Sharia on Saturday--Honor killing, the facts

I don’t know why they call it honor killing.  It's murder.

This is the Sharia on honor killing.  This makes the news several times a year, but mostly only with Muslims.  This week in the Canadian news, a husband, wife and son were tried for killing 2 daughters and what turns out to be, a second wife.  They were Muslims from Afghanistan.  At the same time, in the US news, the death penalty was given to the second murderer in what’s known as Connecticut’s worst murders.  Two men kidnapped, held hostage and murdered a mother and her two daughters.  They raped the 11 year old.  Then tied them up, poured gasoline around the house and set it on fire.  The girls burned to death.  They killers were born and raised in the US, no one asked what religion they were as most Americans are Christians, and it wasn’t an honor killing.  It was just a brutal killing.  Seems that’s not as bad as killing for honor.

So who decided there was honor in killing a female?  Where did that come from and why?  I thought you should know the answers to those questions.  It didn’t just start yesterday or 1400 years ago and it’s certainly not just a Muslim/Islamic problem.

Killing women isn’t new.  It all goes back to; who’s yo daddy?  Because your daddy owned you and when he was done, another man owned you.  His wife better carry only his seed and his daughters have to be virgins to have value.  The sanctity of lineage has always been more important than the sanctity of life.

And it’s not like this concept went away.   Women are killed every day in every country by; husbands, boyfriends, wanna be lovers and rejected suitors and family members.  They just don’t use the word honor.  It seems that word is used to separate Muslims killing their females from all other countries, cultures and religions.  Where is the honor in that?

Did you know that Brazil has one of the highest numbers in honor killings?  Along with women, lots of gays and transgendered folk are killed there every day.  Honor can mean different things to different cultures.

But if your religion came from the Mid Eastern area, then your religion allowed the killing of females simply because that’s where civilization started.  We can go back in time and see just how long women have been valued for their reproductive parts as these are the laws of the ancient pagans and idolaters.

The Greeks and Romans, both famous for worshipping many gods and goddesses, may not have invented the theory behind honor killings, but they believed it was a good law.  In Rome, a raped woman would be killed, that was the law.  A father owned the family.  He could kill his adulterous wife (even by rumor) any way he wanted to, and  he could make it public and charge a fee to watch, after all, she’s his property.  The Greeks had the same law.  The father or husband had complete ownership of the re-productive parts of his wife, daughter, sister and other female relatives.  And he could sell them.

Hammurabi put it in writing.  Women and children were property that could be owned by free men.  If your wife commits adultery, throw in the water.

But even they didn’t invent it.  In China, an adulterous wife would be trampled by elephants, which are actually trained to kill for this crime.  In ancient Egypt it was flogging and her breasts cut off.  The ancient Persians would dump her in a well.  Jews would stone her.  Even Native American Indians had severe punishments for an adulterous woman.  And it wasn’t just back in the day.

In Brazil, killing your wife for honor was not a crime until 1991.  Almost 1,000 women were killed in one year.

Until 1980 a husband could legally kill his wife for adultery in Colombia.  Laws allowing the honor killing of a wife can be found in of Argentina, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Peru, Syria, Haiti, Venezuela and the Palestinian National Authority.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rape is used as a weapon of war.  An estimated 2 million victims plus more deaths than the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Darfur (Sudan) combined.  The Congo is a Christian country.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates there are 5,000 murders classified as honor killings each year worldwide, and they are not all perpetrated by Muslims. The World Health Organization says there are over half a million annual homicides in the world. Honor killings make up less than 1% of all murders.  Dowry killings are more common.

Dowry killings outnumber honor killings, and they are on the rise. Women with insufficient dowries are murdered or driven to suicide in what are often disguised as kitchen accidents. They call them  “bride burnings.”  In 2008, there were over 8,000 dowry deaths reported in India alone.  Due to the high number of honor killings in India, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Central Government and six states including Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan to stop honor killings, this was in 2010.

Murders for crossing caste boundaries are similar to honor killings and the victims are usually killed by their family members.  The caste system is outlawed, but it remains in parts of India and Nepal, they are not Muslims.

Even today, the laws of Italy allow the possibility of a reduced sentence if it’s classified as for honor. Like the mafia.

In Pakistan; a man can say that the killing was for his honor and he goes free.  But you probably knew about that law.

The Chechen President said that honor killings were perpetrated on those who deserved to die. He said that those who are killed have "loose morals" and are rightfully shot by relatives in honor killings.

Over the last twenty years in Mexico, the crime of killing women doubled. Hundreds of women have been kidnapped, brutally raped and tortured.  Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

In Guatemala, there were nearly 700 murders of women in 2010, and 1,110 in Honduras.  Only 211 made it to court, and less than 5% resulted in a conviction.

In the US, an estimated 1,200 women are killed by their spouse or partner each year.  In 1994, the National Organization for Women, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called Legal Momentum), the Feminist Majority and other organizations finally secured passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which provided a record-breaking $1.6 billion to address issues of violence against women. However it took nearly an additional year to force the Newt Gingrich-led Congress to release the funding.”

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That's more than 600 women every day”

In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner.  That's an average of three women every day.’

The "temporary insanity" defense became US law in 1859 when a congressman used this as a defense for killing his wife’s boyfriend.  It was a very popular defense in the 1940s and 50s.

And that law had its foundations in French law, the Napoleonic code.  Part of that code included a law for Crimes of passion with a reduced sentence.  The law gave the husband complete power over his wife and kids.  Most of Europe already had this law as the man has always been seen as the head of his household.  This can be found in the Gospel and in the Torah with Eve.  It is also in the Quran, men are in charge of women because they have an advantage…’  But none of these books allow for honor killing.  Maybe it’s implied.

Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

In the Hadith, there is one story that talks about honor killing, it’s a story about Aiesha being left behind on a caravan trip.  She was found by a man and returned to her tribe.  Many of the tribe wanted to kill her for ‘dishonoring’ Muhammad; they said she had committed adultery.  But he said no.  This Hadith proves that honor killing came long before Islam.

This Hadith also said that Muhammad prayed hard about this incident and from that prayer the verse came to him that says; bring forth 4 witnesses to prove adultery.   This gave women the first form of protection from rumors and false accusations.  And think about it, will there be 4 witnesses to prove adultery?  Only if it’s done in the street in broad daylight.

Do you promise to love honour and obey your husband?  If not, you might end up dead.  Religious rule not required- because the entire concept of honor killings comes from the ancient pagans and idol worshippers, who were then killed by Christians, Jews and Muslims for worshipping idols and being pagans.  Odd, isn’t it?  Steal their laws then kill them.  How honorable.

The word honor contains the word no. The word ‘no’ used by a woman is bothersome.  She shouldn’t have the right to say no as the word no implies choice and choice means she has some control.  And let’s face it; some men can’t handle the word no or letting a woman have control.  Makes them feel impotent and victimized and they rage, and then death happens.  It’s not really an honor to posses those qualities anymore, so we raise better men.  This has had remarkably good results all over the planet.  But combining ancient pagan laws with progress is still a slow fight.  Giving up control of women has never really been done before, some think the world might end if that should happen, that God will zap all of mankind.  Women are scary.  It’s why some men say the hellfire, the baddest place ever, is filled with women.  Obviously hell doesn’t scare woman and that’s scary.

Women are still fighting for their right to own their bodies, and religious men are still fighting to control her body and her decisions.  Even in countries that have laws giving women the right to own her body, these laws are being challenged.  For the first time in history, the question is asked; Are women really smart enough to make all of their own decisions?  And does she have the right to own her body.

Honor killings, domestic violence, random violence, violence done in the name of a God or just because,-- it’s all bad.  You can’t put one above the other.  In the tribes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other 3rd world countries, you can see your own past.  In some ways, we really haven’t come that far.  It seems that it’s still easier for some men to control women than it is for the men to control themselves.

If you have a problem with ‘Muslim honor killings’ but do not have a problem with the killing of non Muslim women, then, you really don’t have any honor.

Sharia on Saturday--Stoning laws. A history


Recently, one of the US Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich, declared his fear of Sharia replacing the US Constitution.  Now that struck me as funny on two levels.  One, perhaps he knows that under Sharia he could be stoned to death for committing adultery-twice.  And two, shouldn’t someone who is running for the office of President of the United States of America, at least have some knowledge of the American Constitution?  For those who share his fear, let me put those fears to rest, Sharia law could never replace the US Constitution.  Read it.

The Sharia he fears is that of 3rd world countries so he must think Americans are stupid.  Seriously, what could make that happen?  A Jinn under the control of a Saudi or a Nigerian casts a spell and all Americans wake up as uneducated, superstitious, Sunni tribes, believing they are riding camels in the deserts of Saudi Arabia?  Status update; switching tribes, new one does not stone for adultery.  Newt.

Tribal laws are as ancient as time and in the Mid East the majority of tribal laws come from one source, Hammurabi, the 6th king of Babylon.  And what’s truly interesting is, Hammurabi didn’t even believe in one God.

Hammurabi didn’t invent the laws as most had already been tribal laws for centuries.  He just wrote them down.  And even though Hammurabi lived thousands of years before the Torah, the Gospels or the Quran, his laws were ‘borrowed’ for God, Yahweh, Allah.  His laws made into all three books. 

110. If a "sister of a god" open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.
Yes, women have always been a problem, but in this law, it deals with a woman who claims to be a sister of A god…who drinks, and I guess that wasn’t a good thing.


129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.
Death by drowning for the adulterers.


130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.
Child-wife?  I'm sure this is a surprise to those who think Muhammad invented this.
Death to rapists, especially child rapists, and don’t blame the victim.


131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.
Surprise!  But not in a good way. The Quran has a law very similar to this law.


132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.
This is to prove her truthfulness.  See if any of these sound familiar


195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, both of these laws can be found in all three books of one God, even though it was written by an Idolater.  Ah, the irony of it all.


137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
Even the dowry and the math for inheritance laws are older than the sacred texts.  Child support is an age old issue.


138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.
I’m sure this law seems familiar to Muslims.


Lineage is at the heart of these laws because then, just like now, the most important question is, whose yo daddy?  And because of that; laws protecting the sperm lineage included severe penalties for adultery.
Stoning people became popular somewhere along the line.  I’m guessing it had to do with lack of rivers in the other areas.


Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.
Hmmm…I like Hummi’s law that the victim shouldn’t be blamed.

Leviticus 20:10And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Adultery was seen as a punishable crime.


Deuteronomy 22:13-21 If any man take a wife, and say, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Is that law only for Israel?

Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.
Witches are still killed in Saudi Arabia.  Though I haven’t figured out why a witch would even want to live there…or why they can’t cast a spell to save themselves.

John 8:5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
But they didn’t stop stoning adulterers.

So now you have a brief history of the stoning law, but what does the Quran say about stoning people?  Absolutely nothing.  The stoning laws for adultery were abrogated by the Quran.  Adulterers still got punished, but not killed.  1400 years ago lashings instead of death might have been seen as a good thing.

Not many countries continued with laws that punish adulterers, though crimes due to adultery are many, the law goes after the crime and the criminal, more than the motive.  But for some tribes, time has stood still, and the ancient code of law is still valid - even if they are 5,000 years old.  It doesn’t matter if it’s the law of Hammurabi or the law of Hadith (Arabic word for; tales, stories, narrations)

Narrated Ibn 'Umar

A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, "What do you (usually) do with them?" They said, "We blacken their faces and disgrace them." He said, "Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful." They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand upand behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, "O Muhammad! They should be stonedto death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves." Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death and, and they were stoned to death, and I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones.

The point of the group kill is so not one individual among the group can be identified as the one who kills the adulterer, everyone shares the guilt…?  They still use this ‘theory’ with execution by firing squad.

And there is a Hadith that says a goat ate the aya and that’s why the stoning law in not in the Quran.  But that doesn’t make any sense as the Quran is quite clear when dealing with adulterers.

24:2 As for the adulteress and the adulterer flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and let not compassion with them keep you from [carrying out] this law of God, if you believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of the believers witness their chastisement
100 lashes.


24:3 The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers
Well, they can’t marry if they’re dead now can they?  It’s pretty clear, don’t kill adulterers.


17:32 And do not commit adultery-for, behold, it is an abomination and an evil way
Adultery was an issue more than 5,000 years ago, and it’s still an issue today.


24:4  And as for those who accuse chaste women [of adultery], and then are unable to produce four witnesses in support of their accusation, flog them with eighty stripes  and ever after refuse to accept from them any testimony - since it is they, they that are truly depraved
The 4 witnesses is needed to prove adultery, some switch the word adultery with the word rape but to be clear, 4 witnesses are needed to prove adultery.


24:6  And as for those who accuse their own wives of adultery, but have no witnesses except them­selves, let each of these accusers call God four times to witness that he is indeed telling the truth
The honor system.


The majority of Sharia countries do not stone their adulterers because they don’t have a death penalty…but some still have tribes who spend their days carrying water back to their villages, it’s still a matter of survival and much of that is dependent on maintaining laws.  Social order is important for survival.  Running water and electricity frees up time for education. These are things we take for granted. 
And but for the grace of (whatever) God, be glad you weren’t born in the outskirts of Afghanistan.
So don't be a hater, be helpful


For Newt and others to fear that we will all revert back to tribal law is ridiculous.  Humans are progress (well, most of them are) and there will come a time when there are no tribes left or tribal law. 

And props to Hammurabi for writing down the laws of the ancient…. laws that still have value.  Click the link and read them.  5,000 years later, we still have the same problems.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
I think someone should name him as a prophet.

Sharia on Saturday--Apostasy

Mention the word ‘apostasy’ and instantly your mind says ‘Islam’.  Everyone knows that to leave the religion of Islam means a death sentence especially in Saudi Arabia were it is forbidden to leave Islam or to have another religion. 

On the other hand, out of 57 Muslim countries, only a handful actually has a death penalty, and executions for apostasy are rare even in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is actually legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.

But Sharia law does state that if an adult man leaves Islam, he is to be killed, unless he’s considered crazy.  It’s ok to be an unbeliever if you’re crazy. 
If a female leaves Islam she is to be imprisoned until she changes her mind.  Being crazy won’t help her. 
This comes from the (prophet) Buky. 

Bukhari; "If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished.‏ In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

‘No one besides the caliph or his representative may kill the apostate. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).’

That did not make it into the Quran.

‘If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage’. Deuteronomy 13:6–10

Being killed for leaving a religion is not a new sport.  It’s been going on since religion was invented.  Believe or die.  If you decide not to believe and are killed for that belief, do you go to ‘their’ hell?  I doubt it.  Besides, the G-d didn’t invent hellfire for the Jews- that came later for the Christians and Muslims.  Interesting.

Apostasy is a Greek word that means, 'a defection or revolt'.

These days, many Islamic scholars believe that the apostasy laws of Hadith were more political than religious.  I don’t think they had a choice.  With the internet anyone can read the Quran in any language.

Others say that because the other 2 religions of Abe have a death penalty for apostasy, that it’s what God wants.

"Think not that I came to destroy the Law [Torah] and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy them, but rather to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these..
Matt. 5:17

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)

That is also one of the 10 commandments...you shall put no other gods before me.  Exodus 20:3. Deuteronomy 5:7

This is the main messages for the Jews, that there was only ONE G-D.  At the time of this revelation, there were thousands of gods and goddesses, who were renamed as ‘pagans’.  Pagans were bad, so were idolaters.  The belief in just ONE god was the cause of many wars and disputes, still is, even if it’s not a new concept.  Now it’s not enough to believe in one God, it’s more about the rituals that the one God gave to the prophets/messenger/son.

The Nicene Creed turns God into a father, that was new.
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
“We believe in on God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and all that is seen and unseen.”
If God is a father, then the father can have a son.

After Amaziah came from striking down the Edomites, he brought the gods of the men of Seir and set them up as his gods and worshiped them, making offerings to them
2 Chronicles 25:14


There are around 500,000 Hadith, approximately 30 on apostasy.  I guess it wasn’t as huge an issue as some would like to believe.  Of course Buky Bukhari leads the pack.

Bukhari; Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

During the Spanish inquisition, a systematic conversion of Jews to Christianity took place, some of which under threats and force.  Compulsion in religion was huge.

William Tyndale was a priest who left the Catholic Church because he didn’t agree with the concept that the Holy Scriptures must be in Latin, a language very few understood.  He believed, as did Martin Luther (another heretic priest), that the Scriptures should be available in English.  He was tried for heresy in 1536.  He was burned at the stake.  Most Protestants would call them both liberators and revolutionary but they were both apostates.

Count Valentine, (Abraham ben Abraham) is said to have converted to Judaism and that caused him to be burned at the stake in 1749.  Leaving the Catholic Church was a deadly decision.

These days neither Jews nor Catholics follow the punishment for being an apostate.  But that doesn’t mean that your family will rejoice.  You still can end up being excluded from your family and friends and if you’re Jewish, forget about being buried in a Jewish cemetery.  And if you’re Amish you might never see your family ever again.

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction..’ 2 Thessalonians 2:3 at that time, only those who knew latin could decide it was for the ‘rapture'.

And now we come back to Islam, the Quran, Muslims and apostasy.

I would like to be a lawyer defending religious freedom in a Sharia court, because it would be so damn easy.  Even though some dead Arab decided that the Quran could only be read in Arabic, there is not a scriptural basis for that religious law.  Like Martin Luther and William Tyndale, the law needs to be challenged and- we won’t need to burn a Tree.  If you toss the Hadith, it’s a pretty clear case.  The Quran makes it easy to toss Hadith.

Quran 5:99  “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.”
Muhammad was not the message, he was only the messenger.

7:3 Follow what has been revealed to you from your Sustainer and do not follow guardians besides Him (His Laws), how little do you mind."
And who is the sustainer, God or Muhammad?

3:20 “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.”
So forget Hadith.

16:89 And We have revealed the Book to you which has the clear explanation of everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit."
So forget Hadith.

10:59 “Say: ‘Tell me, what provision Allah has sent down to you! And you have made of it lawful and unlawful.’ Say: ‘has Allah permitted you to do so, or do you invent a lie against Allah?’
I wonder how the judges would respond to that question.  Hadith is not sacred so forget Hadith.

16:116 “And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: ‘This is lawful and this is forbidden,’ so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper.”
If you don’t let my client apostate, you’re gonna be a broke ass

2:256  “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.”
There is no compulsion in religion.  If you believe in many gods and give them all up for the belief in one God, it’s all good.  But if you don’t, that’s ok, too.  There is NO compulsion in religion.  And here's the kicker.  The Quran is the only book that does not insist that you believe.  You read that right.  It's one of the upgrades, you don't have to believe.  You'd think that would be a bragging point.  Instead it got lost in hadith and rejected by Saudi and Iranian scholars, who of course will end up in the hellfire.


109.1 Say: O unbelievers!
109.2 I do not serve that which you serve,
109.3 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
109.4 Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
109.5 Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
109.6 You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion
So how can there be a death penalty for apostasy?  Aren't these words clear enough?

10:99  “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?”  
Translation; if the Lord wanted everyone to be a believer, it would have already happened…and it’s none of your business.

28:49 "Say: Then bring some (other) book from Allah which is a better guide than both of them, I may follow it, if you are truthful."
And you bring Hadith?

31;6 Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadeethi liyudilla AAan sabeeli Allahi bighayri AAilmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan olaika lahum AAathabun muheenun
Translation;
31: 6: But, there are among men those who patronize ridiculous Hadith without knowledge thereby misleading men from the Path of Allah and throwing a butt of mockery on the Path: for such there will be a humiliating Penalty."

I rest my case of bitter fruit.  The Quran does not allow a believer to kill anyone who decides to leave Islam because 'to you your religion, to me mine' is the law. And the Quran throws a penalty at those who follow Hadith, so don't even go there.  This is a pretty easy case, let my client convert to the worship of Trees or you will be humiliated and broke…and you'll end up eating the bitter fruit of said Tree.
Let my people GO!


The truth is better than hadith!

Sharia on Saturday--Taqiyya and Kitman and Liars

Taqiyya, the new buzz word. Who is lying to you?
Lately I’ve been seeing bloggers, blog radio and a whole host of others who now want to learn Arabic, too bad they’re learning it from terrorists.

Non Muslims have been told by Sharia terrorists that the Quran sanctions lying about anything, for any reason, so long as it further Islam, themselves, or an agenda by way of taqiyya.
Is this true or is it taqiyya?


How do Muslims scholars define taqiyya?
Ayatollah Sistani describes the concept of taqiyya as follows: Taqiyya is done for reasons of safety. As a minority living under the political dominance of Sunni Muslims, Shia often protect themselves.
Maybe they should pay Jizya…ha

The following can be found at Faith Freedom, Jihad Watch and many other websites.  All have the same 11 verses from the Quran to prove that all Muslims are allowed to lie for any reason, to anyone at anytime.  Everyone assumes that terrorists never lie so they’re never challenged. I’m challenging them.

Before you start reading you need to know a few of the terms.

A ‘Unbeliever’ is one who does not believe in one god. In the Quran they were known as pagans, idol worshippers and those who didn’t follow scriptures.
A ‘believer’ is one who believes in one god.
Anything in bold print is my comments.

From a well known website;

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse
5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."
Remember that!

Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Qur'an (
16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
I found that to be kitman as they didn’t quote the entire verse, so here it is….

16:106 Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief, save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with Faith but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom
This verse says that if one is forced to not believe in one God then there is no sin. It also says that if you say you no longer believe in God because it’s easier, your reward is an awful doom.
The Religion of Peace said at the start; when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse
So I ask, why is ok for them to do this?  They continue...

Qur'an (
3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."
Yet this verse has nothing to do with lying. Here it is…

3:28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you To remember Himself; for the final goal is to Allah
Pagans and those who didn’t follow scriptures were considered ‘Unbelievers’. And the next verse they quoted shows that it was for Muhammad…

3:29 Say, O Muhammad: Whether ye hide that which is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knoweth it. He knoweth that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, and Allah is Able to do all things
The words, ‘O Muhammad’ should be your first clue that this was for him.  This verse does not allow lying.
At the time the Quran was written, the deserts of Arabia were filled with pagans and idol worshippers. These were as Allah called them, the worst of the worst (9;97). They would burn or bury their female babies, kill, torture and rape for fun, and of course women and orphans were fair game. These were the tribal gangs of the desert, and they all wanted to kill Muhammad. They did not want to give up their many gods or change their behavior. You’ve read the Hadith. Is it any wonder that a God would want them to have a better message?

This was next on the website….

Qur'an (
9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
What does this verse have to do with lying? And what does the next verse say?

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. As for these, fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty
Oh, so keep your word.
what else do they have....
Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.
Hmm...more kitman. Why use just part of the verse? Here is the full verse…

40:28 And a believing man of Pharaoh's family, who hid his faith, said: Would ye kill a man because he saith: My Lord is Allah, and hath brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is lying, then his lie is upon him; and if he is truthful then some of that wherewith he threateneth you will strike you. Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a prodigal, a liar
Pharaoh?  The dead one?  Seriously, who’s lying here?
What else do they have to prove that all Muslims are allowed to taqiyya…

Qur'an (
2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"
This doesn’t say Muslims are allowed to lie. What’s the next verse?

2:226 For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months is ordained; if then they return, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
Sex!!??
Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths"
That sounds bad. I wonder what it’s about…
66:1 O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
His wives?  Really?  Next….

Qur'an (
3:54) - "And the disbelievers schemed, and Allah schemed against them: and Allah is the best of schemers."
The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.
We better read the verse that comes right after
2:54 so we can trap the terrorists as they practice their taqiyya on you!

3:55 And remember when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
Well, holy Jesus.
That sure doesn’t prove taqiyya

They conclude with these two verses….

8:30 And when those who disbelieve plot against thee O Muhammad to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah also plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.
Muhammad?  And he's dead.
Ok, they have one more chance to prove their taqiyya.
10;21 This better be good….

10:21 When We make mankind taste of some mercy after adversity hath touched them, behold! they take to plotting against Our Signs! Say: "Swifter to plan is Allah." Verily, Our messengers record all the plots that ye make!
Hmm…..fail.  There are over 6,000 verses in the Quran and they couldn't find one verse that tells them to lie.
And this is what they end with…

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Do you find that to be a true statement?

Most of these websites and blogs make money by scaring you. The ‘donate’ button should be your first clue.  According to the Quran, Muslims are not allowed to lie—taqiyya or kitman.

6:150 Say: "Bring forward your witnesses to prove that Allah did forbid so and so." If they bring such witnesses, be not thou amongst them: Nor follow thou the vain desires of such as treat our signs as falsehoods, and such as believe not in the Hereafter: for they hold others as equal with their Guardian-Lord.
16:116 And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed

16:117 In such falsehood is but a paltry profit; but they will have a most grievous Penalty

29:13 They will bear their own burdens, and (other) burdens along with their own, and on the Day of Judgment they will be called to account for their falsehoods

I understand that you are being hit by both sides. The Sharia terrorists who want to scare you and the fear bloggers want to make money off of your fear- then scare you again tomorrow.
Instead of believing what either one tells you, look it up yourself. And if you already believe the Sharia thugs are liars, why the hell are you repeating what they say?

17:60 And it was a warning when We told thee: Lo! Thy Lord encompasses mankind, and We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind, and the Accursed Tree in the Quran—The Az Zaqqum. We warn them, but it increased them in naught save gross impiety

I tell the truth. A lot of people don't want to know the truth. That alone can make me an ordeal.

Any questions?
Az Zaqqum Islamic Scholar for the infidel