“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

Prophet Muhammad’s farewell address, March 632

“I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah.”

Saladin, January 1189

“We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ are echoed all over the world.”

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1979

“I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.”

Osama bin Laden, November 2001

The 9/11 attacks have inspired two diametrically opposed interpretations regarding their “root causes.” According to the first school of thought, the attacks were the latest salvo in the millenarian “clash of civilizations” between the worlds of Islam and Christendom, a violent backlash by a deeply frus- trated civilization reluctant to come to terms with its long-standing decline. “For many centuries Islam was the greatest civilization on earth—the richest, the most powerful, the most creative in every significant field of human endeavor,” wrote a prominent exponent of this view. “And then everything changed, and Muslims, instead of invading and dominating Christendom, were invaded and dominated by Christian powers. The resulting frustration and anger at what seemed to them a reversal of both natural and divine law have been growing for centuries, and have reached a climax in our own times.”

Not so, argues a vast cohort of academics, journalists, writers, and retired diplomats. The attacks were a misguided, if not wholly inexplicable, response to America’s arrogant and self-serving foreign policy by a fringe extremist group, whose violent interpretation of Islam has little to do with the actual spirit and teachings of this religion. [source]

When I hear about the atrocities happening around the world at Islamic hands (almost daily), and then I hear the cries from the leftwing progressives saying, we are only reaping what we sowed because of long history of Imperialism. I have to wonder at how short sighted they are. The above quote is taken from an excerpt of a book called “Islamic Imperialism, A History; by Efraim Karsh”. I highly recommend going to the link provided and reading this short pdf file and then doing a bit of googling yourself and examine more about Islamic Imperialism and exactly why the crusades happened. Were they a defence, or an offence?

I would recomend you look at Jay Smiths explaination of how the Koran is divided into two. The Meccan Sura and the Medina Sura. The medinan Suran have authority over the Meccan which were written when Muhammad was the underdog. The Medinan is the texts that call for your destruction.

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110). [source]

Read the text below, and consider how convenient Allah became for Muhammad…

This is the true import of the Kalima – there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet. It seems that the prophet of Islam had no use for a God who could have his own independent will, who could have and express his own opinions of men and matters, and who could exercise his own judgement about right and wrong. On the contrary, the Prophet needed a proxy disguised as god who would echo precisely, though in a pompous language, the personal proclivities of the Prophet in every situation, domestic as well as public, which the Prophet had to face. This conclusion is confirmed by a reading of the Quran in a chronological order, side by side with the orthodox biographies of the Prophet. The close correspondence between what the Prophet was planning or pining for in his normal moments, and what was revealed to him in a state of wahy that followed soon after, is quite striking. The chronological confusion in the compilation of the Quran has helped a good deal to hide this correspondence. [source]

Please take the time to watch the youtube, and at least read a little bit of what I have provided here. It gives you a different picture which isn’t being told on MSM.




    Although the fact is little publicized, the Arab world’s second holiest city, Medina, was one of the allegedly “purely Arab” cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes. 1 History shows that Judaism was already well established in Medina two centuries before Muhammad’s birth.
    On page 40, of his book “Arabs In History”, Bernard Lewis writes:
    “The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, … The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked…. as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.”


Comments are closed.