There will never be peace in the Middle East nor anywhere that men consider Muhammad a prophet of anything but hell

From The Blaze, by way of Patriot Update, here:

"The religion of peace has morphed into the religion of pieces. Actions speak louder than words. The only reason all of Islam is being blamed is that the overwhelming majority of terrorists on the planet are Muslim and the silence from the Ummah is deafening and damning."

Those who blame Islam on the basis of Muslim atrocities alone are wrong; how many people who claim to be Christian steal, rape, or murder?

The reason Islam can, should, and must be blamed for Islamic terrorism is because it's directly responsible for it -- the genocidal pedophile Muhammad preached and practiced the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert.

Islam has never, ever, under any circumstances been a "religion of peace." No major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims; the Ahmadiyya, who do oppose such violence, are persecuted by their more orthodox coreligionists even in modern and moderate Islamic states like Indonesia.

Muslims who rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims are not "taking passages out of context"; they're doing exactly what Muhammad preached and practiced:

"the Messenger of Allah [...] would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. [...] When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. [...] Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. [...] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them [...]'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Consider another example of Muhammad's genocidal intolerance, evidence that Islam has never been peaceful and that those who abduct, brutalize, barter, burn, behead, and butcher in Allah's name are doing just what their "religion" commands:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter [...]" (Qur'an 5:33).

Islam's great exegete Ibn Kathir explains this verse:

"'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."

So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

(This passage immediately follows one cited often as proof of Islam's tolerance. In fact, Ahmed mentions it: "It says in the Koran killing one person is like killing the whole of humanity.” Tragically, ironically, fiendishly, Qur'an 5:32 is a warning against Jews, whom Muhammad especially hated.)

This is why there will never be peace in the Middle East nor anywhere that men consider Muhammad a prophet of anything but hell.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

Offered in response to a "rebuttal," from here.* I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam's "violent past." Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade ["]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[" (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.

Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps [Moses ben Maimon] didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they . . .

[Although we were dishonored by them beyond human endurance, and had to put up with their fabrications, yet we behave like him who is depicted by the inspired writer: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not, and I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth (Psalm 38: 14).

Similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of Ishmael in silence . . .

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation . . .

All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continual maltreatment which well nigh crushes us.

No matter how we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them [Muslims] they stir up strife and sedition . . .]

-Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain[, Iggeret Taiman (Epistle to Yemen), edited by A S Halkin; translated by B. Cohen, New York, 1952]

Al-Andalus [or any other Muslim-dominated land] was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

And here is how Maimonides ended up in Cairo:

Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain.

In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides' reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highly-gifted young man.

He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-'Arab al-Mu'ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides' family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

Death or Islam?  Wandering for twelve years?  Trying to pass as Muslims?  Shared the fate of his friend, executed for "relapsing from Islam"?

So much for that "Golden Age of Islam in Al-Andalus."

*Updated November 16, 2009 a.D.  Originally posted 05/11/09 at 12:28 AM

A visit to Ms. Siddiqi's  site shows that she never had the decency to post my incisive and irrefutable rebuttal.

Hijabs on the move

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show's climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood's declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A "Christian" who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that "Mary covered her head."

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces’” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Just whose side is he on?

If Allah and his apostle command the subjugation, humiliation, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between Islam and "militant" Islam?

The American "president"

-bows to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia,

-apologizes to Iran (for their taking American citizens hostage?),

-cajoles the radical Venezuelan dictator Chavez,

-and courts the murdering Castro brothers of Cuba,

but according to a report from his administration, it is patriotic Americans who believe in Individual Liberty and limited government -- especially heroes returning from war -- who pose a potential terrorist threat.

The Founding Fathers would be under house arrest, but jihadists are to be released into America itself?

Just in today's news:

Obama will release Uighur Muslim terrorists into the United States and release new photos of Americans being mean to bloodthirsty monsters; but Tony Blair calls for the world to wage war against "militant" Islam.

If an illegal immigrant from Kenya/Indonesia can be president, why can't Tony Blair? Even if his definitions need some refining, at least he wants to put up a fight.

Who are the "right" Muslims?

M. Zuhdi Jasser argues here that those responsible for American security must work with Muslims who are not intent on waging jihad against us now or in the future, rather than the wolves in moderate's clothing with whom they've been engaged, groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc.

The only problem is, if Allah and his false prophet require the enslavement or murder of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between "radical" Islam and Islam, between "Islamicists" and moderate Muslims?

The only Muslims of whom I'm aware who explicitly reject offensive jihad against, and oppression of, non-Muslims are the Ahmadiyya (persecuted by the devout) and Muslims Against Sharia.

While Mr. Jasser's piece rightly distinguishes between peaceful, apolitical Muslims and terrorists and their supporters, he offers no reliable method of distinguishing between those among his coreligionists who reject permanently the subjugation of and warfare against non-Muslims and those who will do as their god and prophet commanded and practiced.

Even worse, he offers up the false distinction between "radical" Islam and Islam, as if there's an original, peaceful version of the Great World Religion Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

(On a side note, I wish that the President had been making a sly jab with that line; considering that he's defiled the White House with his iftar dinners and his female associates with hijabs, it seems the joke's on us).

There is no conflict between "Islamism" and Islam. To claim one is suicidally-ignorant or maliciously-deceitful. But I do agree with his last line. It is time to discern where Muslims in America stand.

Unfortunately, since our leadership appears clueless about jihad (or in collusion with its agents), time is not on our side.

John Welter, Chief of the anaheim Police Department recently said this to Washington Post reporter, Karen De Young:

"Most people are very ignorant of what the Muslim faith is about, including me," Welter said. "I've got a book on Muslims for dummies; I can't be an expert on all the religions and cults and cultures in the world. But what I can do is be an expert in behavior that terrorists engage in prior to an attack."

This type of naiveté illustrates the basic problem in our current approach to engagement of the Muslim community. Our current national security problem with terrorism is not about finding behavior. That is only the most basic part of law enforcement. At the core of our national counterterrorism strategy should be a solid understanding of the ideologies and state of mind which precedes the radicalization and the motivation of terrorist behaviors.

Our security agencies understood the ideology of communism as we protected our nation during the Cold War. We should do so with even more sophistication and clarity now when it comes to the relationship of political Islam (Islamism) to militant Islamism and how they both differ from the spiritual path of Islam. The longer we avoid the centrality of political Islam in this equation, the longer it is going to take to win the war of ideas and preserve our security.

It is time for a national education and discussion on the conflict between Islamism and Islam. It is time to learn where national Muslim organizations and more importantly where the greater American Muslim population finds itself in that conflict.

Things named "Mohammed"

A teacher is threatened with death for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed."

"Just a 'tiny minority of extremists'" you say? Actually, it's the non-Infidel population of Sudan.

"Not official" you protest? The government's sentenced her to prison time.

"Muslims around the world condemn this"? Where are the counter-protests by the fabled "huge majority of moderate Muslims"?

Name any part of Islam which rejects such a reaction as un-Islamic.

You can't, since Mohammed silenced critics not by good deeds and sweet reason, but by silencing them.

Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who challenged the false prophet. This is what that brought her:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

A little more detail on the foul deed:

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Let's see, things named "Mohammed" . . . .

1. Bill Keller's little friend:

Since "there is [no] difference between [Islam's] moderate and radical interpretations," when isn't Allah a monster?

This horrific truth about Islam the West needs to realize and admit.

Will Australia listen? President Bush? Benedict? Will the West awake before it is too late?

Islamophobia alert: "influential Muslim thinker" warns "once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God." From JihadWatch:

THE West was still underestimating the evil of Islam, an influential Muslim thinker has warned, insisting that Australia and the US have been duped into believing there is a difference between the religion's moderate and radical interpretations.

On a two-week "under the radar" visit to Australia, Syrian-born Wafa Sultan secretly met both sides of federal politics and Jewish community leaders, warning them that all Muslims needed to be closely monitored in the West.

In an interview with The Australian, Dr Sultan -- who shot to recognition last year following an interview on al-Jazeera television in which she attacked Islam and the prophet Mohammed -- said Muslims were "brainwashed" from an early age to believe Western values were evil and that the world would one day come under the control of Sharia law.

The US-based psychiatrist -- who has two fatwas (religious rulings) issued against her to be killed -- warned that Muslims would continue to exploit freedom of speech in the West to spread their "hate" and attack their adopted countries, until the Western mind grasped the magnitude of the Islamic threat.

"You're fighting someone who is willing to die," Dr Sultan told The Australian in an Arabic and English interview. "So you have to understand this mentality and find ways to face it. (As a Muslim) your mission on this earth is to fight for Islam and to kill or to be killed. You're here for only a short life and once you kill a kafir, or a non-believer, soon you're going to be united with your God."

Dr Sultan, who was brought to Australia by a group called Multi-Net comprised of Jews and Christians, met senior politicians, including Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Labor deputy leader Julia Gillard.

[...]

"That's why the West has to monitor the majority of Muslims because you don't know when they're ready to be activated. Because they share the same basic belief, that's the problem," said the 50-year-old, who was last year featured in Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

[...]

But while she considered the prophet Mohammed "evil" and said the Koran needed to be destroyed because it advocated violence against non-believers, Dr Sultan struggled to articulate her vision for Muslims, whom she said she was trying to liberate from the shackles of their beliefs.

"I believe the only way is to expose the Muslims to different cultures, different thoughts, different belief systems," said Dr Sultan, who is completing her first book, The Escaped Prisoner: When Allah is a Monster.

"Muslims have been hostages of their own belief systems for 1400 years. There is no way we can keep the Koran."

If at first you don't succeed justifying Mohammed's pedophilia, try, try again

More from an acquaintance trying to justify the pedophile prophet's predilection for prepubescent partners. And his terrorism.

"Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b"

So, you can't find any Biblical justification for your pedophilia.

And that makes it okay? [According to one source, that passage is a discussion of what defines "virgin" in relation to dowries. It is not permitting pedophilia.]

"in the Bukhari Aisha herself never stated her age"

Spurious and outright false. Bukhari records several different sources, including Aisha. You've also got Muslim and Tabari:

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).

"The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old" (Tabari 9:13).

"A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3310).

"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64).

"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65).

"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88).

"Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consum[mat]ed that marriage when she was nine years old" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236).

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah . . . married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter" (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4915).

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine" (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4917).

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

"'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

You've gone from trying to justify Mohammed's pedophilia to saying Aisha didn't say she was nine in Bukhari. You're willing to compromise your intellectual integrity to defend your prophet's barbarism. Don't you see there's a problem?

"you won't find a devout Muslim joining terrorist groups, 99% of the time when you hear of a terrorist they where 'not very religious'"

OBL is not devout? Is he an apostate? Were you able to find any mainstream Muslim groups denouncing him by name as an unbeliever?

In many of the reports I've read on terrorism, the jihadist often recently became more religious.

1) Does Qur'an and Sunnah teach that the devout Muslim must do whatever they are able to support offensive jihad against non-Muslims to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind?

2) Does Allah command violence against non-Muslims who do not convert and refuse to pay jizya?

3) Did Mohammed command and practice violence against non-Muslims who did not convert and refused to pay jizya?

4) Is the violence against non-Muslims carried out in the name of Allah consistent with Islam's "holy" texts?

The answer to all these questions is. "yes.

"The acts they commit negates their hopes of ever going to heaven."

Not according to your god and prophet: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).

"If I'm not mistaken there are Christian extremists also?"

That appears to be a tu quoque argument -- whether or not "extremists" exist in any other tradition does nothing to address the fact that Allah and his false prophet require offensive warfare against all who do not convert and refuse to pay the jizya.

That is one of the fundamental distinctions between Chritianity and Islam: when a Christian does evil it is always in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim wages offensive jihad against non-Muslims, commits pedophilia with his child bride, beats a disobedient wife, or kills an apostate, it is in accord with Allah's revealed will.

"tells us it's the lords will to kill . . . we will ascend straight to heaven if we kill . . . and they continue telling you whatever it takes; then we believe them. Suddenly we feel as if we're truly doing the work of the Lord"

Such an analogy fits what occurs in Islam quite well.

For that's just what Mohammed did.