Commentary :: Media

Wendy Campbell: The Israeli Occupation of Syria: What the US Media Hides

Do yourself a favor! Avoid the US mainstream media such as The New York Times like the plague!
The Israeli Occupation of Syria: What US Media Hides

by Wendy Campbell

July 25, 2005

The inspiration for this article came to me after reading an article about Syria that was forwarded to me by a well-meaning, but somewhat naive, fellow pro-Palestinian peace activist. He thought it was "interesting". Unfortunately, he wasn't able to decipher the actual meaning and thrust behind the article. Unfortunately, this is the case with most Americans.

I read the article earnestly hoping for perhaps some new insight, as it was titled "The Enigma of Damascus", a city in Syria which I have journeyed to in 2004. I also produced a documentary entitled "Syria: Land of Friendly People and Hidden Treasure" based on my trip there which I market on my website

I had no idea as to the background of the writer, so I read it with an open mind.

As I read it, I started to become vaguely annoyed. By the time I was finished, I was in an acute state of annoyance.

Hence, I am moved to write yet another article exposing what passes for journalism in the US media, but what is actually hate-and-war-mongering Neo-Conservative propaganda written with the express purpose of manipulating and preparing the US public opinion to go along with its aggressive agenda of forcing regime-change on any country that they deem is an enemy of Israel([search]).

Let's face it: the government must have the support of the majority of the American people or else it's not a democracy. Unfortunately for American people, the media is largely embedded in the government, and currently serves as the propaganda arm of our government which is now being directed by Israel-firster Neo-Conservatives and both Jewish and Christian Zionists. Greedy politicians who are involved with corporations that benefit hugely from war profits are more than happy to go along with the killing spree in the Middle East, using words such as "democracy", "regime-change" and "liberation" to falsely represent their true motives, which are complete subjugation, domination and exploitation of those countries' resources and culture.

Note: If these people cared so much about freedom and liberation, where is their action on support of Tibetans? Could it be that Tibet is not a enemy of Israel, as are Israel's neighbors? Could it be that there is not even any oil in Tibet? Where is such deep concern about Ethiopians? Ugandans, anyone?

The article "The Enigmas of Damascus" was written by a certain James Bennet. He is obviously a Neo-Conservative and most likely a Zionist Jewish one at that. It turns out that this article was first published by the New York Times. You can find this article by googling the title of the article and the author or at


I will now dissect and interpret Bennet's article for those who are not aware of the Zionist Jewish modus operandi including: use of code words (such as "regime-change" when they mean all-out bloody war), their deliberate omissions of pertinent facts, while at the same time cherry-picking talking heads whom Zionists want to push into the limelight since they support the Zionist agenda: Zionist domination of the Middle East and perhaps more than that, generally using American resources to do so, as in an endless costly and deadly "war on terror", that is not necessary to the security or best interests of most Americans.

He slyly and misleadingly puts "the Bush administration, many European leaders and many reform-minded Syrians" all in one basket for instance. AS IF any reform-minded Syrians (except for the few Zionist neoconservative Jewish Syrians there) would ever want the kind of "regime-change" that Bush has in mind for Syria, such as the "regime-change" that is taking place in Iraq. By the way, in case you haven't figured it out by now, the phrase "regime-change" is a Zionist/Neo-Conservative codeword for WAR. BLOODY WAR.

Reform-minded = Regime-change = WAR. Paid for with US tax dollars for Israel's "security" and imperialistic ambitions.


As I wrote in another article about Syria ("Let's Get Clear About Syria",, the group leader for our tour of Syria, an American Christian Scientist, told me that if there were to be a democratic election in Syria, that Bashar Assad, the current leader of Syria, would probably win by about 70% of the vote. Our Syrian Greek Orthodox guide agreed. In fact, everywhere we went in Syria, from city apartments and informal business luncheons to Bedouin and Kurdish adobe homes in the countryside, the people we spoke to seemed genuinely positive, even glowing, in their praise of Bashar Assad. These were not cherry-picked people either, since sometimes we stopped by the side of the road at some village and got ourselves invited in for tea with people spontaneously.

I even asked our Syrian guide if it was mandatory that everyone have a portrait of Bashar Assad in their homes, and he said no. He reminded me of how he didn't have one in his home, where we had previously had some tea with his family. Indeed, this was true.

So Mr. Bennet's observation that Mr. and Mrs. Bashar Assad "seemed the essence of secular Western-Arab fusion" is accurate, not a "mirage" as he asserted.

Bennet claims that Assad's "empty promises, nasty oratory and bloody tactics has turned them (the Bush administration, meaning the Neo-conservatives) against the Syrian regime."

Talk about the height of hypocrisy and obfuscation of the truth of the matter!

How ironic!

The fact of the matter is that Neo-conservatives in the US primarily represent the interests of Zionist Israel, which has long been known for empty promises, nasty (and very racist) oratory against Palestinians as well as the entire Arab and Muslim world, along with bloody tactics!

This is what has turned the entire Arab and Muslim world, along with most of the rest of the world, against America! This is "why they hate us". And actually, it's really the hateful US foreign policy that they hate. Can you blame them? Fair-minded humanitarians, including many Americans, hate it as well. It's really about stopping the hateful evil-doers: the actual liars, thieves and murderers, and those who actively enable them, such as some of those in the US government and media. It's about stopping the hate-crimes our government and media has been enabling Israel to commit against the Palestinians, for instance.

Since day one of its creation in 1948, Israel has always been aggressive and belligerent against the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians in Palestine([search])-Israel, as well as against all its neighboring countries of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon([search]), Jordan and beyond. Most Americans have been shielded by the US media from learning this fact that Israel has always been the original colonialist aggressor in the area of the Middle East. But as long as Israel continues its aggression against and persecution of the indigenous non-Jewish people of the Middle East, there will likely be endless war, involving the entire world.

Bennet rightly asserts that "Since Saddam Hussein's rule ended in Iraq, no other Arab government has come in for as much pressure and disdain from the Bush administration" however Bennet never makes a clear case for why that is. I'll tell you why that is: it's because Syria refuses to let itself be run over by Zionist Israel and its puppet benefactor the Zionized USA. And why should it? Would any self-respecting people or country?


A very important fact that Bennet only vaguely referred to is that Israel has been occupying part of Syria, specifically the Golan Heights since 1967! And believe me, the Syrians have been boiling about that ever since. Yet somehow the US media, including Bennet in this very New York Times article, treats this as basically a complete non-issue! It is rarely mentioned in the US media, and when it is, it is not clarified or emphasized for the average American to grasp the full meaning of it.

Contrast the non-coverage of the Isareli occupation of Syria with the whole lotta coverage that the US media and US government spotlighted on the Syrian troops that were stationed in Lebanon! And by the way, the Syrian troops in Lebanon had many supporters there! It is generally believed by those in the peace movement (the sincere, anti-Zionists especially) that CIA and Mossad agents actively stirred up trouble in Lebanon with regards to the Syrian troops there, and therefore we witnessed the spectacle fully covered in embedded-with-the-US-government US media of the massive dueling rallies, of which many were approximately equally supportive of Syrian troops in Lebanon.

The US government pressured the Syrian government to remove their troops there, and the Syrian government did so, in a timely manner, unlike Israel which the US never seems to exert any real pressure on to conform with international laws. Israel has defied over 70 UN Resolutions, and in comparison, Iraq had defied 17 before the US war on Iraq. It goes to show the complete bias that the Zionized US demonstrates towards Israel.

The Syrian government has clearly demonstrated that it is willing to cooperate with the US on many issues, but what exactly does the US want from Syria? It seems as if they want Syria to fall in step with whatever Israel wants, and that is tantamount to allowing Israel to continue to continue to steal Syrian land for a "Greater Israel", a stated goal of many Zionist Jews.

If Israel really wants to be on friendly terms with Syria, Israel must take the first step and withdraw from Syria's Golan Heights. That is truly what is needed. Otherwise, why should Syria cooperate? Syria is thus placed in a catch-22 situation. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. This is the unfair way in which Israel and the Zionized USA behaves, and the world is taking notice. No wonder the US and Israel rank as the number one threat to peace in the world according to international polls.

Getting back to the Israeli occupation of Syrian land, Israel finally has had to relinquish to Lebanon the Lebanese territory Israel captured in 1967, and also Israel had to give back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

When is the US going to pressure Israel to give Syria back its Golan Heights?

It's obviously a non-issue to the Neo-conservatives who are in charge of the Bush Administration, and it's obviously a non-issue to the New York Times and all the rest of the Zionized US media.

Just to show you how much of a non-issue Bennet prefers to keep it, I'll quote his ONE SENTENCE referring to this VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE to the Syrians:

"He (Bashar Assad) came into power after talks collapsed in 2000 over the return to Syria of the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in 1967, in the Six-Day War."

That's IT!

Look at how he does not provide any details about the history of the Six-Day War in 1967. Look at even his misleading use of language to describe the situation: "Israel occupied", as in past tense, instead of what he should have written, that "Israel has been occupying" to indicate that this is STILL AN ON-GOING ISSUE and the Syrians are understandly quite angry about this.

Look at how Bennet did not bother to put the current events in any frame of reference or context to enable the average American reader to understand the current situation Syria finds itself in. This is not by accident either. The Zionized US media has been covering for Israel for decades, to keep anything that could be construed as negative press about Israel away from non-Jewish American eyes and minds.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Jews, especially politicized Zionist Jews, know about all of this, at least from the Zionist point of view. Because it's the history of Israel, which is their primary concern with regards to politics. You can learn a lot by reading Jewish newspapers and websites. They cover many issues that they prefer non-Jewish Americans to remain ignorant about. This is why, as the saying goes: "Knowledge is power." This is also why they have an advantage over non-Jewish Americans. How can non-Jewish Americans take a stand on issues when they don't even know anything about them except for the smooth propaganda they read in the Zionized US media?

The fact is that the Zionized US media is purposefully putting blind-folders on the eyes of the American public, as well as earplugs in their ears! There is a Zionist filter put on any news that comes through the US media. Americans see no evil and hear no evil about Israel and Zionism. They are in a state of blissful ignorance. That is until there's the ugly wake-up call of war and terror and terror and war. What is the real difference anyway? War is "kosher" terror. The results are the same: thousands of dead people, many of them blissfully ignorant until the bloody end, ruined cities, ruined lives, and no end in sight, because the basic issues of International Laws and justice are not being applied equally to all countries.


For example, how many Americans know the truth, or ANYTHING, about the 1967 Six-Day War?

This is when Israel, armed to the teeth (after all, it has the 4th largest army in the world even though the country is about the size of New Jersey!) preemptively waged war on all of its neighboring countries including Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

In fact, it was such a secretive, preemptive attack that Israeli jets and naval boats relentlessly attacked the hapless USS Liberty, even though it was clearly marked as an American vessel and informed the Israeli jet pilots of such. Israel simply did not want anyone interfering or witnessing its illegal aggression against its neighbors.

Israel's air force completely obliterated Egypt's entire fleet of military jets while they were parked on the tarmac! This was and still is all completely illegal according to International Law.

The sad tale of the USS Liberty, a lightly armed reconnaissance naval vessel that was innocently in the wrong place at the wrong time, has been willfully hushed up for years by our government as well as our media, indicating that Israel's interests rank even higher than American interests. Israel has never been brought to justice for its crimes against humanity, which are many, including this bloody incident. This shocking betrayal is movingly revealed by the survivors of the USS Liberty in "The USS Liberty Survivors: Our Story" available at http:// According to these American eye witnesses, Israeli jet fighters and boats relentlessly attacked the USS Liberty for 75 minutes, killing 34 American men and wounding 172 more.

The Israelis were hoping to sink it and then blame it on Egyptian Arabs. Today the Israelis claim it was a "tragic accident" although all evidence points to the contrary.

In that illegal war, the Israelis stole even more Palestinian land (which they are still continuing to steal up to this very moment in time), as well as the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt (has been returned to Egypt), the Golan Heights from Syria (still under Israeli occupation) and southern parts of Lebanon (has been returned to Lebanon).

It is called the Six-Day War because that's about how long it lasted, since it was a preemptive war and the Arab countries were completely caught off-guard. More about this and "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" can be found at


In 1973, Egypt retaliated with a preemptive war against Israel in a bid to reclaim the Sinai Peninsula back from Israel. This war is known as the Yom Kippur War since it happened during the most important Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur in October of 1973. Egypt was getting very close to winning this war against Israel, but at the last hour, Jewish Israeli-Americans Henry Kissinger and Golda Meir, who was the Israeli prime minister at the time, persuaded the US government to intervene and save Israel from defeat, which is what happened.

In a non-violent retaliation against US intervention on behalf of Israel and to show solidarity with Egypt, the Arab countries of OPEC tightened the oil spigots and therefore Americans were forced to endure long lines at the gas stations. In fact, one could only get gas every other day depending on whether the last number on your license plate was even or odd. So gas was actually rationed at that time! Obviously that caused a lot of stress to a lot of Americans as I well recall. The Israeli connection to this politically induced "oil crisis" is something the US mainstream media has consistently hid for decades up to this moment in time. The reason for this is that the Zionized US media always hides any negative impact that US support for Israel has on the American people.

The US media wants to make sure that Americans continue to blindly support our government's unconditional support for Israel. Please read my article "The Secret Relationship Between Oil and Israel: What the US Media Hides" at for more information on this.

Which brings me back to the subject of this particular article: the mainstream US media's cover-up of Israel's continuous, belligerent occupation of Syria's Golan Heights since 1967.


In case you haven't noticed, Israel's "war on terror" has somehow become America's "war on terror".

This is what happens when the truth is not confronted, when human rights are being trampled on, and when some countries are allowed to play by their own rules rather than by International Law.

It's now time for Americans to demand that our government learns to "JUST SAY NO" to Israel.

No more double standards. No more diplomatic cover. No more support of any kind. No more US tax-payers' money. Israel receives over $4 billion dollars every year of our tax dollars in "loan guarantees" which means Israel never has to and, thus far, never has paid the loans back. No, instead of paying anything back, Israel often asks for much more and receives many billions of dollars on top of the yearly $4 billion. And that doesn't even include the over $200 billion that we've paid so far for the unjust and unnecessary war on Iraq. No more US tax dollars for apartheid Israel. No more US support for Zionism (Jewish supremacism). No more nada nada!

In fact, I do believe it's time to place sanctions on Israel unless Israel obeys international laws and transforms into a true secular society with completely equal rights for all, including the right to return of all the Palestinian refugees, as it is their right according to US resolutions and International Law. Israel must also be forced to pay reparations to the Palestinians.

In the meantime, our best strategy to end this endless war is to continue to educate ourselves and each other using reliable resources (NOT the New York Times or any other Zionized US mainstream media, but rather from anti-war, anti-lies websites) and to spread the word of Truth and justice for all.


Basically, the Baath party is a secular, socialist pan-Arabic party that endeavors to unite the Arab countries in manner similar to the European Union for basically the same reasons. It's as simple as that. However, Israel, the rogue Jewish supremacist state which still has not officially established borders for itself, is opposed to this aggregation of Arab power. Yet Israel continues with the aid of "our" US government to act out its aggressively imperialistic ambitions to establish Zionist hegemony in the Middle East. This has been Israel's pattern since day one of its creation in 1948.

It's funny how Bennet asserted that "the ideology of the Arab Socialist Baath Party _ less a vehicle for political participation than a far-reaching instrument of state control _ pulls at the economy, politics and society." One could certainly say that Zionism, the dominating political offshoot of contemporary Judaism, is certainly a much further-reaching instrument of international control, especially in influencing the US government's foreign policy in the Middle East. Talk about far-reaching! This is involving the entire world!

And isn't it funny how Bennet told Assad that there is a debate in Washington over whether he (Assad) was in control of his government, when many in the US and indeed the entire world wonder if Bush is in control of his government or is it the Neocons? Bennet also had the nerve to question Assad's wife about political prisoners, implying that Syria's record is any worse than the US or Israel. Israel has imprisoned and detained over 7,000 Palestinians, arbitrarily, because it can. Who ever tries to stop Israel's persecution of the Palestinian people? Certainly not the United States. And what of the laws in Canada and certain European countries where simply questioning certain aspects of The Holocaust lore put forth by Zionist Jews is punishable by fines and imprisonment? Just do a google-search on Ernst Zundel for one example. Oh, and what about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal?

Bennet's assertion that "The poverty is stark" is not warranted in my opinion. While many of the Syrian people, especially in the rural areas, live primitively compared to Western standards, they none-the-less seemed quite well-fed, well-clothed and generally happy. "Stark" is really stretching it. Parts of Syria remind me of Mexico, however, Syria is no Ethiopia. Now THAT poverty is stark!

Bennet put an approving spotlight on the Syrian film-maker Omar Amiralay, who apparently made a documentary critical of the Baath Party. Even if it is banned in Syria, so is the documentary "Jenin, Jenin" banned in Israel, a country which claims to be a democracy, when clearly it is not. At least Syria does not claim to be what it is not. In fact, the producer of "Jenin, Jenin" Iyad Samudi was shot dead by Israeli soldiers on June 23, 2002, as he returned home after completing the film. Many Arabs believe that the Amiralay is working as part of a Zionist conspiracy to undermine Syria's future as an Arab country, and from what I have read about him on the internet, I can see why. As background on Amiralay, Bennet wrote that "he came to politics after the Arab defeat in 1967", without explaining any further than that or even explaining that the Arabs were defeated by the Israelis in a preemptive war. He also said Amiralay was a Marxist, and that is a predominantly Jewish movement.

At any rate there are always those who question the status quo for whatever their reason. That does not necessarily make them spokespeople for the majority of a population in reality. But journalists and government agents likewise cherry-pick their information to push their own covert agenda to create a new "reality", as in this "war on terror", which it turns out launched largely because of the lies of cherry-picked liars. There were no WMD. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qeda and bin Laden. Iraq was not a threat to American security. As far as the oil "red herring", the US gets more oil from Canada and Mexico than anywhere, AND we can certainly honorably pay for it from wherever we get it AND without spending over $200 billion on an unjust war.

Getting back to the anti-Baath Party film-maker Amiralay, he could actually be a Jewish Syrian, of which there are quite a few in Damascus, and I understand that they live quite well there as an elite group in Syria. He could even have been brought up Muslim but obviously, he has been Zionized. Syria's population is predominantly Muslim but there is also a fairly large minority of Christians there as well. From what I could see, they all lived together quite harmoniously. In general, Syrians seemed to be very easy-going, open and tolerant. We even patronized a Jewish man's antique shop, whose neighboring store-owners were Muslim and Christian.

Another cherry-picked Syrian whom Bennet chose to spotlight in order to promote his own views was a man named Ammar Abdulhamid who (surprise!) had a fellowship at the very pro-Israel think-tank, the Brookings Institution, who called the Baathists "idiots" and "morons" claiming "they all want a leader or a messiah." Yeah, well who doesn't? I suppose only anarchists don't! This rather confused individual Ammar Abdulhamid said he did not advocate "bloody revolution" but that "the civil strife accompanying regime change in Iraq might be the only way forward in the region." and that "Hopefully, this baptism by blood and mayhem will teach us to cherish the liberties." Sounds like Neo-con gobbledy-gook to me! By the way, doesn't "baptism by blood and mayhem" sound a lot like "bloody revolution"? This is typical of Zionist and Zionist-sympathizer double-speak.

And this guy Bennet also quoted some old hate-filled petition written in 1936 supposedly by Alawite Muslims, a Christianized sect of Islam, which another Neo-con-leaning writer by the name of Joshua Landis is using in an upcoming book about Syria. "The spirit of hatred and fanaticism imbedded in the hearts of the Arab Muslims against everything that is non-Muslim has been perpetually nurtured by the Islamic religion." This is so opposite from what I have experienced in my experiences and discussions with Muslims and Christians in Syria, and outside of Syria for that matter. Obviously, this is just another sly way of pushing someone else's hate-mongering to, in turn, inspire more "kosher" hate to serve their own hateful agenda. This is a typical Zionist ploy which guarantees a self-perpetuating vicious circle with often bloody results as in WAR. No wonder Americans who read the New York Times get so confused!


Why subject yourself to the mesmerizing, insidiously toxic Zionized media such as the New York Times? They are often so slick and smooth that you donÕt even realize that you're being lulled into passively going along with their position. You can easily get so muddled and confused in your mind as a result of their manipulations and omissions of pertinent contextual facts that you find yourself being bogged down in inertia and apathy. That's the least of what their brand of news will do to you. If you don't watch out, you may even start agreeing with them! You might find yourself saying, "Yeah, those poor people of Iraq really needed to be liberated from that monstrous dictator Saddam Hussein!" Of course, the New York Times and the rest of Zionized US media don't make it clear that most Iraqis had it better off under Saddam Hussein than they do now, especially since over a 100,000 Iraqis have died, since some of their ancient cities have been leveled to the ground, since their priceless artifacts have been looted from museums, since their cities now lack the basic infrastructure which would allow them to carry on with their normal lives, since there's an all-out civil war going on now, and of course now their land is being occupied by a rapacious foreign power, the overtly Zionized USA.

And by the way, are you aware of the fact that Neo-Conservatives in the US, who are American Jews, who are Israeli-Americans, are attempting to negotiate re-opening the oil pipe-line from Iraq to Haifa in Israel (formerly Palestine) trying to pass it off as a "bonus" to Israel since it "supported" the US war on Iraq? Ha! What a joke! Israel was carefully left off the list of countries that was part of our official "coalition" of countries actually aiding in fighting the war! And most of those countries were bribed or brow-beaten and threatened to join the so-called coalition! Israel, with the fourth strongest military in the world, didnÕt even have to get its hands dirty! They "let" everyone else fight the war for them! And now Israel wants a "bonus"?! Especially when the war on Iraq is mainly for Israel's "security" (as all the politicians who addressed AIPAC's big conference this year openly revealed)! Talk about chutzpah!

And did you know that the defunct pipeline from Iraq to Haifa was closed back in 1948 when Palestine became Israel, and then it was diverted to Syria?

Are you beginning to connect the dots yet?

Just do a google-search on a combination of keywords such as "Haifa Iraq oil pipe-line" and read more about it.

The Jewish newspapers covered this story quite well, but US mainstream media carefully hides this pertinent information from the non-Jewish American public, since they know it might not sit too well with them. Americans might realize that the cost of supporting Israel is astronomical and not worth it. Americans might begin to not only question their government's enormous, unconditional support for Israel, but even call for an end to it.

A recent poll on by Lou Dobbs indicates just that. When asked if the US government should give an extra $2.2 billion to help Israel re-locate Jewish settlers in the Gaza([search]) Strip which is Palestinian Territory, 94% said NO, and only 6% said yes.

And by the way, how many Americans know about the fact that Syria is NOT an oil-exporting country? In fact Syria has to supplement its domestic oil supply with foreign oil. Therefore, forget about the baseless assertion by some, who'd rather overlook the obvious Israeli connection, that the "war on terror" and Iraq is really only about oil.

I could go on to further dissect and deconstruct New York Times writer James Bennet's article entitled "The Enigma of Damascus" but I hope you get the idea.

Isn't it amazing that in this article that prints out to be 13 pages long, Mr. Bennet never clarifies the fact that Syrians hotly resent Israeli occupation of its land, the Golan Heights, since the 1967 Six Day War? And that he doesn't provide the readers with the contextual history of the events involving Israel's preemptive 1967 war on its neighboring countries?

Do you ever wonder why sometimes you get a dull headache reading after such muddy commentary, so that you have no energy to check the facts yourself?

None of this is by accident.

Do yourself a favor. Find out the Truth. Seek the Truth independent of Zionized media which is meant to manipulate and anesthetize your mind into an obedient stupor. Get yourself beyond "comfortably numb" and connect with Truth and Justice and real democratic news, which you can find on the internet, with more and more Americans stepping up to the plate to create news that is worthy of your attention and empowers you to take correct action for the benefit of all humankind.


Re: Wendy Campbell: The Israeli Occupation of Syria: What the US Media Hides

Wow! Another anti-Semitic rant from resident nutcase Wendy Windbag Campbell...YAWN...

Queefing for Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A queef is the slang term for an emission of air from the vagina, often during or after sexual activity. The sound is somewhat comparable to flatulence from the anus, hence the nickname "fanny fart". The sound is most often associated with air expelled during or after vaginal intercourse but can also happen during cunnilingus or anal sex.

The occurrence after intercourse appears to be due to the decrease in the size of the vagina as it returns to a quiescent state when arousal ends.

If this is undesirable, the chances of this occurring can be minimized: for vaginal intercourse, the outward pushing Kegel exercise can reduce the chance of it happening, as well as avoidance of sexual positions where the woman raises her hips and thighs (such as when raising the legs over the head, which helps to form a tight seal during the inward strokes.)

Queefing can also be considered erotic, and is the subject of a pornographic sub-genre.

it is amazing

It is amazing to find things from a White Power racist web site posted here. The author Wendy Campbell is a well known and ackowledged racist.

Re: Wendy Campbell: The Israeli Occupation of Syria: What the US Media Hides

Ever since 9/11, Muslim leaders who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the essence of Muhammad’s religion.

Even President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Blair have repeated this assertion, saying that Islam has been "hijacked" by a few violent fanatics. Is this true?

Sadly it is not, for empirical, observable facts demonstrate beyond doubt that Islam at its founding is filled with violence—in the life of Muhammad himself and in the Quran itself.

Hence, these Muslim apologists must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners, and they must be honest about the heart of their religion, for once and for all.

Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.

Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.

Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).

10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.

Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)

In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.

Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: "Pluck Out," "Very Sharp," and "Death." Two other swords from elsewhere are named: "Sharp" and "That is wont to sink" (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called "Sharp" and "Having the vertebrae of the back." This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.

Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: "Most conducive to ease, or wide," "white," and "of nab wood" (species of tree from which bows are made).

The name of a coat of mail implies "ampleness" or "redundant portions," probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).

Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: "The obliterator."

Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.

Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.

24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)

The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.

However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.

Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.

Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):

Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim, No. 4206)

It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.

For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.

Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)

Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).

Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands "fear" highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.

For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article.

Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:

Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, "A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards."

A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.

Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams.

The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?

Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!"

Some commentators are quick to say that an "egg" is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.

For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.

Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.

These two poets represent others in early Islam.

March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt

Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.

March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.

In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).

However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a "positive" way?

For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.

Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.

5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)

According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies "fighting" and "corrupting" the land.

Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.

This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.

For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad.

Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.

W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:

The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)

It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)

Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.

To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).

For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.

Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.

Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).

In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.

61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)

These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.

For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s "Martyrdom" on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.

Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.

After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.

The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.

The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:

33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)

Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:

16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)

Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.

For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article.

Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.

1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.

In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:

9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)

The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the "privilege" of living under the "protection" of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.

The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.

Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the "protection" tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.

Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.

For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).

Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.

What the ten reasons mean for us today

These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.

The theological implications are as follows:

First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.

Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the "pure" but violence-filled Quran over the "corrupted" but peaceful New Testament?

Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.

Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].

Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.

The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:

Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?

Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:

(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel([search]) in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.

Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.

Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.

Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.

Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.

On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.

Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.

[ Note: This article has a companion piece: Does Islam improve on Christianity? — Muhammad fails Jesus’ simple fruit inspection. ]

Further reading:

Mohammed without Camouflage, written by a Christian who comes from an older generation and who knew Islam and Arabic thoroughly, has a list of Muhammad's atrocities. It is a must-read for Christians and open-minded Muslims.
Where is the Gandhi of Islam? If Islam were peaceful, why does it not produce prominent champions for peace that find broad support in the community? All we see is a few Muslims making half-harted statements after another terror attack, but nobody rallies great support in the community for the purpose to get rid of and end terrorism, and consistently works for this goal. Every Muslim in Britain should be cooperating with the authorities to track down the guilty. Every person in every mosque in Britain and the West and elsewhere should report radicals meeting in their house of worship and planning acts of violence. Why don't they do this?


Please mail me for instructions asap

f*ckmuhammad (at)

Re: Wendy Campbell: The Israeli Occupation of Syria: What the US Media Hides

Many thanks for your support, Wendy.

Please write to

1r1f1t (at)

Account Login

Media Centers


An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software