If you’re the wrong kind of Muslim, watch out: Allah guarantees Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for him (Qur’an 9:111).
“At least 11 killed in Nigerian mosque suicide attack,” CGTN, July 23, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
At least 11 dead bodies have been evacuated following a suicide attack on a local mosque in Nigeria’s northeastern state of Borno early Monday, local residents said.
Eight others were wounded in the attack at about 5:15 a.m. in Konduga area of Borno, Abubakar Khalid, a survivor said.
According to Khalid, a male suicide bomber who entered the mosque during the morning prayer had pretended to be a worshipper before detonating his improvised explosive device. All of the victims were worshippers, said another witness….
gravenimage says
Nigeria: Muslim murders at least 11 with jihad/martyrdom suicide attack on rival mosque
…………………………
More Muslim-on-Muslim savagery.
God, I hate Islam.
Indiana Tom says
More Muslim-on-Muslim savagery.
I dunno, seems like a constructive Muslim activity to me.
mortimer says
They were simply saying: “We are MORE ISLAMIC than THOU … so THOU MUST BE EXECUTED.”
If there’s anything that Muslims hate more than KAFIRS, it’s Muslims who believe or practice Islam THE WRONG WAY … Everyone knows there is only one CORRECT way to practice Islam and so the other ways are WRONG and those people have forfeited their rights to be considered Muslims if they do not comply.
It’s so simple in the minds of the jihadists.
mortimer says
Indiana, they are ‘constructive’ only in the sense of ‘constructing’ a castle in Spain.
BC says
So much for the ROP canard, Muslims are quite ready to murder anybody who does not fit their own
particular religious tastes. As has been shown over and over in the Sunni Shiite conflict
Peter Buckley says
Perfectly halal.The phenomenon of attacking and blowing up rival mosques goes right back to the very beginnings of Islam-and was started by Muhammad himself. The earliest example is found in the Qur’an itself in verses 9:108-110.
009.108
“Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.”
9.109
” Which then is best? – he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? – or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.”
9.110
” The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.”
These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after an expedition to Tabuk. On his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba, where an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina from Tabuk.
On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent some followers to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque, saying to them: “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). They entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.
These verses of the Qur’an can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed.
The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises.
In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chairs of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna .
TL says
Peter Buckley,
You and Robert Spencer appear to be far out on a weak limb when making claims such as “Muslim murders at least 11 with jihad/martyrdom suicide attack on rival mosque” and “In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them”. What exactly do you mean by “murdering”? And don’t you think that Muslims (in the sense of believers, not merely anyone who claims to be a Muslim) have execution coming to them by virtue of the obnoxious outlawry which they affirm and desire to practice on others?
Perhaps you mean only that Muslims, being extreme outlaws, never have a right to kill other humans. If, however, your use of “murdering” is meant to convey that every Muslim has an inalienable right to remain alive until natural death, then what recourse is there against them for people who seek to deter Muslims’ aggression but have no fair alternative to killing Muslims?
gravenimage says
Foul Fascist TL is almost always appalling, and no less so here.
*Of course* these are murders–and his pretending that pious Muslims are killing other Muslims as punishment for Islam being violent is just ludicrous.
Muslims kill other Muslims because they consider them insufficiently Islamic–either to be lax Muslims, other-sect “heretics”, or just rivals for power.
kathleen 7546 says
If you read about the 33,401 deadly Islamist attacks just since 9/11/01 on the site you will see that about 1 in 4 or 5 attacks are against other Muslims often after Friday prayers. They are not fundamentalist enough, don’t do any Jihad, cooperate with the west etc. Heads of state also get that treatment, Sadat in Egypt,, one of the Kings of Jordan, one King in Lebanon. Read ” Icon of Evil” about Haj Amin al-Hussani the Mufti of Jersualem who met with Hitler, spent 4 years in Germany working on the final solution. When he went back to Egypt in 1946 he orchestrated the deaths of multiple Muslim officials who cooperated with or were soft on the west.
Wellington says
“What exactly do you mean by ”’murdering’?”
This kind of parsing is what Islam has to stoop to time and time and time again in order to continue to appear as something normal, which it most surely is not.
gravenimage says
+1
Peter Buckley says
Definition of “murder”:
“The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder
Pretty straightforward I would have thought. Do you have a problem with English, or are you just pretending to be thick?
TL says
Pete,
You don’t comprehend the distinction between murder as the act of killing by a person who has no right to kill, whatever the other circumstances, and murder as termination of the life of a person who has the right not to be killed.
Suppose three different cases of killings: In the first, a common scoundrel (a mujahid, a democrat, a communist Baptist demogogue) kills another such scoundrel. In the second case, the scoundrel kills a lawful person. In the third case, the lawful person kills the scoundrel.
In the first case, a person with no authority to kill has killed a person who has no right to continue living. This counts as murder in only ONE sense of the word murder, for no injustice has been done to the person killed. In the second case, when the democrat or other habitual scoundrel kills the lawful person, the deed counts as murder in TWO senses: The killer lacked authority AND everyone, even a gravenimage, has a duty not to kill the lawful person. So the punishment to deter such killing ought to be much harsher. In the third case, the lawful person kills the scoundrel, say, by ambushing the pest. Here there has been no murder in either sense. The person killed had no right to continue living, and the killer had authority to terminate the scoundrel’s life.
Now, I suppose that I ought to substantiate my claim that all democrats are knaves and villains. Fair enough, but your retort shows that, like most of Western civ’s people, you aren’t interested in truth anyway. So if you don’t understand, keep your perplexity to yourself.
To establish a democratic government lawfully, a faction of democrats would need, given democracy’s own standards, a plebiscite on the critical issue of whether or not to establish a democratic government with the particular features demanded at the time by the faction. Yet the plebiscite must be organized by a lawful government. If democracy is the only legitimate form of government, and this appears to be the case in democratic theory, then the faction is obstructed by a connundrum. They need a democratic government to organize the critical vote and to impose its results, but they can’t possibly have such a government until after the critical vote.
So, it’s self-evident that no one ever has, and no one ever could, establish a democratic government democratically. Like much of what Western civ is proud of, democracy is a hoax, a fraud, a scam. Democratic theory and activism are directed at some goal(s) other than truth and justice. One goal, however, is obvious: Democracy seeks to establish in power some people who have neither the character nor the intelligence to qualify them for ruling authority. Even worse, democratic leaders are rabble rousers who insist that members of the underclass, wholly incompetent and generally savagelike people, do indeed have a right to vote, and hence a right to rule their neighbors. The usual bargain offered by democratic leaders to tue rabble and other lower classes includes loot and privileges in exchange for votes.
Other evidence of democracy’s lowness, and thus the West’s lowness, is the homicidal mania of democrats during the past quarter of a millenium. This mania was displayed dramatically by the “United Nations”, which is the name of a wartime alliance formed during the early 1940’s, and it shows that democrats crave unlimited government and worldwide government. Democracy is the religion of setting firestorms in cities inhabited by your cousins. Democracy is the religion of detonating superpowerful, radioactive bombs over the cities of distant aliens whom democrats have goaded into aggressive militarism. The goal of democrats is nothing less than enslavement under a larcenous, secular, plundering, totalitarian government.
But never you mind all this, Peter. Go on playing to a stereotype by spitting out your churlish little remarks, but do so with the understanding that you can’t save your precious Western civilization with your thinking. WC has been, for your entire life, destroying itself before your own eyes and will continue on its course for many years to come.
P.S. Here’s an example of a Baptist demogogue:
https://www.amazon.com/Single-Garment-Destiny-Global-Justice/dp/080708607X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532512610&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=in+single+garment+of+destiny
mortimer says
TL is using a foolish argument: namely, that Muslims want to die, so we should oblige them.
Wrong and stupid. We live by the RULE OF LAW, son. Anything else is FASCISM.
So we have OBSERVED you, TL, and we know WHO you are.
The counterjihad movement is about FREEDOM and HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.
Mohammedans are mostly ignoring over 60% of the doctrines in Islam and practicing Islam-à-la-carte or cafeteria Islam.
They are Muslims who are really non-practicing to a great or even a nearly total degree.
TL says
The “RULE OF LAW” is about as noble and high minded as rule by members of bar associations who write the alleged laws (often hundreds of pages long); build them up into great, towering, 3D mazes; and force useful citizens to live in the mazes. The “RULE OF LAW” also means rule according to whatever mobs of people have been told to demand be added to the towering mazes.
Sometimes a specimen of Western man will insist that…
With that, Western father affirms his favorite law: Burning to death* anyone, anywhere in the world who dares to reject the aforementioned system of customer farming by bar associations and allied grifters, e.g. thirsty people who invest in America’s MIC.
Western man in the form of “mortimer” affirms also that Marxism is Fascism. After all, does he not deny that Marxist polity is a type of “RULE OF LAW”? Whatever the whole truth about Western man’s opinion of Marxism and Fascism, it remains true that each of these two systems are creatures of WC. This is very interesting, for Islam, too, is a creature of Western civilization.
* Recall what the “RULE OF LAW” did in Feb. 1945 in Dresden even though Stettin harbour, to the northeast of Berlin, was crowded with Wehrmacht military transports. The “RULE OF LAW” did it many times over in Germany on the pretext of fighting “FASCISM”. Tokyo, too, was burnt to death, but just 100 yrs earlier had been minding its own business. But the “RULE OF LAW” knew better, so it bullied its way in and prodded Nippon onto a course of destruction.
Walter Sieruk says
Such jihad homicide/homicide attacks do lead to the subject that there are Muslim mind control places where Muslim males are thoroughly indoctrinated into the strong but blind and unquestioning faith in Koran with all non-watered down; hard core Islam with its militant jihad. Those places, “schools,” are called madrasas. In those Islamic mind programming centers young Muslim male are ingrain in the mindset Koranic dogma of the use of violence and killing for the advancement of Islam. As the Koran instructs. As in, for example, in 2:191. 9:5, 123. 47:4. Many of those who of such center are so much damaged that they are literally dangerous to self and others. As seen many times in jihad suicide, homicide bombing/attacks. For the Koran instructs in 9:111. “The believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, they kill and are killed.” Furthermore, those mind programming places also ingrain the outlandish absurd Koranic doctrine of a sex-filled paradise with many virgins, houris, in it for the Muslim male who dies fighting for the cause of Islam in the jihad. Such a strange doctrine of a houris filled- place in found in the Koran in 44:54. 55:56. 78:31. Moreover, such Islamic mind programming centers are further explained about by the scholar Don Richardson in his book SECRETS OF THE KORAN which on pages 69,70. Informs the reader that “The world needs to be warned. At least forty million Muslim youth in the Muslim worlds’ religious schools, called madrasa, are avidly memorizing the entire Koran … These schools become breeding grounds for potential terrorists. When male students, isolated from family and friends in madrasa, reach puberty and their hormones are active, there are no girls to date. Instead, Muslim clerics easily shift to focusing the male student’s attention on Koranic verse that promises sex in heaven with dark-eyed houris. Students can only fantasize about martyrdom followed by the sexual release Muhammad promised. This is an unspeakably cruel brainwashing technique , and the Koran is its perfect guidebook.”
Wellington says
Well, look on the bright side. Muslims killing other Muslims is preferable to Muslims killing non-Muslims. If this sounds callous, I don’t care.
My God, Islam is so screwed up. A burden even to itself let alone to humanity at large.
Stacy Girl says
Win/Win.
Indiana Tom says
Muslim murders at least 11 with jihad/martyrdom suicide attack on rival mosque
Go Muslims, Go!
We need more competition between mosques such as this.
roberta says
Holly underachiever. Makes me sad,
Lydia Church says
Yes, look what wonderful agreement we have fostered, all are now cooperating.
We simply shot to death all who disagreed with us.
What a feat!
And they don’t even have a problem with any kind of murder, taking a human life means nothing to them.
They are sick, the scum of the earth!
OldFatBaldSociallyIneptRon says
“Jihad / Martyrdom / Promise of 72 Virgins in Paradise as Reward”…NOT suicide. Accurate terminology describing true motivation is imperative.
Chris Malan says
Do they get virgins for killing other Muslims, too?
balam says
PROBABLY ,yes BUT OVER 70 YEARS OLD