The Doctrine of Deceit

Of Interest:

The ummah (community of believers) must have a caliphate or leader to function as a nation or state according to Islamic doctrine. This nation is a religious/political body that is under sharia law and has no geographical borders. Restoring the caliphate is a dream of the Muslim Brotherhood and most Islamic terrorist groups. Here’s an in-depth article on this subject.


Here is a Muslim’s view of the caliphate.

Under Islamic rule by the ummah, Christians and Jews are dhimmis, second-class citizens who are “protected” peoples and have to pay a special tax, the jizya. They must abide by the Pact of Umar codified by the Caliph Umar in the 7th century. Here’s what has happened to the Coptic dhimmis after centuries of “protected” status in Egypt.

The Doctrine of Islamic Deceit

Before the doctrine of deceit can be understood, we must have a context of Islamic doctrine in general. What is needed is more than facts, but an entire line of reasoning.

The most important question is: what is Islam? This simple question is the crux of all discussion about Islam. Most say that Islam is whatever Muslims say it is. This leads to endless articles and discussions about what some expert Muslim says and that, in turn, leads to the discussion of whether that Muslim is a “moderate” Muslim or an “extremist” Muslim. Using Muslims to define Islam is Muslim-ology, a branch of sociology.

Using Muslims to define Islam confuses cause and effect. Islamic doctrine causes Muslims; Muslims do not cause Islam. This can easily be seen in the naming. Islam means submission (not peace) and Muslim means one who submits. This clearly establishes cause and effect. Muslims submit to Islam, not-Islam submits to Muslims. Islam submits to no one.

Muslim-ology is not a reliable method since it is a branch of sociology and has all of its limitations. How many Muslims do you have to ask? Which ones do you believe if there are contradictions? Besides, if what a Muslim says disagrees with the Koran and the Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) it is wrong. If it agrees with the Koran and the Sunna, then it is redundant. The only Muslim who counts is Mohammed. Therefore, the only reliable answer comes from the doctrine of the Koran and the Sunna. There is only one other basis for studying Islam–its doctrine.

Islam is founded upon the words of Allah (the Koran) and the Sunna (the words and actions of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith). The words of Allah are only about 17% of the total doctrinal texts. The words and actions of Mohammed comprise 83% of the doctrine of Islam.

The Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s words and deeds. The necessity for the Sunna is found in over 40 verses in the Koran that say that those who do not follow the pattern of Mohammed will go to Hell and the more than 30 verses that command Muslims to follow the example of Mohammed.

The Sunna of Mohammed is found in the Sira (Mohammed’s official biography) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). The Sira is found in the texts by Ibn Ishaq, Al Tabari, and Ibn Sa’d. Ishaq’s text is the most authoritative. The Hadith are collections of what Mohammed did and said upon specific events. There are six major collections that are used by Sunnis. Of these Bukhari is the most authoritative.

So in summary, the doctrine of Islam is found in its three foundational texts–Koran, Sira and Hadith–the Islamic Trilogy.

ISLAMIC POLITICAL DOCTRINE
Islam is a complete civilization–a religion, a culture, a political system, a philosophy and a legal system.

The Trilogy divides all of humanity into two categories: those who believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of Mohammed’s god, Allah and those who do not. Those who believe are called Muslims and those who do not are called kafirs.

Kafir is translated as unbeliever, but this is an incorrect usage. An unbeliever is a neutral term and is a statement of logic. It merely denotes a lack of belief. The word kafir is defined by its usage in the Koran and is far from neutral.

We can now make a great simplification of the textual material of the Trilogy. None of the doctrine that only applies to Muslims is of any importance to kafirs and can therefore be ignored. For instance, exactly how does a Muslim pray? The religious and cultural dimensions of Islam are of no concern to kafirs. This paper only relates how kafirs are treated and how Islam interacts with kafirs, as in jihad.

How Islam treats the kafir is political Islam. A Muslim is strictly forbidden to have any religious interaction with a kafir, except attempts at conversion. Of course, Islam has an entire doctrine of internal politics, but that is of no concern here.

It is surprising how much of the doctrine is about the kafir, political Islam. About 61% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir, and all of it is negative. About 75% of the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) is about the kafirs. Only the Hadith is primarily about Muslims with only 20% of Bukhari (the most authoritative) being about jihad (jihad is only practiced against kafirs).

This means that we can now discuss Islam without getting into religion and stay with politics. This frees us from some politically correct restrictions such as disparaging a religion.

DUALITY

There is one last element of the background needed to understand the concept of deceit in Islam. Islam is founded on two principles–submission and duality. The very name, Islam, means submission and the principle is that all humanity must submit to Islam.

Submission as a principle is well known. The principle of duality comes from the Islamic foundational doctrine and is the second key to understanding it.

Duality emerges as a natural principle from the Koran. An analysis of the Koran shows that it has two distinct divisions–the early Koran written in Mecca and the later Koran written in Medina. What is important is that the Medinan Koran contradicts the Meccan Koran. This contradiction is resolved by the Koran’s stated principle of “abrogation”. Abrogation means the later verse is stronger than the earlier verse. But since both verses come from Allah, both verses are still true since Allah is perfect.

An example:
2:256 There should be no coercion in religion. The truth stands out clearly from error.

9:5 When the sacred months [by ancient Arab custom there were four months during which there was to be no violence] are passed, kill the kafirs wherever you find them. Take them as captives, besiege them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush. If they submit to Islam, observe prayer, and pay the poor tax, then let them go their way [if they convert to Islam].

Verse 2:256 is tolerant, but verse 9:5 says to kill the kafirs unless they convert. These two verses contradict each other. The violent verse comes later in time after the tolerant verse and therefore abrogates it. The tolerant verse came when Mohammed was in a weak position, the violent verse came when he was strong.

But the two contradictory verses are both true since they both come from the Koran. The later verse is used when Islam is strong and the earlier verse is used when it is weak.

This leads to a dualistic logic. Two contradictory statements can both be true. This dualism confuses the Western mind. Our logic is based upon the principle that if two statements contradict, then at least one of them has to be false. This is a unitary logic.

DUALISTIC SYSTEMS
Here is an example of how duality works using the example of jihad. Jihad is struggle and can be practiced with the sword, the mouth, the pen and by money. The sword version is sometimes called “holy war”. One popular explanation is that inner struggle is the greater jihad and that the jihad of the sword is the lesser jihad.

It is the nature of dualistic systems that there is never a single answer to a question, since there are two bases for any answer. So a statistical measure is the only answer.

Example:
The Hadith of Bukhari can be used to define jihad. The discussion of jihad takes up 20% of Bukhari’s total text. Of the hadiths devoted to jihad, 3% are about the inner struggle, the greater jihad. But 97% of the jihad hadiths are devoted to jihad as a way to annihilate kafirs and their culture, the lesser jihad.

So, on a textual basis–jihad is 3% inner struggle, the greater jihad, and 97% violence against the kafir, the lesser jihad.
Notice that these statistics tell us nothing about what choice an individual Muslim may make. One Muslim may choose jihad as an inner struggle, the greater jihad, to quit smoking cigarettes, while another Muslim may choose jihad as using violence against kafirs, the lesser jihad. What is important is that both choices are morally acceptable inside Islam.

What is the right answer to the question: which jihad is the “real” Islam? The proper answer is that both are the real Islam. Dualism gives two “right” answers even if the answers contradict each other. This is very confusing to non-Muslims. We are used to unitary logic and unitary ethics, where only one side of a contradiction can be true. So we insist that one side of the duality must be the real one and the other, contradictory statement must be false. But in dualistic logic, two contrary answers can both be true and used when needed.

There is a good analogy about dualism found in quantum physics. An electron may have several states and probabilities for each state. An electron in orbit may have a 50% chance of being “spin up” or a 50% chance of being “spin down”. But a measurement of an individual electron will show that it is either spin up or spin down at the time of the measurement.

Which is the “real” state of the electron? That is a poorly posed question and as such has no answer. The right question to ask about a multi-state system is: what are the states and what are the probabilities of each state?

Endless ink has been wasted over similarly poorly posed questions such as, what is the real Islam? Instead, the properly posed question is: what contradictory choices are available? How much text is devoted to each side of the contradiction? Then, which choice has a Muslim made?

DECEPTION AND DECEIT
Islamic ethics is based upon dualism. There is one set of rules for the Muslim and another set of rules for the kafir. Islamic ethical dualism extends to truth and deceit.

TRUTH
In Islam something that is not true is not always a lie.
Bukhari 3,49,857 Mohammed: “A man who brings peace to the people by making up good words or by saying nice things, though untrue, does not lie.”

An oath by a Muslim is flexible.
Bukhari 8,78,618 Abu Bakr faithfully kept his oaths until Allah revealed to Mohammed the atonement for breaking them. Afterwards he said, “If I make a pledge and later discover a more worthy pledge, then I will take the better action and make amends for my earlier promise.”

When deception advances Islam, the deception is not a sin.
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b, the enemy of Allah and Moham-med?”
Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?”
Mohammed answered, “Yes.”
Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.”
Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”

Ali was raised by Mohammed from the age of ten and became the fourth caliph. Ali pronounced the following on lies and deception.
Bukhari 9,84,64 When I relate to you the words of Mohammed, by Allah, I would rather die than bear false witness to his teachings. However, if I should say something unrelated to the prophet, then it might very well be a lie so that I might deceive my enemy. Without question, I heard Mohammed say, “In the final days before Redemption there will emerge groups of foolish youths who will say all the right things but their faith will go no further than their mouths and will flee from their religion like an arrow. So, kill the apostates wherever you find them, because whoever does so will be rewarded on Judgment Day.”

Deceit is part of Islamic war against the kafirs.
Bukhari 4,52,267 Mohammed: “The king of Persia will be destroyed, and no one shall assume his throne. Caesar will certainly be destroyed and no Caesar will follow him; his coffers will be spent in Allah’s cause [jihad].” Mohammed cried out, “Jihad is deceit.”

Deceit in war, the community and marriage:
Muslim 032,6303 According to Mohammed, someone who strives to promote harmony amongst the faithful and says or conveys good things is not a liar. Ibn Shihab said that he had heard only three exceptions to the rules governing false statements: lies are permissible in war, to reconcile differences between the faithful, and to reconcile a husband and wife through the manipulation or twisting of words.

TAQIYYA
The name for deception that advances Islam is taqiyya (safeguard, concealment, piety). But a Muslim must never lie to another Muslim. A lie should never be told unless there is no other way to accomplish the task. Kitman is a form of deceit that consists of not telling the whole truth.

Here are two examples of sacred deceit, taqiyya. They are taken from Ishaq (the Sira, Mohammed’s biography):
Ishaq 224 A member of the Abyssinian royalty, called the Negus, became convinced of the truth of Islam. He was accused by the Christians of leaving his religion. The Negus wrote on a piece of paper, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Jesus was a Muslim, born of Mary, conceived without a father.” He then pinned the statement under his shirt over his heart. When the other Abyssinians accused the Negus of leaving Christianity and they said, “Jesus was the Son of God.” The Negus placed his hand over his heart (and the paper with the statement) and told the Christians, “I testify that Jesus was no more than this.” The Christians took him at his word and left him. When Mohammed heard this, he prayed for the Negus when he died.

Ishaq 771 After the conquest of the Jews at Khaybar, al Hajjaj asked Mohammed if he could go to Mecca and get money owed to him by merchants there. He told Mohammed that he would have to tell lies in order to get his money. Mohammed told him to tell the lies.

There is a special case of deception mentioned in the Koran. It is acceptable to be deceptive about Islam as long as there is belief in the heart.
16:106 Those who disbelieve in Allah after having believed [became apostates], who open their hearts to disbelief, will feel the wrath of Allah and will have a terrible punishment–except there is no punishment for anyone who is compelled by force to deny Allah in words, but whose heart is faithful .

This material is not all of the doctrine on deceit, but it is enough to make the case that deceit is part of Islamic ethics.

THE GOLDEN RULE

Most kafir ethical systems are based upon some version of “treat others as you wish to be treated”. Fundamental to this concept is that humanity is seen as equal. The Declaration of Independence and democracy are all based upon the Golden Rule. Slavery was ended on the principle of the equality of humanity before the law.

We don’t always live up to the Golden Rule, but the it furnishes the basis for judging what is unfair and then correcting it. Those who treat others badly can be condemned and corrected by the Golden Rule. We may not always follow the Golden Rule, but we agree that it is our central ethical principle.

The underlying basis of the Golden Rule is the concept of “others”. “Others” means each and every human being is included in its application. The Golden Rule is universal and is a unitary ethic. There is one rule for everybody. Islam explicitly denies the truth of the Golden Rule by the concept of the kafir. This makes it a dualistic system.

SUMMARY

A Muslim has the option of lying to a kafir. Mohammed repeatedly told Muslims to use deception when it would advance Islam.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

Copyright © 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Permalink: http://politicalislam.com/the-doctrine-of-deceit/

32 Responses

  1. Jerry
    |

    How About When The Persian State of Iran Practices Deceit Against Arabian Countries?
    Iran keeps promising to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth, or something to that effect. However, I have yet heard anyonr from Iran truthfully talk about just what will happen if Iran makes this major mistake.
    First: Sat goodbye to every one in Palistine, Hezballa, Hamas, Jorden, and Syria. Ande that is only from the neuclear rockets that Iran sends. I heard last week that Iran expects to have 6 warheads within a few months. If that is true and they fire them at Isreal they will have less than 60 seconds before Isreal launches theirs. Now ever since I was in highschool I have repeatedly heard that it is believed that Isreal has somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 missles with necular warheads. Now I believe that works out to a 100 to 1 advantage for Isreal if what I heard many, many years ago is true and they haven’t made more. Isreal can use the black market also. So, depending on the way the wind blows at the level the cloud gets to and also depending on the size of the warheads, you can say goodbye immediately to just about all of those I listed above. In addition, a slower death could reach Turkey, all around Isreal and even so far away as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Fewer will probably die but if the warhead is large or there are more warheads you can pretty much figure that the oil fields and all vegation would be contaminated. It just depends on the wind.
    Now, if Isreal does have 600 warheads and I would bet if the do they have been kept upgraded, then, nomatter where you are, unless you plan to stay in an underground bunker for 10 to 12 months or longer, then You can say goodbye to all of Iran., the bunker will be just for the special people. Also, you can say goodbye to almost all of the adjacent countries, with death and distruction reducing gradually the further you get from Iran Pakistan and India will probably go pretty fast and the contamination of the land, all water, and of course animals will die or be contaminated. It depends on the wind.
    As far as the rest of the world, anyone who depends on that area of the world for oil is probably out of luck.
    Since I’m not a scientist I would suggest that countries abd people close to the to nations and possibly within ranmge of the wind and radioactive clouds find the right scientist and let them explain, depending on the wind of course.

  2. Ahmad Faizal
    |

    A different view of what I would expect from an intellectual. Before coming to this topic, I’ve read several of your articles. Just a question, isn’t most warfare is based on deceptions? So, whta makes it different from Islam? Because it was stated in the Quran? From my understanding, and my own research, there is some truth in what you’re saying. Actually, everything you quoted of the verses are true, till you give the meaning to what you’re intepretation. However, in terms of ‘sword’ doesn’t necessarily means taking arms. It is also by taking action, by stopping the act of zina with my hands, or something of that accord. Pardon my choice of vocabulary. And another thing about slaves, yes, they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet. And before the arrival of Islam, the kafir had salve-girls, who were kafir. Basicly, you’re attacking Islam without telling people of the underlaying behaviour of the kafir. And it is illegal for a Muslims to kill an innocent kafir, out of sheer pleasure. And yes, the kafir pays jizya, but how about Muslims paying zakat? isn’t that paying taxes as well? We Muslims don’t just pay for the lands that we own, but for other things, such as zakat fitrah and such. Therefore, if you wish to talk about Islam, then do say everything in full context.

  3. Brian Macker
    |

    “Just a question, isn’t most warfare is based on deceptions?”

    In a naive way, yes. Then again isn’t most human activity based on deception in this sense? Did you tell the interviewee on your last job interview all your faults? Isn’t that a lie of omission?

    “So, whta makes it different from Islam?”

    The motives and reasons for the lies. We didn’t lie to Hitler about our troop locations because we had decided to invade Germany to convert, tax, or kill non-Americans. We weren’t plotting against their very existence. Nor did we believe we had an infallible deity telling us to either exterminate or control them. We were simply defending ourselves against Hitler’s aggression against us, our friends, and other innocents.

    “Because it was stated in the Quran?”

    Yes, in part that is also why. When you think you are lying for God you are already on poor ethical footing. Very poor footing. What if my infallible God tells me to lie to you and kill you if you don’t knuckle under to the beliefs of one of my warlord ancestors?

    “Actually, everything you quoted of the verses are true, till you give the meaning to what you’re intepretation.”

    There are worse interpretations. From an ethical standpoint the Qur’an is a very sloppy document even in the parts that are supposedly tolerant. The evil passages are quite specific and broad in language about who to kill, why, and how. The supposedly beneficent ones are lax, poorly scoped, ambiguous in application, and often preceded and followed immediately by very violent and intolerant passages.

    “However, in terms of ‘sword’ doesn’t necessarily means taking arms. “

    It most certainly does in the contexts I’ve read. When you have one section of your holy book titled “The Ranks of War” and another “The Spoils of War” and both tell you military strategies and how to divide up booty from those conquered and how to chop off limbs, then one can be pretty sure that “sword” is referring to a sharp instrument.

    It is also by taking action, by stopping the act of zina with my hands, or something of that accord.

    Zina is none of your business. Peoples sexual behavior is their own business and not yours.

    ” And another thing about slaves, yes, they are kafir, but that is because they were not Muslims yet. And before the arrival of Islam, the kafir had salve-girls, who were kafir.”

    So, according to your screwed up ethical reasoning, if a non-Muslim does something bad to another non-Muslim that gives you free reign to do the same? Well by that standard it’s perfectly acceptable for us non-Muslims to blow up all your Mosques, because, you see, Muslims do that to Muslims.

    “Basicly, you’re attacking Islam without telling people of the underlaying behaviour of the kafir.”

    No, he’s attacking Islam because it is evil, which has nothing to do with the behavior of the ‘kafir’. If Islam sanctions enslavement of other humans, as the absolute and infallible will of Allah, then it’s straight evil. Whether some other peoples also act in an evil matter is beside the point. At least the common criminal admits to his criminality and doesn’t disguise is as some form of moral purification of the world.

    Also your statement is quite bigoted. What do you mean by “underlying behavior” and why use the derogatory term “kafir”. You sound like a white slaver excusing slavery on the grounds that blacks enslaved blacks and besides they are immoral niggers. Your position is quite vile, frankly.

    Non-Muslims, Christians and Europeans in particular are quite well aware of the behavior of SOME of our ancestors. Just because some “kafirs” were slavers that doesn’t mean that all were. If you want to be a critic of the wider group then you need to criticize the beliefs they hold. Do ‘kafirs’ espouse a single religion, ideology, or philosophy that calls for enslaving others? Of course not. Some ‘kafir’ ideologies like Nazism and Communism espouse evil beliefs and you can criticize followers of those ideologies on those grounds. What you don’t get to do is to lump together everyone who doesn’t believe as you do.

    All murders that have every happened in the world have been committed by people who believe other than what I believe. That doesn’t mean I get to blame Gandhi for what Hitler did then enslave Gandhis family.

    You’re ethical reasoning is on the level of a child, really.

    “And it is illegal for a Muslims to kill an innocent kafir, out of sheer pleasure.”

    That doesn’t comfort me at all. Why the conditions. My ethics tells me that I shouldn’t kill any innocent person whatsoever, and even if they are guilty I am restricted to killing them only in dire circumstances of self defense.

    “And yes, the kafir pays jizya, but how about Muslims paying zakat? isn’t that paying taxes as well? We Muslims don’t just pay for the lands that we own, but for other things, such as zakat fitrah and such. “

    How about this: From now on when the US has to rescue Muslims from their own tyrants and those of the neighbors, from now on all Muslims will pay the fukit, a tax on Muslims. That tax will be used to establish and support a non-Muslim government which will not allow Muslims to participate in power. Muslims will be required to disarm themselves and where special clothes to distinguish themselves. If a non-Muslim is walking down one side of the street then the Muslim will have to move to the other side of the street. Muslims will not be allowed to participate in legislation and will not be allowed to build houses larger than non-Muslims. They will be restricted also in the occupations they will be allowed to be employed in. Sewer workers, stable shovelers, and proctologists will be the only occupations that will be deemed suitable.

    Also like in Pakistan today we will have special drinking cups at water fountains for non-Muslims and Muslims, except it will be the Muslims who are beat to death for using the wrong cup, not the other way round.

    Oh, and non-Muslims will be asked to voluntarily contribute to the the charity of their choice if the so desire but we won’t be checking up on them. Not only will that make them feel superior to the Muslims but it will provide an excuse for making Muslims second class citizens, in the worst possible sense.

    You wanted the “full context”, didn’t you?

  4. William Hill
    |

    I’m thilled to read the truth, ‘any you can get ahold of’ about islam and it’s use of anything and everything as long as it supports the making of islam supreme worldwide. Great work! Keep the faith, and that faith is the fact that islam is the most direct danger to all other human beings the planet has ever faced. The destruction of islam should be the most pressing duty of every freedom loving human being on the face of this planet.

  5. Nur el Masih Ben Haq
    |

    THE MATERIALISTIC AND SECULAR WEST WILL SURELY PAY FOR UNRECIPROCATED AND GREEDY TOLORATION OF ISLAM TO THE DETRIMENT OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The earlier the West becomes alert about the lies aimed at advancing Islam the better for it. Unfortunately just because of petrol need, the West concedes to Islam too much, and at the detriment of Christianity which, on the other hand, is being fatally persecuted in Muslim countries in the most barbaric and primitive ways imaginable. While sophisticated lies and used to promote Islam, the West, on the other hand, allows Christianity to be provocatingly attacked by both the foolish so-called Western free-thinkers, who don’t know that they are indirectly working for Islam, which is set to take the place of Chritianity, which they (the stupid Western free-thinkers) try to sabotage; and the DAAWAH Muslim missioneries.
    If Islam is allowed to flourish in the West, the World would pay dearly for it. This is because there will be endless war from ‘NewYorkistan to Londonistan’ and from Saudi to Iran involving various Muslim groups that would certainly emerge to fight for the supremacy of what they differently consider as the genuine Islam.
    Where ever Islam prevails there must be killings–Muslims will surely kill fellow Muslims or kill people of other faiths. Muslims must just kill.

  6. Website SEO
    |

    I admire what you have done here.Good post”.thanks for sharing..

  7. SEO Services India
    |

    thanks for this post. It helped me a lot. Btw How you get ideas for such posts.

  8. Sharon
    |

    AHMAD FAIZALl? Are you the same Ahmad Faizal who’s father is the President of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with established terrorist links?

    Or are you just another deceitful Islamic who is trying to deny that Islam is indeed a dangerous totalitarian regime out to strip our western society and the world of it’s freedoms? Just curious.

  9. Catmann
    |

    I was quite impressed with Jerry’s posting of August 12, 2008. It was clear, well reasoned, and instructional. Unfortunately it makes me more unsettled than I am already. The tragedy is most westerners lack an understanding of the Islamic threat which will increase as more Muslims enter western nations. As they insinuate themselves in the western world they claim that they are the religion of peace which, fortunately, is so patently false everyone knows its lie. In this instance there is an awarness that is starting to blossom which I hope will attenuate this intolerable Muslim cancer. In the mean time the western world has its work cut out.

  10. Catmann
    |

    Correction: I meant to say Bill Warners analysis of Islams “Sacred Deception”

  11. Monte Glider
    |

    Thank for sharing this very informative post here.As far as i am concerned , i am not a Muslim but i have read about this religion and really it was a good experience for me so i respect this religion very much.We should not interfere in this religion .What they think is right according to their religion.

  12. Send flowers
    |

    Really like this website, this really helps and very useful.

  13. Send flowers
    |

    Nice effort, very informative, this will help me to complete my task

  14. Fresher Resume
    |

    I am glad to found such useful post. I really increased my knowledge after read your post which will be beneficial for me.

  15. Thank for sharing this very informative post here.As far as i am concerned , i am not a Muslim but i have read about this religion and really it was a good experience for me so i respect this religion very much.We should not interfere in this religion .What they think is right according to their religion.

  16. Or are you just another deceitful Islamic who is trying to deny that Islam is indeed a dangerous totalitarian regime out to strip our western society and the world of it’s freedoms? Just curious.”

  17. Sad sms
    |

    It is also by taking action, by stopping the act of zina with my hands, or something of that accord.

  18. that is starting to blossom which I hope will attenuate this intolerable Muslim cancer. In the mean time the western world has its work cut out.”

  19. Embroidered shirts
    |

    Really a great post in the blog, keep it up.
    The Doctrine of Deceit are very harmful to every one.

  20. Testking 642-374
    |

    This nation is a religious or political body that is under sharia law and has no geographical borders.

  21. watch jersey shore
    |

    am not a Muslim but i have read about this religion and really it was a good experience for me so i respect this religion very much.

  22. Burberrys perfume
    |

    there is some truth in what you’re saying. Actually, everything you quoted of the verses are true, till you give the meaning to what you’re intepretation. However, in terms of ‘sword’ doesn’t necessarily means taking arms. It is also by taking action, by stopping the act of zina with my hands, or something of that accord. Pardon my choice of vocabulary. And another thing about slaves

  23. Burberrys perfume
    |

    i am not a Muslim but i have read about this religion and really it was a good experience for me so i respect this religion very much.We should not interfere in this religion .What they think is right according to their religion.

  24. Testking 642-873
    |

    Thanks a lot for discussing this matter. I concur with your conclusions.The point that the data stated are all first hand on actual experiences even help more.

  25. Bubble Shooter
    |

    Thanks for your kind information.. I realy enjoy it.. keep it up.

  26. Testking VCP-410
    |

    Thanks for showing the true picture of Islam to world.

  27. hashir
    |

    I can lately to your website and have been reading. i thought i would leave my initial comment. Keep writing, cause your post is impressive! does not it take up a lot of time to keep your blog so fascinating. Thanks!

  28. Verse 2:256 is tolerant, but verse 9:5 says to kill the kafirs unless they convert. These two verses contradict each other. The violent verse comes later in time after the tolerant verse and therefore abrogates it. The tolerant verse came when Mohammed was in a weak position, the violent verse came when he was strong.

  29. furuncle
    |

    Islam is a great threat to christians, I think they don’t like each other

  30. Certificationskey
    |

    Islam is religion of truth,spread all over the world due to its qualities and propaganda machines are always failed against it popularity day by day.

  31. kayode Adejumo
    |

    Thank you for giving us more insight about the Ishmaelites . They can never succeed , their plan will continuously be reveal by the Angels of God in JESUS NAME .

  32. Democracyistheanswer
    |

    For me, the most important point Bill Warner makes is that Islam’s authority comes from Islam and not from the pronouncements of modern-day Moslems who use the doctrine of deceit to hoodwink kafirs into believing Islam’s political intentions include pluralism and democracy.

    Historically, Islam has always looked to a central dictatorship (the Caliphate) to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and non-Moslems on the philosophical basis of misogyny and religious discrimination.

Leave a Reply