Islamist’s Lie – Islam is Not What it Seems


UI – Part 574 – Islamist’s Lie – Islam is Not What it Seems

Beware

There is no ‘true Islam.’

The scholars of Islam are trained to lie to Muslims.  They have a term for it in fact – takiyya. As long as the lying is useful in promoting Islam, it is permissible. What they know through research and study, from recorded history in fact, that is opposite of what Muslims are taught to believe, is seldom revealed.  The truth is hidden.  If openly discussed, Islam would not exist, certainly not with any of the terrorism or the joining of mosque and state as now perpetrated.   Many would feel duped by the platitudes made by the most educated scholars as they are taught to avoid information that would alter views or distort followers from the path chosen for them by their authorities (not by Allah).  

Islam is not the perfect way of life.  There are many imperfections which the authorities and their religious council gloss over to insure the victims of Islam, born, converted or coerced, do not stray.  It is not a way of life at all if anyone has a desire for peace.  It is founded on terrorism, control, power, fear and hatred, much of which came about after the death of the Prophet.

The ‘hardline’ of Islam that many who go to university in Iran or Iraq or Egypt and have discovered is not made public.  The most prominent universities tell their students, those having made discoveries via research, usually in texts written in Arabic and never translated into english (for a reason), that many historical facts if told would distort the picture the ulema prefer be told.   

The entirety of history of Islam, the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, his wife, Aisha  (considered the ‘mother of the believers’), the early Caliphs or the laws and governance that is promoted, is not as it should be, or as the Prophet Muhammad would have wanted. It is contrived and fabricated.  There are many contradictions.  The ‘hardline’ religion (ideology) gives credibility to autocrats and Imams, muftis, clerics and scholars, predicated on alterations made to history.  Such facts are kept at bay, discoverable when reading into the depth of historical records, but cleansed from view by the world, obscured by lies (deception), to insure political Islam grows and strengthens the hand of those seeking or maintaining control. The corruption is astounding.  Most schools of Islam are political in the teachings embodied by their curriculums.  

The knowledge imparted is at the hands of demonic humans having ungodly intentions.  The extremist fundamentalist Wahhabi ideology is a prime example.

Islam is not god’s righteous government intended for our universe.

There are reformists with knowledge of the facts that rightly note political Islamists and trained scholars of Islam distort history.  In so doing the messenger of Islam is discredited, as is the reformist.  The narrative of the political Islamist becomes central with no allowance for debate, or an open discussion on what really transpired.   The ideology has been transformed into one of revolution, conquest, terrorism, and instilling fear.  It has been taken far afield in many cases of actual events to create the ideology of Islam practiced today.  

Islam is as an original oil painting which remains beneath what has been overlaid, repainted by many other artists collectively creating that which they prefer the world to see. 

Muhammad’s Death

An example of what I say relates to the death of the Prophet.  As much as Muhammad is revered and the example of Islam the ulema (scholars) put forth, much of how political Islamists, those who control Islam, portray his role and contribution is wrong.  

Islam is a constant battle between factions, tribes, sects, and other disparate political elements that want it their way, want control, and seek power and financial benefits for themselves.  Today Muslim Nations are ruled by autocrats and in Iran, the Ayatollah, that want it their way.  It is not unusual for modifications by leaders to suit their desires, as they rule. Reform is not the goal. 

Muhammad shared everything with his followers. To support his band of brothers, caravans were raided, and the spoils taken dispersed among those participating.  He did not maintain a treasury.  There was no union of mosque and governance.  A government generally has an army, a military.  Muhammad’s followers were volunteers; they were not paid soldiers. Jihad was called for in their belief, as thus they participated in battles as believers, not as military men. They did not try to conquer the world.  They wanted the pagan population dominant in the area in which they lived, from Mecca to Yatrib (Medina) and the surrounding areas, to the South Yemen, to the North, Syria to believe, and to believe as Muhammad believed.  

Muhammad was followed as a charismatic leader.  He preached his monotheistic understanding of god (there is but one god) and wanted those, his companions, to adhere to the principles of the faith, or ideology, he espoused.  He was greatly influenced by the Bible and the Christian faith, but found the thought of God the Father, the son of God (Christ) and the Holy Spirit, as one God, problematic, and in his view, polytheistic.  His ideology had rules which became his law. Muhammad’s lifestyle was not in concert with the laws he put forward for everyone else. Somehow they did not apply to him or his closest companions. 

Their jihad was to defend what they believed.  He became wealthy from his share of the spoils of battle.  Muhammad was not trying to grow territory beyond the lands where his tribe and his followers already lived. Having been persecuted for his belief when living in Mecca, forced to leave, he was filled with vengeance.  He lived to return to Mecca and teach his family and the residents a lesson, and to convert them if not annihilate them for the abuse he suffered. But, there were those among his closest companions that wanted more, more for themselves.  This want for more is reflected in Islam as now practiced. 

Aisha is the woman Muhammad is said to have married as a child.  But this is not true (a lie).  The scholars claim Aisha was a virgin when married to the Prophet.  As a 6 year old everyone would believe this.  If they knew she had been married before she met Muhammad, was not a virgin, and actually 19-22, this would taint the purity that Muslims portray as the “Mother of the Believers,” or as a ‘divinely appointed virgin wife.’  Add to that after the death of the Prophet Aisha slept with many men, even while married, making her an adulterer.  She was not stoned, in fact her sexual habits, exploits, are hidden from public knowledge, forgiven by the scholars wanting her to remain a symbol of purity.  Yet stoning of adulterous women in the Muslim world (Islamaland) is common.  If Aisha was an example and it was widely known she was not punished for her sin, then stoning would not be part of the culture.  Her promiscuity has been whitewashed so the laws of Islam could be contrived by rulers.  She was forgiven, given special treatment, because she was Muhammad’s wife (not a loyal wife, besides), and because the truth would alter the story and the painting made for the followers.  

Aisha, a woman, was used, her actual history hidden, for political purposes.  Is that how Islam is to be practiced?  Islam has morphed into a political organization designed to grow while enriching those who assume oversight roles. Allah is used in an effort to provide credibility and cover. The unholy acts performed by the Islamists, their intolerance, are not righteous, and are not made so because the Islamists say so.

Aisha’s father was Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (king) after Muhammad.  Muhammad had another wife, Hafsa, whose father was Omar (Umar), the second Caliph after Muhammad.  Abu Bakr and Omar converted to Islam and became close associates of the Prophet.  However before they converted they were among those that plotted for his demise.   During their time with Muhammad they headed the volunteers assembled to raid unsuspecting trade caravans, as well as conduct battles against residents of Mecca. 

Muhammad was a controversial figure, taking advantage of many.  He had admirers, adherents and those who disliked and distrusted him.  He promoted a way of life, a way that he did not always embrace, but required of others. Total loyalty was required; once a beneficiary of Muhammad’s programs, to leave for any reason was forbidden.  Some wanted him dead and assassination attempts were made. Apostates from his companions, those who had enough and wanted no more of his pogroms, and idol worshippers, pagans, that were threatened by Muhammad’s insistence on one god, were enemies.  But there were those who were jealous of what he had, power, control and personal wealth.  Muhammad was eventually murdered, poisoned.

Who killed Muhammad?  What is reported agrees that Muhammad was poisoned.  But the story told blames the Jews; Jews from the village of Kaibar.  Muhammad raided the village and beheaded its leader, seeking treasure.  It was a date (the fruit) producing area that Muhammad agreed to maintain. He took the women as slaves.  After the conquest village women prepared a meal of lamb, and believers are told, it contained poison.  But here’s the real story.

To begin with the raid on Kaibar was in 628.  Muhammad died in 632.  He would not have lived 4 more years if the story told by Islamic scholars is true. 

God told Muhammad Abu Baker would be the first Caliph after he died.  He would be followed by Omar.  Muhammad shared this revelation with his wife, Hafsa.  Hafsa, in a hurry to share, then told his wife Aisha, who then told her dad.  Abu Bakr spoke with Omar, but did not trust Hafsa, so Omar confronted her.  She vacillated but finally admitted, “yes, the Prophet told me that.”   The four then collaborated to eliminate the Prophet so Abu Bakr could assume his place of honor among the Prophet’s companions and followers, having been blessed, so to speak, by the Prophet.   God’s words to Muhammad would then be fulfilled.  

The poisoning is reported in Hadiths.  Aisha and Hafsa betrayed the Prophet. Why were they not punished for their crime?  (Sura 66:10).  He died soon after being fed ‘medicine.’  

To allow time for Abu Bakr, to return to Yatrib (Medina) to become Caliph, a delay tactic was created.  Locals were told Muhammad is not dead, he has ascended into heaven (like Christ) and will soon descend, his soul to return to his body.  Upon Abu Bakr’s return Muhammad was declared officially dead and Abu Bakr the heir to his throne. 

Early Caliphs

Thus the 1st person to take over what Muhammad began was one of his murderers. This individual was not in the historical, or DNA, line of the Prophet. Deception was involved, as Ali, cousin and son-in-Law, was not in Yatrib at the time and was unable to make his claim to the throne. Abu Bakr, his envy and avarice taking over, assumed the title and Muhammad’s wealth (as inheritance) and proceeded as Caliph. He immediately changed the agenda for Islam to his own. He became a warlord. Horrific tactics we employed in new territories upon unsuspecting citizens. These were areas not on Muhammad’s radar. He was an imperialist seeking wealth and absolute authority. His methods incorporated burning those he victimized, beheadings, and wanton killing for little reason other than instilling fear and removing any who would challenge his assumed authority.  

After Muhammad’s death Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman took from the household all the valuables, or what they claimed as their share.  How they used this wealth, as Caliph’s, will be discussed in the future. But as the rightful heir, Muhammad’s daughter Fatima (married to Ali) deserved her inheritance.  

Omar, the next in line as Caliph, loved blood.  He was a weak, misogynistic individual but with the power and support of Abu Bakr, an army of willing followers, he never hesitated to kill those standing in his way, armed or not.  Expulsions from communities outside the region where Muhammad was active, massacres, were frequent, to the West and to the East.  Treasure was the objective along with conquest, control and dominance.  Allah was named as the authority upon whom Abu Bakr and Omar acted.  Tactics employed are as ISIS uses, heads were removed, prisoners were burned, heads boiled and the broth consumed, and dwellings with residents inside, woman and children, were torched. The methods were not those of Muhammad, but developed by those that assumed the mantel of Muhammad’s ideology and the power that was gained with it. The religion of Muhammad was redrafted to suit the aims of the conquering zealots. 

Abu Bakr reigned for 2 years, Omar (Umar), 6 years (murdered), Uthman for 5 years (murdered), Ali for 5 years (murdered), Hasan, 6 months (murdered), Mu’awiyah, 9 years, Yazid I, 33 years.   Muslims honor those who killed the Prophet, their legacy built on a foundation of corrupt leaders, leaders intent on overthrowing peaceful areas and establishing a beached for themselves and Islam, by their definition.  They kill each other to assume control.  It is not god, nor Allah, at the head of the charge, but humans seeking power and personal treasure.  Muhammad created an opportunity that those subsequent to his demise have abused.  The ideology that is Islam today is not that of Muhammad, but of all the control zealots that followed; the political Islamists.

There will be more on this topic of Islamist’s Lies in forthcoming blogs.

No longer a slave of fear when living as a child of God, saved by his Grace.

Grace and Peace