Love Story: How Prophet Muhammad Fall in Love with Rayhana on the Day of Qurayza Massacre

Muhammad's love or lust for a sex-slave???

---

Introductory Background

I have previously published an article on how Muhammad and the early Muslims committed genocide upon the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza in Medina. Historical narrations give us a number between 600 and 900 adult men, who were beheaded by Muhammad and his disciples. Muhammad himself took an active role in beheading some leading men of the tribe. You could say he was a 'hands-on' prophet! I titled my previous article 'In honor of Bani Qurayza' due to the fact that their demise was done by an evil Islamic act.

Muslim apologists repeatedly try to defend Muhammad and his companions from the charge of being mass-murderers vis-à-vis this genocide. The problem is: they lie to themselves. No matter how you look at the Bani Qurayza events, the ultimate responsibility of this gruesome genocide rests on the shoulders of Islam's evil prophet. Even if, in fact, Bani Qurayza leaders betrayed their treaty with Muhammad (a matter that is actually not supported by the historical narrations I have studied), why behead and kill all adult men of that tribe? The fact is: the hands of Muhammad and early Muslims are soaked with the innocent blood of the men of Bani Qurayza. Those men were buried en-masse under the market streets of today's Medina in Saudi Arabia. Their souls would continue to cry aloud for the humanity to condemn Muhammad and Muslim disciples for such a gruesome crime.

Historical evidence is available as to why Muhammad killed all adult men of Bani Qurayza. This evidence comes to us from the events that took place after this evil massacre. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat (The Life of Muhammad translate by A. Guillaume, twenty first impression (2007), p. 466), we read the following:

Then the apostle divided their property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for his rider. A man without a horse got one share. On the day of Bani Qurayza there were thirty-six horses. It was the first booty on which lots were cast snd the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids.

Then the apostle sent Sa'd bin Zayd Al-Ansari brother of bin Abdul Ashhal with some of the captive women of Bani Qurayza to Najd, and he sold them for horses and weapons.

The above quote is a clear evidence of the economic reasons for this horror genocide. Muhammad wanted booty, and they had an easy target in the Bani Qurayza tribe, the only remaining non-Muslim people in Medina at this point in time. It's all about the booty.

The Love Story

On the same page of Ibn Ishaq's biography quoted above, we read the following:

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint 'Amr bin Khunafa, one of the women of B. 'Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said: 'Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.' So he left her. She had repugnance toward Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. So the apostle put her aside and felt some displeasure.

The quote in the Sirat continues to tell that she, Rayhana, eventually became a Muslim and Muhammad was happy for this. I doubt that the story of her becoming a Muslim is an Islamic historic lie. Muhammad had killed all her adult male relatives, and, justifiably, she showed repugnance towards Islam (I am sure to Muhammad, too). Would such a person become a Muslim and follow the person that killed all adult members of her extended family?

In any case, Rayhana made an honorable choice. She remained a sex-slave instead of becoming the wife of the mass-murderer, who committed a gruesome genocide and killed all adults in her tribe and family.

Some love stories were hard on the holy prophet. Methinks it was his penis that fell in love with Rayhana. He had an eye for good-looking young girls. He was around 58 years old and she a young 15-year-old girl. Talk about a sick old man!!

Additional Links on the Bani Qurayza story:

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1756

http://www.exmuslim.org/genocide%20of%20the%20bani%20qurayza.html

Imam Feisal and Prophet Muhammad: Peace Builders by the Sword

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

---

Islam is a 'religion of peace'. Ask a Muslim: He/she will tell you that Islam brought true peace, equality, justice, human rights and liberty to mankind. Muhammad set the tone of this peaceable core of Islam through a charter of peace, the so-called Covenant of Medina, through which he established a peaceful cohesive state in Medina, where the rights of followers of all faiths were ensured. Extending this peaceful mission, he united the fractious and bickering uncivilized Bedouin tribes of Arabia, upon which was founded the world's greatest empire and civilization, within which people of all faiths lived in peace, harmony and equality. Not only Muslims, but also non-Muslim historians, often of the Marxist leaning, would tell you so. So says Ibn Warraq, albeit regrettably (Why I Am Not A Muslim, p. 198):

Open any modern introductory book on Islam and the chances are you will find that it begins by singing the praises of a people who conquered, in an incredibly short period, half the civilized world—of a people who established an empire that stretched from the banks of the Indus in the east to the shores of the Atlantic in the West. The volume will recount in positively glowing terms a time when Muslims ruled over a vast population of diverse peoples and cultures.

Indeed, Muhammad invited the people of Arabia, even the rulers of Persia, Byzantium and Egypt amongst others, to unite under this prophethood and leadership. And, to that end, he founded an imperial Islamic state in Arabia, which would be the launching pad for the expansion of Islamic rule to far corners of the world.

But how was this so-called unity and peace was achieved? Let us first look at the Covenant of Medina, allegedly Muhammad's first agreement of peace and pluralistic coexistence with infidels, namely Jews and Polytheists of the city.

One must bear in mind that this covenant was signed less than one year after Muhammad's immigration there as a refugee. This covenant was dictated by, or written out from, Allah and Muhammad. It puts Muhammad as the ruler of the city, without whose permission, no-one, Muslim or non-Muslim, could go to war; the Jews and Polytheists of Medina must not protect the Quryash of Mecca, whom Muhammad had resolved to put to the sword; life of Muslims must be avenged, but not of non-Muslims, killed by a Muslim. Within a year of coming to Medina, Muhammad was offering the native non-Muslims of the city of such terms, demanding complete submission and subjugation to his authority. If they failed, concluded the document: "Loyalty is a protection against treachery". that means, if the native non-Muslims didn't show submission to Muhammad with complete loyalty, treachery will be unleashed: that is, the covenant would be thrown away and they would be treacherously attacked.

This is the model Muhammad had set forth for Muslims to follow through eternity, and there is a complete resemblance between this and Imam Feisal's campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque; we will come to it later.

In like manner, Muhammad, when became increasingly powerful in men and swords, offered proposals to other communities and nations to submit to him with offer of peace and security of their life and property. Let us see what Muhammad wrote to the kings of Oman:

‘Embrace Islam and you shall be safe… If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy.’

That is, to be safe and keep your kingship, embrace Islam; else my forces would enter your backyard and wreak destruction upon you.

While writing for submission to Heraclius of Byzantium, the world's most powerful emperor, just fresh from defeating the Persians in Palestine, Muhammad couldn't be so threatening, in order to avoid an attack. So, he wrote to Heraclius in a somewhat mild language (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 655):

‘If you accept Islam you will be safe; if you accept Islam, Allah will give you double reward; if you turn back, the sin of the husbandmen will be upon you.'

That means, to be safe and rewarded, accept Islam; if not, you will be responsible for misguiding your people.

Here Muhammad couldn't threaten him with punishment by sending his forces to attack him, not at this point in time, when he was so weak.

Here is the "prince of peace" of Muslims, the message of whose peace-overtures was: To buy safety and security, the infidels must embrace Islam, submit to his leadership and prophethood, or else, the swords would be drawn.

Later on, we witness Caliph Omar using the same mode of peace-overtures. Demanding submission to Islam, he wrote to the Shah of Iran:

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option.

Down to our time, Imam Feisal, the man behind of the Ground Zero mosque project, plus his Muslim horde in the West, including great intellectual Fareed Zakaria (see why), are trying to use the same template of action or modus operandi---in the context of time and reality, of course.

Imam Feisal has emerged as a champion builder of peace and harmony between Muslims and the infidels. In words, he shoots bombastic propaganda of building peace and tolerance, but, in substance, he sends out the message of drawing out the sword, if submission and subjugation to his Islamic agenda is not realized.

His latest agenda is building a giant mosque close to the Ground Zero of 9/11 attacks, as part of his so-called mission of building interfaith tolerance and peace between Islamic and the Western world, between Muslims and Westerners. His weird logic is that building such an elegant mosque at the 9/11 Ground Zero site would foster peace and harmony between Muslims and Western infidels, would help incline Muslims more toward peace, and blunt the messages of al-Qaeda-minded Muslims.

We may forget that almost every terrorist attacks and plots in the past decade in the West, from 9/11 to Fort Hood, have been linked to radicalization of the perpetrators in mosques, that, in Islamic countries, mosques and madrasas are breeding grounds for Islamic fanatics and terrorists.

In the mildest of sense, a mosque is symbol of Islam, a symbol of Islamization. More the mosque, the elegant the mosque, the greater is Islamization, the dominance of Islam in that place. In other words, a giant mosque at the Ground Zero would represent the rising dominance of Islam in the New York City---plain and simple.

Moreover, from Islam's inception, mosques have been built to declare political supremacy of Islam over other faiths. Muhammad started it in Arabia, by destroying the churches, synagogues and temples of non-Muslim communities, the Pagan's Ka'ba Temple turned into the Ka'ba Mosque being the shining example. Since then, every place Muslim have conquered, they have destroyed their most revered places of worship and built at their places giant mosques to declare Islam's political and religious supremacy over the conquered infidels. Moving on from Mecca, the most famous churches in Cordoba (Spain) and Istanbul, the most revered Jewish Temple of Jerusalem, to the greatest Hindu temple of Rama Mandir in Ayodhya—all have been taken over and desecrated or destroyed, and famous mosques have been built in their stead.

In that sense, mosques represent a symbol of terror and humiliation to non-Muslims. How can, then, a mosque at the Ground Zero foster tolerance and peace between Americans and Muslims?

Most importantly, the al-Qaeda terrorists, who brought down the World Trade Center at the Ground Zero, did so because they want to establish a global Islamic Caliphate by subjugating the infidels to Islamic dominance through intimidation and terror. The most desirable thing on earth they would dream to see is a mosque build at the prime places of infidel powers around the world. A mosque at the World Trade Center or the White House would be the most desirable, dreamable, thing they ever want to see being built. Imam Feisal's Ground Zero mosque would become a reality what the 9/11 attack terrorists, masterminds and their like-minded Islamic radicals could only dream. It's a dream come true for the al-Qaeda Jihadis.

One is left to wonder, then, how a "dream-comes-true" event for the Islamic militants would help blunt their mission to commit similar acts that made their dream comes true.

Weird as it may seem to infidels (except some leftist liberals), but most logical to Islamists like Feisal and Fareed Zakaria, what is interesting about this mosque-building campaign is: how they are trying to push it down the throat of Americans with veiled threats, like those of Muhammad, albeit with modern subtlety, understandably given the reality. He warned America on CNN that

Americans must remember that what we do is watched all over the world… Our national security, our personal security, is extremely important. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.

In other words, if the Imam's expectation, nay better say his command, an Islamizing one, is not met, he threatened America with violence. Just as did Muhammad to the people of Medina and the kings of Oman, Byzantium, Persia and others: that is, accept what we want here at 9/11 Ground Zero; else, be prepared for the sword, i.e. violence from Muslims.

What is needed for true tolerance and peace building is blunting exactly this mode of Muslim thinking that has been in force from Muhammad down to Imam Feisal. And the result has been untold Muslim-to-infidel intolerance, violence and barbarism—history being the proof.

What is needed for true peace-building between Muslims and non-Muslims is to make Muslims in the Islamic world tolerate non-Muslims, give them religious freedom and equal rights; let them build houses of worship—churches, synagogues and temples freely in Muslim countries—which remains almost impossible even in highly moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. For true peace-building, there is a need to build churches, synagogues and temples in Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Maldives and other Islamic countries, freely and without fear.

Obviously Imam Feisal is not going to propose or lead such initiatives. He wants a giant, elegant mosque at the most sensitive place in America to declare the rise of Islam. For Muslim readers, he titled his book, written in reaction to the barbaric 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, as A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawah from the Heart of America Post 911. Historically Muslim invaders, after barbaric attacks on infidel nations, built mosques at their most central, sensitive and revered places for the Islamic call to prayer, call to Islam, a.k.a. Dawah. His book, as it appears, represented his desire to implement that old modus operandi of Islamic invaders, by transforming the Ground Zero into a pulpit for Dawah, call to Islamic prayers. His campaign to build the Ground Zero mosque a decade later is his resolute attempt to realize that blueprint, that dream. And to achieve it in the face of mounting opposition from Americans, he is adopting Muhammad's tactic: that is, agree and submit to what we want or else the swords would be unsheathed, in this case, in the form of violence by Muslims against America.

Muhammad went to Medina as a refugee and established the supremacy and rule of Islam through threats of violence, indeed, through mass eviction and slaughter en masse of the Jews. Imam Feisal and his Muslim hordes also came to the West as refugees and are trying to take over through the same tactics.

Actions of Muhammad, the most perfect man and the best apostle of Allah, are examples for Muslims to emulate for eternity to live the perfect Muslim life. Feisal Abdul Rauf, a devout follower of Muhammad and an Imam at that, could only follow Muhammad, not do otherwise.

Prophet Muhammad Confessed: Quran is Misguidance and Islam is the worst Religion

The misconception that has grown firmly in the Muslim mind that Islam is the only salvation and the best religion on earth. All other religions, including Judaism and Christianity, do not meet the paramount excellence of Islam. According to them, all other religions are either false or corrupted, and Allah has abolished them all to be replaced by the sublime Islam.

---

According to Muslims, Islam is the best religion because:

• Firstly, Muhammad is the last and the best Prophet
• Secondly, he regulated and mandated five daily prayers;
• Thirdly, once-in-a-lifetime visiting to the Kaaba as a pilgrim in Mecca is compulsory for all able Muslims;
• Fourthly, fasting for entire month of Ramadan;
• And last, but not the least, he mandated payment of zakat (tax) upon the rich for the poor.

It is important to clarify the concept of Zakat, and why it was mandated in Islam, because many ordinary Muslims have not been told the truth about Islam, and, of course, about the Zakat issue. For an ordinary Muslim, Zakat is a very attractive and charming element of Islam that elucidates for them that Islam cares for the poor. But the truth is otherwise. Firstly, 2.5% obligatory charity or Zakat was a tradition amongst Jews, which Muhammad copied after coming in contact with the Jews in Medina. And everyone knows that Muhammad was the all-in-all the king or leader of his clan, and eventually the ruler of the Arabian Peninsula. Muhammad looted trade-caravans, plundered non-Muslim communities, and collected taxes from subdued tribes, not for the poor, but for his own luxuries and of his companions, whom large harems of many wives and concubines (something like prostitutes). After enriching themselves by looting and plundering, Muhammad mandated a small part of this loot, maal-e-ghanimat (ghanimah) for charity tax or Zakat. And Zakat was mainly meant for religious usages, namely building mosques, and conducting jihad, and, or course, probably to help those hard-up Muslims with loaded harem.

So the Zakat was partly to mean for financing the expanding harems of Muslims, as well as for financing Jihad raids to capture inmates, namely concubines or sex-slaves, so as to comfort their sensual and voluptuous desires. This tradition is blessed by Allah in the Quran (Verses 23:5-6). Today's Muslims are in real trouble to reconcile this shameful fact, and they often get easily pissed off when the issue of concubines in Islam is reminded to them. They do their best effort to change the topic or try to change the translation of verses to distort what Quran actually says. They try, desperately, to make excuses to defend the inexcusable behavior of their prophet.

The core of this essay is, however, not about concubines in Islam, but how the Prophet of Islam condemned his own religion and degraded his self-exalted holy book, the Quran.

Psychology of Muslim Men and Women

Apart from above five pillars of Islam, Muslims tell us that Islam is the best religion, because previous religions before Islam were all corrupted. They altered their own Holy Scriptures; their religions came for only their nation, but Islam came for the whole world. Islam will last forever until end of the world, and everyone on this earth will convert to Islam one day. The Quran remains altered, as it had been revealed to Muhammad, and will never be altered until the Judgment Day arrives. Based on such claims and assertions, Muslims claim that Islam is the best religion.

But, if we examine Islam closely based historical facts, Muhammad had said otherwise. There are many recorded ahadiths (saying of Prophet Muhammad), in which he claimed that Islam will be divided into 73 sects, out of which, only one sect will enter heaven; the rest will all be thrown in hellfire. When his companions asked him: Who will be those cursed ones and which one would be blessed, he replied, the hell-dwellers will be among his Ummah, who will recite the Quran and the words of Quran will not go out from their collar-bones. He further proceeded to say that the Jews and Christians had 72 sects, out of which, 71 will go to hell fire and the remaining one will be the blessed one.

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 527:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
…"Out of the offspring of this man, there will be people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game, and they will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters. Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nation of 'Ad."

There are two main points in his sayings: 1) Muslims will be divided into 73; 2) readers of the Quran will be sent to hell-fire.

What do these ahadits (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) tell us? They clearly tell us that Islam will not necessarily save Muslims and that the Quran is not a divine book. Else, how could reciters of this book lead be thrown into hell-fire? Muhammad new what is there in his invented book, the Quran, and that there was no such thing as divine guidance in it. So this was an honest admission by him. Had the Quran been the book of guidance, Muhammad would never say that reciters of the Quran will go out of Islam, i.e. burn in Hellfire.

Another major point in this hadith is that why Islam had to be divided into 73 sects, if it is the best religion? Is it that Islam came for—to divide and make sects among people even more than any other religion? If this is so, how Islam can be the best religion? These are the points that I am putting before Muslims, who keeps bragging that Islam is the only true and the best religion. Had Islam been the best religion, the 73 sects in Islam would be out of context.

The problem with Muslims is that Muhammad's saying regarding the sects in Islam is widely accepted by Muslim Scholars, even by common Muslims. In Muslim countries, especially in Pakistan, every ordinary Muslim knows about these hadiths, and all of them trust it to be true.

Abu Dawud, Book 40, Number 4579:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

The funny thing about Islam, the so-called best religion, is that it will have more divisions than Judaism and Christianity. After this, I don’t understand under what logic Muslims can claim that other religions false and Islam, the major sect creator religion, is the best one.

Conclusion

We are fortunate that Prophet Muhammad himself gave tidings to his Ummah that not to worry because Islam will have more sects than the Jews and Christians, and Muslims will go to Hell, because they will recite Quran. It is also very important to note that he didn’t mention Bible or Vedas (Hindu Holy Scriptures) that the readers of those books will be thrown-away into Hell-fire.

There is no doubt that the sayings of Prophet Muhammad confirm, by all accounts, that the Quran is a book of misguidance and Islam is a worse religion than Christianity and Judaism.

Now, I put my views before the readers of this article to let them decide if I am wrong.

The Demise of Islam?

From FrontPageMagazine.com on July 15, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam.

FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: Good to be here Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to discuss the potential demise of Islam and the fact that the Prophet Muhammad actually predicted this demise himself – a fact that sounds somewhat odd and that many are unaware of. What is the best way to start a discussion of this issue?

Kasem: Well, I would start by asking this question: could the current civilization ever imagine a world without Islam?

To many, this might sound like a dim-witted question. After all, Islam has been with us for fifteen hundred years. It just doesn’t even seem thinkable that Islam could possibly die out. Currently, after all, Islam is the raging storm afflicting every part of the world, especially with the mayhem of the Islamist terrorists and the escalating oil prices – and oil largely flows from a few Islamic lands. The leaders of the un-Islamic world are busy pleasing Islam in whatever manner. Even the United Nation’s Human Rights Organisation has just passed a resolution disallowing discussion of how Islam violates fundamental human rights in many Islamic paradises. In this context, it seems almost impossible to imagine a world free of Islam.

FP: Absolutely, and it is totally unrealistic to think that Islam will ever disappear.

Kasem: No. Despite the world situation that I just painted, what you say is not true at all.

FP: Please explain.

Kasem: We learn from the annals of Islamic history that Islam is not that powerful and that it is actually very vulnerable. Much evidence suggests that it may very well die under its own weight.

FP: Fair enough, please expand.

Kasem: There is a secret life of Islam and it may very well lead to the death of Islam. The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself. As a car needs gasoline to run, so does Islam need human blood just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, its Prophet.

FP: Sounds very much like communism. It starts off extinguishing the “class enemy” and then when there are no more external “enemies” to slaughter, the killing machine turns on itself. Terror takes on a life of its own and the killing machine devours its own children and then ultimately engages in suicide. This totalitarian impulse ultimately stems from a death wish.

Kasem: Precisely. And so the demise of Islam is inherent in the very seed of Islamic cannibalism. And so to understand why Islam, eventually, will self-destruct we must first learn a few lessons from the annals of Islamic history. Let me briefly paint the picture:

During the last few decades we have witnessed Islamic cannibalism right, front and center. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

FP: Is Islamic cannibalism theologically rooted?

Kasem: Absolutely. The earliest example of Islamic cannibalism, after all, is found in the Qur’an itself -- in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk).

On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

FP: So what is this story in the Qur’an teaching? What is its message?

Kasem: Those verses of the Qur’an, when taken in true Islamic spirit, can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed.

FP: The consequences?

Kasem: The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises.

In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Interestingly, this fratricide is unstoppable, as the Islamic Ummah is far from monolithic. No one knows the precise divisions among the Ummah. But Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-two sects, each one killing one another, and together killing the infidels.

FP: So Muhammad actually himself predicted this cannibalism with Islam itself? Give us the theological evidence.

Kasem: Yes he did. There are many ahadith that discuss Muhammad’s prediction about his Ummah. Let me give a few:

Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4580)

Islam has seventy branches…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4659)

Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4744)

In a note (footnote 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

Another hadis (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 40.4747, Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.577) asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

FP: Tell us a few major sects and sub-sects of Islam:

Kasem: Here are some of the main ones:

Sunnis: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal

Sufis

Wahabis

Salafists

Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims)

Khilafites

Deobandis

Shia: Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis

Ashariyahs

Alawis

Qadianis

Ahmedis

Druzes

Dawoodis

Bohras

Kharizis

Kurds

Needless to say, each group (and sub group) thinks they are the true Muslims, and only they have the right to practice Islam. Thus often, they cannibalize one another. There is no tolerance, compromise or truce among these groups.

FP: Tell us about a few more cases of Islamic cannibalism that were perpetrated during the nascent stages of Islam.

Kasem: Well, I mentioned the very first Islamic cannibalism mentioned in the Qur’an. Ever since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic. During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast. Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (The History of al Tabari, volume XV, p219-20):

…Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, accompanied by Kinanah b. Bishr b. ‘Attab, Sudan b. Humran and ‘Amr b. al-Hamiq, reached ‘Uthman by climbing over the wall from the house of ‘Amr b. Hazm. They found ‘Uthman, with his wife Na’ilah, reading the Surah of the Cow from the Qur’an. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came up to them and seized ‘Uthman’s beard. “May God disgrace you, you hyena,” he said. ‘Uthman replied, “I am no hyena. I am God’s servant and the Commander of the Faithful. ”Muhammad said, “Neither Mua’wiyah nor anyone else has been of any use to you.” ‘Uthman said, “Son of my brother, let go my beard. Your father would not have gripped like this.” Muhammad replied, “Had my father seen you doing these things, he would have denounced you for them, and I mean to do worse to you than grab your beard.” ‘Uthman said, “I seek God’s help and support against you.” Then Muhammad pierced his forehead with a broad iron-tipped arrow that he was holding. Kinanah b. Bishr raised some arrows of the same kind that he was holding, and plunged them into the base of ’Uthman’s ear down to his throat. Then he fell on him with his sword until he killed him.

According to ‘Abd al-Rahman—Abu ‘Awn:

Kinanah b. Bishr struck his forehead with an iron bar. He pitched forward, face down, and Sudan b. Humran al-Muradi beat him after he had fallen and killed him.…As to ‘Amr b.al-Hamiq, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest—he was still barely alive—and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr said, “I stabbed him three times for God’s sake and six times because of the anger in my breast against him.”

If we are troubled reading those passages, we must remember that all of those who ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman were impeccable Muslims—the most ardent jihadists, belonging to the stock of Muhammad the Hashim clan of the Quraysh.

This Islamic cannibalism did not end there. The cycle continued until Aisha (Prophet Muhammad’s dearest wife), along with two of her brothers-in-law, Talha and Zubayr set out to avenge ‘Uthman’s murder. When she reached al-Basrah, a rebel stronghold, she killed (by beheading) six hundred of the suspected rebels who had ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman. Ali, being sucked into the vortex of this cannibalistic cycle, set out to punish Aisha’s gang.

The result: ten thousand Muslims, including Talhah and Zubayr lay perished in al-Basrah, equal in proportion from both sides. Aisha’s life was spared by the cannibals, but her camel was hamstrung.

In Islamic history this is known as the Battle of the Camel. This is perhaps one of the most moving examples of how Islamic cannibalism really perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence and mayhem. This is the reason why we shall never observe a let up to the succession of Islamic cannibalism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt or Sudan.

The narration of this very important chain of cannibalism will remain incomplete till we learn the fate of all the participants sucked into this whirlpool of cannibalism and counter cannibalism.

The following passages, adopted from Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari (vol. xvii) illustrate very briefly how this cycle of Islamic cannibalism continued, and will continue:

Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and a close relative of caliph ‘Uthman demanded from Ali the handing over of the killers of ‘Uthman. When Ali refused to comply with this request, Muawayiah b. Abi Sufyan, and his right-hand man, ‘Amr b. al-‘As (the deposed governor of Egypt), became open enemies of Ali. They gathered forces and set off to attack Ali. Ali met this force at Siffin. Fearful of defeat at the hands of Ali’s fierce and well-trained army, Muwayiah and ‘Amr devised quite an innovative trick. Their soldiers attached copies of the Qur’an at the tip of their lances and raised them high in air. Ali’s soldiers went in stupor and were hesitant to charge their enemy, lest they trample the Holy Qur’an. Both sides remained standstill—the battle became a stalemate. In the end, both parties agreed to stop fighting and decided on a speedy negotiated settlement by appointing an arbiter from each side. Having mutually reached this agreement, both sides separated and returned.

But not everyone on Ali’s side was happy with his prompt decision. A faction of Islamist extremists thought judgment belonged to Allah and Ali’s decision to appoint arbiters for a peaceful settlement is contrary to Islamic principle. This dissident group of Ali was known as the Kharijites. They insisted that Ali resume fighting. But Ali could not renege on his treaty of a peaceful settlement. The Kharijites declared Ali to be a sinner and asked him to repent. Initial attempt by Ali for reconciliation with the Kharijites met with feeble success. So, ultimately, Ali had to cannibalize the cannibals. He had to fight a major battle at the canal of Nahrawan, east of river Tigris in Iraq. This battle ended with a merciless mass slaughter of the Kharijites. But this cannibalization did not completely eradicate the Kharijite problem. Many Kharijites survived this genocide, went into hiding, and some of them returned to Kufa (Ali’s headquarter in Iraq) stealthily. A few of them went to Egypt.

FP: Let’s get back to Muhammad. He gave the instructions for -- and paved the foundation to -- Islamic cannibalism. He also, in this context, made a prediction in regards to Islam’s demise, correct?

Kasem: Yes, he predicted the demise of Islam.

As strange and as unbelievable as it might appear in these days of unremitting Islamic terrorism and Islamic cannibalism, Muhammad himself had predicted the decline of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake...(Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100)

There will be no trace of Islam in some believers...(Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65)

Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270)

The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0271, 0272)

Allah needs sinners… (Sahih Muslim 37.6620, 6622)

Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029)

Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love world and dislike death…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284)

Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy… (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3)

Muslims will be destroyed through the hands of some Quraysh young men…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.87.180)

There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslims…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183)

And here are a few excerpts from the greatest of all Islamic minds, al Ghazali:

Muhammad said Islam began with a few and will soon return to a few as it began. The few of those true Muslims are those who follow to purify Muhammad’s sunnah and follow strictly his traditions…(Ihya Ulum al Din by Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim. First edition. Darul Ishat, Karachi, 1993. p.1.49).

Muhammad said, “The wealth of a Muslim in near future will be goats and sheep. He will roam in caves of hillocks and places of water. He will shift from one place to another with his religion and calamities.”…(ibid, p.2.142)

Muhammad said, “In near future such a time will come upon man when it will be difficult to save his religion. To save religion he will flee away like a jacket from one cave to another and from one hillock to another.”…(ibid)

FP: Ho do we understand Allah's mindset in all of this?

Kasem: It is impossible to understand Allah’s mind. In many verses He threatens infidels with severe punishment, including death if they do not convert to Islam. However the Qur’an also demonstrates Allah’s frustration. Allah is so disappointed with Muhammad’s performance that He promises to send a beast as a final messenger (27:82). In verse 68:51 Allah admits that the Qur’an had made Muhammad a mad man, thus implying that Muhammad, after all, could not be trusted to save Islam. To accentuate Muhammad’s mental instability Allah says in verse 41:36 that Allah let Satan confuse Muhammad. In verses 38:82 83 Allah admits that He let loose Iblis, the Satan; He did not want to control Iblis. This means Satan is more powerful than Allah. Thus, it is imperative that eventually, Satan will triumph and destroy Islam. This, of course, is the desire of Allah, as nothing may transpire without Allah’s wish. Allah even admits that He loves to sow discord about His Book (the Qur’an, 41:45).

FP: So what do we conclude from what you have demonstrated here today?

Kasem: We can conclude that there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death.

FP: Abul Kasem, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Kasem: My pleasure Jamie.