Islam’s Holy Books

These are the main texts in Islam… the three most trusted in a Muslims life are emphasized (and pictured in color below)

  • QURAN – holy book of Islam
    • TAFSIR – commentary on the Quran
  • HADITH – traditions of Muhammad, his words and deeds (refers to the reports of such narrations in the Sunna) [Good PDF]
    • SUNNA – accepted practice of Muslim life (denotes what the Prophet said, did, approved, and disapproved of, explicitly or implicitly)
  • SIRA – biography of Muhammad

The above Holy Texts of Islam are explained well by GELLER REPORT’S author, HUGH FITZGERALD in his piece entitled, “A Vademecum On Islam: Five Pillars, Qur’an, Hadith, Sira

….. The main texts of Islam are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Qur’an is the Uncreated and Literal Word of God. It cannot be changed. It contains contradictions within itself, which long ago were resolved in favor of what are thought to be the later, and harsher verses. The “harsher” verses are said to date from Muhammad’s time in Medina, after he conquered that city. No longer needing to curry favor with anyone, as he had had to do in Mecca, he could afford to be as harsh as he pleased. The interpretive vehicle for dealing with contradictions in the Qur’an, and favoring the later verses, is “abrogation” or naskh. The doctrine dates back more than a millennium. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the doctrine be abandoned, so that the harsher verses no longer would be held to abrogate the softer verses from Muhammad’s “Meccan” period. This is unlikely to be accepted by more than a handful of would-be “reformers of Islam.”

The Hadith are the written records of what Muhammad said and did. In the centuries immediately following the death of Muhammad, tens of thousands of Hadith were recorded by imaginative Muslims. It became the job of specialists – muhaddithin – to study the existing Hadith, so as to determine with what degree of confidence to believe in the reliability of any given Hadith.  These muhaddithin in the main relied on the study of the isnad-chain – that is, study of the transmission through time of each Hadith. Thus if  A heard a story from B, who heard it from C, who heard from D, back as far as possible, and the closer that chain reached to  the time of Muhammad and an eyewitness to what he said or did, the more “authentic” that story was deemed to be.

The muhaddithin did make the study of isnad-chains into a laborious and, by our lights, sterile pseudo-science, and in so doing did manage to winnow the tens of thousands of existing Hadith down to about 4,000 (the number of Hadith in the two collections deemed most reliable). There are many collections of Hadith. But six collections of them, identified by the word “Sahih,” by different muhaddithin, are regarded as the most reliable. And among those six, the two compiled by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are treated with the greatest respect. Rather than employing an Accept/Reject system, the muhaddithin established categories of likely authenticity, and proceeded to rank each Hadith according to four levels of reliability, based on study of each Hadith’s isnad-chain. A Hadith that is assigned a high rank of authenticity by Al-Bukhari or Muslim will have much greater authority for Muslims  than a Hadith  that is assigned to the lowest rank of authenticity by them, or given a middle rank by one of the muhaddithin deemed less authoritative.

The Sira is the name given to the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The Hadith, which are stories, not in chronological order, about the acts and sayings of Muhammad,  also contain miscellaneous information about everything from the treatment of women, to the origin of the universe, to music and musical instruments, to the correct methods of bathroom hygiene, to views on dogs and statues, and much more. The Sira, by contrast,  tells the story of Muhammad, in chronological order, and in particular, it tells of the progressive revelation, over 23 years, by the Angel Gabriel, of Allah’s Message to Muhammad, Messenger of God, Seal of the Prophets. The very first, and indispensable, contribution to “the Biography of Muhammad” is believed to be that by Ibn Ishaq, who lived some 150 years after Muhammad had died. And that biography is preserved thanks to one Ibn Hisham, who copied it down and incorporated it into one of his own works. Non-Muslim scholars differ as to how much faith can be put in a biography composed 150 years after the death of its subject, and preserved in a copy written by someone else (and possibly subject to scribal error), but Muslims do not question what is contained in the Sira, just as they believe in the Hadith and in the ranking systems for the Hadith by those they consider the most authoritative muhaddithin.

All the biographies of Muhammad by Muslims are hagiographical; no matter what he did, Muhammad could do no wrong. He is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (“uswa husana”) and the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”). The Sira is, in large part, based on the information contained in the Hadith, but aside from its chronological organization (lacking in the Hadith), the Sira offers other information, not to be found in the Hadith, about the times in which Muhammad lived, just as the Hadith contains much information not to be found in the Sira. There is considerable overlap between the Hadith and Sira, but they are not the same.

The texts – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been the subjects of generations of commentators. A commentary  on the Qur’an is called a tafsir, and the commentaries are particularly important because the language, and meaning,  of much of the Qur’an require elucidation; some passages are simply unfathomable. The scholar Christoph Luxenberg (an alias), is a philologist who is a native speaker of Arabic, and a great authority on Syriac (the version of Aramaic spoken in the region of Edessa). For years he has been startling the world of Qur’anic studies by claiming that 20% of the Qur’an is incomprehensible even to native speakers familiar with classical Arabic. Luxenberg believes that the Ur-text of the Qur’an is Syriac, possibly the language of a Christian lectionary; he argues that many of the knottiest philological problems in the Qur’an are susceptible of solution if one posits such an Ur-text, written not in Arabic but in Aramaic, or rather in that version of Aramaic known as Syriac. He has been winning converts to this view among non-Muslim Qur’anic scholars, but few Muslims, obviously, can allow themselves to accept Luxenberg’s view. Even without the Luxenberg controversy, It is not possible to read the Qur’an, even its seemingly least difficult verses,  and grasp their meaning without making use of the most authoritative Muslim commentators. They serve as the indispensable guides to the meaning of many passages that cry out for exegetical glosses.

The Sunna – essentially, the manners and customs and ways of being of the Arabs in the days of Muhammad – matters to Muslims, or most Muslims, as much as the Qur’an. It has even been said that the Sunna could exist without the Qur’an, but not the Qur’an without the essential gloss of the Sunna. And the Sunna is founded on, consists largely of, what is in  the Hadith and the Sira, that is the life – words, deeds, and stories about – Muhammad. He, not Allah, is the central figure in Islam. Muhammad is mentioned four times as often as Allah in the Qur’an. He is the Model of Conduct – uswa hasana – a phrase used in the Qur’an exactly three times, the other two times both used to describe Abraham. He is, furthermore, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and everything he did, as a consequence, was Perfect. Whatever he did was right. Some of what he did is exclusive to him – he had nine wives and two concubines, but ordinary mortal Muslims are allowed four wives only. However, much of what he did is not limited to him but is worthy of emulation. Little Aisha caught his fancy when she was six,  the daughter of his good friend, and was considered betrothed at that point, but Muhammad contained himself, waiting until she reached the reasonable age of nine before consummating, with sexual intercourse, his marriage to her. That might have been thought one of the details of his life – such as nine wives – that ordinary Muslims would not have been allowed to emulate. But it turns out that the age of the child bride, little Aisha, is not regarded by Muslims as embarrassing – though with Westerners who raise the matter of Aisha, in a manner that suggests dismay or horror, they have started to offer various strategies of pretend denial: she wasn’t really nine years old, but possibly as old as nineteen, we are told, offered preposterously by apologists as the age at which she reached puberty. But we know from reliable Hadith that she was called by her mother when she was on her swings with playmates, and then later,  when she went to Muhammad’s house, she brought her toys with her. Swings and toys suggest nine years, not nineteen.

If the subject of little Aisha comes up – and in any conversation or discussion of Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims the latter should be sure to raise the subject,  non-Muslims should understand that Aisha matters because she is not merely a figure in the distant and unrepeatable past. Her example affects Muslim girls today. Under the secularizing Shah, the marriageable age of girls in Iran had been raised to eighteen. That learned theologian of Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, managed in 1982 to lower the marriageable age of girls from thirteen to nine years. Since Khomeini died in 1989, the legal age has again been raised, to thirteen. A piquant detail: Khomeini married his wife when she was ten years old. And if it worked for him, and for Muhammad, why not allow it for everyone?

video break

(Many videos below are from Nabeel Qureshi… his insights are dearly missed)

SAME GOD?

PILLARS

VIOLENT?

ANSWERING ISLAM has a good response regarding REAL ISLAM:

REAL ISLAM – How do we define “Muhammad’s Islam?”

Muhammad’s Islam is mandated in the Quran, portrayed in the sira and hadith, and codified by the Islamic books of law and theology.  The men who compiled the sira and hadith devoted the majority of their adult lives to the study of Muhammad and Islam.  Many lived during Islam’s geo-political power heyday and they did not need to play to a Western audience’s proclivities, preferences, and appetites.  Instead, they wrote confidently and strongly; they told it like it was.  No apology was needed.

Although there are multiple Qurans in existence, and there are thousands of “sahih” hadith that contradict each other, and there are multiple contradictory stories in the sira, and the four major Sunni schools of Islamic law do not agree on every principle, it is still possible to confidently draw and define “real Islam” which allows for minor variations.  Those minor variations are not the issue.  Muhammad actually allowed for minor variations within his faith, (take prayer or Quranic recitation for example), so real Islam allows for minor variations as well.  Throughout Muhammad’s life Islamic variations occurred but they were minor and did not contradict his teachings and commands.

The Quran, hadith, and sira, give us a composite, and detailed, description of Muhammad’s teachings and actions, and they provide the context behind his words and deeds.  We are not operating in a vacuum.  With these we can define real Islam.  We are not wrestling with a Zen “kōan,” we do not have to approach this topic like a Sherlock Holmes’s mystery, we are not starting from scratch.  We have substantial material in our hands; we only need to study and understand it.  The study of these texts gives us Muhammad’s Islam.

Muhammad’s Islam

A man is known by, and defined by his actions.  If these correspond to his words or teaching, then we can paint a harmonious picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk.  Muhammad talked and he walked his talk.  His actions were in agreement with his teachings.  He did what he said he was going to do and he performed what he expected others to perform.

The first 13 years of his “prophetic” career occurred in Mecca, where he was very weak and persecuted.  Had he been violent his opponents would have had just cause to kill him.  Consequently Allah told him not to use force, (Quran 10:99).  After 13 years in Mecca he fled for his life to Medina.  However, just before he fled to join his armed followers in Medina, Allah commanded him to use violence to spread Islam’s rule.

In Medina, he quickly used violence and the trail of blood behind him grew ever wider. Muhammad grew in power and he liked it.  As time when on, the scale of attacks against non-Muslims grew in magnitude.

As the pre-eminent Muslim, Muhammad did many things, some good, some evil.  He prayed often, in poverty he shared his food, in hard times he shared his money.  He worked side by side with his followers.  I believe he loved his followers and I know that they loved him.  They would not only willingly die for him, they would gladly kill for him.  In doing so, they earned Muhammad’s praise.

Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, requires legitimate good works.  That is commendable.  However, it also requires oppressive, aggressive, violence.  That is Satanic, dark, and evil.  Of course there is good, but we are focusing on the bad, negative, violent facts of real Islam.

There is no shortage of articles on the web about Muhammad’s acts of oppression and violence.  He was a slave trader, he allowed his men to rape captured slaves, he robbed and plundered others, he had his opponents tortured, assassinated, and massacred.  Here are some suggested websites and articles where you can read about Muhammad’s evil and violence in Islam:

1. RELIGION OF PEACE
2. ISLAM and VIOLENCE (WIKI)
3. Top Ten Reasons Why Islam Is NOT The Religion Of Peace
4. ANSWERING ISLAM (JIHAD)
5. ANSWERING MUSLIMS (JIHAD)
6. Top Indonesian Muslim Scholar Says Stop Pretending That Islamic and Violence Aren’t Linked

Better yet, read the hadith and sira for yourself!  All of Muhammad’s vile actions detailed by the sites and articles above are drawn from the hadith and sira.  Torturing for money?  Check.  Rape of female slaves? Check.  Extortion, robbery, murder, massacre?  Check.  Sex with children?  Check.  All of that comes from the Quran, sira and hadith, but the sira and hadith provide the contextual details.

Jesus taught that the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy; Muhammad killed, stole, and destroyed.  Satan demanded worship; Muhammad demanded that all people worship his Allah and recognize his prophethood upon penalty of death.3  Until his dying day, Muhammad did not let up on spreading his power by force and destroying those who rejected his claim of prophethood.  That was real Islam in action back then, and it is real Islam in action today.

Bear this historical fact in mind: the pattern of Islam that followed Muhammad’s death is repeated over and over again within the Islamic world today.  The early Muslims had their first internal violent power struggle the day after Muhammad died.  Once the new king was identified, (Abu Bakr), he then used his power to attack and kill people who wanted to leave Islam, (The Wars of Apostasy). Today, throughout the Muslim world, similar internal power struggles continue.  Violence is often used.  Once settled, the Muslims then turn their attention against the non-Muslims.  Islam is a religion of power, power of one Muslim man over other Muslims, the power of Muslim husbands over their wives, and the power of Muslims over non-Muslims.

Muhammad taught that his followers were to believe in him as prophet and obey him as Allah’s voice to mankind.  Therefore, “Real Islam” is believing what Muhammad believed, obeying Muhammad as Allah’s voice to mankind, and doing the things Muhammad did and commanded.  All of this is documented in the Quran, hadith, and sira.

Jesus Versus Muhammad by Papa Giorgio on Scribd

Islam’s View of Jesus’ Diety

Here are some ways to deal with Muslim apologists questioning Jesus’ Divinity:

(Above) Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim, answers a question from a faithful Muslim about how Jesus could have both a Divine (God) nature and a human nature without confusion or contradiction. See more from Nabeel HERE  Follow him on TWITTER as well.

Nabeel is battling stomach cancer, so any prayers would be a gracious help.

Here is a more in-depth presentation dealing with how the question is typically raised.

Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view!

Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God.

Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. In this video, we consider several examples of such claims.

For more on the deity of Christ, watch these videos by David Wood:

More from David Wood:


A Couple Debates/Discussions


A good back-and-forth between  Imam Mustri and Dr. James White:

“Did the Earliest Followers of Jesus Believe in His Deity?” James White debates Shabir Ally at the University of Pretoria in South Africa.

“Muhammad” Talks To “Jesus”

I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.

Pope Says Islam and Qur’an Peaceful

Recently:

From a year ago:

  • “If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence” (Breitbart)
  • “It’s not fair to identify Islam with violence. It’s not fair and it’s not true” (Jihad Watch)

JIHAD WATCH notes where the Pope miserably fails in regards to Islam:

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Jesus Versus Muhammad by Papa Giorgio on Scribd

Milo vs Muhammad (Plus, Muslim Feminists)

VERY STRONG Language Warning!

In Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad is quoted as saying “Listen and obey your leader, even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin.”

Islamic scholar Ibn Qutaybah described black people as “ugly and misshapen because they live in a hot country where the heat overcooks them in the womb and curls their hair.”

Muslim scholar Nasir al-Din Tusi once said:

  • “The ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro.”

Female leaders:

  • In Sahih Bukhari, when Muhammad learned that the Persians had instated a female monarch, he said “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

BONUS

The White Prophet Muhammad Had Black Slaves

Many people who don’t read the Muslim sources assume that Muhammad was dark-skinned. However, according to Islam’s most trusted sources, Muhammad was white. These same sources show that Muhammad also owned black slaves. How can we reconcile these facts with the spread of Islam among African-Americans in recent decades? David Wood discusses the issue.

Thomas Aquinas Speaks His Mind About Islam

Breitbart has a neat story about Aquinas and his views on Islam… here is a portion of it:

…In one of his most significant works, the voluminous Summa contra gentiles, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the scholar argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Islam.

Aquinas contrasts the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.

Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”

Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.

“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”

Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”

Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.

“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”

According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Islam “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”…

Chris Hayes (MSNBC) Pushing Bad Analogies and Non-Sequiturs

Congressman Steve King caught the first non-sequitur. But the second is worth elaborating on: If anti-Abortion persons killed over 27,000 Planned Parenthood workers in portions of — say — South America in the past 14-years, then yes… we would be closer to the correct analogy. And yes, Christians would support keeping these “factions of Christianity” (to support the hypothesis presented in the video) out of the country. But Dear did not quote a verse or section from the Bible supporting his actions, neither does he have examples of the founder of Christianity doing this (like we have examples of the founder of the Mooslems doing).

  • For a short comparison Chris Hayes glossed over that Steve King brought up ~ near the end of this post.

And the Catholic analogy – when compared to the violent acts of Islam – does not work either. But, in trying to make it work for Mr. Hayes... if you had 27,000 Catholics killed by southern Protestants… then yes, if you were a Norther state full of Catholics… then by all means be VERY weary of Protestants coming into your state.

One should take note as well that Rep. Keith Ellison ignored the question in regards to Sharia Law. But he would because he likes to visit radical Mosques:

In the wake of a radical Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino, California, that saw 14 people dead and a dozen others wounded, three Democratic Congressman will show “solidarity” with the American Muslim community by visiting a mosque once led by Anwar al-Awlaki, the deceased chief recruiter for Al Qaeda.

Awlaki is no more, but the mosque where he once served as Imam still stands openly and proudly just outside of Washington, D.C., in the Falls Church neighborhood of Northern Virginia.

Democratic Representatives Rep. Donald Beyer (D-VA), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) announced in a letter: “We must show that we will not tolerate islamophobia and that those who propagate it do not represent the melting-pot America that we celebrate.”

“We invite you to join in this Friday to stand in solidarity with Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque — the mosque that received the hoax bomb — and with all our American Muslim communities, by attending Friday prayers and joining us for a short press conference against bigotry,” the Democratic House members said.

“Help us show solidarity with the American Muslim community be joining us on Friday,” they asked.

The Dar Al-Hijrah mosque was founded thanks to a $5 million dollar grant from Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in the United States, which allowed for the large facility to accommodate some 5,000 Muslims.

The mosque’s outreach director, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, who will speak to the public on Friday, has on several occasions announced his public support for convicted terrorists.In 2005, when a Virginia Muslim was found guilty of inciting jihad against the United States, Imam Malik said, “There is a view many Muslims have when they come to America that you could not be arrested for something you say. But now they have discovered they are not free to speak their minds.”

When in 2005, a fellow Muslim was convicted for plotting to assassinate former President George W. Bush, Malik commented, “our whole community is under siege.”

The mosque’s current Imam, Shaker Elsayed, has said in the past that the killing of a Jewish man was justified because he “adopted a position against all Arabs and Muslims.” Elsayed has also defended a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, saying that the FBI was involved in a “war on Muslim institutions.” In 2013, he called for armed jihad against the United States.

Major Nidal Hassan, who was responsible for the Islamic terrorist attack on Fort Hood, Texas in 2009, was a member of Dar al-Hijrah, praying under the guidance of Awlaki, who became Imam in January 2001.

Moreover, two September 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, were regularsat the mosque prior to carrying out the worst terrorist attack in American history….

(via Breitbart)

Could you imagine if a Mitt Romney went to a church that had a Klan leader who created disciples that killed as many as the disciples of Anwar al-Awlaki did? With current pastors still pushing segregation? That analogy is pretty close. Why hasn’t anyone (like Chris Hayes) asked Keith Ellison about that? (For other “church analogies,” read my conversation with a Democrat while on vacation.)

Sound analogies are key… you must apply them to yourself to see if they work. Here, for example, is a person on MSNBC (adub4ever) YouTube saying the following of Steve King:

  • How nice of Rep King to take his white hood off for the interview.

Here is a response to this by dibblydooda:

  • How nice for Ellison to put away his executioners sword…

This would be a proper counter to the position taken by adub4ever. Some other comments from the MSNBC video on YouTube are worth posting:

  • “The level of organization behind Islamic-based attacks are a far cry from a few isolated incidents of lunatics who regard themselves as Christians.” ~ by Situations103
  • “Is there a Christian death cult marching across the Middle East or is this moron full of crap?” ~ by Phil Hart
  • First half of this segment: Why are you and other bigoted slobs like you questioning the absolute shining beauty of Islam, Rep. King? (Pay no attention to the Muslim and non-Muslim bodies lying dead all over the world by people who swear by the Quran and Muhammad). Second half of this segment: How scary are bigoted slobs like Rep. King to you and every other Muslim in the world, Rep. Ellison? (Because they are much scarier than the people killing Muslims all around the globe in the name of Islam and Muhammad). ~ by Skidd333
  • “Liberals attack Christians cause we don’t fight back with violence. Liberals refuse to attack muslims for their atrocities on a daily basis, because they fear muslims being violent. Religion of peace? nope.~ by Dan Stevens

Here is a short comparison between Muhammad and Jesus:

Jesus Versus Muhammad by Papa Giorgio