(Video) Muslima on Canadian TV says Quran is equalitarian because it calls for stoning women AND men

Moderate muslima on TV Franchement Martineau in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, argues that Islam is very equalitarian because it calls for stoning of women AND men. Very impressive. Guess we were wrong all this time. Sounds “wonderful” and we’re looking forward to the day we can openly stone Muslim men on the streets.

To get translation, select (click) the caption – English – on the lower right portion of the video.


0 thoughts on “(Video) Muslima on Canadian TV says Quran is equalitarian because it calls for stoning women AND men”



    Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri

    Based on this Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Mohammed & his Gang of Highway Robbers should have had their limbs & legs cut off & then killed.

    The skirmiss between Muhammad’s army and his Meccan opponents is seem as the most glorious battle in Islam. In reality, it does not qualify to be a battle at all, but a treacherous highway robbery by desert decoits.
    In this article I investigate the claim that the events at Badr constitute a battle. For fourteen centuries, Muslims refer to the incidents at Badr as the Battle of Badr, the most glorious one in Islam. It is my conviction that the events at Badr were not elements that constitute what can be called a battle. I provide evidence to my claim below.
    What is a Battle?
    A battle is understood as an encounter of two opponent armies. There should an element of prior knowledge between the two parties that they are warring each other.
    Is this what happened at Badr? Let us investigate that.
    Islamic sources
    Al-Islam website has some interesting remarks on the events at Badr. Here are some quotes:
    1. The Battle of Badr is one of the greatest and most famous battles of Islam and those who participated in it enjoyed a special distinction amongst the Muslims.
    2. One of the praiseworthy policies adopted by the Prophet in all the battles (the details of which will be given later) was that he used to collect information about the strength of the enemy and his location. And even till today the question of procurement of information enjoys great importance in global as well as local wars.
    It is true that collection of information is good whether in times of peace or war. We collect information and analyze it when we fight disease, plan to buy a home, go to one of many universities… etc. Even if we were a gang of bandits wanting to rob a commercial caravan, it is very important to collect information to know if what we are robbing is of any value or not, and if it is worth it to risk our lives or not. Muslims believe that Badr is a battle; not just any battle, but a great battle of early Islam. Or is it?
    The events leading to Badr
    In The Life of Muhammad, which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (translated by Guillaume, 21st impression, 2007), we can easily find the truth about the incidents involved in what Muslims call the battle of Badr (p. 289 and after). Let’s look at some quotes and do some critical analysis:
    “…when the apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.’” (p. 289)
    The above is the reason that started the events leading to what happened at Badr.
    Does this look like going to battle, or going to do some highway robbery?
    What is the difference between what Muhammad was trying to do, and what the Somali pirates try to do?
    What Muhammad said reminds me of what the robbers of cowboy movies used to do. Jesse James and billy the kid used to do similar things. They would hear about some caravan or train, loaded with commodities, money or gold, then they would talk to the gang members and set out on their way to do the robbery. This is what Muhammad is doing here. He heard about a commercial caravan lightly protected by about thirty or forty people, so he summons his gang; the Muslims, to get moving so they can do the robbery.
    Muslims, off course, try to justify what Muhammad is trying to do. Al-Islam website that I linked the reader to does just that:
    As Quraysh had confiscated the property of Muslim Muhajirs residing in Madina, it was only appropriate that the Muslims should also confiscate their merchandise and if they persisted in withholding the property of the Muhajir Muslims on account of their enmity and obstinacy, the Muslims should, as a retaliatory measure, divide their merchandise amongst themselves as war booty.
    The above justification of what Muhammad and his bandits tried to do and did at Badr is, as we say in Arabic ‘an excuse that is worse than admittance of guilt’. The claim is that Muhammad was justified in attacking a Qurayshi commercial caravan because when the Meccan Muslims immigrated to Medina, the Qurayshites took over their property, is ludicrous. First of all, there is no supporting evidence to such a grand claim. Second, even if some people of Quraysh took over some of what was left by the immigrants, it was their family members left in Mecca who did that. This is a family matter in this case. Third, suppose I came to your home and stole an expensive computer, does this justify you going to a food store and robbing it just because I am one of the share-holders of that store? In short, the above claim in Al-Islam website cannot be defended.
    My goal of this article is not to relay the story of Badr, but rather to analyze its nature. In any case the story goes as follows:
    Abu Sufyan, the caravan leader realized that Muhammad and his bandits are trying to attack and steal all of what they had, so he changes the travel route and reaches Mecca safely.
    Abu Sufyan also sent someone to Mecca alarming them about what Muhammad and his bandits were up to, and asked the Quraysh to send their men to help protect the caravan, which they did.
    Now, does this look like Quraysh is trying to make war upon Muhammad, or, are they just trying to protect their livelihood in securing the safety of the incoming ommercial caravan that Abu Sufyan is in charge of?
    Once the caravan was secured, Abu Sufyan sends word to the Qurayshites that the caravan is safe, and that they should go back to Mecca. Sure enough, some of the Qurayshites go back. However, Abu Jahl, one of Quraysh leaders, and some others decided to stay. Here is why:
    Abu Jahl said, ‘By God, we will not go back until we have been to Badr’- Badr was the site of one of the Arab fairs where they used to hold a market every year. ‘We will spend three days there, slaughter camel and feast and drink wine, and the girls shall play for us. The Arabs will hear that we have come and gathered together, and respect us in future. So come on!’ (Sirat, p. 296)
    Now, Muslims love to vilify two people in early Islam, one of them is Abu Jahl (abu Lahab being the other). Does the above quote tell of a man going to war? You see, this man, while Muhammad was in Mecca, made fun of Muhammad, and knew that Muhammad was a crazed man. Narcissists never forget things like that. Muslims follow Muhammad’s suit and hate Abu Jahl, because Muhammad did. But clearly, the above quote tells of a man wanting to have a good time. War and fighting at Badr is not on his mind. Since I myself enjoy a good glass of wine, I think I would have enjoyed visiting with Abu Jahl if we were living in the same time period. All he wanted to do is go to Vegas (Badr!!) and have some enjoyable time.
    Now, it is important to understand Muhammad at that point in time. He had becoming the sole leader of Mecca in his mind all along. When he moved to Medina, he always inquired, and sent groups of Muslims to watch for Qurayshi caravans for possible looting. His first success was the Nakhla raid, but it was not his first attempt. He had many failed attempts before. Now, to become a leader of Mecca, an option is to kill some of its leaders who are a hindrance to Muhammad. This is exactly what Muhammad did at Badr. The Muslims controlled the route to the water, and killed many Muslims trying to get some water. Now, the killing of Abu Jahl was the prized trophy of Badr as far as Muhammad’s concern. The man, Abu Jahl, made fun of him in Mecca. And he would be a great obstacle for Muhammad taking over control of Mecca if the chance arises. So, killing him and some of the other Meccan leaders would make an easier road for Muhammad in controlling and taking over Mecca in the future.
    What we have here is not really a battle, but rather the Muslims ambushing the Qurayshites, thus killing some of them (mostly when they were trying to get some water to drink), including some of the leaders, and imprisoning the rest. True, the commercial caravan escaped, but the Muslims could still get some ransom money for the imprisoned ones. History bears me out here. Muhammad and the Muslims got a lot of compensation for the Badr Qurayshite prisoners.


    Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans
    Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D
    Place: The well of Badr
    Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

    The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. Mohammed cried, “Anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!” The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. Muslims looted all the gold and valuables without any shame.

    Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal. When his corpse was found, they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed’s feet. The “Apostle of peace” cried out in delirious joy, “Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!” The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Muhammad’s challenge of telling better stories than him. Muhammad ordered Ali to strike off Nadr’s head in his presence.

    The “Prophet” of Islam not only led and participated in raids, but he also sanctioned them — even if women and children would be endangered or killed:

    “The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa’ or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack Al-Mushrikun [unbelieving] warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. the women and children) are from them (i.e. Al-Mushrikun)”
    — Ibn Ishaq, p247

    Probably the most infamous of the raids committed by Muhammad’s band of chivalrous heroes was the raid during the sacred month; not even the dirtiest desert skunk would violate the sacred month by fighting; all were safe, and could go unarmed during this time. That is, until Muhammad’s noble Muslims came on the scene. They attacked a Quraysh caravan near Nakhla during the sacred month. Naturally, Allah came running to the defense of his prophet’s band of truce-breakers and trust-violators. The Koran addresses this dastardly villainy:

    “They question thee, O Muhammad, with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: warfare therein is a great transgression, but to turn men from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a great transgression with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing.”
    Koran 2:214

    The Hadiths and the Koran give ample proof of Muhammad’s raiding and robbery:

    Tabari VII:98 “The Messenger ordered Zayd [the prophet’s former slave turned adoptive son] out on a raid in which he captured a Quraysh caravan led by Abu Sufyan at a watering place in Najd…. A number of their merchants set out with a large amount of silver since this was the main part of their merchandise. They hired a man to guide them along this route. Zayd captured the caravan and its goods but was unable to capture the men. He brought the caravan to the Prophet.”

    Tabari VII:10 “In Ramadhan, seven months after the Hijrah, Muhammad entrusted a white war banner to Hamzah with the command of thirty Emigrants. Their aim was to intercept a Quraysh caravan.”

    Tabari VII:15 “Expeditions Led by Allah’s Messenger: In this year, according to all Sira writers, the Messenger personally led the Ghazwa of Alwa. [A Ghazwa is an Islamic Invasion in Allah’s Cause consisting of an army unit led by the Prophet himself.] He left Sa’d in command of Medina. On this raid his banner was carried by Hamzah. He stayed out for fifteen days and then returned to Medina. The Messenger went on a Ghazwa at the head of two hundred of his companions in October, 623 and reached Buwat. His intention was to intercept a Quraysh caravan with a hundred men and twenty-five hundred camels.”

    Tabari VII:19 “They hesitated and were afraid to advance, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid shot an arrow at Amr and killed him. Uthman and al-Hakam surrendered. Then Waqid and his companions took the caravan and the captives back to Allah’s Apostle in Medina. This was the first booty taken by the Companions of Muhammad.”

    Ishaq:288 “When the Qur’an:passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment. When the Qur’an:authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.”

    “Allah divided the booty stolen from the first caravan after he made spoils permissible. He gave four-fifths to those He had allowed to take it and one-fifth to His Apostle.”
    Tabari VII:29

    Ishaq:289 “The Apostle heard that Abu Sufyan [a Meccan merchant] was coming from Syria with a large caravan containing their money and their merchandise. He was accompanied by only thirty men.”

    Ishaq:289 “Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out and attack it. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey.”

    Muslim:C10B1N176 “Muhammad (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: ‘There is no god but Allah,’ but I attacked him with a spear anyway. It once occurred to me that I should ask the Apostle about this. The Messenger said: ‘Did he profess “There is no god but Allah,” and even then you killed him?’ I said: ‘He made a profession out of the fear of the weapon I was threatening him with.’ The Prophet said: ‘Did you tear out his heart in order to find out whether it had professed truly or not?'”

    Tabari VIII:143 “In this year a twenty-four man raiding party led by Shuja went to the Banu Amir. He launched a raid on them and took camels and sheep. The shares of booty came to fifteen camels for each man. Also a raid led by Amr went to Dhat. He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them.”

    Bukhari:V4B52N256 “The Prophet passed by and was asked whether it was permissible to attack infidels at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, ‘Their women and children are from them.'”

    Tabari IX:122 “Muhammad sent Uyaynah to raid The Banu Anbar. They killed some people and took others captive. Asma was one of the women taken prisoner.”

    Ishaq:281 “The Raid on Waddan was the first Maghazi [invasion]. The Expedition of Harith was second. They encountered a large number of Quraysh in the Hijaz. Abu Bakr composed a poem about the raid: ‘When we called them to the truth they turned their backs and howled like bitches. Allah’s punishment on them will not tarry. I swear by the Lord of Camels that I am no perjurer. A valiant band will descend upon the Quraysh which will leave women husbandless. It will leave men dead, with vultures wheeling round. It will not spare the infidels.'”

    Ishaq:285 “Then the Apostle went raiding in the month of Rabi u’l-Awwal making for the Quraysh. Then he raided the Quraysh by way of Dinar.”

    Tabari VII:11 “In this year the Messenger entrusted to Sa’d a white war banner for the expedition to Kharrar. Sa’d said, ‘I set out on foot at the head of twenty men. We used to lie hidden by day and march at night, until we reached Kharrar on the fifth morning. The caravan had arrived in town a day before. There were sixty men with it.”

    Muhammad’s men survived on raids; indeed, many of their “battles” were nothing more than robberies. So, yes, Muhammad WAS a caravan Robber — but, even amongst robbers, Muhammad managed to achieve a new low…


    015.1 The caliph is obliged to summon whoever uses a weapon (0: though force suffices to be considered a weapon, or taking money by dint of one’s fists) and makes people afraid to use the road (0: no matter whether in the wilderness, a village, or in the country; meaning he frightens those who pass along the way by means of his strength or weapons). If the highwayman responds to the summons before he has injured anyone, then he is only disciplined (def: 017).

    If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold under the previously mentioned conditions (014.1), both his right hand and left foot are amputated.
    (A: The difference between a highwayman and someone who takes by forcible seizure (dis: 014.6) is that the latter does so within earshot of help, while the offense of the highwayman is far greater because he menaces the lifeline of the community, its trade routes.)

    015.2 If a highwayman kills someone, he must be executed, even when the person entitled to retaliation (def: 03) agrees to forgo it. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days. If he wounds or maims someone, retaliation is taken against him, though it may be waived by those entitled to take it.

    015.3 (N: The penalty for highway robbery, such as mandatory execution, crucifixion, and amputating the hand and foot, is cancelled if the highwayman repents (A: desists, and gives himself up) before he has been apprehended, though he is still liable to retaliation (def: 03) by parties entitled to it (A: for injuries or deaths he caused to victims) and is financially responsible for restoring the money he has taken.)

    014.1 A person’s right hand is amputated. whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:

    (a) has reached puberty;
    (b) is sane;
    (c) is acting voluntarily;

    014.2 Justice
    (d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market prices current) at the time of the theft;
    (e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time)
    for safeguarding similar articles (def: 014.3);
    (f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: 014.2(3» as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.
    If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: 017). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (0: by an act of God) but
    before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal’s life).

    014.2 A person’s hand is not amputated when:
    (1) (non-(d) above) he steals less than the equivalent of] .058 grams of gold;
    (2) (non-(e» he steals the article from a place the does not meet normal requirements for
    safeguarding similar articles (dis: below);
    (3) or (non-(f» when there is a possible confusion as to why he took it, as when it was taken from the Muslim common fund (bayt ai-mal) (0: provided the person is Muslim, since he might have intended to use it to build mosques, bridges, or hospices), or when it belongs to his son or father.
    014.3 A place that meets normal security requirements for safeguarding similar articles means a place appropriate for keeping the thing, this varying with the type of article, the different countries, and with the justness of the ruler or lack of it, as well as the ruler’s relative strength or weakness. A suitable place for safeguarding fine clothes, money, jewels, and jewelry, for example, is a locked box; the place for trade goods, a locked
    warehouse with guards; the place for livestock, a stable; the place for pallets and bedding, a shelf in the house; and the place for a shroud, the grave.

    014.4 If two persons jointly steal the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold, then neither’s hand is amputated.

    014.5 A freeman’s hand may not be amputated by anyone besides the caliph or his representative (def: 025).

    014.6 There is no amputation for forcible seizure (0: meaning someone relying on foree (N: to take people’s money, who has a gang nearby to abet him in this», snatching (0: meaning someone who depends on running away and is unarmed), or betraying a trust (0: of something entrusted to him, such as a deposit for safekeeping), or appropriating something by disavowal (A: i.e. denying that the victim loaned or entrusted him with such and such a thing), (0: because of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him
    peace) saying, “There is no amputation for someone who seizes by force, snatches and runs, or betrays a trust,” a hadith Tirmidhi classified as rigorously authenticated
    (sahih». (A: But if one of the abovementioned persons is a repeated offender whom it
    is in the interests of society to kill, the caliph may kill him.)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s