civilisation Symposium.
Shocking video! An Islamic Muslim woman (a Palestinian from Hamas controlled territory in Gaza), whose child received and needed medical care in Israel, was ...
Critics argue that India does not have Muslims by the name of Sulaiman ibn Ahmad is a last resort to attack his credibility. Now Hebrew word ben or ibn in Ar...
There is nothing new about religious fascism or caliphates. There is nothing new about rape, infanticide, honor killings, genocide, misogyny, slavery -- or headless journalism either.
There is absolutely nothing in the video of Rev. Robby Gallaty's recent sermon that is threatening, hateful, cruel, or the result of ignorance.
The Allah thing - aka Muhammad - hates Christians Koranic supremacism.
Christianophobia – Islam
"Christians must choose "Islam or death," while their women and daughters may legitimately be regarded as wives of Muslims" The enemedia's criminal silence on the relentless and bloody march of Islamic surpremacists on the backs and the bodies...
Answering the cult from a Christian perspective: What to say to Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, The New Age and others.
Idiots Guide to Islam http://alrassoolilive.blogspot.com/
Christianophobia – Islam
Christianophobia – Islam
Raping and torturing young girls.....isn't that what all intolerant cults do ?
It's time to wake up. The real muslims are the terrorist who are following the teachings within the quran. We are not the one's who say they are killing in t...
Nearly two years after the “Arab Spring” began in Egypt, the nation’s Muslim Brotherhood president has arrogated to himself dictatorial powers, and is ramming through a new constitution that will effectively extinguish the last vestiges of Egyptian democracy and establish Egypt as a Sharia state. Just as I said back in January 2011, when the uprisings against Mubarak began, for the people in Egypt who had real power to affect change, the “Arab Spring” was never about democracy and pluralism, despite the ululations of the Western press; it was always about imposing Islamic law upon Egypt. And now, with the new constitution, here we are.
These are not the regular beatings and vandalism against Christians, Hindus and Buddhists but religion-oriented attacks in which someone dies at the hand of a member of the”religion of peace.”
Have you done your shopping yet? It’s Hatred and Violence in the Qur’an Awareness Month — what better time to buy a bomb vest for the mujahid you love?
Inspired by a remark from Pat Condell in this video, I have proclaimed December to be Hatred and Violence in the Qur’an Awareness Month. After all, November was Islamophobia Awareness Month, and certainly the hatred and violence in the Qur’an kills many, many more people than “Islamophobia” ever has or ever will, and so it is far more deserving than “Islamophobia” of a month of its own.