Yuyustu,

I agree with Hasbeen,

"Rhrosty, Yuyutsu it matters not a damn what you think Mohammed was, it is what his ratbag follower believe he was that counts." Exactly, which is true for any religion.

So, let's use Occam's Razor and accept that Mohammed was a psychopathic bandit leader as his followers claim, and that consequently, IS and all the other jihadis believe that they are really pious, faithful Muslims. There's no one "true" Islam.

Ms Yule's article is an eloquent expression of the sugar coating around the real, and mandatory, message of the Moslems' holy texts. The true message is broadcast to recruit Moslems who are flooding into the Middle East to put it into effect with rape, robbery, kidnapping, murder and enslavement. Propagating the sugar coating is facilitating the conquests and injustice called for in the Koran.

Decent people, who reject the Moslem message, are slated to be dhimmis, condemned to live (if the jihadis allow us to live at all) subject to discriminatory laws and made to pay a special religious tax ("jizya") to fund the Moslem cult. This tax is already being imposed on Australians in a giant protection racket against businesses and so far only one (Country Party) pollie has had the guts to stand up to it, and is already being reviled by western apologists (aka useful idiots) for doing so. The pollie is called George Christensen: his wake-up call is at http://www.georgechristensen.com.au/terror-in-the-tucker-box/ and one of the first salvos against him from the useful idiots is at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/no-doubt-halal-products-are-funding-islamic-extremism-australian-politician-claims-9872968.html

It's amazing, isn't it? You combine humans with any kind of religion (name your poison) and what do you get? A depraved bunch of sick, murdering, child-molesting psychos who engage in endless war.

Look at human history. What a disgusting saga of competing, lowlife creatures who, with each generation, slide further into an ever-deepening cesspool of cruelty, greed, and treachery.

The sickest group currently are the Americans who, while claiming they are exceptional and care about human rights and democracy, carry out massacres, torture, invasions and use weapons that contain depleted uranium, white phosphorous, jellied petrol, and who knows what else.

Bring on WW3 and cleanse the world of the naked apes before they reach rock bottom!

I'd like to offer a complete refutation of the articles central argument. The author's contends the following:

“All this was Mohammed’s teaching at first. In the later Qur’an there is much that doesn’t agree with this – warlike, hating, misogynist, and sectarian conflicts but this is the core of it, from the beginning of Mohammed’s teaching. Always there remains the description of Allah, as the Compassionate, the Merciful.
The later extensions to Islam came, as Mohammed took the sword and Islam was spread by it, after he and his new teaching was persecuted and he fled to Medina. ”

Of the teachings of the Prophet that the authors cites as being of the virtuous “early teachings” is the following versus from the Qur’aan

"Allah loveth not the aggressor. The true Muslim is a man of peace, but he is right to defend himself when attacked. Fight for the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but not as the first one to attack. Allah loveth not the aggressor."

cont..

cont..
In fact, this verse appears in the Qur’an 2:190 and is in fact an “early Medina Sura” (source Yusuf Ali’s famous translation and commentary of the Qur’an, p16). In other words it was revealed AFTER the Hijra and so contrary to the authors thesis that such teachings only appeared before the Hijra (when Muslims migrated from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution). It is similar to another verse occurs after the Battle of Badr and so once again after the Hijra and so is NOT part of the “early teachings” as defined by the author.

“But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61

cont..

Even more ironically, the author has takes the following statement from the Prophet’s Last Sermon and places it among the “early teachings” (ie. pre Hijra)!

"For all Muslims are the children of Allah and among them there is no distinction of race or color or tribe."

Here is the statement in full:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action."

The author talks about how “misogynist passages forgot his early freedom for women”. Again from the Last Sermon of the Prophet (months before he passed away):

“O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.”

In fact, the Shariah requires that the husband cater for all the needs of his family, irrespective of the wealth of his wife. His wife could be the Duchess of Alba, and still it is the man’s responsibility to support his wife and he has no claim over her wealth. How is this misogynist!

cont..