Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed: prophets of peace to slavery, jihad and Sharia
Lee Jay Walker
Modern Tokyo Times
The revamping of Mohammed throughout the world continues because of Islamic kitman but what is mystifying is that non-Muslim religious leaders, secularists and liberals appear to be giving the Islamic faith a helping hand. Therefore, it is essential to get to the heart of Islam and see the reality of what happened under Mohammed.
If Buddha and Jesus were alive today then clearly they would not break any laws in democratic nations because they taught peace and supported the poor by their actions and deeds. Therefore, while people in modern societies may reject their different messages, it is abundantly clear that both individuals never killed, never supported war and nor did they support power and authority.
However, the prophet of Islam is very different and it is over simplistic to claim that he was a man of his time, after all, he is meant to be a holy religious leader and both Buddha and Jesus go further back in history. Yet Mohammed married more than nine women at the same time, supported killing apostates, married a child, had sex with female slave concubines, and ordered the killing of many people by his concept of jihad and dhimmitude.
Not only this, but unlike the holy scriptures of the Christians and the New Testament or Buddhists and their holy scriptures based on what Buddha preached; then Mohammed is clearly obsessed by war, jihad, enslaving his enemies, jizya and other violent deeds.
Also, Mohammed, unlike Buddha and Jesus, is extremely contradictory and it appears that his thinking was based on power concentration. In the early period when he was weak he was more open-minded but once he obtained power then he was ruthless and he implanted ideas which were brutal towards non-Muslims.
Therefore, while Buddha and Jesus did not seek power concentration, enforcing laws on their enemies, developing military armies and implementing a draconian legal system in order to preserve power; the same can’t be said about Mohammed because he was driven by power concentration policies and taxing the dhimmis (non-Muslims) or enslaving them if they did not accept the superiority of Islam.
The Buddha rejected the caste system and Jesus went to the lepers and outcasts in society. It is clear that they were against discrimination and the victimization of others and their respective message was based on humanity and turning away from power concentration and enforcing laws on people who were already downtrodden.
Mohammed, however, was very different because if people accepted Islam then he also cared for the poor within his followers and he told people to give one sixth of their income to the poor. However, it was non-Muslims who would be taxed heavily in order to redistribute their wealth and give it to the new masters. Therefore, some Muslim political leaders were also concerned by mass conversions once a political system based on Islam had been set up because this reduced their fiscal power.
After all, they faced the contradictions of an Islamic state which wanted Islamization but understood that the dhimmis tax was much needed. Not surprisingly, the revenue of an Islamic state suffered by mass conversions and for this reason Islamic slavery was ongoing from the 7th century and up until recent times.
It must be remembered that it was only outside pressure which forced Saudi Arabia to abolish slavery in the 1960s. Unlike the anti-slavery movement which emerged within the Christian world of its day you never had a Muslim anti-slavery movement and this was because of the static nature of nations which had become Islamized.
In time they lost their taxation power because Islamic law and Islamic zealots desired Islamization and once the coffers of the dhimmis had dwindled because of religious discrimination, pogroms and apartheid laws – then the last option was enslaving non-Muslims outside of their control. This factor meant that Islamic armies entered into Africa, other parts of Asia and Europe became a House of War was declared. Therefore, Islamic rulers would expand their power based on jihad, enslaving the people of their newly expanding state and so forth.
Also, Mohammed during his lifetime enslaved people who were free during numerous wars and clearly he had no qualms in taking wives or concubines from men he had killed. Not only this, he also supported Muslim armies to enslave non-Muslims and he gave Muslims the right to take non-Muslim females and use them for sex during jihad.
Ironically, all the negatives about Mohammed are stated clearly in the Koran and the Hadiths. Therefore, when people talk about anti-Islamic writers it is strange because the sources of what happened and the evil deeds of Islam are documented openly in the Hadiths and Koran.
Buddha and Jesus were revolutionary because they challenged the conventions of the day and they did this by spreading messages of peace and inner-purification. However, Mohammed who had been faithful to his first partner then appears to have gone the wrong way because after her death he lusted after more women, concubines and even married a child.
However, why didn’t Muslims hide all the negatives of Mohammed and this even applies to visiting a Muslim place of worship in Jerusalem on an animal which does not exist and all at the speed of light. Yet, it is factual that the mystical night journey never happened because at the time you had no mosque in Jerusalem and even his loyal followers found it difficult to accept.
Despite this, they remained loyal to Mohammed and ignored the fact that Allah allowed him more than 4 wives and having sexual concubines. However, for other Muslims they were bound to take no more than 4 wives according to Islamic Sharia law but history tells us that many Muslim rulers had countless numbers of women in harems and so forth.
Of course you can find dark passages in all religious books if you desire or people can manipulate language or different meanings. However, religions throughout history have reformed themselves and modernized and by doing this they have rejected the harshness of aspects of some of their teachings and accepted religious freedom.
This does not apply to Islam and the more a nation is ruled by Islamic Sharia law then the more brutal the nation happens to be. In the modern world only Islamic states still support killing apostates, killing homosexuals, cross amputation, apartheid marriage laws which both discriminate against women and non-Muslims, and other draconian factors like stoning to death for adultery and allowing old men to marry children.
In my article called Prophet Mohammed, the Banu Qurayza, Kashmir, and Mansuur Mohammed I highlight many disturbing realities. Therefore, I comment that “…the Banu Qurayza tribe who followed Judaism and the Muslim convert to Christianity in Somalia in modern times, Mansuur Mohammed; represent the reality and barbarity of Islam and the same applies to the destruction of Hinduism in Kashmir. In these three events, we can see what happened to ancient Christianity in Nubia, what awaited the Zoroastrians of Persia, what awaited the fate of Buddhists and Hindus in Afghanistan, and what awaited so many other faiths by the sword of Islam.”
I continued in this article by referring to the Banu Qurayza tribe and stated that Matthias Kuntzel, the author of Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the roots of 9/11 comments on page 65 that “In 627 the Qurayza tribe was exterminated following a siege of Medina by the Meccans. Mohammed went to the marketplace in Medina and had graves dug there. Then the Jews were brought to him and beheaded at the gravesides – between 600 and 900 men in all. The executions lasted the whole day…..Most of the women and children were sold into slavery in Medina, the remainder in Syria and Najad.” (Johan Bouman, op. cit., p.86)
This reality can’t be ignored and I commented in the same article that “…..the prophet of Islam supported the entire massacre of all Jewish males who followed the religion of Judaism and who were over puberty. Mohammed just sat back and watched this gruesome act and did nothing, apart from divide the spoils afterwards. This barbaric act took place under the rule of Mohammed in the 7th century and in this sense the beheading of Muslim apostates to Christianity in Somalia can be linked to the deeds of Mohammed.”
“Given this, Mansuur Mohammed who was beheaded in Somalia for being an apostate in the 21st century, joins the Islam of Mohammed and the 7th century because he met the same barbaric fate. Koranic prayers would have been recited while beheading the Banu Qurayza and the same applies to the al-Shabaab (al-Shabab) in Somalia who were reciting the Koran and shouting in joy while cutting the head off a Christian convert.”
“Mohammed clearly approved of the entire slaughter of all Jewish males over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza and he just sat back and watched the beheadings, one after one, into the hundreds, and eventually every Jewish male over puberty was killed for remaining loyal to Judaism.”
“The mind of Mohammed was clearly violent because at no time did he try to stop his followers from doing this brutal crime. In direct contrast to Jesus who stopped the prostitute from being killed by stoning to death we have the prophet of Islam who endorses such barbaric methods. Mohammed not only watched this brutal genocide of all male followers of Judaism over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza; for this was not enough because he also enslaved the Jewish women and children of this tribe and plundered all their wealth which was to be shared by the victorious Muslims.”
“Mohammed now “set in stone the brutality of Islam” and this applies to jihad, dhimmitude, jizya, killing apostates, stoning people to death for adultery (despite doing adultery himself), plundering the wealth of the vanquished and enabling the forces of evil to kill in the name of God.”
Again, I repeat once more that all this violence was endorsed by Mohammed and is documented by Islamic scholars. Therefore, the Hadiths and Koran provides this information openly despite some English versions of the Koran being manipulated in order to soften the hatred which is espoused in parts of the Koran. Ironically, the same Koran never says anything negative about Jesus and on the contrary the Koran shows Jesus in a much more favorable light than Mohammed.
It is also clear that the mindset of Islamists and Mohammed are the same because jihad is implied many times in the Koran and in the Hadiths. Therefore, how can you associate peace with Mohammed after the reality of what happened to the Banu Qurayza and the fact that he enslaved, supported and did jihad, took slave concubines, and implemented a system based on utter fear for non-Muslims because they would face persecution if they spoke out openly.
Religion can be abused by individuals, ethnic groups, political leaders and so forth and throughout history many brutal deeds have been done under the name of every religion or radical ideology. However, Karl Marx did not support killing individuals and he can’t be blamed for the deeds of Stalin and others.
The same applies to dark periods within the Buddhist and Christian world where evil was justified by using and abusing the words of both individuals who supported peace.
However, “the heart of Mohammed was dark” and the reality of what happened to the Banu Qurayza can’t be ignored. The same applies to his teachings because you have no Islamic reformation.
On the contrary, since the rise of Mohammed and continuing in modern day Saudi Arabia, you have no change and all apostates face the death penalty. Therefore, the pluralistic reality of Arabia was destroyed by Mohammed and once he obtained power all religions would be annihilated in Arabia in a short period of time because his early followers would continue the Islamic inquisition.
Therefore, in the land of Mecca and Medina not one Buddhist temple or Christian church is allowed and all Muslim apostates face the death penalty. Also, brutal laws which support cross amputation and allowing old men to marry young children are still ongoing in Saudi Arabia and this is all based on the life of Mohammed.
Leaders in democratic societies can ignore history, Islamic sources which support hatred of non-Muslims and the ongoing living history of Islam whereby non-Muslims face Islamization in Kashmir, Pakistan, southern Thailand and in other parts of the world in the 21st century.
Mohammed once he obtained power carried the sword and the same sword and Islamic legal system is crushing non-Muslims in the modern world. The sword of Islam is still killing and persecuting where the faith is either fighting another faith or desires to maintain an Islamic inquisition whereby every apostate faces death.
At the same time Islamic kitman and stealth jihad remains potent and history and the modern world tells us many things. However, the political correct brigade and moral relativism, alongside non-Muslim religious leaders and political leaders who are bending over backwards, is extremely worrying because Islamists and Islamic kitman leaders only dream about usurping power from within.
Buddha and Jesus spread new thinking and ideas and people can freely rebuke or not care about either. After all, it is your democratic right to reject all religion. However, apostates in “the Islamic heart of the Islamic world” face death and prison and these two competing thought patterns are not compatible in any period of history.
Either the democratic world stands up for what is right and this applies to the civil liberties of others or it can embolden an encroaching Islam by allowing Islamic kitman and stealth jihad. This is a deadly game and democracy and Marxism could not co-operate in a pluralistic society based on freedom and obviously democracy and Nazism were ideological enemies; therefore, the last barrier is Islamism and Sharia in its entirety but do democratic leaders and other institutions have the moral decency to speak out against the draconian reality of political Islam?
Matthias Kuntzel: Jihad and Jew-Hatred; Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11