Over the years there have been informative articles written about how the phrase “Allahu akbar” (Allah is greater) has been used since the time of Muhammad as both a Muslim battle cry and for other occasions.[1] However, during the time of Muhammad, there were numerous battles in which the Muslims used other battle cries that were quite direct in announcing the impending slaughter of those on the receiving end of the Muslims’ swords. Here are some examples:
In March 625, the Quraysh tribe of Mecca and some of their allies attacked the Muslims in Medina; this was known as the Battle of Uhud. The Muslim army, under Muhammad’s command, had two battle cries that day: “I seek death, I seek death,”[2] and “Kill! Kill!”[3] The Muslim army sustained heavy causalities, but the Quraysh failed to defeat them.
In December 627, Muhammad led an attack against the Banu al-Mustaliq tribe. The Banu Al-Mustaliq were defeated, and their property, women and children were divided among the Muslims. The battle cry of the Muslims that day was, “O victorious one, slay, slay!”[4]
In June 628, Muhammad led a Muslim army against the Jewish community of Khaybar. Muhammad told his warriors, “You will not go out with me unless you desire jihad. As for plunder, there will be none.”[5] Fittingly, the battle cry of the Muslims was “O victorious one, slay, slay!”[6] As the Muslims attacked, Muhammad called out, “Allah akbar [sic]! Khaybar is destroyed.”[7]
In December 628, Muhammad sent a Muslim raiding party to Najd under the command of Abu Bakr, his father-in-law and trusted friend. Their battle cry was reported as “Amit, amit (put to death, put to death),” and “Kill! Kill!”[8] Salamah bin Akwa’, one of the participants in the raid, later described how well they adhered to those battle cries:
It was narrated from Iyas bin Salamah bin Akwa’, that his father said: “We attacked Hawazin, with Abu Bakr, during the time of the Prophet, and we arrived at an oasis belonging to Bani Fazarah during the last part of the night. We attacked at dawn, raiding the people of the oasis, and killed them, nine or seven households.[9]
Salamah stated, “I slew with my hand members of seven families of the polytheists.”[10]
In June 629, Muhammad sent an expedition under the command of Ghalib bin ‘Abdullah to conduct a surprise attack against the Banu al-Mulawwah in al-Kadayd. The Muslims attacked after the people had gone to sleep. They killed the warriors and took the children as prisoners. The battle cry of the Muslims that night was variously reported as: 1) “Kill! Kill!”[11]; 2) “Amit, amit.”[12]; and 3) “Slay! Slay!”[13]
In May 632, Muhammad ordered an expedition to attack the Byzantines at a town named Ubna (this was known as the Expedition to Mu’ta). Muhammad chose Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah to lead the expedition. However, Muhammad’s death on June 7th delayed the attack. Soon after Muhammad’s death Usama led his force to Ubna:
He attacked them and their watch-word was: ya Mansur Amit [O victorious one, kill]. He killed him who met him, enslaved him whom he could, set fire to their boats, and burnt their dwellings, farms and palm-groves which turned into whirl-wind of smoke. He drove his horses into their plains.[14]
Al-Waqidi provided a similar description:
When Usama reached Ubna and could see it with his eyes, he mobilized his companions and said, “Go and raid…draw your sword and place it in whoever confronts you.” Then he pushed them into the raid. A dog did not bark, and no one moved. The enemy did not know except when the army attacked them calling out their slogan, “O Mansur, Kill!” He killed those who confronted him and took prisoner those he defeated. He set the borders on fire and their houses and fields and date palm on fire.[15]
Remember Muhammad’s other battle cries the next time someone talks about how Islam was “peacefully” spread across the Arabian Peninsula.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of five books about Islam. His latest book is The Lure of Fantasy Islam: Exposing the Myths and Myth Makers.
[1] E.g., 1) Robert Spencer, “‘Allahu Akbar’: It Means Almost Everything — Except What The Establishment Media Says,” Breitbart, December 25, 2015; accessible at https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/12/25/allahu-akbar-means-almost-everything-except-establishment-media-says/; and 2) Yigal Carmon, “‘Allahu Akbar’ – ‘Allah Is The Greatest’ – A Jihadi Battle Cry,” MEMRI Daily Brief No. 140, November 1, 2017; accessible at https://www.memri.org/reports/allahu-akbar-%E2%80%93-allah-greatest-%E2%80%93-jihadi-battle-cry-0.
[2] Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), p. 308.
[3] Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Waqidi, The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail, and AbdulKader Tayob, ed. Rizwi Faizer (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 115 and 128; and Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2007), n. 586, p. 753.
[4] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 738, p. 768.
[5] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 312.
[6] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), n. 760, p. 770.
[7] Ibid., p. 511.
[8] Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin al-Ash’ath bin Ishaq, Sunan Abu Dawud, trans. Yaser Qadhi (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), Vol. 3, No. 2638, pp. 275-276; Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri al-Basri, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, trans. S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 2009), Vol. 2, p. 146; and The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 355.
[9] Muhammad bin Yazeed ibn Majah al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Majah, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 4, No. 2840, pp. 88-89.
Iyas (Ayas) further related:
It was narrated from Ayas bin Salamah bin Akwa’ that this father said: “We attacked Hawazin at the time of the Messenger of Allah with Abu Bakr. He awarded me a slave girl from Banu Fazarah, among the most beautiful of the Arabs, who was wearing an animal skin of hers. I did not divest her of her clothing until I reached Al-Madinah. Then the Prophet met me in the marketplace, and said: ‘By Allah, give her to me.’ So I gave her to him, and he sent her as ransom for some of the Muslim prisoners who were in Makkah.”
Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 4, No. 2846, pp. 91-92.
[10] Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 146.
[11] Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Vol. VIII, trans. and annotated Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 142.
[12] Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 156.
[13] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 661.
[14] Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 237.
[15] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 549.
mortimer says
The battle cries of Muslims interpret the meaning of ‘Allah akbar’… which is just another exhortation to commit murder.
J D S says
2018…a new battle cry emulates from the followers of Muhammad (IHEAE ) “kill all infidels make America Islamic”
Lebel says
What is the point here, that Islamic battle cries are not peaceful. That’s the point, you want to motivate the men who are going to war.
Here are some other battle cries:
Judaism: ” “Sh’ma Yisrael – Hear Oh Israel! You are about to approach battle on your enemies. Let you hearts not whither and do not fear, tremble, or be broken before them. For Hashem who will go with you, fight with you, and save you” (Deuteronomy 20:3-4).” source: https://torah.org/torah-portion/drasha-5758-shoftim/
Sounds like God also does a bit of fighting here
Gott mit uns – Germans
¡Viva la muerte ! – Spanish civil war
Lots of different Christian war cries but they’re way too peaceful to be mentioned here.
So yes, Islam is evil and thus its conquests were evil whereas when other empires conquered it was not as bad and they all apologized (thanks to Wellington for explaining the whole thing)
DogOnPorch says
While many wars have been fought over/for/about Christianity…it was NOT spread by the sword as per Caliph Omar and pals.
Lebel says
Really? come on, man.
abad says
Christians want to convert you.
Moslems want to kill you.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, I’ll stick by my assertion that Islam is evil. I think promoting the killing of those who won’t submit to you is just pure evil. Making killing the greatest outward sign of achievement within your religion and calling it unalterable perfection is pure evil also.
Eur says
Viva la muerte Spanish Civil War?????? WTF?
That phrase is attributed to the military Falangist Millan Astray, if true, that phrase was said in a university talk in a discussion with the philosopher, writer Miguel de Unamuno.
If there is a phrase that the Spanish armies have shouted over the centuries is this: Santiago y cierra , España.
The phrase is a call to the unity of the Spanish soldiers, all together with the help of Santiago.
The legend says that the first time Ferdinand the King of Castillo said it at the beginning of the battle in the battle of the Navas de Tolosa, battle where the Christian kingdoms united and defeated the Muslims in a definitive way, beginning in that way the last phase of the reconquest. The Spanish tercios shouted it when entering combat.
Santiago is the patron of Spain and says the legend that he helped the Christian armies defeat the Muslims in a battle at the beginning of the reconquest. Santiago is also known as matamoros. (moors killer).
Of course today people are shocked to see the figure of Santiago on a horse crushing Moors.
In any case, violent phrases have always been and everywhere, the issue is that in the Christian gospel there is no call to violence, not even to defend themselves since Jesus is the example of forgiveness.
In the Quran, battles and wars that Muhammad himself led are mentioned. I am not a believer but it is indisputable that the Quran and the life of Muhammad is not peaceful.
You do not need to tell us that the West has a violent past and we know it is more, we have criticized it in movies, books and the history books themselves. However, the Muslims continue with the original idea that Islamic history is peaceful and that their battles were all defensive. It is an insult to intelligence exactly like what Millan Astray did when he said that phrase
.I am still waiting for a movie book or anything that comes from the Islamic world to do a self-critical reading of its past. We have thousands, we criticize the inquisition, the crusades, the hardness of the Catholic schools, the abuses in the boarding schools, wars of religion where anyone was killed, killing of Jews … even in the wars against Islamic armies it is always characterized Muslims as knights of honor and wise philosophers and Christians as brutes. The reality is that all history is violent but only Muslims continue to idealize their theocratic regimes of the past.
CogitoErgoSum says
What would Muslims stand upon to criticize their past? Fighting those who resist Islam is prescribed for them by Allah. It’s in the Quran. The goal is submission to the religion of Submission and if anyone does not submit, either by conversion to Islam or by paying the jizya and obeying the rules of Islam regarding dhimmis, the penalty is death. Again, this is according to the Quran and the Quran is unchangeable perfection (so Muslims profess to believe). What year it is does not matter; the past is the present and also the future. Anything done in accordance with the Quran is done in accordance with perfection and what is there to criticize about perfection?
Lebel says
“In any case, violent phrases have always been and everywhere, the issue is that in the Christian gospel there is no call to violence, not even to defend themselves since Jesus is the example of forgiveness.”
Perhaps but does it make a difference in practice? it seems to me that there is no difference between Christian and Muslim empire building. Potentially because conquest, the struggle for resources etc is part of the human condition and will continue irrespective of ideology. That means Christians expanded their empire and did so (wrongly I will grant you) in the name of Christianity. Muslims expanded their empire and did so in line with their ideology. Jews, secular nationalist, various ethnic groups etc.
CogitoErgoSum says
Lebel, you are close. Empires are primarily the result of a struggle for resources. The ideology is secondary. For example, Columbus was looking for a new trade route when he came across the New World and the Spanish were looking for gold and brought their priests along to convert the natives but “saving souls” was not what really motivated the conquistadors. Even with Islam, paying the jizya is of more importance than actually becoming a Muslim. Muhammad wanted to be a king and having a god as your best buddy helps to accomplish that goal but living the good life (and having lots of sex) is what motivated him.
SK says
Oh?
It can be said that it’s factual to say that early Christianity simply did not use conquest to build an empire.
The church did not have political control before it inherited the Roman Empire when Constantine declared it the state religion, which was part of the fact that Pax Romana allowed the Church access to any area within the empire.
Indiana Tom says
Constantine I, who with the Edict of Milan of 313 AD had established tolerance for Christianity without placing it above other religions[3]
Missorium of Emperor Theodosius I, who made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.
Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire’s sole authorized religion.[1][2]
Lebel says
“.I am still waiting for a movie book or anything that comes from the Islamic world to do a self-critical reading of its past. We have thousands, we criticize the inquisition, the crusades, the hardness of the Catholic schools, the abuses in the boarding schools, wars of religion where anyone was killed, killing of Jews … even in the wars against Islamic armies it is always characterized Muslims as knights of honor and wise philosophers and Christians as brutes. The reality is that all history is violent but only Muslims continue to idealize their theocratic regimes of the past.”
These books exist but you have to start looking. You can do a google search and find scholars and leaders who have taken a critical look at their history. I agree with you that it’s not on the same level as the West, I also agree that all history is violent. That to me is a central point and I keep coming back to it because the evidence is rather clear. This is where I see some of the biggest fallacies at jihadwatch. Of course we see the same things on other forums including Islamic ones (my history is less bloody than yours)
Lebel says
“However, the Muslims continue with the original idea that Islamic history is peaceful and that their battles were all defensive”
Some, potentially many Muslims say that, I agree. It is of course false, the conquest of North Africa was exactly that, conquest. Going into Spain and France was the same thing. So this narrative should be challenged because it’s false. But it’s also false that Islamic history is uniquely evil
CogitoErgoSum says
So you do agree that Islam is evil.
Paul Wheeler says
Actually, Islam is uniquely evil.
Most other religions teach either love of others, tolerance of others, or avoidance of others — not murder and submission of others.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
The difference, Lebel, is that Mohammadans are ALWAYS shouting out Mohammad’s battle cry. Even during what would be expected to be times of peace. That’s because Mohammadans are ALWAYS AT WAR with unbelievers, and never at peace.
Moral relativism.
Lebel says
Not sure, Muslims that are not at war are not shouting war cries. So the guy at the Kebap shop is probably not doing that right now.
Of course, in a war situation some will. Not sure why that is significant.
gravenimage says
Of course the foul Lebel wants us to ignore that Islam is based on violent conquest, and that its founder was a warlord, caravan-raider, slaver, rapist, and mass murderer–and that such policies continue to this day..
CogitoErgoSum says
That pretty much sums up the “perfect” man according to the religion of Submission. Believe it or else.
"J D S says
Show me in the New Testament, (THE GOD/JESUS COVENANT) where Jesus tells us to kill anyone…..I agree that battled have been fought for Christianity…but they were directed by “the church” (men) not Jesus….If “men” take it upon themselves to do battle then (men) are responsible not God or Jesus…..I have no right to question God in Old Testament times. (the GOD/MOSED COVENANT) but still rely on the (FACT) that Jesus tells me, as well as God in His Ten Commandments, not to kill…Not so with Muhammad (IHEAE). Throughout the Koran, which the wording was mostly stole from The Old Testament and Pagan Rituals, there are directions to kill, kill, kill.
gravenimage says
+1
melek-ric says
According to a most totally authentic hadith by Sahih al Pulyurleg, “Narrated ibn Wakadudl: The Prophet (PUHBUH), whilst encouraging the fighters from a safe place, was heard to shout ‘Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!’, but part of His cry was drowned out by the din of battle.”
gravenimage says
Now that is funny!
gravenimage says
Muhammad’s Other Battle Cries: It’s Time for Killing!
………………..
Mr. Kirby, thanks for pointing out that the Islamic calls for slaughter go well beyond just “Allahu Akbar!”. Who says there is no innovation in Islam?
Lebel says
“Even with Islam, paying the jizya is of more importance than actually becoming a Muslim. Muhammad wanted to be a king and having a god as your best buddy helps to accomplish that goal but living the good life (and having lots of sex) is what motivated him.”
I really don’t think it’s that simple. Firstly, why stay married to the same woman until her death (at 65 no less) if what you are after is sex? she died 10 years into prophethood. Why not say that God says that Khadija should accept Muhamad new wives?
Also Muhamad died poor, he did not amass wealth.
gravenimage says
Muhammed took a fifth of the booty from every raid, and took slaves and traded slaves. This is hardly poverty.
FYI says
You missed the bit about the “prophet” muhammed being a Polygamist {bukhari 1:5:268} and his appaling attitude regarding rape of women {Abu Dawud 2150/sahih muslim 3433}
Perfect mo was happy enough to commit serial adultery himself and he stoned women for this sin {muslim 4206}which he himself revelled in:the old hypocrite!
Let’s not forget the mass-murdering {Abu Dawud 4390}.Only the obtuse and the morally blind would defend a pedophile{sahih muslim 3309}and try to make excuses for such a pathetic character.
mo even admitted to being a fraud{al tabari 6:111}But of course,we must not let the Truth get in the way of the leftards and the islamofascists.
And “he died poor,he didn’t amass wealth”:So did Hitler and Stalin.So what?
Is he a saint like Lenin,Marx and Engels are communist “saints”?
He was like Hitler and Stalin a mass-murdererer.At least that’s according to islam’s OWN teachings.
Moral relativism,lying and blind ignorance of facts:the speciality of the Left.
It seems that neither the left nor the islamic fascists actually know the truth about allah the deceiver,the immoral life of the “prophet” muhammed or the warped teachings of the unholy koran.
No wonder the Leftards are in bed with the islamic supremacists.
Like attracts like.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, Khadija was older than Muhammad and controlled the wealth in that marriage. Muhammad would not want to offend her or he would not be able to afford spending his time praying and contemplating the darkness. Also, when Khadija died Muhammad was liberated and could finally go after all those other women he had been able only to dream about before …. dreaming about someone younger …. much, much younger.
Lebel says
“So you do agree that Islam is evil.”
Not at all, how did you get to that?
Lebel says
I think I see where the confusion originates. What I mean is that there is nothing unique or evil about Islamic conquest.
CogitoErgoSum says
Well, if someone wrote a letter of recommendation for me and said in it that I was not uniquely evil, I would feel damned by faint praise …. and disappointed that my evil not very original.
Lebel says
Well I don’t think conquest is evil and neither do you or anyone on jihadwatch. Conquest is why we have the borders we have today. They have changed dozens of times in the last hundreds of years as a result of wars. America exists because of conquest. These conquests were not some bloodless peaceful expeditions.
You guys think ONLY islamic conquest is evil, that’s the difference. It’s one of the rules at jihadwatch: it’s only bad when Muslims do it.
gravenimage says
I see that Lebel says that there is nothing evil about Islamic conquest. Is he lauding slaughter, rape, slavery, and treating surviving Infidels as humiliated dhimmis? Sure sounds like it…
gravenimage says
*Of course* Lebel doesn’t think Islam is evil. What’s not to like about child rape and mass slaughter?
melek-ric says
You’re right, it’s not that simple. In paterno-supremacist 7th century Arab society, there were many reasons for a man to have numerous wives. Attractive young wives (and slaves like Mariyah the Copt) for sex; wealthy wives (like Khadija) for security; older maternal wives to raise children; industrious wives to handle the cooking, cleaning, stable chores and so on. If a man had the resources, many wives and many more children were sources of honor and status in the tribe, and Muhammad luxuriated in these indulgences (despite suffering the disgrace of being a “father of daughters”).
As for his wealth – Muhammad was massively wealthy despite eschewing personal ostentation, although he had a weakness for fine perfumes and henna-ing his beard. He funneled the wealth he amassed from jihad into funding more jihad, which brought him absolute power in Arabia and provided what was most important to him – narcissistic supply, to feed his Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Muhammad was mentally ill, but his particular constellation of disorders, which also included temporal lobe epilepsy (the source of his visions from Jibril), Sociopathic Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and likely acromegaly, coupled with an innate genius for ruthless psychological manipulation, made him a singular individual in world history.
CogitoErgoSum says
He sounds like the “perfect storm” of mental illness.
Lydia Church says
For them, when *isn’t* it time for killing?
All they know is murder, their favorite hobby.
Elrond says
My favourite cry of Mohammed the brave was ” who will sell his soul for us ” repeatedly when his army was being cut down hiding behind his men . Not exactly Rollo the viking or Julius caesar noe. How about the time he played dead on the battlefield ? But mangod Mohammed wasnt a coward , he was just too important to die. He always said Allah fated everything , so he should have been at the frontof his armies battling overwhelming odds , but he wasnt because he was a fraud and a weakling who his behind promises of paradise to those foolish enough to fight for him.
Learning Islam says
(Islam is the *only* religion that has a chapter in its “holy book” titled “Booty”–Al-Anfal–=the spoils of war) that is dedicated to robbing and pirating unbelievers and divvying up the ill-gotten gains
“And know that anything you obtain of war booty – then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion – the day when the two armies met. And Allah, over all things, is competent.” (Qur’an 8:41)
The Apostle held a large number of captives. There were 6,000 women and children prisoners. He had captured so many sheep and camels they could not be counted. Ishaq:592
ALL MUSLIMS ARE BOUNTY HUNTERS COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH to HUNT, CAPTURE, ENSLAVE or KILL the dirty KAFIRS.
Louis Timotius1 year ago
Sunan Abi Dawud 3971, Book 31, Hadith 3960 : Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The verse “And no Prophet could (ever) be false to his trust” was revealed about A RED VELVET. When it was found MISSING on the day of Badr, some people said; PERHAPS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (ﷺ) HAS TAKEN IT. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down “And no prophet could (ever) be false to his trust” to the end of the verse. Surah 3 : 161 IT IS NOT FOR ANY PROPHET TO TAKE ILLEGALLY A PART OF BOOTY (Ghulul)[], and whosoever deceives his companions as regards the booty, he shall bring forth on the Day of Resurrection that which he took (illegally). Then every person shall be paid in full what he has earned, – and they shall not be dealt with unjustly. [Dr. Mochsin]
Tafsir Jalalayn : When SOME RED VELVET CLOTH WENT MISSING on the Day of Badr and some people began to say ‘PERHAPS THE PROPHET TOOK IT’ the following was revealed It is not for a prophet to be fraudulent an yaghulla a variant reading has the passive an yughalla meaning to attribute ghulūl ‘fraud’ to him to be treacherous with regard to the spoils so do not presume this of him; whoever defrauds shall bring what he has defrauded on the Day of Resurrection carrying it around his neck; then every soul the fraudulent and the otherwise shall be paid in full the requital of what it has earned what it has done and they shall not be wronged a single thing. Tafsir Al-Wahidi : (It is not for any prophet to embezzle (an yaghilla)…) [3:161]. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mutawwa’i informed us> Abu ‘Amr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Hiri> Abu Ya’la> Abu ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Aban> Ibn al-Mubarak> Sharik> Khusayf> ‘Ikrimah> Ibn ‘Abbas who said: “SOME RED VELVET ACQUIRED AS BOOTY FROM THE IDOLATERS AT THE BATTLE OF BADR WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR, and some people said: ‘Perhaps it is the Prophet, Allah, bless him and give him peace, WHO TOOK IT’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (It is not for any prophet to embezzle (an yaghulla)). * He stole red velvet underwear too.
And Al-lah defend him yet again. But if you are notice, if its the God almighty revealing, why He didnt just say who steal it? Or where it lost?
unty Pam7 months ago
Mohammed wouldn’t lie now would he….receiving revelation to further his own gains, convenient..? its becoming clearer by the minute …Islam is the worlds greatest hoax …. just my opinion
penfro1 year ago (edited)
Aisha said to Mohamed: “I feel your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires”
LOVE that bit of sarcasm towards Mohamed from Aisha exposing how suspiciously convenient it was that Allah was such a sycophantic Wing Man to Mohamed. What Bukhari doesn”t record is that she rolled her eyes as she said it. 🙂
MUSLIM SUPREMACISM AND PERSECUTION
I descended by Allah with the sword in my hand, and my wealth will come from the shadow of my sword. And the one who will disagree with me will be humiliated and persecuted. (Ibn Hisham, The Life of Muhammad, 3rd ed., pt. 6, vol. 3 (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar-al-Jil, 1998), p. 8
Learning Islam says
From other contributors
Louis Timotius1 year ago
Sunan Abi Dawud 3971, Book 31, Hadith 3960 : Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The verse “And no Prophet could (ever) be false to his trust” was revealed about A RED VELVET. When it was found MISSING on the day of Badr, some people said; PERHAPS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (ﷺ) HAS TAKEN IT. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down “And no prophet could (ever) be false to his trust” to the end of the verse. Surah 3 : 161 IT IS NOT FOR ANY PROPHET TO TAKE ILLEGALLY A PART OF BOOTY (Ghulul)[], and whosoever deceives his companions as regards the booty, he shall bring forth on the Day of Resurrection that which he took (illegally). Then every person shall be paid in full what he has earned, – and they shall not be dealt with unjustly. [Dr. Mochsin]
Tafsir Jalalayn : When SOME RED VELVET CLOTH WENT MISSING on the Day of Badr and some people began to say ‘PERHAPS THE PROPHET TOOK IT’ the following was revealed It is not for a prophet to be fraudulent an yaghulla a variant reading has the passive an yughalla meaning to attribute ghulūl ‘fraud’ to him to be treacherous with regard to the spoils so do not presume this of him; whoever defrauds shall bring what he has defrauded on the Day of Resurrection carrying it around his neck; then every soul the fraudulent and the otherwise shall be paid in full the requital of what it has earned what it has done and they shall not be wronged a single thing. Tafsir Al-Wahidi : (It is not for any prophet to embezzle (an yaghilla)…) [3:161]. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Mutawwa’i informed us> Abu ‘Amr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Hiri> Abu Ya’la> Abu ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar ibn Aban> Ibn al-Mubarak> Sharik> Khusayf> ‘Ikrimah> Ibn ‘Abbas who said: “SOME RED VELVET ACQUIRED AS BOOTY FROM THE IDOLATERS AT THE BATTLE OF BADR WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR, and some people said: ‘Perhaps it is the Prophet, Allah, bless him and give him peace, WHO TOOK IT’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed (It is not for any prophet to embezzle (an yaghulla)). * He stole red velvet underwear too.
And Al-lah defend him yet again. But if you are notice, if its the God almighty revealing, why He didnt just say who steal it? Or where it lost?
unty Pam7 months ago
Mohammed wouldn’t lie now would he….receiving revelation to further his own gains, convenient..? its becoming clearer by the minute …Islam is the worlds greatest hoax …. just my opinion
penfro1 year ago (edited)
Aisha said to Mohamed: “I feel your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires”
LOVE that bit of sarcasm towards Mohamed from Aisha exposing how suspiciously convenient it was that Allah was such a sycophantic Wing Man to Mohamed. What Bukhari doesn”t record is that she rolled her eyes as she said it. 🙂
Islam and organized mafia-style crime
The European says Jun 6, 2018 at 1:10 pm
It is quite interesting to look more closely at the connection between Islam and organized crime. Take, for example, the Al-Saa’alik. At the times of Muhammad, the Al-Saa’alik were highwaymen, crooks, and outcasts, unscrupulous and ruthless criminals, feared throughout the Arabian Peninsulua and ordinary people called them “the wolves. They were caravan robbers, mercenaries, contract killers and professional thieves. Like Muhammad’s fourth grandfather Qusai and his second grandfather Abd-Al Muttalib, Muhammad allied himself with them. Being newly established at Medina/Yathrib, he offered them protection if they were willing to embrace Islam, he freed those among them who had been slaves, he forgave them their many bloody deeds and allowed them – and even encouraged them- to continue acting as caravan Robbers -but now they would do it for a “higher” cause, for Islam and Muhammad.
Muhammad made good use of their fighting power, adopted their organizational structure as a kind of brotherhood, introduced punishments like the chopping off of legs and arms ( which were customary among the Al-Saa’alik), and even for the distribution of war booty did he use a key which was similar to their customs, whereby -how generous indeed- he only claimed one-fifth of the spoils ( Surah 8,41, called Al-Anfal=the spoils of war) and not one-fourth -as it was usual among the Al-Saa’alik.
Along with the tribes of the Ghefar, the Aos and the Khasradsch, these gangs of robbers and killers were pivotal to the conquest of the Arabian Peninusula by Islam; without their aid, Muhammad would not have been victorious. ( Source: Mohammed, eine Abrechnung, Hamed Abdel-Samad,;Muhammad, a reckoning, by Hamed Abdel-Samad. Unfortunately, his book hasn’t been translated into English yet, but those of you who can read German, should read chapter 3 where Abdel-Samad describes the link between Islam and organized mafia-style crime)
mortimer says May 27, 2018 at 9:47 am
Mohammed’s original Islam was GANGSTERISM. MOHAMMED’S FOLLOWERS AT MEDINA WERE GANGSTERS CALLED “SAALIK”.
Mohammed failed to convince the largely PAGAN and CHRISTIAN citizens of Mecca (PETRA) that he was a prophet.
(Note: Medina or Yathrib was ‘largely Jewish’). At the time, his followers totaled about eighty people, many of them outlaws and criminals who robbed people in passing caravans. Al-Bukhari, the authoritative book which contains Mohammed’s sayings and biography, mentions Abu Basir, an outlaw criminal and gang leader. Abu Basir became Muslim and camped outside Mecca, ambushing caravans of Mecca each day to steal from them. We read in al- Bukhari, that:
Abu Jandal, a man who became Muslim, joined Abu Basir, and forced every man who embraced Islam to join Abu Basir, till they became a gang. Every time they heard of a caravan coming out of Mecca bound for Damascus they ambushed it and killed the people of the caravan, taking their money.
Most of the early followers of Mohammed at Medina were from a group called Saalik. They envied the people of Mecca because those people became rich from their commerce with Syria, Palestine, Iraq and Yemen. The Saalik were lazy, not willing to work but willing to enjoy the riches of others. They were known for their raids on others for spoil. Among their leaders was Urwah Bin Zayd al-Uzedi who was also Arraf عراف , that is a diviner, or soothsayer, for the Jinn-devils. The Saalik being led by a soothsayer reveals that they were part of an occult sect. This may explain one of the reasons why they followed Mohammed, as Mohammed also announced that he was a prophet to the humans and Jinn–devils and considered the so called Muslim Jinn-devils as brothers. He claimed that the Jinn-devils became Muslims, and he called them “ your brothers, the Jinn.”
The Saalik also believed in free sex. That’s why they attacked houses in Mecca and raped the women there. The Saalik followed Mohammed, viewing Islam as an excuse to steal from the caravans. They discovered the doctrine of Mohammed which said that followers were limited to four wives each, but they could enjoy whatever number of SEX SLAVES they could capture; they considered RAIDING an appropriate means to reach their goals.
The first book of history about Mohammed was called the ‘MAGHAZI’ … the ‘raids’. (Plural of ghazwa = a raid). Early Muslims or pre-Muslims knew that Mohammed was not a prophet, but a ruthless murderer, highwayman, slave-trader and plunderer.
“Some Muslims today might feel uncomfortable consuming money that was SEIZED BY FORCE from the disbelievers and would feel that income they receive as a salary or from business is a better form of income. That is not true. THE BEST and PUREST form of income is BOOTY. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “…and the spoils of war are made halal for me…”- Sheikh Anwar Awlaki
Infidel says May 28, 2018 at 3:56 am
I completely agree. For Muslims all infidel lands are occupied territory for them to fight and conquer and all infidel property to plunder and loot and all infidel women to abduct and rape. That is why they behave the way they do in all infidel host nations… they constantly challenge the authority and make their own laws and this is all Halaal. Hence, they find no shame in behaving in this manner.