A barbarian, a mass murderer - that’s how Dutch MP Geert Wilders says he will portray the prophet Mohammed in a new film. Hirsi Ali sees him as depraved, the Pope as tyrannical. Others think of him as elusive or an invention, and some consider him a tolerant philosopher or a human rights activist. Six views to assess Wilders’ claims about Mohammed.
By Klaas den Tek and Myrtille van Bommel
The murderous Mohammed
The cruel leader of a band of plundering, murderous, rapist robbers from Medina - that’s how Dutch MP Wilders says he wants to depict the prophet in his new film, due in 2012 as a sequel to his 2008 anti-Qur’an short Fitna. To support his view Wilders cites a biography of the prophet written by Flemish psychologist Herman Somers: “The sources describe orgies of savagery in which hundreds of people were strangled, their hands and feet chopped off, eyes pricked out and entire tribes exterminated.” Wilders says he wants to “unmask” Mohammed so Muslims can turn their backs on Islam.
The invented Mohammed
Friendly, intelligent, peace-loving or murderous - according to Sven Kalisch, a former professor of Islam and current professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Münster in Germany, it doesn’t really make any difference. He has come to the conclusion that the prophet most likely never existed. The first biography of Mohammed, for example, didn’t appear until a century after his death, notes Professor Kalisch, a former Muslim, who refused to shake hands with women and defended Islamic Sharia law. “I already doubted the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. As a scientist, however, you are also obliged to examine the basis of your own faith.”
Mohammed the human rights activist
Dutch Islam expert Abdulwahid van Bommel sees a compassionate Mohammed concerned with society’s weakest. “The first verses of the Qur’an all deal with the rights of orphans, widows and the needy.” The true meaning of the reforms Mohammed carried out can only be grasped when placed in their historical context. This is especially true of Mohammed’s views on women’s rights, which nowadays often draw fierce criticism. “Mohammed precisely tried to give women more rights than they had before the emergence of Islam. Girls used to be buried alive shortly after birth - he ended that practice. Women used to be part of men’s inheritances - he made them heirs. Polygamy used to have no limits - he limited the number of women a man could marry to four. Had he lived in our time, Mohammed would very likely have championed human rights.”
Mohammed the tyrant
In September 2006 Pope Benedict XVI compared Mohammed with a contemporary jihadist. During a lecture at a German university the Pope quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The lecture angered Muslims and the Pontiff eventually apologised, declaring he had not intended to insult anyone but had meant to start a frank dialogue.
Mohammed the depraved
“By Western standards Mohammed is a perverse tyrant,” said former conservative Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an interview in 2003. “If you don’t do what he says, you come to a bad end.” The Somali-born feminist and publicist also speaks of the prophet’s “posthumous blackmail.” “Mohammed says a woman should stay indoors, wear a veil, is not allowed to do certain work and should be stoned if she commits adultery.”
The human Mohammed
“As long as you don’t take everything literally, the human prophet Mohammed can teach us many life lessons.” This is how Tariq Ramadan, professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, explains his motivation to write a biography about the founder of Islam. The book, In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad (2007), depicts its hero as a spiritual man with a great respect and love for women. Mohammed, in his view, was not without faults (he once ignored a blind old man) but was open to criticism. “And unlike his followers, he allowed Muslims to abandon their religion, and personally permitted an Abyssinian Muslim to convert to Christianity.”
The elusive Mohammed
Is Mohammed a murderer? Does he have blood on his hands or did he have to defend himself because he was attacked? Both supporters and opponents rely on the same written sources. “But these can be interpreted in different ways,” says Maurits Berger, Professor of Islam in the West at Leiden University. “Wilders, Muslim feminists, fundamentalists—they all have their own interpretation. It’s impossible to give a truly complete picture of the historic sixth-century Mohammed.”
(hs/cl)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
Nederland is een land waar de inheemse bevolking werd het een minderheid!! gedomineerd door Arabieren, zwarten, Turken, enz. De laatste productie van veel criminaliteit, werk at all! die met de Nederlandse Oost-Europa, door de traditie en cultuur lijkt erg op ze. Beter niet zijn als deze beurt aan de Arabieren, Pakistanen, Indiërs en zwarten in Nederland? haten?
the nederland it's a musulman and african country !!!!
The biggest weapons against Islam are the KORAN and the HADITH.
The KORAN urges muslims to kill jews,christians and Infidels, if they do not convert to Islam or enslave them ,and also kill the Apostates from Islam and Women who "dishonored"their families.
The Hadith records all the murders,rapes,plunders,and other crimes Mohammad committed.
With the Internet we must expose and vigorously oppose Islam wherever we find it and this will bring its collapse!
Some people argue that "religous freedom" guaranteed in the constitutions of European countries give right to different religions and, to Islam in particular, to ask for concessions in different areas of our social organization. The big mistake is the definition of "religous freedom" took into account. The notion of "religious freedom" was born as a consequence os states and regimes that forced people to follow a particular religion. So "religious freedom" was for liberating societies from being forced to follow a particular religion. Consequently the definition of "religious freedom" should state that no one can ask the society for anything by using religion as reason. I mean no one can ask the government for a mosk to be built; no one can ask the government for a change in health systems to allow islamic practices (circumcision, etc.); no one can ask a different time table for muslim women in swimming pools because of Islam...
"Religious freedom" means that if someone want to ask for some change or some service, it must be based on scientific reasons. It cannot be based on a tale. In Spain the leftist governments are bringing muslim people mainly from Pakistan and Morocco that don't integrate at all in the society. They are ruinning the future of the country. The Third World War will be Muslims against non-Muslims and it will be a really World War because it will be fought street by street all over the world, since Muslim people are introducing themselves in all the countries, in all the cities and in all the little towns. Western Society has worked so hard for centuries in order to obtain this freedom degree and now these politicians are about destroying it just in few years. Xenophobia is not the thing here. I don't mind if people are black or white, Arab or Latino. The only thing important is if people are looking for freedom and progress or not. The world should be working hard on research about energy sources, trip to Mars, Maths, health, etc. and instead we are wasting our time with religions.
Spot on!
Religion is a total waste of time, energy, and money. There is NOTHING that religion brings that cannot be had without religion. It does however bring a lot of crap with it, stuff you cannot ignore and still say you're religious.
At this point in time, islam is no doubt the worst of all religions, and, really, should no longer be referred to as religion. It clearly is a supremacist, violent and evil ideology, and it should be banned in the West.
As mentioned, the west is far superior, thanks to the fact that we've moved away from religion. That's exactly why we've progressed enormously in the last 300 odd years. islam is pushing hard to revert this, and we should have no tolerance for that what so ever.
I don't care what sort of fantasy creatures ppl believe in, but since NO EVIDENCE has EVER been brought forward by ANY religious nut case, religion has not earned nor does it deserve any respect what so ever, in particular something like islam, which clearly just hides its evil agenda behind the notion of a religion in order to enjoy all the benefits religion brings.
Islam should be exposed for what it is - an ideology, just like communism or nazism - and we should all strongly refuse it and put it back where it belongs - in a dark chapter of history.
I don't care much for any religion, but at least Christianity has a message about love. islam spreads nothing but death and destruction, and it is very clear when you read the quran, and in particular when you realise that later horrible verses override earlier more moderate verses.
I encourage anyone to read the quran and see for themselves, and when you hear ppl talk about some beautiful verses from the quran, realise that either they are ignorant or they practice taqiyya (deceit). Ask them what the penalty is for apostasy. Ask them why a woman's vote is worth only half of that of a man's.
Islam must go, and muHAMmad should be pictured for what he was - a low-life!
All that needs to be done to see the REAL life examples of what Islamists do in the name of allah, is go to barenakedislam dot com and watch some of the videos there. Most of them are so horrific that one can't bear to watch them to the end. For those who need to learn what islam is, go to this site. But please be warned; much of it is brutal and murderous beyond belief. This is islam. In the 21st century.
http://www.channel4.com/news/hate-crime-investigation-into-threats-again...
ISLAM IS EVIL
There are several true but disagreeable facts concerning Islam. To ignore these facts only hastens the destruction of our democratic society, which is well underway. We challenge anyone to refute any of the following:
* There has never been a society that has come to Islam, except by the sharp edge of a sword; no exceptions! Of the estimated 1.2 – 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, only about 12% are of Arabic descent; the remainder, are the descendants of conquered societies.
* Since its invention by Muhammad, in the 7th Century, and as well outlined in the Koran, the repeatedly stated goal of Islam is to bring the entire world into Dar Al- Islam, the “peace” of Islam and only a society completely subjecting itself to Islam will have peace. In the double-speak of Islam, any nation not willing to capitulate and be enslaved without a fight is a “transgressor”, and devoid of any further consideration. No further provocation is necessary!
* Islam has the world’s record of genocide. Its victims, over more than 1,350 years, number in the hundreds of millions, many more than the victims of the Holocaust and World Communism combined. Muslim genocide is still ongoing in the Sudan, Ivory Cost. Mauritania, Somalia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and, to a lesser extent in other Muslim countries.
* Slavery is still alive in the Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia but to a lesser extent in other countries even partially controlled by Islam. Estimates vary widely, but there can be no less than 750,000 slaves, of which around 250,000 are considered to be held in Saudi Arabia!
* Of the 53 countries of the Muslim world, none is a democracy, and human rights, is an abstract concept. Under Muslim law, the Shari’a, women and children have few rights and infidels have none at all!
* The Crusades, cited by Muslims as their mistreatment by Christians, were only belated attempts to reclaim predominantly Christian and Jewish lands previously conquered by Islam. Facts: The Dome of the Rock Mosque was built on the ruins of the second Jewish temple and Constantinople, the previous seat of Christianity is now called Istanbul.
* Islam allied itself with Germany in both World Wars and in World War II, brigades of Muslims from the Balkans were incorporated into Hitler's S.S Divisions. Heinrich Himmler, head of the S.S., admired Islam and the ferocity of its followers
* Muslim countries, mostly Saudi Arabia, have invested more than 50 billion dollars towards the destruction of our society, more than World Communism spent in over 75 years! This has resulted in the construction of more than 100 multi-million dollar mosques, with Muslim clerics preaching jihad from the pulpit, and over 125 universities teaching a sanitized version of Islam, as well as thousands of public schools, at all levels. This investment has already produced several “home grown” terrorists. Some have been captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban and others have done their bit for Allah on the home front.
* We have had, and still have training camps, in various states, for Muslim teenagers and even pre-teens, that teach basic infantry arms training, mostly with brooms and mops, but in some cases with rifles and live ammunition!
* Muslims are accepted into delicate positions throughout our entire society, including at airports, including Air Traffic Control positions and baggage handlers, railroads, chemical plants, laboratories, education, waterworks, political offices and even our armed forces. In 2005, President Bush signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to educate 25,000 Saudis in the U.S. over a five year period, including flight training! Fifteen of the 19 suicide Jihadists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis and their leader is Osama ‘bin Laden. But the U.S. still buys about 20 billion dollars of oil yearly from Saudi Arabia.
* According to Islam, Allah, Muhammad and the Koran, which in effect are all one and the same, Holy Jihad is the responsibility of all able-bodied adult male Muslims. But it is also the duty of all others of the society, including older persons and even women and children, when called upon to assist. And, since all Muslims consider that the Koran is the unadulterated word of Allah, it is thereby “set in stone” and must be obeyed by all Muslims, upon pain of death!
* Our leaders and media tell us that most Muslims are peace-loving useful citizens and this is perhaps true. History, however, tells us that as little as 3% of a population, if sufficiently dedicated and vicious can control the rest of the population. Only 3%, of the Russian population in 1917, were Communists and only 3% of Germans were Nazis in 1924 but we all know the results of those beginnings. It is exceedingly naïve to believe that most Muslims would not help terrorists if called upon to do so. Regardless of any affinity felt towards our society, any Muslims refusing to cooperate with jihad would endanger their own lives, those of their family and guarantee loss of their cultural identity. There are an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 million Muslim U.S. citizens, several thousand Muslim students and an undermined number of terrorists that have passed over our leaky borders.
* The ridiculous claims of the so-called Palestinians to Israeli territory only started four years after Israel reclaimed their homeland in 1948. Over a period of 3,000 years, various conquerors ruled there but the Muslim Arabs exerted control for the briefest time period, less than 30 years! Nor did they establish any type of government there; they were just bandits. Israel, however, has the most perfect birthright of any country in the world, with a continuous presence there since 1,317 B.C.
* In our present politically correct society, the concepts of sedition and treason have lost their meanings! In several cases, convicted Muslim terrorists have received lesser sentences than persons mistreating animals. Today, there are countless politicians, lobbyists, media personnel, corporations, educators, clergymen and others furthering the cause of Islam, either by design or ignorance. In 1942, if working for the Axis powers, or as late as 1985, if undermining our democracy for World Communism, they would have been vigorously prosecuted, for sedition or treason. Today, several of our present congress would certainly qualify as seditionists!
* It is a sad but hard fact that most of the American public, including most of our media, political leaders and the general public, are abysmally ignorant concerning Islam. The silly phrase “War on Terror” used by President Bush and now echoed daily in the media, is both misleading and dangerous. It is misleading because it labels a tactic of war, “terror” as the enemy and dangerous because it does not identify our real enemy, Islam. All Muslims are active or potentially active terrorists if following the fundamental doctrine of their religion. Those who do not are hypocrites!
* The organization of C.A.I.R. (Council of American Islamic Relations), now allied with the A.C.L.U., is the most important organization for Islamic subversion in our country. Notwithstanding that C.A.I.R has been linked to various terrorist organizations by our Department of Justice, and that several of its members have been indicted or deported, it still operates with impunity, protected by powerful members of our own government. The website of anti-cair-net.com can be accessed for a great deal of information regarding this subversive organization.
* Muhammad ‘bin Abdallah was personally guilty of murder, by beheading, crucifixion, burning his victims alive, drowning them in boiling water, pouring molten pitch down their throats and by ripping off their flesh. He was also guilty of rape, mutilations, kidnapping, extortion, slavery, banditry, abuse of women, pedophilia, adultery and false witness. All these crimes are sanctioned in the Koran and Hadith, and well chronicled by Christian, Jewish and even Muslim scholars. However, none of these offenses are considered crimes if committed against infidels and some not considered as such when only Muslims are involved. A quote of Muhammad from the Hadith, “I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies.”, well illuminates his base character.
* Muhammad, if alive today, and not resident in a Muslim country, or a country lacking the Death Penalty, would be an inmate in an asylum for the criminally insane or be serving life imprisonment without parole. Or, if resident in a country with the Death Penalty, and not having been determined insane, he would be in a 6 x 8 foot cell on Death Row, awaiting execution!
NOW, WHAT PART ABOUT ISLAM IS IT,
THAT YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND ?
[ Ignorance is perhaps bliss, but knowledge incurs responsibilities. ]
Brilliant piece of writing!
And tragically, too true.
Thanks for this great article you wrote. Respect!
The Sirat Rasul Allah by Muhammad ibn Ishaq (translated into English by Alfred Guillaume)and the sahih hadith Bukhari and Muslim (accessible courtesy of Muslim Student Association at the University of Southern California)are uncontroversial with most muslims. Geert Wilders should use Ibn Ishaq's Sira as primary source. The events are spectacular blood are the robbing of caravans, murder of critics (Asma bint Marwan for instance and many others), the slaughter of the Bani Kurayza adult males, the selling into slavery of their women and children, the killing of Huyyay ibn Akhtab and the rape of his daughter, the torture of Kinana ibn Rabi'a, the extortion of Ukaydir ibn Abd’almalik and the killing of his brother, etc., etc. Muhammad was a warlord, a raider and robber, a mass murderer. You shall know the tree by the fruits it produces. The fruits of Muhammad ibn Abdallah can still be seen today in the countries of the Ummah.
Ahmed Abdullah
There is no denying that Mohammed was influential. After 1400 years, we are inundated with violence committed in the name of the religion he founded.
Much of the admiration from your list of non Muslims for Mohammed had to do with his abilities as a military strategist and organizer. There is great admiration for Ghengis Khan for the similar reasons.
Thomas Carlyle (ca. 1840) spoke highly of Mohammed as well as Napoleon but did not claim that any of his “heroes” were flawless.
George Bernard Shaw dabbled in a wide range of ideas in his life. Besides admiring Muhammed in the 1930’s, he also supported Stalinist Russia and Eugenics, which is now associated with the gassing of “undesirables” during WWII.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/george-bernard-shaw-defends-hitler-mass-murd...
You may want to dig up some better references.
Irshad Manji is not an ex-Muslim as you claim. She is a practicing Muslim who wants to introduce critical thinking and debate into Islam. You desperately need people like her.
http://www.irshadmanji.com/about-irshad
Mohammed was a satanic pig who deceived billions of people. Thanks to him the fires of hell are filled with the condemned souls of his believers.
As the Western world threw Christianity out of its back, it applies the same notion towards Islam. Since their intelligentsia, orientalists, historians, middle-east experts, islamologists are very well aware of this Prophet yet distortions are made deliberately, especially nowadays by ex-muslims like Ms.Hirsi,Manji and ultimately it all falls down to name-calling, deriding the persona, ridicule, uttering false attributes to the last & final prophet of Islam. Since Radio Netherlands has jumped into this bandwagon with den Tek and van Bommel in this page, i have to just mention that rather than Islamic theologians, many of the western writers themselves have praised and anointed the prophet to the highest extent. Fitting example is a book by Michael H. Hart titled "The 100: A Ranking of the most influential people in history" wherein he elevates the Prophet Mohammad to the highest pinnacles of human history. Few examples would clear doubts in the minds of RNW/Dutch/European readers about the prophet of Islam in written works which are (a) Thomas Carlyle 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History' (b) Arthur Stanley Tritton 'Islam,Belief and Practices' (c) De Lacy O'Leary 'Islam at the Crossroads' & 'How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs' (d) Alphonse de LaMartaine 'Historie de la Turquie' (e) Sir George Bernard Shaw 'The Genuine Islam' (f) Philip K. Hitti 'History of the Arabs' (g) Karen Armstrong 'Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time'.
listing someone as having a great impact on history does not mean it was in a good way. hitler too had pretty big impact on history...
regardless of what people think they know and claim about the character of muHAMmad, to know the true core of islam, all you have to do is ask "what is the penalty for apostasy?". yes, death! that tells you what sort of evil, supremasist ideology islam really is. it should be exposed for what it is, banned on the basis that it preaches hate, violence and death against non-muslims, and it should be demoted from its status as a religion!
Finious,
One can compare trees by the fruit they produce. Too bad many believers of the Qur'an don't agree with other modern ideas, like freedom of expression and choice.
I don't think there is much scientific about any belief system. That's why Islam and Christianity are called religions and not sciences.
If you are going to compare religions, there are many ways of doing this. Here is another, more comprehensive one:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm
By Dr. Maurice Bucaille: The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
I have already come across some of the contradictions between scripture and science regarding the creation of the
universe. I stressed the perfect agreement between modern knowledge and verses in the Qur'an, and that the Biblical narration contained statements that were scientifically unacceptable. This is hardly surprising if we are aware that the narration of the creation contained in the Bible was the work of priests living in the sixth century BC, hence the term ‘sacerdotal' ( priestly ) narration is officially used to refer to it. The narration seems to have been conceived as the theme of a sermon designed to exhort people to observe the Sabbath. The narration was constructed with a definite end in view, and as Father de Vaux (a former head of the Biblical School of Jerusalem) has noted, this end was essentially legalist in character.
The Bible also contains a much shorter and older narration of Creation, the so-called ‘Yahvist' version, which approaches the subject from a completely different angle. They are both taken from Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch or Torah. Moses is supposed to have been its author, but the text we have today has undergone many changes.
The sacerdotal narration of Genesis is famous for its whimsical genealogies, that go back to Adam, and which nobody takes very seriously. Nevertheless, such Gospel authors as Matthew and Luke have reproduced them, more or less wordfor- word, in their genealogies of Jesus. Matthew goes back as far as Abraham, and Luke to Adam. These writings are scientifically unacceptable, because they set a date for the age of the world and the time humans appeared on Earth, which most definitely contradicts what modern science has firmly established. The Qur'an, on the other hand, is completely free of dates of this kind.
Qur'an agrees with modern ideas on the formation of the Universe. On the other hand, the Biblical narration of primordial waters is hardly, nor is the creation of light on the first day before the creation of the stars which produce this light; the existence of an evening and a morning before the creation of the earth; the creation of the earth on the third day before that of the sun on the fourth; the appearance of beasts of the earth on the sixth day after the appearance of the birds of the air on the fifth day, although the former came first. All these statements are the result of beliefs prevalent at the time this text was written and do not have any other meaning.
Such facts as I have had the pleasure of exposing to you here The Bible, The Qur'an and Science , appear to represent a genuine challenge to human explanation leaving only one alternative: the Qur'an is undoubtedly a revelation from God.
http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suseK...eature=related
By Dr. Maurice Bucaille: The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
I have already come across some of the contradictions between scripture and science regarding the creation of the
universe. I stressed the perfect agreement between modern knowledge and verses in the Qur'an, and that the Biblical narration contained statements that were scientifically unacceptable. This is hardly surprising if we are aware that the narration of the creation contained in the Bible was the work of priests living in the sixth century BC, hence the term ‘sacerdotal' ( priestly ) narration is officially used to refer to it. The narration seems to have been conceived as the theme of a sermon designed to exhort people to observe the Sabbath. The narration was constructed with a definite end in view, and as Father de Vaux (a former head of the Biblical School of Jerusalem) has noted, this end was essentially legalist in character.
The Bible also contains a much shorter and older narration of Creation, the so-called ‘Yahvist' version, which approaches the subject from a completely different angle. They are both taken from Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch or Torah. Moses is supposed to have been its author, but the text we have today has undergone many changes.
The sacerdotal narration of Genesis is famous for its whimsical genealogies, that go back to Adam, and which nobody takes very seriously. Nevertheless, such Gospel authors as Matthew and Luke have reproduced them, more or less wordfor- word, in their genealogies of Jesus. Matthew goes back as far as Abraham, and Luke to Adam. These writings are scientifically unacceptable, because they set a date for the age of the world and the time humans appeared on Earth, which most definitely contradicts what modern science has firmly established. The Qur'an, on the other hand, is completely free of dates of this kind.
Qur'an agrees with modern ideas on the formation of the Universe. On the other hand, the Biblical narration of primordial waters is hardly, nor is the creation of light on the first day before the creation of the stars which produce this light; the existence of an evening and a morning before the creation of the earth; the creation of the earth on the third day before that of the sun on the fourth; the appearance of beasts of the earth on the sixth day after the appearance of the birds of the air on the fifth day, although the former came first. All these statements are the result of beliefs prevalent at the time this text was written and do not have any other meaning.
Such facts as I have had the pleasure of exposing to you here The Bible, The Qur'an and Science , appear to represent a genuine challenge to human explanation leaving only one alternative: the Qur'an is undoubtedly a revelation from God.
http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suseK...eature=related
this must be one of the more stupid reasonings for claiming that the quran must be true, and that it is the only alternative, and a revelation from god. you stupid stupid religious ppl really dont understand what science and proofs mean. believing in some rubbish made up stories from 1400 years ago, which in turn was based on the bible etc, is just plain stupid. get educated!
It's a very popular theory among Islamic apologists to look at Muhammad as a social reformer fighting various injustices.
The problem with this picture is that it assumes things about pre-Islamic Meccan society.Like how it assumes pre-Islamic Arabs were craven polygamists who inherited their woman like property and buried female children alive.The Islamic sources however themselves show that this picture is doubtful.Muhammads first wife Khadija was a successful business woman who operated trading caravans and hired Muhammad to work for her, ending up asking for his hand in marriage.If woman had no rights in pre-Islamic Arabia how can this be true? Muhammad himself was a orphan raised by his grandparents and then uncle who never converted to Islam and remained a polytheist.Any serious scholar would cast doubt about the accuracy of the claims against the pre-Islamic Meccan's since they are inherently biased.
Since Muhammad is the hub in the wheel in Islam and everything rotates around him what Muslims see in that example is reflected in their behavior and beliefs. That is why it is so important to expose Muhammad for what he really was. Muslims uphold him as the perfect man, and it's high time someone had the guts to discuss this and investigate that subject. Once again Geert Wilders leads the way, and we should all be thankful. It takes someone with backbone and devotion to the truth as well as freedom. So far, he's been a leader and a missonary. Muhammad WAS a murderer and an all-around bad example ; be glad Geert is willing to tell the people about it, even though he risks his life. Appreciate him- he's extraordinary .
Perhaps there needs to be a debate like this one on the subject of Mohammed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO6_bv-Na7M&feature=related
Someone with a cool head like Raheel Reza could be included but I doubt that Tariq Ramadan would have the balls to show up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e69vAW0wBg&feature=related
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.