Category Archives: Islam

Why Muslims hate dogs

Islam wants me dead. That’s some “religion of peace”!

Have you wondered why Muslims hate dogs?

Here’s an explanation for why Muslims are forbidden to have a dog as a pet or allow one in their house. (H/t Mike Ramirez, a reader of DanielPipes.org, who has a website on Questionable Teachings of Islam.)

Answer: It’s in the Hadith — the corpus of the reports of the teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad. The Hadith was used in forming the basis of ‘Shariah’ Law and has had a profound and controversial influence on molding the commentaries on the Quran. Much of early Islamic history available today is based on the Hadith and is challenged for lack of basis in primary source material.

1. Sahih Muslim, Book 24, Number 5246 says:

Chapter : Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

‘Aisha reported that Gabriel (peace be upon him) made a promise with Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. And there was in his hand (in the hand of Allah’s Apostle) a staff. He threw it from his hand and said: Never has Allah or His messengers (angels) ever broken their promise. Then he cast a glance (and by chance) found a puppy under his cot and said: ‘Aisha, when did this dog enter here? She said: By Allah, I don’t know He then commanded and it was turned out. Then Gabriel came and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: You promised me and I waited for you, but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

2. Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5248:

Then on that very morning he [Muhammad] commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).

3. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 541

Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] said, “If somebody keeps a dog, he loses one Qirat (of the reward) of his good deeds everyday, except if he keeps it for the purpose of agriculture or for the protection of livestock. “

So the Hadith would have us believe that an Angel of God, Gabriel, refused to enter Muhammad’s house because a puppy — a creature of God — was there? And that’s why Muhammad commanded that all dogs be killed?

What ridiculous poppycock!

The truth is that when the “angel Gabriel” first visited Muhammad, this “angel” physically assaulted Muhammad, leading Muhammad to think the “angel” to be a demon.

Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 1, Hadith 3:

The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.

The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.” (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.”

Read more here.

What angel of God would physically and repeatedly assault (“pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more”) a man, rendering him cowering and fearful? Muhammad’s account contradicts every account of angelic encounters in the Bible.

That was no Angel Gabriel. It was a demon.

In fact, the earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, stated Muhammad thought he was demonically possessed.

See also “Was Islam’s founder Muhammad a real man or an invention?

~Eowyn

President X

Dr. Eowyn:

A fascinating comparison of the facial features of Pres. Ebola and black Muslim Malcolm X.

Originally posted on Terrible Truth:

Copyright © 2014 Martha Trowbridge. All Rights Reserved. Please refer to Reprint / Quotation Policy, above.

“Your mind and your soul, locked in a struggle; your body, the battleground.”

This Above All [1942]

President X.

That’s who fraudulently occupies The Office Of The United States President.

“President X” – not just because his so-called life ‘narrative’ teems with deceit, obfuscation, manipulation, lies, contradictions, fake people, composite characters, contrived vignettes, and phony relationships. Not to mention his utterly fake family photos. Or his forged and fraudulent identity documents.

“President X” doesn’t simply stem from the fact that there is not [and never was] a “Barack Hussein Obama II” as presented to America.

He isn’t “President X” solely because his official life ‘narrative’ glaringly omits the actual core members of his biological family.

First and foremost, aka Barack Hussein Obama II is President X for this compelling reason:

He’s the son…

View original 1,724 more words

Voting Guide for 2014-2016 Elections

This is all you need!

2014 election voting guide

H/t Robert K. Wilcox

~Eowyn

Actor Ben Affleck dislikes Republicans; defends Islam

ben-affleck-batmanFirst view of Affleck as the new Batman, sure to be a flop

Yesterday, actor Ben Affleck tweeted that “I do not like Republicans.”

This is conservative blogger KLSouth‘s response:

Ben Affleck

Today, Affleck’s tweet has disappeared from his Twitter account.

That means not only is Affleck intolerant, he’s also a coward.

Two Fridays ago on Bill Mayer’s show, Affleck ferociously defended Islam.

As recounted by the New York Daily News, Mayer was calling on liberals to defend liberal (i.e., freedom-loving) principles. He said, “Freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion you want without fear of violence, freedom to leave a religion, equality for women, equality for minorities, including homosexuals, these are liberal principles that liberals applaud for. But then when you say in the Muslim world this is what’s lacking, then they get upset.”

Smugly claiming that he understands “the officially codified doctrine of Islam,” Affleck insists that radical Islamists are NOT the majority of Muslim views, and calls “gross, racist, and disgusting” any conception of Islam that is otherwise.

Hey, genius Affleck!

There is no “officially codified doctrine of Islam” because Muslims are bitterly divided between Sunnis and Shïtes. And because every 2-cent Muslim “teacher” can declare himself an imam.

Then there’s what the Quran says:

islam Religion of Terror

Affleck is out promoting his new flick, Gone Girl.

Make sure you stay away.

H/t Rebel Mouse

~Eowyn

New poll finds President Ebola and the Democrats in trouble

Pres Ebola overpass signSeen on a freeway overpass somewhere in America

Meanwhile, ABC News reports, Oct. 15, 2014, that a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that President Ebola and the Democrats “are heading into the midterm elections in trouble.”

The poll’s findings, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates:

  • The POS’s 40% job approval rating — STILL 40% JOB APPROVAL! — is the lowest of his career.
  • The Democratic Party’s popularity is its weakest in 30 years, with more than half of Americans (51%) seeing the party unfavorably for the first time, and just 39% see it favorably.
  • The Republican Party has a weaker 33%-56% favorable-unfavorable rating. But while the Democrats have lost 10 points in favorability just since August, the GOP has held steady – and its negative score has eased by 7 points in the past year. The GOP also benefits from its supporters’ greater likelihood of voting. All of which accounts for GOP candidates holding a 50-43% lead among likely voters for U.S. House seats in the Nov. 4 election.
  • 71% of Americans express worry about a terrorist attack.
  • 65% say they’re concerned about an Ebola epidemic.
  • Almost two-thirds say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track.
  • Three-quarters are dissatisfied with the way the political system is working. Scorn is widely cast: Among those who are dissatisfied with the political system, two-thirds say both sides are equally to blame, with the rest dividing evenly between Obama and his party, vs. the Republicans in Congress, as the chief culprits. But as a nearly 6-year incumbent president, Obama – and by extension his party – are most at risk.
  • On which party they trust more to handle the main problems facing the country:
    • Among all Americans: it’s 39% vs. 39%.
    • Among registered voters: it’s 41% for the Republican Party vs. 38% for the Democrats.
    • But among likely voters this becomes an 8-point Republican advantage: 46% for the GOP vs. 38% for the Democrats.
  • Obama is at career lows in approval for his handling of immigration, international affairs and terrorism (long his best issue). Approval of his handling of the conflict with Islamic State insurgents in Iraq and Syria has plummeted by 15% in the last two weeks, amid questions about the progress of the air campaign now under way. (See “Obama’s ISIL strategy reexamined: air strikes ineffective; weak coalition“)
  • While Obama’s negative rating on handling the economy has eased, more Americans say they’ve gotten worse off rather than better off under his presidency:
    • 77% are worried about the economy’s future.
    • 57% say America has  been experiencing a long-term decline in living standards – all grim assessments as Election Day looms.

ABC poll on economy

Never forget that in Obama’s mind, there’s something wrong with you if you don’t think America is better off under his presidency.

See PDF of the poll with full results, charts and tables here.

~Eowyn

Obama’s ISIL strategy reexamined: air strikes ineffective; weak coalition

Dr. Eowyn:

Obama is the opposite of King Midas.

He is King Merde because everything he touches turns into crap. steaming-turd-smiley-emoticon

His much-vaunted “counterterrorism” strategy against the Islamic State jihadists — a strategy that led the butt-kisser David Brooks to compare Obama with Moses — is no exception. It is a signal failure.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

One month 4 days after President Obama’s grand announcement of a U.S.-led coalition to combat ISIL/ISIS or Islamic State (IS) “terrorists” (Obama says they’re neither Islamic nor jihadist!), as predicted by analysts, including members of this Consortium (their comments below are colored green), the “counterterrorism” strategy is failing.

Air Strikes

“Every analyst recognizes that attacks from the air may degrade (to a certain extent) the enemy, but not destroy him.” -A. James Gregor

“Well, airstrikes usually don’t amount to much. In the classic reason: You fly in and drop bombs, your aircraft run low on fuel and leave, and the locals declare victory and display pieces of a plane they shot down there because they’re still alive and in charge. Unless some key thing of the enemy’s got specifically attacked and destroyed in the raid, it doesn’t accomplish much….  Unless we concentrate force from the air upon…

View original 1,742 more words

British prime minister says 9/11 “truthers” are just like violent ISIS extremists

On September 24, 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron, the head of the government of the United Kingdom, gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

He warned world leaders at the UN that the Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL) harbors “murderous plans to expand its borders well beyond Iraq and Syria… and to carry out terrorist atrocities right across the world.” Although the UN had reason to be wary about a new military campaign in the region because of memories of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq as well as the long struggle that has played out over more than ten years in Afghanistan, Cameron insisted that should not deter the international community from doing what it takes to tackle the IS now, saying, “We need to act. We need to act now.” The British prime minister then pledged his country will join the U.S.-led coalition to thwart those murderous IS “terrorists” — not jihadists!

Echoing what Obama (and also George W. Bush), Cameron said (beg. at 3:47 mark in the video), “The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of extremism. This has nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful religion which inspires countless acts of generosity every day.”

What is appalling about Cameron’s speech begins at around the 4:48 mark. Decrying those who doubt the official story we’d been given about the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (September 11, 2001) in the United States, and those on July 7, 2005 in London, the prime minster said about the deniers and skeptics:

“We know this worldview, the peddling of lies — that 9/11 was somehow a Jewish plot, or that the 7/7 London attacks was staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy . . . of an inevitable clash of civilizations.

We must be clear: To defeat the ideology of extremism, we need to deal with all forms of extremism, not just violent extremism. As governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organizations that incite terrorism against our people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down the legal online material like the recent videos of ISIS murdering hostages.  And we must stop the nonviolent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, our universities and, yes, even our prisons.

Of course, some would argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. But I ask you, would we sit back and allow right wing extremists, Nazis, or Ku Klux Klansmen to recruit on our university campuses? No! So we shouldn’t stand by and allow any form of non-violent extremism. We need to argue that promises of a global war on religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world, they are nonsense. We need Muslims and their governments around the world to reclaim their religion from these sick terrorists, as so many are doing and quite rightly today…. And we need the strongest international focus on tackling this ideology, which is why here in the United Nations, United Kingdom is calling for a new special representative on extremism.

In other words, the prime minister of the UK does not differentiate between “violent extremists” like IS jihadists who murder and behead Christians and other innocent people, from “non-violent extremists” who disagree with the official view on 9/11 and 7/7. They are both “extremists” who must be dealt with severely.

The head of the government of the United Kingdom also makes no distinction between “right wing extremists” — whatever that means — and loathsome racists like Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr. Cameron, are there no “left wing extremists”? Or do you mean to tell us that the left wing has only people of moderation, purity, and light? — like these angels below:

H/t Activist Post

~Eowyn