This article is as risible as Karen Armstrong’s likening Muhammad to Gandhi, and is as gracefully written as a seventh grader’s book report. But for the Huffington Post, accuracy and quality are of no import: if it downplays the grim reality of Islamic jihad terror, then it’s good enough for them.
The author of this piece is Craig Considine, who has likened Muhammad to George Washington and claimed that Christianity has a concept of jihad just like Islam’s. He pulls off these feats of legerdemain by employing a very simple method: ignoring what doesn’t fit his thesis, as he does here.
“What Studying Muhammad Taught Me About Islam,” by Craig Considine in the Huffington Post, January 21:
Muslims worldwide have recently joined together to celebrate Mawlid al-Nabi, the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. This day is an opportunity for Muslims and non-Muslims, such as myself – a Catholic – to reflect upon the life and legacy of the prophet of Islam. In this short essay, I want to share with you what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam.
Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.
Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians.
This document, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).
The document exempts the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery from paying the jizya. While it is conceivable that Muhammad, believing he bore the authority of Allah, would exempt them from an obligation specified by Allah himself in the Qur’an (9:29), the Achtiname specifies that Christians of Egypt are to pay a jizya only of twelve drachmas. Yet according to the seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou, Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.” The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.
Similarly, in the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet stated Jews “may be in peace… you are in security [under Muhammad’s rule]… Towards you is no wrong and no enmity. After today you will not be subject to oppression or violence.” In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.” In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends. In developing these agreements with his fellow Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.
Here again, both the Treaty of Maqnah and the Constitution of Medina are of doubtful authenticity. The Constitution is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Considine, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”
According to Muhammad, humanity was at the heart of Islam. In my reading and interpretation of his last sermon at Mount Arafat in 632 AD, I learned that the Prophet fought against racism long before the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. In the sermon, he argued “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” Muhammad’s final sermon informed me that Islam teaches Muslims to be tolerant of difference and welcome to diversity.
Yet all too many Arab Muslims have lorded it over non-Arab Muslims throughout Islamic history, and some do today. Why are there so many who misunderstand Muhammad’s clear words here?
My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington, a key founding father of America. In a January 2013 article for the Huffington Post titled “An Unlikely Connection Between Muhammad and George Washington,” I examined how these two great men virtually shared identical opinions on social conduct, modesty, humility, respect, and even hygiene. In making these connections, it seems to me that Islamic values as expressed by Muhammad, and American values as expressed by Washington, are quite similar. Muslims and non-Muslim Americans can look to the example of Prophet Muhammad and George Washington as a way to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding.
Yes, Muhammad was exactly like George Washington. You remember the stories: George consummated his marriage with Martha when he was 54 and she was nine, and she was one of about a dozen wives of the first President; Washington once personally beheaded between 600 and 900 Redcoats; married his former daughter-in-law; declared that he had been commanded to fight against people until they confessed that there was no Constitution but the Constitution and he was the first President — so many similarities. Pamela Geller ably dismantled Considine’s nonsense about Washington and Muhammad here.
Studying Muhammad has taught me invaluable lessons on the fundamental principles of Islam, but more importantly, principles of life itself. His treatment of religious minorities and his basic moral beliefs have encouraged me to further promote dialogue between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and to improve my own everyday character and conduct. Without a doubt, my research into the Prophet’s life has showed me that he is a role model for both Muslims and non-Muslims and that humanity can benefit from Islam.
Dialogue is great if it’s honest. This article by Craig Considine is not remotely honest. One wonders also how he, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, thinks “humanity can benefit from Islam,” a religion that says he is accursed for believing that Jesus is the Son of God (cf. Qur’an 9:30) and that he should be warred against until he submits (Qur’an 9:29), and that he is the most vile of created beings (Qur’an 98:6). Is it by the virtues of magnanimity and tolerance for which he extols Muhammad on false pretenses in this article? Does he really think those virtues don’t exist outside Islam? Given the abysmal level of general education these days, it’s possible.

mariam rove says
Huff Post is a PC disaster.
Still can not log in. Anyone here has the same problem? M
Bettina says
I’m sorry to hear of your trouble logging on, Miriam. I referred to a possible solution on a different page. If this goes on, why don’t you reach Robert and his tech guy? I found them very responsive indeed.
Karl says
The Huffington Post wants all the information about you from facebook etc.. as a condition of logging in. I don’t know if their data collecting software works but I couldn’t log in as someone else and I wont give them my data.
kikorikid says
This guy is the green piece in a fruitcake.
WVinMN says
Waiting for Lemon Lime to reassure all of us that the left has not embraced islam…
LemonLime says
“Waiting for Lemon Lime to reassure all of us that the left has not embraced islam…”
I never said Leftists aren’t outrageously whitewashing and defending Islam & Muslims. I have only added that a) Leftists are a minority in the West, though sociopolitically influential; and b) millions of non-Leftists (the Three Cs — Conservatives, Centrists, and the Comfortably Apolitical) throughout the West are PC MC about Islam, and if it weren’t for this “Passive Majority”, the minority of Leftists would not enjoy the sociopolitical traction they do continue to enjoy.
Speaking of waiting: I’m still waiting for a Counter-Jihad person to characterize any of my positions accurately.
Bettina says
LL, you said: “b) millions of non-Leftists (the Three Cs — Conservatives, Centrists, and the Comfortably Apolitical) throughout the West are PC MC about Islam.” I don’t doubt your take on this.
For example, I was in a bar reading one of Robert’s books and was engaged by some curious people (one at a time, of course) asking what that was all about. These men looked like conservative workers, and I didn’t get an inch of traction among them. I guess they were too PC and multi-culturalist to take in my stated position on Islam. What a disappointment that was!
Salah says
The universal champion of human rights…on his death bed:
When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over his face; but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said: “Allah’s damnation be on the Jews and the Christians who made the graves of their prophets objects of worship.”
The Major Classes, by Ibn Sa’d, v. 2, p. 240 الطبقات الكبرى لإبن سعد
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/03/muhammads-death.html
Bettina says
Miriam, try “Reclaim Your Own Account” on the right near the top, then “Login Here.” After that, I think all you do is “Login Here” and it should work.
At least we’re not facing an input form each and every time we want to comment. THAT’s a distinct improvement!
Arius says
As usual the lunatic US elites will run interference against the truth of horrific Islam sanctioned attacks on non-Muslims. Obama, the current elites agent of disinformation, take note: Islam has been raping and murdering non-Muslims for fourteen centuries.
Bettina says
I still don’t know why we refer to the left as Elitists. Maybe one of you guys can clarify this for me? I really mean it.
LemonLime says
It’s because most Jihad Watchers think the only problem is Leftists who are part of the influential intelligentsia in government, mass media, and academe.
Two problems with this: Most JWers seem to be myopic to the millions of Ordinary People who are also PC MC about Islam (I guess they don’t get out much, and haven’t had the frustrating experience of talking with ordinary people who, if they aren’t pleasantly blissfully unaware of any problem of Islam, positively begin to bristle when you talk too much about it, then start to inject the usual bromides that sound as if they have been reading from the same memo — “not all Muslims are bad”, “how many Muslims do you know?”, “my dentist is a Muslim and he’s a nice guy”, “do you know Arabic?”, “if Muslims are so bad, why aren’t all of them running around exploding?”, “do you want to kill all Muslims?”, “what about the Crusades?” — et fucking cetera).
And secondly, this division of Mankind into Elites and Non-Elites is rather antiquated, quaintly evoking the Middle Ages when there were Royalty over here, and Peasants over there. In our modern West, there is a vast and complex sociopolitical spectrum in between those two polarities. Would the editor of a small newspaper in Duluth, Minnesota, who parrots all the usual mantras and axioms about how Islam is not a problem, be a member of the Dastardy Elites, one wonders? And literally thousands of other examples of types of people who don’t neatly fit into that binary division.
Boston Tea Party says
I think a good example of what LemonLime is talking about is, IMO, the entire Iraq war debacle. This wasn’t some leftist plot—Bush told us (and believed, I think) that Islam is a religion of peace, that they’re just “ordinary Moms and Dads”, ostensibly comparable to any farm family in the Bible Belt. All we had to do was remove those few bad dictators and extremists, and the Muslim world would easily follow into the natural path of becoming good liberal Westerners. It was pretty much exactly the same worldview that leftists use to justify unlimited Muslim immigration to the West. The fundamental difference between the “left” and the “right” on the Iraq war was simply whether or not military force was appropriate, or how the oil revenues would be shared—but there wasn’t any serious disagreement as to the nature of Islam or its compatibility with Western values.
Islamispoisonbutsoishatingitinthewrongway says
Lemonlime,
this is a very perceptive comment. how would JW folks be able to accomplish what they are trying to do better by taking on board what you are saying?
LemonLime says
A belated reply by me, still getting the hang of this JW upgrade. How would JW folks be able to accomplish what they are trying to do better by taking on board what you are saying?
Well, I see that as a two-part or two-fold question. The still-inchoate anti-Islam movement remains embryonic and not entirely coherent because there seems to be no concerted platform: I.e., what exactly are JW folks (reflecting all who are “in” the still-inchoate anti-Islam movement) trying to do?
So your question also includes that internal question. Don’t get me wrong, it’s better to have a vaguely amorphous anti-Islam antipathy more or less galvanizing a growing embryo of a movement than not to have that; but surely more definition is needed.
Unfortunately, I often see, when some JW folks are prodded with probing questions about the problem of Muslims, discomfitting signs of a soft, squishy, nougaty center corrupted by asymptotic caramel, such that what I thought were no-nonsense stalwart Counter-JIhadists turn out to be barely distinguishable from George “Muslims-are-decent-moms-and-pops-like-the-rest-of-us” Bush’s war on terror.
Secondly, your question points to an important dimension of our overall movement: namely, that we are in, as Frank Gaffney aptly puts it, “the battle space of the war of ideas”. As such, this important dimension is about E-C-P: Education, Communication, Persuasion. And this war is not a civil war so much as a war that should remain civil — a struggle to persuade the majority of our fellow Westerners who persist in their myopia which, sociopolitically and psychologically, is a giant mass of tissue combining pleasantly passive laziness with starry-eyed politically correct sincerity. As such, it will take years, if not decades, to wake them up to the problem of Muslims. To recognize my previous point is to recognize that our internal dilemma is not as neatly polarized as most JW folks are irresponsibly implying all day long.
And this penchant for most JW folks to indulge in this polarization (between “Us Ordinary folks who get it” and “Them Damned Leftists over there”) is highly ironic, given how soft and naively gullible so many of these JW folks are about Muslims. If they could only adjust these two parameters to try to reverse them into their mirror image (tougher on all Muslims, more understanding of “liberals”), the movement’s “battle space” would become much more efficient, in tactics and substance. I think part of what’s going on here is “TPS” — the “Tea Party Syndrome”: These JW folks I am describing are really fixated on the “real problem” — Liberalism, with the problem of Islam only a peripheral sub-problem currently occupying their attention.
P.S.: It is our grim luck that Muslims will help this overall situation, by being unable to control themselves in the coming decades as they continue to spiral and metastasize in murder and mayhem, along with their hate-speech. This, complemented by our concerted effort at getting our act together in E-C-P, will, I am confident, wake up the Sleeping Lion that is the West.
EYESOPEN says
You are absolutely correct, Arius. Robert and Pamela will still be lone voices crying in the wilderness.
joeb says
Re-writing history (and let’s presume for the sake of argument that Mohammed existed) is the speciality of The Ministry of Truth.
AnneCrockett says
Oh my word! I laughed out loud (literally, not in the virtual LOL sense) at his childish prose. It sounds like a book report on Peter Rabbit.
Bettina says
I am aghast at this drivel on Huff Post — the ignorant, willfully useful idiot! Where on earth did his “research” take him? I think that either those documents are false and forgeries, or this guy is referring to the peaceful days of the Mo’s residency in Mecca, which gave way to verses that were eventually abrogated when the execrable Mo gathered steam as a raider and terrorist.
EYESOPEN says
One has to wonder what this “author” has been smoking – or drinking – or both!
No Fear says
Has Craig Considine even read any of the source texts of Islam?
Has Did George Washington say that those who fought against him should have their feet and hands cut off? (Quran 5:33)
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides…”
Did Washington light fires on men’s chests to extract information?
Ibn Ishaq 764 – After amassing a powerful army, Muhammad sent his forces to take the peaceful farming community of Khaybar by surprise. In the aftermath, he was dissatisfied with the amount of plunder and felt that the town’s treasurer, Kinana, might be holding out on him. He had the man brought to him:
When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.”
Did George Washington order people to be burnt alive in their houses because they did not attend church?
Bukhari (11:626) – “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.’ The Prophet added, ‘Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'” Muhammad orders his men to burn alive those who do not present themselves at the mosque for prayer.
Silvia says
Don’t you love journalistic and intellectual “integrity”??? Only telling the very beginning of the story, when the psycho-narcissistic-murderous pervert was hoping to get legitimacy and acknowledgement from Jews and Christians and how it all turned into an orgy of hate, plunder, rape, mass genocide, colonization and terror, all the way into the present and foreseeable future, when he didn’t get it???
JIMJFOX says
And I naively thought taqiyya was a solely Islamic principle but here we have a potential Ph.D spouting it. So much for educational qualifications.
EYESOPEN says
Frightening, isn’t it?
LemonLime says
Giving PC MCs like Considine the benefit of the doubt, they are not practicing taqiyya, but something worse: sincerely starry-eyed myopia about a major human rights evil. It’s worse because, unless the PC MC in question is actually neurologically brain-damaged, he has no ultimate excuse for this outrageously colossal derelection of intellectual and moral duty.
This may be one of the places where I differ from other Counter-Jihadists: I don’t really blame Muslims for their zombie-like fanaticism. It would be like blaming the jackal for rending my daughter’s flesh apart with its fangs; it would be silly to blame the jackal. One only in that context grieves for one’s daughter, and then resolves to protect the rest of one’s family and friends from the jackal. I think deep inside most Counter-Jihadists there lurks a neo-Wilsonian (either of the Christian flavor, or of the secular flavor) who still hedges hope for Muslims.
This may be important for it would tend to determine the flow and structure of one’s advocacy of sociopolitical policy in this regard. I.e., flowing from my perspective, the point is not to understand Muslims (except in terms of military strategy, of course), nor to save Muslims from Islam (only because this is mountainously impracticable) — but rather to protect our societies from them.
Wellington says
More nonsense from yet another nonsensical person at the nonsensical Hissy-Fit Post.
On a more serious note, though myself not religious in the least, I admire Christianity and think it an enlightened religion but am of the conviction that any Christian indicating respect for Islam is a confused Christian. For other religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and certainly Judaism, yes. But for Islam, how in the Hell can this be done? Mohammed and the wretched religion he founded refute one basic Christian doctrine after another, often with mockery (e.g., the Trinity), and want to have Christians in no way equal in this world to Muslims under Islamic law. What Buddhist, Hindu or Jew wants to deny a Christian equality under the law in this world? Speaking for myself, show me a Christian who says they admire Islam and I will show you a confused Christian. No exceptions.
BlueRaven says
Well: ” show me a Christian who says they admire Islam and I will show you a confused Christian. No exceptions.”
well put Well. Here is my extension ” show me a person who says they admire Islam and I will show you a lying person. No exceptions.”
EYESOPEN says
Wellington said: “What Buddhist, Hindu or Jew wants to deny a Christian equality under the law in this world?”
It would appear that those who benefit most from India’s “caste” system do not want Christians showing love and kindness to the “untouchables” and giving them a feeling of dignity, self-worth and hope.
These people, the poorest and most wretched of humanity of the lowest caste are forced to perform the hardest and most filthy “labor” for those in Hindu India’s upper castes such as emptying village latrines, burying cow carcasses, and tanning animal hides.
Untouchables are outcasts—people considered too impure, too polluted, to rank as worthy beings. Prejudice defines their lives, particularly in the rural areas, where nearly three-quarters of India’s people live. Untouchables are shunned, insulted, banned from temples and higher caste homes, made to eat and drink from separate utensils in public places, and, in extreme but not uncommon cases, are raped, burned, lynched, and gunned down.(These are the people that Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity fed and ministered to.)
The last thing those benefiting from the degradation of their fellow man want is for these wretched poor people to leave their Hindu cast for Christianity where they are shown that Jesus loves them and receive His peace and hope.
INDIA: ATTACKS PERSIST
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?story_ID=Mzg3
INDIA: THREATS IN KANDHAMAL
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?story_ID=NDYz
LemonLime says
It is important, now and again, to remind ourselves of the cultural inferiority of various Third World cultures — for the precisely pertinent reason that the PC MC that infects most of us in the West in varying degrees (including probably the majority of Jihad Watchers otherwise stalwartly conservative and no-nonsense about their anti-Islam), through a torturous sociocultural and psychocultural route over decades (if not really generations with historical roots stretching back at least to the 18th century) has developed the mantra that non-Western cultures and their precious peoples cannot be criticized (much less castigated and condemned when they indulge in outrageously inhumane beliefs and practices, such as the Untouchable prejudice mentioned by EYESOPEN, and a thousand and one other instances of various examples of cultural inferiority among Asians and Africans) — and this mantra is one major reason why Muslims and their Islam continue to be whitewashed if not positively protected throughout the West in a variety of ways, long past their shelf life of moral plausibility.
It’s okay to say, “they are inferior” and “we are better than they are” — not only because it’s true, but because by doing so, one exercises one’s politically incorrect muscles and brain tissue, and this helps to flush out the neo-Wilsonian toxins that still lurk in our systems — even among the best of us in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement (some day to become a full-fledged A.I.M.).
Champ says
Good grief more HuffPo madness! …and it’s also crazy to think that so many eat this nonsense up like candy.
Chris says
WOW! Ignorance is bliss for these “useful idiots”. I guess the Muslims who are slaughtering my, and Mr. Considine`s, fellow Catholics in Nigeria and Syria did not attend Mohammed 101 classes! Oh wait, maybe Mr. Considine is the one who is sorely wrong! Shameful…….
Jay Boo says
The Huff Post’s take on the Pentagon’s recent decision to relax the military dress code to accommodate ‘religious’ sensitivities and feelings of entitlement to proudly display one’s religion through clothing and beards.
“The policy was mainly expected to affect Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and members of other groups that wear beards or articles of clothing as part of their religion.”
Huff Post implies in the article that the Pentagon caved to the Sikh religion but given Pres. Obama’s groveling toward a certain other religion … well it goes without saying.
More at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/pentagon-religious-clothing_n_4651050.html
PJG says
“Muslims worldwide have recently joined together to celebrate Mawlid al-Nabi, the birthday of the Prophet…”
Ha, right! He’s wrong right from the start!
I attended a “Mawlid” myself a couple of years ago. Celebrating the “Prophet”‘s birthday was considered heretical by some(many?) Muslims, who said whoever celebrated it were “as bad as Christians”. And then a certain sect came in to disrupt the event violently.
I suppose physical attack can be seen as a “joining together” in some quarters.
This man is a dolt who refuses to learn.
(Like a neighbour of mine who works with Somalians. She said that yesterday one of them referred to us as “whiteys” by mistake. She proudly said she knows nothing about religion, so I gave her a quick and forceful blast of info…I’m fed up with these people who relish their own ignorance and stupidity.)
mortimer says
JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY?
EDITORIAL INTEGRITY?
FACTUAL INTEGRITY?
Not when covering religion…not at HuffPost! No! We bow to the terrorists. We genuflect to the hecklers. We grovel before our masters, the jihadists.
We pretend that a pedophile, a pirate, a plagiarizer, psychopath is a valid prophet. We humor the crocodile, hoping he will eat us last.
No1 says
How embarrassing that deceptions and misrepresentations that could not fool the Christians and Jews of ancient Arabia are now enough to fool the modern, “enlightened” leftists, despite the fact that the same documents that provide those deceptions also provide the barbaric aftermath that puts the lie to Mohammed’s words.
The dumbfounding naivety of these people somehow grows almost with each passing day. At this point, I’m pretty much expecting a mass conversion to the Religion of Peace by left wingers.
Kepha says
C’mon, guys, if you’re a Leftist, you know more about the other guy’s religion than he does himself–even if the other guy is a qualified theologian!
Sarc.
The longer I live, the more I’m convinced that Leftism represents both the death wish and stupefaction of Western civilization.
Wellington says
I concur, Kepha, with your assessment of what Leftism ultimately entails for Western Civilization (which is why it needs to be defeated as much as Islam). A greater collective idiot than modern Leftism in all of man’s history would be hard to find. It is, in the final analysis, a more lethal threat to WC than Islam. And even Islam can be spared criticisms that modern Leftism can’t, examples being self-hate and all kinds of huge advantages precisely because of WC. Hope you’re doing well in these very strange (and stupid) times in which we live.
BostonFire1872 says
Its the Hufffington Post, that says everything- That page is a far left propaganda site
Bettina says
Thank you for trying shed some light onto the idea of who the elite are in the West. As you pointed out, “…types of people who don’t neatly fit into that binary division” would be a challenge. Plebeians vs. Patricians is all well and good, but who are they, today? I’d be all for the plebe if only their leftist advocates weren’t so immersed in all that nauseating political correctness that paints ALL ethnic minorities with the same broad stroke, regardless of their real-time behaviors or their individual merits.
Correction: All minorities except Jews, of course. Now, that’s a special category onto itself, isn’t it? Siding with the perennially victimized Philistines, much better!
JamesonRocks says
Looks like the HuffPost is trying to sell the “big lie.” Maybe if they keep publishing it over and over they might actually come to believe it.
22hornet says
Wow what towering ignorance. Karen Armstrong is delusional. I wonder what the last thought in Karen’s head would be just before she get blown to pieces in a suicide bombing by the Gandhi Bomber.
RodSerling says
1. We need more Catholics like Spencer, less like Considine.
2. Even if we suppose that everything Considine says in his article about the wondrous goodness of Muhammad were true and accepted by the majority of Muslims today, overriding all of that is the fact that Muhammad, as described in the Islamic texts, (1) ordered the murder of apostates, blasphemers, adulterers, polytheists, and all non-Muslims who refused to embrace Islam or accept subjugation under Islamic rule; (2) enslaved non-Muslims; (3) took captive and raped non-Muslim women and girls; (4) raped a nine-year-old girl; (5) and more, including the small matter of having his followers (Muslims) pledge to wage war against all humankind, which they did, and which they’ve been doing for over 1300 years.
The shorter version of that, by way of analogy: It doesn’t matter if Ted Bundy helped little old ladies across the street.
Indeed, the apparently “charming” aspects of Bundy made him even more dangerous, because it lulled people into putting their guard down. And so it is with any of the apparently “positive” things alleged about Muhammad: They merely serve his, and his followers’, evil scheme against non-Muslims. Considine is the kind of groupie who would be sending love letters to Ted Bundy or Charles Manson.
RodSerling says
1. We need more Catholics like Spencer, less like Considine.
2. Even if we suppose that everything Considine says in his article about the wondrous goodness of Muhammad were true and accepted by the majority of Muslims today, overriding all of that is the fact that Muhammad, as described in the Islamic texts, upon which Considine draws, (1) ordered the murder of apostates, blasphemers, adulterers, polytheists, and all non-Muslims who refused to embrace Islam or accept subjugation under Islamic rule; (2) enslaved non-Muslims; (3) took captive and raped non-Muslim women and girls; (4) raped a nine-year-old girl; (5) and more.
The shorter version of that, by way of analogy: It doesn’t matter if Ted Bundy helped little old ladies across the street.
Indeed, the apparently “charming” aspects of Bundy made him even more dangerous, because it lulled people into a false sense of security, which in turn enabled Bundy to rape, torture, and kill them. And so it is with any of the apparently “positive” things alleged about Muhammad: They merely serve his, and his followers’, grand evil scheme against non-Muslims.
22hornet says
Wow what a total idiot, I wonder what the last thought will be in her head as her body is blown to pieces by a Gandhi Bomber?
Davegreybeard says
Cannot “reclaim old account” as a new “password” never arrives in my email.
The new system aint workin for me!
Champ says
Hi Davegreybeard …if you’re having trouble logging in, then that means you have to register anew with WordPress. Hope this helps!
tjhawk says
That was a steaming pile. Don’t want to step in that again.
Davegreybeard says
The system to “reclaim your old account” does not work. A new password never arrives in my email..
irmafny says
HuffPo is not surprisingly uninterested in vetting his BS blog assertions.Maybe if they keep publishing it over and over they might actually come to believe it.Siding with the perennially victimized Philistines, much better!I guess the idea is that by playing pandering sycophant to the bullies within Islam, they will reform themselves.
RodSerling says
Considine picks his cherry from the so-called “farewell address” of Muhammad:
“An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”
There is abundant evidence, from the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, Islamic history and law, and present-day Islam that is contrary to this apparent declaration of equality between Arabs and non-Arabs.
First, note the exception in the above declaration, “by piety and good action.” According to the Islamic textual sources, Arabs are superior to others in piety. Allah allegedly speaks Arabic, and chose an Arabic messenger (Muhammad) to deliver the scripture and the wisdom to Arabs first. Prayers must be in Arabic. An Arab speaker must lead the prayers. The caliph must be an Arab (the obvious major historical exception being the Ottoman Turks). The Qur’an, which was allegedly revealed in Arabic, must be recited in Arabic. Muslims must bow toward Mecca (i.e., toward Arabia if they are outside of it), Islam’s holiest place; and they must urinate or defecate facing away from it. They must go on the hajj, to Mecca, Arabia. Non-Muslims are not permitted to practice their religions in Arabia.
From classical Islamic law:
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 – By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK M: MARRIAGE >> Chapter M-4.0: A Suitable Match (Kafa`a)
M-4.1
Suitability concerns lineage, religiousness, profession, and being free of defects that permit annulling the marriage contract (def: m-7). (N: As for color, it is of no consideration in suitability.) @M-4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another:
1- a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
“Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”);
2- a corrupt man (def: o-24.3) for a virtuous woman (O: though it is sufficient for the would-be husband to have given up his wrongdoing);
3- a man of a lowly profession for the daughter of someone with a higher profession, such as a tailor wanting to marry a merchant’s daughter (A: though an Islamic scholar is a suitable match for any level whatever);
4- or someone with a defect that permits annulling the marriage (def: m-7) for someone without such defects.
Being wealthy has nothing to do with suitability (O: for money comes and goes, and those with self-respect and intelligence do not take pride in it), nor does being elderly.
Fiqhul Ibadat, version 1.04 – Hajja Durriah Aitah
PART THREE >> THE BOOK OF PRAYER >> Congregational prayer (JAMA’A) >> Legal status of congregational prayer >> The most rightful person to be imam
The most rightful person to be imam in order of preference is a governor in his region, then the assigned imam of a mosque, then the person living in the house where the prayer takes place (whether he owns, rents, or borrows it, and whether it was an endowment, a bequest, a gift, or the like) for he takes precedence over anyone in his house including a scholar.
[…]
The person most entitled to be imam is the one who is;
-the most learned in jurisprudence, followed by
-the one who has memorized the most Quran, then
-the most ascetic.
-the most god-fearing. (pa: 229)
-the one who has been a Muslim longest.
-the oldest.
–the most closely related to the Prophet (P. B. U. H), so a Qurashi, then a Muttalibi, then any Arab, take precedence over others, and the son of a righteous person or scholar takes precedence over others.
-the one with the most pious life history.
-the one with the cleanest clothes.
-the cleanest in person.
-the one with the cleanest profession.
-the one with the sweetest voice.
-the most handsome.
-the married.
[…]
Fiqhul Ibadat, version 1.04 – Hajja Durriah Aitah
PART THREE >> THE BOOK OF PRAYER >> Congregational prayer (JAMA’A) >> THE FRIDAY PRAYER (JUMU’A) >> The conditions for the two khutbas
[…]
8- That the two khutbas be in Arabic, if there is an Arab in the congregation, otherwise, it is valid for it not be in Arabic except the Quran which must be in Arabic. (pa: 238)
One person of the congregation, at least, must learn Arabic, for if not, all are sinful and their Friday prayer is not valid with the ability of one of them to learn.
[…]
The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 – By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
Translator’s additions >> Chapter O-25.0: The Caliphate
O-25.3: The Qualifications of a Caliph
[…]
(e) of the Quraysh tribe (K: because of the (H: well-authenticated (hasan) ) hadith related by Nasa’i.
“The Imams are of the Quraysh.”
a hadith adhered to by the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and those after them, this qualification being obligatory when there is a member of Quraysh available who meets the other conditions) (H: though when there is not, then the next most eligible is a qualified member of the Kinana tribe, then of the Arabs, then of the non-Arabs);
No non-Muslim religions openly practiced in Arabia:
Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled.”
Superiority of prayers in the two holy mosques (i.e., in Arabia, Medina and Mecca):
Sahih Muslim
(24) Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrated It directly from Allah’s Apostle’ (may peace be upon him) having said this: A prayer in my mosque is a thousand times more excellent than a prayer in any other mosque, except Masjid al-Haram (Mosque of the Ka’ba). (Book #007, Hadith #3209)
The “Arabness” of Muhammad:
“The apostle of God used to say to his companions, ‘I am the most Arab of you all.’” (Ishaq, p. 72).
Arab supremacy over non-Arabs:
Muhammad, quoted in Tabari:
“I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs.”
Note: Muhammad’s tribe was the Quraysh, a tribe allegedly of light-skinned or “white” Arabs. Not only did Muhammad mandate Arab supremacism, he mandated that his particular tribe of Arabs should rule over other Arabs, and everyone else:
Patricia Crone, God’s Rule p. 367. Muhammad’s appeal to the Quraysh:
“I want them to profess a single creed by which the Arabs will accept them as their leaders (tudina lahum biha) and the non-Arabs will pay them jizya.”
Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, I, 227.-2.
Arab-centric revisionism:
Ishaq, p. 628. – Arab Quraysh allegedly pure stock of Ishmael, sons of Abraham.
The superiority of the Arab Quraysh:
Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4473:
It has been narrarted on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among the people being subservient to the disbelievers among them.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 709:
Narrated Anas: Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-‘As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts of the Holy Qur’an in the form of book in several copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons. “If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Quran, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Quran was revealed in their language.” So they acted accordingly. (Said bin Thabit was an Ansari and not from Quraish ).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 704:
Narrated Muhammad bin Jubair bin Mut’im:
That while he was with a delegation from Quraish to Muawiya, the latter heard the news that ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As said that there would be a king from the tribe of Qahtan. On that Muawiya became angry, got up and then praised Allah as He deserved, and said, “Now then, I have heard that some men amongst you narrate things which are neither in the Holy Book, nor have been told by Allah’s Apostle. Those men are the ignorant amongst you. Beware of such hopes as make the people go astray, for I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, and whoever bears hostility to them, Allah will destroy him as long as they abide by the laws of the religion.’ ”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 700:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “The tribe of Quraish has precedence over the people in this connection (i.e the right of ruling). The Muslims follow the Muslims amongst them, and the infidels follow the infidels amongst them. People are of different natures: The best amongst them in the pre-lslamic period are the best in Islam provided they comprehend the religious knowledge. You will find that the best amongst the people in this respect (i.e. of ruling) is he who hates it (i.e. the idea of ruling) most, till he is given the pledge of allegiance.”
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za’idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father’s name is the same as my father’s, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny (according to the version of Fitr). Sufyaan’s version says: “The world will not pass away before the Arabs are ruled by a man of my family whose name will be the same as mine.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 36, No. 4269)
Hazrat Umme Salmah (RA), Prophet’s wife, narrates that she heard the Prophet (SAW) say:
“The promised Mahdi will be among my progeny, among the descendants of Fatima.”
(Abu Dawud, Sahih, Vol. 2, P. 207; Ibn Majah, Sahih, Vol. 2, P. 519)
The Messenger of Allah announced, “The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatima (the Prophet’s daughter).”
(Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, Tradition No. 4086)
Jabir bin Samurah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
I joined the company of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve Caliphs among them. Then he (the Holy Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: All of them will be from the Quraish.
Hadith number in Sahih Muslim [Arabic only]: 3393
‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only two persons are left (on the earth).
Hadith number in Sahih Muslim [Arabic only]: 3392
From Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, p. 149. Averroes writes “Abu Ubayd has related that the Prophet never enslaved male Arabs.”
From Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad. P. 146.
“There is no inconvenience to kill white non-Arabs who have been taken prisoner”. Ibn Abi Zayd Al_Qayrawani, La Risala ou Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi de l’Islam selon le rite malikite. 8th ed. Translated from Arabic by Leon Bercher. Algiers: 1980, p. 163
“President Nimeiry’s statements during the slaughter of over a half million blacks in the Sudan in the 1960s and 1970s (and several times more ever since) that…the Sudan is the basis of the Arab thrust into…black Africa, the Arab civilizing mission (“Arabism and Pan-Arabism in Sudanese Politics,” Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 11, #2, 1973, pp. 177-78)”
LemonLime says
Actually, it seems that for defecating, the Muslim must neither face toward nor away from Mecca, but rather perpendicularly in relation to Mecca:
From a hadith in the collection of Bukhari, the most authoritative collection of hadiths in Islam:
The Prophet said, “While defecating, neither face nor turn your back to the Qibla but face either east or west.” …
(Volume 1, Book 8, Number 388)
For more, see Perpendicular Pooping
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/08/perpendicular-pooping.html
RodSerling says
LL,
Lol. Are there better things we could be doing on a Saturday afternoon?
Anyway, yes, there is a tradition where Muhammad is supposed to have said people should not face the Qibla nor turn their backs directly to it, when defecating. It’s not that simple though, because there are also examples where Muhammad is seen defecating with his back facing it, e.g.,
Sahih Muslim, Book 002, Number 0510:
Abdullah b. Umar said: I went up to the roof of the house of my sister Hafsa and saw the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) relieving himself facing Syria, with his back to the Qibla.
The important point as I understand it is that they shouldn’t be facing their holiest site when they are doing something filthy. Whether they are facing 180 degrees away, or are facing 90 degrees away, was not really important to my point.
The 90 degrees rule is interesting (well, in this context…), because it is based on the assumption that the so-called Bait-ul-Maqdis, which Muslims now claim as theirs, is an Islamic holy site. Thus, each time an orthodox Muslim who follows that rule takes a crap, he or she is making a supremacist political statement at the same time.
RodSerling says
A bit more detail…(from muhaddith.org)
Fiqhul Ibadat, version 1.04 – Hajja Durriah Aitah
PART TWO >> THE BOOK OF PURIFICATION (TAHARA) >> Addendum >> Going to the bathroom >> Proper manners of going to the bathroom
[…]
18- There are three rules for urinating or defecating facing the qibla or with one’s back to it:
-a- It is prohibited to urinate or defecate with one’s face or back towards the qibla when outdoors (e. g. desert) and there is no barrier to screen one or there is a barrier that does not satisfy the conditions.
Abu Ayub Al-Ansari (G. p. H) said:
“The Prophet (P. B. U. H) said:
“‘If one of you wants to go to the bathroom, he should not face the qibla nor turn his back towards it, face east or west”.
[Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, The Book of Wudu, Chapter 11/144].
Also, it is narrated by Abu Hurayrah (G. p. H) that: “The Prophet (P. B. U. H)said:
“I am like a father to you, teaching you: If one of you wants to go to the bathroom, he should not face the qibla or turn his back towards it.
He should not clean himself with his right hand”. ‘ He used to tell us to use three stones, and prohibit the use of manure (to clean ourselves with)”.
[Abu Dawood, Vol. 1, The Book of Purification, Chapter 4/8]. (pa: 32)
-b- It is best not to urinate or defecate with one’s face or back towards the qibla even if there is a barrier.
-c- It is not prohibited, makrooh, or foregoing what is fitter to urinate or defecate with one’s front or back towards the qibla in places intended to relieve oneself
(Bathrooms), but it is more polite to avoid it, and to sit turning to the side slightly if this is possible without trouble.
[…]”
Gamaliel Isaac says
There is overwhelming blatant hate in the Koran toward the infidel, Craig Considine couldn’t have not seen that, his omission of all the hate is clearly deliberate. Does he think he can convince the Muslims that their religion is peaceful? Does he think that he can fool non-Muslims into loving Muslims so that there will be no hate and everyone will live in peace and harmony? Is he trying to tap into Muslim funding in order to enrich himself? Is he trying to further his career in the appeasement minded church by setting himself as an example of interfaith understanding? Whatever his motivation, pretending someone loves you, when they hate you will not protect you against them, on the contrary, it makes it easier for them to kill you.
PJG says
Do you think that perhaps one reason some people convert to Islam is that they are given permission to hate? We in thoroughly PC Western societies are banned from hatred; we have to tolerate and embrace and forgive and welcome and adhere to anti-bullying poliices and be pacifists…I don’t even think we are allowed to hate terrorists any more, because it’s too close to hating Muslims.
Our heroes are Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and all that lot, never men who would (gasp!) fight for freedom or Christianity or country or anything at all.
But Muslims can fight and hate until the cows come home – it’s a free-for-all hatefest!
Maybe it’s too much for some people; they go bonkers and turn to Islam for some relief from all the saintliness.
Just an idea…
ApolloSpeaks says
ISLAM IS A RELIGION BASED ON POWER AND STRENGTH
founded by an enemy of PROGRESS AND FREEDOM who lived by the principle MIGHT MAKES RIGHT-advancing his faith by the sword when the power of persuasion (mere preaching) proved useless.
David says
Could someone please drop this fool off in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc for a year & see if he has come to his senses. He’s either an idiot, a liar, or both.
David says
Could someone drop this fool off in an Islamic country for a year, & see if he has changed his ideas after a dose of the real world. He’s either a liar or ignorant, maybe both.
david1508 says
How about this fool goes & lives in an Islamic country for a year, see if he still thinks the same thing when he gets a taste of the real world where Muslims may burn down his christian church at any time, maybe with him in it.
Paleologos says
Robert,
Ariana Huffington has appered so many times on moron Bill Maher’s show, anybody that writes for her is immediately suspect.
I see this clown is Catholic … i.e., a Catholic who converts to islam.
Of course we all know the most famous Catholic clown … Jabbar.
http://www.nba.com/history/players/abduljabbar_bio.html
#2 on the all time muslim hit list, right after Jews, is Catholic Crusaders.
I am Catholic, and the greatest recent Catholic champion for Israel was Benedict XVI, who inflamed the muslim world with his famous Regensburg Speech, cautioning against conversion by the sword. In response, the muslim scum tried to intimidate Benedict by immediately murdering a Roman Catholic nun who spent 40 years of her life trying to educate these muslim “things”.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
Roman Catholic priests are routinely murdered in Turkey … look it up, but mainstream media never reports this because the pattern doesn’t fit their muslim ass kissing model.
R/
Paleologos
somehistory says
On behalf of all seventh grade students: They could, one and all, do better.
I’ve read better fiction written by five-year-old children and they had the good sense to know it was fiction.
I hope no one reading the post at huffington really believes this stuff about islam’s founder.
Abdul Aziz says
Robert,
You should notice that the words: “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” are bad rip off of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 and they don’t the version in Ibn Ishaq.
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/89-other-authors/134-fraudulent-translation-of-muhammad-last-sermon-egalitarian.html
[FA] says
How does a Catholic support a false prophet? How does a Catholic proselytize for a false prophet? Unless he believes Muhammad is a prophet of God, in which case he should convert to Islam, Muhammad is a false prophet and therefore EVIL. There is no other options to choose from. What happened to the basic teachings of logic and reason? I wonder if the author of this ignorance could tell me where exactly it was Muhammad lived with OUT killing someone? If Muhammad was a harmless loving guy that should be easy. If Islam instructs peace then just where are all these peaceful verses? We have no trouble quoting countless verses calling for rape, murder, and oppression. When confronted I have only been presented with a few very deceptive verses, such as 5:32.
GWhizz says
If you are a doctoral candidate in religion and you want to graduate, you have to ‘toe the line’. He is repeating the line of his institution and embellishing it with islamic propaganda designed to lull the senses and calm the mind. War is deceit, war is submission to the will of allah .
Sam says
Shame on anybody who tries to picture Islam as a religion of peace. Give me a break!
Richard says
I have read several books by Karen Armstrong. None showed any real depth of understanding and scholarship. She should have remained an obedient nun in the convent. She would have done more good by practicing silence.
The aton says
this is almost as bad as ‘the first muslim’ by leslie hazleton.
take a look at the comments section on Amazon – it is either one star or five stars. loads of fawning recommendations by muslims, and then there is the incredulous critisism by people with more than half a brain.
it seems impossible that educated people (muslims) would be taken in by such ridiculous propaganda, but they are. they have all the rational common sense of four-year olds.
Elise says
Can anyone say that George Washington forced colonists and others to believe in his God? I don’t think so. Did George Washington kill men and take their wives and sisters as sex slaves or force them to marry him? I don’t think so. George Washington did not marry a child. George Washington did not force people of different religious beliefs to pay a tax and he forced no one to convert to his beliefs. George Washington did not kill unmarried women who happened to be pregnant. I can’t see any comparison between George Washington and Mohammed, except for the Y chromosome. What history book has the author of the article been reading?
What is this Muslim thing about hygiene? Very few of the Muslims I know, in my city know how to keep their houses clean or yards clean. Many seem to lack parenting skills and life skills. Somehow the Angus steaks I made could not be eaten at my BBQ because they were not halal, but they tasted great.
RodSerling says
This Considine character has got quite a hate on for Robert Spencer.
Considine, writing in a comment on his blog [quoted as is]:
“The freedom we have in this country allows such deceitful people as Spencer the right to free speech. Spencer, as dispicable as he is, is merely a symptom of the maladies in our society. He is a carpetbagger of the worst kind who solicits funds from like-minded individuals in an effort to secure individual personal wealth and insipid idolatry.
Dr. Ahmed is a very brave man and has spent a lifetime promoting interfaith dialog while being insulted, threatened, and defamed by people like Spencer. Our society (and the world) needs more genuine people like you. One day Spencer will go back under his rock and disappear, but your work will continue lead by those that refuse to fall victim to the vitriol spewed by hate mongers like Spencer.”
Instead of hating on Spencer with these false accusations and vitriol, Considine should apply his own alleged principles, the ones he’s busy preaching to everyone else, and start a dialogue with Spencer. What’s stopping him from following his own advice in this case?
Another lie from Considine: “I prove that he [Akbar Ahmed] is a leading Muslim figure in the fight against religious extremism and that not all Muslims are extremists, as Spencer claims.”
In fact, Spencer has never claimed or suggested that all Muslims are extremists. On the contrary.
LemonLime says
Another lie from Considine: “I prove that he [Akbar Ahmed] is a leading Muslim figure in the fight against religious extremism and that not all Muslims are extremists, as Spencer claims.”
In fact, Spencer has never claimed or suggested that all Muslims are extremists. On the contrary.
Yet another example of the fact that PC MCs tend not to be placated when we tell them we are not condemning all Muslims. I have seen this time and time again, with Robert Spencer’s castigaters, as well as many others (e.g., Daniel Pipes), where PC MCs will demonize an Islam critic as a “hater of all Muslims” even when the critic takes pains to clarify that he is not condemning (or even criticizing) all Muslims.
This prevalent irrationality on the part of PC MCs long ago led me to the conclusion that we should say the hell with them and “Breibart” on them. We should stop walking on eggshells and taking pains not to offend their PC MC sensibilities — especially since such gingerly timidity on our part seems to have no effect on them: they will damn us if we do and damn us if we don’t. So let’s do.
LemonLime says
Slight correction to the above: I meant to italicize the first two paragraphs (in order to show I was quoting RodSerling).
RodSerling says
Considine is doing his doctorate in Sociology. His previous degrees are in Politics and International Relations. He is, or was, a research assistant of Islam apologist Akbar Ahmed.
Considine may not know much about Islam beyond a small sampling of secondary sources, but he knows enough about it to suppress negative material in order to further the cause of interfaith dialogue as he sees it.
gravenimage says
Huffington Post: “Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights”
………………………………………….
“Useful idiot” is right—no characterization could be further from the truth as presented in Islam’s own “holy” books.
More:
Muslims worldwide have recently joined together to celebrate Mawlid al-Nabi, the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad
………………………………………….
Even this is utterly false. Some Muslims do celebrate the “Prophet’s” birthday, but many more condemn such a celebration as a violation of Tawhid. For orthodox Muslims, the only permitted celebrations are of the two Eids.
More:
I want to share with you what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam.
………………………………………….
Clearly, he is *misinformed*—but his ignorance is of the wilfull variety.
More:
Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.
………………………………………….
Simply grotesque. As soon as Muhammed had sufficient power in Medina, he began exiling Jewish tribes. Later, he would often seize all their movable property, as well, then moved on to killing all the men of a tribe and enslaving all the women and children.
Among his last words were a vow to eradicate all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula.
More:
Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egyp
………………………………………….
Citing this last is simply grotesque—this is a well-known forgery, concocted by the Monks themselves, in the hope of turning away Muslim savagery. The supposed “copy” of the original is full of anachronisms.
This just shows how appallingly bad Considine’s scholarship is—he is either woefully ignorant or else utterly fraudulent.
More:
There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived…
………………………………………….
As noted, these documents are almost certainly forgeries by the victims of aggressive Muslims. I’m not sure how well they ever worked at turning aside Muslim savagery, but they apologist tools for Islam just *love* them.
More:
Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.”…
………………………………………….
Which rather puts to lie to Muslims—and their clueless apologists—who insist that the Jizya was a nominal tax. In fact, my guess is that the terrible Janissary system—which seized Infidel’s children for the army and the sex slave trade—in the last Caliphate was just a formalization of the desperation of impoverished Infidel victims handing over their children. *Ugh*.
More:
Similarly, in the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet stated Jews “may be in peace… you are in security [under Muhammad’s rule]… Towards you is no wrong and no enmity. After today you will not be subject to oppression or violence.” In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.”
………………………………………….
Of course, Considine doesn’t tell you—or perhaps does not know—about Muhammed’s appalling targeting of Jewish tribes, including the Banu Querayza, where Muhammed is supposed to have had every male above the age of puberty beheaded. Accounts have up to *900* victims beheaded. Women and children were then enslaved.
More:
In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends.
………………………………………….
This is utterly deceptive. The Qur’an and Hadith are full of passages that curse Jews, including those calling them the biggest enemies of Muslims.
What about the Hadith that has stones and trees in the last days given voice so that they can say, “Oh, Muslim!” There is a Jew hiding behind me; come kill him!”
But even the idea that Infidels do’;t have to convert is misleading—Considine says *nothing* about dhimmitude—the organized oppression of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Besides the crushing Jizya, Infidels are not considered equal to Muslims before the law, and are subject to kidnapping, rape, forced conversions, and periodic mob violence—all with no legal recourse.
Everything about dhimmitude is intended to make is so difficult and humiliating that many will eventually convert to Islam.
More:
In developing these agreements with his fellow Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.
………………………………………….
What a complete inversion of historical reality.
More:
According to Muhammad, humanity was at the heart of Islam. In my reading and interpretation of his last sermon at Mount Arafat in 632 AD, I learned that the Prophet fought against racism long before the days of Martin Luther King Jr…
………………………………………….
How grotesque is this? Islam is the only creed that *still* practices the enslavement of blacks Africans. Northern Sudanese and Nigerians style themselves as “Arab” and regularly enslave their black African confreres. Enslavement of southern blacks was a deliberate policy in Sudan until Southern Sudan broke away out of desperation. Slavery is still rife in Mauritania. In fact, “Abd” in Arabic means both “black” and “slave”.
More:
“An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” Muhammad’s final sermon informed me that Islam teaches Muslims to be tolerant of difference and welcome to diversity.
Yet all too many Arab Muslims have lorded it over non-Arab Muslims throughout Islamic history, and some do today. Why are there so many who misunderstand Muhammad’s clear words here?
………………………………………….
And many non-Arabs—such as Pakistanis—have adopted the surname “Quereshi” in order to claim that they are Arab.
In fact, Islam is rife with Arab supremacy.
More:
My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington, a key founding father of America.
………………………………………….
Simply grotesque…this is just like claiming violent Jihad terrorists are just the same as revolutionary Americans fighting for their freedom.
More:
In a January 2013 article for the Huffington Post titled “An Unlikely Connection Between Muhammad and George Washington,” I examined how these two great men virtually shared identical opinions on social conduct, modesty, humility, respect, and even hygiene. In making these connections, it seems to me that Islamic values as expressed by Muhammad, and American values as expressed by Washington, are quite similar. Muslims and non-Muslim Americans can look to the example of Prophet Muhammad and George Washington as a way to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding.
………………………………………….
This is just the meretricious Imam Rauf, who wrote a sickening book entitled, “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America”, grotesquely asserting that the American Constitution and the barbarism of Shari’ah law are based on the same values.
This is obviously false, but is intended to lull Americans into a false sense of security as Shari’ah gains a foothold here. *Ugh*.
More:
Yes, Muhammad was exactly like George Washington. You remember the stories: George consummated his marriage with Martha when he was 54 and she was nine, and she was one of about a dozen wives of the first President; Washington once personally beheaded between 600 and 900 Redcoats; married his former daughter-in-law; declared that he had been commanded to fight against people until they confessed that there was no Constitution but the Constitution and he was the first President — so many similarities.
………………………………………….
Yes—simply absurd. Don’t forget the part where Washington was president-for-life, and where all subsequent presidents were assassinated in internecine palace intrigues…oh…wait…
More:
Studying Muhammad has taught me invaluable lessons on the fundamental principles of Islam, but more importantly, principles of life itself. His treatment of religious minorities and his basic moral beliefs have encouraged me to further promote dialogue between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and to improve my own everyday character and conduct. Without a doubt, my research into the Prophet’s life has showed me that he is a role model for both Muslims and non-Muslims and that humanity can benefit from Islam.
………………………………………….
Really? Can we then expect Mr. Considine to marry a nine-year-old and have his critics assassinated?
All I can assume is that, just like the desperate medieval Christians who forged documents from the “merciful” Muhammed, that Craig Considine desperately hopes that if he presents Islam and its founder as civilized that it will be so. He’ll just have to keep ignoring the mounting body count of his fellow Christians—and many others—slaughtered at Muslim hands everyday.
No problem, though—Craig Considine appears to be very, very good at ignoring reality…
RodSerling says
Considine: “In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.” In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends. In developing these agreements with his fellow Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.”
It’s not so much a constitution as we would recognize today, but a unilaterally declared pact by one group upon others. As Robert mentioned, it is of doubtful authenticity. Yet even if we assume it is authentic, its substance contains many loopholes, ambiguities, and Islamic supremacist elements. Here is an online example:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm
We’ve analyzed these problems before, in dealing with the usual apologetics about the Medina Constitution, apologetics that seem to be based on a kind of bet that few will bother to spend the time to actually read it, and thus the apologetic claims about this supposedly miraculous document can proceed unchallenged. Here are some elements that caught my eye:
Here is the last statement:
“(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.”
There are no definitions of unjust or sinner in the document. Everything is referred back to Muhammad and Allah. If you are a non-Muslim, file this document under “G” for garbage. It is bullshit. No non-Muslim in his or her right mind would freely consent to such terms, given the huge, practically infinite range of what is considered “unjust” and “sinful” by Muhammad and “Allah” (Qur’an). The Qur’an says repeatedly that the most unjust, sinful thing you can do is disbelieve Islam and express that disbelief of Islam, especially after you’ve been “invited” to embrace it. If you are a non-Muslim who refused to embrace Islam or accept subjugation under Islamic law (as a slave or dhimmi), you are to be fought and killed, according to the Qur’an (9:5, 9:29). The document clearly suggests that anyone who violates any of Islam’s many rules could have their protection voided. Criticize Muhammad, and Muslims will kill you according to Muhammad’s orders.
“(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.”
injustice, sin, corruption–all understood in Islamic terms, even though non-Muslims may be unaware of the Islamic conceptions. This section obligates Muslims to take actions, possibly vigilante actions (commanding the right and forbidding the wrong), against anyone who violates Islamic rules or sensitivities.
“(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.”
Classic sharia: Muslim lives are sacred, non-Muslims’ lives aren’t. Why would any non-Muslim sign on to this voluntarily?
“(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.”
Alternative translation/interpretation (follow links from the above link): “The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.”
So much for equality. Muslims are better, the best, according to this document.
“(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.”
Define evil-doer. Muhammad had people killed for blasphemy, adultery, and ordered the death penalty for apostasy. This article suggests that Muslims cannot help or shelter someone who violates Islamic law in these ways, but must turn them over to the authorities who will carry out the death penalty.
“(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.”
That’s from the Qur’an (especially 4:59, but read the passage right along to 4:91). Just like the appeals to Sharia as the final authoritative source for interpreting constitutions in Islamic countries today, e.g., see Cairo Declaration. In other words, the Medina constitution refers back to Muhammad and Allah (Hadith and Qur’an) for definitions and examples, including for those vague terms like sinful, corruption, unjust, etc.
“(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.”
Again, no protection for those who behave “unjustly” and “sinfully”: You’re fried if you disagree with Muhammad and Islam and say so publicly or do anything contrary to Islamic rules. (And that includes Islam’s rules for how non-Muslims religions are to be understood and practiced–forget about Jews being allowed to practice their own religion as they themselves understand it).
“(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.”
Who says honour killings aren’t enabled by Islam? If you think the constitution of Medina is valid and good, then you think it’s okay that women are required to have the permission of their families to have protection. Many of these families believe in honour codes that permit killing for alleged or perceived sexual improprieties. That doesn’t worry Considine, does it?
Conclusion: Considine is, at minimum, a fool and a tool.
EYESOPEN says
I liked Pamela’s take on the matter: “It’s to vomit.” (Gag, choke, puke.)
Jay says
He was not tolerant of all religions. Only the two Abrahamic religions that preceded Islam – Judaism and Christianity. Even that level of tolerance we would consider to be more akin to discrimination and bigotry. As for non-Abrahamic religions:
“…Those who follow a religion which is not specified as lawful, that is to say, who do not have a recognized sacred scripture, are not to be allowed the tolerance o the Muslim state. Their choice is conversion or death, which may be commuted to enslavement. This did not present any great problem in the countries of the Middle East in the earliest areas of Islamic expansion – in the Fertile Crescent, North Africa, Sicily, Spain – because everyone was either Christian or Jewish. It presented some problems in Iran, where most people were Zoroastrians, and even more when the Muslims got to India and confronted Hindus, who were manifestly polytheist and appeared to be idol-worshippers. Eventually, legal formulas were found to accommodate all of these….” The Multiple Identities of the Middle East by Bernard Lewis
Not all four schools allowed the non-Abrahamic religions like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians etc… to be dhimmis like the Jews and Christians. Only one. It is not true that it was not much problem in the earliest days of expansion. Arab polytheists, African animists etc.. also suffered and many exist no more.
This guy on Huffington Post is covering up genocide that Hindus and others faced at the hands of Mohammed and his followers.
Jay says
The whole no-compulsion-in-religion everyone talks about Islam having only applies to those people who are allowed to be dhimmis – Jew and Christians. All the other religions which Islam does not recognize as having sacred scripture are not afforded the “tolerance,” and the no-compulsion-in-religion does not apply to non-dhimmis.
perfect vision says
hi want to have great eyecare want you to follow these tips on this page aparesen fasebook so you will notice significant changes in your vision