Translating Words, Interpreting Events

The Ultimate Source of Islamic Hate for Infidels

Print Friendly

CBN News

Who is ultimately responsible for the ongoing attacks on Christians and their churches throughout the Islamic world?

Focusing on one of the most obvious nations where Christians are regularly targeted—Egypt’s Coptic Christians—one finds that the “mob” is the most visible and obvious culprit.  One Copt accused of some transgression against Muslim sensibilities—from having relations with a Muslim woman, to ruining a Muslim man’s shirt—is often enough to prompt Muslim mobs to destroy entire Christian villages and their churches.

Recently, for example, after her cross identified Mary Sameh George as a Christian, a pro-Muslim Brotherhood mob attacked, beat, and slaughtered her.

However, a recent Arabic op-ed titled “Find the True Killer of Mary” looks beyond the mob to identify the true persecutor of Christians in Egypt. According to it:

Those who killed the young and vulnerable Mary Sameh George, for hanging a cross in her car, are not criminals, but rather wretches who follow those who legalized for them murder, lynching, dismemberment, and the stripping bare of young Christian girls—without every saying “kill.”  [Islamic cleric] Yassir Burhami and his colleagues who announce their hate for Christians throughout satellite channels and in mosques—claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God—they are the true killers who need to be tried and prosecuted…  The slayers of Mary Sameh are simply a wretched mob, with the body of a bull but the brain of a worm.  It’s not the puppets on the string who need punishing, but rather the mastermind who moves the puppets with his bloody fingers behind closed curtains that needs punishing.

One fact certainly validates this Arabic op-ed’s assertions: the overwhelming majority of attacks on Christians in Egypt and other Muslim nations—including the slaughter of Mary Sameh George—occur on Friday, the one day of the week that Muslims congregate in mosques for communal prayers and to hear sermons.

The significance of this fact can easily be understood by analogy: what if Christians were especially and consistently violent to non-Christian minorities on Sunday—right after they got out of church?  What would that say about what goes on in Christian churches?

What does it say about what goes on in Muslim mosques?

The Arabic op-ed also does well to name Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami as one of those who “announce their hate for Christians throughout the satellite channels and in mosques, claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God.”

For example, Dr. Burhami—the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement—once issued a fatwa, or Islamic edict, forbidding Muslim taxi- and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

As for hating non-Muslim “infidels,” many Islamic clerics, especially Salafis, believe that the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity” (or wala’ wa bara’) commands Muslims never to befriend or be loyal to non-Muslims.

Burhami himself appears on video asserting that if a Muslim man marries a Christian or Jewish woman (known in Islamic parlance as “People of the Book”)—even he must still hate his wife, because she is an infidel.

When asked at a conference how Islam can allow a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman and yet expect him to hate her, Burhami expounded as follows:

Shiekh Yassir Burhami and the scriptures of Islam

Where’s the objection? Do all men love their wives?  How many married couples live together despite disagreements and problems? Huh? That being the case, he [Muslim husband] may love the way she [non-Muslim wife] looks, or love the way she raises the children, or love that she has money. This is why he’s discouraged from marrying among the People of the Book—because she has no [real] religion. He is ordered to make her hate her religion while continuing marriage/sexual relations with her. This is a very standard matter….  Of course he should tell her that he hates her religion. He must show her that he hates her because of her religion, and because she is an infidel. But if possible, treat her well—perhaps that will cause her to convert to Islam. He should invite her to Islam and call her to Allah….  In fact, let me tell you: whoever rapes a woman, does he necessarily love her? Or is he just sleeping with her? He’s sleeping with her for her body’s sake only, and he does not love her in reality, because if he loved her, he wouldn’t have hurt her. Therefore it is possible to have sexual relations [between a Muslim man and a Christian or Jewish woman] without love. This is possible, but as we said, he is commanded to hate her (emphasis added).

Burhami even said that the Muslim husband cannot initiate greetings to his non-Muslim wife when he comes home—according to the teachings of Islam’s prophet as recorded in the hadith.

Like all other Islamic clerics, Burhami justified “infidel-wife-hating” by quoting some of the Koran verses that form the cornerstone of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity:

Otherwise what do you do with the undisputed texts [of the Koran], such as “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist [or reject submission to] Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred… “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors…”  [Koran 58:22 and 5:51, Yusuf Ali translation].  What do you do with such a verse? What do you do will all these verses?

Indeed, what does a Muslim do with all these Koran verses and sayings attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad?

Such is the dilemma.

From here it becomes clear that the aforementioned Arabic op-ed discussing the slaughter of Mary Sameh George is only partially correct.  It is true that behind the mindless mob stand Islamic clerics like Burhami, inciting hatred for Christians and other infidels.  But that is not the complete picture; for behind all these clerics stand Islam’s scriptures—the Koran and hadith—commanding enmity for the infidel.

In short, it’s not just a few “radical clerics”—a few “rotten apples”—that incite mobs to attack Christians, but rather the core texts of Islam itself.

, , ,

  • Larry









    Sunni Morality Fatwa of Abu Hanifa on –


    Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan writes in his book of fatwa, Volume 4,
    p. 820:

    Of things which are haram but for which there is no Islamic penalty, these include… marrying your wife’s sister, or her mother, or a woman who is already married.

    Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, page 820

    On the very next page Qadhi Khan records a classic Fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa

    “if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty”.

    Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, Ppage 821

    We read in another authority Hanafi work, Fatwa Alamgiri:

    “If someone marries five women at a time or marries a fifth woman while already having four wives or marries his sister in law or mother in law and then performs intercourse with her and then says that I knew that it is haram for me or performs nikah al mutah with a woman then there will be no plenty of adultery on him in all of these situations though he confessed that he knew it was haram on him”

    Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 3 page 264


    Let us understand this then: in accordance with the fatwa of ‘Umar, the Sunni position is that anybody who contract Mut’ah should be executed. However, if somebody marries his mother, not just commits incest, but actually pronounces a formal marriage, there is no penalty for that person.

    This should demonstrate the degree to which Sunni Islam is nothing but an
    artificial construction, designed solely to be a bulwark against the mission of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). When a sincere reader sees that these individuals have ruled that there is no Islamic penalty for marrying one’s mother, but that there is for doing Mut’ah, does not reason dictate that such fatwas about Mut’ah are motivated only by bigotry and hatred of the Shi’a? When a Sunni rules that it is permissible to pray behind a drunk person who is so intoxicated he can’t even keep track of the number of rakaats he has prayed, but then says that it is not permissible to pray behind a sober Shi’a, what should one think? Does this seem like the religion of the Prophet (s), or the
    religion of a group of hate-filled scholars?



    The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with

    Islamic conquest of 638CE.

    Its Messianic nature and the role of the Jewish Exilarch

    By Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

    Upon the overthrow of the revolt and interruption of communication with Israel,
    Hananiah set about arranging the calendar, which hitherto had been the
    exclusive prerogative of the Israeli patriarch. Hananiah even considered the
    possibility of erecting a Jewish Temple in Nehardea, similar to the ones Onias
    IV had erected in Heliopolis in Egypt, and in Mecca in Arabia.59 The former had
    been closed up by the Romans; the later had fallen into idol worship and
    superstition. Fearing that Babylon may fall the way of Arabia, the Israeli authorities

    “If you persist in your intention, seek for yourselves another hill, where Ahijah [the Exilarch] can build you another temple, where Hananiah can play the harp for you [he was a Levite, who were the musicians of the Temple], and confess openly that you have no more share in Israel’s God.”60 This episode made such a strong impression upon the public mind that there are several accounts of it.61

    59 See the Author’s essay on “The Prophet Muhammed as a descendant of Onias III”

    These two temples were built about the time that Judah the Maccabee rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem. This could explain the Hadith where is says they were built forty years apart:

    “Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, “O Allah’s Apostle!
    Which mosque was built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.”
    I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a
    (i.e. Jerusalem).”
    I asked, “What was the period in between them?” He replied,
    “Forty (years).” He then added, “Wherever the time for the
    prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of
    worshipping for you.” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 636:


    The Mother of Mohammed, Amina was of Jewish birth. Von Hammer.

    “Mohammed, who was the only son of Abdallah, a Pagan, and Amina, a Jewess, and
    was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly
    tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of
    the Kaaba, and pretended to trace their origin to Ismael, the son of Abraham
    and Hagar, was born at Mecca, August 20, A.D. 570 …’

    At that period, there were many “Jews’ in that area. Again from The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, volume 5, page 202:

    “Seven hundred years before the death of Mahomet the Jews were settled in Arabia; and a far greater multitude was expelled from the Holy Land in the wars of Titus and Hadrian. The industrious exiles aspired to liberty and power: they erected synagogues in the cities, and castles in the wilderness; and their Gentile converts were confounded with the children of Israel [Jews] …”

    Waves of Israelites to Arabia bringing Judaism in various stages of development

    The traditional view of Arabian history centers on Yemen. It is assumed that a
    fairly developed civilization grew in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. For several hundred years it grew rich by exporting gold, frankincense and myrrh to the Roman Empire; as well as controlling the overland routes to India and the East. The first
    collapse of the Marib dam around 450 CE; the decline of the use of frankincense
    due to the Christianization of Rome; and the Rome success bypassing the desert by using a sea route led to the collapse of southern Arabian society. This in turn led to
    waves of immigration from the South to North, from the city to the desert.

    Dr. Günter Lüling proposes an alternative paradigm.[1] He proposes a “more
    historical picture of Central Arabia, inundated throughout a millennium by heretical Israelites”. He envisions waves of Israelite refugees headed, North to South, to Arabia bringing with them Judaism in various stages of development. Linguistic and
    literary-historical research in the Qur’an tends to support the notion of a more
    northerly origin for linguistic development of Arabic.[2] Here is a brief summary of three of these waves of Judaic immigration: Herodian, Sadducean and Zealot (explained in more detail elsewhere).[3]

    During the time of Ptolemy, the native population of Cush originally inhabited
    both sides of the Red Sea: on the east, southern and eastern Arabia; and on the
    west, Abyssinia (Ethiopia-Eritrea). During the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor
    (r 181–145 BCE), the Jewish High Priest Onias IV built a Jewish Temple in
    Heliopolis, Egypt and also one in Mecca, Arabia. He did this to fulfill his
    understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah 19:19, “In that day shall there be
    an altar to the Lord (Heliopolis)

    in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border (Mecca) thereof to the
    Lord.” The border of Ptolemy’s empire was in Arabia.

    The first wave of immigrants came with the success of the Maccabean, later
    Herodian, Judeo-Arab kingdom. Romanized Arabs (and Jews) from the trans-Jordan
    began migrating southward. The Tobiads which briefly had controlled Jerusalem extended their power southward from Petra and established the “Tubba” dynasty of kings of Himyar. Yathrib was settled during this period.

    The second wave of immigrants came before the destruction of the Temple, when refugees fleeing the war, as well as the Sadducean leadership, fled to Arabia. Khaibar was established as a city of Sadducean Cohen-Priests at this time.

    The third wave of immigrants were mostly refugees and soldiers from Bar Kochba’s revolt – fighters trained in the art of war and zealously nationalistic – sought refugee in Arabia.

    This last wave of immigrants included people who are known in Islamic literature as the Aus and the Khazraj. Around 300 CE, they were forced out of Syria by the rising strength of Christian Rome, and the adoption of the Ghassan leader, Harith I, of Christianity. At first the Aus and Khazraj lived on the outskirts of Yathrib. According to Islamic sources, the Khazraj, headed by Malik ibn Ajlan, sought and obtained military assistance from the Bani Ghasaan; and having enticed the principal chiefs of Yathrib into an enclosed tent, massacred them.[4] Then the citizens of Yathrib, beguiled into security by a treacherous peace, attended a feast given by their unprincipled foes; and there a second butchery took place, in which they lost the whole of their leaders.[5]


    1.”A new Paradigm for the Rise of Islam and its Consequences for a New Paradigm of the History of Israel” by Dr. Günter Lüling; Originally appeared in The Journal of Higher Criticism Nr. 7/1, Spring 2000, pp. 23-53.

    2.Hagarism, Crone and Cook

    3.See the authors essays “The Prophet Muhammed as a descendant of Onias III” and “From Bar Kochba to the Prophet Muhammed”

    4.See Katib at Wackidi, p. 287.

    5. “Life of Mohamet I”, by Sir Walter Muir, Chapter III, Section 6


    Sunday, October 3, 2010

    Islam and Judaism: the early years – Papers
    by Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

    “Islam and Judaism: the early years” a series of
    articles, using a historiographical approach, stating that Jews and Muslims
    were originally friends.


    Retrieved from “”

    Category: Islam and Judaism

    Ben Abrahamson


    I am an orthodox Chassidic Jew from Israel who works as an historian, a consultant, to an important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem.

    Most of the people here know me from my endless discussions about the
    similarities between Islamic and Jewish customs. I enjoy talking about the Haddith, the histories of Tabari, Ibn Hisham and Al-Waqidi, and the kings of Himyar, as I much as I enjoy discussing the Midrash Rabbah, the Midrashei Geulah, Rambam, Tosefos or the Shulchan Aruch.

    I love to talk about common prayer customs, architecture and calendars.

    But it is clear to me that there is more to this than just similarities, they obviously go back to a common root, a common faith.

    In our literature we are taught that there is common faith, a fundamental “religion” which all men are born into. There is a basic faith that is obligated on all mankind. Jews have called this yireh shomaym, ger toshav or bnei noah in Hebrew, theosebeia in greek, and according to school of Rabbi Benamozegh, this fundamental “religion” is also called by the name Islam.

    In the Holy Torah, everywhere the word “Kenite” used, it is translated to Aramaic, it is called Salamai, or Muslamai. Some suggest this refers to the great numbers of non-Jewish believers who came to sacrifice the Qurban Shlamim in Jerusalem
    together with the Jews. Salamai, Musalamai, Muslims. This could be a clear
    indication in our literature that Islam is an ancient religion, dating back to second temple times, at least. And if Islam’s roots are the same as what we call bnei noah, then it is much older, it is the religion of Noah, and Adam himself.

    The closeness of Islam and Judaism was always understood by Biblical Scholars
    up until recent years. The close relationship between Jews, the ten lost
    tribes, the Arabs and Rachabites was all assumed. With the advent of German
    revisionists, Wellhausen and Büchler, and others, this all changed. They
    introduced ideas that Islam started with Moon or rock worship, or a falling
    asteroid. Devout Jews know that this is not true.

    It is a fact of Jewish Law that we believe that Muslims are perfect monotheists. They worship the same God that we do.

    • Larry


      Unwitting Disciples of Zoroaster: The Influence of Zoroastrianism on Rabbanism in the Talmud and Midrash

      From 226 to 379, the Persian kings gathered and systematized the works of Zoroaster. The result was twenty-one great volumes – against the twenty-one words of the most holy Persian prayer, the Ahuravarrya.
      Known as Nusk, it is the Talmud of the Zoroastrians (speaking anachronistically).

      Due to the hostilities between the Persians and the Arabs in the latter half of
      the eighth century, the books of the Nusk were singled out for destruction.
      What now remains to the remnants of Zoroastrianism are five volumes:

      (1) Yasna – the book of sacrifices, which contains seventy-two chapters among them the Gatha passages (the oldest and most hallowed writings of the Zend-Avesta)

      (2) Vendidad – twenty-two chapters on the laws regulating evil spirits.


      (3) Yasht -an elaborate, detailed account of the Persian deities.

      (4) The Vispered – twenty-four chapters (a supplement to Yasna).

      (5) Khorda – an abridged edition of the laws in the Zend-Avesta.

      The Talmud was greatly influenced by Persian culture. It derives, in fact, much of its content directly from the Zend-Avesta, as will be detailed in brief
      below. One finds in the Talmud not only Persian superstition and legend, but
      many legal decisions handed down in accordance with Persian code. Not to
      mention the customs and usages of Persian life. Even the forms and expressions of the literary Pahlavi entered into the Talmud in no small way. The Persian influence on the Talmud is so great that, at times, it is difficult to separate what is Jewish from what is Persian in it.

      A system of nomenclature for angels in Jewish lore, prior to Persian influence,
      did not exist. We find for example, angels being named for the first time in
      the book of Daniel (a book compiled during the Persian exile). The naming of
      angels was important in the Persian religion, and the Talmud itself relates
      that: “Shemot HaMal’akhim ‘Alu Lahem MiBavel” – “The names of the Angels
      arose from Babylon”.
      Those familiar with Rabbanite theology will note how it is replete with the
      mention of good and bad angels (just think of the Rabbanite Shalom ‘Aleikhem song for Shabbat night).

      Shalom alechem malache ha-sharet malache elyon,

      mi-melech malche ha-melachim Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu.

      Bo’achem le-shalom malache ha-shalom malache elyon,

      mi-melech malche ha-melachim Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu.

      Barchuni le-shalom malache ha-shalom malache elyon,

      mi-melech malche ha-melachim Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu

      Shalom Aleichem English

      Upon returning from the synagogue, this is said:

      When a festival or Chol Hamoed occurs
      on Shabbat, the following selections are said

      Say three times: Peace unto you, ministering angels, messengers of
      the Most High, of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed he He.

      Say three times: May your coming be in peace angels of peace,
      messengers of the Most High, of the supreme King of kings, the Holy one,
      blessed be He.

      Say three times: Bless me with peace, angels of peace, messengers of
      the Most High, of the supreme King of kings, the Holy one, blessed he He.

      Say three times: May your departure be in peace, angels of peace,
      messengers of the Most High, of the supreme King of kings, the Holy one,
      blessed he He.

      For He will instruct His angels in your behalf, to guard you in all your
      ways. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.

      From Siddur Tehillat Hashem. © Copyright Kehot Publication
      Society, Brooklyn NY

      In Persian teaching, there were two gods, a good god, Ahura Mazda, and an evil god, Ahriman. The Talmud, in fact, went to the extent of borrowing the names of many of the deities and angels in the Persian pantheon, such as: Mithra (called Metatron in the Talmud), Hadar (called Hadarni’el in the Talmud), Dahriman, Tir, Serosh(1) , Aesmadiv [“spirit of anger” in Persian] (called Ashmedai in the Talmud), Angra/Agra (called Agrat in the Talmud),and many more…


      As with angels, so did the Amora’im [the Rabbis quoted in the Talmud]of Babylon and the writers of the Christian scriptures draw freely from the Zend-Avesta’s troves of superstitions about demons and imps. Let’s start with a look at Ahriman. From the Talmud, we learn that the angel, Ahriman is identified with Satan (Masekhet Bava Batra 16). Masekhet Sanhedrin 29, and the Vendidad II, 384 refer to Ahriman as the Serpent of Hell.

      Ahriman’s myriads of helpers are referred to as divs, what we now call devils.
      Vendidad I, 21 notes that these divs are more numerous than the dust of the
      earth (as does Talmud Masekhet Berakhot 6, Midrash Tehillim 17, Tanhuma,
      etc.,). The following passages from the Talmud and Midrash regarding demons (divs) were derived or directly copied from Vendidad II:

      Masekhet Sanhedrin 25 notes that devs are particularly active in graveyards. Masekhet Gitin 68 and Midrash Qohelet state that divs are male and female. Masekhet Berakhot 61 and Masekhet Hulin 105 state that demons can assume the shape of human beings, or flys. Masekhet Hagigah 16 contends that demons, like human beings, can reproduce. Masekhet Gitin 68 calls Ashemdai (Aesmadiv in Persian) the greatest of the divs. One of the fundamental teachings of Persian religious conduct is the avoidance of
      unclean hands (Masekhet Shabbat 109). It was believed that Sabetkh, a
      div, rests upon such hands: The Qissur Shulhan Arukh 2.1 quoting Yosef
      Caro’s Beit Yosef states, “when a man is asleep, the holy soul departs
      from his body, and an unclean spirit descends upon him. When rising from sleep, the unclean spirit departs from his body except for his fingers, and does not depart until one spills water upon them three times alternately. One is not allowed to walk four cubits (six feet) without having one’s hands washed, except in cases of extreme necessity.”

      Masekhet Megillah 3 states that during the period of night, no one must
      offer or receive the hand of another (for fear of an evil spirit). Masekhet
      Shevu‘ot 15 and Masekhet Berakhot 4 contain the Persian prayer to
      repel the unseen forces of evil.

      The driving off of evil spirits by adjuration was an integral part of the
      Persian religion. Whole systems of conjuration were devised by them; and many were the invocations with which some of them commanded the devils. All of these spells and “prayers” can be found in the Talmud. A few examples will serve to illustrate:

      Vendidad II, 223 and Masekhet Qiddushin 81 state that the chief thing to
      utter when exorcising a demon was, “I expel you from me.”

      If one has been bitten by a mad dog, a spell must be intoned in order to eject
      the hurtful spirit. [This very incantation, from Vendidad I.30, as well as the
      spell to ward against forgetfulness and the spell to insure that the sheep of
      the slaughterhouse may be fat have been written in the Talmud]

      The Persian beliefs in cameos, amulets, and talismans were also absorbed into the Talmud, along with the reading of sacred writings to restore health. In
      general, Zoroastrian influence is directly responsible for the presence of
      demons and devils in the Midrash and Talmud.


      To attempt to detail every point where the Talmud draws upon the Zend-Avesta would take a book. The following section will detail some of
      the more prominent concepts:

      The matter of benedictions, or the saying of grace over something that is eaten is of Persian origin (Vendidad II.112)

      The entire marriage ritual, with its special blessings, ceremony and rites is fully delimitated in the Zend-Avesta (II.157, 158, III.228)

      Vendidad II.130 and Midrash Tehillim both contend that the righteous who dwell in Paradise are as luminous as the stars.

      Vendidad 18, 166 and Masekhet Sanhedrin 17 state that the art of magic does not come from the Evil Power, and all wise men (in the case of the Talmud the men of the Sanhedrin can practice it).

      Both the Zend-Avesta (according to the Persians) and Torah (according to the Talmud) are able to repel demonic influences, merely by their recitation (c.f., Seder Eliyhau, Zuta 82, Masekhet Megillah 31, and Masekhet Ta‘anit 27).

      The passage in the Zend-Avesta where Ahura Mazda speaks to Zoroaster of the life of virtue that follows death has been copied directly into the Talmud (Masekhet Avot 86).

      The disciples of Zoroaster are assured of a heavenly existence, so the Talmud says of the nation of Israel (Masekhet ‘Eruvin 10).

      God is with him who studies and mediates in the night (Vendidad 18, Masekhet ‘Avodah Zarah 3, Masekhet Berakhot 30).

      The Persians believed that life is but a passing, unimportant state of existence, only after death does one truly begin to live, so Midrash Qohelet Rabba. Zoroastrians were loath to convert others to their faith, so too is found in the Talmud a discouragement to prosetylization (Masekhet Qiddushin 70).

      Though the Zend-Avesta was unknown before the coming of Zoroaster, the righteous who had lived before him were aware of it, and followed the precepts it contained. The Talmud, in this vein, contends that the Patriarchs perfectly observed the Torah even though it had not yet been given (Masekhet Yoma 28).

      Truly, all of the enjoinments concerning demons and spirits detailed in the
      Vendidad may be found in the Talmud. It is as if the authors of the Talmud sat
      down and copied the Vendidad into the Talmud. Many of the laws of Yasna:
      sacrificial arrangement, rendering of divine service, and regulations of
      cleanliness form the major portion of Talmudic law in these matters. The list
      goes on and on, to the extent that one begins to wonder if Rabbanites – and,
      for that matter, Christians – are unwitting disciples of Zoroaster.

      Myths about Karaism: Lies and Misconceptions

      “Lies and Misconceptions” by Hakham Avraham Ben-Rahamiël Qanaï

      It is easy to understand why some uneducated Rabbanites might have some
      misconceptions about Karaites since most of them never heard of Karaites nor ever met one. However, their “Gedolim” [“great ones”], people who
      should know better, have never ceased to malign Karaites and spread lies about us.

      Some of the lies they spread are:

      “Karaites pray to Muhammad”

      I once was stopped on the street in Ofaqim, Israel, (a town that, at the time had a population of approximately 10,000, of which 1,200 were Karaites) by a Moroccan Rabbi who began to berate me (and Karaites in general) for “bowing and praying to Muhammad”. Nothing I could say would make him
      understand that the allegation was completely false, because his teachers in Morocco (a place where there hadn’t been any Karaites since the 13th century!) taught him that it was true. Makhon Me’ir, a Haredi Yeshivah that claims to be one of their most illustrious educational institutions spreads this lie on the Internet and adds to this that Karaites are also the enemies of the world:

      Machon Meir Weekly Torah Portion Parashat Beha’alotecha 5758 As of Now… Unity v. the Threat of the Muslim Bomb Rabbi Dov Bigon

      “We should not take lightly the bomb that it is being developed in Pakistan, nor the tremendous effort that other Muslim countries are putting into creating atom bombs and weapons for mass destruction, such as gases and bacteria. It is not only the terrible destruction that such weapons are likely to cause, chas ve’chalila, but mainly because of the Muslim-Karaite beliefs of those who hold these weapons, that Mohammed’s sword will be victorious over the world, chas ve’chalila.”

      Other Rabbanite “Gedolim” claim that Karaites are apostates that were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition (when the fact [as recorded by the Rabbanites Avraham Ibn Daud and Yosef Ben-Saddiq] is that all the
      Karaites were either killed [like the Karaite teacher Sidi Ibn at-Taras] or
      driven out of Spain at the end of the 11th century by the Rabbanite Yosef
      Ferrizuel, a favourite of the Christian king Alfonso VI, who obtained
      permission from his Christian patron to exterminate Karaism in the Kingdom of Castile 200 years before the Disputation at Barcelona). Rabbi Tovia Singer of Outreach Judaism posts on the Internet: “The Ramban’s disputation at Barcelona in 1263 is decisive not only historically but polemically as well. It is very important.
      One thing it is necessary to understand though, is that some of the arguments are antiquated, because he was dealing with Pablo Christian who was a Catholic.
      He was a Jew who became a Karaite and then converted to Catholicism.” It
      doesn’t seem to bother him that this is 1) an anachronism because there hadn’t been any Karaites in Spain for 200 years when the disputation took place and 2) the fact that Pablo Christian was a Rabbanite Jew from Montpellier in Provence (there never where any Karaites in Provence until the late 20th century) who became an apostate and joined the Dominican order while still in Provence.

      When it comes to observance of the Miswot [commandments] they spread lies about us, such as:

      “Karaites hang Sisit on the walls in their houses”. I was told by a Rabbanite Rabbi that he had personally seen Sisit on the four corners of the roof of the Karaite synagogue in Tiberias. It didn’t seem to bother him to bear false witness. There never was such a synagogue in Tiberias (there doesn’t seem to have been any Karaites there since the 10th century!).

      Another lie they say about Karaite Sisit has to do with how the Sisiyot are attached to the Tallit. The Rabbanite Poseq [decider of religious law] Rabbi Yisra’el Me’ir HaKohen, one of the founders of the Haredi [Ultra-Orthodox]
      Agudat Yisra’el party, wrote in his “Mishnah Berurah” (a commentary on the Shulhan ‘Arukh, Orah Hayim of Rabbi Yosef Caro): “at the time when the Sisit are attached or at some later point if they move to the bottom of the Tallit he
      should return them. All this is a priori, but post facto there is no strictness. However, one should be very careful that the Sisit should not hang directly on the corner at an angle because this was the Karaite (those that rejected the Oral Law) custom and if they are hanging like that it is a Miswah to move back to the rightful position.” The man obviously never saw a Karaite Tallit and was making all this up out of his own head in order to justify his Halakhic decision.

      They also spread lies about Karaites and Tefillin [phylacteries] (which Karaites don’t use at all!). The “Mishnah Berurah” says: “And all those who are putting the Tefillin onto their foreheads (as opposed to the hairline which Rabbanite Halakhah declares as is supposed to be done) are following a Karaite custom and not performing the commandment.” It obviously didn’t bother him that this was a complete fabrication. Karaites have never used Tefillin. Nor does it bother those that say that Karaites hang Tefillin on the wall
      and bow down to them (and obvious mixture of their lies about Karaites and Sisit and their lies about Karaites bowing to Muhammad).

      Another lie that they spread is the one that says that Karaites spend the
      whole of Shabbat sitting in one place on the ground and never move from there until the end of Shabbat saying that this is how Karaites interpret Shemot [Exodus]16:29. This is an out an out lie and misrepresentation of Karaite beliefs and practices. The truth being that

      (1) Karaites, unlike the Rabbanites, do not take phrases or sentences out of
      context as such a misinterpretation would demand,

      (2) in context it is referring to going out of the camp to gather Mannah and
      that there would be none on Shabbat and that the people were commanded not to go out of the camp on Shabbat to collect Mannah as they were to do the rest of the week, and

      (3) the expression “Shevu Ish Tahtayw Al-Yese’ Ish MiMqomo” means each person shall dwell in place and not go out of the settlement (whether camp, village, town, or city) – it does not mean that each person has to spend the entire Shabbat sitting in one spot in his house and not go out of it on Shabbat. This is clear from the writings of all Karaite Hakhamim for the past 1200 years. We can easily see that 1) the verb “Shevu”, the second person plural imperative of the root Yod-Shin-Beit which means not only to sit but to dwell as in “Wayyeshev Ya‘aqov BeEres Megurei Aviyw” [And Jacob dwelt in the land of the sojourns of his father] (Bere’shit [Genesis] 37:1), in context, means to dwell not sit, 2) that the word “Tahatyw” means “his place” as in “WeNeta‘tiyw WeShakhan Tahtayw” [and I will plant it (Israel) and shall dwell in its own place] (Melakhim Beit [II Samuel] 7:10) and not “on his buttocks” as they claim we interpret it, and 3) that “MiMqomo” means “from his place (i.e., settlement)” as in “Ken-Ish Noded Mimqomo” [so is a man who wanders from his place] (Mishlei [Proverbs] 27:8).

      From all this it would appear that the Rabbanites think the Torah’s prohibitions on slander, libel, and bearing false witness do not apply when speaking or writing about Karaites.

      • Larry


        One may almost say of popular Islam what Dr. Warneck does of the heathen Battaks of Sumatra: “The worship of spirits, with the fear underlying it, completely fills the religious life of the Battaks and of all animistic peoples. Their whole daily life in its minutest details is saturated with it.
        At birth, name-giving, courting, marriage, house-building, seed-time and harvest, the spirits must be considered.” What the Moslem belief in jinn involves can best be indicated by giving here the table of contents of one of the standard works on the subject called Akam ul Mirjan fi Ahkam al Jann by Mohammed ibn Abdallah al-Shibli who died 789 A.H. It is for sale in every Moslem city throughout the world. I follow the chapter headings without note or comment: the reader will pardon its literalisms:

        Introduction: Proof of the existence of Jinn.

        Moslems, People of the Book and the infidels of the Arabs agree on the existence of jinn.

        Great philosophers and physicians proclaim their existence –

        Beginning of creation of jinn.

        The origin of jinn is fire as the origin of man is earth.

        Bodies of jinn.

        Kinds of jinn.

        Residence of jinn.

        Diversification of jinn.

        Demons’ ability of diversification.

        God gave different forms to angels, jinn and men.

        Some dogs are of the jinn.

        Jinn look at the private parts of man when exposed.

        What prevents demons from sleeping at men’s houses.

        Man’s Companion of the jinn, the Qarina.

        Jinn eat and drink.

        Some traditions concerning this subject.

        The Devil eats and drinks with his left hand.

        What prevents jinn from taking the food of man.

        Jinn marry and beget children.

        That jinn have responsibilities.

        Were there any prophets of jinn before the Prophet? The jinn are included in the mission of the Prophet.

        The jinn went to the Prophet and heard him.

        Sects of jinn.

        Worship of jinn with man.

        Reward of jinn.

        Infidels of jinn enter the Fire.

        Believers of jinn enter Paradise.

        Do the believers of jinn see God in Paradise?

        Prayers behind a jinni.

        A jinn passed between the hands of a praying man.

        A man kills a jinni.

        Marriage of jinn.

        Jinn expose themselves to women.

        Some jinn prevent others from exposing themselves to women.

        If a jinn cohabited with a woman must she purify herself? The hermaphrodites are the sons of the jinn.

        What if a jinn robs a woman of her husband?

        Prohibition of eating and burnt offerings of jinn.

        Jinn give fatwas.

        Jinn preach to men.

        Jinn teach medicine to men.

        Jinn and men quarrel before men.

        Jinn fear men.

        Jinn obey men.

        How to get refuge against jinn.

        The influence of the Koranic verses on the bodies of jinn.

        Why jinn obey amulets.

        Solomon was the first man who took servants of Jinn.

        What must be written for the sick.

        Jinn reward men for good and evil.

        How jinn cast down men.

        How jinn enter men’s bodies.

        Are the motions of the epileptic due to jinn? How to heal him.

        The plague is of jinn.

        The passions caused by Satan.

        The evil eye caused by Jinn.

        Its effect on men.

        Jinn are bound with chains in the month of Ramadan.

        The worship of jinn by men.

        Jinn foretell the mission of the Prophet. Heaven is guarded from them by shooting stars.

        Jinn told of the Prophet’s attack.

        Jinn told of his converts.

        Jinn told of Badr story.

        Jinn told of the murdering of Said ibn Ebada.

        It is allowed to ask jinn concerning the past, not the future.

        Testimony of jinn on the Day of Judgment.

        Jinn lament and eulogize several dead Moslems.

        Was Satan of the angels?

        Did God speak to Satan?

        Satan’s fault in saying he is better than Adam.

        Satan’s whispering.

        God’s name drives away the whisper. Stories concerning that.

        Satan’s call to man.

        Evil-doing is desired by Satan.

        How Satan seduces man.

        Satan is always with the one who contradicts others.

        The learned man is stronger than the pious before Satan.

        Satan weeps at the death of the believer for being unable to seduce him.

        Angels wonder at the escape of the believer’s heart from Satan.

        The four wailings of Satan.

        Satan’s throne is over the sea.

        Satan’s place.

        Satan gave his five children five positions.

        The presence of Satan at cohabitation.

        The presence of Satan at the birth of every child.

        Satan runs through man’s veins.

        Satans expose themselves to boys at night.

        What diverts Satan from boys.

        Satan sleeps on the vacant bed.

        Satan never takes a siesta.

        Satan ties three knots over the head of the sleeping.

        Bad dreams are from Satan.

        Satan never imitates the Prophet.

        The Sun arises and sets between the two horns of Satan.

        The sitting-place of Satan.

        Satan flees at prayer call.

        Satan accompanies the unjust judge.

        Satan walks in one shoe.

        Satan flees if man repeats El-Sajada.

        Yawning, sleeping and sneezing are from Satan.

        Haste is from Satan.

        A donkey brays when he sees a demon.

        Satan exposes himself to the people of the mosques.

        Satan’s pride not to have knelt down to Adam and to have seduced him to eat from the tree.

        Is Eden in heaven or on earth?

        Satan showed himself to Eve.

        Satan showed himself to Noah in the ark.

        Satan showed himself to Abraham when he was about to offer up Isaac.

        Satan showed himself to Moses.

        Satan showed himself to Zul Kifl.

        Satan showed himself to Job.

        Now all this – and nearly every chapter is a door to a world of groveling superstition and demonolatry – finds its parallel in the beliefs of the animist. Among them the earth, air and water are supposed to be peopled with spirits. They are most numerous in the forest and in the waste fields, where they lie in wait for the living, and afflict them with disease and madness, or drag them away to an awful death. “They prowl round the houses at night, they spy through the crevices of the partitions or come into the house in the form of some man or beast. Sometimes in epidemics they can even be seen. There
        are men who have the spiritual gift of being able to see spirits and souls.
        Sometimes these men see the spirit of the dead stepping behind the coffin and perching the soul of a living man upon it – the inevitable result of which is, that the man must die. The number of dangerous spirits to which human misery is traced back is legion. Names are given and attributes ascribed to spirits of particularly bad repute, such as the spirit who causes cholera: he is of a terrific size, and carries a mighty club with which he smites his victim to the earth.”

        The spirits are mostly mischievous and ill-disposed. They lurk in tree-tops and all sorts of places and cause disease, misfortune and death. It is much more important to keep the hurtful ones in good humor than to honor the kindly disposed, who are, therefore, practically ignored.

    • harbidoll

      G-d is love, peace & joy! He never left us (from Adam & Eve)but we can leave Him. all other spirits are filled with fear, hate of the “other” & strife. reject the spirits, learn the difference!

    • docwill

      You are whack. They want to KILL you and drive Israel into the sea…

      • Larry



        Distortion committed by Bukhari whilst copying down a tradition in his
        ‘Sahih’ pertaining to the legitimacy of sodomy

        We read in the Holy Quran:

        Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will (Yusufali, 2:223).

        In various Sunni works we read that testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar regarding the reason for the revelation of the said verse qua legitimacy of performing buggery on one’s wife. Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuuti for example recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 1 page 638:

        وأخرج الحسن بن سفيان في مسنده والطبراني في الأوسط والحاكم وأبو نعيم في المستخرج
        بسند حسن عن ابن عمر قال‏:‏ إنما نزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏{‏نساؤكم
        حرث لكم‏.‏‏.‏‏.‏‏}‏ الآية‏.‏ رخصة في إتيان الدبر‏.‏

        Hasan bin Sufiyan in his Musnad, Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Hakim and Abu Naeem in Al-Mastakhraj with a ‘Hasan’ chain of narration narrated from Ibn Umar who said: ‘This verse was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s) in respect of the permissibility of performing sex in the anus of a woman’

        Curiously, when it came to the great Imam Bukhari, he felt compelled to record the statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar in an incomplete manner. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50:

        Narrated Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–”So go to your tilth when or how you will” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in ..”

        ‘In’ what? Of course IN her anus and whilst Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti and other famed Sunni scholars recorded this fact, it was Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani who filled in the blanks whilst commenting on the cited tradition of Bukhari:

        في إتيان المرأة في دبرها

        “Approach the woman in her anus”

        Fatah ul Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 page 190

        Imam Bukhari has recorded this tradition in his ‘Sahih’ with the following chain of narration:

        Ishaq (bin Rehwiya) – Nadar – Ibn Aun – Nnaf’i

        Now the most interesting part is that Bukhari actually copied down the above statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar from his Shaykh, namely Ishaq bin Rehwiya as mentioned by Ibn Hajar Asqalani:

        فقد أخرجها إسحاق ابن راهويه في مسنده وفي تفسيره بالإسناد المذكور ، وقال بدل
        قوله حتى انتهى إلى مكان ” حتى انتهى إلى قوله نساؤكم حرث لكم فأتوا حرثكم أنى
        شئتم فقال : أتدرون فيما أنزلت هذه الآية ؟ قلت لا . قال : نزلت في إتيان النساء
        في أدبارهن

        Ishaq bin Raheweh recorded it in his Musnad and his Tafsir with the same chain, when it reached the part “your wives are tilth to you, so go to your tilth anyhow you will” he said: ‘Do you know what for this verse has been revealed about?’ They said: ‘No’. He replied: ‘It has been revealed in regards to approaching women in their anuses’

        Interestingly whilst citing the said tradition verbatim Bukhari committed
        deception and did not quote the words of his Shaykh opting to leave a blank, in the hope that the attention plan of his readers would be short enough to confuse them and direct them to the next narration.

  • Gamal

    Christians after Eastern sermons used to kill Jews. That in no way justifies Muslim behavior.

    • dia61

      “Eastern” or Easter ? Are you really going to attempt to make a counter argument using EASTER? Sources? LOL
      Game on.
      I can’t wait to see if you gave the guts to come face to face with the reality of Islamic historical record, the dogma of the Quran, and, last but never least, the Hadith .
      Please, please, please GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!

      • Gamal

        Easter. Sorry for the typo. A quick google search turns up sources e.g.

        • dia61

          Wow,… which Cracker Jack box did you find this one?
          I’m not an apologist for anyone’s ugly history. I suggest that you get a grip in facing today’s disturbing reality and stop trying to deflect from that fact of life.

          • Gamal

            You are trying to deflect Christian guilt but its overwhelming.

          • dia61

            Let me repeat: “I’M NOT AN APOLOGIST FOR ANYONE’S UGLY HISTORY”.
            “ANYONE” refers to all religions. Trust me when I tell you that I’m well aware of how corrupted the Christianity of Christ has gotten over the last 2,000 years. I am NOT an apologist for the often VERY fallible followers of Christ.
            I know lots of card -carrying, beautiful Sufis, who are also despised by the intolerant members of their own faith. Honestly, I totally get it and I’m not a hypocrite.
            But, Gamal, we are coming from 2 different places.
            Christ and Mohammad were 2 very different people. There are profound differences between the Bible and the Quran.
            The message of Christ was to love one another and to live in peace. Was Mohammed’s message the same? The Sufis created their own form of mysticism, which translated into a more personal relationship between faithful person and God.
            Again, bringing us back to the point of THIS article…….there are persecuted non-Muslim communities all over today’s world. Mary George was an innocent woman, murdered because she wore a cross. Would Mohammed have supported the murder of Mary George or would he have condemned her slaying? Think about it.

          • Larry



            10 COMMANDMENTS

            The Ten Commandments, eight of them at least, were taken
            from the Egyptian Principles of Ma’at written at least 2000 years earlier.

            Written at least 2,000 years before the Ten Commandments of
            Moses, the 42 Principles of Ma’at are one the world’s oldest sources of moral and spiritual instruction. Ma’at, the Ancient Egyptian divine Principle of Truth, Justice, and Righteousness, is the foundation of natural and social order and unity.

            One aspect of ancient Egyptian funerary literature which
            often is mistaken for a codified ethic of Ma’at is Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, often called the 42 Declarations of Purity or the Negative Confession. These declarations varied somewhat from tomb to tomb, and so can not be considered a canonical definition of Ma’at. Rather, they appear to express each tomb owner’s individual conception of Ma’at, as well as working as a magical absolution (misdeeds or mistakes made by the tomb owner in life could be declared as not having been done, and through the power of the written word, wipe that particular misdeed from the afterlife record of the deceased).

            Many of the lines are similar, however, and they can help to
            give the student a “flavor” for the sorts of things which Ma’at
            governed—essentially everything from the most formal to the most mundane aspect of life.

          • dia61

            I cannot believe it.
            Ma’at? How do you know about Ma’at? I absolutely adore Ma’at.
            As a matter of fact, I think that WAS Ma’at in a past life.
            In other words, you better watch out Homer, or I’ll zap you.
            The fact that I am sharing this with you has got to tell you how much I love Ma’at.

          • Larry


            “10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan”

            1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in
            seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

            2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During
            the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped
            off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

            3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
            Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little
            help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

            4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned”
            under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after
            attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees.
            He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

            5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As
            governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in
            more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never
            seriously pursued” curbing choice.

            6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his
            memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.”
            “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to
            establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

            7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source
            of major embarrassment for conservatives.

            8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public,
            the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

            9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

            10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated
            weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

          • dia61

            I’ll repeat what I wrote before. I’d rather have a Reagan type sitting at 1600 PA Ave than what we have now?

            Are YOU an Obama supporter? How do you feel, for example, about the massive growth of entitlement programs, such as food stamps and disability programs. For years, states’ welfare have paid 3rd party organizations to flip their welfare to the feds. I’ve met 25 year old women, for example, who are receiving disability for “depression”, in addition to receiving Section 8 benefits and food stamps. When you create a culture of dependence, you effectively destroy a human being’s work ethic and sense of personal responsibility. That scourge on the individual has profound negative effects on society.

            I’m not going even to get in to Obama’s Middle East House of Horrors,….I don’t have to because the proof is in the news every day.

            There are so many other issues that I can point to, but again, compared to what we have now, Reagan shines.
            I guess, for me, the most important thing to consider is that Reagan LOVED America. Can you honestly say the same thing about Obama?

            Please feel free to marginalize, ridicule, or negate everything and anything that I’ve written. It’s what you do, so it’s expected. When you do agree, you don’t respond, as in my reference to the completely awesome Ma’at of Ancient Egypt.

          • Larry

            I WISH I WAS A NIGGER

            If I was a nigger…I could drive a Cadillac with class
            My pocket stuffed with welfare checks, and I could sit on my
            big black ass

            Now you take a nigger, he aint nobody’s fool, he doesn’t buy
            any gasoline to drive his kids to school

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            Our government has gone crazy, id change things if I could

            If I was only a nigger, I could afford to live in a white

            Oh the things that I could do, if I was black and hell bent

            I could send my kids to college, and it wouldn’t cost me one
            damn cent

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            The wife and I were down on our luck, we were really getting

            They said at the welfare office, you aint black you’re white

            Oh how I’ve tried to get a job, a diploma I had with pride

            The post office man laughed and said you’re not dark enough to even qualify

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            I took a civil service exam, and passed it without shame

            A nigger took one next to me, and he couldn’t even write his
            own name

            The nigger, he got the job, now he’s government top brass.

            He couldn’t qualify for a trash truck; I’m out on the street
            on my ass

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            If I was a Jesse Jackson, I’d be nobody’s slob wearing $5000.00 dollar suits, that nigger hasn’t even got a job

            If I was Faggot Obama, I could sit back and relax

            And when re-elected president, could paint the white house

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            Things are supposed to be segregated, but things are a
            little off key

            I’ve never seen a white man, head…of the NAACP

            It aint that I don’t like a nigger, if I’ve rubbed you wrong by chance

            Take a look at that mistletoe, hanging on the seat of my pants

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            If I was a kinky top, I could be a Martin Luther King

            I’d have me a vision on a mountain top, my song the whole
            world would sing

            I could have me a Peace March, on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee

            I could tear up the whole damn city, and the police wouldn’t
            dare stop me

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            A lot of things in life I know, but one thing I cant figure

            Why a nigger can call me a honkey, and I cant call a nigger
            a nigger

            If I was a jungle bunny, I could ring a golden bell

            I could be a Mohammed Ali, and be loved by Howard Coozell

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            Now when Martin Luther King, was buried in Washington with class

            Face down in his box, so the politicians could kiss his ass

            I guess its just politics, and it sure gets my goat

            Kissing ass with a nigger, just to get his vote

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            If I was only a “birdhead”, I’d live high on the hill

            Selling cocaine and prostitutes, and popping all kinds of

            Now take the NAACP, they can march and raise all kinds of

            Let the KKK start to move, and they’ll all wind up in jail

            Damn I wish I was a nigger

            I dreamed my life was over, I heard Saint Peter say

            Today we’re taken only the niggers, you’ve gotta go the other way

            Then I heard the devil, he said I heard what Peter had to

            But I’m sorry to tell you son, today in hell…is nigger day

            Damn don’t you wish you were a nigger?

            I’m going back to the hills of Arkansas, where they don’t have those not damn one sided nigger peace marches

            Protesters, welfare check grabbers, I’m going to plant me
            some turnip greens in a watermelon patch

            Raise me a hog, and a big fat possum

      • Gamal

        I think the person without guts is you. Christianity has plenty of guilt. Just because Muslims are vastly worse doesn’t mean Christianity has a good history.

        • dia61

          Stay focused. The article was referring to here and now, and, in particular, the murder of an innocent woman, at the hands of savages, just because she wore the cross. Can you point me to the raping, pillaging, murdering Middle Eastern Christians?
          Cowards are experts at victim blaming.
          Shame on you.

          • Gamal

            shame on you. First you ask me for sources and when I give them to you that show the horrific history of Christian persecution of Jews you call me a coward and same shame on you. There is so much shame on Christians who went along with the Holocaust and who were responsible for the inquisition and burning of witches etc.. that you are ridiculous.

          • dia61

            My apologies to you. You did provide sources, you are clearly not a coward, and you appear to be a level headed person.
            Gamal, Raymond doesn’t make excuses for past Christian sins (he’s not that out of touch).
            But, the article was about the persecution of today’s innocence and how hate mongers are fanning the fire of intolerance. There is so much persecution going on in today’s Middle East, it’s like somebody ripped the lid off of Pandora’s Box. The violence is not being contained. I’m sure that you see how alarming all of this is.

          • Gamal

            I certainly see how alarming this all is. We have a president who is fasttracking Muslims into the U.S.. I don’t think he is a Christian. I think he just pretends to be. I think he is giving payback to those he perceives as the oppressors of Muslims including the United States. I think our president is our enemy.

          • dia61

            The rabbit hole is VERY deep. I lived in Turkey, which was proudly secular for years ( Mustafa Kemal was a rabid anti Islamist). Now? OMG!!!!!!!
            Ever read “The Redirection” by Seymour Hersh? He wrote it in 2007. Read it and weep. As far as Obama goes? Read my mind.
            WE need another Ronnie Reagan. God help us all.
            I sincerely apologize to you. I incorrectly assumed that you were one of the nuts.

          • Larry




            In 1983, Reagan and the CIA were dancing around the idea of arming Mujahadin fighters in order to fight back against Soviet incursion in Afghanistan. The result was a well-armed, well-trained group of jihadis who resisted (some say defeated) the onslaught of superior Soviet weaponry.

            Once the Soviets retreated, the U.S. lost interest and pulled the funding. Osama bin Laden took interest, and filled the vacuum, later fathering the Taliban.

            The rest, as they say, is history.





          • dia61

            Take a look around. I think that we were doing better when RR was living at 1600 PA Ave.
            Just sayin’.

        • Larry

          YO GAMAL!



          April 14, 2014

          Allahu-Akhbar! Allahu-akbhar!

          Boy’s HEAD found in home of Pakistani cannibals who had dug up more than 100 corpses from the local graveyard and eaten them

          Three-year-old boy’s head found in home of convicted cannibals in Pakistan

          Discovery made after residents complained of ‘stench’ at the house

          One brother arrested while the other is being hunted by police

          Men previously jailed for digging up and eating 100 corpses at burial site

          By Julian Robinson

          Published: 16:14, 14 April 2014 |

          A convicted cannibal has been rearrested in Pakistan after
          a young boy’s head was discovered in his home.

          The gruesome discovery of a three-year-old’s head was made in the house of Mohammad Arif, 35, and his brother Mohammad Farman, 30.

          The pair, from the small town of Darya Khan in the country’s interior, had previously served two years in jail for cannibalism and were only released last year.

          Mohammad Farman is pictured in 2011 after he was first arrested by police in Bhakkar, Pakistan. His brother Mohammad Arif has been rearrested after the head of a young boy was discovered at the home the two men shared.

          At the time, local police said the two men had dug up more than 100 corpses from the local graveyard and eaten them.

          Mohammad Arif has now been rearrested as an investigation gets underway in to the grim discovery at his house.

          His brother Mohammad Farman is still being hunted by police.

          District police chief, Ameer Abdullah, said officers swooped after residents complained of a bad smell coming from the
          brothers’ home.

          ‘Residents informed police after a stench emanated from the house of the two brothers,’ he said.

          ‘We raided the house on Monday morning and found the head of a young boy,’ a district police chief, Ameer Abdullah, told

          ‘We have arrested one of the brothers, Mohammad Arif, and are conducting raids for the arrest of the other brother.’

          Police were searching nearby graveyards to see if they had been disturbed, he said.

          The pair were initially jailed after police found that the corpse of a 24-year-old woman had disappeared from its grave in

          Further investigations led officers to the brothers’ house where they found a cooking pot containing meat curry.

          The brothers were later arrested by police and jailed for two years.

          They had once both been married with children, but their wives are said to have left them ahead of being detained by
          police three years ago.


          From the book of Al-Kortoby; THE COLLECTOR OF THE QURANIC RULES.

          January 11, 2010


          Posted in Quranic Explanations tagged Al-Shafie, Allah, Cannibalism, collector of the Quranic rules, commentaries, Dead, Eating, Human flesh, Ibn Al-Araby, Imam, Islam, Kortoby, Muslim, Nahed Metwaly, prophet Mohammad, Quran,
          scholars, swine at 8:54 am by Nahed Metwaly

          An important and a serious question,

          “Does Allah of Islam, allow Muslims in the Quran, to eat human flesh?”

          The answer is very clearly, “Yes”.

          Read the following two verses in the Quran,

          (1) Quran (2: 173):

          “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah The Cow 2:173).

          (2) Quran (16: 115):

          “He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Surah The Bee 16:115).

          The reference of the commentaries on these verses is: The book of “Al-Kortoby”, the collector of the Quranic rules.

          This book is introduced in volume 1, of the 3rd edition by Imam Shams El-Din Abi Abdallah Mohamed Bin Ahmad Ben Abi Bakr Farag Al-Ansari Al-Kortoby who died in the Islamic year 671. It is published by Dar El-Ghad El-Araby, 3 Danesh Street, Abassia, Cairo, Egypt, Telephone (2-824-329).

          He said in page 3,

          “In the name of Allah the merciful and compassionate, this book is published under the supervision of the scholars of Al-Azhar (the largest Islamic University in the world). All publishing rights are reserved to Dar El-Ghad El-Araby, Cairo”.

          He continues,

          “This edition is corrected, edited and certified by the “Council of Islamic Research of Al-Azhar”, who published it in 9 November, 1988, 29 Rabie I of the Islamic year 1409.

          In page 716 in volume 1, Al-Kortoby gives these comments,

          “If one is in dire need and found a dead body of an animal, a swine, or of human, he might eat the dead animal because it as “Halal” (lawful or permissible), but not the body of a swine or a human”. There is a light prevention and a strong prevention, and these are the rules, such as one hates to have sexual relation with his sister, but can have a sexual relation with a foreigner because it is lawful for him. This is the condition for theses rules. Eating the flesh of a human is not allowed.

          Yet the scholars Ahmad and Dawoud protested by saying that prophet Mohammad said, “Breaking the bones of a dead body is like breaking the bones of a live body. Al-Shafie said, “One may eat the flesh of a human body. It is not allowed to kill a Muslim nor a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule (because he is useful for the society), nor a prisoner because he belongs to other Muslims. But you may kill an enemy fighter or an adulterer and eat his body”.

          Dawoud slandered Al-Mozny by addressing Al-Mozny saying, “You allowed eating the flesh of the prophets”. Ibn Sharie responded also to Al-Mozny by saying, “You allowed killing the prophets and did not allow eating the flesh of the infidels”.

          Ibn Al-Araby said, “The proper thing for me is not to eat human flesh unless the person makes sure that this act saves him from starving to death and Allah knows best”.

          Dear reader,

          I reported to you what is written in the commentaries of Al-Kortoby. I wrote exactly what I found without changing a word. But let me put an extra light on these commentaries. Al-Kortoby mentioned two kinds of preventions, a light one and a strong one and he left the reader to chose between the two. He gave the example of having a sexual relation with a sister or with a foreigner. He prefers the light prevention and not the strong one and left the reader to chose between the two.

          But Imam El-Shefie was more clear and he courageously said, “Human flesh may be eaten”. He added, “An enemy fighter or an adulterer may be killed and his flesh be eaten”. More seriously, Dawoud protested against Al-Muzni saying, “If you allowed the eating of the flesh of the prophets (sarcastically I say, “for fear that they would not be slaughtered in the
          Islamic way”), you should also allow eating the flesh of the infidels”.
          The final verdict for him, “Human flesh should not be eaten unless that would safe the life of the eater from starving to death and Allah knows best”.

          Here is a great danger to the whole world. Islam, the Quran, and the scholars of Islam allow the Muslim to eat the flesh of the non-Muslim if that saves the Muslim from starving to death. We all know about the economic crisis which haunts the whole world these days. As we said, Imam El-Shafie said it
          very clearly, “An enemy fighter or an adulterer may be killed and his flesh may be eaten”. And in the eyes of every Muslim, a non-Muslim is an enemy fighter and an adulterer.

          I challenge any person who denies what I said, as by the grace of God, I have all the references which I got this information from.

          This subject is to be continued.


        • Michael Servetus

          You fundamental error is that you call Christianity what is verifiably not Christianity according to Christ and Christianity. So you reveal yourself to have a evil inclined mind without a truth who lives to equate things that are not equal. So what is your purpose if you ate not honest or capable of finding truth. You are one who should submit in silence and be taught.
          The other problem for you is that what is mentioned here is not an aberration from pure Islam but is pure Islam according to Islam. So that is the point brother Ibrahim is making. Do you see the difference? When it comes to Christianity everybody knows that Jesus taught forgiveness with holiness and love and the kingdom of God. Not everyone is converted or had real faith or love for God and so sometimes people do evil things without fear of God or faith. In the case of Islam you have a religion that started with hate and enmity and physical violence which is what we see the continuation and resurgence of in the Salafists and others. The Salafists have more truth and authority than for what they say and do than any so called peaceful Muslims. A peaceful Muslim is really just a human being trying to live a peaceful life and not truly follow the hard line structures of his religion because he is actually called to participate or support jihad or war against non Muslims. So do you understand? If not tell me I will try to explain it to you one more time. If you do see the difference then you can never again make the statement you have made above without revealing you are a person without truth.

          • Gamal

            The evil is inside you because you refuse to see the evil in what you believe. Evil is subtle it’s clever. It makes good people evil by convincing them that other good people are evil. It creates paranoia to good people. It makes them into villains. Just like Islam, Christianity painted the non-believer as evil and the non-believer was the Jew. Therein lies the wickedness of both Christianity and Islam.
            By painting me as evil you are continuing a long evil tradition.

          • Michael Servetus

            You make claims that only a small, cowardly and ignorant mind can make. Tell me what is evil in what I believe since you make the claim and I am sure I will expose your ignorance. You are an ignoramus with an evil mind who like to indulge in slander and gossip and spread evil rumors. Tell me now what is the evil in what I believe and I will show you for the simpleton you are, as I have already done and will do again. You are under the control of stupidity and reveal an effeminate intellect that is substandard and ill equipped for this discussion. You would know that if you were honest and would admit your error but you instead you continue as if your skirt wasn’t lifted.

          • Gamal

            eyes they have but they will not see

      • Gamal

        Here’s another link from that google search

        • dia61

          Pogom? Russia?
          How about about 1400 years of jihad history?
          How about right here and right now and the rapes and murders of innocent Syrians, Armenians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Nigerians, etc,… history REPEATS itself.
          You wouldn’t be one of those victim blaming, apologists, would you be?

      • Gamal
        • dia61

          From 1908?

    • Veritasss

      Put your history in perspective.

      The early Roman Catholic church did indeed kill Jews and Christians who did not identify with the political arm of the newly sanctioned Roman religion — they called these Chistians heretics. (Constantine made Christianity the state religion in the late 300s in honor of his mother’s teachings — she was a Christian.) Remember, there were few printed Bibles for the masses, so religious order throughout Rome and the Byzantine Empire was maintained by the local priest, who answered to the Pope, who was as often as not appointed for political reasons to strengthen alliances. As a religion, Christianity has gotten a bad rap due to the state-sanctioned Roman Catholic crusades against the Muslims, heretical (non-Roman Catholic) Christians, Jews, and pagans.

      By the way, about those Crusades —
      When the Goths, who were experiencing vicious raids on their flanks, moved across the Danube into Roman territory (with the emperor’s permission), they by default became ‘Christians’ (Rome’s state religion). Romans shunned these new Roman citizens, calling them barbarians and refusing to let them assimilate. The only way for a Goth to improve social status was to move up in the military, where the Goths excelled. So when the call came for a Crusade to cull the heretics, the Goths signed up in droves. The so-called ‘Christian’ Goths were excellent fighters, but not well-versed in Christian virtues, so they did not question the wars. Actually, not until the printing press, which made the Bible available to common people, were people really able to question the authority of the Pope/king.

      The Crusades would never have found support if common people were able to read the Bible themselves. But that is history. The Quran is another matter. The Quran requires Muslims to wage continual war against heretics (non-Muslims).

  • RL

    It’s so unfortunate that there are always those who incessantly try to overwhelm and annihilate the whole purpose of Mr. Ibrahim’s posts. Of course, a good discussion is healthy, but a RANT for the sake of drawing attention to oneself is inexcusable! Let’s just see who responds to this…

    • dia61

      I could not agree more. Raymond is a true scholar and he’s a solid human being. I’ve got nothing but respect for him and his commitment/passion for verifiable reporting and honest education. I’m an American, but I lived in the Middle East. Raymond knows exactly what he’s talking about.

  • RL

    Thanks, ‘dia61′! Good posts! So far no trolls have responded to my comment–Ahemm–SO FAR….
    P.S. Click on ‘Sort by Newest’ under the ‘Comments’ link and “Viola!”–FRESH AIR!!!

    • dia61

      How’s that again?
      You got the post that you were waiting for.

      • RL

        To ‘dia61′ – Your reply was/ is welcome, but apparently the “trolls” who comment here are either too stupid or too scared to respond to me. I refuse to read their RUBBISH–I think that’s the one thing they fear the most–being ignored! One thing about Mr. Ibrahim, he’s completely fair–he allows the ‘trolls’ to jump around completely naked, like devils in a fire. They’re actually pretty hilarious, in a sick sort of way!

  • Larry



    I was shocked to learn of the barbarity of the Romans towards the Jews. I now see
    the corruption of what Jesus really preached, compared to what the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus taught. It is a Roman Farce to cover their near Genocide of the Jews. I see the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as a joke on the Jewish people, as if to say, “We crucified you Jews by the tens of thousands & now we crucify your Messiah/King & in our Roman Mass he will be the Eternal Jewish Victim. I was ignorant of the history of Palestine, especially 63 BC onwards. But Jews have also played into the Roman Farce. Jesus would have been a Karaite Jew & he exposed Rabbinism & the Talmud. He wanted the Jews to return to Torah & reject Babylonianism. Remember ALL the Prophets of Israel exposed those Jews who sold out their people. The High Priest, the Temple, the Pharisees & Sadducees played ball with the Nazi Romans & screwed the poor Jewish people. The same is happening today. Decent Jewish people are paying for the Talmudic Babylonian Perverted Jews & their actions. It has taken me 60 years to see the Light of what Jesus of Nazareth was really about & not the Roman Jesus of Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee





    55,000 Americans were slaughtered in the “foxholes” of Vietnam!

    55,000,000 Americans were slaughtered in the “pussyholes” of America!

    They all they thought they would get out alive!


    • JCW

      What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent tirade were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading your comments is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • RL

        Good post!

      • Larry


        MATTHEW 16:13-20

        Peter Declares His Belief about Jesus

        13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

        14 They answered, “Some say you are John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

        15 He asked them, “But who do you say I am?”

        16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!”

        17 Jesus replied, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are blessed! No human revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven revealed it to you. 18 You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rockI will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you imprison, God will
        imprison. And whatever you set free, God will set free.”

        20 Then he strictly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

        THE LIE:

        Galatians 1:11-22

        Jesus Alone Gave Paul the Good News He Spreads

        11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the Good News I have spread is not a human message. 12 I didn’t receive it
        from any person. I wasn’t taught it, but Jesus Christ revealed it to me.

        13 You heard about the way I once lived when I followed the Jewish religion. You heard how I violently persecuted God’s church and tried to destroy it. 14 You also heard how I was far ahead of other Jews in my age group in following the Jewish religion. I had become that fanatical for the traditions of my ancestors.

        15 But God, who appointed me before I was born and who called me by his kindness, was pleased 16 to show me his Son. He did this so that I would tell people who are not Jewish that his Son is the Good News. When this happened, I didn’t talk it over with any other person. 17 I didn’t even go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles
        before I was. Instead, I went to Arabia and then came back to Damascus.

        18 Then, three years later I went to Jerusalem to
        become personally acquainted with Cephas.[c] I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 I didn’t see any other apostle. I only saw James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (God is my witness that what I’m writing is not a lie.) 21 Then I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
        22 The churches of Christ in Judea didn’t know me personally. 23 The only thing they had heard was this:
        “The man who persecuted us is now spreading the faith that he once tried to destroy.” 24 So they praised God for what had happened to me.

        GALATIANS 2:6-21

        6 Those who were recognized as important people didn’t add a single thing to my message. (What sort of people they were makes no difference to me, since God doesn’t play favorites.) 7 In fact, they saw that I had been entrusted with telling the Good News to people who are not circumcised as Peter had been entrusted to tell it to
        those who are circumcised. 8 The one who made Peter an apostle to Jewish people also made me an apostle to people who are not Jewish. 9 James, Cephas, and John (who were recognized as the most important people) acknowledged that God had given me this special gift.
        So they shook hands with Barnabas and me, agreeing to be our partners. It was understood that we would work among the people who are not Jewish and they would work among Jewish people. 10 The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the poor, the very thing which I was eager to do.

        Paul attempts to belittle Peter in front of the Church

        11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong. 12 He ate with people who were not Jewish until some men James had sent from Jerusalem
        arrived. Then Cephas drew back and would not associate with people who were not Jewish. He was afraid of those who insisted that circumcision was necessary. 13 The other Jewish Christians also joined him in this hypocrisy. Even Barnabas was swept along with them.

        14 But I saw that they were not properly following the truth of the Good News. So I told Cephas in front of everyone, “You’re Jewish, but you live like a person who is not Jewish. So how can you insist that people who are not Jewish must live like Jews?”

        15 We are Jewish by birth, not sinners from other nations. 16 Yet,
        we know that people don’t receive God’s approval by any effort to
        follow the laws in the Scriptures, but only by believing in Jesus
        Christ. So we also believed in Jesus Christ in order to receive God’s
        approval by faith in Christ and not by our own efforts. People won’t
        receive God’s approval by their own efforts. 17 If we, the same people who are searching for God’s approval in Christ, are still sinners, does that mean that Christ encourages us to sin? That’s unthinkable! 18 If I rebuild something that I’ve torn down, I admit that I was wrong to tear it down. 19 When I tried to obey the laws in the Scriptures, those laws killed me. As a result, I live in a relationship with God. I have been crucified with Christ. 20 I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live I live by believing in God’s Son, who loved me and took the punishment for my sins. 21 I don’t reject God’s kindness. If we receive God’s approval by obeying the laws in the Scriptures, then Christ’s death was pointless


        If you express doubts about Jesus as the Messiah, people will rally round and help you out, discuss with you and try to win you over.

        However, if you express doubts about Saul of Tarsus, even in the most diplomatic way, you either get the silent treatment or you get a boot in the backside. No one can possibly comprehend that Paul is a false apostle – it’s inconceivable. They adore him. He is like a father to them. So hardworking, so kind, so loving, so powerful. Yet they could never explain convincingly how the man thinks or reasons.

        And we must never forget how Paul blows hot and cold with arrogance /humility. So humble, the apostle Paul, or so he keeps telling us…. then says he’s equal to the “super-fine apostles”.

        Paul is quoted far more than Jesus in any Christian church or sermon or Christian website. They go to seminars and weekend workshops and spend hours trying to analyze what Paul is trying to say. Books and countless articles trying to work out what he is on about. However no one is more confused about Paul than Paul is. He just can’t seem to finish off his thought pattern, and keeps running off on a tangent. What a waste of life trying to work him out, when we should be concentrating on the teachings of Jesus. So easy.

        Well, the Apostle John told us to

        “test every inspired expression to make sure it’s from God, for many false prophets have gone forth into the world”.

        Once you do that with Paul, there is no going back.

        It takes a leap of courage to do this, as its not a popular thing to do
        within Christian circles, but I am so happy I did it. Every day I learn
        something new. It’s like leaving a false religion and finding the REAL Jesus of Nazareth for the first time.

        MATTHEW 5:17

        “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”

        MATTHEW 22: 36-40

        “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

        LUKE 6:40

        The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.

        JOHN 14:12

        Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father

        MATTHEW 28:20

        and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

        LUKE 16:24

        Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

        A lot of people ask “what would Jesus do” but totally ignore what he has already done. Not only did he advocate the law, he implemented the law. The Jewish Christian community including James the Just followed the words and deed, the letter and the spirit of the law. However what Saul/Paul of Tarsus presents is an abandonment of the most basic and underlying principle that permeates through and connects the Old Testament and Jesus. However, if you listen to any
        contemporary sermons, Jesus words and actions are IGNORED, but the letters of a questionable and unauthentic so called disciple become THE GOSPEL.


        What do you do with Peter’s clear reference to the teachings of Paul as a peer?

        Under what authority then do you accept the Gospels, since they were written and preserved by the Christians whom you clearly do not agree with?


        2 Peter – the verse that advocates Paul. Please look at the history of this Epistle, because the writer of 1 Peter is not the same as 2 Peter. 2 Peter got into the cannon by the skin of its teeth, because the scholars believed it was not genuine and the writing styles are completely different, there is no doubt that one of the books is not from Peter.

        Please research this! Its common knowledge among scholars. Also Peter writes “this is what our dear beloved Paul wrote in his letters…” regarding a subject Peter was talking about, i.e. the patience of God means we have more time for salvation. But Paul never wrote anything on that subject of that in any of his letters!


        “Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law, although I am not under the Law, to gain those who are under the Law. To those
        who are without law I am without law, although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s Law, in order to win those who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19)

        Jesus was never “all sorts of things to all sorts of people, in order to
        gain some”. If you do that, you compromise who you are. Paul is nothing like Jesus at all, even when arrested he did everything to save his own skin, unlike Jesus who kept quiet and took the punishment. Paul was also a strong believer in pre-destination, which is totally alien in the teachings of the bible,

        It’s the same reason, why the Sabbath day that Jesus kept and the ten Commandments- command be kept ultimately had to be change without scriptural authorization and in rebellion to the scripture. The same reason why James Just the brother of Jesus is minimized. IN ORDER TO WIN A HIGHER NUMBER.

        Peter and Paul represent the legitimization of the Gentile Church,
        something Jesus did not do. By the same token it de-legitimizes the Jews and the keepers of the Law. Jesus quotes and references the Law and the prophets repeatedly throughout his ministry. However, in order to WIN A LARGER NUMBER amongst the Romans, of course you have to get rid of the law and works. The language utilize above would never have been uttered by Jesus, who was quick to call his fellow Jews vipers and snakes. Not only Jesus but the Prophets of old.

        • JCW

          Best to stay away from such as these my Brothers and Sisters.

          (People like this are the reason our Lord Jesus called the Pharisees vipers and snakes)

          I would quote a Bible verse but you would just end up twisting that as well. :)

          • Larry

            ACTS 23:6

            Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin,

            “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees.

            I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

            JESUS SAID:

            Matthew 16:6


            When Jesus of Nazareth accused the Pharisees of His day of being Satan’s spiritual children, He fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia — permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” (1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah”, or binding Jewish law. (2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews?
            Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron,
            Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

            References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.


            The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In
            contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

            Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3)

            In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a
            Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)

            OUT OF BABYLON

            It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar
            in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia.
            Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar ('sin') was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah - Any questions?]

            As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl.

            But with expulsion of the Jews ['Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim'] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

            Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.


            What exactly did these sages say?

            The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”
            Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
            abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud
            gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real
            connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.”
            (5) Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6)

            A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small
            boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also
            says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.


            In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a
            day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the 'precursors' of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]

            R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)

            “A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation …” (Yeb. 57b)

            A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

            It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: “A
            proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the
            footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)

            [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] “… fit for cohabitation … But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

            The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the
            Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

            The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

            The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”


            The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud
            says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour
            she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)

            The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it
            is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)

            In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and
            benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

            Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and
            demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.


            Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism . This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:

            “There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it
            the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”

            The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)

            These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

            In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure
            to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a
            lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13)
            This passage says: “…
            it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

            The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the
            second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.


            Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

            The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

            Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation. Yet here is what the eminent Jewish scholar, Dagobert Runes (who is fully aware of all these passages), says about such “dirty old men” and their perverted teachings:

            “There is no truth whatever in Christian and other strictures against the Pharisees, who represented the finest traditions of their people and of human morals.” (14)


            “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
            ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and
            iniquity.” (Matthew 23:27, 28.)


            1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.

            2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.

            3 Sanhedrin 76a.

            4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex
            with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.

            5 Sanhedrin 69b.

            6 Sanhedrin 55a.

            7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.

            8 Sanhedrin 55b.

            9 Sanhedrin 55a.

            10 Kethuboth 11a.

            11 Kethuboth 11b.

            12 Yebamoth 60b.

            13 Sanhedrin 76b.

            14 Dagobert Runes, A Concise Dictionary of Judaism, New York, 1959.

  • dlbrand

    “Indeed, what does a Muslim do with all these Koran verses and sayings attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad?”

    Just a wild guess, but perhaps doing what many of us do and that is pretend those verse are simply not there.

    You stated, Sir, “In short, it’s not just a few “radical clerics”—a few “rotten apples”—that incite mobs to attack Christians, but rather the core texts of Islam itself.”

    Well of course it is. In brief.

  • Larry



    Sunday, October 3, 2010

    Islam and Judaism: the early years – Papers
    by Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

    “Islam and Judaism: the early years” a series of articles, using a historiographical approach, stating that Jews and Muslims were originally friends.


    Retrieved from “…”

    Category: Islam and Judaism

    Ben Abrahamson


    I am an orthodox Chassidic Jew from Israel who works as an historian, a
    consultant, to an important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem.

    Most of the people here know me from my endless discussions about the similarities between Islamic and Jewish customs. I enjoy talking about the Haddith, the histories of Tabari, Ibn Hisham and Al-Waqidi, and the kings of Himyar, as I much as I enjoy discussing the Midrash Rabbah, the Midrashei Geulah, Rambam, Tosefos or the Shulchan Aruch.

    I love to talk about common prayer customs, architecture and calendars.

    But it is clear to me that there is more to this than just similarities, they obviously go back to a common root, a common faith.

    In our literature we are taught that there is common faith, a fundamental “religion” which all men are born into. There is a basic faith that is obligated on all mankind. Jews have called this yireh shomaym, ger toshav or bnei noah in Hebrew, theosebeia in greek, and according to school of Rabbi Benamozegh, this fundamental “religion” is also called by the name Islam.

    In the Holy Torah, everywhere the word “Kenite” used, it is translated to Aramaic, it is called Salamai, or Muslamai.
    Some suggest this refers to the great numbers of non-Jewish believers
    who came to sacrifice the Qurban Shlamim in Jerusalem together with the Jews. Salamai, Musalamai, Muslims. This could be a clear indication in our literature that Islam is an ancient religion, dating back to second temple times, at least. And if Islam’s roots are the same as what we call bnei noah, then it is much older, it is the religion of Noah, and Adam himself.

    The closeness of Islam and Judaism was always understood by Biblical Scholars
    up until recent years. The close relationship between Jews, the ten lost tribes, the Arabs and Rachabites was all assumed. With the advent of German revisionists, Wellhausen and Büchler, and others, this all changed. They introduced ideas that Islam started with Moon or rock worship, or a falling asteroid. Devout Jews know that this is not true.

    It is a fact of Jewish Law that we believe that Muslims are perfect monotheists. They worship the same God that we do.

  • John Munro

    I say Obama has used tax money to support the killing of Christians many times over seas start pressuring our Government First!

  • wb7ptr

    That sounds pretty strange, about making love to his wife yet hating her. Sex is an expression of marital love. It is a very bad idea to marry someone of another faith anyway because that common spiritual basis of a shared religion is part of what holds a relationship together. To make it work with two different faiths takes a great deal of work and mutual respect. You cannot marry someone and hate them. I don’t think, that’s a valid marriage even.

  • randomguy

    As to the infidel wife hating thing as put forword by the Shiekh, I think the whole idea by marrying a woman from another faith is for her to convert eventually anyways. While it is true that the muslim man is to respect the faith of his spouse and let her practice it, he should still remember that it’s not the true religion and therefore he should despise her for having it.

    The man, as the dominant entity in an islamic marriage, is however the one eventually in charge of the household: he decides how the kids will be raised, whether or not his wife will work amongst other things. The children will therefore be raised according to the father’s religion. Add the father actively practicing his religion to that and you will find the wife being surrounded by islam, pushing her faith to the background. In other words, it becomes so dominant in the marriage that eventually she will yield anyways.

    This is also the reason why a muslim woman cannot marry a non-muslim guy: it would be the same principle, the man is in charge, kids are raised accordingly, pressure is placed on the wife and eventually she will convert. So sure they hate their wives so to say, because of them having different religions, but she will accept the truth anyways eventually (is the general thought). This paternalism lasts untill this day apparently.

    Oh and as for the still having sex thing: they are allowed to have sex-slaves. Enough said

  • Veritasss

    THANK YOU for continuing to point out the source of such lunacy (pun intended).

  • littlenan

    It is good to hear about these things. In England we had gangs of paedophiles who were abusing children and young teenagers, mostly girls. This was known about years ago but nobody did anything and nobody said anything for years. The reason for this silence was the fact that these men were ALL Muslim and the youngsters they preyed upon were mainly white with a few black and Hindu girls. This truth was kept from the people because nobody wanted to appear racist or had some other agenda.
    The only person who spoke out was Mr. Nick Griffin of the British National Party. However, nationalism is now demonised in England and Mr. Griffin was taken to court and charged with racist offences because he brought this paedophilia out into the open. He was acquitted but that is the attitude prevailing for many years in the UK.

  • Man on the street

    This hate infested cult of extremists must be exposed and combated. However, the West is happy to nurture these extremists as they are used as their useful idiots to carry on the insurgency wars against unfriendly regimes. Islam must reform itself, and dump the old xenophobic ideologies that were found in Ibn Timiah’s during the year 730 barbaric desert wars, instead of rentroducing it to the current Muslim societies as a way to practice your faith.

  • Man on the street

    The problem is the the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the xenophobic Islam that focus on hate, and violence instead of acceptance and tolerance.