Thursday, June 29, 2017

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Spewed Crap, Inverting Human Rights

Human Rights Prick     Liars must be called out. Those who distort human rights must be reamed out.  There are no rights to conquer, plunder, rape, enslave & extort. There is no right to get off Scot Free. The most egregious turds in this spew of camel excrement are marked with superscripts which are internally linked to my incendiary comments which follow below the horizontal line.

    By the grace of God, the wise founders of the U.S.A. recognized our God given rights and enshrined them in the organic law of this nation. Those rights do not include conquest, threats, assaults, rapes, enslavement or extortion. Such as claim those evil works to be rights and duties granted and imposed by the demon known as Allah have alienated their human rights in the act of selling their souls to Satan.

Is International Human Rights Law Under Threat? Grotius Lecture at the Law Society, London

Delivered by Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

26 June 2017

Earlier this month, Britain’s Prime Minister called for human rights laws to be overturned if they were to "get in the way" in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, Theresa May said there was a need "to restrict the freedom and movement of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat1, but not evidence to prosecute them in full in court.2" For an increasingly anxious public, shaken by the recent and dreadful terrorist attacks, her remarks no doubt reflected real anger and frustration, but they also seemed intended to strike a chord with a certain sector of the electorate3, and it is this expectation that truly worries me.

British Government officials would probably claim the comments should be understood in the context of a tough electoral campaign, and would presumably try and reassure us quietly that the government’s support for human rights4 remains steadfast and unchallengeable.

Whatever the intention behind her remarks, they were highly regrettable, a gift from a major Western leader to every authoritarian figure around the world who shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism.5 And it is not just the leaders.

A few days ago, citing Prime Minister May, a former Sri Lankan rear admiral delivered a petition to the President of the Human Rights Council. He demanded action be taken against my Office for “forcing” Sri Lanka to undertake constitutional reforms, and for exerting pressure on them to create a hybrid court to try perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – when in reality, he claimed, all they had engaged in was fighting terrorism.

My first question: Why is international human rights law such an easy target?6 Why is it so misunderstood, so reviled by some, feared by others, spurned, attacked?

My second: If the Prime Minister meant what she said, which universal rights would the UK be willing to give away in order to punish people against whom there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution? What, exactly, are the rights she considers frivolous or obstructive? The right to privacy? The right to liberty and security of person? Freedom of expression? Freedom of religion and belief?7 The principle of non-refoulement? The prohibition of torture? Due process?

And why are we fighting the terrorists in the first place, if not to defend both the physical well-being of people and the very human rights and values the Prime Minister now says she is willing, in part, to sacrifice - in order to fight the terrorists?8 And where would it stop? Foregoing some rights now may have devastating effects on other rights later on. If we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, the eventual complete unwinding of human rights would transform us – both states and international organizations. To quote Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster9".  We would be in danger of becoming virtually indistinguishable from the terrorists we are fighting.

So why did Prime Minister May said [sic] this?  At least part of the answer may lie in market conditions. Human Rights law has long been ridiculed by an influential tabloid press here in the UK, feeding with relish on what it paints as the absurd findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This viewpoint has some resonance with a slice of the public unaware of the importance of international human rights law – often seen by far too many people as too removed from everyday life, very continental, too lawyerly, too activist, ultimately too weird. How can the Court consider prisoners’ voting rights, and other supposedly frivolous claims, when set against the suffering of victims? The bastards deserve punishment, full stop! This may be understandable, at some emotional level. However, one should also acknowledge that British ink, reflecting an enormously rich legal tradition, is found throughout the European Convention on Human Rights.

And for good reason. To recognise that even a criminal has rights is the basis of enlightened thought, a principle enshrined in common law. It lies at the very core of human civilization, and distinguishes us from a primeval horde wrapped only in retribution and cruelties. I believe, like so many others, that criminals, too, have fundamental rights, because whatever evil they have wrought, they remain human beings. Frequently their pathological behaviour has been influenced by trauma inflicted on them by others.10

Let me take one, perhaps extreme, example.  In Iraq, there are people who argue for the killing of as many child soldiers of Da’esh as possible, and would perhaps even support torturing them, given how monstrous their actions have been. But in Sierra Leone, many child followers of Foday Sankoh, who were once hacking off the limbs of other small children, have now largely been rehabilitated11, in no small measure due to the efforts of the UN. They were children even while they were terrorists – and they have to be seen as children first.

I seek in the course of this short lecture to examine some of these attacks on international human rights law, on international law generally. You have honoured me with the request that I speak to the legacy of Hugo Grotius. What would Grotius say today, were he to be brought back to life for a few moments? Would he be surprised, almost 400 years after publication of his treatise On the Law of War and Peace, by the overall achievement? The extent of the current backlash? The struggle? Or perhaps he would not be at all surprised by any of it.

While promoting an international "society" governed by law, not by force, he well may have been surprised it took a further 300 years of treaty-making and immense bloodletting, capped by two world wars, before humanity embraced a system of international law. Or, put another way, reason alone had proven itself to be insufficient.

Only the death of some 100 million people in two world wars and the Holocaust could generate the will necessary for a profound change. Humanity had fallen off a cliff, survived, and, having frightened itself rigid, became all the wiser for it. The prospect of nuclear annihilation also sharpened post-war thinking. And soon after, States drew up the UN Charter, reinforced international law – codified international refugee law, further elaborated international humanitarian law, and created international human rights law and international criminal law.12

It is precisely these bodies of international law that are now endangered.

While I ought to, in this lecture, examine all the threats to public international law, from Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea to the almost enthusiastic derogation by European powers of their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, or the seemingly deliberate bombing by major state actors of facilities protected under IHL – such as clinics and hospitals in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan – I shall confine myself for the sake of brevity to those principal threats directed against international human rights law, and pay special attention to the absolute prohibition on the use of torture. In doing so, I hope to illustrate how they are symptomatic of a broader cynicism emerging in defiance of international law more generally.

Let me first return to the struggle against terrorism13, and how it is being exploited by governments the world over to roll back the advances made in human rights. The curtailing of the freedoms of expression14 and association – which threatens to wipe out dissent completely in countries like Egypt, Bahrain, and Turkey – is closing what is left of a democratic space, and all under the banner of fighting terrorism. And this contagion is spreading, fast.

When I emphasise this point, and highlight the excesses of government action, I am sometimes accused of showing sympathy with the terrorists, which is outrageous. I wish to be clear. I condemn terrorism unreservedly15. It can never be justified, on the basis of any grievance, real or perceived.

The Da’esh, Al Qa’eda, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Boko Haram manifestation does have a distinct ideology, and it must be dismantled at the source16. If it is to be fought from a security perspective, through intelligence networks and military force, the actions must also be extremely precise. In other words, the arbitrariness and imprecision that are the hallmarks of target selection on the part of terrorists require a diametrically opposite reaction from states. The laser-like application of the law, consistent with universal human rights standards and guarantees, is the only workable antidote if this struggle is ever to be successful.

The detention, and in some cases torture, of individuals whose association with a terrorist group is non-existent but who are nevertheless charged under a vaguely-worded counter-terrorism law – simply because they have criticized the government – is not just wrong, it is dangerous and entirely self-defeating.17

It transforms not only one individual, falsely charged, into a person who hates the state, but also their families, friends, possibly even their communities. Some may even go further than simple hatred. Arbitrary detention serves the terrorists, not the state; it fuels recruitment. And yet arbitrary detentions are commonplace in those states grappling with terrorism. In fact, if you believe the rhetoric of many governments, every lawyer or journalist is almost by definition a terrorist, particularly if they are human rights-focused. Present company included!

Moreover, given that prisons often become factories for converting petty criminals into violent extremists, the lawful deprivation of liberty ordered by Courts should be reserved for the most serious offenses, and non-custodial remedies sought for lesser offenses. This is not what is happening.

Instead, we see in the United States a renewed resort to very long prison sentences for those convicted of drug offenses18. And rather than focus on potentially violent individuals driven by Takfiri ideology19, or any other extreme ideology20, the Trump Administration is pursuing its executive orders on the travel bans21 all the way to the Supreme Court, despite their being struck down as unconstitutional in the lower courts.

Likewise, in the weeks following the vicious terrorist attacks in Paris, in November 2015, the French authorities took broad aim and closed down 20 mosques and Muslim associations, while also undertaking some 2,700 warrantless house searches. In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 constituted one of the most sweeping mass surveillance regimes in the world, permitting the interception, access, retention and hacking of communications without a requirement of reasonable suspicion22. Refugees and migrants23 were increasingly viewed as Trojan horses for terrorists.  Hysteria raged in political circles across Europe, and the terrorists must have been grinning. When it came to the management of the public's reaction, instead of adopting a common-sense24 approach, fever set in.

To overcome terrorism, governments must be precise in the pursuit of the terrorists25. Pretending26 to seal off borders -- with or without walls decorated with solar panels -- is an illusion, and a nasty one. Migrant children27 should not be detained. There should be no refoulement. Nor should there be collective push back, or decisions taken at borders by police officers, instead of judges. Or indeed, returns to countries that are manifestly not safe.

The EU deal with Turkey, in our view, has failed on several of these key points; most especially when it comes to the right of every asylum seeker28 to individual assessment. Taken together with the emergency measures being rushed through a number of European parliaments, which also derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention, Europe – as a sentinel for the observation of refugee and human rights laws worldwide – finds itself enmeshed in gross hypocrisy.

The demagogues29 and populists across Europe and in many other parts of the world, as well as the tabloids in this country, have for years remorselessly stoked xenophobia and bigotry – the fuel that gave rise to these unwise policies. And this seemed to be paying off, with a windfall of popular support gathering in their favour. After the referendum here in the UK, dominated as it was by the whipped-up fear of foreigners and foreign institutions, came the outcome of the US election, and the populist bandwagon seemed to be on an unstoppable roll.

The default condition of the human mind is, after all, fear. Primordial fear. That innermost instinctive mechanism protecting us from harm, from death. An emotion every extremist, skilled populists included, seeks to tap or stimulate. By manipulating it, and obliterating deductive reasoning drawn from knowledge, they more easily mould the movements they lead, and their political ambitions are well-served – at least for a while.

The emotional mechanism in the mind of a human rights defender works rather differently. To do good in our lives, and not just to some, but to all; to defend the human rights of all – this requires a continuous investment of thought, where the natural prejudices lying deep within each of us must be watched out for and rejected every day of our lives. The default flow in the minds of humanity may be reptilian; but the internal battle to overcome it is profoundly human. To think of all, to work for all: these are the two fundamental lessons learned by those who survived the two world wars – whether we speak in relation to the behaviour of individuals or states. And they are etched into the UN Charter.

 The two words “human rights” were not placed in the preamble of the UN Charter by its final author, Virginia Gildersleeve, as a literary flourish. They were written into the text – almost at the beginning, in the third line – because human rights was viewed as the only choice possible for that first beat of a new pulse. Because on 26 June 1945, the day of the Charter's signing, killing on a scale hitherto unknown to humans had only just come to an end, with cities across the world pulverized and still smoking, monuments to immense human malevolence and stupidity.30

Only by accepting human rights as the cornerstone could the rest of the edifice – success in economic development, durable peace – become possible. It is a point that even today – perhaps especially today – needs to be absorbed by the numerous political actors who only see human rights as a tiresome constraint. Indeed, many people who have enjoyed their rights since birth simply do not realise what these principles really mean. Like oxygen, they lie beyond our daily sensory perception, and only when suddenly deprived of it do we fathom their enormous significance.

To advocate for the universal rights of every human being, every rights holder, is another way of saying that only by working together, do we – as humans and as states – have a hope of ridding ourselves of the scourges of violence and war.

Tragically, the nativistic reflexes once again being peddled by populists and demagogues still seem to work. They sell supremacy and not equality, sow suspicion rather than calm, and hurl enmity against defined categories of people who are vulnerable – easy scapegoats, and undeserving of their hatred. This brand of politician seems more intent on profiting from the genuine fear of specific constituencies than promoting care for the welfare of the whole.

Thankfully, change is afoot. The populist or nationalist-chauvinistic wave in the western world, which crested in the US, has broken for now, dashed against the ballot boxes of Austria, the Netherlands and France. There may yet be other waves. Nevertheless, in Europe, the anti-populist movement, as some have called it, is now up and running.

In other parts of the world, threats to international law and the institutions upholding them are thus far unaffected by these recent, more positive developments.

The US is weighing up the degree to which it will scale back its financial support to the UN and other multilateral institutions. It is still deciding whether it should withdraw from the Human Rights Council and there was even talk at one stage of it withdrawing from the core human rights instruments to which it is party.

Last year, it was also reported that nine Arab states – the coalition led by Saudi Arabia fighting the Houthi/Saleh rebels in Yemen – made the unprecedented threat of a withdrawal from the UN if they were listed as perpetrators in the annex of the Secretary General’s report on children and armed conflict.

The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, the Inter-American Court, the Southern African Development Court, and the International Criminal Court have also not been spared such threats. Fortunately, in almost all these cases, either the threat of withdrawal has fizzled out, or, even if one or two countries did withdraw, no chain reaction ensued. But the regularity of these threats means it is increasingly probable the haemorrhaging will occur someday – a walk-out which closes the book on some part of the system of international law.

In this context, most worrisome to me is the persistent flirtation by the President of the United States, throughout his campaign and soon thereafter, with a return to torture31. We are now told the US Army field manual will not be redrafted, and the US Secretary of Defence is guiding the White House on this.  For now there is little danger of a return to the practice of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", a euphemism that dupes no-one. The mood in the US could of course change dramatically, if the country were at some stage to experience a gruesome terrorist attack. And, mindful of how the American public has, over the last ten years, become far more accepting of torture, the balance could be tipped in favour of its practice – and destroy the delicate position the Convention Against Torture is in.

It is worth recalling that the Convention against Torture, ratified by 162 countries, is the most unyielding of any existing instrument in international law. Its prohibition on torture is so absolute, it can never be lifted – not even during an emergency that “threatens the life of the nation.” And yet, notwithstanding its broader recognition as jus cogens, and the crystal clarity of Article 2 of the Convention, the existence of so many surviving victims of torture, who remain unacknowledged, unsupported, denied justice or redress, forms a living testimony to the dreadful persistence of torture worldwide.

While only a small number of states appear to practise torture systematically, as part of state policy, 20 countries (and they are listed on our website) do not recognize the competence of the Committee Against Torture under Article 20. Accordingly, they refuse a priori any scrutiny of the alleged widespread violations.

A much larger number of states are host to isolated – or not so isolated – acts of torture and ill-treatment. Disturbingly, states in this group are simply not taking their obligations seriously enough. The levels of impunity are very high, given that most of those individuals who are found culpable face only administrative sanctions; and so-called evidence obtained under torture remains, in many states, admissible in court.

There are also a number of states – and this group may possibly be increasing – which, while having no record of practising torture, are nevertheless acquiescing to it by, for example, disregarding the principle of non-refoulement as contained in Article 3 of the Convention.

Another large majority of states parties also fully or partially disregard their obligations under Article 14 of the Convention for the redress and rehabilitation of victims, no matter where the torture occurred or by whom it was perpetrated.

Eleven years ago, noticeable progress was made with the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, which enables preventive visits to be made by the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture to any place of deprivation of liberty, at any time. Some fifty national preventive mechanisms have been created, and the Sub-Committee has conducted 54 visits. However, many national preventive mechanisms are under-resourced and not empowered to deliver real results.

The fragility of the Convention is underscored by the fact that no country abides by all of its terms. No country would admit publicly that it engages in torture, but abundant evidence shows that torture is systematically practised by at least some states – that first category I referred to earlier.

It would seem all governments have been participating in a theatrical pretence of conforming with the Convention. And this may be more crucial than we initially realise, because it implies a sense of shame. Consider the alternative.

The president of the Philippines has spoken openly about extra-judicial killings. And the president of the United States of America has said that torture could be necessary in certain circumstances. There is no longer any pretence. They are breaking long-held taboos. If other leaders start to follow the same rhetorical course, undermining the Convention with their words, the practice of torture is likely to broaden, and that would be fatal. The Convention would be scuttled, and a central load-bearing pillar of international law removed.

The dangers to the entire system of international law are therefore very real.

Today, the 26th of June, is the international day in support of victims of torture, and earlier I participated in a panel at King's College organised by the International Bar Association to raise awareness about the absolute prohibition of torture, and the need for the legal profession to take a far more active role in preventing its use.

Human progress never glides; it will always stagger and sometimes even temporarily collapse. The common effort, for a common cause, within a common frame of understanding and regulation, will always be attacked by those more committed to the pursuit of narrower personal or national interests. These extreme practitioners of the assertive, thin agenda are apt to dismiss many of today’s international laws and post-war institutions as anachronisms. And because, to the non-lawyer, the system of international law is so complicated, the human rights system so indecipherable to many lay-persons, it is hard to rally the general public, who may not see any immediate threat to themselves.

This brings me to the central threat to human rights today: indifference. The indifference of a large part of the business community worldwide, who would still pursue profit even at the cost of great suffering done to others. The indifference of a large segment of the intelligence and security community, for whom the pursuit of information eclipses all the rights held by others, and who describe challenges to terrible, discriminatory practices as treachery.

Some politicians, for whom economic, social and cultural rights mean little, are indifferent to the consequences of economic austerity. They view human rights only as an irritating check on expediency – the currency of the political world. For others, indifference is not enough. Their rejection of the rights agenda is expressed in terms replete with utter contempt for others, a parade of meanness.

Our world is dangerously close to unmooring itself from a sense of compassion, slowly becoming not only a post-truth but also a post-empathetic world. It is so hard for us now in the UN to generate the sums needed for humanitarian action worldwide. Our appeals for funds for the most destitute are rarely met at levels over 50%; the final figure is often far less.

What is happening to us?

My hope lies not primarily with governments, but with those people who reject all forms of terrorism32, reject extreme, discriminatory counter-terrorism, and reject the populisms of the ideological outer limits. My hope lies with those who choose to elect more enlightened political leaders. My hope also lies with the most courageous of us: the human rights defenders, often victims of violations themselves who, armed with nothing beyond their minds and voices, are willing to sacrifice everything, including seeing their children and families, losing their work, even their lives, to safeguard rights – not just their own, but the rights of others.

How stunningly beautiful is that? I am moved by them. We should all be. It is they who ensure we retain our equanimity, and it is they, not us, who bear the greater burden of defending this crucial part of our system of international law. It is they who will save us, and we in turn must invest every effort in protecting them.

I don’t think Grotius would be surprised by any of this.

The reptilian urge of the human brain is not easily overcome, and humanity will for centuries remain untrustworthy and unreliable. Our behaviour, and the behaviour of states, will long require legal scaffolding to keep what we recognize as human civilization in place. Grotius would be grateful we are still fighting, standing up, for his international society and perhaps even crack a wry smile when thinking just how prescient he was, those four centuries ago.

I thank you for your attention.

Evidence of Threat

    Profession of Islam is sufficient evidence. It is time for you to get a clue, I have a few. Moe said:
"I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." "1.8.387

    The order is found in three ayat: 8.39, 9.29 & 9.123.  Muslims are obligated to emulate Moe in 33.21.  The obligation to attack kuffar is fard al-kifaya until we retaliate. Then it becomes fard ayn: binding on all Muslims individually. The restoration of Israel and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq made that conversion real. See page 18 of "The Book Of Jihad".
    Re-read the hadith quote above. Note that our blood & treasure are halal for Muslims until we become Muslims. When you look the full saying up in the book, you will discover that we only obtain human rights by becoming Muslims.

    There are more explicit threats. Moe said that we save our wealth and property from him by testifying that only Allah has the right to be worshiped. 9.92.388

    Moe wrote an extortion letter to the rulers of a port city in Jordan, telling them he did not intend to wage war against them until he explained his motive. The letter to the rulers of Ayala is the most explicit of his threatening letters. He told them that, if they neither embraced Islam nor paid Jizya he would kill them and enslave their widows and orphans. Read it and curse Islam!

Objects Of Fear

    The law of the Hanafi madhab requires every Muslim to be an object of fear to Kuffar. Read it and curse Islam!

Evidence to Prosecute

    Prime Minister Theresa May is an analencephalopath. Unfortunately, the anal sphincter is no substitute for a brain.  Gladstone & Churchill knew the difference between civil crime and war, she does not.

    You investigate, try and punish criminals. You shoot enemy combatants on sight.  Moe declared unremitting war with 9:29 and he told Muslims they were going to Hell if they did not go to war in 9.38-39.

    Once you know they are Muslims, you banish them back to Sand Land, where they or their parents came from. Islam is sufficient evidence of intent to conquer, that is all you need.

certain sector

    A growing cadre of voters are reading Islam's canonical texts and discovering the truth: that Islam is permanent war and Muslims are the enemy. They recognize the Manchester & London attacks as acts of war and they want those sympathetic to theattackers expelled from Britain.

human rights

  • life
  • liberty
  • pursuit of happiness
  • self-government
  • peace
    • without threat
    • without attack
    Those are the rights voters and the government should be interested in. The rights and duties conferred by Satan, aka Allah,
  • attack
  • plunder
  • rape
  • enslave
  • extort
are not contemplated by loyal citizens and should not be countenanced by the government.


    The fact that Erdogan and other dictators use false accusations of terrorism as a pretext for what comes naturally to dictators must not be used as a shield for enemy combatants in Dar al-Harb. 

Target: International Law

    It is because the human rights covenants are not enforced against Islam and are used to shield them from reprisal.

freedom of religion

    Freedom of religion is for legitimate religions, not false & malignant faith contrived to disguise an Arab Mafia as a religion and motivate itsacolytes to wage perpetual war.

    Islam rejects freedom of religion & belief. It makes not being Muslim a pretext for war. I disrespectfully direct doubters, deniers & dissenters to Reliance Of The Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8, which I quote

o9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll taxin accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

sacrifice rights

  • right to attack
  • right to plunder
  • right to rape
  • right to enslave
  • right to extort
    • right to get off Scott Free.


    Muslims: the closest approximation to vampires. They recruit and retain members by force of arms. Victims victimize others.

    The war is existential: to the last Jew. Who can get a clue?

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Moe told his companions that the gates of Jannah would not swing open for them until they killed the last Jew. Who can get a clue? 

    Muslims are promised admission to Allah's celestial orgy for doing his wet work Muslims are threatened with eternal damnation for sitting at home instead of going to war. The war can not end short of the extinction of Muslims because they will always repopulate, rearm and resume the jihad.  Was Dr. Van Helsing a monster?

criminal rights

    The crime/punishment model does not apply to Muslims; Soldiers of Allah, carrying out his command to conquer the world. They have no rights, they need no trials, either feed them to hogs or send them home to the desert. They attack us because they believe in Allah, his imperatives, threat & promise.


    Those who were never able can not be rehabilitated. All attempts to 'deradicalize' Muslims have failed. those demon spawn were raised as slaves of Satan from birth, inculcated with hatred for everything not Islamic according to their standards. 

    You are just as dead when killed by a ten year old as by a sheikh. Do not make the fatal error of projecting human values onto monsters.

international law

    International law is vain words on paper; not worth the paper it is inscribed on. Law without enforcement is dead. There is no international power to enforce the law against Muslims or Russia. Nobody is willing to start WW3 to stop Russia's encroachment.

    The idea of one world government is such bitter bullshit that we are not willing to swallow it. We learned from the weakness of the Articles Of Confederation. We are learning from failure to enforce the Constitution, and we are observing the tyranny of the un elected bureaucrats of the ElU. We want no part of it and we will not submit to seizure of our wealth or denial of our rights by foreigners. Take that notion to Hell with you.

struggle against terrorism

    It's Jihad, Stupid! Terrorism is a tactic employed in Jihad.  Without Islam there would be no Jihad. Without Jihad there would be no Islamic terrorism. 

    In previous wars, Western Civilization struggled against Germans & Turks, Germans & Japs. Now, thanks to FDR's enriching Saudi Arabia by discovering and producing the oil under the hot sands, we lie supine before the onslaught of Islamic terrorism.  We are not retaliating properly because the analencephalopaths we elected to power do not recognize the war being waged against us by Muslims.

curtailing freedom of expression

    Brits, Canucks, Dutchemem, French, Germans & Scandanavians are being persecuted, fined and jailed for speaking the truth about Islam. Geert Wilders has been subjected to two trials at great expense. Ezra Levant lost his newspaper to the 'Human Rights Council'. And you bitch bitterly about curtailing human rights, without mentioning them and not having their rights in mind. 

    We know about HRC RES 16/18 and a few of us know about the Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards.  We know that you are a damned hypocrite!

condemn terrorism unreservedly

    Then repeat after me: " Death & damnation be upon Allah, Muhammad and their slaves & followers who terrorize innocent people with Barbarian attacks designed to inflict terror. ". 

    Congratulations! You have thrown off Satan's yoke and rejoined the human race.

source of Terrorism

    Terrorism flows from the Koran & hadith:
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67, 9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123, 33:26,27, 47:4,49:15, 59:2,13, 61:10-13*; Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

detention  & torture

    Exactly what was wrong with the detention and water boarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?  How many of the terrorists released from Gitmo have returned to the battle?  How many have been successfully rehabilitated?

    Why should Britain not detain and expell the 3000 Muslims known to have terrorist intentions?  How many lives would have been saved and how much suffering averted if they had all been banned a decade ago?

drug offenses

    Every heroin addict who has died from an overdose got it from a dealer. Drug dealers are ruining lives every day.  The more of them we lock up or execute, the better!  Yes, this is off topic, but Muslims are engaged in the production and distribution of heroin.

Takfiri ideology

    Takfir is calling another Muslim an infidel. It is strictly prohibited. Sunni and Shia  kill each other because they are rivals for power.  That is a good thing, every dead Muslim is a good thing!

extreme ideology

    Terrorism is normative, not extreme. Allah commanded it and Moe exemplified it.

travel bans

    On the campaign train, Trump called for a complete ban on entry by Muslims until he could figure out what is going on.  How long would it take him to read the Koran and volume 4 of Sahih Bukhari? How long would it take him to read Reliance o9.0--14?  After that he could make the ban retroactive and permanent.

    Do the math: how many people would be alive today if the Magnificent 19 had been repelled at the border?  How many more if the parents of the Brothers Tsarnaev, Omar Mateen, Nidel Malik hasan  and Syed Farook had been kept out? 

     The law is clear on its face: the President has plenary authority to exclude any person or class of persons deemed subversive.  The 4th district court and 9th circus injected politics into their decisions. The Supreme Court is more objective.

reasonable suspicion

    Name one kuffar who willingly participated in Islamic terrorism. Just one? Why is it that Islamic terrorism is an exclusively Islamic affair?  It is reasonable to suspect Muslims because they are commanded by Allah to "strike terror" and "terrify". They are promised Brownie Points for any step taken to injure or enrage us.

Refugees and migrants

    News Flash: the Bataclan Massacre was done by 'refugees and migrants ' and those are not the only examples.  Those are Muslim invaders, not innocent refugees.


    Common sense dictates making Muslims extinct. The jihad can not end while one of them remains alive and believing in Allah.


    Drones, HellFire missiles and other technology increase the precision of our retaliation, but perfection is not attainable. Unfortunately, all Muslims are legitimate targets because they are slaves of Allah and followers of the prototypical terrorist.

pretending to seal borders

    If the pretense is believed, it can reduce infiltration, but not as much as a solid wall. Israel's wall is more effective than check points.

migrant children

    Illegal immigrants should be sent back, all of them, regardless of age and gender. Too many of them have joined criminal gangs and others are disease carriers.

asylum seeker

    Those are not asylum seekers, those are invaders, rapefugees & gimmigrants.  Why does King Salman refuse to take them? He could house a million of his needy Muslim brethren in those tents set up for the hajj.


    20/20 hindsight show us that Enoch Powell was absolutely correct and you are the demagogue.

malevolence and stupidity

    Hindu Kush, Armenian, Assyrian & Greek genocides: malevolence of Muslims; stupidity of those who stood by and watched instead of defending the victims. According to you we should not have nuked Hiroshima, we should have surrendered to Japan. Go to Hell!!

return to torture

    Waterboarding is not torture, it does no permanent physical harm. Those, like KSM, being subjected to it were not innocent.

reject aggression!

    `Keep your eyes on the prize: human rights in a state of peace, without threat, intimidation and attack. No more war! No more Jihad. That entails no more Muslims.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Eid Mubarak: Not In My Name, AssWhole!

Eid Mubarak. Not In My Name, AssWhole!

On behalf of the American people1, Melania and I send our warm greetings to Muslims as they celebrate Eid al-Fitr3.
Muslims in the United States joined those around the world during the holy month of Ramadan2 to focus on acts of faith and charity4.  Now, as they commemorate Eid with family and friends, they carry on the tradition of helping neighbors and breaking bread with people from all walks of life.
During this holiday, we are reminded of the importance of mercy, compassion, and goodwill5.  With Muslims around the world, the United States renews our commitment to honor these values6.
Eid Mubarak.

Not In My Name!

    I do not endorse any part of Isdamn and I am disgusted when my President does!  You spoke for yourself, out of ignorance & cowardice, not for me.  My message to Muslims is: as same-alaikum!


    Ramadan is the month in which Moe faked revelation of the first Koran verse. During Ramadan, the demon's slaves abstain from food and water during the daylight hours and pig out after sunset.  Arrogant and bitchy, they threaten or assault anyone they see eating or drinking.

    Sacrificing infidels to Satan is part of the celebration of Ramadan. The demon's slaves believe that the reward of genocidal attacks is increased seventy fold during Ramadan. 

Eid al-Fitr.

    At the end of the month, they celebrate by sacrificing sheep, goats and camels to Satan, with the same takbir they use when slitting our throats.  The hadi die slowly, in agony.  Then the Muslims pig out again. 

faith and charity

    Their faith is false,  fabricated to motivate them to do the demon's wet work and prevent us from recognizing Isdamn as a war machine.   
Zakat and sadaka are for Muslims only, unless they find a sucker they think they can soften up and trick into selling his soul with minor bribes.




    Fools project their values onto the demon's slaves who do not share them. Isdamnic mercy, compassion & good will are for other slaves of the demon, not for us. They think that attacking us is mercy 'cuz it might cause us to sell our souls as they have done.

honor these values

    Honor them by providing arms, ammunition and training to the indigenous Christians of Africa & Arabia so they can defend themselves against the genocidal attacks of the demon's slaves.  You dishonor them by falsely attributing them to Muslims!

    Muslims value "the supreme success": admission to the demon's celestial orgy where they will spend half the day popping cherries and half  guzzling wine and browsing the garden. The price of admission is martyrdom: killing and being killed in the way of Allah.
    This post has been kept at a high level of abstraction for the sake of brevity. If you doubt the major concepts presented here, then click the link to "Islam 101 For Clergy & Congregants" at the top of the page and read everything in it.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Only left to imagine, from whence in this world came these perverted translations of the Qur’an?

(Originally posted at dlbrand June 21, 2017 OpposingIslam)

By Debi Brand

Yesterday over at Jihad Watch, among the articles posted and featured by Robert Spencer was one titled, Philippines:Islamic State leaders torch the Christian school they graduated from”

Details in that article include the telling of how, “Twenty years after obtaining Christian education, Muslim brothers Omarkhayam and Abdullah Maute returned to this Central Mindanao city with the black flags of the Islamic State (IS) group and set fire to their alma mater.”

The details tell of how, the Maute brothers, accompanied by “Hundreds of gunmen, many of them young locals recruited …destroyed Dansalan College in a rampage through Marawi City.”

They include, “Zia Alonto Adiong, a member of the legislative assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, stating, “We do not understand where that hate is coming from.” 

The details also provide, how, “Duma Sani, a former dean of Mindanao State University” stated that “most locals did not support their radical Islamic brand that mandated the killing of nonbelievers.”

With the former dean of Mindanao State University further stating, “These [Marawi gunmen] are young people who have their own interpretation of the Quran….”

Such a darn shame, is it not? And to think of it, it is, seemingly, all because of those awful “extremist.”

Those awful “extremist,” I can well imagine, just how they broke into Islamic publishing houses the world over, probably, in the middle of the night, and there taking their Moderate victims captive, binding and gagging them.

Then, with the Moderates thus contained, the extremist went about changing all the “sacred texts.”

Therein making a liar and laughing stock of “Allah” and his claim to protect the Qur’an from manipulation and perversion.

I can thus well imagine, once the said Moderates were freed, the “extremist” vanished, then, worn and walloped, tattered and torn, weary and wondering, the Moderates, all the same, had to get to work. Business was, after all, at the door.

And so they sold those books just as the “extremist” had left them.

Did so at Kitab Bhavan ,New Delhi ; Iman Publishing House, Bloomington, IN; Darussalam, Global Leader in Islamic Books, Riyadh, Jeddah, Al-Khobar, Sharjah, Lahore, London, Houston, New York; Maktaba-e-Darul- ‘Uloom, Karachi; Medinah Press, Cape Town, South Africa; The Islamic Texts Society, UK.

Did so at amana publications, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.;  Islamic Book Service, USA, Hicksville, N.Y;  Ta Ha Publishers LTD, London, UK; Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. London; Royal Aal-Bayt Institution for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan; SUNY Press, New York, University of California, Los Angeles, The University of Chicago.

Did so at Routledge Studies in Classical Islam, New York, NY;  did so at Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan; did so at Garnet Publishing, The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, UK; did so at First Gorgias Press ,Columbia University.

Did likewise at Adam Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India; so too at 5 Pillars Publication, London, and I’ve little doubt, only God knows where all else the message of Islam, on the books, was perverted.

Hence, the message today, sadly, now known the world over as Islam–perverted, perverted, perverted.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Exposing Islam With Billboards

Exposing Islam With Billboards Exposing Islam With Billboards

    A well designed billboard in a high traffic location can attract a great deal of attention. This one in Indianapolis  made Muslim heads explode without explicitly naming its subject.

Muslims & Dhimmis, aware of the charges against the false prophet, over reacted, multiplying the effect of the billboard.

    The beauty of that billboard is its veracity. I documented it here. Imam Bukhari is said to have winnowed down 300,000 hadith to 7275, of which 2,230 are unique. His hadith collection is said to be second only to the Qur'an in authenticity.  All of his ahadith are supposed to be authentic. How can Muslims disclaim them?  Without  hadith, they do not know what to do in emulating the Profit.

    Besides verifying the truth about Moe, Bukhari's hadith can be used to expose Islam. The current  billboard should be reproduced in other cities where courage and financing can be found.  The following samples, while not copy ready, illustrate how smoking gun hadith can be used to expose the world's worst evil.

    If you have the $ and the courage, get these up all over the country. In the mean time, share them with social media posts. And when Muslims & Dhimmis kvetch, direct them to this post for the fatal facts.  [Bold blue underlined text is hyperlinked to authentic Islamic source texts.]


Open Sahih Bukhari Vol. 4 to page 108 and verify this saying. I edited the second footnote, which referenced the glossary1.  My citation is to the ayat which establishes Jizya as one terminal condition of a fight Jews & Christians Until... loop.  Moe got his income by plunder! Read the Book of Khumus in vol. 4!



    Terror is the condition they wish to impose, both ends and means, but not the real issue. The real issue is Jihad. But Terror gets public attention, so let us exploit it to the hilt.


    This one might be more effective with the reference to the Profit deleted. That would force the Muslims to expose themselves by objecting to it. 

    This pithy saying is found on page 140 of volume 4 of Sahih Bukhari. 

    Who will argue with the  Profit and the great muhadithin who authenticated his saying? That is hadith #2977 on page 140, linked above.

Object of fear

    Using this one will require a spokesman well versed in Islamic texts.  Supporting it will not be easy, but it is vital.

    This proof of concept sample is not made from the actual text 'cuz the original is damn near illegible. It is poorly printed in an archaic font and poorly scanned from a drenched copy. There is excessive bleed through on the lower half of the page.

    The source is the second volume of Hedaya, the fiqh of the Hanafi madhab, used in colonial India and the Ottoman Empire. Page 154 contains a discussion of the granting of protection, by Muslims, to infidels passing through.   The grant of protection is only valid if issued by a  Muslim who is able to attack the infidel, and is therefore an object of terror to him. 
If a free person grant protection to an infidel, or to a body of infidels, or to the people of a fort or city, the protection is valid, whether the person granting it be a man or a woman; and no person of the Muslims is afterwards at liberty to molest them; because the prophet has said "If the least among the Muslims grant protection to an infidel, and make a compact with him, it behooves the whole to observe such protection and compact, and not to break it;" and the learned agree that the word  [illegible]  [the least,] in this saying means a single person---and also, because any single Muslim is empowered to make war upon the infidels, wherefore they fear him, since he is competent to oppose them; by his granting protection, therefore, protection is established from him, since he is one of whom protection may be asked, because the object of fear is the object from which to look for protection; and a single Muslim is the object of fear, (according to  according to what we have before asserted, that the infidels fear him")"

In the excerpt above, I have cleaned up one anachronism: substituting Muslim for Mussleman. I added bold font emphasis to the crucial clauses.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Unforgivable Negligence

(Originally posted at OpposingIslam)

By Debi Brand

And I am reminded, as ibn Kathir provides in his tafsir, “Allah states that there are disbelievers, hypocrites, and believers among the bedouins.” (Surah At-Tawbah 9: 97-99)

The bedouins spoken to above were those among the first group of followers of the alleged “Prophet of Islam,” the Muslims of his day.

If then, in the time of the alleged presence on this earth of the alleged “Prophet,” in his following were “disbelievers, hypocrites, and believers,” what fool among us now fails to regard today also in every group of Muslims are “disbelievers, hypocrites, and believers”?

And regarding that fact, what coward among us, what fool among us, what Leader, will send, or lead men into war wherein they are expected to count as allies those from Muhammad’s Ummah and do so failing to provide for the above-stated reality: among the Muslims are “disbelievers, hypocrites, and believers”?

Moreover, regard or refuse to do so, the believers among that group will be those who live by that written in “The Book of Allah,” they will be those who live by all in the Sunnah of “Allah’s Messenger,” lock, stock, and barrel of it.

Therefore, unless willing to accept your place among the derelict, you had better know, and know well, what orders and guidance are in those works, because they will be the orders the believer will follow, all others they will reject.

They will follow “Allah’s” orders, they will follow the same of “Allah’s Messenger.” Thus, unless you and your orders, goals, and commands fall in line with the above “Allah” orders, the believer will reject your orders, and execute “Allah’s” orders.

The disbelievers referred to above are those who openly reveal they disbelieve the lot of Muhammad’s message. The Hypocrites among the Muslims, they are those who conceal the disbelief in Islam they hold in their hearts, thus, outwardly, to save their skins, they pretend to be believers. 

They are the ones we claim are “Moderate Muslims.”

The Qur’an states concerning these hypocrites, “They hide within themselves what they dare not reveal to you.” (Surah Al “Imran: 154) They dare not reveal their disbelief to the believers, as touched on above, aiming to stay alive.

What’s more, at times the believers in “Allah’s Book,” they too, to the unbeliever, “hide within themselves what they dare not reveal to you.” Until the moment is right, opportunity ripe for the taking,  that is, then the mask they hurl aside.

Sahih of Al-Bukhari speaks to that concept this way: “Abu Ad-Darda said, “We give a smile for some people while our hearts curse them.” (Bukhari, Book of Al-Adab [Good Manners].)

Why in this world would such a hadith state that, what in this world could it possibly mean?

Expounding on, “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers….” Ibn Kathir, in his tafsir, answers that for us:

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendship, rather than the believers ….except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al Bakhari said, that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”

Footnotes thereat provide on the “Taqyah”: “To shield what is in one’s heart.” (Tafsir, ibn Kathir, Surah 3. Al ‘Imran:28, Vol. 3. P.142.)

For such reason, if you are taking as our “allies” those who hold as sacred in their hearts that in “Allah’s Book” and you are commanding those entrusted to your leadership to trust in the alleged trustworthiness of your alleged “ally,” you had better know—and make known you know it—you know and regard what is in “Allah’s Book.”

In other words, just state it, Mr. President, and have your Generals do likewise, this is a Russian Roulette game you are willing to play, for the chance of mission-success—mission: our rule, our ways, our traditions, overruling the inveterate rules, ways, traditions of Muhammad in the hearts and minds of “those who believe."

Just make it clear, right up front, in pursuit of the above mission, this is a sting to our core that you are willing to chance absorbing the pain thereof, and absorb that pain not just once, not just twice, not just thrice, but if need be endlessly.

State clear, Sir, unlike “Muhammad’s” rule thus his sunnah, “A believer is not stung twice (by something) out of one and the same hole,” we will be. (al-Bukhari, Book of Al-Adab [Good Manners]).

Footnote provided on the just cited sahih, reads, “A believer should be on the alert and benefit by his experience to avoid faults in future and is not deceived twice.” (Ibid.)

Under the heading, “The Believer Does Not Provide Opportunity to be Stung Twice From One (And the Same) Hole,” Sahih Muslim speaks to the above-cited sunnah-contrast to our practiced idiocy. (V. 4. Book Pertaining to Piety and Softening of Hearts.)

Ibn Sa’d, and others do also, Sa’d providing, “The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Verily, a believer is not stung twice from the same hole. You will not return to Makkah to declare, rubbing your cheeks, that you had befooled Muhammad twice.” (Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Vol. II, P. 51.)

But we will oblige the believer with such bragging rights. Do so again and again, and again, as history records concerning such.

Therefore, Mr. President, just make it clear to the troops beneath your command, in this mission, part of their mission is to pretend a believer is something other than what “the Book of Allah” declares a believer is.

State fact clear, Sir: you are asking our soldiers to take as allies those who hold in their hearts regard for the “Book of Allah,” thus regard for the orders and examples of the “Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger.”

And given this “ally” of ours holds such in his heart, at some point, if half a chance avails itself, that “ally” is certain to reveal that which he holds in his heart. Act in accordance with that. And at that moment, whatever you, your “war-plans,” and your policies have provided to that believer as easy prey will be harvested as just that.

Once again, homes, hearts, and lives will absorb the pain of the stupidity and cowardice in our leaders in face of Islam. Because far too many of our leaders are by choice ignorant on the doctrines of Islam, thus to cowardly to candidly address what is written therein. So once again, at the hands of one of our “allies,” a believer, who, we like fools, claimed as one of our allies, three more U.S. Soldiers fell.

What purpose did the death of these men serve?

Here follows that answer:

It is more humiliating for the disbelievers and more comforting to the hearts of the faithful that the believers kill the disbelievers by their own hands. Allah said to the believers of this Ummah,

“Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands, and disgrace them, and give you victory over them, and heal the breast of a believing people [9:14].” ( Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Ibid, (Vol.4), PP. 268 - 269.)

Tafsir Ma ‘ariful Qur’an rendition of that verse and a couple others included here with it reads this way: [“Allah” commanded] “And give those who disbelieve the ‘good’ news of a painful punishment.” (Surah Al-Taubah: 9: 3) “Kill the Mushriks wherever you find them.” ( 9: 5.)

It follows that with, “Fight them, so that Allah should punish them at your hands and disgrace them, and help you win against them and bring relief to bosoms of a believing people, [14] and remove the rage of their hearts…. [15.]” (Surah Al-Taubah : 9, as stated, Ma’ariful Qur’an Vol 4 rendered.)

In concluding this, Mr. President, once more, you Sir -- as were to no-avail asked your predecessors -- are asked, begged, to find within yourself the courage and discipline to acquaint yourself with that in “Allah’s Book.”

Sir, once again, you are asked and begged, to regard the facts of what comprises the doctrines of Islam. Demand the same of your Generals and Commanders. Do so, before you ask our men and women in uniform to take as allies those who believe in that book.

Choosing to follow in the footsteps and practice of your immediate predecessors in this conflict, with respect to the above, and thus, electing to neglect the above voiced request and plea for you to attend to the duty stated and called for, will be for you just as it was for them: except for the Cross, unforgivable negligence.

(As originally posted at: Unforgivable Negligence, at OpposingIslam)

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Muslims and Dhimmis Are Truthophobes! The Billboard And ThisBlogpost Will Educate Them!

Muslims and Dhimmis Are Truthophobes! The Billboard And This Blogpost Will Educate Them! Thanks and a tip of the hat to Bare Naked Islam!
If you have the money and courage to put up a billboard, here are some content suggestions.

Educate Truthophobes

    Muslims & Dhimmis are bitterly bitching about a billboard which they imply is dissing Moe. Examine it carefully: Is he mentioned by name on the billboard?  Is Islam mentioned?  How do those critics connect the billboard to their Profit???

    Islam, being a false and malicious contrivance, is extremely fragile. It can not withstand questioning or criticism. In one biography of the Profit, there is an extensive discussion of the legal necessity of killing anyone who disses Moe. The discussion includes a long list of murders ordered or approved by the Profit.
You can learn more in that book, including the fact that his excrement did not stink and drinking his urine would prevent gutache. Drinking his blood prevented one man from going to Hell.

    In this post you will find quotes from Wikiislam and links to original sources including "Sahih Bukhari" and "The Life Of Muhammad".  Read'em and weep, Muslims!

The perfect man

    Who is "the perfect man"? 

al-Insān al-Kāmil

    I quote Wikiislam:
"In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is known as al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (an excellent model of conduct). "

    Where? The Qur'an!
33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

If you wnt to get into Jannah, you't better meet Allah on good terms when Judgment Day rolls around. So who should you emulate and what did he do?

married a six year old

    While Khadija was alive, Moe did not dare to take another wife. After her death, he married Sauda, a widow. Shortly thereafter, he married the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, Abu Bakr.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, I direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to this blog post which quotes the muttawir ahadith relevant to the marriage to Aisha:

Imran Firasat created a graphic novel based on the story, watch it here:

child molester

    No, it ain't on the billboard, would not fit. Moe did not consummate the marriage until Aisha was nine years old. In the interim, he was practicing
Mufakhathat. He was thighing the little girl! Read about it here, including a link to a fatwa permitting thighing 'cuz it is sunnah!

beheaded 600 Jews in one day

    The number is inexact 'cuz the records only give us a range.  I quote Wikiislam:
“The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”
Ishaq 464
The quote is from Guillaume's translation  which you can read here. The story is told in Sahih Bukhari.

slave owner and dealer

    A slave owner had declared his will that his slave be emancipated on his death. Moe seized the slave and sold him.  read about it in Sahih Bukhari .  Moe owned a black slave, read about it in vol. 8.


The Profit had nine wives and used to "visit them all in one night" meaning he had sex with all of them. Read about it in vol. 7.  Read more about his wives here.


    Sad but true. He took sex slaves from among the captives. Safiya was one of them.

tortured & killed unbelievers

    Safiya, whose rape was mentioned above, was the bride of Kinanna, chief of the Jewish settlement at Khaibar Oasis. Moe had him tortured to discover the location of their gold. When Kinanna remained silent, Moe had him killed. Read about it in The Life Of Muhammad.  Wikiislam quotes it: 
Kinana b. al-Rabi', who had the custody of the treasure of the B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought") to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?' he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave ordrs to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head in revenge for his brother Mahmud.
The story is on page 515.

    In Islamic law, slander is "anything the hearer might not like", the hearer being the subject.  Moe is dead; he can't hear what is on that billboard and can not see it. In Islamic law, truth is not a defense against accusations of slander. But we are not under Islamic law. Not yet.