Shariah-compliant finance is an area of modern finance that is growing among many banks and investment houses. This is due in part to greedy investors eager to work with the Middle East as oil prices continue to increase. And Western financial services firms are beginning to offer Shariah-compliant investment vehicles because they pay no interest.
Shariah is the law derived from Islam’s foundational documents – defines the Islamic doctrine of the universal obligation to jihad against non-believers. Tranlates to “THE way”
The question is, What is meant by “jihad”? Is it merely a personal struggle to sacrifice for God and be the best possible Muslim? Or does jihad mean holy war, the pursuit of a global Islamic state known as a caliphate, that rules in accordance with shariah?
The Center for Security Policy’s “Team B” studied the question in its recent report, Shariah – Threat to America. On September 17, BigPeace ran Team B’s answer to the question, “What is Shariah?“ Today we summarize the Team B report’s findings on shariah and jihad.
The answer to the question, “What is Jihad?” is readily accessible to those willing to seek it – not from critics of Islam, but from the Quran and other foundational Islamic sources.
Shariah scholars typically cite as authority for jihad from the Quran any of the 164 verses that specifically refer to jihad against non-Muslims in terms that include military expeditions, fighting enemies, or distributing the spoils of war. By describing the warfare of jihad as something sanctioned by Allah himself, Islamic authorities set it apart from the common tribal warfare of the time and elevated it to a superior status of something sacred.
In addition to the Quran, which Muslims believe is the text of words delivered directly from Allah to Mohammed, the hadiths (accounts of the actions and sayings of Mohammed) are a second primary source governing jihad in Islamic doctrine. A third principal source is made up of recognized compilations of classical Muslim writings that systematize and codify Islamic law. They spell out the duty of jihad as holy war, which all Muslims, according to shariah, must advance in one or more carefully delineated ways.
Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh in Arabic, forms the legal context for shariah and its rulings. As such it relies first and foremost on the Quran and cites its verses to support the caliphate and jihad. Simple citation of the verses themselves, without the context provided by how sharia scholars (who guide and enforce Islamic thought and action) interpreted these verses, provides an incomplete and incorrect understanding.
The Team B report on Islamic threat doctrine specifically cites the sources. Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik) written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, states, “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.” According to this authoritative doctrinal text, the “greater” jihad is the struggle for the spiritual self – what the Muslim Brotherhood wants the non-Muslim world to understand as the “real” meaning of jihad.
When Reliance refers to the greater and lesser jihad, it indicates that this differentiation is not a part of the law of jihad – leaving us with no alternative but to understand that, under shariah, the meaning of “jihad” connotes force and violence.
In the 20th century, Muslim Brotherhood ideologues such as Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-56) recast modern jihad on the fiery language of revolution and anti-colonialism of the times and not just strictly warfare to expand Islamic and legal political dominance – whether against oppressive colonialist forces of Muslim rulers (“the near enemy”) who were judged apostates because of their failure to uphold shariah.
Qutb, the chief theoretician for the Muslim Brotherhood, declared in his capstone book Milestones, “The reason for jihad which have been described in . . . verses [from the sacred texts] are these: to establish Islam’s authority on the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by Allah; to abolish all the dark forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of any man over muslims since all muslims are of Allah and no one has the authority to make them his servants or make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming jihad.”
By “Satanic systems of life,” Qutb was referring to the way of life practiced in Western-style, secular, liberal democracies and anything non-muslim is “evil”. The reference to “the lordship of one man over others” was not reserved for dictators, but to any man-made law – including Muslim leaders who did not rule under the shariah code. The assassins of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acted on Mawdudi and Qutb’s injunctions with respect to jihad.
They still operate like it’s the stone age.
The Quran (verse 2:216) obligates all Muslims to wage jihad, “though it be hateful to you.”
Most Americans are familiar with the violent form of jihad as waged by the terrorists. There is a second kind of jihad that is somewhat non-violent – at the moment – that the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Civilization jihad is “pre-violent.” And it is all around us.
Like on FACEBOOK
Ben Stein, a former speechwriter for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, actor and author, Ben Stein said President Barack Obama
“has a real strong hatred of America.”
“Mr. Obama has been wrong from day one about ISIS. He called them a JV team, he said that they weren’t really serious or important. He has not in any sense addressed their threat. And he is a bad joke, as the leader of the most important nation in the world, he’s a bad joke.”
“He’s a very real danger. Well, I’m very interested in psychology I’m very interest in psychoanalysis. I guess I probably should have been a psychologist. I think the question is, why is he so angry at America? I don’t think there’s much question that he does not wish America well. He has a real strong hatred of America. Is it because he’s part black? I don’t know. Is it because he felt his father was mistreated by the British in Kenya? I don’t know. We don’t know. We just know that in terms of being a forthright, bold leader who takes on our enemies, he’s not there. He’s missing in action.”
*****Muhammad the False Prophet*****
Muhammad was a false prophet and child molester (i.e. Aisha, Bukhari 5:58:235: – Quran 65:4) “authentic hadiths show him spreading unjustified hatred of non-Muslims, unjustified degradation or denigration of women and children, unjustified acts of violence and leading, ordering, or planning wars, murders, and massacres. Rape, enslavement, child molestation, sex slavery, stoning, maiming, terror, torture invoking the name of God. He also took 49 wives, the youngest ones were around 6 and 9 years old. Muhammad was a fraud, he was not and could not be a prophet of God”
Anything he wanted to do, he would just lie and say Allah told him to or approved of it. He even made changes to scriptures or made his own.
Some say he worshipped, envoked, was possessed by, or even was Baphomet, a devil/demon
Muhammad was a genocidal mass murderer extortionist rapist. He personally lead to the enslavement of millions of human beings. The reality is this was a horrific man with brainwashed delusions. His actions speak volumes. He is an Anti-Christ period. Take whatever Christ said reverse it and there’s Muhammad.
Islam is not even an original religion at all it’s a syncretic religion mainly mixing Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Arab paganism.
One only has to read the Quran to realize that Garbiel is Satan aka Sumerian Marduk and that Allah is Lucifer aka Sumerian Enki.
To be fair the Quran and the Babylonian Talmud are almost exactly the same book.
Both advocate the murder, extortion, rape and torture of the non-believers.
Islam does not mean peace, Islam means submission. That is the literal meaning of the word. Islamic revisionists spreading propaganda about the meaning of the word Islam are merely using sayings from the Quran that allow them to lie to infidels for the benefit of their faith.
The Allah of Islam and the Yahweh of the Talmud are more than likely the Edomite God Quas renamed.
The Edomite Kingdom was annexed and absorbed into the ancient Kingdom of Israel before the Israelite Civil War. By the time of the split of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel the Edomites had assimilated into Israel bringing their culture and faith with them.
The Edomites were the key to the Babylonian invasion of the Kingdom of Judah in which the true Israelites of Judah were taken into slavery and their first temple was destroyed with the aid of the Edomites.
The Edomites for their reward were left with the whole of the Kingdom of Judah to do with what they would. Following the Assyrian enslavement of the Northern Kingdom of Israel the Edomites were left in total domination of Israel with the power to remake it in their own Edomite image.
The original term for the Hebrew God is El. Yahweh is the term that replaces El throughout the places in the Hebrew faith’s Bible in which the name El was originally.
By the return of the Israelites from their dual enslavement to their homeland the Scribes and Pharisees of Edom now referred to as the Scribes and Pharisees of Israel had already merged their faith with those of the Israelites.
(by Jake Neuman | Islam Watch) – Allah Supports the Crimes of His Creator – Prophet Muhammad in the Quran
The supposed God of the Universe must be of Moral Perfection, so would his representatives on earth. “Allah” duly claims the same about Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. Therefore, the Hadiths would outline a character and personality of Muhammad that would be of moral perfection. If there is anything said in the Quran or any character and personality traits of Muhammad in the hadiths lacks moral perfection, that would negate the Quran to be the word of God , and Muhammad’s claims of being the Prophet of God. In other words, if any words or deeds of Muhammad in authentic hadiths shows him spreading unjustified hatred of non-Muslims, unjustified degradation or denigration women or any other human beings, unjustified act of violence, unjustified act of leading or ordering or planning wars, let alone ordering murders, massacres, rape, enslavement, booty, child molestation, sex slavery, stoning, maiming, terror, torture invoking the name of God, then Muhammad could not be a prophet of God but a fraud.
– The False Prophet Muhammad says Allah guides him in committing crimes
It is supposed that God created man in His own image. As far Muhammad is concerned, it seems he transformed the Arab Pagan God Allah into his image, and did even better in bestowing upon that Allah his own characteristics, personality, desires and ambitions. Whether it was Muhammad’s own desire for sexually molesting little girls or grabbing other people’s properties or his ambition for gaining power and dominion, Muhammad had Allah facilitate the fulfillment of those desires and ambitions of his.
CHILD MOLESTATION and RAPE
– Allah fulfills Muhammad’s desire for sexually abusing and raping a little girls.
Muhammad desired to molest the little girl Aisha, daughter of his closest disciple and friend Abu Bakr. She was only 6 years old. To fulfill Muhammad’s desire, first Allah came to dream to show Aisha picture wrapped in silk, telling Muhammad that she would be his wife (Hadith).
That the Prophet said to her, “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.”
Then Allah gave Muhammad another sanction for molesting and raping little girls in the Quran, saying that it was legal to marry a prepubescent child awaiting her first menstruation (65:4):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.” Quran 65:4
MUHAMMAD: THE EXTERMINATOR
– Allah guides Muhammad on massacring Banu Quraiza
After migrating to Medina, Muhammad came face to face with the Jews, the only people well-versed in Abrahamic religious doctrines. Muhammad tried to impress them to his religion, but instead they became a people who could pick out all the falsities in his Quranic verses. This is a problem Muhammad faced from no other people in Arabia, and it could potentially prove his Quran as fraud and destroy his religious mission. So, he wanted to eliminate them from the surface of the earth, but as powerful Medina leader Abdullah ibn Obayyi came to their support, he had to be content with exiling the Jews of Banu Qainuqa in 624 and Banu Nadir in 625. By 627, when he attacked Banu Quraiza, Abdullah had become weakened in power, and Muhammad could now ignore his opposition and exterminate the Jews which he had been longing for over 3 years now. Here’s how Allah guided him in exterminating the Jewish tribe:
Sahi Bukhari 5:59:448:
“So Allah’s Apostle went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). They then surrendered to the Prophet’s judgment (unconditionally after 25 days of fierce resistance) but he directed them to Sad (ally) to give his verdict concerning them. Sad said, “I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.”
The Prophet said, “You have judged according to the King’s (Allah’s) judgment.” (Bukhari 5:447)
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men and pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children. Ibn Ishaq says that the number may have been as high as 800-900 (p. 464)
Now he had to figure out which Jewish boys to slaughter and which to keep alive for selling into slavery.
During this massacre, Muhammad faced a big problem. How to separate the young Jewish boys whom he wanted to sell into slavery from those he wanted to slaughter. And the apostle came up with an ingenious solution. He ordered his Jihadis to pull down the youngsters’ pants and those having grown pubic hairs around their genitals were separated for beheading. The rest were kept alive for enslaving and selling in the market.
Abu Dawood 38:4390:
Atiyyah al-Qurazi: “I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”
Muhammad claims Allah gave him divine sanction to this barbaric slaughter of the Jews:
Quran 8:17: “It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah said, the killing of surrendered soldiers were done by the wish of Allah)
Quran 8:67: “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Allah insisting Prophet to kill all the prisoners, and should not keep any surrendered prisoners alive until He (Prophet) occupied entire Arabia.
MUHAMMAD: THE FIRST MUSLIM TERRORIST
Bukhari 4:52:220: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’
Here is how Allah inspired and encouraged Muhammad to perpetrate his terrorist activities
Verse 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly”
MUHAMMAD’S SUICIDE TERRORISM
Bukhari (52:54) – The apostle said: “I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.”
Muslim (20:4678) – During the battle of Uhud, Muhammad was desperate to push men into battle. He promised paradise for those who would martyr themselves, prompting a young man who was eating dates to throw them away and rush to his death.
Muslim (20:4655) – A man asks Muhammad “which of men is the best?” Muhammad replies that it is the man who is always ready for battle and flies into it “seeking death at places where it can be expected.
Muslim (20:4681) – “Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords.”
And there came Allah to inspire Muhammad and his Jihadis to engage in suicidal terrorism
Verse 4:74: “Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God, – whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).”
MUHAMMAD: THE BEHEADER
Muhammad personally beheaded 2 Jewish chieftains of Banu Qurayza.
Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 464:
“Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.
And came Allah to inspire Muhammad to carry heheadings:
Verse 8:12: “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
At Khaybar, Muhammad takes Safiya as booty to be his sex-slave
Safiya bint Huyayy was a captive Muhammad married after slaughtering her father, brother, husband and the men of her community at Khaybar, according to Bukhari 2:14:5:68, p. 35; 4:52:74:143, p. 92; 4:52:168:280, p. 175; and Tabari 39:185.
Muhammad and his Jihadis not only raped the women captured in his raids, but also allowed his Jihadis to practise coitus interruptus while raping them for preserving their selling value.
Abu Dawud 11:2166:
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri:
“A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.” (also see Bukhari 34:432)
And Allah came with the following Quranic verse, allowing him to own slaves and also rape them as a divine right:
Quran 4:3: “If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial.”
Muhammad’s Jihadis’ moral prickings to rape captive women in front of their husbands, but Allah comes down to make it halal
Abu Dawud 5:711:2150:
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.
So Allah send down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possess.” [Surah 4:24]
Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet said, “The hand should be cut off for stealing something that is worth a quarter of a Dinar or more.”
And Allah is there to offer divine sanction to such horrible cruelty.
Quran 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”
Muhammad ordered the feet and hands of thiefs cut off and eyes burnt out, and left to suffer a horrendous death
Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.”
And Allah gives divine blessings to Muhammad’s horribly torturous punishments
Quran 5.33: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned”
Listed above are only a small sample of Muhammad’s horrible actions and heinous punishments. And every time Allah, the God of Muhammad’s imagination, sent down verses, offering divine blessings to those horrendous actions and punishments.
Anyone, having minimal gray matter within his/her head will not have any difficulty to discern that Muhammad was a criminal mafia leader in the Arab Peninsula, and he created an Allah in his imagination, who would come to give sanction to every evil deeds of his.
There are many works that have expressed this theory as well. For this example the following sources are most often referred to. They are both by some of the most efficient researchers that I have ever had the pleasure of reading, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, and Michelle Belanger. Let’s start first with the book The Encyclopedia of Demons & Demonology, by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, ISBN-13: 978-0-8160-7314-6. If you look at the entry of the Baphomet, you will clearly see, in no minced words, the Baphomet/Muhammed theory:
Baphomet: Symbol of the satanic goat. Baphomet is portrayed as a half-human, half-goat figure, or a goat head. The origin of the name Baphomet is thought to come from Mafomet or a corruption of the name Mahomet or Muhammad. The English occult historian Montague Summers suggested it was a combination of two Greek words, baphe and metis, or “absorption of knowledge.” Baphomet has also been called the Goat of Mendes, the Black Goat, and the Judas Goat.
In the Middle Ages, Baphomet was believed to be an idol, represented by a human or goat skull, a stuffed human head, or a metal or wooden human goat-like head with curly black hair. The idol was said to be worshipped by the Order of the Knights Templar as their source of fertility and wealth. The best-known representation of Baphomet is a drawing by the 19th-century French magician Eliphas Levi, called The Baphomet of Mendes. Levi combined elements of the Tarot Devil card and the goat deity worshipped in antiquity in Mendes, Egypt, which was said to fornicate its women followers—as the church claimed the DEVIL did with witches.
In the book The Dictionary of Demons – Names of the Damned, by Michelle Belanger, ISBN 978-0-7387-2306-8, the author goes on to expand just a little bit more:
Baphomet: A demon commonly depicted as a goat-headed being, often hermaphroditic, sometimes with wings. Baphomet made its entrance into the annals of demonology through transcripts of the trials of the Knights Templar. For a variety of reasons, most of them monetary, this knightly order had come under suspicion in Europe, and the entire group was ultimately arrested and tried – with many of the knights being put to death. Among the charges brought against the Templars was the assertion that they had abandoned their Christian faith, instead worshipping a curious idol given the name Baphomet. Material that has survived from French troubadours active in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries suggests that the name Bafomet was originally a corruption of the name Muhammad which at the time was commonly rendered Mahomet. If this is true, then the figure of Baphomet may have come up in relation to the Templars as an implication that they had turned to the faith of their enemies, the Muslims.
It is clearly stated here that there were strong suspicions that the Knights Templar had abandoned Christianity and taken up the religion of Islam and Occult ritualisms. If you take into consideration the fact that during their occupation of the holy city of Jerusalem during the crusades, the Knights Templar set up their headquarters within the Dome of the Rock. You can read about the Dome of the Rock on Wikipedia, but the passage that stood out to me was the one that stated:
During the Crusades the Dome of the Rock was given to the Augustinians, who turned it into a church while the Al-Aqsa Mosque became a royal stable. The Knights Templar, who believed the Dome of the Rock was the site of the Temple of Solomon, later set up their headquarters in the Al-Aqsa Mosque adjacent to the Dome for much of the 12th century. The “Templum Domini“, as they called it, was featured on the official seals of the Order’s Grand Masters (such as Everard des Barres and Renaud de Vichiers), and it became the architectural model for Templar churches across Europe. One of these typically Templar churches was the old Saint Michael church (until the 15th century) in Roeselare which is located on the extension of the orthodromic distance line from the Dome of the Rock to the Kokino observatory.
The reason this stood out was because it made specific mention of the Temple of Solomon, who is arguably the most famous exorcist in history, besides Christ Himself. This temple has been savagely fought over for many hundreds of years, and seems to have a special, albeit different meaning to just about everyone who was fighting for it, despite the fact that it is not 100% known in location. Also worthy of note, if you look up the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984 (23rd Printing) p. 659, the exact definition of Baphomet” is as follows:
Baphomet (bæ ·fomet). [a. F. Baphomet; cf. Pr. Bafomet, OSp. Mafomat.] a. A form of the name Mahomed used by mediæval writers. b. Alleged name of the idol which the Templars were accused of worshipping. (According to l’Abbé Constant, quoted by Littré,1 this word was cabalistically formed by writing backward tem. o. h. p. ab., abbreviation of templi omnium hominum pacis abbas, ‘abbot’ or ‘father of the temple of peace of all men.’) Hence Baphomet·ic a.
1818 Hallam Mid. Ages (1872) I. 140 Baphomet is a secret word ascribed to the Templars. 1855 Milman Lat. Chr. _VII._ xii. ii. 278 The great stress .. in the condemnation of the templars is laid on the worship of Baphomet. The talismans, bowls, symbols, are even called Baphometic. 1831 Carlyle Sart. Res. II. vii, My Spiritual New-birth, or Baphometic Fire-baptism.
The Encyclopedia of Demons & Demonology, by Rosemary Ellen Guiley, ISBN-13: 978-0-8160-7314-6
The Dictionary of Demons – Names of the Damned, by Michelle Belanger, ISBN 978-0-7387-2306-8
Baphomet, the name of the severed head the Knights Templar worshiped, translates into English from Latin as ‘Temple of the Father of Peace of all Men’ via the reverse anagram Green Language technique known as Anastrophe [David Ovason: Author ‘The Notradamus Code’ and ‘The Secret Zodiac’s of Washington DC’]. This is what the Temple of the Caananites Capital City of Salem was known as before it was captured by the tribes of Abraham, who renamed it Jerusalem.
Peeling the Occult Onion further we apply the more sophisticated Masonic/Templar/Kabbalist cryptographic method known as the Atbash Cipher to Baphomet and arrive at SOPHIA.
Sophia is often illustrated with a beard due to her having gone through the Alchemical ‘Blackening’ Sex Magic Ritual known as the ‘Great Work’ which transformed her into an immortal, all powerful Hermaphrodite.
Sophia is Astoreth/Lilith/Mari the worship of whom was secretly re-introduced by King Soloman – who Freemasonry says was their first Grand Master – against the expressed wishes of God through Moses. Ashtoreth required human burnt offerings – preferably babies of prominent families – which were performed in the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna/Hell at the base of Mount Zion/Sion. Large, hollowed and fire-heated statues were used in the sacrifices.
The Church of Satan, founded in 1966 in San Francisco, adopted a rendition of Baphomet to symbolize SATANISM. The symbol is a goat’s head drawn within an inverted pentacle, enclosed in a double circle. In the outer circle, Hebraic figures at each point in the pentagram spell out LEVIATHAN, a huge water serpent DEMON associated with the Devil.
There are several theories concerning the origins of the name of Baphomet. The most common explanation claims that it is an Old French corruption of the name of Mohammed (which was Latin-ized to “Mafomet” and thenn“Mahomet”) – the Prophet of Islam.
During the Crusades, the Knights Templar stayed for extended periods of time in Middle-Eastern countries where they became acquainted with the teachings of Arabian mysticism and occultism. This contact with Eastern civilizations allowed them to bring back to Europe the basics of what would become western occultism, including Gnosticism, alchemy, Kabbalah and Hermetism.
The Templars’ affinity with the Muslims led the Church to accuse them of the worship of an idol named Baphomet, so there are many plausible links between Baphomet and Mahomet.
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet
By David Wood
“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have
not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die.”
“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)
Muhammad claimed that Jewish and Christian scriptures had predicted his coming (see, e.g., Qur’an 7:157). This has led Muslim apologists to comb the Old and New Testaments in search of passages that refer to their prophet. While all biblical evidence offered by Muslims in support of their prophet appears horribly strained to non-Muslims (provided the latter read the passages in context) and has been thoroughly refuted time and again, it is still common to hear Muslims claim that the Bible speaks about Muhammad.
The most popular “prophecy” about Muhammad is found in Deuteronomy 18. It is quite ironic, then, to learn that, according to Deuteronomy 18, Muhammad can’t possibly be a prophet. As we will see, this puts Muslims in an awkward position, and helps show the lengths to which they will go in their efforts to defend their prophet.
The purpose of this essay is to prove, based on Muslim claims (including their appeal to Deuteronomy 18), that Muhammad was a false prophet. I will begin by presenting two arguments against the prophethood of Muhammad, and I will follow this by carefully defending the arguments. Once I have shown that the arguments are sound, I will briefly discuss the options available to Muslims who want to reject the obvious conclusion.
I. THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS
There are two elements to look for when examining deductive arguments: valid logic and true premises. To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that, due to the logical form, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. The most basic argument form is the syllogism, and the most basic valid form of the syllogism is Modus Ponens. The logical form of the following arguments is Modus Ponens; thus, they are logically valid:
Argument A—false gods and false prophets
A1. If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
A2. Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
A3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.
Argument B—false revelations and false prophets
B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.
Since the logic of both arguments is valid, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. Hence, if the premises of these arguments are true, Muhammad was a false prophet. Let us turn, then, to a careful discussion of our premises.
II. PREMISES A1 AND B1 DEFENDED
A1 and B1 seem intuitively obvious. That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. Nevertheless, by appealing to the Bible to bolster their belief in Muhammad, Muslims have inadvertently granted that A1 and B1 are true.
Deuteronomy 18 serves as the foundation of Islam’s “Argument from Biblical Prophecy,” used by generations of Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet. Indeed, the popularBrief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam uses Deuteronomy 18 as its primary evidence that the Bible speaks of Muhammad. Author I. A. Ibrahim says,
The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the Prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe in the Bible.
In Deuteronomy 18, Moses stated that God told him: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18: 18-19)
The book goes on to argue that Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy in numerous ways. While such claims have been refuted ad nauseum, I will simply note that Muslims have here granted that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is inspired by God (since they regard it as a miraculous prophecy). Surely, then, we can’t ignore the next verse, where God says:
“But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,” and (2) speaking “in the name of other gods.” Since Muslims who appeal to so-called biblical prophecies of Muhammad have given this passage their stamp of approval, they cannot deny the truth of A1 and B1. To sum up, Muslims have appealed to a passage in Deuteronomy 18, and that passage entails premises A1 and B1. Thus, according to Muslim claims, the first premise of each of the Deuteronomy Deductions is true.
III. PREMISES A2 AND B2 DEFENDED
We have seen that, according to a passage regarded by many Muslims as divine revelation, a person who either delivers a message that does not come from God or speaks in the names of false gods must be a false prophet. But this means that Muhammad was a false prophet, since he did both when he delivered the infamous “Satanic Verses.”
We learn about the Satanic Verses, not from Christian or Jewish sources, but from early Muslim writings. Accounts of the Satanic Verses are given in a number of early sources, including: (1) Ibn Ishaq, (2) Wakidi, (3) Ibn Sa’d, (4) al-Tabari, (5) Ibn Abi Hatim, (6) Ibn al-Mundhir, (7) Ibn Mardauyah, (8) Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and (9) Abu Ma’shar. According to the great Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar, three chains of transmission (isnad) in these accounts “satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report.” Moreover, Sahih al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted source on the life of Muhammad, gives indirect confirmation of the event (Number 4862, quoted below). Beyond this, certain verses of the Qur’an (17:73-5 and 22:52-3) were revealed in response to Muhammad’s embarrassing lapse into polytheism.
We therefore have compelling historical evidence that the story is authentic. (For a thorough discussion of the evidence for the Satanic Verses, see “Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.”) In fact, the historical method virtually guarantees the legitimacy of the story. Historians examining the lives of leaders and religious figures employ what is known as the “Principle of Embarrassment,” a principle which also carries much weight in legal investigations. Law professor Annette Gordon-Reed sums up the principle thus: “Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves.” Applying the Principle of Embarrassment to accounts of the Satanic Verses, we see immediately that Muslims would not have invented this story, since it calls Muhammad’s reliability into question. We also see that the story couldn’t have been invented by non-Muslims; for if non-Muslims had invented the story, Muslims would have exposed the story’s origin, instead of defending it in their earliest historical works.
The evidence for the general reliability of the Muslim accounts concerning the Satanic Verses is therefore too overwhelming to ignore. With this in mind, let us consider a condensed account of what happened, based on the History of al-Tabari.
According to al-Tabari,
When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated within himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . .
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108)
The polytheists were delighted that Muhammad had at last approved of their gods. To return the kindness, they “prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself” (p. 109).
Muhammad’s friendly relations with the polytheists were short-lived, however, for he soon learned that his verses praising pagan idols came not from God, but from Satan. Saddened to recognize his treachery against Allah, Muhammad lamented: “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken” (p. 111). Yet “Gabriel” comforted Muhammad, informing him that all prophets fall for Satan’s tricks from time to time. This staggering and unbelievable claim even found its way into the Qur’an:
“And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (Surah 22:52)
According to the next verse, Allah allows his prophets to receive revelations from Satan in order to test hard-hearted people.
Whatever we think of the preposterous Qur’anic explanation of the Satanic Verses (and its defense of Muhammad), it is clear that the Prophet of Islam, on at least one occasion, delivered a message that did not come from God. It is also clear that Muhammad, on at least one occasion, spoke in the names of false gods. Thus, we can establish from Muslim sources that A2 and B2 are almost certainly true.
IV. POSSIBLE REPLIES
Since we have good reasons to accept premises A1, A2, B1, and B2, we have good reasons to accept conclusions A3 and B3, both of which claim that Muhammad was a false prophet. Muslims, however, will not want to accept this conclusion. Let us briefly discuss their prospects for rejecting it.
Muslims could, of course, claim that Deuteronomy 18:20 is a false teaching, not actually revealed by God. But if they take this route, it would be absurd of them to turn around and declare that 18:18-19 is an inspired prophecy. While it is alarmingly common for Muslims to pick and choose which passages in the Bible are correct (i.e. everything that agrees with Islam is correct, but everything that disagrees with Islam was corrupted by evil Jews and Christians), no one is going to be convinced by the claim that one verse in Deuteronomy 18 proves the prophethood of Muhammad, while another verse in the same passage is corrupted because it proves that he was a false prophet.
Thus, Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must abandon their claim that Deuteronomy 18 predicts the coming of Muhammad. The problem with this approach is that the prophecy of a coming messenger like Moses is one of the last remaining verses that Muslims—in spite of the evidence—cling to in their hopes of vindicating Muhammad. But if the Bible contains no clear prophecies about Muhammad, then Muhammad was a false prophet, since he claimed (in the Qur’an no less!) that the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain prophecies of his coming. This means that Muslims are caught between the horns of a dilemma. If they cling to Deuteronomy 18, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If they abandon it, then they are on the verge of having no biblical prophecies of Muhammad, which would imply that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Muslims who give up their most prized prophecy still wouldn’t be out of the water, however. For even if they abandon Deuteronomy 18 and declare it to be utterly corrupted, this wouldn’t refute A1 and B1, since, as I have already noted, these premises are intuitively obvious. Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must therefore show that these premises are false by arguing that genuine prophets can indeed deliver false revelations and speak in the names of false gods. I would love to see Muslims attempt to defend such an untenable position!
It seems, then, that Muslims who want to continue believing in Muhammad must deny not A1 and B1, but A2 and B2. But this means that they must reject the overwhelming historical evidence for Muhammad’s temporary support of paganism. Muslims who take this approach must do seven things. First, they must provide some reasonable explanation as to the story’s origin (e.g. they must make a plausible case that the story was invented by pagans, Jews, or Christians). Second, they must explain why Muslims, who had every reason to reject such a story, passed it on as if it were true (instead of exposing it as a fabrication). Third, they must show that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Abu Ma’shar were sloppy historians (so amazingly sloppy that they included false stories about Muhammad that called his prophethood into question). Fourth, they must account for the various chains of authority to which the early Muslim biographers appealed in their efforts to demonstrate the story’s authenticity. Fifth, they must explain why al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted authority, confirms certain details of the story that only make sense if Muhammad really did deliver the Satanic Verses. According to Bukhari,
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims andAl-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)
Though Bukhari understandably omits the embarrassing reason for the prostration of the pagans, he inadvertently confirms the account given by Ibn Ishaq and the others, who faithfully reported that the pagans bowed down because Muhammad spoke favorably of their gods. Sixth, Muslims must account for Surah 22:52, which, again, declares that all God’s prophets received revelations from Satan—a verse so preposterous that it could only have been offered to the Muslim community as an absurd explanation for something like the Satanic Verses. Seventh, they must show non-Muslims why we should reject all the available evidence and believe that Muhammad was spiritually reliable, when, as all informed Muslims will admit, Muhammad was the victim of black magic (a spell cast by a Jewish magician) and, at one point, was convinced that he was demon-possessed. Put differently, if the Prophet of Islam could mistakenly believe that he was demon-possessed, and was susceptible to spiritual attacks (such as black magic), why shouldn’t we believe that he could fall prey to revelations from Satan? (For more on Muhammad’s spiritual difficulties, see “A Bewitched Prophet?”)
While I have witnessed Muslim attempts to explain away the historical evidence for the Satanic Verses, I have never seen anything remotely resembling a convincing refutation of the evidence. For instance, in my debate on the prophethood of Muhammad at U.C. Davis, my opponent Ali Ataie tried to respond to al-Bukhari’s indirect confirmation of the Satanic Verses by appealing to the miraculous power of the Qur’an. According to Ataie, the reason the pagans bowed down in honor of Surah 53 (which, in its present form, ridicules polytheism) was that they were overwhelmed by its majesty. But surely such a response is based on fantasy rather than fact. Muslims have been reciting the Qur’an for more than a thousand years, and unbelievers are typically quite unimpressed by Muhammad’s poetry. Indeed, Muhammad won remarkably few converts when he appealed to the Qur’an as evidence of his divine commission. He only saw large numbers of converts when he turned to other (far more bloody) means of conversion. Thus, for Muslims like Ataie to claim that the pagans, with one accord, bowed down at Muhammad’s recitation of Surah 53, is bordering on delusional. Bukhari’s hadith makes far more sense when read in the light of historical works like Ibn Ishaq (which, incidentally, predates Sahih al-Bukhari by many decades). The only conceivable reason the pagans would bow down in honor of Surah 53 is that the Surah originally supported paganism, and this is exactly what our earliest historical records claim.
All things considered, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the historical evidence is that Muhammad, in a moment of weakness, gave into temptation and actively promoted polytheism by delivering a revelation from Satan. But this means that we cannot rationally reject premises A2 and B2. Muslims, then, can have no good response to the Deuteronomy Deductions. We are therefore left with an unavoidable conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet.
To conclude, I would like to emphasize again that my entire argument (in two deductions) has been based on the writings and claims of Muslims. Early Muslim historians, in an astounding display of honesty and integrity, admitted that their prophet had delivered the Satanic Verses to his listeners. In acknowledging this, they provided all the evidence we need for premises A2 and B2. Modern Muslims, in an effort to defend Muhammad’s claim to biblical support for his ministry, have granted that a passage in Deuteronomy 18 was inspired by God. In doing so, they have given us all the evidence we need for premises A1 and B1. Since both of the Deuteronomy Deductions are logically valid, we have two proofs, based entirely on the claims of Muslims, that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Since the Deuteronomy Deductions are sound (i.e. logically valid with true premises), any honest seeker will have to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet. It should be an enlightening exercise, then, to present these arguments to Muslims. If a Muslim examines the arguments carefully, inspecting the premises and weighing the evidence, and then rejects the conclusion without refuting the argument, we can only assume that such a person is less interested in truth and more interested in the comfort provided by blindly accepting the faith he was raised in. Although my experience leads me to believe that most Muslims are of this type, my experience has also shown me that there are Muslims in the world who are actively dedicated to learning the truth about God. The first truth such Muslims must learn is that their prophet Muhammad was no prophet at all.
Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, commonly known as the Knights Templar, the Order of the Temple or simply as Templars, were among the most wealthy and powerful of the Western Christian military orders.
The organisation existed for nearly two centuries during the Middle Ages. Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favoured charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power.
Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades.
Non-combatant members of the Order managed a LARGE ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE throughout Christendom, innovating financial techniques that were an early form of BANKING, and building fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land.
The Templars’ existence was tied closely to the Crusades; as they came to an end, support for the Order faded. Under pressure from King Philip, Pope Clement V disbanded the Order in 1312. The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to legends which have kept the “Templar” name alive into the modern day, considered to have Baphomet, Masonic, and Illuminati ties.
Eventually the Templars were arrested en masse on Friday, October 13, 1307, on charges of idol worship and heresy, there were found throughout their preceptories various human skulls idols, and representations of human skulls or severed heads, which appeared to have been afforded certain ceremonial importance. The symbol of the skull and crossbones, apparently invented by the Knights Templar, was used everywhere throughout their possessions. Carvings depicting a grotesque goat-headed creature, with a semi-human body at once both male and female (Baphomet), were also found in the Templars’ ritual chambers. In confessions many knights admitted that the skulls, the heads and the hybrid creature all represented their secret god, “Baphomet,” whom they worshipped because it “caused the land to germinate,” and also “made them rich.”
(Baphomet is also said to be a big part of Illuminati and their symbolism.)
Throughout the history of Western occultism, the name of the mysterious Baphomet is often invoked. Although it became commonly know name in the twentieth century, mentions of Baphomet can be found in documents dating from as early as the 11th century. Today, the symbol is associated with anything relating to occultism, ritual magic, witchcraft, Satanism and esoterica. The connections to certain people throughtout history are amazing and a pretty big “coincidence”.
Baphomet still often pops up in popular culture to identify anything occult.
-A lot more on The Templar Knights, Baphomet, Banking/Currency, and Illuminati connections are almost done and coming soon.