Monday, 6 April 2009

Has Muhammad himself predicted the disappearance of Islam?

Yes, he predicted its own demise...and a bonus glimpse about the violent birth of Islam

About the potential demise of Islam and the fact that Muhammad actually predicted this demise himself – a fact that many are unaware of.

We learn from the annals of Islamic history that Islam is not that powerful and that it is actually very vulnerable. Much evidence suggests that it may very well die under its own weight.

The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that
Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself. As a car needs gasoline to run, so does Islam need human blood just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, its Prophet.

This sounds very much like communism. It starts off extinguishing the “class enemy” and then when there are no more external “enemies” to slaughter, the killing machine turns on itself.
Terror takes on a life of its own and the killing machine devours its own children and then ultimately engages in suicide.

To understand why Islam, eventually, will self-destruct we must first learn a few lessons from the annals of Islamic history. Here is the picture: During the last few decades we have witnessed several cases of Islamic cannibalism. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs)
but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

But here are some cases of Islamic cannibalism that were perpetrated during the
nascent stages of Islam.

Since the very first Islamic cannibalism mentioned in the Qur’an, since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic.
During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast. Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (The History of al Tabari, volume xv, pp. 219 220):

…Muhammad b. Abi Bakr, accompanied by Kinanah b. Bishr b. ‘Attab, Sudan b. Humran and ‘Amr b. al-Hamiq, reached ‘Uthman by climbing over the wall from the house of ‘Amr b. Hazm. They found ‘Uthman, with his wife Na’ilah, reading the Surah of the Cow from the Qur’an. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr came up to them and seized ‘Uthman’s beard. “May God disgrace you, you hyena,” he said. ‘Uthman replied, “I am no hyena. I am God’s servant and the Commander of the Faithful.” Muhammad said, “Neither Mua’wiyah nor anyone else has been of any use to you.” ‘Uthman said, “Son of my brother, let go my beard. Your father would not have gripped like this.” Muhammad replied, “Had my father seen you doing these things, he would have denounced you for them, and I mean to do worse to you than grab your beard.” ‘Uthman said, “I seek God’s help and support against you.” Then Muhammad pierced his forehead with a broad iron-tipped arrow that he was holding. Kinanah b. Bishr raised some arrows of the same kind that he was holding, and plunged them into the base of ’Uthman’s ear down to his throat. Then he fell on him with his sword until he killed him.

According to ‘Abd al-Rahman—Abu ‘Awn:

Kinanah b. Bishr struck his forehead with an iron bar. He pitched forward, face down, and Sudan b. Humran al-Muradi beat him after he had fallen and killed him.…As to ‘Amr, he jumped on ‘Uthman and sat on his chest—he was still barely alive—and stabbed him nine times. ‘Amr said, “I stabbed him three times for God’s sake and six times because of the anger in my breast against him.”

If we are troubled reading those passages, we must remember that
all of those who ‘cannibalized’Uthman were impeccable Muslims—the most ardent jihadists, belonging to the stock of Muhammad the Hashim clan of the Quraysh.

This Islamic cannibalism did not end there.
The cycle continued until Aisha (Prophet Muhammad’s dearest wife), along with two of her brothers-in-law, Talha and Zubayr set out to avenge ‘Uthman’s murder. When she reached al-Basrah, a rebel stronghold, she killed (by beheading) six hundred of the suspected rebels who had ‘cannibalized’ ‘Uthman. Ali, being sucked into the vortex of this cannibalistic cycle, set out to punish Aisha’s gang.

The result:
ten thousand Muslims, including Talhah and Zubayr lay perished in al-Basrah, equal in proportion from both sides. Aisha’s life was spared by the cannibals, but her camel was hamstrung.

In Islamic history this is known as the
Battle of the Camel. This is perhaps one of the most moving examples of how Islamic cannibalism really perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence and mayhem. This is the reason why we shall never observe a let up to the succession of Islamic cannibalism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt or Sudan.

The narration of this very important chain of cannibalism will remain incomplete till we learn the
fate of all the participants sucked into this whirlpool of cannibalism and counter cannibalism.

The following passages, adopted from Tabari’s Tarikh al-Tabari (vol. xvii) illustrate very briefly
how this cycle of Islamic cannibalism continued, and will continue:

Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and a close relative of caliph ‘Uthman demanded from Ali the handing over of the killers of ‘Uthman. When Ali refused to comply with this request, Muawayiah b. Abi Sufyan, and his right-hand man, ‘Amr b. al-‘As (the deposed governor of Egypt), became open enemies of Ali. They gathered forces and set off to attack Ali. Ali met this force at Siffin. Fearful of defeat at the hands of Ali’s fierce and well-trained army, Muwayiah and ‘Amr devised quite an innovative trick. Their soldiers attached copies of the Qur’an at the tip of their lances and raised them high in air. Ali’s soldiers went in stupor and were hesitant to charge their enemy, lest they trample the Holy Qur’an. Both sides remained standstill—the battle became a stalemate. In the end, both parties agreed to stop fighting and decided on a speedy negotiated settlement by appointing an arbiter from each side. Having mutually reached this agreement, both sides separated and returned.

But not everyone on Ali’s side was happy with his prompt decision. A faction of Islamist extremists thought judgment belonged to Allah and Ali’s decision to appoint arbiters for a peaceful settlement is contrary to Islamic principle. This dissident group of Ali was known as the Kharijites. They insisted that Ali resume fighting. But Ali could not renege on his treaty of a peaceful settlement. The Kharijites declared Ali to be a sinner and asked him to repent. Initial attempt by Ali for reconciliation with the Kharijites met with feeble success. So, ultimately, Ali had to cannibalize the cannibals. He had to fight a major battle at the canal of Nahrawan, east of river Tigris in Iraq. This battle ended with a merciless mass slaughter of the Kharijites. But this cannibalization did not completely eradicate the Kharijite problem. Many Kharijites survived this genocide, went into hiding, and some of them returned to Kufa (Ali’s headquarter in Iraq) stealthily. A few of them went to Egypt.

But is Islamic cannibalism theologically rooted?

the earliest example of Islamic cannibalism, after all, is found in the Qur’an itself -- in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol. ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk). On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

Those verses of the Qur’an, when taken in true Islamic spirit, can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques.
The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed. The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shiia mosques; the Shiias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises.

In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shiia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shiias and burning their mosques. Then the Shiias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shiias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunnah (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Interestingly, this fratricide is unstoppable, as the Islamic Umma is far from monolithic. No one knows the precise divisions among the Umma.
But Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-two sects, each one killing one another, and together killing the infidels.

So Muhammad actually himself predicted this cannibalism with Islam itself? Here is the theological evidence: there are many ahadith that discuss Muhammad’s prediction about his Umma. Here are a few:

Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group…(Sunan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4580); Islam has seventy branches…(Sunan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4659) ; Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…(Sunan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4744)

In a note (footnote 4153), the English translator of Sunan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community,
it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

Another hadith (
Sunan Abu Dawud, 40.4747, Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.577) asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadit even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

PS: Here are some of the main sects and sub-sects of Islam: Sunnis: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal; Sufis; Wahabis; Salafists; Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims); Khilafites; Deobandis; Shiias: Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis, Ashariyahs, Alawis, Qadianis, Ahmedis, Druzes, Dawoodis, Bohras, Kharizis, Kurds

Needless to say,
each group (and sub group) thinks they are the true Muslims, and only they have the right to practice Islam. Thus often, they cannibalize one another. There is no tolerance, compromise or truce among these groups.

Muhammad gave the instructions for -- and paved the foundation to -- Islamic cannibalism. He also, in this context, made a prediction in regards to Islam’s demise:

As strange and as unbelievable as it might appear in these days of unremitting Islamic terrorism and Islamic cannibalism,
Muhammad himself had predicted the decline of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Belief returns and goes back to Medina like a snake...(Sahih Bukhari, 3.30.100); There will be no trace of Islam in some believers...(Sahih Bukhari, 9.84.65); Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270); The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0271, 0272); Allah needs sinners… (Sahih Muslim 37.6620, 6622); Muslims will diminish in number and they will go back to where they started…(Sunan Abu Dawud, 2.19.3029); Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love world and dislike death…(Sunan Abu Dawud, 37.4284); Muhammad’s contemporaries were the best Muslims; after three generations, the Muslims will be mainly treacherous and untrustworthy… (Sahih Bukhari, 5.57.2, 3); Muslims will be destroyed through the hands of some Quraysh young men…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.87.180); There will be much killing during the last days of the Muslims…(Sahih Bukhari, 9.88.183)

And here are a few excerpts from the greatest of all Islamic minds, al Ghazali:

Muhammad said Islam began with a few and will soon return to a few as it began. The few of those true Muslims are those who follow to purify Muhammad’s sunnah and follow strictly his traditions…(Ihya Ulum al Din by Ghazali, Tr. Fazl-ul-Karim. First edition. Darul Ishat, Urdu Bazar, Karachi, Pakistan, 1993. p.1.49). Muhammad said, “The wealth of a Muslim in near future will be goats and sheep. He will roam in caves of hillocks and places of water. He will shift from one place to another with his religion and calamities.”…(ibid, p.2.142); Muhammad said, “In near future such a time will come upon man when it will be difficult to save his religion. To save religion he will flee away like a jacket from one cave to another and from one hillock to another.”…(ibid)

Ho is it possible to understand Allah's mindset in all of this?
It is impossible to understand Allah’s mind. In many verses He threatens infidels with severe punishment, including death if they do not convert to Islam. However the Qur’an also demonstrates Allah’s frustration. Allah is so disappointed with Muhammad’s performance that He promises to send a beast as a final messenger (27:82). In verse 68:51 Allah admits that the Qur’an had made Muhammad a mad man, thus implying that Muhammad, after all, could not be trusted to save Islam. To accentuate Muhammad’s mental instability Allah says in verse 41:36 that Allah let Satan confuse Muhammad. In verses 38:82 83 Allah admits that He let loose Iblis, the Satan; He did not want to control Iblis. This means Satan is more powerful than Allah. Thus, it is imperative that eventually, Satan will triumph and destroy Islam. This, of course, is the desire of Allah, as nothing may transpire without Allah’s wish. Allah even admits that He loves to sow discord about His Book (the Qur’an, 41:45).

We can conclude that
there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death.

Here you can find the whole (unedited-) post at


No comments:

Post a Comment